BOMB: Well, pardsy, here we go again.

Bless those folks who just insist on designing and manufacturing in the tolerance zone and then every so often cross the line. Gives us something to write about. Latest case in point being today’s communique from Callaway Golf regarding its Tour i ball that has a sidestamp with a single dot on each side of the words Tour i. For our purposes we’ll refer to it as Tour i single dot. According to Callaway, they found that a “very small number” of its Tour i single dot balls exceeded the USGA’s weight limit by “approximately half the weight of a U.S. dollar bill.” Callaway said the total number is less than one percent of all Tour I balls produced.

OK, fair enough. Mistakes happen. Besides, this isn’t our first rodeo with companies being caught speeding, so to speak. This makes an even half-dozen instances in the last 26 months, starting with some hot faces on some drivers from Nike, Callaway, Cleveland and Cobra in 2007 and continuing with TaylorMade having some of its TP Red golf balls exceed the initial velocity limit. Also, just as with the TaylorMade ball situation, the company is asking the ball be removed from the List of Conforming Golf Balls (which will happen June 3) and a new sidestamped ball, which we will call the Tour i double dot, will replace it. That said, Callaway is not implementing an exchange program (nor, for that matter, did TaylorMade). The reason being that unless a Condition of Competition is posted, you can play with a ball not on the conforming list.

And here’s where I have a problem with the Rules of Golf. The condition of competition is posted for tour events and high-level amateur events and pretty much every participant knows that so I don’t worry about one of these balls being put in play accidentally and causing a DQ. But at club events, such as a club championship, the condition of competition is almost never in effect, meaning the Tour i single dot can be used. Why? Because according to USGA Rules Decision 5-1/101, such balls are “presumed to conform and the onus of proof is on the person alleging the ball does not.”

Now look, I’m all for innocent until proven guilty. But how am I going to be able to tell when Mr. Hack ‘n Chop is hitting it a few yards farther than I’m used to seeing and he’s using a Tour i single dot whether or not it’s one of the ball’s that is over the limit? I’m not. I know it doesn’t matter from a performance standpoint. But it is irksome that it is possible for a ball whose physical properties exceed the limits set forth by the USGA to be used to post a score for a USGA handicap or play in an event, even if it is at the club level. Worse, I don't seem to be able to get a satisfactory answer on why that is so. In the meantime buddy, I’m putting a scale in my bag right now so don’t even think of putting one of those balls on the peg when you’re playing me.

GOUGE: I think the difference between the rules of golf and the rules of almost any other sport lies in the fact that in golf we assume everybody is extremely committed to playing the game by the rules. We assume nobody is trying to pull a fast one. The problem for golf now is the rules governing equipment have become so necessarily precise that the potential exists for unintentionally pulling a fast one.

Like the true nature of the game, Callaway is calling a penalty on itself. Which is fine, perhaps noble. But when it gets right down to it, what we have is the potential for unintentional disqualification. For instance, how many of those playing in local or sectional qualifying for the U.S. Open, the U.S. Women's Open and the U.S. Senior Open might on occasion buy their own golf balls. I would conservatively say more than half of the thousands of entrants in those events buy their own golf balls. Is there a chance someone playing in those qualifiers might use a ball that is not on the conforming list? Yes. If someone notices on the fourth hole that she's playing a single dot Callaway instead of a double dot Callaway, then she's done, see-ya, goodbye, thanks for playing. Since Callaway only started shipping the double-dot Tour i golf balls today, there's a chance someone might have a sleeve of the old balls in his bag at U.S. Open Sectional qualifying on June 8. It's a real problem, so if you're one of the 9,000 entrants for the U.S. Open, one of the 1,278 entrants in the U.S. Women's Open or one of the estimated 3,000 entrants for the U.S. Senior Open, consider yourself forewarned.

But who's checking? Well, no one really. Does it matter? Not in real terms, but spiritually, it's everything. In the end, of course, it's the player's responsibility. That's the nature of the rules of golf, of course. The assumption that everybody plays by the rules certainly is valid, assuming that everybody knows specifically what the rules are. That's not always obvious, especially in cases like this. The fact that it's happening so frequently to big companies clearly means we're in a stage where every manufacturer is pursuing every element of innovation to the nth micron. Indeed, we could suggest that the level of intricasy in innovation is in danger of exceeding the ability to manufacture such intricasy in the vast numbers required in today's marketplace. Or it could just be growing pains.

But on the cusp of the new groove rule, which features what many would call a staggeringly more complex set of parameters than any current equipment regulation, it is not a great leap to suggest that the uncertainty is only just beginning. If you think manufacturers are trying to innovate in the tolerance zone when it comes to spring-like effect and golf ball conformance, you have to believe it will be more of the same when it comes to grooves. Those in the know say that deciphering conforming vs. non-conforming grooves within this microscopic gray zone requires a microscope that costs more than my first house. If you think six problems in the last two years is a big deal, buckle up, brother. If manufacturers keep dancing in the danger zone, it could get really nasty.