Cink DQ - new rule - leave the bunker unraked or walk back 200 yards

[JohnV]

At the time that this happened last year, at least one USGA official said that it was a problem that needed to be solved.  By the time that it happened, the Rules for 2008 were already finalized and probably on their way to the printer or at least in final proof review.  To make a change, would have required reconvening the Rules of Golf Committees for both the R&A and the USGA and getting everyone to agree on some new wording that would have been thrown together at the last minute.

This is not the way that things work. 

Obviously Zach Johnson knew the rule, so why didn't Stewart Cink?  Because, in general, the pros make little or no effort to learn the rules.  Congrats to him for instantly recognizing that he had violated the rule and then he DQ'ed himself.

[Philippe Binette]

To me, if it's not the same bunker you're not testing the suface... haven't seen it but the course in Louisiana has some 200 yards long bunkers... so if the caddy raked on one side of the bunker and Cink's ball is 180 yards away in the same bunker, then technically he would be testing the surface...

but it's stupid...

here a situation where new design beat the rules... I can't imagine at a place like Friar's Head where some long bunkers twist around the bushes goes away, comes back etc, how can you apply that rules...

the rules is made for standard 15 yards by 10 yards bunkers it seems

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

That is the dumbest rule interpretation I've heard in the 20 years I've played this game.

Whatever happened to "no harm, no foul"?  Whatever happened to comon sense?  

Everyone involved with the game is so proud of this notion that "Golf is a gentlemen's game", and that golfers are all honest, ethical folks who would never cheat even if they could.  However, the rules are interpreted and penalties are given as if golfers are a bunch of criminals who will try to get away with anything and everything.

Assuming Cink is an honest gentlemen who would never think of cheating (that is what golf's claim about golfers is....), then why is he treated like the worst possible cheat (Disqualification)?

Oh yeah.... "Rules are rules".....

Bullshit.  If golf is a gentlemen's game, let the rules treat the golfers like gentlemen.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Although this Rule has been around a long time (and the potential to violate it as Cink did has been around a long time), in my opinion, a solution to this potential problem via an exception with a Decision could quite easily be done and I can't see that it would create any problems in some other area of interpretation or some other Rule.

The question in the decision would simply ask if a player in a situation like that---eg although his ball on his first shot was not technically in a bunker his foot for a reasonable swing at his ball outside the hazard was in the hazard....is a violation of Rule 13-4?

The answer in the Decision would explain that even if his ball was not technically in a hazard on his first shot the fact that his foot was in the hazard essentially constitutes the same thing with "testing condition of hazard" as if his ball had been in a hazard on his first shot and would therefore be covered by Exception 2 in Rule 13-4.

[Kalen Braley]

5 words on this, Anal, anal, and doubly anal

Tis has got to be the stupidest rule I've ever heard of.  It OK to stand in it, wiggle your feet around, sashe side to side...but heaven-forbid your caddy, not even you, rakes it afterwards.

And to boot, its not like Cink hasn't hit about 500,000 bunkers shots in his life.  Whats the odds of him getting up to that next bunker, whiffing it, and thinking to himself "By golly, this bunker really fooled me. I've never played out of a bunker in these conditions before.."

[TEPaul]

Kalen:

This really isn't anal on the part of the Rules-makers, it's simply a matter of "like situations shall be treated alike" looked at probably in too limited a way.

Rule 13-4 which covers situations like this is somewhat restricted by the definition of "bunker". That definition explains a ball is in a bunker ONLY when a BALL lies in or any part of it or touches the bunker. A player's stance in a bunker to play a ball outside a bunker is not covered under Rule 13-4 as that Rule is all about "the ball played as it lies"----eg A BALL is either in a bunker or it isn't. 

As I just said, it seems to me the Rules could except or exempt the player from a penalty for raking his footprints in a bunker in Cink's situation via a Decision by even explaining that the "like situation" to be treated alike in Cink's situation is in the fact that Cink has already tested the condition of a bunker with his foot and would gain no more knowledge for his next shot than if his first shot had been at a ball in the first bunker.

Can you think of a better way to resolve a situation like this? It seems to me far too many on here just automatically castigate the Rules-writers without even attempting to offer a logical and effective way of resolving these Rules situations without creating other problems and other confusions within the Rules.

And furthermore, Kalen, the Rulewriters in these kinds of situations are not exactly contemplating a Rules resolution only in the context of a Steward Cink who probably has hit 500,000 bunker shots. Did you think of that? 

[Dan Herrmann]

That's what bugs me about golf rules.  Spirit and intent is almost always neglected.  Other sports, like basketball, use S&I as their cornerstone.

No wonder the golf rulebook is much bigger than any rulebook put out by the National Federation (of high school associations).  Football/basketball/baseball, etc...

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

4. Bunker down
Stewart Cink was disqualified -- or, rather, he disqualified himself -- after falling victim to a USGA rule that was instituted last October regarding bunker play. Cink hit his tee shot on the 15th hole of the third round onto the periphery of a fairway bunker. He stepped into the bunker, then stepped out and hit his shot. The approach landed some 180 yards away, but in a greenside bunker. Before playing his third shot, Cink's caddie raked the fairway bunker where his man had stepped, which by the new standards is an illegal practice. (He would have needed to wait until after Cink had hit his next shot from the greenside bunker.) Because Cink didn't assess a penalty on himself, it was later deemed that he had signed an incorrect scorecard. And if any part of that makes sense to you, consider yourself 1-up on us.
Here's the official language from the USGA's Rules of Golf:
Rule 13-4. Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions -- Exception 1 amended for clarification; Exception 2 amended to refer to Rule 13-2; Exception 3 added to exempt a player from penalty under Rule 13-4a (testing the condition of the hazard) in certain circumstances.
Oh, sure. Makes perfect sense. Now that we have that all cleared up ...
OK, if you're still as in the dark on this one as us (and, apparently, Cink), here's the explanation of the rule given by NBC's Roger Maltbie during Sunday's telecast:
"It's Rule 13-4 that does not allow a player to test the sand or test the surface of a hazard prior to playing his initial stroke. Now, since Stewart played the ball from outside the hazard into a hazard, but stood in a hazard, raking the sand is designated to be testing the surface. Had he played his original shot from that fairway bunker, then he would have already played his initial shot and the caddie could have gone ahead and raked the bunker."

[JohnV]

Tom:  I think the decision should be as simple as declaring that raking footprints in a bunker other than the bunker where the ball lays is not "testing the condition of the hazard" and neither is raking footprints after a shot -- even if the ball still lay within the same bunker.

Policy should be in favor of raking.

Part 2 is already there.  See Exceptions 2 and 3 to Rule 13-4.

[JohnV]

4. Bunker down
Stewart Cink was disqualified -- or, rather, he disqualified himself -- after falling victim to a USGA rule that was instituted last October regarding bunker play. Cink hit his tee shot on the 15th hole of the third round onto the periphery of a fairway bunker. He stepped into the bunker, then stepped out and hit his shot. The approach landed some 180 yards away, but in a greenside bunker. Before playing his third shot, Cink's caddie raked the fairway bunker where his man had stepped, which by the new standards is an illegal practice. (He would have needed to wait until after Cink had hit his next shot from the greenside bunker.) Because Cink didn't assess a penalty on himself, it was later deemed that he had signed an incorrect scorecard. And if any part of that makes sense to you, consider yourself 1-up on us.

It is really a shame that writers don't know the rules either.  There is nothing in the changes to the exceptions to Rule 13-4 that caused Cink to be penalized.  Those changes actually liberalized what could be done in a bunker.  But, they all only apply if you hit the shot from the bunker.

The fact that the writer doesn't even understand why Cink gets DQ'ed really shows his lack of knowledge.  It is the same reason that Paul Azinger got DQ'ed for kicking rocks in a hazard at Doral, Craig Stadler got DQ'ed for laying down a towel at Torrey Pines and most other players get DQ'ed.  They turned in a score without a penalty included.

I'd say the match is over vs the writer.

[JohnV]

Tom,

It seems that you only want the player to avoid penalty if his reasonable stance was in the bunker.  Can he only rake the stance or any other steps he took to get there?  For example, if he was in the church pews, could he only rake the stance?  And what if his stance was on the grass in the pews but he still had to walk through the bunker to get to the ball.  If he can't rake those as well, isn't it just as wrong as the current case?

Or, he stands in the bunker and hits the shot, but then walks across the bunker to get the rake.  He can only rake the stance?

If the player's stance is outside the bunker but he slips on the shot and puts one foot in the bunker.  Can he not rake that?

Sure, you can say it is only for the stance for the swing, but is it really worth the exception just for that and not all the other cases.

I'm not saying that in any of those cases raking should or shouldn't be allowed.  The Rule will probably change.  But, to just write an decision or a new exception requires thought.  While this should have been thought of before, it wasn't really until late July during the Senior Open that it became an obvious issue.  As such, I think it would have been rushing things to get a Decision or Exception written without the proper consideration.

[JohnV]

Tom:  I think the decision should be as simple as declaring that raking footprints in a bunker other than the bunker where the ball lays is not "testing the condition of the hazard" and neither is raking footprints after a shot -- even if the ball still lay within the same bunker.

Policy should be in favor of raking.

Part 2 is already there.  See Exceptions 2 and 3 to Rule 13-4.

Yeah, but if you look closely at #3, it applies only to a ball in another hazard, and moreover, what if a rake isn't handy and the player who goes from bunker to bunker smooths the sand with his club (as has been known to happen in the absence of a rake)??  Exception #3 only creates a safe harbor from 13-4(a), not (b).  Why is that?

Exception 2 is the relevant one if you are still in the same bunker.  As long as the area you are smoothing is not on our line of play, improves your stance, lie of ball or area of intended swing for the very next shot (ie violate Rule 13-2), you aren't penalized.

The reason Exception 3 only mentions 13-4a is that only 13-4a refers to a "any similar hazard".  Parts 13-4b and 13-4c only refer to doing something in "the hazard".

[JohnV]

John, do you agree with me that amending the interpretation of the first domino (testing the condition of the hazard) is the way to go?

If it is really desired to change the rule, there would need to be some sort of exception or decision to say that the raking a similar bunker in some or possibly all cases is not testing the hazard.

Or just get rid of the concept of a bunker and the rakes and make it all through the green.  I posted something on this a long time ago and it would need to be revisited given the rules changes in 2008.  Perhaps I'll rewrite it and put it on my blog.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

In response to your post #38 obviously it will take some thought to resolve the kind of situation that happened to Cink without creating other situational questions and confusions in the Rules but my feeling is this kind of situation should be resolved in a way where a ball that is that close to a bunker although technically not in the bunker but still requires a player's reasonable stance in the bunker and also such things as the necessity of walking to it in the bunker to take a reasonable stance should all be included in Exception 2 of Rule 13-4. If they want to do that with a decision rather than actually in Exception 2, that's fine too.

You're aware of the so-called Weiskof decision aren't you? If so, that kind of thing would not be included in Exception 2, in my opinion, because what Weiskof was doing technically had nothing to do with the act of playing the ball. He was only trying to determine yardage or whatever and was simply cleaning up after himself for that particular act and not for one of reasonably taking his stance.

As far as slipping and touching the sand with your feet for a ball played in a similar circumstance that could be covered by reference to Exception 1 of Rule 13-4.

But my general point is these types of situations need to be reasonably connected to similar acts of players whose balls technically are in a bunker under the definition of "bunker".

[Garland Bayley]

Why doesn't the USGA get over being lawyers and simply make the rule be against testing the sand with the club head? Either that, or require the players walk on air to play their bunker shots. The difference any of the rest makes is so minute as to be meaningless.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Shivas,
It's pretty clear that setting up in the sand will give you some indication of the surface, and there is nothing in the rules preventing you from taking notice of that. 
But, I am surprised that you enter a bunker with the willful intent of breaking the rules. You, and anyone else who does this, are cheating, and shouldn't be railing on about other perceived abuses of the rules.

Are there other rules you choose not to observe?

sheesh 

[TEPaul]

"Why doesn't the USGA get over being lawyers and simply make the rule be against testing the sand with the club head?"

Garland:

Because a player might touch and test the condition of a hazard with his club to protect himself from falling. That particular act already is excepted under Rule 13-4.

[Phil McDade]

As an aside, im ny opinion, "testing the condition of the hazard" is probably the most broken rule in golf.  (Although cheater line usage is quickly gaining ground and could take the #1 spot, if for no other reason than it's done so often in a round, whereas foot digging happens far less often in a normal round...)


Why is testing the hazard the most broken rule in golf?

Because everybody who has ever played the game has dug their feet into a hazard with the specific intent of testing the condition of the hazard!



Who here will NOT admit that they've dug their feet not so much for the stance (how much solid footing do you need for a short, slow, non-torqued swing to execute a greenside bunker shot??), but rather for the precise purpose of testing the sand? 

Certainly not I.

Shivas:

I'll admit it! I'm in bunkers a lot, and I always wonder, when I enter them, how much I'm allowed to dig my feet into the sand when getting ready to hit my shot. I know hardly anything about rules relative to most here on the DG, but to what extent do the "building a stance" provisions apply here? I can't help but notice that, when I have to dig a little deeper in the trap to feel comfortable over the ball, it makes me think about how to hit my sand shot (firm vs. soft sand).

Should I have been DQ'ing myself all these years?

[TEPaul]

"Why is testing the hazard the most broken rule in golf?
Because everybody who has ever played the game has dug their feet into a hazard with the specific intent of testing the condition of the hazard!
Who here will NOT admit that they've dug their feet not so much for the stance (how much solid footing do you need for a short, slow, non-torqued swing to execute a greenside bunker shot??), but rather for the precise purpose of testing the sand? 
Certainly not I."


Shivas:

That is frankly a pretty preposterous statement on your part. It's just another example of how you seem to want to assign some form of cheating to players when it really isn't there. The Rules allow a player playing a bunker shot to dig his feet in pretty much any way he wants to in preparation for a reasonable bunker shot.

[Garland Bayley]

"Why doesn't the USGA get over being lawyers and simply make the rule be against testing the sand with the club head?"

Garland:

Because a player might touch and test the condition of a hazard with his club to protect himself from falling. That particular act already is excepted under Rule 13-4.

Not sure why that is relevant to the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make was that in reality raking a bunker in effect yields no more advantage that simply taking a stance and wiggling your feet about. In other words, if they want to outlaw testing the sand, then they might just as well require walking on air. The only true test that would give the player the unwanted advantage would be for him to take a practice swing and pass the clubhead through the sand. Therefore, IMO the only thing to outlaw would be contact of the clubhead with the sand.

[TEPaul]

"Not sure why that is relevant to the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make was that in reality raking a bunker in effect yields no more advantage that simply taking a stance and wiggling your feet about. In other words, if they want to outlaw testing the sand, then they might just as well require walking on air. The only true test that would give the player the unwanted advantage would be for him to take a practice swing and pass the clubhead through the sand. Therefore, IMO the only thing to outlaw would be contact of the clubhead with the sand."

Garland:

Again, what about a player who touches the sand to prevent himself from falling before a shot from a bunker? Are you saying that should now be a penalty?

Furthermore, it sounds like some on here think a player can or should never be able to touch sand before hitting a shot from a bunker----hence your reference to walking on air! 

Perhaps you should all read carefully the first six words in the relevent Rule---13-4, which says:

"Except as provided in the RULES, ....."     

[Michael Moore]

John V, Tom Paul -

You know that I really do appreciate the complexity of the rules and all that you both do to promote a better understanding of the rules. I brought this up because it is the first time I have seen what I consider to be an unjust and bizarre unintended consequence. Also, you know it's just a matter of time before we hear this -

to be read in your best Paul Harvey

"Now this from the PGA Tour . . . New Orleans . . . two golfers . . . Friday, Bubba Watson calls his fellow competitor a "f*cker" . . . tells all tour veterans to . . . "kiss my ass" . . . his reward . . . $12, 152 . . . Sunday morning, Stewart Cink . . . dining with his Christian brother from Iowa, Masters champion Zach Johnson . . . remembers that his caddie . . . raked a bunker the previous day . . . his reward . . . dis-qualification."

[TEPaul]

"Tom:  I think the decision should be as simple as declaring that raking footprints in a bunker other than the bunker where the ball lays is not "testing the condition of the hazard" and neither is raking footprints after a shot -- even if the ball still lay within the same bunker."


Shivas:

That might work as far as the idea of "testing the condition of a hazard" (or similar hazard) goes but what about Rule 13-2?

Are you aware of the so-called Weiskof decision? 

[Garland Bayley]

Tom,

I would allow the present exception to stand. Are you suggesting that many people would take up feigning falls to violate the spirit of the rules? If so, then it would appropriate to play  lawyer, judge, and jury on the rules staff of the tournament.

[TEPaul]

John V, Tom Paul -
You know that I really do appreciate the complexity of the rules and all that you both do to promote a better understanding of the rules. I brought this up because it is the first time I have seen what I consider to be an unjust and bizarre unintended consequence. Also, you know it's just a matter of time before we hear this."


Michael:

I agree with you. I think something needs to be done within the Rules to exempt from penalty an act like Cink's, and I think the Rules probably will do that soon. JohnV and I are basically talking about exactly how that can and will be done without creating problems in other Rules or other parts of the same Rule thereby creating more confusion or inequity.

In my opinion, the way to do it is to simply connect all those things necessary to the preparation of hitting a ball in a bunker with hitting a ball almost in a bunker but not quite technically in a bunker in situations like Cink's. The entire focus and concentration of Rule 13-4 just happens to completely revolve around a ball IN a bunker and that's part of what's creating this problem. The Rules or a decision simply need to treat the same way a ball that lies in situations similar to Cink's first shot.