Dustin Johnson and Intent**

One reason the Dustin Johnson penalty is not sitting well: he did not test the sand in the bunker. He did not intend to violate the rule. That said, he violated the rule. No question. But in a few well-known cases of late, rules officials have allowed intent to influence their decision to not penalize a player. Rory McIlroy kicking sand at the Masters and Kenny Perry mashing down rough behind his ball in Phoenix come to mind. (There is an old post with stellar comments well worth going back and reading for those interested in the intent debate, including one by Tom Kirkendall that will make you giggle at its prescience.)

While I understand the rule in question and the violation by Johnson, why isn't intent allowed to play a role here? After all, the only reason we know about this incident is because it happened on camera. The walking rules official did not see the violation happen and Johnson was not going to call a penalty on himself because he didn't realize he committed one. Had this happened Thursday off camera, no penalty would likely have been incurred. So since we have the addition of cameras, tape and viewers calling in, leading to penalties like this, shouldn't the rules also allow for that tape to take intent into account? It seems that precedent has already been set with the statements in the McIlroy and Perry episodes? No?

Rules gurus, please set me straight!

Update on 2010-08-18 03:17 by Geoff

**There's a nice response from John Vander Borght on his blog to the intent question.

Flashback: Fans In Bunkers

While the below images show fans in bunkers during tournament play, none were as on top of players and masking bunker boundaries as what happened with Dustin Johnson.

From Rob Matre, Tiger in 2008 at Torrey Pines.

And from the old magazines, courtesy of the art department.

"just a small notice."

So much for Germans dancing in the streets over Martin Kaymer's PGA Championship win. Reader Lloyd emailed a friend in Germany and shared his exchange.

Your excellent young golfer Martin Kaymer won the final major of the golf year yesterday

Did anyone in Germany watch or notice?

He was very good BTW, but this is no surprise

L

And the reply:

:-) I did not hear anything about this :-)
but dirk read about it in the newspaper. just a small notice.
g

Bunkers In The Whistling Straits Yardage Book

Reader Mark noted that if Dustin Johnson looked at his yardage book he would have seen yardages. He asked if I could procure a copy of the 18th diagram. After a search, Mark himself came up with it and shares the work of  Stracka Line. Not much grey area here. Though in Johnson's defense, I never saw him look at the book. But there is also a missing gap in the CBS coverage where he purportedly was approached by the PGA's walking official, David Price.

"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.