[Dale Jackson]

"Can someone explain what the downside would have been to declaring that a waste area? Honest question, not casting aspersions..."

Really good question.  As a rules official let me try to provide some insight.  It is an all or nothing thing, with over 1000 of these things on the course, it is simply not practical to deal with everyone on an individual basis.  So before the tournament began a determination was needed on what the status of the "bunkers" was.  The PGA felt (and for what it is worth, I concur) that the easiest solution for all involved was to confirm all areas to be bunkers.  Was that going to be potentially tricky, knowing some of the bunkers would be in areas the galleries would be positioned?  Of course.

But consider the alternative of declaring some to be "through the green" - there is no such thing as a waste area in the rules - now players would need to be able to tell what was a bunker and what was not.  How would that be worded and marked.  I am not sure it can be done practically.  

Someone suggested having a rake at all bunkers and nothing at other areas.  Inevitably, in areas where the gallery walked, some rakes would go missing, other moved about.  Now you have a situation where one player earlier in the tournament could find a rake at a bunker and later another doesn't and the same area is treated by a bunker by one player and not by another.

In conducting a tournament, the goal is to make the tournament as fair as possible for the players.  This course was always going to be difficult to conduct a major tournament and the job of the Committee was challenging.  By making all bunkers the same and posting that on the Notice to Competitors, I believe they achieved the best they could under the circumstances.

A couple of notes.

Some have questioned Mark Wilson the Rules Chair for the PGA.  I have met and talked at length with Mark and he is an extremely capable rules official, with considerable experience at the PGA and other major events.

As has been stated by almost everyone, I feel for Dustin, what he has gone through at Pebble and especially Whistling Straits is heart wrenching.  His statement that he had not read the Notice to Competitors is true of probably over 90% of the players.  I do not understand why players who make their living at golf do not take the time to know the rules of golf and pay attention to the information about local conditions provided to them.

And I really do not understand why caddies do not pay more attention to know the rules of golf and pay attantion to the information about local conditions provided to their players.  If I was ever asked the most important and easiest thing for a caddie to be better at his job, it would be to take a USGA or R&A rules seminar.

[George Pazin]

Thanks, Dale!

[rboyce]

Let me understand. Stewart Cink can draw a line in the sand behind his ball and that's playing fair. Ernie Els gets a free drop from a wood pile that is 75 yards into the woods. Tiger Woods can have the gallery move boulders out of his way. But, DJ can't gently toe his iron in an sandy area through the green?

There is NO horse sense in this ruing. It's utterly foolish.

Read Pete Dye's books. They talk about waste areas. Waste areas exist whether or not you close your eyes and ears and hum. For the ruliing bodies to deny their existence is a failure of those organizations. If it is hard to conduct a championship on this course then don't play there.

[Anthony Butler]

I agree, the whole point of this situation is to make everyone sitting on their couch at home feel intellectually superior to Dustin Johnson. All the so called moral arbiters, rules experts and Monday morning quarterbacks have neatly encapsulated why a moron like Sarah Palin has a political future in this country.

Are you serious?  The first thing I thought of was "shoot, he's in a bunker, that'll be a tough shot" when his drive landed.  The lip looks to be at least 2 feet higher than ball by the way the spectator is sitting on it.  I didn't know "worn walking paths" had 2 foot high edges to them.  Not to mention, where were the other "worn walking paths" on the course that blew up clouds of sand when hit out of?  Oh right, there weren't any....

It's one thing to feel bad for DJ (I certainly do, tough year for the guy), but the excuses are unfathomable.  It's clear as day it's a bunker easily found anywhere on WS.  Way to fit a political dig into the conversation too, it's certainly topical.

I agree, it looked pretty clearly like a bunker to me. And, the talk that there was no lip was crazy since there was a lip about 2 feet from his ball. It seemed like Feherty felt really badly for DJ and was dreaming up any excuse he could for the guy.

David,

I think you might have missed my original point... perhaps because the previous responder to my post conveniently removed the post I originally commented on. There's already enough talk on the ruling and the physical appearance of the shot. I just don't think it's clear enough to accuse Dustin Johnson of being an idiot which is what a bunch of people have done here at GCA. Think of all the mental meltdowns and/or rulings mistakes that have happened in championship golf... Mickelson at WF, Stuart Cink at Harbor Town, Michelle Wie (wherever)... very seldom does the element of 'he only went to Coastal Carolina on a golf scholarship so he can't be that bright' come into the discussion.

My two cents... you can go to practically any tour venue and by Sunday afternoon a lot of gallery areas look pretty much the same as where Johnson played his second shot from. The lip for what it's worth could be explained by the fact he was on a steep slope. After all the original bunkers weren't created by Pete Dye creating sand traps by the dollar for a billionaire toilet fixture magnate, but by animals standing together on a slope sheltering from the elements.

If that's not an apt description of a PGA Tour crowd at 7pm on a Sunday I don't know what is.

The PGA can put out all the yellow memos they want, but when they allow 10,000 people to stand in a hazard for the entire tournament, drink beer and throw the empties all around, I think we've identified duller knives in the draw than Dustin Johnson.

[Phil McDade]

GCA's John Vander Borght weighs in on the controversy at WS on his blog:

http://freedrop.wordpress.com/

[Anthony Butler]

GCA's John Vander Borght weighs in on the controversy at WS on his blog:

http://freedrop.wordpress.com/

It sure looks like a bunker on the graphic they throw up, which of course looked nothing like what Johnson found after 40,00 feet had moved through the area. If Nantz and the CBS crew knew it was a bunker (from the close attention they were paying at Wednesday's production meeting) you think someone might have said something when Johnson grounded his club next to the ball...

Crickets... I'm hearing crickets.

[Matthew Petersen]

What bothered me was that while i think the larger sandy area was clearly a man-made bunker, from the limited views I saw of the area I was not at all convinced that where DJ's ball lay wasn't in a place typically outside of the confines of that bunker where san had piled up due to thousands of spectators walking by. How then do you define the edge of the hazard? Surely a hazard isn't any place where there's sand, otherwise--as someone else said--a sand-filled divot becomes a micro bunker.

After the ruling came down, someone with CBS explicitly asked that question of the rules official--did you consider whether he was within the actual bunker or if that was an area where sand had been kicked to--and the rules official said they never even considered that question. For such a big ruling, that really bothered me. Again, the TV never showed an angle to resolved the question to my satisfaction, but I was never fully convinced that he was reasonably within the boundary of a hazard.

Nonetheless, the error is still ultimately Dustin's. If your ball is laying on sand, it is certainly in your best interest to at least consider whether it is a hazard or not.

And one final point: Watney said DJ never wavered and immediately admitted he had grounded his club. It seems the only question was ever whether he was in a bunker or not, which makes the lack of any inquiry into where the bunker's actual edge was all the more strange to me.

[Richard Choi]

Bogey, I do not believe you have to play the course to realize that a "bunker" where spectators and even marshalls are standing there with you while you take the shot should not play as a bunker. The only reason they did it is to play up the marketing aspect of Whistling Straits and its "thousands" of bunkers.

All they had to do was to say that all bunkers outside the ropes is a waste area. It is a cop out to say that they couldn't do that because it would cross bunkers. Do they allow people into those bunkers? I think not. I am pretty sure they have roped off all areas where people are allowed to walk.

It is especially surprising since we have a whole thread about how detailed Pete Dye is. I guess he never thought about how his bunkers would look after tens of thousands of people walk over it. It is not like these bunkers are natural blowout bunkers where you cannot exactly control where they are. These were all manufactured. Like it or not, Pete Dye invited results like this.

It was GOOFY to have people trample over bunkers in play. You should not be surprised to have a goofy result from it.

[George Pazin]

AB, even Jim Nantz can get lucky every now and then...

Following up on Richard's last post, and combining it with my earlier question which Dale addressed, perhaps a simple solution would be to say a bunker inside the ropes is a bunker, but if you allow spectators in it, it's through the green.

[Phil McDade]

Richard:

If you haven't walked WS extensively, as I have, this comment makes little sense:

"Do they allow people into those bunkers? I think not. I am pretty sure they have roped off all areas where people are allowed to walk."

This is not Oakmont, or Medinah, or Hazeltine, with clearly defined bunkering. It's more akin to Pinehurst, or Kiawah, or Pine Valley, where the distinction between bunkers and not-bunkers can be vague. You may think that makes it a lesser course, architectureally. That's fine, but if you tried to keep everyone at a PGA Championship away from all of the bunkers at WS, you'd either have a tournament few spectators could watch, or one in which few would be admitted.

[Tim Pitner]

Richard:

If you haven't walked WS extensively, as I have, this comment makes little sense:

"Do they allow people into those bunkers? I think not. I am pretty sure they have roped off all areas where people are allowed to walk."

This is not Oakmont, or Medinah, or Hazeltine, with clearly defined bunkering. It's more akin to Pinehurst, or Kiawah, or Pine Valley, where the distinction between bunkers and not-bunkers can be vague. You may think that makes it a lesser course, architectureally. That's fine, but if you tried to keep everyone at a PGA Championship away from all of the bunkers at WS, you'd either have a tournament few spectators could watch, or one in which few would be admitted.

Phil,

At Kiawah, the waste areas line the fairways--they're enormous and everyone knows they're waste areas.  It's not at all like Whistling Straits with its thousands of small trench and pot bunkers. 

You seem to concede the point--if you can't put spectators on the course without intruding on the bunkers, what does that say about the bunkering scheme at WS?  To me, it says it's superfluous and over the top.  In addition, if Dye designed WS to be a major championship venue (which was one of your arguments in defense of WS), why didn't they leave any room for spectators other than in sand?  Remember everything you see, except the lake, is artificial. 

With that said, there's no excuse for Johnson and his caddie not to know the rule in play.  The fact that Watney appeared not to know it either doesn't absolve Johnson. 

[Jason Connor]

What bothered me was that while i think the larger sandy area was clearly a man-made bunker, from the limited views I saw of the area I was not at all convinced that where DJ's ball lay wasn't in a place typically outside of the confines of that bunker where san had piled up due to thousands of spectators walking by.

It seems the only question was ever whether he was in a bunker or not, which makes the lack of any inquiry into where the bunker's actual edge was all the more strange to me.

I agree completely and this has been one of my main concerns. Given the rule says "All areas of the course that were designed and built as sand bunkers will be played as bunkers (hazards)..."   

DJ was clearly near the edge.  There was no lip near his ball to define a boundary.   It was not 100% clear to me whether his ball was inside the bunker "as designed and built" or whether this area was sandy by weeks end because thousands of spectators had destroyed its boundary that had been designed and built.

That's what I would have asked the rules people if I were DJ.  And what happens if they say "Uh, we don't know."? Seriously, what happens then?  Does the answer become any sand under or behind a ball is hazard?

[Matthew Petersen]

What bothered me was that while i think the larger sandy area was clearly a man-made bunker, from the limited views I saw of the area I was not at all convinced that where DJ's ball lay wasn't in a place typically outside of the confines of that bunker where san had piled up due to thousands of spectators walking by.

It seems the only question was ever whether he was in a bunker or not, which makes the lack of any inquiry into where the bunker's actual edge was all the more strange to me.

I agree completely and this has been one of my main concerns. Given the rule says "All areas of the course that were designed and built as sand bunkers will be played as bunkers (hazards)..."   

DJ was clearly near the edge.  There was no lip near his ball to define a boundary.   It was not 100% clear to me whether his ball was inside the bunker "as designed and built" or whether this area was sandy by weeks end because thousands of spectators had destroyed its boundary that had been designed and built.

That's what I would have asked the rules people if I were DJ.  And what happens if they say "Uh, we don't know."? Seriously, what happens then?  Does the answer become any sand under or behind a ball is hazard?

It is what will always bother me about this ruling. Yes, I still think a responsible player should see that their ball is on sand and either (a) get a ruling or (b) not gropund their club. But nonetheless, one characteristic of a hazard is that it must have a boundary. I never saw as much as I wanted to, but my impression was that any reasonable boundary for that bunker would not have had the ballw ithin it. The boundary of a bunker cannot move just because patrons have kicked sand out of it any more than the boundary of a water hazard can move if a creek floods. The hazard is the hazard. So where was the hazard line? Whydid the PGA never consider this question?

[Richard Choi]

Phil, I was commenting on the specific quote that you brought up, that they would have to rope off across a bunker. While it is true that I have never played the course, I still cannot fathom exactly HOW "rope across bunker" can be used as an excuse.

The simple question is, are people allowed to walk on it? If they are, that means that there are ropes to direct the traffic which can serve as a clear delineation on what is a bunker and what is waste area. If there is no rope, that means that traffic is not trampling on the bunker and they can be played as usual.

Why is that problematic? Why would you have to rope off across a bunker if you are not going to allow people to walk on them? And if the people are going to walk on those bunkers wouldn't you have the rope across the bunkers anyway?

I don't think you need to have walked the course to be puzzled by this.

[Dale Jackson]

"DJ was clearly near the edge.  There was no lip near his ball to define a boundary.   It was not 100% clear to me whether his ball was inside the bunker "as designed and built" or whether this area was sandy by weeks end because thousands of spectators had destroyed its boundary that had been designed and built.

That's what I would have asked the rules people if I were DJ.  And what happens if they say "Uh, we don't know."? Seriously, what happens then?  Does the answer become any sand under or behind a ball is hazard?"

I am not sure this will help but as someone who has been a rules official at countless tournaments, including the highest level professional and amateur events, I can say I have no problem saying DJ's ball was definitely in the bunker.

And no rules official is going to say "Uh, we don't know"  It is our job to make that call if asked.  There are times when the margin of a bunker may not be clear but it is the job of the official to make the call with guidance from the rules and decisions.  Again, in the case at the PGA, in my judgement it was not a difficult call.

[Jason Connor]

Another thing: Didn't Dye invent the idea of a stadium course?

And clearly this course at WS was built to host majors.  And we know how much earth was moved in its construction.

So the inventor of the stadium course builds such an abomination of a course that spectators have no where to stand but in hazards?
Ironic.

[Jason Connor]

I am not sure this will help but as someone who has been a rules official at countless tournaments, including the highest level professional and amateur events, I can say I have no problem saying DJ's ball was definitely in the bunker.

I'm not arguing, I'm just curious, but how can you be sure?

How are you certain that where his ball was wasn't kicked out and sand scattered there due to thousands of spectator feet there?

[Anthony Butler]

Another thing: Didn't Dye invent the idea of a stadium course?

So the inventor of the stadium course builds such an abomination of a course that spectators have no where to stand but in hazards?
Ironic.

That is ironic. But an irony that escaped Pete Dye when interviewed last night.

[Anthony Butler]

My 2 cents:

1.  Dustin Johnson has basically proven that when he gets flummoxed, he goes completely brain-dead.  First at Pebble, and now at WS.

2.  There is no way in the world that guy didn't think he was in a bunker.  He'd played, what, about 100+ holes on this course by that point?  And every time he hit a shot offline, while the ball was still in the air, he had to think to himself "oh crap, that's probably in a bunker" -- because that's all there is out there!!  So why in God's green earth would this bank of bunkers on 18 would be any different?

3.  What sort of shot did he play from that lie, exactly?  Answer: A FAIRWAY BUNKER SHOT!!  He put a little extra weight left, opened the face a little, picked up the club a little faster and made sure he caught ball first.  This sort of stuff doesn't happen by accident. It's intentional.  

So here we have a guy who must have worried as soon as he made contact off the tee about his wayward tee shot flying at the bank of bunkers on the right, then getting to his ball and deciding to play a fairway bunker-style shot for his approach -- and then claiming he didn't think he was in a bunker?  Honestly, I've never heard such BS in my entire life...  

Possibily the most illogical post on this subject in 5 pages... and that's going some. How can someone be brain dead, calculatingly cheat in front of 35 million people and expect to get away with it?

[Jeff Fortson]

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...

USGA definition of a bunker...

Bunker
A "bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker. A wall or lip of the bunker not covered with grass is part of the bunker. The margin of a bunker extends vertically downwards, but not upwards.

A ball is in a bunker when it lies in or any part of it touches the bunker.

---

This was my contention with the decision.  Are we sure the area that D. Johnson was in could fit this definition?  

I agree with everything said about Johnson needing to have read the local rules sheet.  I have ZERO sympathy for competitiors that don't pay attention to the Rules.  After watching the replay it is beyond obvious that D. Johnson was in sand.  But, if he didn't know the local rule then there is no reason to question why he didn't ask for an official.  In his own words he said he never even contemplated that he was in a bunker.  Also, I don't think it was the official's responsibility to say anything or warn him.  The official is there to answer questions about the Rules and enforce them where necessary.  He/she isn't there to hold the hand of a competitor.

There are so many reasons this happened... an obsurd amount of bunkers that put the site's architectural integrity up for debate (i.e. designing bunkers that have little or no definition to where they begin or end), an ill-advised decision to make areas that are outside the ropes and trampled on by spectators "hazards", a big blunder by the player's caddy no knowing the details of the competition (that's what you get paid to do), but ultimately the real blame falls on Dustin Johnson for not knowing the Rules of the competition.  I think if he had read the local rules sheet he would have probably questioned his lie and called over the official.

All in all, a very unfortunate and heartbreaking outcome for a guy that deserved to win the championship as much as the other two guys in the playoff based on the golfing skill applied through the week.  Unfortunately, golfing skill is not just about hitting good shots.  You have to be PREPARED.

Jeff F.

[George Pazin]

Is one's setup for a fairway bunker significantly different than one's setup on dirt/hardpan?

Nice post, Jeff. Seriously, very thoughtful.

[Emil Weber]

Sorry for cutting in this late guys, but you can blame the PGA, Dye and Kohler as much as you want, the major mistake was made by Dustin Johnson and his caddie.
How can you, on a 72nd hole of a major, lie in something OBVIOUSLY SANDY, and just ground the club without even thinking about it?
And, as someone said before, there was enough warning about exactly this thing happening. I like Dustin, but seriously, he cannot blame others.

And huge congratulations to Martin Kaymer, a great player, awesome guy and deserving winner of the 2010 PGA Championship.... I told you!

[Dan Moore]

While watching the broadcast as soon as Dustin set his club down on the sand (before he addressed the ball he grounded the club to the left of where the ball was sitting) I said to myself he just grounded his club, I hope he had a ruling it wasn't a bunker.  I don't see how you don't ask for a ruling in that situation.  There was nothing but sand in the vicinity of his ball. Even if he hadn't read the local rules for the week that were posted the bottom line is you have to be 100% sure in that situation.   I just don't see how you don't ask the question in that situation.  

The question of whether it should have been treated as a bunker during the tournament is another issue entirely and is certainly subject to debate.  I know I walked through plenty of bunkers yesterday while I was out there.  

[Jason Connor]

Another thing: Didn't Dye invent the idea of a stadium course?

So the inventor of the stadium course builds such an abomination of a course that spectators have no where to stand but in hazards?
Ironic.

That is ironic. But an irony that escaped Pete Dye when interviewed last night.

Oh I wish I'd have seen that.  Was that on the Golf Channel or where?

Is one's setup for a fairway bunker significantly different than one's setup on dirt/hardpan?

Nice post, Jeff. Seriously, very thoughtful.

While I in part agree with Shivas. I thought this same thing.

[George Pazin]

Yeah, but he grounded his club. Twice. That's not the behavior of someone who believes he's in a bunker. I personally think he assumed it was through the green, given the number of people who not only had trod through the bunker, but WERE IN IT!

Doesn't excuse him for not reading the rule sheet, obviously. It's mind boggling to think you could have so much at stake and not read it, but that's the world we live in today. Maybe he expected a bailout...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()