PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem addressed the grooves controversy Feb. 2 at Riviera.
Podcast episode
Toy Box
What’s all the Ping Eye2 fuss about?
James Achenbach explains the controversy surrounding the Ping Eye2 wedges.
PACIFIC PALISADES, Calif. – Commissioner Tim Finchem stood before a players meeting Tuesday at Riviera Country Club, site of this week’s Northern Trust Open, and said the Tour might have some options in the grooves controversy but that none is a sure thing. It’s clear, Finchem told the players, that the hubbub that went public last week in San Diego is far from over.
Finchem said that he has reached out to John Solheim, chief executive officer of Ping, the equipment manufacturer at the center of the dispute. Ping’s clubs from the late ’80s, grandfathered via a settlement from the company’s lawsuit against the PGA Tour and USGA, are in vogue again. Phil Mickelson put an old big-grooved Ping wedge into play last week, prompting Scott McCarron to decry the act – if not the actor – as “cheating.’’ After being roundly criticized by his peers, McCarron apologized to the players at large and to Mickelson in person Tuesday.
It’s the first time that Finchem and Solheim have discussed the issue since the implementation of the new groove rule on Jan. 1.
Solheim issued this statement late Tuesday after speaking with Finchem:
“PGA Tour Commissioner Finchem and I had a brief discussion this afternoon and he shared his belief that the 1993 settlement agreement allowed his organization to utilize the protocol to consider a special rule that would ban Ping Eye2 irons and wedges. While we strongly disagree with their interpretation of the agreement, we agreed further dialogue on the topic was healthy. We hope to speak again in the next week or so. I’ve also been in contact with the USGA and expect to meet with them as well.’’
John Solheim, Ping CEO.
The 1990 agreement with the USGA and a subsequent settlement in 1993 with the Tour are widely presumed to have been favorable to Ping.
Further, in the PGA Tour settlement, a copy of which was obtained by Golfweek, certain provisions seem to support Solheim’s contention that the Tour can’t unilaterally implement a local rule regarding the Ping Eye2 wedges.
The Tour has maintained that the settlement with Ping in 1993 did not prohibit a local rule from being implemented, effectively granting the Tour the ability to ban the old Ping Eye2 wedges.
Under the settlement, the Tour agreed not to adopt any separate rules which would prohibit the use of the larger-volume grooves on any club if such a Tour rule were to differ from a USGA rule.
The USGA rule that altered the larger, sharper-edged grooves effective Jan. 1 grandfathered in the original Ping Eye2. Any PGA Tour rule that prohibited the grandfathered Ping Eye2 grooves would seem to violate the particular provision of the PGA Tour settlement with Ping.
Second, the settlement does provide for a special-circumstances exception, in which the PGA Tour would determine a special rule is necessary for its competition. In those limited cases, an Independent Special Committee can review the request.
[UPDATE: Click here for a closer look at the committee members.]
The members of that committee cannot be active members of the PGA Tour, current or former members of the Tour Policy Board, employees or former employees of the Tour or employees or anyone having a material business relationship with any golf-equipment manufacturer.
The Tour Policy Board triggers the committee’s investigation into the issue. It’s not clear whether the committee has been seated or not. Once it were to be in place, the committee would have a reasonable time to investigate any request.
After an investigation, the committee must reasonably conclude:
1) The equipment significantly affects the nature of the game of golf on the PGA Tour level;
2) The current USGA rules are not adequate to satisfy the Tour Policy Board’s concerns;
3) Legitimate interests of PGA Tour players, manufacturers and other interested persons have been considered;
4) The recommendation of the committee is considered the most reasonable in addressing the problem; and
5) A majority of the committee is in favor of the recommendation.
It seems like a heavy burden of proof for the Tour to satisfy. The grooves rule is here to stay. The question: Are the old Ping Eye2s?
Comments
courtgolf (anonymous) says...
It's a good thing this came in an email - it would be an awful lot of wasted paper and ink. Is it really necessary to make this such a difficult topic ? Is it really necessary to make Solheim and Finchem sound like a couple of 19th Century British dandies with all the spin and politically correct speech because they can't just say what they mean in the media anymore ?
The clubs are not illegal because of the US court system meddling in the workings of a private enterprise. Simple enough.
Finchem and Solheim are trying to work something out to make the new groove rule uniform - but Solhiem has the legal leverage and appears willing to hold it over the PGA's head until he gets some sort of satisfactory return from Finchem - either money or, more likely, some sort of positive decision on future technology. Again - very simple.
No need to brag about getting copies of public documents - no spin - no political correctness.
Guys - go get some lunch or dinner and work it out - the rest of us are tired of the bickering and just want to see these guys play. And in case nobody has been paying attention - the players using the Eye 2 wedges haven't exactly been lighting up the scorebard.
February 3, 2010 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RosscoH (anonymous) says...
I think "courtgolf" hits the nail on the head!
Enuf is enuf already!
Is this either The Tour or The Press secretly pushing an issue to create more `headlines' just like the `Tiger Issue'?
We were all pretty much just getting over all that anyway, & I for one just want to see Tiger back playing golf!
I mean really the Tour members are all back out there playing & trying with these new grooves and some of the play is just as exciting as last year!
So they have to learn how to play approach shots all over again! It just adds extra to the competition and eventually will of course `bring out the better players'!
Good Golfing!
February 4, 2010 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jlovell1944 (anonymous) says...
FYI - the COURTS did not get into the groove issue in 1991. The usga knew they couldn't win and that if they went to court, Ping would OWN the USGA. So they capitulated and settled before it ever went to court and the resulting rules exception is what came about because of it. Some of you ought to study the facts of the issue before spouting off about it. So many of the ones who post on here weren't even around when the issue of grooves first cropped up and yet they write "with authority" but are really way out in left field. The USGA paid all legal costs and the exclusion became an irreversible part of the "settlement" not a court decision. Then the PGA Tour later signed on to the settlement and agreed to never make a rule that was contrary to or negated the USGA settlement with Ping. It is called a rule in perpetuity. In short, the PGA Tour (Deane Beaman) also signed onto the settlement and cannot make any rule that prohibits the use or play in practice or competition the "U" grooves in Ping clubs made prior to April 1, 1990. Finchem is behind the eight ball on this issue and unless John Solheim grants the PGA and/or the USGA some "leeway" in the settlement, the Ping clubs will be allowed, legal and playable by anyone who has a pre-1990 wedge.
February 4, 2010 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )