Hip to be Square

So there's a scramble on tour to find Ping Eye 2 wedges, built prior to April 1st, 1990. I have to say, I find it a bit rich from those harping on about the "black and white" of the rules, and how it's technically legal. A lot of things are technically legal. There's no penalty rustling the change in your pocket at the top of someone's backswing, but you just don't do it (usually). There's no rule against having your buddies run all over the line of an opponents putt either. So if it's not in the book it's all good? Ridiculous!
One element of Mickelson et al's argument I do agree with is that it shouldn't be left on player's shoulders to make moral decisions on things like equipment. The rules should be clear cut. The worrying thing is, given the original landmark court case, and how messy it was, it's hard to see the USGA getting a ban in place. It would essentially mean revisiting, and trying to win an argument they lost quite heavily.

If the governing body can't find a legal route to enforce an all-encompassing ban we might see some interesting politics at play. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the USGA looks for Ping themselves to agree to close the loop-hole. After all, it's Ping's court case victory that has the rules as they are. If agreement can't be made, we could be in for some pretty farcical stuff, with players dividing into two camps on the issue, and all sorts of statistical analysis around whether the noble and moral get up and down as often as the sneaky rule benders.