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

[JohnV]

In computer terms, golf is not a game of on and off, 0's and 1s, but a game of creativity, imagination, and figuring stuff out.  Why have every facet of the game be this way, and yet try to fit a square peg into a round hole by making the rules be 0's and 1's?

Kalen,

I agree that golf is not a binary game.  But, the rules have to be somewhat binary to ensure that all players get similar rulings. 

At a baseball game, there is only one umpire calling balls and strikes.  His strike zone needs to be consistent during the game, but it might be slightly different than another umpires.  Since he is the only one calling the balls and strikes in a particular game, the pitcher and the batters can figure it out and deal with it.

In golf, there may be no official on the course, there may be 1, it could be an NCGA or PGA Tour event with 6 or it could be a US Open or Open Championshiop where there is an official walking with every group.  We need to ensure that the calls for all players on the course that day are consistent.  This is why the rules of golf need to be pretty black and white and not so open to interpretation as some would like.  This is one reason that the USGA doesn't allow walking officials to declare Ground Under Repair.  Only the 6 or so rovers can do it.  First because they are more experienced and second because the decision will be more consistent.

All rules are just lines drawn in the sand (no pun intended).  We can't rake the ones we don't like out of existence.  What we can do is try to convince those who make the rules that they need to be changed.  Tom Paul has tried to do this for some rules in the past.  I have also done so.

The back channel discussions that go on about the rules are really amazing.  Some of the people out there who really understand them can see things that I can't about certain changes and why they wouldn't be good ideas.  I hope that I can get to that point some day.

At the Rules Workshop I went to last year, they handed out 10 situations that were being discussed by the Rules of Golf Committee and we all got to debate the possible ramifications of a possible rules change.  It was incredibily interesting to me although it would probably be boring to most people.

[Kalen Braley]

John,

Thanks for that last post, some very good things to think about.  I can certainly agree consistency is a great goal to have...but just don't let TomP read that, he thinks equity is for the birds.   

On a personal opinion level, what is your take on this specific ruling? Other than the fact that by admitting to it, he signed an incorrect scorecard, do you think the punishment fits the crime of even a two stroke penalty?  Which we should clarify, if he had called this on himself when he did it, he wouldn't have been DQ'd.

Do you think there is that much of a gain, if any, by having your caddy rake that bunker in that situation?  Especially if it was late in the round and one has already played out of several bunkers and knew thier basic conditions?  I'm not nearly as traveled as many on here, but of the 100 or so courses I've played, I can't think of one that had drastically different bunker conditions.  They generally all play the same on a per course basis depending on the amount of maintainance level.

[JohnV]

Kalen,

My own opinion is that I hope the USGA and R&A can come up with a way to change the rule to not penalize a player who is trying to do the right thing.  I think that many people there feel the same way although others might not.

Sometimes it takes a while for a change to go through.  Sometimes a well publicized incident can cause the change.  See Jeff Maggert in the bunker at Augusta or Kevin Stadler getting DQ'ed for carrying a non-conforming club at Hartford for two examples of rules changes brought on in just that way.

The current rule is what it is and the penalty, while unfortunate, is black and white.  But that doesn't mean it can't change.

See the quote from, ironically, Stewart Cink in my signature.

I'll add that I think Equity is for the birds only when it applies to a ball in a bird's nest (See Decision 1-4/9)

[JohnV]

For those who care, the wording banning "testing a similar hazard" was first introduced in the 1952 edition of the Rules.

[John_Cullum]

again, I respectfully disagree. I don't believe the rules writers contemplated a player making a stoke at a ball laying outside of a bunker when they wrote the rule or the exception. Equity is a fair way of handling the matter. When the penalty becomes compunded to a DQ, and further compunded with the monetary loss, a situation like this becomes unreasonable

[JohnV]

John,

Rule 1-4 says, "When any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision should be made in equity."

The Rules do cover this.  Rule 13-4a is very explicit.  You can't test a similar hazard to the one your ball is in and raking is considered testing.  Therefore equity does not apply.

Equity is not for times when you don't like the result.

The Rules makers might not have contemplated it, but the rule covers it.  This is why they may change it, but you can't use equity to get around the penalty.

As for the penalty becoming a DQ, that is another rule that you don't seem to like and would like to get around it by using "equity."  You also seem to think it matters more for the professionals who lose money by not knowing the rules.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

[TEPaul]

"The back channel discussions that go on about the rules are really amazing.  Some of the people out there who really understand them can see things that I can't about certain changes and why they wouldn't be good ideas.  I hope that I can get to that point some day.

At the Rules Workshop I went to last year, they handed out 10 situations that were being discussed by the Rules of Golf Committee and we all got to debate the possible ramifications of a possible rules change.  It was incredibily interesting to me although it would probably be boring to most people."


JohnV:

What you said above is a really incredible thing that I do realize most people and most on here will not even begin to understand the significance of. Most of us see some situation we don't like the Rules resolution of and we suggest things to fix it via the Rules in something of a vacuum as far as how that change may effect and negatively effect other situations and other Rules.

That's where a guy like you is so good and so valuable to have on here to begin to explain that kind of Rules fallout. Others like Blakey or Morrissett or Stabler or some others I know are awesome at filtering any kind of change through the entire spectrum of the Rules.

I can't do that at all or not well. The reason may be how I came at the Rules of Golf in the first place. I got really interested in them over 20 years ago and then started to officiate. I got to know the Rules of Golf by basically memorizing every single decision in the Decisions Book, and I've never been to a formal Rules school and I've never taken the USGA test.

And then along the way I came in contact with Richard Tuft's "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf". Talk about a guy who could see his way clear through the ramifications of golf Rules and Principles!

So, when I officiated I always did it with the Decisions book. Whatever the situation I just seemed to know where to go for the applicable decision that fitted the situation. I never even use the Index and don't really know how to use it. I guess I came at it the way I use it because of the way I taught myself the Rules by memorizing the Decisions book. It's an odd way to go and one not really recommended.

[TEPaul]

"again, I respectfully disagree. I don't believe the rules writers contemplated a player making a stoke at a ball laying outside of a bunker when they wrote the rule or the exception."


JohnC:

You're right the rules-writers may not have contemplated a player making a stroke at a ball outside a hazard when his foot was in the hazard and when they added exceptions to Rule 13-4.

As we have said on this thread constantly the entire sum and substance of Rule 13-4 revolves around golf balls that are IN a bunker ONLY.

It is not uncommon when these kinds of lapover situations happen in golf in the Rules. The Golf Rules-writers at particular times deal with particular situations that have particular limitations in the wording of the Rules. So what happens is the interpretation in similar lapover situations just sort of stops at the limitations of the Rule wording.

When these things happen and situations get serious enough or common enough they figure out ways of expanding interpretations by changing Rules wording or adding Decisions to address and resolve them.

I hope you now understand and why from what JohnV just said that the Equity Rule (1-4) cannot be used to resolve a situation like Cink's.

[John_Cullum]

John,

Rule 1-4 says, "When any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision should be made in equity."

My position is that this situation is not covered by the rules. I understand what your position is. You just don't like my take on it.

You misinterpret my point when you say I don't like the DQ. I understand the DQ is for returning an incorrect score, and I don't wantto change that. My decision avoids that by not imposing a penalty. As to my decision, and how it affects a professional more than an amateur, I am just staying in touch with the reality of golf at it's highest levels. That's the way it works

[TEPaul]

"My position is that this situation is not covered by the rules. I understand what your position is. You just don't like my take on it."

JohnC:

It's not a matter of just not liking your take on this. I will guarantee you and so will JohnV that your take on the Cink situation and how to resolve it is just not right and not within the Rules of Golf at the present time. You can ask the USGA or the R&A Rules of Golf committees or any competent Rules official and they will all tell you precisely the same thing.

There are plenty of good Rules people and Rules officials who don't like some of the things about how the Rules work but they all know that waiving a Rule of Golf to resolve or accommodate some situation is just not an option. Your take on how to resolve a situation like Cink's would be waiving a Rule of Golf and it would never fly. It would never survive a review by a Tournament Committee or the USGA and R&A Rules committees.

I think both JohnV and I and obviously you and plenty of others would like to see a situation like Cink's resolved within the Rules to not include penalty but that will not happen through the use of Rule 1-4 (Equity). It will be put directly into the framework of another Rule, in this case logically Rule 13.

[John_Cullum]

TEP

Please note I consider myself a competent rules official.

I believe one of the great attributes of the best rules officials is being able to figure a way to get a player out of a penalty when all around think a penalty has been incurred

[JohnV]

John,

The best rules officials will interview a player regarding what happened and try to find a way, within the rules, to avoid giving a penalty, but, when you have to resort to "equity" when the rule is very clear (even if not "fair"), you are doing your job.  You are attempting to rewrite the rules to suit your liking.

If you feel that the best rules officials would have ruled the way you want to, you obviously feel that the USGA staff and volunteers that were at the Senior Open last year and the PGA Tour Rules staff last week are not the best rules officials.  In that I disagree completely.

[TEPaul]

"I believe one of the great attributes of the best rules officials is being able to figure a way to get a player out of a penalty when all around think a penalty has been incurred."

JohnC:

I couldn't agree more. I feel precisely that way about officiating but I think you must know that in determing the accuracy or applicability of any ruling there is a process to follow and I'm sure you know what that is.

[George Pazin]

I believe one of the great attributes of the best rules officials is being able to figure a way to get a player out of a penalty when all around think a penalty has been incurred

Cool sentiment.

This is an interesting read, as are many of the rules threads.

I will say that I'm a little annoyed someone would label someone who doesn't really pay attention while stabilizing his feet as dishonest. Pretty weak.

[Kalen Braley]

Is there any concept of "a round in the books" for Golf? If I understand correctly the DQ didn't happen until the next day when Cink turned himself in after the conversation with Zach.  Shouldn't there be some kind of cut off saying the round is in the books and thats that?

I tried to think of other sports that come back and visit a ruling or otherwise and someone get DQ'd as a result.  Sure there are failed drug tests or ineligble players which could results in a retroactive forfiet.  But I can't think of a particular in-game ruling where it was looked at after the fact, then reversed, resulting in something drastic like a DQ or a loss.

Is it out of the realm of possibilty to tweak the rule about signing scorecards to allow for someone like Cink to remain in the tourney with 2 strokes for the penalty added?  It sure seems like there is a case where a player is trying to knowingly decieve, where the DQ should stand...but in this case, Cink turned himself in....can appropriate retributions be put in place on this one?   

I guess the rigidty of some rules combined with thier harsh punishments don't really seem to fit the crime....and I don't see this much in other sports.  But I'm guessing there will be many who will wear this as a badge of honor for the game of golf.

[TEPaul]

JohnC:

Believe me what I'm about to ask you is in no way at all intended to be a criticism of you or your position on this Cink situation. My question to you is how often and how much do you feel you've been involved in officiating or decision making of Rules situations via Rule 33 or even Rule 34?

Those are two Rules that most people who just play golf and by the Rules really don't get much involved in. I call those two Rules the "administrator" Rules. They are sort of complex but I feel in a way there's a certain beauty to the way they're set up to resolve things. The cool thing about that process in Rules 33 or 34 is that good, bad or indifferent and right or wrong they do provide a final authority and timeframe for all Rules situations.

[TEPaul]

"Is there any concept of "a round in the books" for Golf? If I understand correctly the DQ didn't happen until the next day when Cink turned himself in after the conversation with Zach.  Shouldn't there be some kind of cut off saying the round is in the books and thats that?"

Kalen:

There sure is and it's basically called "When the competition is closed."

When that time comes review and resolution is basically done and in the books.

All that is in Rule 34-1 (Claims and Penalties) although there are four exceptions to it.

[Kalen Braley]

Thanks for the clarification, I'm only a hack at best compared to most on this site when it comes to the rules.  So if Cink would have waited until Monday to fess up, then it wouldn't have mattered?  Perhaps he could have waited one more day, until after the checks were cut, to clear up his conscious.    

[TEPaul]

Kalen:

One of the best known Rule 34-1 cases was years ago at Hilton Head involving Hale Irwin. The day after the tournament and after the competition was officially closed he became aware he'd unintentionally violated a Rule in the last round and returned an incorrect lower score. Irwin had won $10,000 and he called The Tour to DQ himself and was told the competition was closed and review was over and to keep the check.

[TEPaul]

"I guess the rigidty of some rules combined with thier harsh punishments don't really seem to fit the crime....and I don't see this much in other sports.  But I'm guessing there will be many who will wear this as a badge of honor for the game of golf."


Kalen:

The interesting thing, and probably unique thing in sports, about The Rules of Golf is they are not constructed and are not meant to fit the crime in individual and sometimes exceptional cases. They are essentially grouped into series of interpretations that some call "Like Situations Shall Be Treated Alike."

It may've been Richard Tufts who first articulated that concept which is essentially the unique "equity" construct and structure of The Rules of Golf.

Here's the way he explained it in his little book that the Rules-writers seem to treat as something of their resolution or logic bible:

"As can be seen, the so-called equity rule (it's really the PRINCIPLE that "Like Situations Shall Be Treated Alike, parentheses are mine) will lead to difficulty if applied with the idea of seeking a just solution in the light of the circumstances surrounding the individual case. The penalty for a Rule of Golf is not adjusted to fit the attendant circumstances. The answer lies rather in defining analogous situations and according them all the same treatment.
      The Approach is not whether "this particular situation is unfair to me," but rather whether "others in a similar situations and I in mine are treated alike under the Rules."

[JohnV]

Dave,

Don't worry there are more judgement calls.  A few off the top of my head:

Building a stance in a bunker.  How much sand can you knock down before you should be penalized?

Denying relief for Rules 24 and 25 when a ball can not be played due to something other than the thing the player wants relief from.

David Frost's unorthodox stance at the 1999 Open Championship in trying to get relief from a path.

[Jerry Kluger]

Being the cynic that I am, allow me to analyze the situation as opposed to the rule.  Wasn't it Cink who wound up in a bit of a fuss over his play out of a waste area - I believe it was at Hilton Head, and his taking questionable advantage of the rules?  He didn't need to be in the middle of another issue concerning him and the rules, especially if it was brought up by some viewer or spectator.  You just never know today what is being recorded and how it may come back and bite you.  Whether the rule is justified or not, Cink is supposed to be aware of it and he should not be presumed to have knowledge of only those rules which work to his advantage. 

[TEPaul]

"2.  Judgment calls are to be avoided at all costs."

Shivas:

I never said that. Obviously, I've been officiating long enough to know that judgement calls need to be made in the Rules all the time. For it to be otherwise The Rules of Golf would probably need to be large enough to fill a medium sized library.

Your "cheater line" suggestion via the Rules is not just something that I'd disagree with due to constant judgement calls, it's also something I just don't think is cheating or trying to gain an unfair advantage in golf as apparently you do.

They may ban using a line on a golf ball some day to align the ball for the purposes of putting and they may never give a reason for banming its use that way but if they ever do I think the reason will probably be about slow play and not cheating or trying to gain some unfair advantage.

On the other hand, the Rules-writers and interpreters may simply decide to use a Rule that already exists (6-7) to prevent slow play borne of the use of a line on a ball for the purposes of putting alignment.

[JohnV]

Wasn't it Cink who wound up in a bit of a fuss over his play out of a waste area - I believe it was at Hilton Head, and his taking questionable advantage of the rules? 

Cink did get a break because the Rules Committee of the PGA Tour didn't want to declare an area filled with crushed shells a bunker since crushed shells couldn't be considered the same as sand.  This made the shells loose impediments that he could move and he did to give him a better lie.  This led to a new decision (33-8/40) which says that the Committee can deem things like crushed shells to have the same status as sand.

I don't think that he was worried about the public's perception as much as his own knowledge that he had broken a rule.  See the quote from him that I believe shows his belief that the rules are the rules and if he breaks one he should get the penalty.

[Kalen Braley]

"I guess the rigidty of some rules combined with thier harsh punishments don't really seem to fit the crime....and I don't see this much in other sports.  But I'm guessing there will be many who will wear this as a badge of honor for the game of golf."


Kalen:

The interesting thing, and probably unique thing in sports, about The Rules of Golf is they are not constructed and are not meant to fit the crime in individual and sometimes exceptional cases. They are essentially grouped into series of interpretations that some call "Like Situations Shall Be Treated Alike."

It may've been Richard Tufts who first articulated that concept which is essentially the unique "equity" construct and structure of The Rules of Golf.

Here's the way he explained it in his little book that the Rules-writers seem to treat as something of their resolution or logic bible:

"As can be seen, the so-called equity rule (it's really the PRINCIPLE that "Like Situations Shall Be Treated Alike, parentheses are mine) will lead to difficulty if applied with the idea of seeking a just solution in the light of the circumstances surrounding the individual case. The penalty for a Rule of Golf is not adjusted to fit the attendant circumstances. The answer lies rather in defining analogous situations and according them all the same treatment.
      The Approach is not whether "this particular situation is unfair to me," but rather whether "others in a similar situations and I in mine are treated alike under the Rules."

Tom Paul,

I will stipulate that like situations should be treated in the same manner...no question to that one.  But it doesn't nullify the reasoning/logic of the actual punishment attached to the violation.  Consider this:

Two differnt guys rob a store and each steal a loaf of bread.  They both committ the exact same crime and don't do anything else like hold people hostage, brandish a gun, etc.  If they both get the death penalty, are we going to say everything is fine because they were both treated alike? 

This is the real issue that I'm trying to go after.  Just because like-violaters are given the same punishment, it doesn't absolve one of making sure the punishment fits the crime.  This is where the rigidity of the rules and corresponding punishment go way over the top in my opinion.  Shouldn't Cinks honesty, for reporting himself, the day after the fact no less, be rewarded with being assigned the two stroke penalty and allowed to carry on the next day?  Would anyone in the field have a problem with this? As you stipulated in your prior posts, judgement calls are apart of the game...can't something like this be built in?