As Anchoring Players Lawyer Up, PGA Tour Not Making Any Promises

As Anchoring Players Lawyer Up, PGA Tour Not Making Any Promises
Nine Pros Seek Out Boston Lawyer While PGA Advisory Committee Remains Split











Chris Chaney May 29, 2013 12:30 PM




COMMENTARY | Not yet two weeks have passed since the USGA and R&A issued a joint statement condemning the anchored stroke as illegal and unusable in their sanctioned events effective January
1, 2016.



Still 2 ½ years from implementation, questions are swirling as to which side the PGA Tour and PGA of America will come down on. Talk of the Tour employing the ruling sooner rather than later has already been brought up, despite an actual decision from the Tour's stance being released.

Still, with no definitive stance being taken by the PGA Tour, some of the most prominent anchorers in the game have taken the precautionary step of retaining a lawyer with the possibility of waging legal war against the Tour should they have their preferred putting style outlawed.

Tim Clark, Adam Scott and Carl Pettersson have enlisted the services of Harry Manion, a Boston-based attorney and founding partner of Cooley Manion Jones.

Consulted only in a preparatory manner, Manion has begun readying a case against the Tour.

"Nobody wants to litigate, so you hope for the best and prepare for the worst," Manion said. "I am optimistic that the [PGA] Tour will not follow this rule."

The Tour's predicament is an intriguing one. Popular knowledge implies that while Commissioner Tim Finchem came out publicly at the World Golf Championships Accenture Match Play Championship and stated the Tour's stance as firmly opposed to the ban, recent events could prove a changing of sides is imminent.

"Essentially where the PGA Tour came down was that they did not think that banning anchoring was in the best interest of golf or the PGA Tour," Finchem said in Tucson, now over three months ago.

Months removed from Clark and other anchorers impassioned defense of the stroke, word from Tuesday night's PGA Tour Players Advisory Board meeting at Muirfield Village Golf Club, the site of this week's Memorial Tournament, were decidedly undecided.

Doug LaBelle II, a PAC member physically at the meeting -- others not in the field joined via conference call -- said feelings were "very mixed" and that players "left pretty undecided."

According to a Golfweek report, players who were swayed by Clark's speech at the January 21st meeting of the PAC have since backed off their opposition of the ban providing more of a chasm between opinions.

While litigation is not something Manion and the players want to face, they believe they have some wiggle room within the stingy guidelines laid out by the notoriously staunch PGA Tour suits.

"I think the Bob Gilder case against the PGA Tour is the leading case here, that you cannot do something arbitrary and capricious," Manion said in reference to the 1991 case between Gilder and other pros vs. the PGA Tour that dissented to a proposed rule change on square grooves. Gilder et al are believed to have won the case although it was settled out of court, but in the end, square grooves were outlawed.

As much as Manion believes his clients have a case, the USGA and PGA Tour believe they have done their due diligence to prove just the opposite.

"Our mission is not to avoid legal challenges," said USGA president Glen Nager in announcing the affirmation of the rule "Our mission is to determine the appropriate rules for the game that make the game strong for the long-term. ... We have looked at this from the legal perspective, as well, as we feel confident of our position."

Legal precedent also seems to be on the Tour's side, according to Marquette University professor of sports law, Matthew Mitten.

"It would be a difficult legal challenge for (Manion and his clients) to win," Mitten said. "Historically, courts have been very deferential to sports governing bodies to regulate what they determine to be the rules of the game and to regulate playing equipment. There's a recognition that sports are unique and you've got to have uniform rules and that there needs to be an independent governing body that has to take the necessary steps to preserve the integrity of the game and its competitive balance. As long as they have independently exercised its judgment in prohibiting anchoring and they have a rational basis for coming to that conclusion, courts generally are not going to intervene. They're certainly not going to substitute their judgment for that of the sport's governing body."

The hope that Tuesday's meeting would provide some sort of clarity in an already murky case proved futile. The latest reneging emanating from the PAC along with the players' decision to seek legal counseling give us a hint that the Tour may actually roll over and accept the ruling bodies' decision.

Those affected most by the ban, it appears, will not.

Chris Chaney is a Cincinnati, Ohio-based sportswriter. He has written for multiple outlets including WrongFairway.com, Hoopville.com, The Cincinnati (OH) Enquirer and The Clermont (OH) Sun.

Follow him on Twitter @Wrong_Fairway.