Bamberger/Wei

[Doug Siebert]

Carlyle,

That's probably why some guys I know like to play their matches under what they call the "no rules" rules (I think they've taken to calling them the "John Cleese" rules lately)  Basically they are ultra-purist rules such that once you tee off, you can't touch your ball unless you are on the green and an opponent requests you mark it -- but you can't clean it and must replace it in exactly the same alignment as before.  Anywhere else you hit it, you play from there, whether its a cartpath, creekbed, flowerbed, cemetery, parking lot, or a busy highway (I've seen all these and more)

If you lose it or hit it in the water or somewhere else you can't play it, you lose the hole automatically so long as your opponent holes in fewer than 10 strokes (they only allow 9, the reason is clear if you've ever tried to hit out of a groundhog hole)  They call it "no rules" because there are no rules, just you golf your ball until you hole out, lose it, or lay 9.

Its at its most fun on a really shitty small town cow pasture course where "stupid trees" in the middle of the fairway seem like a great idea, drinking fountains built out of a 55 gallon drum 15 feet away from a green make great hazards, and gravel cartpaths create an interesting dilemma for guys who just bought a new set of irons.

But the main point of it is that the two guys who started it are the best of friends who constantly fight about the littlest things, and they always argued over rules, cheating, drops, etc. so this was their solution.  They still argue now, but its about stuff like whether the chip from inside the rain shelter that ricocheted off the trash can was intentional or pure luck.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Carlyle,
Your arguing with a guy that is a USGA Rules Official that aced his Golf Rules test. Are you sure you want to try to win this battle?

Bob,
I've driven by Crystal Aire a million times but have never played there. A couple years ago, Andy Lipshultz and I were going to go up there and play but never made it. I know Jeff Fortson tried US Open Qualifying there earlier this year and loved the place and have always heard nothing but good things about it. One of these days! (Especially on a beautiful winters day where the high desert gets just so beautiful!)

Bogey,
This is why wide fairways makes all the difference in the world!

[TEPaul]

DougS:

That's a very interesting story about your friends playing what they call "no rule" golf, particularly the part about why they no longer argue about miniscule rules details.

In my opinion, and from the sound of how you describe the way they play, your friends really aren't playing the game in a "no rule" way in that they do not appear to be violating any of the present USGA/R&A Rules of Golf.

Some may argue to the contrary and claim they are or must be violating Rule 1-3 by agreeing to waive the operation of a rule or rules of golf but I don't really think so, at least not in the fundamental spirit of the Rules of Golf.

Most may not realize it but there are a few very distinct and operative verbs that run through most all the Rules of Golf and they are not in the slightest bit incidental or lacking meaning to rules writers and Rules interpretation. In other words those few verbs have real meaning and in a very applicable way.

Basically those operative verbs are "must" and "shall" as (what I call) determinants, and then there is "may" or perhaps sometimes "can" which indicate an option.

It sounds like your friends in their "no rule" game are never considering not using any rule that indicates "must" or "shall" although it appears they may not be taking advantage of many to most of the "may" rule options in the current USGA/R&A Rules of Golf.

If any golfer chose to do that I really don't think the current USGA/R&A Rules of Golf would have a problem with it as basically many to most of those "may" rules involve relief which of course is optional to any golfer.

[Brad Klein]

I don't think there's any question that the rule was properly invoked. I think the real issue is simply the judgment and timing that Mike Bamberger exercised. To his credit, he's not shy about being squarely in the middle of controversy. As a result of his earlier articles on McCumber-Norman and Ben Wright, the PGA pros are extremely hesitant to speak with him. I don't think he's helped his access to the LPGA with this latest icident.

Not, however, that this would have been a reason for him to have acted differently. I think the real issue - and I don't know what transpired between him and his editor, Jim Herre, over the weekend - is that he's putting his judgment above Wie's and then blind siding her about it by going to Tour officials a day late. That seems simply inexcusable. His account of having had his reporter's hat on, and then switiching caps, seems absurd to me.

By the way, an observer of an event is not under the same burden or moral code as a contestant or rules official to call into question a rules violation he thinks he may have seen.

In all of this, I think Wie comes out looking like a saint and Bamberger looks like a smug, angelic little fool.

[TEPaul]

"A. If the rules of golf were black and white, then they wouldn't require a littany of decisions to clarify them."

Carlyle:

What JVB means by black and white is Dec. 33-7/4.5 is very clear, very black and white regarding the question you’re asking or the point you’re trying to make in this Wie situation---eg. What you said—‘Under Rule 33-7, it's within the providence of the tournament committee to waive the (disqualification) penalty.  They could have simply assessed the two-stroke penalty, adjusted her score, and moved on.’

The “Tournament Committee” in the LPGA Samsung Championship could definitely not have done that without making a mockery of the rules they follow and abide by---eg the USGA/R&A Rules, and Decision 33-7/4.5 (Decisions are considered to be part of the Rules). Dec. 33-7/4.5 makes that extremely clear, extremely black and white. If a competitor such as Wie had asked them if they would consider doing waiving the DQ penalty and just assessing her a 2 shot penalty they would definitely show her Dec. 33-7/4.5 as the reason they could not do that. It’s more than coincidental that Dec. 33-7/4.5 almost exactly addresses Wie’s situation.

[TEPaul]

"Baloney.  She understood the rule.  She didn't perceive that she was closer to the hole.  She thought she was dropping in accordance with the rules.  Her intent was to follow the rules.  She behaved properly.
She just didn't recognize that the ball was closer to the hole.  Had she recognized that she was closer, or had she been alerted to it, then she would not have hesitated to drop again."

Carlyle:

The fact that Wie understood the Rule, or didn't perceive she was closer to the hole, or that her intent was to follow the rules, or that she behaved properly has nothing whatsoever to do with the application of this Rule and this penalty.

That she didn't recogonize she was closer to the hole, or the fact that had she recognized she was closer, or had she been alerted to it she would not have hesitated to drop again has nothing whatsoever to do with the application of this Rule.

The USGA/R&A Rules of Golf do not go to intent, only to "facts" in as black and white a way as they can find them and rule on them. And in ruling on them obviously they abide strictly by the meaning and intent of their own Rules and Decisions precisely as they are written and interpreted.

Interestingly, although obviously most don't know it or understand it the "principles" behind the Rules of Golf are not exactly arbitrary in the sense they are open to everyone's own unique interpretation---eg any "committee" or "Tournament Committee". Many of the "principles" that underlie the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf are written in a little book called "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf". The book was written in 1960 by Richard Tufts a past president of the USGA and a man who was in a significant way responsible for the unification of the Rules of Golf between the USGA and R&A in 1951 and 1955. Obviously his book is some off-shoot of that rather remarkable unification effort and I can absolutely guarantee you when the USGA has some question with someone of understanding the meaning or principle behind some Rule or it's application this book has been for years their sort of "go-to Bible". In the 2-3 actual Rules "changes" I've been involved in requesting and lobbying for which in a few cases took years and a few quadrennials the matter always came down to Tuft's "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf on their part.

The Principle of "equity" in golf as described and explained by Tufts is based on the principle of "like situations shall be treated alike" and there's a very good reason for that which he explains and I'd be glad to if you'd like. This unique principle ("like situations shall be treated alike) of "equity" in golf and its Rules pretty much prevades the Rules.

This "equity" principle in golf does not or at least should not go to intent or behavior of the player in the slightest in an actual rules SITUATION application, it only deals with the "facts" of any specific rules situation as the "facts" apply to the Rules of Golf ONLY. The reason they don't go to intent is if they did the Rules of Golf, "committees" et al would probably have to set up some form of a court of law to review anything and everythng, and they've never done that and obviously don't want to.

That's perhaps why JVB uses the term black and while. It means in the context of "like situations shall be treated alike" in something like the requirement that the ball be dropped "no nearer the hole" (than the original lie) that it makes no difference at all whether it's 1/10 of an inch or hundreds of yards nearer. The black and white of it is you were either nearer the hole or you weren't. This is what Tufts means when he says "The penalty for a Rule of Golf is NOT adjusted to fit the attendant circumstances". By 'attendant circumstances' he means things like Wie's intent, her behavior, the fact that she would've corrected the problem if she'd been aware of it or even the fact that she really was unaware that what she'd done was a violation of a Rule. These are the things the Rules of Golf, the committees et al never have and probably never will get into in the application and administration of the Rules.

Again, whether you were even unaware your dropped or placed ball was nearer the hole has nothing to do with it. Whatever your intent was has nothing to do with it.

This is probably part of the reason why JVB said it's black and white. Perhaps you think it's baloney or the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf and the way they're properly applied and administered is baloney but nevertheless that really is the way they are and the way they work.      

[Jerry Kluger]

TEP: Golf is unique in that it is the player's responsibility to note any situations which may result in the imposition of a penalty stroke, etc., and by that I do not mean an intentional  violation of the rules.  So if the ball moves when you address it, and no one else sees it, it is up to you, the player, to inform your fellow competitors of the infraction and follow the proper procedures following such an infraction.  So if there is a violation which is brought to the attention of the player, my question is what is that penalty that should be imposed.  In light of this basic premise I would suggest that the rules could state that any violation of the rules, unless proven to be untentional, shall not result in a penalty to the player.  I would not suggest that to be the best position to be taken, but it is by no means unjustifiable.  I would suggest however, that a violation of the rules, which we are presuming not to be intentional, should not result in disqualification.  To my way of thinking, this wonderful and special game and its unique set of rules, should not be so universally arbitrary in dealing with competitors.  

[Bob_Huntley]

In all of this, I think Wie comes out looking like a saint and Bamberger looks like a smug, angelic little fool.

Brad Klein,

Congratulations. I think that is the perfect summing up.

Bob

[Carlyle Rood]

Carlyle,
You're arguing with a guy that is a USGA Rules Official that aced his Golf Rules test. Are you sure you want to try to win this battle?

Congratulations on his test score.  That being said, I don't imagine I'll ever feel inhibited about discussing the rules of golf with a USGA official.

Here is my dilemma:

a. Wie didn't intend to break the rules.
b. Wie didn't benefit from the illegal drop.
c. Her opponents were not affected by the drop.
d. The outcome wasn't affected by the drop.
e. The error wasn't identified in a timely manner, so Wie couldn't remedy the error--either by re-dropping or by penalty.

I'm not advocating that the 2-stroke penalty be waived.  I just think disqualification is inappropriate when considering the error.  Disqualification should be a penalty reserved for more extraordinary occasions.

What especially irks me is that a player can benefit from a mistake made by an official after seeking a ruling he knows is inappropriate; but, another player can be disqualified (after acting far more honorably) while trying to follow the rules.  You can parse the rules as much as you like; but, many of us recognize how unfair this is.

The rules of golf are well intended.  They are constructed on an ancient and honorable set of beliefs.  But, they are also incomplete, inexact, and--more rarely--incorrect.

I recognize that a decision of golf dictates that Wie be disqualified.  I also recognize that this decision--in this case--sucks golf balls.

[Dan Herrmann]

Who the heck was Wie's fellow competitor, and why didn't SHE say anything?  After all, isn't it the fellow competitor's job to protect the field?

[George Pazin]

Carlyle, I don't know if you've read it or not, but at least one rules official who commented on this stated emphatically that Michelle did benefit a great deal from her illegal drop, as the proper drop would have been onto a hardpan surface and would have resulted in a much more difficult shot. I'll try to scan over the thread and find the quote.

If true, this clearly isn't a case of no harm no foul. There was substantial benefit to her illegal drop and, as such, the penalty must be applied.

[Carlyle Rood]

Carlyle, I don't know if you've read it or not, but at least one rules official who commented on this stated emphatically that Michelle did benefit a great deal from her illegal drop, as the proper drop would have been onto a hardpan surface and would have resulted in a much more difficult shot.

George, I think this may be an example of an official trying to massage the circumstances to make an unpopular decision more palatable.

In the accounts I've read, the official who returned to the scene with Wie merely observed that the ball was somewhat closer to the hole.  It even required measuring the distance explicitly to determine with certainty that it was closer (because that conclusion couldn't be made conclusively by direct observation).

[TEPaul]

"So if there is a violation which is brought to the attention of the player, my question is what is that penalty that should be imposed.  In light of this basic premise I would suggest that the rules could state that any violation of the rules, unless proven to be untentional, shall not result in a penalty to the player.  I would not suggest that to be the best position to be taken, but it is by no means unjustifiable.  I would suggest however, that a violation of the rules, which we are presuming not to be intentional, should not result in disqualification.  To my way of thinking, this wonderful and special game and its unique set of rules, should not be so universally arbitrary in dealing with competitors."

Jerry:

To answer your question, it depends to some extent on who it is who brings a violation to the attention of the player. It could be an opponent, a fellow competitor, a rules official, the "committee" or even a spectator (witness in the Decisions). It also depends on the format---match or stroke play. When and where depends too. But basically most all of this is generally covered under Rule 34 (Disputes and Decisions), even though any situation will involve some other Rule or even through a series of them.

But as I said above the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf do not get into the intent of the player, or anything to do with his motivation in almost all rules situation cases---eg whether whatever happened was intentional or unintentional. Under the principles of the Rules of Golf that does not matter. All that matters is whether or not a Rule was breached by the player, and that even means if he was unaware of it.

It is up to the rules official (if he has "final authority" from the "Committee") to gather and establish the "facts" and rule on them otherwise it's done by the "Committee".  

There are particular procedures that are well known by those who apply and adminster the Rules of Golf. Those procedures certainly revolve totally around the actual Rules of Golf (1-34) and the Decisions on the Rules of Golf which are considered to be part of the "Rules".

They aren't arbitrary---they are pretty black and white once you know them. Once you've established "the facts" with the player involved (what Smith and Haley were doing the next day at the site of the reported violation with Wie and her caddie) applying those facts to the Rules and Decisions really isn't arbitrary, or shouldn't be---and that's the point of them.

But if you're really asking---what if the weight of the evidence doesn't favor either competitor, either opponent, witness or player etc? Then the benefit of the doubt should be given to the player involved as Decision 34-3/4 makes quite clear.

[Andy_Lipschultz]

The fact that Bamberger mused extensively over what to do, blows me away. His job there was as a journalist and not to interject himself into the story. He's there for a newsweekly; he's not Dominick Dunne doing a Vanity Fair piece.

As Albert Brooks' character sarcastically commented in "Broadcast News" as he watched a fellow newsman (William Hurt) within an aired story, shedding a tear over an abuse victim: "Of course, let's not forget we're always part of the story."

[Robert Thompson]

Who the heck was Wie's fellow competitor, and why didn't SHE say anything?  After all, isn't it the fellow competitor's job to protect the field?

Grace Park was playing with Wie and apparently no one from Wie's group bothered to ask her about the drop. I can't see how that is Park's fault -- maybe if Wie and her "professional caddy," had asked Park, things would have been different.

I find Brad Klein's comments on Bamberger to be quite interesting. I always find it intriguing when one journalist publicly judges another. Secondly, there's nothing worse than reporters writing about other reporters, something SI seems to be doing a lot of in regards to the Wie incident.

That said, I still find both of Michael's books to demonstrate he has a true and genuine affection for the game and is a tremendous writer. Interestingly, since he worked as a caddy on both the PGA and European Tours, he hasn't commented on Greg Johnston, Wie's well-paid caddy. Apparently Johnston and Bamberger had words following the DQ. Should Johnston have known better? Or is it possible he's working for a little girl, who though she appears well media trained, isn't that easy to deal with on the course?
Since someone has to be blamed for this, I suspect Johnston will caddy a few more events and then be told things "aren't working out the way Team Wie had hoped."

[Robert Thompson]

The fact that Bamberger mused extensively over what to do, blows me away. His job there was as a journalist and not to interject himself into the story. He's there for a newsweekly; he's not Dominick Dunne doing a Vanity Fair piece.

As Albert Brooks' character sarcastically commented in "Broadcast News" as he watched a fellow newsman (William Hurt) within an aired story, shedding a tear over an abuse victim: "Of course, let's not forget we're always part of the story."

Andy: If you read Bamberger's books, you'll find that he is the central figure in them. It makes for good reading, but I don't see how the style fits at SI.

[TEPaul]

"The rules of golf are well intended.  They are constructed on an ancient and honorable set of beliefs.  But, they are also incomplete, inexact, and--more rarely--incorrect."

Carlyle:

I think I went over in post #60 everything you said again in post #63;

"The rules of golf are well intended.  They are constructed on an ancient and honorable set of beliefs.  But, they are also incomplete, inexact, and--more rarely--incorrect."

Carlyle:

I'm not sure what you mean by incomplete. It seems golfers, golf rules officials and "committees" have managed pretty well all these decades under the Rules of Golf.

Inexact? Perhaps they are to some but they aren't to others who understand how to apply "like situations shall be treated alike" to almost any set of facts that come down the pike.

Incorrect? Perhaps by that you mean some of them seem illogical to you. Most golfers probably feel some rule or a few  of them are somewhat illogical in some way. I'm no different, I feel one or a few are illogical in various ways but at least I know both how they work and more importantly why (the principles behind each of them) they work the way they do.

That's what more people need to know about the Rules of Golf and unfortunately so few do. I truly do believe that if more golfers really understood, even in a general way, the principles behind the various Rules of Golf they would definitely end up complaining about them a whole lot less.

[Jerry Kluger]

TEP: Okay, we have a rules infraction by the competitor, why must the result be disqualification?  Presuming again that the violation was unintentional, why can't they simply assess a penalty - say, 2 strokes and be done with it.  Why must it be that the consequence is disqualification? Personally, I have always felt that the punishment should fit the crime and here the punishment for the good faith violation is so severe that the only punishment more severe than that would be to bar the competitor from future competitions as well.  

[Bob_Huntley]

The fact that Bamberger mused extensively over what to do, blows me away. His job there was as a journalist and not to interject himself into the story. He's there for a newsweekly; he's not Dominick Dunne doing a Vanity Fair piece.

As Albert Brooks' character sarcastically commented in "Broadcast News" as he watched a fellow newsman (William Hurt) within an aired story, shedding a tear over an abuse victim: "Of course, let's not forget we're always part of the story."

Andy: If you read Bamberger's books, you'll find that he is the central figure in them. It makes for good reading, but I don't see how the style fits at SI.

Robert,

Is that why it was so turgid?

Bob

[TEPaul]

"I recognize that a decision of golf dictates that Wie be disqualified.  I also recognize that this decision--in this case--sucks golf balls."

Carlyle:

Good, good, good. There may be a lot of people who think that Decision as it clearly applied to the DQ ruling against Wie sucks golf balls. Wie probably thinks that Decision sucks golf balls today. Maybe even Bamberger thinks that Decision sucks golf balls today.  But at the very least it seems we've gotten you to the point where you do understand why the "Tournament Committee" in the LPGA Samsung Championship really did not have it within their providence to waive the DQ penalty and apply a 2 shot penalty in Wie's case, as you suggested they should a day or two ago. That is they couldn't have done that without making a mockery out of the very Rules they were playing that tournament under---The USGA/R&A Rules of Golf.

[George Pazin]

Carlyle, I don't know if you've read it or not, but at least one rules official who commented on this stated emphatically that Michelle did benefit a great deal from her illegal drop, as the proper drop would have been onto a hardpan surface and would have resulted in a much more difficult shot.

George, I think this may be an example of an official trying to massage the circumstances to make an unpopular decision more palatable.

In the accounts I've read, the official who returned to the scene with Wie merely observed that the ball was somewhat closer to the hole.  It even required measuring the distance explicitly to determine with certainty that it was closer (because that conclusion couldn't be made conclusively by direct observation).

From the LPGA website:

Q. Are you saying that no matter where she would have dropped the ball out of that bush, unless she had gone across the cart path there, the ball was going to be closer to the hole?

ROBERT O. SMITH: If that ball, if you had to see this situation, she would have probably been dropping in a dirt area, not on the grass area. And that's the bad part of it. We measured this three or four times. Jim and I wanted to be perfectly sure that what we were doing was right. Unfortunately it turned out that way.

You are free to feel he's massaging the circumstances, but, in addition to the above statement, he also said he measured the distance difference at 12-15 inches, Michelle said it was "like 3". I love Wiesy and hate to see this happen, but when in doubt, I trust the rules official. I've met enough to know that the last thing they want to do is disqualify someone unnecessarily.

[TEPaul]

This Bamberger/Wie story has gotten outta hand. Must be a low news time this week.

Here's the way I wish this thing had turned out.

1. Bamberger blows the whistle on Wie a day late leading to the 6-6, DQ possibilty.

2. The two Rules officials take Wie and her caddy out to the scene of the crime after the final round to review and establish the "facts" from Wie and her caddy.

3. They all agree on the established points, measure them and sure enough Bamberger is right, Wie is wrong and it looks like a "no way out" DQ for Wie with the loss of $53,000 in her first pro tourney.

4. At that point Wie rather sotto voce says to the two rules officials;
"Look guys, I've been watching you two glance at me furtively and lasciviously. I may be young but I'm not dumb, I know what's on your minds. So it looks like I was over the line by about 12-15 inches, maybe even 18 full inches, and I know to you guys, the "Committee, The USGA/R&A Rules of Golf  that means a "no way out" DQ and a loss of $53,000 to me due to Rule 6-6, Rule 28, Rule 20-7 etc. So here's the deal. You've got a choice. A/ I'll pay each of you guys a grand or B/ The three of us can go over there behind that "original lie" Golden Lantana bush and you two can cop a simultaneous feel not to exceed 3 1/2 seconds. If you're worried someone like Bamberger is spying on us I'll act like I'm bending over to inspect where the ball originally lay in the Golden Lantana bush and that I'm accidently falling forward and you two can catch me and cop a simultaneous feel not to exceed 4 1/2 seconds. And for this you two overlook this 12-15 or even 18 inches nearer the hole thing and rule this situation in my favor that my ball was not "nearer the hole"."      

And so that's what they do. The two rules officials catch Michelle on the way down over behind the Golden Lantana bush and actually cop about a 6 1/2 second feel, that mildly pisses Michelle off.

Unfortunately, Michael Bamberger happens to be hidden over behind a rock near the Golden Lantana bush and he not only videos this whole shennigan-like arrangement but gets it on audio tape. This whole thing breaks in SI, it becomes an National sensation---the two rules officials get slammed in the Brig for lascivious conduct toward a minor (their lawyer argues that Michelle is 6'1" and amazingly nubile for a 16 year old leading his clients to momentarily forget she was a minor but the jury and judge didn't buy that defense).

Michelle becomes an even bigger overnight financial and Pop-star success and replaces Parris Hilton on all the super-market checkout counter rags for at least a full two weeks (Of course featuring the color photo of the simultaneous copped feel behind the Golden Lantana bush under banner headlines that scream "Michelle is pregnant from this secret Dessert tryst!!!!"). Michelle Wie & Co, LLD. PCC, CPO, Inc. eventually rakes in about $3.29 billion in all kinds of marketing schemes.

Best of all, when Michelle finally consents to speak to the press (where she graciously agrees to invite Michael and seat him in the front row center) about this stunt she admits that even though she may've been vaguely unaware that a couple of inches the wrong way could've cost her $53,000 and a DQ under the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf in the Samsung thing, at least she knew there is absolutely NO PENALTY (not even a single shot) in the Rules of Golf for bribing (with an option of cash or a quickly copped simultaneous feel) a couple of lascivious rules officials into seeing things her way in some minor Rule 28, 20-7 and 6-6 cock-up.

Now, THAT woulda been a STORY!!  

(At the press conference LA Times golf contributor Geoff Shackelford asked Michelle how she feels now about the bribe option she offered those two rules officials, and Michelle says; "That's a totally great question Geoff---you know, like, thinking about that now I should've, like, offered those two, like, the option of A/ $1 million bucks each to be paid out over five years or B/ A simultaneous copped feel not to exceed 1 1/2 seconds" ).

[Carlyle Rood]

But at the very least it seems we've gotten you to the point where you do understand why the "Tournament Committee" in the LPGA Samsung Championship really did not have it within their providence to waive the DQ penalty and apply a 2 shot penalty in Wie's case, as you suggested they should a day or two ago. That is they couldn't have done that without making a mockery out of the very Rules they were playing that tournament under---The USGA/R&A Rules of Golf.

I wasn't aware of the decision regarding that rule.  Quite frankly, the decision seems to contradict the rule.  Given that decision, however, I comprehend why they disqualified her (even though I disagree with it).

What you haven't justified is why such a disproportionately punitive outcome is mandated by this decision in this case.  The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

This is akin to throwing a football player out of the game for an incidental facemask.

[TEPaul]

"What you haven't justified is why such a disproportionately punitive outcome is mandated by this decision in this case.  The punishment doesn't fit the crime."

Carlyle:

I thought I had explained this by quoting some of Tuft's "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf". This is not just some far-fetched reference on my part, that book and most eveything that's said in it really is what the USGA does rely on to a large extent in philosophical rules situation questions and opinions such as yours. This I can totally guarantee and if you don't believe me just call the Rules Committee dept at the USGA and ask them.

I'm really not trying to justify these things only to explain to you how they work and how they really are and have been for a long, long time---the "principles" behind the Rules of Golf.

The punishment of any particular rules situation is not suppose to fit the specific circumstances of that particular crime. That's what I'm trying to say. Whatever the intent, whatever the circumstances, whatever the lengths of the particular infraction are all treated in the same manner. That's much of what the "Equity" concept in golf, what Tufts referred to as "like situations shall be treated alike" is all about. That concept is much of the "justice system" in golf.

Tonight when I get home I'll try to type in here the entire chapter of about four pages by Tufts on this concept of equity and justice in golf. The chapter is called "The Scales of Justice" and it explains how it works uniquely in golf and why.

Hopefully, then you'll understand it better. I realize you may not agree with it or all of it but this is the way golf has been since the beginning, and most don't see any reason to change it all now.

[PThomas]

could this have happened on the PGA Tour?  didn't they stop viewers from phoning in?  wouldn't this have fallen into that category too?

if yes I wonder if the LPGA will change its rule?