that's why you don't write up stories of which you are a part -you are a reporter in this case, and as soon as you revert to being the citizen you can't be a reporter.

I have never accepted the view that there is a strict line between being a journalist and being a citizen. Of course there is an important tradition of recusing yourself from covering a story in which you know you have a personal interest or involvement, but when something occurs during the course of your reporting that might require involvement on your part, I believe you must weigh the good to society in general vs. the good to your publication. As you point out, the timing of Bamberger's actions make it look like he wanted it both ways, which was his mistake. I do not think he made a mistake telling a rules official about what he observed, however.

I don't give up my responsibilities as a citizen when I go out as a reporter -- especially when a situation arrises in which my immediate actions might prevent harm from befalling someone. That could range from catching a brick that's about to fall on the head of the guy I'm interviewing to pointing out a dangerous flaw in a bridge design (as if I'd be capable of doing that...but the point remains.)

Dan Kelly said:

"So did Captain Smith of the Titanic, reserving that iceberg!"

But Dan, if Captain Smith had not hit that iceberg and taken the Tiitanic to the bottom with hundreds of brave souls trying to get to New York in record time the world and history may never have gotten to know how brave a man Captain Smith really was. Come on Pal, don't you know that some of Man's finest hours produced or were produced through some of the most dire circumstances.

Tom Paul: I don't think it is a question of someone grabbing reporters by the hand and taking them around the golf course, pointing out what they can and can't do. I think it is a question of the fact that journalists, at all costs, should avoid becoming part of the story.
I'm glad you feel the need to defend Michael because from what I'm reading, he probably needs someone on his side right now.
I think this is a fascinating debate for a journalism class -- did Bamberger cross the line -- but my take is that the whole thing smells bad. I'm not suggesting, like some, that he did this to get a story. He's in another league of sports writers and surely doesn't need that. But he wanted it both ways -- first, he said he was a "reporter" and had to ask Wie about the drop. She told him, in the press conference, that she thought it was fine. He was then free to report that the drop was questionable -- maybe on SI's regularly updated website -- and leave it at that. Instead, he determined she was wrong and went to the officials.
Maybe his story was that Wie, who was under a lot of pressure in her first pro tournament after signing for $12M in endorsements, isn't up to dealing with all that faces her. At 16, this must feel like a pressure cooker, and maybe the failure to take the appropriate drop is just a sign that she's moving ahead too quickly. Or maybe it was just a bad drop.
Maybe, as opposed to spending all her time with the PR people at the William Morris agency, someone should have explained exactly how to take an appropriate drop.
Next time I'm in Philly with Ian, I'll buy you a beer and we can have a good sparring match over this!

The remarkable thing about all of this is NOT that Wie took an incorrect drop, though there is no real excuse for that.  Nor is it that Bamberger got involved, though that is a very interesting situation.

The remarkable thing is that with all of the money involved in professional golf, that there is any need, EVER, to "call" for an official in a PGA or LPGA event.  There are only 18 holes, many adjoining, and it would be a pretty simple thing for the tours to hire enough people to cover a course.  That they do not do so is amazing in this day and age.  Officials in any sport can get it wrong, of course, (remember Els' drop at the Open years ago), but the idea that spectators are turning in players for incorrect applications of the rules of a sport that the player made at the highest level of professional golf is just incomprehensible.  

Forget Wie and Bamberger; the LPGA is to blame for this, and the PGA is no different.

Does anyone think that Bamberger handled this well?

-Ted

I think it is a question of the fact that journalists, at all costs, should avoid becoming part of the story.

Unfortunately, we never got "Fear and Loathing on the LPGA Tour" before Hunter Thompson died. His coverage of this story would have been most interesting.........

RobertT:

Frankly I didn't know that it was a huge issue in the ethics of journalism that a reporter should never become part of the story. Since it obviously is that way, you're right, the Bamberger/Wie situation should probably be discussed in journalism classes.

But that doesn't do anything for the Rules of Golf and the way things like this are handled on the Professional Tours. There's no doubt in my mind where the justification comes from within the Rules of Golf that allowed Robert O. Smith (the initial rules official in this Bamberger/Wie situation) to take information from Bamberger and begin to act on it the way he did leading the the resolution that Wie got DQed.

It came from Decision 6-6d/5. That Decision completely covers a situation like Bamberger's. But the Decision mantions spectators and witnesses. Do you think it's in any way up to the Rules of Golf to make some separate distinction or arrangement within the rules for a spectator or witness who is a professional journalist?

Obviously plenty of people seem to feel that perhaps the Rules of Golf (The Decisions) should just drop Decision 6-6d/5 and maybe they will in the future or change it in some way to explain that Rule 6-6 will not allow information to be taken from witness and spectators by the "Committee" after a certain point such as after a player has officially signed his score-card.

Doug,

Moving a five ton rock in front of a TV audience of millions generated a whole lot of call ins.

Bob

TePaul writes:
It came from Decision 6-6d/5. That Decision completely covers a situation like Bamberger's. But the Decision mantions spectators and witnesses. Do you think it's in any way up to the Rules of Golf to make some separate distinction or arrangement within the rules for a spectator or witness who is a professional journalist?

You won't hear me argue against it. Obviously the tours can decide they aren't going to listen to potential rules violations from outside sources if they want. I think they can do that and not have a problem with decison 6-6d/5.

I just think Robert Smith could have dismissed Michael Bamberger as a non-credibile witness since he sat on the allegation for more than 24 hours.

I just put up a story on GolfObserver from Frank Hannigan about another penalty that should have applied to Wie's drop.
Click here for Frank Hannigan's Wie was double wrong

I added a sidebar 1-4/12 Player Breaches Rules More Than Once Prior to Stroke; Whether Multiple Penalties Applied

Try and figure out what this is trying to say and how it applies to Wie. Should she have faced a two or three-shot penalty for dropping in the wrong place and dropping incorrectly (less than shoulder height?)

1-4/12 Player Breaches Rules More Than Once Prior to Stroke; Whether Multiple Penalties Applied

Prior to making a stroke, there may be circumstances where a player breaches a Rule more than once, or breaches different Rules and it would seem that a penalty should be applied to each separate breach. However, in the majority of cases and based on equity (Rule 1-4), it would not be appropriate to apply multiple penalties.

For the purpose of applying the principles in this Decision, Rules 4-3a, 4-3b, 4-3c, 13-4a, 13-4b, 13-4c, 14-2a, 14-2b, 17-3a, 17-3b, 17-3c, 18-2a and 18-2b should be considered as separate Rules.
Below are the specific principles to be applied when determining whether multiple penalties are appropriate when more than one breach has occurred prior to a player making a stroke:

1. SINGLE ACT RESULTS IN ONE RULE BEING BREACHED MORE THAN ONCE — SINGLE PENALTY APPLIED
Example: In stroke play, a competitorís ball on the putting green strikes a fellow-competitorís ball in breach of Rule 19-5 and then strikes another fellow-competitorís ball, also in breach of Rule 19-5. The ruling would be a single two-stroke penalty (see Decision 19-5/3).

2. SINGLE ACT RESULTS IN TWO RULES BEING BREACHED — SINGLE PENALTY APPLIED
Example: In stroke play, a competitor is considering putting his ball from a bunker and rakes a footprint in the bunker on his line of play. Both Rule 13-2 and Rule 13-4a have been breached. The ruling would be a single two-stroke penalty.

3. MULTIPLE OCCURRENCES OF THE SAME OR SIMILAR ACTS RESULT IN ONE RULE BEING BREACHED MORE THAN ONCE — SINGLE PENALTY APPLIED

Example 1: In stroke play, a competitor takes several practice swings in a hazard, touching the ground each time. The ruling would be a single two-stroke penalty (see Decision 13-4/3).
Example 2: In stroke play, a player removes sand on his line of play through the green and presses down a replaced divot which is also on his line of play. The ruling would be a single two-stroke penalty.

4. DIFFERENT ACTS RESULT IN TWO RULES BEING BREACHED, BUT BREACH OF SECOND RULE IS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF THE INITIAL BREACH — SINGLE PENALTY APPLIED
Example: In stroke play, a competitorís ball moves prior to address and while it is in motion it is accidentally stopped by the competitorís club in breach of Rule 19-2b. The competitor then moves the club and, therefore, moves his ball, normally a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2a. This would result in a single two-stroke penalty under Rule 19-2b (see Decision 19-2/1.5).

5. DIFFERENT ACTS RESULT IN TWO RULES BEING BREACHED — MULTIPLE PENALTIES APPLIED
Example: In stroke play, a competitor (1) lifts his ball in play and (2) substitutes another ball, both acts without authority, and plays the substituted ball. The ruling would be a one-stroke penalty under Rule 18-2a (lifting the ball in play) and a further penalty of two strokes under Rule 15-2 and the applicable Rule (substitution without correction), giving a total penalty of three strokes (see Decision 15/6.5).

6. DIFFERENT ACTS RESULT IN ONE RULE BEING BREACHED MORE THAN ONCE — MULTIPLE PENALTIES APPLIED
Example: In stroke play, a competitor (1) purposely steps on another player's line of putt with the intention of improving the line, and then (2) purposely stops his own ball in motion after it began moving without apparent cause before address. The ruling would be two separate penalties, each of two strokes, for breaches of Rule 1-2, giving a total penalty of four strokes.

They had a nice little table, but I didn't think it added anything to the already confusing decision.

Dan King

A child of five should understand this.
Send somebody to fetch a child of five.
 --Groucho Marx (Duck Soup)

Dan Herrmann writes:
Dumb question - where do these people get the phone numbers to call in so-called violations?

Unless you have a cell phone of a specific official, the easiest way is to go through the media contact. The media guide print the phone number for each tournament. They are also on the tournament Web site. For instance if you see a rules violation on TV this week at Disney, you'd go to the PGA Tour site and from there to the tournament site:
http://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/r045

And there is the phone number: 407/835-2525

Enjoy.
Dan King

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
 --Exodus

Dan King:

Do you think Bamberger bore false witness against Michelle Wie? Now we're getting biblical----I love this horseshit.  

"Note, it wasn't me saying it but some cat named Exodus."

Dan:

Do you think Exodus would feel that Bamberger bore false witness against Michelle Wie?