Oh My Lord, if this "grounding club in waste bunker" happens...

[Carl Johnson]

Great topic, but let's relate to the connection between "architecture" and "rules."  Or, "architecture" and something.  For example, I did not know the "they-are-all-bunkers" rule for this event.  Still, if I had, what is "they"?  As a competitor, you'd assume a pro's conservatism.  As a golfer, I'd ask, what is "they"?

The PGA made a bad call declaring them all bunkers and not waste areas. They made a worse call with the penalty. His ball was sitting on grass. I won't even say what I would have done in his situation after they made that call. I can tell you for certain it wouldn't have been civil and gentlemanly though.

O.K., but getting back to rules and architecture (and course maintenance?).  John Moore: "The PGA made a bad call declaring them all bunkers and not waste areas."  How did the PGA define "them"?  I suppose I could Google this, but does any one know the wording?  Jim Nantz, who I normally would not quote, said something later when one of the playoff contestants hit one off the fairway, like, "is this maybe a tiny bunker"?  I liked that.  Simplistic, but the next obvious question is, "How does the architect (Dye, here) deal with the issue, "Am I designing a bunker or a waste area?"  Or, again simplistically, does he do whatever and let the rules guys take it from there?  [Personally, when I saw Johnson (no relation) first ground his club, I said to my wife next to me on the couch, "Whoa, is that a bunker or not?"  Easy call from the couch.  Not in the heat of championship battle on the golf course.]

[Philippe Binette]

Where was the official ?

I mean, an official there should have come and said: Dustin, you're in a bunker.


If I was Dustin Johnson: I'd say OK, come over to the spot and I want you to define the edge of the entire bunker, so we can determine what is a hazard and what's not ?

My ball cannot be IN a hazard if you can't circle and close the shape of the bunker... If you can't, I'm not IN something... you're not IN a room if there's only 2 walls...

[ChipRoyce]

The rule of golf is all about technicalities. Based on the technicalities, its absolutely Dustin's fault. He should have read the rule sheet and taken control of the situation and the gallery before ever putting a club in his hand.

That said, its still the PGA's fault for the outcome due to how they set up the course and local rules. There's so much sand out there in unstructured forms that how can anyone tell what is a bunker or not if its not marked? Technically, walking around with a club in your hand and touching the ground in many places should invoke a 2 stroke penalty.

Folks wonder why golf is in decline. This event is meant to be a long-form commercial for the PGA and golf in the US. Based on today's results, throw away any goodwill created by the event. I imagine that the public will be scared away from taking up the game due to the complexity of the rules and perceived unfairness dealt to Mr. Johnson.

[Scott Coan]

There were literally hundreds of people crammed up on that 18th hillside.  Let's say one of the kids decided to build some sand castles, and took a bucketful and plopped it down on the fescue and then spread it all around.  Does that then become a bunker?  Where does DJ's "bunker" start and end?

[jeffwarne]

Phil,

At Kiawah, for everyday play all sand is "waste area", including greenside areas. In several cases there are greenside "bunkers" that are used as cartpaths - all cartpaths on the Ocean Course are sand.

That's a copout at Kiawah to make them waste (they actually are hazards and gallery footprints make them moreso!)
WS and the PGA  had it right.
I did notice Tiger got an embedded ball ruling in sand outside a bunker-why wasn't that a (small) bunker?
I do question where was the rules official in the final group and I also thought that gallery was way too close as he hit that shot.

Dustin is a class act (and no doubt will read his rules sheet in the future)

Nice to see the PGA let them play golf and not the nonsense we saw at Pebble

[PThomas]

Dustin blew it...the rule is the rule...what were they supposed to say:"Oh never mind, we will just say that one was a waste bunker"

Unfortunate, but if any doubt he should have asked for a ruling

[V. Kmetz]

Brad,

As a lifelong Caddie, and a Caddie who sometimes worked with elite players at top amateur and local professional tournaments, I absolutely resent that remark.

where is that f'n written?

You may find a way to say that it's DJ's responsibility, but how in christ's name can you blame the Caddie when you had 12 cameras and 6 commentators, one of which an elite major champion, others elite players and elite instructors and not one of them identified it as an area under the definition of this local rule...?

We have rightfully heard and entertained talk that the area where Johnson's ball lay was no longer the bunker it was at the end of the week, it is a debatable point - but no, the Caddie should have known.

what was the yardage Brad? - I guess he just shot it with a Bushnell

Tell me where you regularly play with a Caddie and let me promulgate your thoughts amongst that club's yard...your opinions should be known by the trade you accuse.

cheers

vk

[Steve Lapper]

On the replay, it looks like Dustin Johnson steps right up to the ball and grounds his club, then takes a step back to see what he was in. He's quick to play -- too quick. And it's his caddie's responsibility to remind him before he has a club in his hands.

It might be an odd delineation of the golf course, but everyone knew about it beforehand, though if CBS was in on the production meeting when the rule came up Wednesday they blew the call at the time on Sunday afternoon.

Brad,

   You are 100% right, but it still doesn't immunize the course's architect, owner, or the PGA from the reality that the excessive and unnecessary sand "Pit or Zits" played a fateful and unfortunate role in determining the golf tournament. I do like some of Pete's work elsewhere, but have always felt WS was an exercise in runaway ego and contemporary vanity.

[Tim Bert]

On the replay, it looks like Dustin Johnson steps right up to the ball and grounds his club, then takes a step back to see what he was in. He's quick to play -- too quick. And it's his caddie's responsibility to remind him before he has a club in his hands.

It might be an odd delineation of the golf course, but everyone knew about it beforehand, though if CBS was in on the production meeting when the rule came up Wednesday they blew the call at the time on Sunday afternoon.

Brad I thought that too originally, but if you watch closely I actually think he steps back because of the little patch of light.  It looks like he is examining the edge of the bunker as if he might have realized what he's done.  But the edge of the bunker is also right where that light was and he immediately asks the crowd for help on the light after that moment.

[John Moore II]

Great topic, but let's relate to the connection between "architecture" and "rules."  Or, "architecture" and something.  For example, I did not know the "they-are-all-bunkers" rule for this event.  Still, if I had, what is "they"?  As a competitor, you'd assume a pro's conservatism.  As a golfer, I'd ask, what is "they"?

The PGA made a bad call declaring them all bunkers and not waste areas. They made a worse call with the penalty. His ball was sitting on grass. I won't even say what I would have done in his situation after they made that call. I can tell you for certain it wouldn't have been civil and gentlemanly though.

O.K., but getting back to rules and architecture (and course maintenance?).  John Moore: "The PGA made a bad call declaring them all bunkers and not waste areas."  How did the PGA define "them"?  I suppose I could Google this, but does any one know the wording?  Jim Nantz, who I normally would not quote, said something later when one of the playoff contestants hit one off the fairway, like, "is this maybe a tiny bunker"?  I liked that.  Simplistic, but the next obvious question is, "How does the architect (Dye, here) deal with the issue, "Am I designing a bunker or a waste area?"  Or, again simplistically, does he do whatever and let the rules guys take it from there?

From what I understand a 'bunker' was defined as any sandy area. But that is the fault of the whole thing. These areas are inside the gallery ropes, trampled on, with clods of grass and pieces of trash. That is the problem. Rather than declare the whole area a waste bunker, they went the other way. There is no advantage gained by being able to ground your club in a bunker/sandy area.

[Phil_the_Author]

Phillipe,

"Where was the official ? I mean, an official there should have come and said: Dustin, you're in a bunker."

Wrong. The official's job is to remain silent and not to speak until spoken to. If he is not directly asked for advice he cannot and should not offer any. Doing so provides the player an advantage over the rest of the field, the same way that if a fellow competitor sees an infraction and doesn't report it he has failed to live up to his repsonsibility to protect the rest of the field.

All players were given direct instructions. The most telling proof that this was wrong on Dustin's part was during the television interview where he stated that "next time I'll have to read the handout more carefully..." or words to that effect.

Those who have rightly excoriated Michelle Wie in the past for not knowing the rules need to recognize that the rules were clearly spelled out for Justin and and all the opther competitors and done so specifically because the SAME INFRACTION hurt a player here during the previous PGA championship just 6 years ago.

We all feel for Justin, but he was wrong...

[Brad Klein]

Tim,

May well be -- your account is plausible. But DJ sure does try weird things quickly -- like the mid-iron bunker shot for his second on the par-5 16th. Or his play on the 2nd-3rd-4th holes Sunday at Pebble Beach. Though it worked out on the 16th hole at Whistling Straits,  he plays so quickly it hardly looks as if he is thinking a whole lot. And based upon the caddie's body language in the scorer's area later, it looks like he did not speak up at all. Sad outcome, but it's not the PGA's fault here.

I fear consequences, you'll see lots of demands for redesigns now. Just ask Coore & Crenshaw about what the PGA Tour did to their bunkers at Kapalua-Plantation.

[mike_malone]

 As I explain this to my nongolfing wife and she sees the aerial of #18  she says "It looks like putt-putt". That's the architectural point. This highly contrived course is not suitable for a major.

[Carl Johnson]

Great topic, but let's relate to the connection between "architecture" and "rules."  Or, "architecture" and something.  For example, I did not know the "they-are-all-bunkers" rule for this event.  Still, if I had, what is "they"?  As a competitor, you'd assume a pro's conservatism.  As a golfer, I'd ask, what is "they"?

The PGA made a bad call declaring them all bunkers and not waste areas. They made a worse call with the penalty. His ball was sitting on grass. I won't even say what I would have done in his situation after they made that call. I can tell you for certain it wouldn't have been civil and gentlemanly though.

O.K., but getting back to rules and architecture (and course maintenance?).  John Moore: "The PGA made a bad call declaring them all bunkers and not waste areas."  How did the PGA define "them"?  I suppose I could Google this, but does any one know the wording?  Jim Nantz, who I normally would not quote, said something later when one of the playoff contestants hit one off the fairway, like, "is this maybe a tiny bunker"?  I liked that.  Simplistic, but the next obvious question is, "How does the architect (Dye, here) deal with the issue, "Am I designing a bunker or a waste area?"  Or, again simplistically, does he do whatever and let the rules guys take it from there?

From what I understand a 'bunker' was defined as any sandy area. But that is the fault of the whole thing. These areas are inside the gallery ropes, trampled on, with clods of grass and pieces of trash. That is the problem. Rather than declare the whole area a waste bunker, they went the other way. There is no advantage gained by being able to ground your club in a bunker/sandy area.

Any architects or architectural experts wish to chime in on this part of the question (red above)?

[Bob_Huntley]

At MPCC, bunkers have rakes in them, waste areas are do not.

I have always thought that Dye was profligate in the bunkering at WS and the whole course looks contrived.

Dustin Johnson should get the de Vicenzo award for being so pleasant and accepting of the punishment for his infraction. I shall be rooting for him in the future.


Bob

[Carl Johnson]

Great topic, but let's relate to the connection between "architecture" and "rules."  Or, "architecture" and something.  For example, I did not know the "they-are-all-bunkers" rule for this event.  Still, if I had, what is "they"?  As a competitor, you'd assume a pro's conservatism.  As a golfer, I'd ask, what is "they"?

The PGA made a bad call declaring them all bunkers and not waste areas. They made a worse call with the penalty. His ball was sitting on grass. I won't even say what I would have done in his situation after they made that call. I can tell you for certain it wouldn't have been civil and gentlemanly though.

O.K., but getting back to rules and architecture (and course maintenance?).  John Moore: "The PGA made a bad call declaring them all bunkers and not waste areas."  How did the PGA define "them"?  I suppose I could Google this, but does any one know the wording?  Jim Nantz, who I normally would not quote, said something later when one of the playoff contestants hit one off the fairway, like, "is this maybe a tiny bunker"?  I liked that.  Simplistic, but the next obvious question is, "How does the architect (Dye, here) deal with the issue, "Am I designing a bunker or a waste area?"  Or, again simplistically, does he do whatever and let the rules guys take it from there?

From what I understand a 'bunker' was defined as any sandy area. But that is the fault of the whole thing. These areas are inside the gallery ropes, trampled on, with clods of grass and pieces of trash. That is the problem. Rather than declare the whole area a waste bunker, they went the other way. There is no advantage gained by being able to ground your club in a bunker/sandy area.

Any architects or architectural experts wish to chime in on this part of the question (red above)?

I just pick this up from the AP:

Local rule for the PGA at WS:

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 form these conditions.

Note 1: The sand area in front, left and behind No. 5 green in the later water hazard is NOT a bunker (do not move stones).

Note 2: Where necessary, blue dots define the margin of a bunker.
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/15/1625039/rule-on-bunkers-at-whistling-straits.html#ixzz0wj5dd4EE

Perfect: how do we know whether the architect "designed" an "area" as a "sand bunker" [hazard]. . . or as something else?  How does the architect answer this question?

[Mike Hendren]

Can't believe I missed this.  When was Johnson notified that there was a problem?  After he holed out?  When did the announcers catch on?  Please catch us up to date.  Thanks.

Mike

[John Moore II]

Carl Johnson-Exactly. Even given the wording of the local rule, its still not clear. How do we know if this sand hole 50 yards  outside the line of play was designed to be a bunker? Its still a very ambiguous definition. I think the architecture of the course is fine as is, but those areas certainly need to be defined as waste areas and I strongly suspect that is how they are classified during daily resort play.

[TEPaul]

V kmetz:

I've just scanned some of these replies but from all I heard in that telecast Brad Klein is probably right or the most right so far (in my opinion at this time). I had no idea how the PGA Tournament Committee was going to resolve it but the chairman of the Tournament Committee who Feherty interviewed towards the end of the telecast seemed to pretty much explain correctly within the entire context of the Rules of that tournament and all others anything like it that includes what are called the "Conditions of Competiton.

It's the way the Tournament Committee set that course up via what it basically known (in the Rules of Golf---eg in Appendix 1, Part C) as "The Conditions of Competition" that are technically part of the Rules of Golf for any tournament, and the "Conditions of Competition" can definitely vary from tournament to tournament and all knowledgeable competitors know that or certainly should. They (The Conditions of Competition) can be posted, put on a sheet handed out to all the competitors before they tee off etc or any and all of the above. The point of tournament administration in this vein is to make all competitors aware of them or give them the best opportunity to be aware of them.

That Tournament Official (Rules Official) who was apparently the Chairman of the "Tournament Committee" explained that THAT "Condition" of Competition (all the sand areas out there that apparently remotely looked like bunkers) was basically posted all over the place for the players and probably handed to them on a "Conditions of Competition" sheet before the players tee off in any of their rounds.

That man (was his name Wilson?) seemed to say that any sand areas out there whether they were inside or outside the ropes and whether they had footprints in them (spectator or otherwise) or even tire tracks or whatever where considered to be Hazards (Bunkers) in which the player cannot ground his club if it is lying in or touching sand (or even sandy dirt and the like within those bunkers).

Johnson and his caddie should have known that----eg they should have read and carefully considered that "Condition" (of Competition"), particularly on a golf course like that one that apparently has over a thousand bunkers, and if they had any doubts anywhere during the tournament they should have just asked a Rules Official in any particular situation to protect the player's interest. Knowing the Rules of Golf, including all the "Conditions of Competition," is essentially the player's responsibility and no one else's.

NOW, should a Rules Official on hand have made Johnson aware of this "Condition" if neither Johnson nor his caddie asked him? Well, THAT is where this stuff gets really complicated. I (and I do Rules officiating at a regional and state level for many years) feel a Rules Official should do that if he feels a player may unknowingly be about to violate a Rule. This is pretty much technically not giving the player "Advice" in contrvention of the Rules of Golf, but I am not in the majority in that, I don't think, amongst all Rules Officials and even really good ones.

Those Rules Officials who think differently than me that way all know that offering the player that knowledge, even if he does not ask, is technically not a violation of Rule 8-1 (Advice), but they sort of go with over-all philosophy of "equity" (in this case to and for the entire field) that way because they feel if all the competitors may not have had the same warning or knowledge offered to them in any situation throughout the tournament, or even become penalized for not knowing this until later if no Rules Official was around, then this particular one (Johnson) or any other one should not have it offered to him either if he fails to ask before the infraction.

[Jim Sweeney]

At two recent Mid Am championships- Sea Island and Bandon- we had to define what were and were not bunkers. AT BAndon we actually staked areas where the bunker bled into the surroundsi if your ball was inside the stakes, it was in the bunker. I do not recall having any problems, but the opportunity was certainly present.

I've not been to WS. But with so many bunkers, one can imagine what a nightmare it would be to delineate what was to be treated as a bunker and what was "trough the green." (There is no such thing as a waste area in the rules of golf.)

Therefore, the PGA did exactly the right thing- eliminate the questions by making sure the players know that they are all bunkers. If you're in one, you're in a hazard. There are often bunkers in play that are outside the ropes. The question had been answered ahead of time. That is why golf courses are marked and local rules are distributed- to answer the questions before they are asked, as much as possible.

Phillip Young: It is not the Rules Official's role to keep silent. A good rules official will always try to  intercede to stop a potential infraction if he sees it coming. He won't always be able to do so, of course, things can happen too fast. But he tries.

[jeffwarne]

Therefore, the PGA did exactly the right thing- eliminate the questions by making sure the players know that they are all bunkers. If you're in one, you're in a hazard. There are often bunkers in play that are outside the ropes. The question had been answered ahead of time. That is why golf courses are marked and local rules are distributed- to answer the questions before they are asked, as much as possible.

Phillip Young: It is not the Rules Official's role to keep silent. A good rules official will always try to  intercede to stop a potential infraction if he sees it coming. He won't always be able to do so, of course, things can happen too fast. But he tries.

The guy was leading the tournament, his fellow competitor deeply out of contention and in the fairway.
Again I ask, where was the rules official with all that was going on with the crowd, his ball etc.?

[David_Tepper]

Philip Young -

You are absolutely correct. It was not the responsibility or obligation of the rules official to offer a ruling or opinion unless it was asked for by the player. No one would expect a rules official to remind a player to return his ballmark to its original position after it had been moved out of another player's line on the putting green. This situation was no different.

If there was the slightest doubt in DJ's mind (and, if he had read the local rules well circulated among the players, there should have been), he should have asked the rules official for a ruling. End of an unfortunate story.

DT  

[Jason Connor]

Even accepting rule #1, it's clear DJ was very close to the bunker's boundary.

Was that the boundary as designed?  As constructed?  What if precisely where the ball was is a corner that got kicked out by the crowd during the course of the week?

I agree that it's DJs responsibility to read, know & follow the rules. But the awful, contrived golf course led to the situation.

[Carl Johnson]

Carl Johnson-Exactly. Even given the wording of the local rule, its still not clear. How do we know if this sand hole 50 yards  outside the line of play was designed to be a bunker? Its still a very ambiguous definition. I think the architecture of the course is fine as is, but those areas certainly need to be defined as waste areas and I strongly suspect that is how they are classified during daily resort play.

Right, John, that's the point.  Given the wording of the rule, we not only have to know how the purpose with which the sandy area was designed, but also, the purpose with which it was constructed.  In law, a fundamental rule of construction is that you don't find intent by asking the draftsman or the parties, you look at extrinsic facts.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, how would you apply that rule here?  Based on the way the area was treated by the course managers for the event, spectators tromping, etc., allowed, the extrinsic facts would lead me to the waste area conclusion, not a bunker.  This is just off hand.  Again, I'd like to hear what an architect or "constructor" thinks of the wording of the rule.

[Jim Sweeney]

TEPaul: I agree that a rules official should not walk around telling the competiors who is in a hazard, who isn't etc. Rule 6, The PLayer, clearly states that it is the player's and his caddie's respnsibility to know the rules, the local rules, and the conditions of the competition. When officiating I don't baby sit the players. I am ready to help them whenever possible, especially if I see something untoward about to happen. Although I understand your statement about concerningn "equity," I am compelled to say that I don't think "equity" as used in the rule book has anything to do with not informing a player of his position on the course. But that is another discussion, perhaps.

Jeffware: It really doesn't matter where the official was, It sounds like DJ stepped up and placed his club on the ground behind the ball so quickly that even if the official was right next to him (and I bet he was pretty darn close) he would not have been able to stop the infraction. It was not his responsibility to inform DJ that he was in a bunker.