"The point of the notice was to say that you wouldn't get a free drop."
I think we've all conceded that Dustin Johnson is at fault for this untimely PGA Championship mistake, but many elements clearly aren't sitting well based on the comments in earlier posts. (And by the way, so many great insights on both sides of the aisles, thanks for all of the thoughtful posts).
One of those posts comes from reader Ted Purdy, who responded on the Frank Hannigan thread about the wording of the PGA's notice, which was wheeled out as clear evidence that Johnson should have read it and therefore, he would not have made the mistake he made on 18. (Though if he didn't think it was a bunker, the notice is irrelevant as he is not going to ground his club in a bunker at any golf course.)
But as Ted notes, the supplementary local rule pertained to the lie and possible relief you would get in a bunker, not in actually determining which of the sandy pits at Whistling Straits was a hazard and what wasn't. Purdy writes:
The purpose of the local rule was not to say that all sandy areas constituted a hazard but to inform players that no relief would be granted to players for footprints, tire tracks or other "irregularities of surface" in a hazard. To say that it provided clear notice to all players that all sandy areas on the course would be considered hazards is misleading at best. The point of the notice was to say that you wouldn't get a free drop.
I disagree that the notice was created to define what would be considered a hazard, and the attempt by the PGA to use a notice worded as that one was to justify its decision to call the place where several hundreds of people were standing throughout the whole episode a bunker, is laughable.
Indeed, Purdy appears correct if you re-read the notice with that view in mind:
1. Bunkers: All areas of the course that were designed and built as sand bunkers will be played as bunkers (hazards), whether or not they have been raked. This will mean that many bunkers positioned outside of the ropes, as well as some areas of bunkers inside the ropes, close to the rope line, will likely include numerous footprints, heel prints and tire tracks during the play of the Championship. Such irregularities of surface are a part of the game and no free relief will be available from these conditions.
Again, Johnson made an enormous mistake and could have avoided his fate by simply slowing things down (God bless him for being a fast player!), asking Price what his options were, and getting a reminder not to ground his club. But as Purdy notes, the notice wasn't as clear as some have suggested.
This is one more reason why I believe the ultimate loser in this affair will not be the PGA, Dustin Johnson or even Whistling Straits, but instead, a growing hostility toward the complicated, unwieldy Rules of Golf.
Monday, August 16, 2010 at 10:30 PM
Reader Comments (47)
Would it have made any difference to Johnson had the rules been worded differently? NO! because he didn't bother to read the goddam things in the first place!
Johnson stating that he didn't think it was a bunker is no defence either. Had he bothered to read the local rules, surely there was enough information contained therein for him to have at least asked the question?
That said, they could and should fill in about 70% of the bazillion bunkers,many of them of the eye candy, badly penal for the average hack variety. Dustin DID blow that last critical tee shot over into one that while well out of the normal line of play...got him. So maybe Pete can't be totally faulted for his zany design.
They weren't defining bunkers. They reminded players what bunkers were (i.e. that they weren't "waste areas," which isn't even in the Rules of Golf), and then reminded them what that meant - no relief for irregularity of surface.
Seems clear to me.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/100789089.html
It COULD be important.
A classic was the deVicenzo failure in l968. The USGA invited the whole world to submit language for a new rule that would have avoided the situation WHILE protecting the right of the player to verify his score.
Nothing decent came in.
The portrait of the USGA as hidebound when it comes to rules is crazy.The Rules are under constant scrutiny within the USGA.
The rules sheet should have said that if your ball lies on sand or dirt, anywhere on the course, be careful and determine if you are in a bunker. There are a lot if irregular shaped bunkers outside the ropes that the gallery make be standing in. If in doubt ask an official.
Also agree with Ky that it looked like he may have been outside the edge of the bunker. Seems the PGA was in a rush to resolve this issue, get the playoff started before their tv time ran out, and cover their behinds with their reading of the notice on tv.
And regarding Mike's comment, has anyone covered that angle? Surely the PGA would never let such considerations influence their actions! Oh, heavens no!
We have to take DJ at his word that he didnt think he was in a bunker-some people are not sure-his body language was not good after initially grounding his club.
My rule book has a different definition of yours for a bunker I think!One blade of grass growing through the sand does not make it 'grass covered' in my book.
Unless your sand is the consintency of concrete then you will have improved your lie.
Thats my guess as to why we have such a rule!
I understand what you are saying -- that established practice leads you to the conclusion that DJ wasn't thinking, which ties in with his not reading the local rules, which paints him as another not-so-bright guy on the tour (after all, it takes a certain amount of braindeadness to hit 500 balls a day).
And that besmirching of DJ is more comfortable to the likes of Wilson et al than admitting that they made just as much of a rush to judgment as DJ did.
CYA.
I don't believe you.
Sincerely,
Digsouth
You give me far more credit than my game deserves. Never thought about how grounding may improve one's lie in a bunker. However, on TV they say that pros already play well out of bunkers, so how much better can they get? As for the rest of the world's golfers, where I sit, if grounding a club makes this tough game easier, why not? From where I stand, even with the "improvement" (ever play out of most muni bunkers?) it won't help much.
First, after Johnson hits his tee shot, Nantz correctly identifies that Johnson is in a bunker. In fact, they even show a graphic with the ball in the bunker.
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/9458/cbsgraphic.jpg
Second, looking at an aerial shot, you can see several visible bunkers that people are not standing in in the vicinity. Now, granted, Johnson didn't have the benefit of seeing this, but there are several bunkers in that area.
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/9732/aerialy.jpg
Next, here is a hi-res capture of his ball in the bunker with a very clear visible lip, particularly on the uphill side. Now, why that lady insisted on staying in the bunker, with her purse no less, is baffling.
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/2184/djball.jpg
Finally, when Johnson takes his first practice stance beside his ball, he grounds his club in the bunker. You immediately here one of the broadcasters (Nantz, I believe) whisper, "Oh, Boy...". Now I know this is speculating, but I think Nantz knew immediately that he had broken the rule. There is really no other reason to utter this phrase at that point. This is right before he asks the spectators to block the sun that is shining through. I'm not sure how to capture this portion of the video to post, but it's just about exactly 5 hours into the broadcast for those who have it on DVR. He then goes on to ground his club two more times - the two times that we saw over and over.
Remember that Feharty was right there and said that DJ had drawn a flat lie, and HE never mentioned any question if the ball was in a hazard.
The ball was clearly in overspill and not within the margin of the hazard, both which can be made out by the top of the bunker line, and by the 'depression' area where the actual bunker is.
DJ got hosed by not making them go to the spot, a real look at the place, and I can't believe that the press has not revisited this : perhaps PC dictates covering the governing bodies xxx for future credentials. ;)
Yep , a regular grassy knoll.
digsouth
There were very few Rules when the game was invented, but I'm sure as time went by more and more things came up where an answer wasn't 100% agreed upon.
What if a bird takes your ball and moves it?
What if you hit the wrong ball?
What if the ball goes into a hole or plugged under the lip of a bunker and no way to get a club on the ball?
Etc, etc, etc...
When players are competing against each other at various times of the day (or even different days)...a standard needs to be set to make sure all players are subject to the same Rules. It would be unfair to treat the same situation differently whether it was 2 hours, 2 days or 2 years later...and the more subjective you make things, the less likely consistency will be applied.
I'm guessing that those in charge of making and updating the Rules do not just add/change rules for fun, but to try and create consistency and equity for all players.
I especially like the comportment of the rules official.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpcBFvZlyDk
Surely if there was any doubt as to whether he was in a bunker or not they would have had a 'site visit'.He would have been entitled to one and I'd be very surprised if he wasn't offered one.
My last post on this-I'm exhausted!
Great detective work.
DigSouth. Having a person of Frank Hannigan's reputation on this website, I think should offer a modicum of respect. Its O.K to disagree with Mr. Hannigan, but try to do so with some amount of maturity and decency
You are not only attempting to read the mind of DJ, with his 'body language' but also the mind of Nantz.
DJ emphatically stated that he knows not to ground a club in a bunker: that he did not think he was in a bunker, so you are also saying he is lieing.
We have seen boulders moved, balls hit over clubhouses, etc, with no penalty, and no regard for the time it took, and here we have a player who knows the rules, forget about the printed sheet, it was for the purpose of clarifying that a drop was not going to be allowed for footprints etc....but was unable to determine where he was in regards to a hazard, by poor crowd control, and poor officiating. Several minutes went by and no one radioed to the group from inside that this may be a hazard.
While a player is responsible for his own fate, DJ determined that he was on a flat spot, not in a hazard. And I think he was right. Feharty was right there , called it a good flat lie, and Nance, was not.
DJ should have demanded they go back out to the spot. His head was spinning, and he signed away under duress.
Play well.
Killer point and you should have been a lawyer. This is the focal point of the entire episode; the hundred other points made in this case are a distraction. The margins of the bunker were not clearly defined when they darned well should have been if you're going to make a call like this. The PGA noted that in cases where the margins were not sharply defined, they would mark them with blue dots. This they did not do, and they predictably defended it with "how can we mark 900 bunkers?" That's a weak act. Marking, say, the 100 of the potentially troublesome ones would have sufficed, and the had phalanxes of people there to do it, every day if necessary.
The committee also should accept information from ALL sources and usually does; hence the phone-ins from viewers about rules violations. But one source they did not consult was Dustin Johnson. That's wrong. I don't know if they sent officials out to examine the scene between the time Johnson hit the shot and finished play, but something tells me they made the call based on what they saw on TV. All they wanted to know from Johnson was whether he grounded his club. Amazing that they didn't gravitate toward a point that not only matters, but matters most.
It's interesting also that Johnson's ball actually came to rest dead atop a tuft of grass. Check the CBS telecast immediately after they returned from commercial; they show a super closeup (haven't seen the telling screen capture anywhere yet) that shows this conclusively. The grass appears to be rooted--what else could have kept it in place? I don't recall how the rules deal with this, but there you have it.
Joe Dey once said, "The rules are bare bones, not flesh and blood." Not quite true; at the time they still exercised the phrase "preponderance of evidence" for determining whether a ball lost outside a hazard could have gone anywhere else. In the Johnson case, we had flesh and blood--a judgment call as to whether the ball was within the bunker or in a blown-out, tongue-like area. They didn't speak with Johnson on this, and the kid didn't think he was even in a bunker. It's hard to imagine that the bunker was built with the sharp irregularity where Johnson's ball came to rest. The phrase the official threw at Johnson after the fact ("anything with sand on it") is a joke. Isn't that the same guy Furyk got pissed at for not rendering a verdict on the magnet sticking to the shaft of his putter?
Frank is right on rules streamlining. It's impossible to do any better and be careful what you wish for, though I'm amused at how the USGA and R&A still can't get together on some of it. But it wasn't the rules that are at fault here, it's the people who enforced them so clumsily, albeit under stress but with a prosecutorial bent. The tie doesn't go to the runner with these guys.
Plus, he might just be downright stupid.
I did.
thanks.
Frank is a big boy. He can handle it. He has a job, and he is protecting it. The USGA's actions are to be suspected, nothing personal to Mr Hannigan.
From the long putter being allowed to the 'groove' debacles, cronyism and agendas are long suspect.
Sorry, but I am not the only one who sees this, and who has commented on it publicly. Read some of the Op-eds..... Additionally I have had my 'opinion' verified by one who has been in RC meetings as factual.
So, again, nothing personal, to Frank, and I welcome his input: but it is not without bias.
To you, and to Frank, Play well!
digsouth
We don't know for a fact that other players broke the rule without being detected previously during the week, and therefore, by democratic convention, we must proclaim all other contestants innocent of that same rules breach. Believe me, had the mistake gone undetected until after the play-off and had he gone on to win it, the debate and the outcry would have been far worse and the championship (not to mention Johnson's career) far worse tainted than it is now.
P.S. Nae rake, nae bunker.
DMazza - I said on another thread that DJ should have refused to sign until the Committee concluded that he was in fact in a precise area "designed and built as a sand bunker". He may have been, maybe not, but it would be pure guesswork.
Maybe the players should pool together and have a rules "duty counsel" hanging out to make their case.