News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Another Week...Another Ruling?
« on: April 18, 2004, 08:19:10 PM »
During the final hole of the playoff at Harbor Town, there was some question as to the "improvement" of Stewart Cink's lie in the waste area on #16.  It appeared on TV as he if cleared the sand and loose pebbles behind his ball so he could make cleaner contact for his approach shot.

The rules allow for loose impediments to be removed in waste areas, but not any sand. It sure appeared that more was removed than just the small pebbles.  On a close camera shot, his ball looked like as if a small trench was cleared behind it.  The camera shows him brushing aside the area from behind his ball with his finger and then picking up some small loose impediments.  Again...the player got the benefit of the doubt on the final rule.  In his press conference Cink stated that he asked the official what he was allowed to touch in the waste area, and he proceeded accordingly.  To me there was an unfair advantage gained by the amount of removal behind the golf ball...which leads me to an architectural question:

My question would be...should there even be waste areas on courses?  It would seem that it would be easier for everyone, if all those areas were played as a regular bunker hazard.  It would remove all doubt as to the proper procedure for play, and eliminate the grey area as to what can be cleared away.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2004, 10:16:58 PM by JSlonis »

TEPaul

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2004, 08:28:41 PM »
I agree with you, there probably shouldn't be any "waste area" that isn't considered a hazard like some of those at Harbourtown.

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2004, 08:34:33 PM »
Yeah, what the hell was that?

It seemed like a flagrant violation of 13-2. Create an irregularity of surface? The guy drew a line in the sand behind his ball. Lots of spin afterwards.
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2004, 09:18:18 PM »

As I've been saying week after week, play it as it lies!

ChipRoyce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2004, 09:37:01 PM »
Funny, I too noticed a "trench" behind Cink's ball during that close-up shot. In addition, can't believe how much his ball spun after the first hop on that green.

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2004, 09:46:12 PM »
I normally don't jump into these rules questions, but that one was surprising to me. It was obvious that there was a depression behind the ball.

michael j fay

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2004, 10:07:43 PM »
Rule 1. Play the ball from the tee into the hole.
Rule 2. Never bend over in the rough.
Rule 3. If you hit your ball into the woods, clap until you hit your next shot.

Dennis_Harwood

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2004, 10:14:37 PM »
I normally don't jump into these rules questions, but that one was surprising to me. It was obvious that there was a depression behind the ball.

But that is ok--That is what Rule 23 is all about.

If you have played Harbor Town you know what you find in that "waste area" on 16, as well as other such areas, is broken sea shells.  Those pieces of seashell are loose impediments, and they can be removed by the player through the green--

Dec 23/2 makes clear if a LI is partially embedded, but may be picked up or brushed aside with ease its a LI.

23-1/2 makes clear any means may be used, so long as nothing is pressed down--

16-1a/9 says you can not use excessive means, but Cink was very careful in brushing them aside--

When a LI is removed from a sandy area is removal will likely leave a depression, however through the green there is no requirement to recreate the lie--

By its nature the removal of a LI is going to improve the player's lie, but that is what Rule 23 is all about(you don't recreate the inferior lie that existed before the LI was removed)

23, being more specific,  superceeds 13-2.

Robert_Walker

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2004, 10:21:35 PM »
The "waste area" on 16 at Harbor Town is the first "waste area" in golf. When the course was built, there was a septic field or something like that in that area, and somehow, grass was not or did not grow there. So that became known as a "waste area". I do not like the term, and it makes me uncomfortable to watch a player picking anything out of there.

When the USGA conducted the Amateur at Saw Grass in 1994, they made all of those areas hazards.

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2004, 10:27:39 PM »
Dennis,

Is even the tiniest particle in that waste area a loose impediment?  Is there not some sand in that area?  If the area behind the ball is allowed to be brushed aside to basically create a tee, what is the point of having it on the course?

A hazard should be a hazard...tour players should keep their hands off the surface of the waste area and on the grips of their clubs.  When the back of Cink's ball was cleared out, the shot became far less difficult.  

Dennis_Harwood

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2004, 10:39:12 PM »
J--

A "waste area" is not a hazard(see definition of hazard)-- Its through the green just like that nicely mown center of the fairway--

Sand, again by definition(defintion of Loose impediment) is Not a LI and therefore can not be removed(moved)--

but sea shells (even tiny pieces of them), stones (even tiny stones), pine cones, pine needles, etc are LI and may be removed (so long as the ball does not move)--

When you remove one or more LI that may leave a depression behind your ball, or, if you are careful in removal, you may move some sand or dirt in moving the LI--however you do not restore the sand or soil(and in the rare event the sand or soil which moves when the LI is removed worsens your lie, you are stuck with that also)--

Dec 20-1/15.5 makes clear that the player in proceeding under a rule may have his lie altered, but he must accept the lie he receives, and no violation of 13-2 occurs if the lie is improved.

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2004, 10:56:27 PM »
Dennis,

I know a waste area is not a hazard...that is my point.  I'm saying it should be a hazard.  All this removal of shells, pebbles, etc, without moving some sand in the process is nonsense.  It is clear to me that the lie was greatly improved, and created an unfair advantage over the original lie.

If the waste area was instead deemed a hazard, this would totally eliminate all the questionable acts.  This has been done at TPC Sawgrass.  The Rules of Golf are already very complex and confusing for alot of players.  Why not simplify something if at all possible?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2004, 10:57:30 PM by JSlonis »

Dennis_Harwood

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2004, 11:03:04 PM »
J-  I don't believe that natural areas adjoining courses should be treated as hazards, ie desert areas adjoining courses in the Southwest US or dunes areas in the coastal Carolina or western US (among other reasons a hazard area must be clearly defined, and many of these natural areas don't have "boundaries" and "blend" with the course)--

On the other hand, the area in question, which seemed to fit all the defintions of a bunker (except perhaps no turf was removed and it was likely a natural beach sand), I would agree should probably been treated as a bunker.

Jeff Fortson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2004, 11:12:41 PM »
#nowhitebelt

TEPaul

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2004, 10:03:30 AM »
Jamie:

Again, the local rule designation of "waste area" is a relatively new wrinkle in golf and the rules (the local rules of some golf COURSES and consequently used by Tournament Committees within their "Conditions of Competition"). As far as I know a "waste area" is only a "local rule" of a golf COURSE and not yet found within the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf. As such, and at this time “waste area” may fall very much into a gray area in the Rules of Golf.

If it does, and I think it does, it would relate to the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf something like this at the present time;

Rule 33-8 Local Rules
                A. Policy
The Committee may establish Local Rules for local abnormal conditions if they are consistent with the policy set forth in Appendix I.

What is Appendix I? It’s that section of the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf  that deals with local rules, specimen local rules and the “Conditions of Competition”. These “Local Rules” and “Specimen Local Rules” and “Conditions of Competition” could be looked at as situations which are evolving into golf generally or tournament golf. The “One Ball Rule” is such a “Local Rule” as is the “Embedded Ball Rule”. The “One Ball Rule” will always remain in the Appendix I section for the obvious reason that it’s only recommended for use in competitions involving expert players and not in golf generally. However, the “Embedded Ball” local Rule is becoming so widely used that I’d expect before long it will make its way from the Appendix I section into the regular Rules of Golf, perhaps under Rule 13. A “local Rule” to be used in a competition must be on the “Conditions of Competition” or technically it can’t be enforced by the tournament committee under the “Conditions of Competition”.

Also under Rule 33, which is the Rule involving “The Committee” and is under the general heading “Administration” with Rule 34 (Disputes and Decisions) is Rule 33-1.

Rule 33-1 Conditions; Waiving Rule
The Committee must establish the conditions under which the competition is to be played.
The Committee has no power to waive a Rule of Golf.

The Definition of “Loose Impediments”  does not include sand unless it’s on the putting green.  So in a “Through the Green” area which that “waste area” Cink was in is a player would not be able to remove any sand, in my opinion, other than in fairly taking his stance or in making a stroke including during his backswing if the stroke is made. Dec. 13-2/9 is very clear on this so presumably any action regarding removing sand other than during those two permitted actions above would be a violation of Rule 13-2 which specifically prohibits that kind of thing in Rule 13-2 when it says;

“creating or eliminating irregularities of surface”

“removing or pressing down sand, loose soil, replaced divots or other cut turf placed in position”

It would be permissible though for Cink to ground his club lightly on the sand in the "waste area" in taking his stance and in preparatory for making his stroke. This is no different than that ruling the other day with Sutherland when a rules official told Sutherland he would not be able to ground his club on a sand filed divot in the fairway. That official was wrong, and later admitted it.

But, as you say, all this “waste area” local COURSE rule stuff just complicates things as the designation (“Waste Area”) is not in the regular rules of golf that I’m aware of, and contradicts and probably violates, and if not at the very least certainly complicates some of the rule wording that's in the regular rules of golf. I’d expect at some point soon the Joint Rules Committee of the USGA/R&A will get on this issue and define "waste area" either in the Rules or in some decision or Local Rule in Appendix I.







« Last Edit: April 19, 2004, 10:12:32 AM by TEPaul »

Top100Guru

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2004, 10:29:20 AM »
What about the illegal Drop Purdy took earlier in the round that was corrected by the official running across the fairway and asking him to stand upright, with his arm straight out at shoulder height, and re-drop....had he played the shot, which he was less than 20 seconds from doing, he would have incurred a 1 stroke penalty....funny how these "rules officials" are right on top of stuff like that for "some groups" and not for others....you know that if someone 6 shots back had made the same incorrect drop and proceeded to turn in his scorecard, he would have been DQ'd....Officials should benefit every player, just not a selected few...
« Last Edit: April 19, 2004, 10:29:59 AM by McConkey III »

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2004, 10:38:13 AM »
Unfortunately, you can't have a competent official with every pairing. I don't think the rules officials try to help one group over another. Usually, in the last round, the best rules officials are going to be around the pairings that include the leaders.
"We finally beat Medicare. "

Peter_Collins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2004, 10:53:34 AM »
It seems unimaginable to me that any rule of golf would allow a player to make a "trench" like impression behind his ball at any location through the green.   It will be interesting to see whether Cink gets the Vijay treatment from the tour players, especially since he won the tournament with a shot made from an improved lie.

JohnV

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2004, 06:20:36 PM »
Yes, I told my brother that it didn't appear to be a violation because of the fact that it was not a bunker.  There is no definition of "waste area" in the rules or in the local rules for the tournament.  The areas are simply "through the green" just like the fairway and rough.  Dennis did his usual excellent job of covering the rules for "through the green" and moving loose impediments.

I wouldn't want to see natural areas such as deserts being declared as hazards.  As a matter of fact, there is a decision that says you can't declare them as lateral water hazards as many courses do in Phoenix.  

At some courses there can be problem areas where you can't tell where the bunker ends and the natural area begins.  See the right side of #13 at Pacific Dunes or many areas at Kiawah Ocean course for examples.  

But, when the course is maintaining them just like a bunker as they do at Harbour Town, I think it should be a bunker.  That is not a natural area anymore than many other bunkers are.  But, this area appears to be surrounded by sand and is being raked.  Therefore I think it should be treated as a bunker.  But, given that it isn't, Cink didn't do anything that was against the rules as far as I could tell.

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2004, 07:29:47 PM »
 8)

Haven't seen anyone question what the impact of the ball really created in the waste area surface before Cink started his clearing efforts..  Seems there should have been some sort of "splash" or impact zone there.. and perhaps we were really seeing on TV something being cleared from a zone that was already created.

I for one would like the TV audience to not be a part of the competition.. armchair umpiring or rules officiating totally missed the reality there in my opinion.

Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #20 on: April 19, 2004, 10:09:56 PM »
Steve,

The ball bounced and rolled into the bunker, there was no splash area around the ball.  The TV viewer got to see the ball and the lie before and after Cink's "gardening".

TEPaul

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2004, 10:45:30 PM »
Frankly, I didn't see exactly what Cink did in that "waste area" but since the area was technically "Through the green" due to a local course rule used by the Tournament Committee, the test under Rule 13-2 is did he;

"....eliminate irregularities of surface"''or,

"remove or press down sand..." (other than in grounding his club lightly on it) thereby improving his lie, area of intended stance or swing or line of play?

TEPaul

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2004, 11:16:14 PM »
DennisH mentioned this;

"Dec 20-1/15.5 makes clear that the player in proceeding under a rule may have his lie altered, but he must accept the lie he receives, and no violation of 13-2 occurs if the lie is improved."

Dennis:

I'm not real sure what this would have to do with Cink in the waste ares on #16 in the play-off. I didn't see him lift, drop or place his ball. Did he do that and if so why?

Rule 13-2 is pretty straight forward in what constitutes improving your lie though alteration of your lie. I don't see how rule 20 or Dec 20-1/15.5 in this case has anything to do with Cink improving his lie or not under Rule 13-2.  
 
 

Dennis_Harwood

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2004, 03:04:41 AM »
I don't see how rule 20 or Dec 20-1/15.5 in this case has anything to do with Cink improving his lie or not under Rule 13-2.  
 
 



The principle stated in 20-1/15.5 is not limited to marking and lifting the ball.  Rather the principle applies anytime a player is doing something permitted under a Rule--

The principle as stated in 20-1/15.5 is "The act(permitted by a Rule)...may result in some change to the lie of the ball, for example grass being depressed...or grains of sand being moved... Such occurances may improve or worsen the lie of the ball and the player must accept the results.

If the player attempted to restore the lie under these circumstances, or if the lie was improved from actions which exceeded what was necessaryto the process..., he would be subject to penalty under 13-2."

The issue was not therefore whether his lie was improved(as a result of the action of removing LIs) but whether his actions exceeded the authority granted(resulted in the movement of more sand than was necessary to remove the LIs).

On that issue, which is a judgement call by the official involved(here made by one of the best, Slugger White), the factual determination was Mr Cink did not use excessive actions-

TEPaul

Re:Another Week...Another Ruling?
« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2004, 07:21:56 AM »
DennisH:

We just had a very interesting thread involving Rule 25 and how in a particular circumstance Rule 23 had a direct effect on the procedure of that overall Rule 25 relief situation.

But I'm wondering what rule you feel Cink was proceeding under during that shot from the "waste area" on hole #16.

This is one of the problems with an area being designated by a tournament committee in the "conditions of competition" as a "waste area", an area that's only recognized by the course and apparently not a specific designation recognized in the Rules of Golf. So under the Rules of Golf it would have to be considered "through the green". And after that the Rules of Golf need to consider what's in that area designated a "waste area". Is it sea shells (LIs) and sand? What is it?

I doubt the Rules of Golf in some burst of magnanimity for Harbour Town and Cink and "waste areas" (which they don't recognize) are going to suddenly overlook the fact there's probably a ton of sand in that area which must be treated as "through the green" since the course has decided not to designate it a hazard as a bunker.

The principle behind not preventing improving one's lie "through the green" seems pretty straight forward when one looks at the wording in Rule 13-2, Dec 13-2/9 and also 13-2/11 (which coincidently involves a Rule 20 iteration). The question seems to be was the area behind Cink's ball which apparently he scraped away before making a stroke  comprised of sand or something other than just loose impediments? If so it would seem to be a clear violation of rule 13-2 that prevents removing sand or eliminating irregularities of surface that isn't an LI.

Has Harbour Town also designated that everything within that so-called "waste area" consists of loose impediments? I doubt that or that they could do something like that and still conform to the Rules of Golf which again gets to why designating an area as a "waste area" which is not a designation in the Rules of Golf is not a good idea at all.

The question here with Cink in that waste area is only did he remove by scraping away before his stroke an irregularity of surface which included removing sand?

This situation involving Cink on #16 in reality is probably no different from that ruling some weeks ago involving Kevin Sutherland in the fairway with the sand of a sand filled divot behind his ball. He asked an official for a ruling on that and the official told him he could not touch the sand with his club or otherwise. That was a mistaken ruling and the official and the committee admitted Sutherland did have the right to lightly rest his club on the sand preparatory to making a stroke at the ball.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2004, 07:30:04 AM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back