Adam Scott’s Masters victory helped prevent the Tiger Woods rule debate re-igniting, but it did bring another issue back to the top of the agenda for golf’s governing bodies.
Scott claimed his first major title with a birdie on the second hole of his play-off with 2009 champion Angel Cabrera, ending Australia’s 77-year wait for a winner at Augusta.
By winning, he stopped a field including world No 1 Woods from doing so.
Had the American donned the green jacket, it would have added petrol to the fire started by his two-shot penalty for an illegal drop on Friday, with some believing he should have been disqualified.
Scott’s win kicked off another issue, though.
As the fourth player in the last six major championships to triumph with the aid of a long putter, the 32-year-old turned the spotlight back on to the ban on anchored putters proposed by the R&A and USGA.
Asked what effect his victory would have on the debate, Scott said: “I don’t know what it’s going to do. We are all waiting to hear what’s going to happen.
“I don’t know that this is going to impact any decisions at all. You know my feeling on it all; that it was inevitable that big tournaments would be won with this equipment, because these are the best players in the world and they practice thousands of hours. They are going to get good with whatever they are using.”
The ban would come into effect in 2016 and although the European Tour has voiced its support, the PGA Tour and PGA of America has opposed it, opening up the possibility of different rules applying in different events.
The PGA Tour runs the lucrative American circuit and plays a dominant role in staging World Golf Championship events.
Traditionally they adopt the rules of golf as determined by the R&A and USGA, who run the Open Championship and US Open respectively, while the PGA of America organise the US PGA Championship and American Ryder Cup team.
Scott said last month: “I would suggest the PGA Tour and PGA of America stick to its guns and demands any ban be rescinded. There just seems to be no logic to the whole issue and golf’s ruling bodies are going about this issue on a whim.
“There are no arguments for the banning of any anchoring based on any facts, just on the opinions of those across the board running golf around the world.
“There seems to be a lot of arrogance on the part of those managing this issue and it’s as though they are acting as Gods and not governing.”
However, if the ban did come into effect, Scott would like to see a competition or ‘grandfather’ clause added.
“The only way going forward as I see it if they go ahead with the ban, is that there will be an ‘in competition’ rule for the professionals allowing anchoring of the club through the rest of their career,” he said.
“And I would say that the last option that I would be satisfied with is to introduce this ‘grandfather’ clause that would mean players who are currently using the belly or long-handled putter be allowed to continue to use the putter until the end of their careers.
“I don’t have a problem with Mike Davis (executive director of the USGA) or Peter Dawson (R&A chief executive), but I do have a problem with the manner their organisations are going about this. I am trying to base everything I say on truth, fact and logic and that seems to be the right way, being objective.
“I would hope also that I would have the same opinion if I was putting with a short putter. And that is so different to simply throwing the balls up in the air to wait and see and that’s the way they seem to be going about it.
“And I think my opinion in this matter is just as important as the USGA, the R&A, Jack Nicklaus, Ernie Els or anyone.”