GOUGE: Tell me if you've heard this one before: A sport's governing body decides to impose an equipment-based rule change that would essentially and in some cases almost immediately make nearly all current equipment non-conforming. Said industry reacts negatively to the idea. The governing body seeks and carefully considers input from industry manufacturers, adjusts slightly the specifications of the rule change but ultimately makes the decision to go forward with the decision that would leave most current equipment in violation of the rules.

Sound familiar? Sound like a situation golf might be in the middle of right now? Sound like, say, the USGA's new restrictions on grooves? Well, try this on for size: A company in said industry cries foul, sues the governing body for restraint of trade, anti-trust and a few other unmentionables. Lots of heated exchanges, threats and general puffery and bluster. In the end, the judge throws the whole thing out and the governing body's new rule stands. 

Here are the specifics: The NCAA (you know, the guys with the brackets) proposed new guidelines on the dimensions of the head of a lacrosse stick. (Substitute "USGA" for "NCAA" and "groove" for "head of a lacrosse stick" and you get where I'm going here.) The NCAA made a couple of tweaks to the rule over an 18-month period, but essentially adopted a rule that made most current heads in violation of the new rule. The impetus of the rule change was to restore some of the original competitiveness of the game in areas like stick checks and the face-offs, something that equipment advances had perhaps diminished. A company called Warrior (not a stretch to say Warrior is very much like a TaylorMade or Callaway in golf terms) eventually filed suit in U.S. District Court in Michigan, complaining the rule change would force consumers (about 500,000 people play lacrosse in the U.S., according to surveys) to pony up $58 million to change their clubs, er sticks, or about $115 per.

Judge Marianne O. Battani wasn't having any of it, however. You can sort through all the legal-ese if you want to, but her key statements are these:

"The NCAA's rule ... appears not to be subject to antitrust scrutiny, in and of itself, because, it is not 'commercial in nature.'

"... the rule is only directed towards increasing the quality of play in college lacrosse and, thereby, enhancing interest in intercollegiate lacrosse.

"... the rule relating to lacrosse stick heads has a noncommercial purpose—to promote free dislodgment of the ball."

"... the NCAA's act of reviewing proposed lacrosse sticks is, at most, a promise that approved sticks complied with the rules in effect at that time. The NCAA was not promising never to change its rules in a way that would make a previously approved stick illegal."

This sounds so much like the groove rule it could be a test case. In no uncertain terms, it appears there is now, at least, and may always have been, sufficient legal precedent for the USGA to make any rule it finds necessary. That final statement from Judge Battani sounds to me like a killer for any manufacturer wanting to rail against the USGA over rule changes. One wonders if it might be that extra bit of confidence a ruling body might want in putting forth any future equipment performance rollbacks. (Golf ball and driver head size, anyone?)

And for those of you keeping score, the USGA groove change, in the best of all possible worlds for the industry, chould result in abut $19 billion in new equipment purchases over the next 15 years (based on an estimated $750 in new iron and wedge purchases for each of the 25 million golfers and the fact that the rule change is expected to apply to all golfers by 2024). Which, come to think of it, might be why no one in the industry is really complaining all that much about the groove restrictions. Hmmm...

BOMB: Did anyone ever tell you that you're a windbag? I'll save the readers a lengthy retort. Here's the deal: Governing bodies make the rules. Equipment-makers then live by those rules. Period. Should the governing bodies listen to the manufacturer's concerns? Absolutely. And in the case of golf, I think they have done a fair job of that in the last 10 years which is why there is not the legal threats we have seen in the past--which is a good thing. Lawsuits over the making of a rule is the kind of "I'm-taking-my-ball-and-going-home" attitude we could all live without. And for any manufacturer that thinks the public is outraged by the rules, well, go ahead and make some non-conforming equipment and see how you make out. My guess is not too well.

Equipment regulations should be points of discussion, not contention. But when the talk is finished and a decision is made, everyone just needs to stop the nonsense and get on board. Besides, a projected $19 billion in sales isn't all that bad, now is it?