srellim234:
Rule 15-1 DOES allow changing brands during a normal official round and it is specifically addressed. From the USGA website:
http://www.usga.org/rulesfaq/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=177&Rule=15
"...When changing balls, the player is permitted to substitute a ball of another brand or type unless the Committee has adopted the One Ball Condition of Competition (see Appendix I; Part C; Section 1c). This optional condition (usually referred to as ‘The One Ball Rule’) is generally adopted only in events that are limited to professional golfers or highly-skilled amateur golfers. Generally, this condition of competition is not adopted in club-level competitions."
Good to have this set straight. I have yet to enter a competition which includes the special rule, and I won't because I don't attend national championships ;)
Alas, I see it different in this virtual world. Chad has addressed the set-up in his video chat in late 2012, and he did not at all mention the (local) Rules of Golf. Instead, he stated that WGT does not want to make a guess as to which ball to choose, thus the fallback to the Starter.
You read it correct: WGT's choice was the subject, not the players'! It fits well into the scheme NOT to allow any in-game choices for the players, neither ball selection nor drop points nor unplayables. Only lately, the Gimme and the Mulligan break through, limited to practice rounds for most players.
And, if you leave the golf course and take a seat at the game design desk, there's an obvious reason: Simplification. It would be much harder to allow for player's choices, thus the players' rights have been cut back from the beginning.
1) "Unplayable ball" is the least complicated situation, seemingly. The Mulligan feature does the job, repeat the shot from the same spot. Add counting (there's a provision to count ball life, why not strokes and penalties?), done!
Really? The rules provide the right to move the ball two club lengths and to go back on the line from the pin - how to ensure this part? Imagine your ball in the nasty roughs of Merion and check out the options for every single square foot (or inch) => programming and mapping nightmare...
2) Imagine a provision to change the ball between holes as stated by the rules. On the screen/in the program, a detour from the scorecard or tee to the inventory, limiting the options to ball selection (you must not change the clubs through the game!), and back to the game. In MP games, take care of the timing...
3) Drop point options is a nuisance, too. For each possible point on the hazards' borders, the legal points or lines must be determined for the drops. Imagine this at STA #1 or KIA #2, even worse at lateral water hazards as CCC#11. Plus, different rules for GUR - excessive mapping work I'm afraid, and timing...
You see, these are a lot of good reasons for the "no choices doctrine" as I call it.
I agree to WGT's decision not to include these items: less complications, less errors. They might have given an extra thought to the dropping spots but at least the conditions are equal for all and we can buy balls through the game (try this in a real tournament!).
Happy hitting!