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

[Dan Herrmann]

Scenaio 1 -  What do I do if I'm playing as a single and the same thing happens?  Should I ignore the footprints I made in Bunker A?  Keep in mind that I want to post the score for handicap purposes, and must, therefore, follow the rules.   Of course I'd get a nasty letter from the club if I intentionally didn't rake up after myself!  (or do I just take a 7 - the max I can take?)

Scenario 2 - What if Bunker B has some gravel or other contamination?  Does that exempt the player that played from Bunker A because they had different types of sand?

=---------------------

(And, of course, we ALL use our feet to test the condition of the bunker!)

[JohnV]

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?

Unless his ball is in the bunker when he rakes he has no problem.  You can walk along and rake every bunker on the course until the moment that your ball comes to rest in a bunker.  Then you had better not touch one until you hit a shot from in the bunker.  Once the ball is out, you can go back to raking.

[JohnV]

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.

Exactly.  Equity is for things not covered by the rules.  The rules are very explicit about what you can do in a bunker and when you can do it.  If you do something at the wrong time you are subject to penalty.  Equity is not just to make you feel better about a rule you might disagree with.

[JohnV]

(And, of course, we ALL use our feet to test the condition of the bunker!)

Yet another honest man.... 

To quote from Decision 13-4/0.5 which is a new Decision that covers what is Testing and what isn't in pretty explicit detail.

ok:
"digging in with the feet for a stance, including a practice swing, anywhere in the hazard or in a similar hazard"

Not ok:
"digging in with the feet in excess of what would be done for a stance for a stroke or a practice swing"

So, it would come down to a judgement call by any official, which I'm not sure I'd want to make without being VERY sure.

[Garland Bayley]

(And, of course, we ALL use our feet to test the condition of the bunker!)

Yet another honest man.... 

Why do you think I suggested one of their recourses is to change to rule to require walking on air? You almost have to be brain dead not to be observing the sand through your feet.

EDIT: IMHO you almost have to be brain dead to make rules requiring this distinction.

ok:
"digging in with the feet for a stance, including a practice swing, anywhere in the hazard or in a similar hazard"

Not ok:
"digging in with the feet in excess of what would be done for a stance for a stroke or a practice swing"

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dave,
Just because you seem to be cheating when you are in a bunker doesn't mean everyone else does.

[RJ_Daley]

John

Then you had better not touch one until you hit a shot from in the bunker.

In Cink's case, you speak of not touching one (touching a bunker sand) until you hit from in "the" bunker.   But, he didn't hit the shot from "the" bunker previously touched-tested by the caddie, he hit if from "a" nother bunker. (sic,  He may have hit from many "other" bunkers that day, and tested them after the shot by raking and practice swinging after the ball was played.  But, he or his caddie didn't test "the" bunker he was currently in by raking.  

I know, I'm just being a pain in the butt, but still....  

[JohnV]

Dick,

It doesn't matter what he has done earlier in the day.  The rule says when your ball is in a bunker, you can't test that bunker or any other bunker until you've made a stroke at it. 

Scenarios:

1) My ball isn't in a bunker.  I can rake or test any bunker (as long as it isn't on my line of play).

2) Once my ball is in ANY bunker, I CAN NOT test or rake ANY bunker until I've hit a shot from the bunker.

3) If my ball stays in the bunker, I can rake the bunker where my ball was (may still be) as long as it doesn't improve my next shot.

4) If it went into another bunker, I'm back to case 2 for that new bunker, except that I can rake the first bunker or do anything else usually prohibited in that first bunker under Rule 13-4a.

5) Once my ball goes out of the bunker and is not in any other bunker, I'm back to case 1.  If I then hit it back into a bunker (including the one I was in before), I'm back to case 2 until I make another stroke at it.

[TEPaul]

"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."

Kalen:

You and Shivas really are a trip. Basically you have no real idea what the issues are here.

Of course a player in reality can effectively determine or test the condition of a hazard in the act of taking his stance and the Rules do not prohibit that. Take another look at how Rule 13-4 is written to that effect:

"EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE RULES,........the player must not......(and then Rule13-4 goes into what he must not do in a, b and c, and then it goes into three EXCEPTIONS to what he must not do).

Do you think it is PROVIDED for in the Rules that a player be allowed to firmly take his stance in a bunker? Of course it is! Do you think the Rules-makers aren't aware that a golfer can in reality determine the condition of a sand surface while he is being allowed to take his stance preparatory to hitting a ball in a bunker? Of course they are but what do you expect them to say---eg a golfer can't firmly take his stance before hitting a ball from a bunker?

You two guys need to appreciate better exactly what "EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE RULES", that are the first six words of Rule 13-4 really mean in these kinds of Rules situations.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Even though you explained to these guys when and why you can touch bunkers and when and why you can't would you mind explaining to Kalen and Shivas WHY the Rules of Golf allow a player to dig his feet firmly into a bunker in preparation for a shot? And you might also tell them that of course in reality that is allowing the player to test the condition of the hazard with his feet but that it's KIND OF NECESSARY TO LET HIM DO THAT ANYWAY. You may also need to tell them WHY that is kind of necessary. Shivas at least seems so concerned about all the little ways players might cheat he sometimes seems to forget that golfers actually do have to do various things necessary to hit a golf ball. Digging one's feet into a bunker happens to be one of them. I guess if a good Catholic thought he might actually be testing the condition of a bunker with his feet preparatory to hitting a shot from a bunker he ought to just go to confessional and repent his sin, huh?

[Kalen Braley]

Tom Paul,

I'm a little surprised, you left off the answer to the question in that same post you quoted me from...

'"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??"

The arbitrary nature of what a golfer is and isn't allowed to do is exactly the problem. It questions why the rule exists in the first place.  This is where the real issue lies.

[RJ_Daley]

That word in #2 "any" is a rediculously pedantic word.    It ougt to be "the" bunker.

3) If my ball stays in the bunker, I can rake the bunker where my ball was (may still be) as long as it doesn't improve my next shot.

I think I've seen this scenario on TV toonaments.  A fellow addresses his ball in the bunker and digs in to make his shot.  A swing and a miss or didn't get out, and the ball is either in same place or rolled back into same place.  Then, the player can rake the area where his feet dug in from first attempt, only to re dig in to take another swing, so long as he don't rake where the ball actually lies, that is OK and doesn't constitute testing.  Is that correct, John.  If so, how in the world can they call that equitable, and Cink's caddie testing-raking in a totally separate bunker 180 away a no-no, logically speaking?  

I know, because it is the rules and life is unfair and golf isn't always 'fair either', but still... I hope someone does something about it.  

[TEPaul]

Kalen:

I left off what you say is the answer to the question for the simple reason in my opinion I don't think it's any answer at all. I don't think it's even remotely relevent. It's basically just another slap at Rules-writers for reasons that are not true anyway. That you say they think like lawyers and a guy like Shivas doesn't is the most hilarious thing I've heard on here. The truth is precisely the opposite, in fact.

The problem with some of you guys is you see a problem and just complain about it, nothing more. I don't think many of you have the slightest idea what some of your solutions, if you ever even offer one, would result in with other confusions in other situations and other Rules. That is why John Vander Borght is so valuable on these kinds of threads---eg he can actually take the discussion through why some things are as they are and why trying to change them the way some on here suggest would create numerous unforeseen circumstances that most of the complainers aren't even remotely aware of.

[Garland Bayley]

If they just made the rule that we had to walk on air, then my feet would hurt a lot less after a round of golf.

[TEPaul]

"But you won't give any credence to the modifier that when the ball is on the green, a mark shall not be placed "anywhere to indicate a line for putting" in Rule 8-2(b)!   
Funny how the use of lawyerly caveat language is so noxious to you in one instance, but the basis for your views in another.
care to explain how this is not asking to have it both ways in this regard..."

Certainly Shivas:

I feel most of my job on here is to explain to the likes of you what the Rules actually mean with the language they use. It seems your pet peeve is to point out that the wording in some Rules may not be as clear or as well written as it could be.

I would stipulate to that and I think I always have going much farther back then this website or before I got to know you or your concerns about The Rules of Golf wording.

With Rule 8-2(b) despite your protestations to the contrary, the Rules-makers do not mean to include the golf ball and markings on it for identification purposes in the meaning of the wording "A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting" that's included in Rule 8-2(b).

You may even ask me again how I know that or ever came to know that as you did back then when we were having that discussion. Again, the reason I know that is all one has to do is ask them. Frankly, as much as I've been around golf and officiating I don't seem to recall any golfer EVER being confused by that wording as it relates to the markings on a golf ball, and there must be something in that, don't you think? 

If on the other hand there was mass confusion out there in that vein, perhaps then and only then would they feel the need to alter that wording to make it less confusing. 

Furthermore, I don't view the first six words in Rule 13-4 as "lawyerly caveat language". It's just some pretty basic and explanatory language if one simply reads it and contemplates what it means in various situations on a golf course when a player's golf ball is in and around a bunker. 

   

[TEPaul]

"If they just made the rule that we had to walk on air, then my feet would hurt a lot less after a round of golf. 

Sure, Kalen, if you put it just that way it seems reasonable and logical enough. If golfers had to walk into bunkers and hit bunker shots with their feet on air at least Shivas wouldn't have to worry as much as he seems to that they're cheating somehow. 

[James Bennett]

(And, of course, we ALL use our feet to test the condition of the bunker!)

Yet another honest man.... 

To quote from Decision 13-4/0.5 which is a new Decision that covers what is Testing and what isn't in pretty explicit detail.

ok:
"digging in with the feet for a stance, including a practice swing, anywhere in the hazard or in a similar hazard"

Not ok:
"digging in with the feet in excess of what would be done for a stance for a stroke or a practice swing"

So, it would come down to a judgement call by any official, which I'm not sure I'd want to make without being VERY sure.

so, we can have a judgement call by a rules official about whether digging ones feet into a hazard is testing the surface, but we can't have a judgement call about whether the raking of a bunker was testing the surface, even if your ball is in another bunker! 

I understand that we abide by the rules, and without rules we have anarchy, and that we have a number of GCA members here who write eloquently and are kind enough to educate us on the rules (and some who have enforced the public law) but, if it looks like a croc, it smells like a croc and it feels like a croc, even if the rules say it isn't a croc, IT IS A CROC.  Talk about the Emperor and his clothes (no, not Tommy N but Hans Christian Andersen's stories).

I expect under the future rules amendments, the rules will also say it is a croc, and then we will all be happy, for a while.

I previously thought disqualification was the worst possible penalty for golf, implying some serious misdemeanour.  Wow, raking a bunker means DQ if you don't call a penalty on yourself.

James B

[Jim_Kennedy]

Shiv,
What are stamps now,  $.41?  How many do you think you'll need for all those 'sandie rebate' checks you'll be sending out?  

[JohnV]

3) If my ball stays in the bunker, I can rake the bunker where my ball was (may still be) as long as it doesn't improve my next shot.

I think I've seen this scenario on TV toonaments.  A fellow addresses his ball in the bunker and digs in to make his shot.  A swing and a miss or didn't get out, and the ball is either in same place or rolled back into same place.  Then, the player can rake the area where his feet dug in from first attempt, only to re dig in to take another swing, so long as he don't rake where the ball actually lies, that is OK and doesn't constitute testing.  Is that correct, John.  If so, how in the world can they call that equitable, and Cink's caddie testing-raking in a totally separate bunker 180 away a no-no, logically speaking?  

He isn't considered to be testing the hazard because he has already played a shot from it so he got the knowledge.

BUT, he would be penalized for improving his stance for his next shot under Rule 13-2 rather than Rule 13-4.  See Exception #2 in Rule 13-4.

2. After making the stroke, if the ball is still in the hazard or has been lifted from the hazard and may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player may smooth sand or soil in the hazard, provided nothing is done to breach Rule 13-2 with respect to his next stroke. If the ball is outside the hazard after the stroke, the player may smooth sand or soil in the hazard without restriction

Then go read Rule 13-2 which says you can't improve the your area of stance by "creating or eliminating irregularites of surface"

[JohnV]

I previously thought disqualification was the worst possible penalty for golf, implying some serious misdemeanour.  Wow, raking a bunker means DQ if you don't call a penalty on yourself.

Any penalty means DQ if you don't call it on yourself.   You turn in a scorecard with a score that is too low because you didn't include a penalty and you are DQ'ed.  Even it is as little as moving your ball 1/10 of an inch.

Disclaimer: Assuming it becomes known before the close of competition (you're dumb, you goofed up or you cheated) or you knew you did it before the close and didn't say anything (you cheated).

Had to get that in before someone brings up Mark O'Meara in France.

[TEPaul]

"so, we can have a judgement call by a rules official about whether digging ones feet into a hazard is testing the surface, but we can't have a judgement call about whether the raking of a bunker was testing the surface, even if your ball is in another bunker!"

James:

That's a good point but there is a good reason to have a judgement call in the first example and not in the second. In the first example no actual definition is found about what consitutes testing the surface of a bunker in digging your feet in preparatory to a bunker shot and so a judgement call is necessary and sometimes warranted.

In the second example, if you're referring to the recent Cink situation, it is simply a matter of the fact of whether Cink's first shot was at a ball that was in a bunker or not (although his foot was). That is the extent of the judgement that needs to be reached as the Rules are currently written regarding his situation and I don't think even Cink for a moment considered disputing that or even questioning it.

On the matter of DQ, for some reason most all golfers believe that no matter what the circumstances are relating to the disqualification of a player there necessarily must be some opprobrium connected to it. That is not the case at all as Richard Tuft's eloquently points out in "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf."

DQ is strictly procedural and like most things in the Rules whatever a player's intent with the situation in the Rules infraction has nothing much to do with it, other than in rare cases such as why he was late to a tee time in a limited timeframe. 

[Kalen Braley]

Tom Paul,

But I did offer a suggestion, and that would be to make that action legal.   And if it becomes an issue with guys walking in bunkers on purpose, just so they can rake them to "learn" about them, then by all means, make it a judgement call.  How hard is that? After all, the rules book is full of stipulations and judgement calls, is it not?

My criticsm is not directed at a rules enforcer, but at a rules creater.  If JVB officiates, he is bound by the rules of the game.  My question is aimed at those who create/maintain/modify the rules. And I think its very relevant!!

On a broader note, the underlying dilemma, as best as I can tell, has not been laid out in this thread.  And that is, just exactly what does Cink gain by having his caddy rake that bunker?  What information could his Caddy possibly convey to unravel the mystery of playing his next shot out of an entirely different bunker, with entirely different shot requirements?  Especially in light of the fact that he gets to go stand in that bunker and dig his heels in.

This whole thing reminds of a hunting parallel.  I was reading an article about hunting in a local newspaper.  The basic gist of it was, some hunter was peeved off because someone used lights to hunt and kill a deer.  Yet....its ok to dress in camoflauge, its ok to use artifical deer calling equipment, its ok to bathe in deer urine, its OK to use fake decoys, etc, etc. on the list goes off all type of artifical means to lure the deer in and make an "ethical" kill.  Yet heaven forbid, someone pull out a flashlight and they've committed an unpardonable sin and should be hung up by thier thumbs.

So its OK for a player to walk in the bunker, its OK for him to tromp around, its OK for him to dig his heels in, its OK for him to "accidentally" fall and ground his club, its OK to bend over and inspect the lie closely....but heaven forbid, don't let that rake touch the sand when said player has another upcoming bunker shot , FROM A DIFFERENT BUNKER, and he's crossed the line....what is that???  This is the arbitrary nature of this ruling that makes one scratch thier head.

P.S. As for Shivas thinking this is absurd, this is just all the more justifcation for my viewpoint.  He's a lawyer and even he thinks this is over the top...if thats not proof enough, then I don't know what is.   

[TEPaul]

"My criticsm is not directed at a rules enforcer, but at a rules creater."

Kalen:

I realize that. I called them rules-writers and you call them rules creators. It's the same thing and the same people.

I don't agree with what you say on that at all. I've known a lot of those people over the years and talked to them at length about all the niggling little confusions and logic that goes into writing and interpreting golf's Rules. The problem with most people is they think the Rules should be always in the context and perhaps structure of law, for instance, civil or even criminal---in that every single situation should be analyzed and ruled on only on its own unique situational merits. The Rules of Golf shouldn't ever be that way, and there is a very good reason for that which goes directly to the history and traditions and even the spirit of golf itself.

Frankly, the only thing I see somewhat wrong and dangerous on the horizon is that some of these rules-writers and interpreters are trying to get too far onto the side of equity and fairness in too many exceptional situations that don't need that in golf or its Rules. And that last statement is coming from a guy whose fellow Rules officials and acquaintenances probably consider to be about as liberal in most situational judgements as the Rules will possibly allow.

[Kalen Braley]

TomP,

I fully agree that the rules-writers are in a tight spots from some of the rules.  And this is all the more reason why judgement calls and local interpretation should be the way to go, because context IS important.  Its easy to say a ball went OB, and apply the rule the same in every situation...not as easy to make a Cink ruling. 

Going back to a previous post, a judgement call can be made as to whether a player is building a stance in a bunker, or trying to dig down deep to determine bunker conditions.  Why can't this same type of local discernment be applied in this situation?

Consider this scenario:

Two players on a hole, where Player A is in the middle of the fairway, and Player B is lying adjacent to a bunker.  Player A walks dozens of yards out of his way into a bunker with the alleged reason of getting a good look at the approach shot from a varied angle.  Player B, takes a couple of steps into a bunker so he can look at his intended ball flight from directly behind the ball.

In this scenario, is it really that difficult to ascertain that Player A may have actually indeed been trying to see what the bunker conditions were like, and Player B was just trying to see the path of his ball to the green?  Can this not be a judgement call?  Wouldn't this context carry a lot more meaning than just a blanket ruling?  I've always perceived rules officials as very intelligent and on top of things...would this be too difficult to get the spirit of the violation right on this one?

In computer terms, golf is not a game of on and off, 0's and 1s, but a game of creativity, imagination, and figuring stuff out.  Why have every facet of the game be this way, and yet try to fit a square peg into a round hole by making the rules be 0's and 1's?

[James Bennett]

DQ is strictly procedural and like most things in the Rules whatever a player's intent with the situation in the Rules infraction has nothing much to do with it, other than in rare cases such as why he was late to a tee time in a limited timeframe. 

Thanks Tom,  DQ is not the blight on one's character that many of us think it is.  Although very few club members would understand that.

And to John VB,  thanks for the explanations, as always.

James B