BOMB: As my daughter likes to say, I'm confuzzled.

Recently we received a communique from TaylorMade regarding its TP Red LDP ball that said, "Some of them were found to exceed the USGA's initial velocity rule, less than two-tenths of one percent. The cause was human error - we accidentally made a batch that paired the TP Red cover with the wrong core. This variance was limited to TP Reds only, and did not affect the TP Black or any other TaylorMade balls."

OK, fair enough. Mistakes happen when you're dealing with human beings. Plus, we're only talking about two-tenths of one percent. Besides, we've been down this road before with the nonconforming drivers due to "manufacturing variances" so I don't think it's all that big a deal.

With one exception.

TaylorMade says the ball is being taken off the conforming list and that another one -- with the same design as the current TP Red LDP but with a new sidestamp -- will take its place to avoid confusion. The note goes on to state the following:

"Because the TP Red that's in the market now, with the original side stamp, conforms to the Rules of Golf they can continue to be used in normal play including those rounds in which scores are posted for handicap purposes.

"That's because only high-level tournaments, like tour events and USGA competitions, typically require contestants to use a ball that's on the Conforming Ball List. Most club championships and member guests don't. Of course, no matter what kind of tournament you're playing in, it's a good idea to ask an official beforehand if you need to play a ball that's on the List. If it turns out a listed ball is required, you'll need a TP Red with the new side stamp. If not, the original side stamp will do fine for the kind of recreational golf that almost all golfers play, including scores posted for handicap purposes.

"You can identify the TP Reds with the new side stamps and a sticker in the top right-hand corner of the box and on individual sleeves reading 'TP Red Tournament Edition.' "

So here is the confuzzling part. If some of these balls exceed the initial velocity and the ball is taken off the conforming ball list, how on earth can it be used for recreational rounds and posting scores? I do get that competitions need to post that a ball on the conforming ball list must be used in order for that to be in effect. But how can a ball whose physical properties exceed the limits set forth by the USGA be used to post a score for a USGA handicap? I don't seem to be able to get a satisfactory answer on that. Perhaps you can enlighten me, pardsy.

GOUGE: Let me see, enlighten, as I understand it means "to furnish knowledge to," although I prefer its more existential definition, "to give spiritual insight to." I can't help you with any of that. I'm lost. I do think it would behoove players who are thinking of competing at state and local events to make sure that if there's a one-ball rule they better make sure the TaylorMade balls they're playing are on the OK list. But still, given that the official USGA procedure allows for three balls in a typical submission of 24 to fail the conformance standards and still have the ball be OK by the rules, I'm confused by all the histrionics. By our understanding, the TaylorMade mistake only applies to 0.2 percent of its production, significantly less than the 12.5 percent that the USGA ball-testing procedure allows. But let's give them credit for being nice guys. I guess.

Who we can give no credit to for being nice guys, however, are the boys at Callaway and Acushnet, who have once again decided to roll around in the mud for the whole world to see. In a nutshell, the latest legal overindulgence involves Acushnet suing Callaway for patent infringement by Callaway's Tour i and Tour ix ball, and Callaway suing Acushnet for patent infringement, claiming the "converted" 2007 Pro V1 and Pro V1x balls AND the new 2009 Pro V1 and Pro V1x balls still infringe patents owned by Callaway. This, of course, comes on top of the already severely muck-ified legal St. Vitus' Dance shaking through both companies over Callaway's successful (thus far) patent infringement claims against the old Pro V1 and Pro V1x balls. If you're not following along -- and why would you at this point? -- this is nothing more than a case of "I know you are but what am I?" All the gory details are best obtained by checking out the website of David Dawsey, the smartest guy in the room when it comes to golf patents, who explains in detail how the love continues between these two not so BFFs. Personally, I find it at least mildly interesting that Callaway is being sued over a ball it introduced last year for patent infringement on a patent that was granted this year. I know, I know, patents are applied for years in advance, but as you my friend might say, "C'mon, MAN!" How does this help anybody in an industry that's in desperate need of positive reinforcement?

BOMB: Bottom line is that this helps no one, my friend—except the lawyers, perhaps. One of the industry's dirty little secrets has long been that patents are infringed all the time and what eventually happens is a game of "I won't call you on infringing my patent if you won't call me on infringing yours." Deals are struck between companies where they agree to share or license certain technologies. It's simply what happens when everyone is designing in the same boxes and the U.S. Patent Office is virtually impossible to figure out. And why these two can't come to an agreement along these lines is beyond me.

GOUGE: Could be they don't like each other all that much. Which means it can only get uglier. And in our business, friend, that's better than Christmas morning.