Paul McGinley: Golf needs two sets of rules

The captain of Europe’s successful 2014 Ryder Cup team, Paul McGinley, has called for two sets of rules of golf – one for professionals and for amateurs – in a bid to boost participation in the game.

Writing for The Times newspaper about the new Rules of Golf which came in on January 1, McGinley explains that the changes, such as the time allowed to search for a lost ball, will make the rules simpler to understand and speed up play.

However, he says there is a danger that for the amateur game they do not go far enough, and technology should be deployed.

‘Individual golf clubs and professional tours will retain options to invoke local rules but in general the new rules will apply to all golfers, amateur and professional,’ he writes.

‘While we will have to see how the rule changes work out in practice, they are, for the most part, sensible and to be welcomed. It has taken a lot of consultation and effort to get these changes in place. However, there is growing opinion within the game that the changes still don’t go far enough and don’t tackle the fundamental issues the game needs to face: participation numbers and the impact of technology on the professional game.

‘As much as the professional game has flourished with incredibly high standards, so are amateurs finding the game more difficult. Average handicaps worldwide are slowly and inexorably going up. The gulf between the professional and club player has never been wider and if current trends continue, it looks destined to grow wider still.

‘In some quarters, the word ‘bifurcation’, which essentially means different rules for professionals and amateurs, is frowned upon. Traditionalists believe there should be a single set of rules which govern the game and its technology, and that bifurcation should be avoided at all costs.

‘Technology should be more helpful to amateurs, but manufacturers are hampered by strict regulations in regard to clubs and balls, and those regulations apply in both the professional and amateur games.

‘While professionals have hugely benefited from advances in technology that reward high ball speeds, amateurs can’t produce those speeds and consequently cannot get the same quantitative gain. The rules on technology have to be very rigid with professionals in mind because if manufacturers were, for example, to produce a material that would propel the ball faster and straighter off the face to aid amateurs, the professionals would benefit even more than they already do.

‘While technology parameters are always under review, they are a lot more complex to deal with than changes to the rules of play. To start with, the R&A as well as the USGAhave to agree on the way forward, and that is not always as clear-cut as you may think. Secondly, they would then have to get every professional and amateur administrative body on board, which is no simple task either.

‘Maybe the time has come for the rule-makers to at least investigate some limited bifurcation, particularly when it comes to technology parameters. Fewer restrictions on technology for amateurs would make the game easier to play, inject more fun and as a consequence entice more people to play. At the very least an investigation into bifurcation should be the next step for our game’s governing bodies.’