This was written as response to Geoff Mangum on a Facebook Forum consisting of only Golf Professionals.

Geoff,

Here you go again. Do I really have to continually beat back this “AimPoint charts are illegal” argument that is completely inaccurate? This will be the end of this discussion as I, once again, tackle all of your points head on.

If I understand your points correctly, they are:
1) The charts constitute “advice” under Rule 8.
2) Dick Rugge of the USGA has overstepped his bounds in declaring the AimPoint charts legal.
3) The charts are artificial devices and the rules are clear about these items.
4) The exception that allows for certain artificial devices shouldn’t be applied in this case.

Let’s start from the beginning with Rule #8. Advice and Indicating Line of Play.

Your example of the Decision for Rule 8-1/2 is odd. The example talks about penalizing a player for using an artificial device to obtain yardage information during a stipulated round when the Local Rule allowing such a device hasn’t been enacted.

Rule 8-1/2 doesn’t apply because the local rule hasn’t been enacted. Period.

Related is the joint statement from the USGA and R&A. It says absolutely nothing about information gathered before a round. Anyone interested can read it here. http://www.usga.org/news/2009/November/USGA-R-A-Joint-Statement-On-Electronic-Devices/ It is talking about, as is mentioned in the title, “R&A-USGA Joint Statement On Electronic Devices, Including Distance-Measuring Devices”.

It discusses their views on electronic devices only and talks nothing about yardage books or artificial devices covered under Rule 14-3, Exception 2. The entire paragraph you reference applies only to other features of distance measuring devices. To quote, “The use of a distance-measuring device would constitute a breach of the Rules if:” and then it lists a bunch of features that would be in breach of 14-3. It makes no reference to any other artificial devices and states specifically they are referencing Electronic Distance Measuring Devices or Electronic Multi-Functional Devices.

In fact, here’s the decision from Rule 14-3/16 regarding Use of Electronic Devices.

“The use of an electronic device such as a mobile phone, hand-held computer, calculator, television or radio is not of itself a breach of Rule 14-3. For example, the following uses of an electronic device during a stipulated round are NOT a breach of the Rules:
• Using the device for matters unrelated to golf (e.g., to call home);
• Using the device to access information on advice-related matters that was produced prior to the start of the player’s round (e.g., an electronic yardage book, swing tips);
• Using the device to access (but not interpret or process) playing information from previous rounds (e.g., driving distances, individual club yardages, etc); or
• Using the device to obtain information related to the competition being played (e.g., the leader board or projected “cut”). “

Did everyone see the second one down there? According to the Rules, it is legal to use an electronic device to: to access information on advice-related matters that was produced prior to the start of the player’s round (e.g., an electronic yardage book, swing tips)

Sure seems clear to me that the USGA is ok with information produced prior to the start of the player’s round and they even used that dirty little word advice. Clearly, this shows that there is no violation to Rule 8.

The other thing is AimPoint charts are not electronic distance measuring or multi functional devices. I’m sure we can all agree on that. This makes it even more likely that the USGA is in complete support of Dick Rugge’s decision discussed below.

Let’s take point number two. Rule 14-3 “14-3. Artificial Devices, Unusual Equipment and Unusual Use of Equipment”

The USGA goes on to say:

“The United States Golf Association (USGA) reserves the right, at any time, to change the Rules relating to artificial devices, unusual equipment and the unusual use of equipment, and make or change the interpretations relating to these Rules.

A player in doubt as to whether use of an item would constitute a breach of Rule 14-3 should consult the USGA.

A manufacturer should submit to the USGA a sample of an item to be manufactured for a ruling as to whether its use during a stipulated round would cause a player to be in breach of Rule 14-3. The sample becomes the property of the USGA for reference purposes. If a manufacturer fails to submit a sample or, having submitted a sample, fails to await a ruling before manufacturing and/or marketing the item, the manufacturer assumes the risk of a ruling that use of the item would be contrary to the Rules.”

Clearly, it states that anyone wishing to see IF their artificial device, unusual equipment or their use of equipment would constitute a breach of Rule 14-3, that they should submit it for approval. It does not say anything about submission being only for equipment. This statement you made “The equipment pre-approval provision is not focused on “artificial devices” but is just equipment and manufactured products in general.” is completely false as described above. In fact, it goes out of its way to include all items as labeled in the title of what Rule 14-3 is. Mark Sweeney submitted an AimPoint chart under this rule and the USGA ruled that chart – the artificial device – was legal for play.

Here’s the reply from Dick Rugge at the USGA and I quote “Please be advised that the chart, as submitted, has been evaluated and it has been determined that it conforms to the Rules of Golf.” Anyone wishing to read the entire document can do so here: http://johngrahamgolf.com/blog/aimpoint-aimcharts-permitted-under-rules-of-golf/aimchartusgadecision/

So, is Dick Rugge “the equipment guy” the appropriate person to make this ruling? At the time, Dick Rugge was the Senior Technical Director put in charge of making rulings about artificial devices, unusual equipment and the use of equipment. Rule 14-3 specifically covers rulings on artificial devices and equipment. Clearly, “the equipment guy” was the right guy when deciding on rules about artificial devices and equipment. That takes care of point one and two doesn’t it?

On to points 3 and 4. I agree with you that AimPoint charts are “artificial devices” With that being said, what do the rules say about artificial devices?

Here is the Rule quoted exactly from the Rules of Golf: “Except as provided in the Rules, during a stipulated round the player must not use any artificial device or unusual equipment, or use any equipment in an unusual manner:

a. That might assist him in making a stroke or in his play; or
b. For the purpose of gauging or measuring distance or conditions that might affect his play; or
c. That might assist him in gripping the club, except that:

(i) plain gloves may be worn;
(ii) resin, powder and drying or moisturizing agents may be used; and
(iii) a towel or handkerchief may be wrapped around the grip. “

Right off the bat, the letter from Rugge makes AimPoint charts “provided by the Rules” but let’s dig a little further because I’d like to end the debate once and for all. Clearly, the rules state that an artificial device must not be used during a stipulated round that might assist him in making a stroke or in his play, as you state the AimPoint charts do. As Erik pointed out, the definition of “stroke” is clearly defined, and even if we adopt the strictest definition for “in his play”, it’s irrelevant as I’ll get to shortly.

As Erik has mentioned earlier, part b involves measuring during a stipulated round. Looking at a piece of paper during a stipulated round is not measuring anything so that argument ends there.

So, how can it be that Dick Rugge can make such a radical decision on the legality of AimCharts that is so obviously in direct contradiction to Rule 14-3 assuming we interpret “in his play” as broadly as possible?

The answer lies in the Exceptions and the Decisions. Here are the exceptions:

Exceptions to Rule 14-3:
1. A player is not in breach of this Rule if (a) the equipment or device is designed for or has the effect of alleviating a medical condition, (b) the player has a legitimate medical reason to use the equipment or device, and (c) the Committee is satisfied that its use does not give the player any undue advantage over other players.

2. A player is not in breach of this Rule if he uses equipment in a traditionally accepted manner.

The answer lies in exception 2. Pay particular attention to the words used: “traditionally accepted manner.” It says nothing about an artificial device being traditionally “accepted”. It specifically says that equipment is *used* in a traditionally accepted “manner”. Let’s see if an artificial device is even equipment.

Equipment is defined: “Equipment” is anything used, worn or carried by the player or anything carried for the player by his partner or either of their caddies, except any ball he has played at the hole being played and any small object, such as a coin or a tee, when used to mark the position of a ball or the extent of an area in which a ball is to be dropped. Equipment includes a golf cart, whether or not motorized.” I think this is clear that the AimChart is both an artificial device and equipment.

How does Exception 2 apply to the AimCharts? Let’s see how the USGA has applied Exception 2 to give us a little precedent on our current situation.

Decision 14-3/5 talks about a booklet with yardage in it and whether or not that artificial device is in breach of 14-3.

Q. A booklet contains illustrations of the holes on a course, including isolated trees, bunkers, etc. Superimposed on each illustration is a yardage scale in increments of ten yards. Thus, a player using such a booklet can estimate how far his ball lies from a putting green or a tee. Is use of such a booklet during a round contrary to Rule 14-3?

A. No. Although such a booklet is an artificial device, its use has been traditionally accepted and Exception 2 to Rule 14-3 applies.

Nowhere in that decision do the Rules say a yardage book must contain *only* yardages, and in fact, the example given clearly indicates that the booklet “contains illustrations of the holes on a course, including isolated trees, bunkers, etc.” The biggie there is etc at the end, as it includes any other notations the player wishes to make.

So, since the answer was No, that means, as exception 2 states above, that it has been *used* in a traditionally accepted *manner*.

Let’s look at Decision 14-3/5.5

In this decision, it is asked “With regard to Decision 14-3/5, may a player use an electronic device containing the same information?”

The answer: “Yes. Exception 2 to Rule 14-3 applies, but the player must not use a device with a measuring or distance calculating function. However, see also the Note to Rule 14-3.”

With this, the USGA has defined “used in a traditionally accepted manner.” It has nothing to do with technology, how old it is or its contents. Your argument that there is no way AimCharts can be traditionally accepted because they are only a few years old or not used widely is a misapplication of the rule as it is stated. Rule 14-3, Exception 2 specially refers to the *use in a traditionally accepted manner.* Traditionally accepted manner is the act of using equipment in a manner that is traditionally accepted. In this case, reading prepared information written down or electronically in advance is the traditionally accepted manner. The joint statement mentioned earlier confirms this belief of both the USGA and R&A. The statement does mention, however, that some electronic distance measuring or electronic multi-functional devices may be reinvestigated depending on their particular functions. It does not say anything about yardage books or other artificial devices that simply present preformed information in a written form.

This is why yardage books or other artificial devices that contains prepared in advance information about a golf course is accepted under Rule 14-3, exception 2 and it is the reason why using scorecards or reading the rule book on the course are allowed. Without reading being a traditionally accepted manner, rule books and scorecards with pictures of the holes and yardage info would not be allowed as they are both artificial devices described in Rule 14-3. They won’t affect a player in his stroke. It may with his play. Remember, a stroke is clearly defined. I will point out that if the player puts the rule book under his left arm and makes a stroke at the ball, he’d be in violation of 14-3 for using it in his stroke. As long as players use AimCharts in their traditionally accepted manner they fall under Rule 14-3 Exception 2 and this is what makes Dick Rugge’s ruling legitimate and accurate. His ruling is based on the fact that these charts fall under Exception 2 of Rule 14-3 and that AimPoint charts will be used in a traditionally accepted manner. **That manner is reading them.**

I hope this ends your continued belief that the people in charge of the rules have mistakenly applied them in this case. I have clearly shown where your 4 arguments were wrong, false or misapplied. If you’re going to try and use the Rules to sway public opinion for your stance, it would be in everyone’s best interest that they get to see how the actual rules read and how they are applied by the people that are in charge of protecting this great game.

John Graham

I’d also like to thank Erik Barzeski for helping me proofread and offer often used revisions.

I wanted to let everyone know that I will be focusing some of my time this summer on contacting college coaches about adding AimPoint Green Reading to their toolbox. I know many college coaches are already involved and asking incoming freshman to take AimPoint schools to help prepare them for college.  It can be especially helpful for colleges because they tend to play the same courses year after year and with practice rounds, they have the opportunity to do some good mapping. Here is a list of Division I schools that are already using AimPoint:

Arizona State
Duke
Harvard
Loyola Marymount
LSU
Mississippi State
Ohio State
Oregon State
Sam Houston State
San Diego State Univ
San Jose State
Southeastern Louisiana Univ
UCLA
Univ of Alabama
Univ of Arkansas
Univ of Florida
Univ of Georgia
Univ of Houston
Univ of Idaho
Univ of Kansas
Univ of Mississippi
Univ of New Orleans
Univ of Nevada-Reno
Univ of Southern California
Univ of Texas
Univ of Virginia
Univ of Washington
Vanderbilt
Wake Forest

There are some compliance issues that come up during the school year so if you’re a coach reading this, be sure to check with your officer on the proper rules. Rules in terms of who can attend, how to pay and things like that. Very important.

Please pass this on to any College Coach that you know is looking to improve on their teams putting and have them contact me by leaving their contact info in a comment. I know many of you may be friends with Coaches on Facebook so please consider sharing there as well by clicking the share button at the bottom.

Look forward to helping many school and Make Everything.
JG

Congratulations to Stacy Lewis. Yesterday, she won the Kraft Nabisco Championship with a 3 shot victory over the world’s number 1 ranked player in Yani Tseng. Stacy entered the round 2 shots behind Tseng and fired a 3 under 69 to claim the $300,000 first place prize and her first Major Championship.

One of the keys to her success that week was her amazing putting. From many sources, including Stacy herself, putting has been the weak link in an otherwise fantastic golf game. In an interview with LPGA.com, Stacy talks about how she has improved her putting.

Here’s an excerpt from that interview and the full interview can be found by clicking here: Stacy Lewis Interview

“Q.  I was talking to Karrie a little bit about your game, and she said she felt like putting was the thing that needed to improve to put you over the edge how now you’ve spent a lot of time working on some new methods.  Can you talk a little bit about your putting?

STACY LEWIS:  Yeah.  It was last September I came back, I was back home after the Canadian Open, and I had missed three greens in 36 holes and missed the cut.  So I knew I needed to do something else.  And my college coach, Shauna Estes‑Taylor, she kind of told me about this aim point which is a greens reading method, and she’s like, let me just show you a little bit and just kind of get a general understanding, so I learned the basics and I finished Top 10 at Arkansas.  And I was kind of like maybe there’s something to it.

Then I went and worked with Mark Sweeney, and I worked with him over the winter and things like that, but it’s more ‑‑ I understand how greens work and what the putts are going to do.  It just made me more confident over the putts in general.”

Here’s a video also talking about Stacy and AimPoint Green Reading.

Stacy made a bunch of these clutch type putts on Sunday to maintain here lead and bring home the win.  One that stood out was the 15 footer on 17 she made.  Here’s another excerpt of her talking about that putt:

“Q.  You had the lead the entire back nine.  But it seemed like the putt you made on 17 was the putt that kind of shut the door on her.  What was that like, because she said she was surprised that you made it, as tough a putt as that was.

STACY LEWIS:  I mean probably the look on my face was I was shocked it went in, too, honestly.  It was a putt you had to hit on the perfect line with the perfect speed for it to go in. My bunker shot wasn’t very good.  There was less sand there than I thought, so I didn’t hit a good shot there, but with Yani within two of me, I know she can catch up pretty quickly.  I played with her in Australia, I mean I saw her shoot 63 without even trying.  I knew if she could make birdie, then I needed to stay on my game.”

This win was the first win from a player on the LPGA Tour using AimPoint and having it be a major makes it even more special.  There were a few wins on the Nationwide Tour last year from players using AimPoint but no wins on the men’s tour so far.  I guarantee it will come. As more and more players learn the information, I believe it will become common place. I belief strongly it will become the foundation for how green reading is taught to golfers at every level. It no longer will be something that Pro’s just tell people you have to practice and try to remember using strictly trial and error.

As many of you know, Mark Sweeney is the Founder of AimPoint Technologies and has been working with many Tour players teaching them how to actually read the green. One of the last area’s in golf instruction to be fully understood thanks to Mark. Mark mentioned to me that he had spent about 16 hours with Stacy and about 10 hours with her caddie. I sent Stacy’s caddy, Travis Wilson, an email requesting an interview which I hope to provide at some point in the future.

I’m also sure that many of you know how much I think the AimPoint Green Reading System can help all golfers learn to read the green. The information given to the 30 handicapper is the same information given to the Tour player. It is simply information of why the ball rolls the way it does and much it will curve based on a few factors.  I’ve been teaching AimPoint for almost 3 years and can tell you from experience how much people have learned about green reading.

If you are interested in reading a little about AimPoint, check of these AimPoint Golf posts I have written in the past. You can also come learn the information first hand by attending a Green Reading Clinic. A schedule of clinics can be found here (AimPoint Golf Clinics). If you know of anyone that might be interested in learning this information, please consider sharing this post by clicking on one of the share buttons at the bottom of this post or forwarding it if you received this as an email.

Congratulations to everyone involved.