[Jay Flemma]

Thanks everyone who chipped in with thoughts all week, and a HUGE thank you to Dick Daley and his family for hosting me for the week.  They were gracious, generous, and I can't thank them enough.

I am slowly rethinking my position on the officials...maybe they should have hovered more...maybe...I want some time for passions to cool, although I had a hard deadline for my piece.  Ran was kind enough to give me some thoughts on how architecture affected the outcome and how the architecture could be improved.

http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/dustin_johnson_meet_roberto_divicenzo

Also, here's a link to my favorite piece of the week - one of my slice of life portraits rather than a stat analysis or recaps.

http://jayflemma.thegolfspace.com/?p=3099

Thanks again everyone, and I hope to see you soon.  Come to Wisconsin and play golf with Dick, you'll have a ball!!  Ask him about Steve the Marine...or as I call him, The Major.  he's a great American!  Very Dan Jenkins-esque!

All the best.

[Gary Slatter]

Jay, as usual a good timely piece on a tragic ending to a great tournament on a suspect course.    If the official isn't hovering over the tournament leader who has hit the ball into a mess of patrons wide right on the 72nd hole, why was he out there?   
The Price was wrong!

For some reason I had always felt that in golf our "officials" were there to help players, not to swoop in and call penalties.

[Thomas Patterson]

Wonderful article as usual Jay...thank you for sharing!

[Jay Flemma]

Thanks Tom, thanks gary.  Mark Price wasn't the group official.  I have his name in my bag, and I'll try to post it if I get home before too late.  it may take me a day, because I am exhausted...it was estimated by the PGA of America that I walked 90 miles this week.  (They kept track for a contest.  I won a nice Whistling Straits comforter and an ice pack for my shin splints:)

Maybe the official should have ben closer...one ref friend of mine said he'd have been there and chirped up in that crucial situation, but the first duty of the player is to know.

The THIRD duty of the professional caddie os to chirp up...1)  Show up, 2 Keep up, 3) know when to shut up and when to speak up.

[JLahrman]

Jay, as usual a good timely piece on a tragic ending to a great tournament on a suspect course.    If the official isn't hovering over the tournament leader who has hit the ball into a mess of patrons wide right on the 72nd hole, why was he out there?   
The Price was wrong!

For some reason I had always felt that in golf our "officials" were there to help players, not to swoop in and call penalties.

If they need to hover, we need one official per player, not per group.

Let's consider an example where the two co-leaders were teeing off on #18.  One sprays the drive way right, one way left.  One rules official cannot hover over both of those balls, and both shots are equally critical.

Officials are there to help players, but the player should request it.  These guys have all been playing competitive golf for more than half of their lives, a lot of it with no rules official in the group.  It's silly to think that this amount of hovering is necessary.  There are some special situations that occur due to tournament setups, but these guys should have the LEAST need to have somebody hovering.

[RJ_Daley]

I agree, no hovering needed.  Jay and I spoke of my hearing Watney afterwords in and interview say something to the effect that they (pros) don't usually look at the hand-out rules sheets, because they generally know the rules, and such.  When on a course of obvious deviation from the norm of architecture where there are 1200 bunkers, one would think they'd check the local rules posted.  

Let me say, I have always enjoyed Jay's company, and it was too long since I saw him last at a Dixie Cup some years ago now.  I have a new found respect for what he does, and how passionate he is to do it.  I have several funny stories of watching Jay work.  Probably too off topic to detail, given the recent admonshiments to stay on architecture.  But, ask me next time you see me what is the hardest or oddest technique to get a drive to go about 190-200 into a FW at Lawsonia 18th.


But, I must say this.  I haven't seen anyone sink their teeth into a passionate pursuit to the extent of a sleep deprived, intensely engaged, and driven to succeed at a profession as I saw in Jay this week.  I kid you not... Wed, after he arrived back at the house night about10:30Pm, worked until about 3 writing about his golf coverage, got up at 6Am, and during the  hour and 1/2 ride to Lawsonia, was on the phone the whole time with sources for his stories.  He then insisted on walking Lawsoia in serious heat/humidity, which I begged him not to do.  He walked the first 9 and only then near heat exhaustion relented, and carted it the last 9 (i'm not supposed to tell, but can't lie-cherry tree and all that   ) He continued his cell calls to caddies and others the hour+  Lawsonia to WS, then got busy in the press tent.  He hunted down his stories, walked all over the place and we met hiim back at tent after compteition where he introduced us around to various personalities.  We brought him home, and watched him get <4hours sleep again to do it all over.  He kept that pace up all week.  I found him one evening in his room about 1;30Am in a fetal ball on his bed, out like a light, with dead hand extended onto his laptop.  When I got up around 8Am, I found he was up, had run 3 miles, and was off to the course already.   This went on for 7 days and nights.  BTW, it is ~140miles RT from my house to the course, so add the driving to the marathon.  If I'm lyin, I'm flyin  

[Phil McDade]

RJ:

That's a great report -- and thanks for hosting Jay. And showing him Lawsonia --ever better. Jay -- great work this week -- have you saved up enough money for an October trip to the country of Sean Arble's favorite course? Your coverage beats the mainstream media hands-down!

[Ronald Montesano]

Gary...Pakistan is tragic, this is a golf tournament.

[Jay Flemma]

RJ:

That's a great report -- and thanks for hosting Jay. And showing him Lawsonia --ever better. Jay -- great work this week -- have you saved up enough money for an October trip to the country of Sean Arble's favorite course? Your coverage beats the mainstream media hands-down!

Thanks Phil...when good people like you and Dick like my work, it means I'm doing something right.

This is the hardest job I've ever loved.

[Gary Slatter]

Jay, as usual a good timely piece on a tragic ending to a great tournament on a suspect course.    If the official isn't hovering over the tournament leader who has hit the ball into a mess of patrons wide right on the 72nd hole, why was he out there?   
The Price was wrong!

For some reason I had always felt that in golf our "officials" were there to help players, not to swoop in and call penalties.

If they need to hover, we need one official per player, not per group.

Let's consider an example where the two co-leaders were teeing off on #18.  One sprays the drive way right, one way left.  One rules official cannot hover over both of those balls, and both shots are equally critical.

Officials are there to help players, but the player should request it.  These guys have all been playing competitive golf for more than half of their lives, a lot of it with no rules official in the group.  It's silly to think that this amount of hovering is necessary.  There are some special situations that occur due to tournament setups, but these guys should have the LEAST need to have somebody hovering.

One player was leading the tournament and it was the last hole - so the one official could "hover" on the leader who was so far right he met Don Imus.

[RJ_Daley]

Seriously Gary, not all that far right.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=43.852309,-87.732235&num=1&t=f&sll=43.852572,-87.731382&sspn=0.001791,0.005472&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=43.852328,-87.731152&spn=0.001791,0.005472&z=18&ecpose=43.84990926,-87.73115158,456.53,0,44.997,0

[Dan Kelly]

[Never mind.]

[JLahrman]

One player was leading the tournament and it was the last hole - so the one official could "hover" on the leader who was so far right he met Don Imus.

Gary, that's just a matter of convenience.  If this hovering business going to be the policy then it has to be able to be applied consistently, which requires one official per player.

Let's pretend that your hovering official had been with Dustin and had proactively advised him (which I don't think the official should do, but let's say that he did).

However, let's also say that Nick Watney hadn't collapsed, was tied with Dustin Johnson at 12-under, and blew his drive way left into a similar location.  Watney requests a ruling, and now Johnson does not get advised by the official simply because his playing partner is also in the tournament and way off the fairway.  That doesn't make any sense at all.

Let's also say that Martin Kaymer had birdied 15, 16, 17, and 18 to get into the playoff while his playing partner bogeyed 15, 16, 17, and 18 to fall out of it.  Let's say Kaymer hit a drive way off base on the 14th hole before he started his run.  The official was hovering over the other player who was more in the hunt at the time.  Kaymer grounds his club on the 14th hole just like Johnson did, but there is no hovering official and the television cameras aren't focused on him.  Kaymer does the exact same thing as Johnson, but doesn't get the penalty applied because he doesn't know he's anything wrong and the official was with the other player.

This idea where the official stays with who is closer to the lead and advises him would create so much inconsistency it's not even worth considering in my opinion.  Especially because it's designed to handhold the people who should have the least amount of need to be handheld - tour pros who play every week for huge sums of money.

We're suddenly talking about changing the way that officials do their job, how we mark hazards, how many bunkers need to get filled in at WS, the size of Pete Dye's ego, etc. simply because a golfer didn't read a 93-word memo and got penalized because of his willful ignorance.  It's mind boggling to me.  I feel like my fellow competitors and I took the rules more seriously in our high school matches.  Not once did I not read the local rules notes on the scorecards to try to win a 9 hole high school match.  Did I obey the rules 100% of the time?  Probably not and there weren't television cameras there to prove that I didn't.  But it wasn't because of a lack of effort to educate myself.

[JLahrman]

Sorry if this is taking your thread off-topic Jay, although I suppose the post was about the incident.  I know we've already got threads going about this.

But it seems to me as if some people are wondering if our approach to architecture should be changed simply because Dustin Johnson decided not to read a local rule.  Whether or not WS needs 1,200 bunkers is up for debate, but it wasn't the reason he got penalized.

Thanks for the good columns and all the hard work you do...I thought you just went to the corporate tents and blogged from there, but now my own ignorance has been corrected.

[jeffwarne]

One player was leading the tournament and it was the last hole - so the one official could "hover" on the leader who was so far right he met Don Imus.

However, let's also say that Nick Watney hadn't collapsed, was tied with Dustin Johnson at 12-under, and blew his drive way left into a similar location.  Watney requests a ruling, and now Johnson does not get advised by the official simply because his playing partner is also in the tournament and way off the fairway.  That doesn't make any sense at all.

But that's not what happened, therefore the official missed a wonderful opportunity to prevent potentially event changing confusion.

Agreed that Dustin ultimately made the mistake; evidently it was (much) more clear to the official that Dustin was in a bunker than it was to Dustin.
Too bad he didn't offer what he thought was obvious info.

[Niall C]

Even if the rules official was standing next to Johnson why should he assume that Johnson doesn't know the rule ? After all its the seventy second hole of the tournament and the guy has hardly been Mr Straight Down the Middle. You would have thought he would have known the rule by then.

In any case is it the officials job to pre empt every action of the player by giving him a run down of the consequences of his possible actions ? I don't think so. In golf you take responsibility for your own actions. Johnson did that and handled the situation well in my view.

Niall

[JLahrman]

Right Jeff, but I don't believe that the official's availability to influence the shot should come because of chance.  Watney's in the tournament, official doesn't get the chance.  Watney blows up, official gets the chance.  Too random.

Also, do we think that the official would have advised before it was too late?  Others have remarked that Johnson's actions looked like somebody who was preparing for a fairway bunker shot.  The lie was very sandy.  The grounding may have been the first inkling that the officials would have had that Johnson did not realize he was in a hazard.  Especially if the official figured (as I would have) that Johnson had read the local rule.

EDIT:  Thanks Niall, I think you basically said the same thing I did.

[Jay Flemma]

Thanks, guys, I appreciate all the kind words, especially you Dick.

As to the incident, the answer is to read the rules and ask...on the shot of his life, he rushed and didn't think.

[Jim Nugent]

Jay, in the first article you linked, either your version of the rule is off, or the other versions I've seen elsewhere on the web are off.  Even though the difference is just one word, it's not trivial. 

In your article, the rule says "All areas of the course were designed and built as sand bunkers..." 

The other versions say, "All areas of the course THAT were designed and built as sand bunkers...".  I added the emphasis to "that," because it's crucial.  If that is how the rule reads, it does not give the players any real guidance as to what is a bunker and what is not.  It requires them to know what the designer and builder intended.  While that may seem obvious (watching on TV, I thought for sure he was in a bunker), somehow, someway it wasn't to the single most important person on the course right then: Dustin Johnson. 

I suspect your version is wrong, because it doesn't make sense: all areas of the course were designed and built as sand bunkers?  The fairways?  The greens?  The teeing areas?  The water hazards? 

BTW, I also believe Johnson is responsible, though had it been on nearly any other majors course, I bet the confusion never would have come up.   

[RJ_Daley]

I talked to a guy that has been a caddie at WS for several years not more than 1/2 hour ago.  When asked if there was any way that someone could not realise those features in that location are bunkers, he just shook his head and said he could not imagine it.  He also said there is some talk going around now that the caddie actually set the bag down in the bunker to boot.  I don't know if that is accurate and haven't seen it mentioned yet.

[Jay Flemma]

Jay, in the first article you linked, either your version of the rule is off, or the other versions I've seen elsewhere on the web are off.  Even though the difference is just one word, it's not trivial. 

In your article, the rule says "All areas of the course were designed and built as sand bunkers..." 

The other versions say, "All areas of the course THAT were designed and built as sand bunkers...".  I added the emphasis to "that," because it's crucial.  If that is how the rule reads, it does not give the players any real guidance as to what is a bunker and what is not.  It requires them to know what the designer and builder intended.  While that may seem obvious (watching on TV, I thought for sure he was in a bunker), somehow, someway it wasn't to the single most important person on the course right then: Dustin Johnson. 

I suspect your version is wrong, because it doesn't make sense: all areas of the course were designed and built as sand bunkers?  The fairways?  The greens?  The teeing areas?  The water hazards? 

BTW, I also believe Johnson is responsible, though had it been on nearly any other majors course, I bet the confusion never would have come up.   

There is a "that" in there, but as all bunkers played as bunkers for the tournament, there still is no different outcome.  He was clearly in a bunker designe3d by Dye...Pete knows because he built it...meanwhile Rees Jones apparenty says that he thought it wasn't a bunker...I don't understand that argument at all.

It's the shot of your life...don't take unnecessary risks, Dustin.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()