If it's not against the rules, it's not cheating

So evidently Scott McCarron has accused Phil Mickelson, John Daly, and various other professional golfers of cheating. In so many words. And dozens of other players have called their behavior "inappropriate," seeking an unfair advantage, etc., though not using the word cheating. They are incorrect, and Phil's response, that the blame should go to the governing body and not to the players, is absolutely right.

The controversy derives from the new rule change that supposedly bans square grooves. However, in 1990 PING and the USGA settled a lawsuit over certain specific clubs, the Eye-2 irons, that allowed those specific clubs to remain legal. Those clubs are still legal, under that settlement, and they have square grooves. So Daly, Phil, and certain others have decided to take their old Eye-2 clubs and play them. Phil's only using the wedges, I think (he bent one to 64 degrees, because he is, after all, Phil Mickelson...), but I think Daly used a full set. Now, I'm sorry Scott McCarron, but these clubs are legal. He submitted them to the tournament officials and they said, yes, these clubs are fine. So it's not cheating. It's not even seeking an unfair advantage, because anyone can do it. Any player who wants to can get some of these old clubs; there are plenty of them floating around. U-grooves are not actually banned by the current rules. Any player who is not using U-grooves on their irons is simply deciding not to do so. Yes, it's a silly rule; yes, it should be changed, in some direction. And I'm sorry, Nick Faldo (he's speaking right now), but it is a level playing field. There is absolutely zero discrimination going on, except that which players apply to themselves. If you want people to be playing with v-grooves, adopt a rule that actually requires v-grooves. The current rule is not that.

And one other comment struck me as particularly silly. An article on pgatour.com said something like, "Mickelson and Daly are both using the old PING Eye-2 irons, but Daly is a PING player. Mickelson is a Callaway player." If it's okay for John Daly, who generally plays PING clubs, it's okay for Phil, who ordinarily plays Callaway clubs. Endorsement deals have no bearing on the rules of golf, or the spirit of the rules of golf. If anyone has a right to complain, it's Callaway, but even they shouldn't. Endorsement contracts don't usually entail that the player will use nothing but the product of the sponsor. Many players will carry the driver, putter, and most irons from their primary sponsor, and use a different company for the golf ball, or the wedges, or the long irons, or the hybrids, or whatever. And for what it's worth, Callaway also probably wants Phil to win, and like it or not, he is more likely to do that with these clubs than with Callaway wedges.

So don't blame Phil. Don't blame John Daly. Blame Karsten Solheim, if you wish, for his lawsuit that in a sense created this conundrum, or blame the USGA for its "daft" ruling. Or blame no one: I don't think anyone yet has acted in bad faith. It's like a situation where there's a good policy the federal government would like to enact, but it's strictly unconstitutional. They can't enact it, but it's no one's fault.