Cink DQ - new rule - leave the bunker unraked or walk back 200 yards

[John_Cullum]

The committee had the discretion to invoke Rule 1-4 and deem this situation as a matter not contemplated by the rules (which I belive to be correct, this isn't contemplated under 13-4).

Sometimes I question why the PGA Tour rules officials are such ardent enforcers of the black letter.

[Mike Benham]

If this situation would have occurred at The Open Championship, Cink would not have been penalized or disqualified ...

[Garland Bayley]

If this situation would have occurred at The Open Championship, Cink would not have been penalized or disqualified ...

because they assign a local person to do the bunker raking.

[TEPaul]

Tom,

"I would allow the present exception to stand. Are you suggesting that many people would take up feigning falls to violate the spirit of the rules?"

Garland:

No, I am not. Not at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. I leave that kind of suggestion to others such as Shivas on here who seems to make those kinds of suggestions about cheating all the time. For most of the history of golf and The Rules of Golf, the Rules have not even contemplated or mentioned the idea of cheating. I, for one, am not exactly advocating they start to do that now.

"If so, then it would appropriate to play  lawyer, judge, and jury on the rules staff of the tournament."

That is exactly right, and frankly that's precisely WHY The Rules of Golf are written and interpreted the way they are----eg there simply is not a judge and jury or even a referee on hand at all times in golf. That is precisely why the concept of "Like Situations Shall Be Treated Alike" exists in golf the way it does! I am not in favor of the interpretation of Golf's Rules by lawyers who might tend to think that The Rules of Golf should be, or would be better off constructed and administered something like a civil or criminal justice system.

There is another "Working Principle" that exists in Tuft's book "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" which states:

"The Rules should not attempt to cope with the exceptional."

To the extent that various situations become less than exceptional The Rules of Golf generally find reasonable ways within The Rules of Golf to cope with them.  

It is my belief that situations like Cink's have the potential to be something less than exceptional and consequently The Rules of Golf should deal with it in the Rules and EXCEPT similar situations from being a violation of the Rules.

[Tony_Chapman]

I'm surprised at the crowd here. If Cink knows the rule, he would just have his caddie ask a playing partner's caddie to rake the bunker. Nothing else happens. If you are playing in the state am, you have a playing partner, or their caddy rake the bunker. What's the big deal?

And, Garland is exactly right. Maybe they should have locals rake the bunkers at all events.

[Art Roselle]

I saw Sergio hit a shot from a greenside bunker somewhere (Sawgrass maybe) and he hit it past the pin, out of his line of view.  He took a couple of practice swings and then climbed out of the bunker.   It turned out that his ball had rolled over the green into a bunker, which was in fact, the same bunker, because it wrapped all the way around the green.  So, he got a penalty for grounding his club or testing the surface or whatever.

When this happened (I love quoting myself), the announcers made a big deal about the fact that the bunker wrapped around the green and was therefore "the same hazard."  However, based on the Cink situation and the rule about "similar hazards", wouldn't this be a violation even if his ball was in a different bunker?  If you skull a bunker shot over the green and into a another bunker, and then take a practice swing (or, more likely, slam you club in the sand in disgust), is that a penalty?  I now think it is, although I honestly did not understand that distinction before this discussion.  I think this gets unknowingly broken a lot.
 

[TEPaul]

"The committee had the discretion to invoke Rule 1-4 and deem this situation as a matter not contemplated by the rules (which I belive to be correct, this isn't contemplated under 13-4).
Sometimes I question why the PGA Tour rules officials are such ardent enforcers of the black letter."


John:

I do not believe that for a second. Those guys on the PGA Tour are some of the best on the Rules anywhere. If they tried to use Rule 1-4 to except a situation like Cink's from penalty they know full well they'd be violating Rule 33-1, part of which states; "The Committee has no power to waive a Rule of Golf."

Rule 1-4 deals only with "Points Not Covered by Rules". Cink's situation is very much covered by Rule 13-4. What needs to happen is for the Rules-makers to consider situations similar to Cink's and deal with them more logically (and probably more equitably) within the Rules of Golf.

[TEPaul]

Art:

Taking practice swings in a bunker as Sergio did is treated differently than raking footprints in a bunker in a similar situation.

[JohnV]

I saw Sergio hit a shot from a greenside bunker somewhere (Sawgrass maybe) and he hit it past the pin, out of his line of view.  He took a couple of practice swings and then climbed out of the bunker.   It turned out that his ball had rolled over the green into a bunker, which was in fact, the same bunker, because it wrapped all the way around the green.  So, he got a penalty for grounding his club or testing the surface or whatever.

When this happened (I love quoting myself), the announcers made a big deal about the fact that the bunker wrapped around the green and was therefore "the same hazard."  However, based on the Cink situation and the rule about "similar hazards", wouldn't this be a violation even if his ball was in a different bunker?  If you skull a bunker shot over the green and into a another bunker, and then take a practice swing (or, more likely, slam you club in the sand in disgust), is that a penalty?  I now think it is, although I honestly did not understand that distinction before this discussion.  I think this gets unknowingly broken a lot.
 

With the changes in 2008, this is no longer a penalty.

This is different from Cink in that he had played a shot from the sand and not just stood in it.

[George Pazin]

Because everybody who has ever played the game has dug their feet into a hazard with the specific intent of testing the condition of the hazard!

Must be one of those good player things - never occurred to me to judge the condition as I was digging in! I don't even think I could gauge the difference.

The most amusing thing to me is that this situation wasn't dealt with 50 years ago. I wonder how long people broke the rule without ever even knowing.

[JohnV]

To see my article on bunkers not being hazards read http://freedrop.wordpress.com/longer-articles/if-bunkers-were-not-hazards/

[Pete_Pittock]

George
    The words 'or any similar hazard" create the problem. When, and why, were they added to the rule?
    My guess on the why - someone's ball was in a bunker and they went over to another bunker to take full practice swings, without penalty.
    Blithe ignorance to the situation is your other answer.

[JohnV]

Peter,

The other thing is that up until they made the Rules change in 2004 where they decided that a caddie couldn't rake a bunker before the player made a stroke, this probably wouldn't have occurred on the PGA Tour. 

It could happen in play without a caddie and I remember talking with my friend Jim Smith about it back in the 1990s for a case where his ball came to rest in the bunker he had been standing in for the previous shot.

So, as far as the professionals are concerned, this is a side effect of another rules change.

[Garland Bayley]

Instead of making complex rules and decisions, why doesn't the USGA do a test to determine if it makes a hill of beans whether or not the caddy rakes a bunker and tells the player the result? I maintain the rule should simply be about using the club head to test and get rid of this nonsense.

If any of you watched 60 minutes last night, you know that there has been a lot of useless traditional "knowledge" in baseball. I maintain that golf has far more such "knowledge".

[John_Cullum]

"The committee had the discretion to invoke Rule 1-4 and deem this situation as a matter not contemplated by the rules (which I belive to be correct, this isn't contemplated under 13-4).
Sometimes I question why the PGA Tour rules officials are such ardent enforcers of the black letter."


John:

I do not believe that for a second. Those guys on the PGA Tour are some of the best on the Rules anywhere. If they tried to use Rule 1-4 to except a situation like Cink's from penalty they know full well they'd be violating Rule 33-1, part of which states; "The Committee has no power to waive a Rule of Golf."

Rule 1-4 deals only with "Points Not Covered by Rules". Cink's situation is very much covered by Rule 13-4. What needs to happen is for the Rules-makers to consider situations similar to Cink's and deal with them more logically (and probably more equitably) within the Rules of Golf.

I respectfully disagree. The rule does not contemplate requiring a player to retreat long distances to rake a bunker until after he has extricated himself from far off bunkers. The rule was never intended to have this result and the USGA has said as much in acknowledging this matter will be changed in the next published rules revision.

Consider:

1. The policy to encourage raking the bunker behind you.
2. If Cink had played from a bunker instead of merely taking his stance in the bunker there is no penalty
3. The reality of the situation is that nothing new was learned about the condition of any bunker anywhere on the golf course
4. Requiring the rule to be strictly adhered to would seriously impede pace of play

[Dave_Miller]

I have not seen any TV footage of the incident.
   Appparently Cink's ball was close to, but not in, a fairway bunker. His stance was in the bunker. His shot ended up in a greenside bunker. His caddy then raked Stuart's footprints (in a bunker), while his ball was in a similar bunker.

Similar hazard.  All bunkers are similar just as all water hazards are similar in the rules.

A tour official said it was a new USGA ruling.  This is because it happened last year.  It has always been the rule, just that a lot of people didn't realize it.

John:
I believe this happened out West last year.  Robin Farran had emailed a group of us on this very situation and the ruling.
Best
Dave

[Dave_Miller]

At the time that this happened last year, at least one USGA official said that it was a problem that needed to be solved.  By the time that it happened, the Rules for 2008 were already finalized and probably on their way to the printer or at least in final proof review.  To make a change, would have required reconvening the Rules of Golf Committees for both the R&A and the USGA and getting everyone to agree on some new wording that would have been thrown together at the last minute.

This is not the way that things work. 

Obviously Zach Johnson knew the rule, so why didn't Stewart Cink?  Because, in general, the pros make little or no effort to learn the rules.  Congrats to him for instantly recognizing that he had violated the rule and then he DQ'ed himself.

John:
People also seem to be missing the point that anyone else could have raked the bunker other than Cink or his caddie.  At PGA tour events there are plenty of persons around who they could have asked to rake the bunker.
Maybe the rule is silly or foolish or defies some type of common sense but it is not the only rule that fits this category.
Best
Dave

[Kalen Braley]

Shivas hit the nail on the head.

There is no way, all of you don't take note of the firmness, wetness, depth, etc, etc of the sand when you walk to your ball and "dig in".  It just isn't possible to believe that you don't take note of 1 or many of these things.  Its no different that noticing the wind, spongyness of the green, wetness of the fairway, etc, for all the rest of the shots on the course.

As it relates to the USGA and the complicated nature of the rules, I very much think the USGA needs a VP of common sense for the rules book.  Someone who plays, is familiar with the game, but not a lawyer-like hawk when it comes to playing the game.  Someone to sit back and ask the 1,000 foot level kind of questions...like:
Does this rule make sense?
Does the punishment fit the crime?
What does the rule serve? 

Instead I would guess the rules makers are so wrapped around the axel and down in the details that they don't take a step back and say...does this make sense??

[RJ_Daley]

In reading all the posts of people I highly respect as the experts, I am still left with the feeling that as in life under the law, sometimes golf just isn't fair...

I want a recount, and a review to the apealate court, and a referral back to the legislative body, with committee hearings, and a new rule enacted, followed by a test case to the highest court!

Or, I like Garland's suggestion...

I maintain the rule should simply be about using the club head to test and get rid of this nonsense.

As to the notion that such a simple rule would go against unfortunate players who "stumble" and need to use the club to brace themselves from the fall... I'd say, tough.  Let 'em fall.  Tough guys like Woody Austin would take the hit, or the dunking.   Let's put the potential for a little contact and physicality into the game.  How bad can the fall be in a sand bunker for cripes sakes?   What is the worst thing that could happen, you get some sand on your golf shirt, or get wet.  I know it is the gentleman's sport and one must try to maintain tidy appearances, but...  How many people are going to break their hips in a sand bunker fall, or drown in a pond?  

No touching the club head, and that is that.  Rakes are fine, after any shot is hit, in or next to the bunker.  Sliding and digging into the sand for stance is fine.  

And, how many of us play courses where the sand isn't even the same consistency from a FW bunker to greenside bunkers.  Either different particle sizes, where the FW is coarse and firm and not worked up daily with sand pros, and the greensides are more specified and consistent particle sized, fluffed and groomed daily?  And, if the caddie like Cink's did get a so called "read" on the nature of the hazard that he'd raked 180 yards back, and didn't communicate anything (like there is anything of real value to communicate) then how could anyone determine any advantage in the first place?  

Did anyone claim Cink's caddie after raking that print, and Cink was already walking up to the next shot while caddie raked, then the caddie runs to catch up and says, "hey boss, be careful. While I was raking your print in that last bunker, I noted a light frosting of firm sand in the top 1/16th inch, so adjust your next swing accordingly.. and by the way, it wasn't the same consistency as that bunker shot you hit from three holes back, so be careful there as well."   Yah, right!    Man, that caddie ain't making enough $ if he can give his player all that much advantageous info from raking a bunker 180 away!  

[RJ_Daley]

Dave, tell me what happens if:

You hit that FW bunker shot, and you ask your playing competitor or his caddie to rake after you to avoid this problem.  Your playing companion is either 40 yards past your tee shot that went into the bunker in the first place.  So, he or caddie rakes, then he goes to hit his approach and hits his ball in the greenside bunker.  Must he declare a penalty on himself because he just tested the sand behind when he courteously complied with your request and raked your stance?  Or, same scene, hit his second to a bad place and skulled his third into a greenside bunker?  I'm sure you get my drift, that being the other player asked to rake the first stance subsequently finds himself in a bunker on the same hole?  Didn't he test the bunker under the same theory as the Cink caddie did, if the competitor raked it?

[Art Roselle]

Art:

Taking practice swings in a bunker as Sergio did is treated differently than raking footprints in a bunker in a similar situation.

I guess I understand that this is how it works, based on how the exception is worded, but doesn't this seem like a very perverse outcome?  A player can take practice swings and test the firmness to his heart's content, as long as he hit from the bunker (and is not still in that bunker), but if Cink's caddy simply rakes the bunker it is a penalty.  In addition to fixing the Cink footprint problem, I would hope that they would limit the exception to just customary raking.  It seems like a bunch of practice swings would violate the spirit of the "similar hazard" rule and take advantage of the exception (which is really meant to cover raking IMO).

[RJ_Daley]

And, TEP, if the guy does feign a fall, and uses his club to stop the fall, I say, give him a diving penalty of 2 strokes, like the 2 minutes diving penalty in hockey! 

[Jim_Kennedy]

.... "everybody who has ever played the game has dug their feet into a hazard with the specific intent of testing the condition of the hazard!
Who here will NOT admit that they've dug their feet not so much for the stance (how much solid footing do you need for a short, slow, non-torqued swing to execute a greenside bunker shot??), but rather for the precise purpose of testing the sand?  
Certainly not I.- Shivas

When I 'dig' into the surface of a greenside bunker I'm doing it to ensure that I get the clubhead under the ball along with more secure footing, and it helps keep my knees pointed toward the target.   When I barely 'dig' into the surface of a fairway bunker I'm doing it mainly for stability. Any feedback is limited and not the intent when taking the stance.  
By your own admission you have been breaking the rules, and not some rule as you interpret it.  If you're intention in the bunker is to be 'digging' in for purposes of testing the surface you should be calling the penalty on yourself. Of course, without an overt display of such activity no one except the player would be the wiser. Playing fairly and equitably does require the participation of the player.  
Contrary to the above, ink around the circumference of a golf ball, or splattered in any fashion the player chooses on the ball, carries no penalty as adjudged by the ruling bodies of the game.

You should probably give back any money you have won in the past for 'sandies'. 

[David Federman]

I think Cink's DQ because of a ridiculous rule/ruling is quite ironic as it stands in contrast to the fact that he was the beneficiary of a very controversial bunker/waste area ruling a few years back by which he was able to essentially improve his lie by removing so-called "loose impediments" behind his ball and make a play-off winning shot at the Heritage.

[TEPaul]

JohnC:

I agree with just about everything you said there and for those reasons I think this Rule should be changed to not penalize a player like Cink for doing what he did. What I don't agree with you on is that under the current Rules any really good Rules official should or would use Rule 1-4 to accommodate it. In my opinion, that really would be a violation of Rule 33-1 under the current Rules. This situation should be resolved within the Rules by a Rule's change to the Rules now dealing with this situation, probably in Rule 13-4 or a decision in it.