LynnBlakeGolf Forums - Did the PGA mess-up?

LynnBlakeGolf Forums (http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/index.php)

- The Clubhouse Lounge (http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)

- - Did the PGA mess-up? (http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7530)

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdZ (Post 75086)

I guess the question is, how can a player know if an area was designed as a bunker, or as a waste area, if the gallery is allowed to walk there, and there are no rakes?

Unless it was also clear that there were no areas considered waste areas on the course? or that any area with sand was to be considered a bunker?

Not only allowed to walk in the bunkers but also allowed to stand in them while a player is hitting. I imagine it would've been hard to identify that as a bunker even without spectators covering most of it.

That local rule reads to me as if they are primarily addressing the issue of relief, not what is and isn't a bunker. A sandy area caused by spectator traffic would not fall under the definition of a bunker in that local rule, as it would not have been a designed hazard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevCarter (Post 75078)

HG,

...If they didn't allow spectators to walk through the bunkers, they wouldn't have been able to allow spectators on the grounds...

Kevin

So the course is not spectator-friendly...sounds like the PGA compromised on its selection...if players have to share bunkers with spectators. However you slice it...the PGA looks like bad guys on this one...and the fans missed out on a 3-way playoff...and Dustin missed out on redemption...fortunately he is young enough to get over it:)

All the players were warned beforehand that if they were in something sandy, it would probably be a hazard. And it wasn't excactly written with fine print either.

They can read, can't they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BerntR (Post 75102)

All the players were warned beforehand that if they were in something sandy, it would probably be a hazard. And it wasn't excactly written with fine print either.

They can read, can't they?

That's just it. If the rule had said "all sandy areas are considered bunkers", I'd be with you 100%.

Given the area was completely covered with people, there were no rakes, and the rule only talked about 'areas designed as bunkers', I just don't see a clear way players could determine what was and wasn't considered a bunker.

No markers, no rakes, a large crowd, foot prints.

And a young player trying to focus and win after a tough finish in the U.S. Open.

How many of those who watched it looked at his lie and said to themselves "hey, he's in a bunker"?

Not many I'd bet, since you couldn't see his surroundings much with all the people.

What would a reasonable person assume based on what you saw on tv before he finished 18 and learned about the ruling?

I understand the rule, and I understand the ruling, but I don't think it was reasonable at all and I think Dustin got screwed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdZ (Post 75113)

But for the fact that he directed a "spectator(s)" to block the sun, Which is another rule he clearly violated , and was not called on it. I MIGHT agree some. But it evened out or worked to his advantage.

The Bear

Final Ruling Pertaining To Blocking The Sunlight

Quote:

Johnson reviewed for two potential rules violations at PGA
REX HOGGARD, Senior Writer, GolfChannel.com
Posted 08/23/2010, 12:29 PM EST

Although it has been reviewed more times than the Zapruder film, Dustin Johnson’s heartbreaking run-in with the Rules of Golf has taken another turn.

In the frenzied moments following Johnson’s now-well documented violation on the 72nd hole at last week’s PGA Championship, GolfChannel.com has learned that officials reviewed the taped footage for not one but two potential rules violations.

As the crowd surrounding Johnson’s golf ball, which had settled into one of Whistling Straits’ 1,200 or so bunkers, shifted to open a path to the green, shards of light began flickering across his lie. As the crowd shifted Johnson can be heard telling a spectator, “Either cover it up . . ., yeah block it (the sun).”

According to Rule 14-2 a player “may not place an object or position a person for the purpose of blocking the sunlight from his ball.” The decision, however, does allow for a player to ask a person who is already in position not to move, so that a shadow remains over the ball, or to move, so that his shadow is not over the ball.

“The ball came to rest in a complete shadow and when he reached his ball there were flickers of light and shadows, flickers of light and shadows,” said Kerry Haigh, the PGA of America’s managing director for championships and business development. “The player, as the decision says, may ask a spectator not to move.

“We felt what he did was not a penalty situation, although the words that were used were not the best. But the intent was to stop the spectators from moving. That was certainly within a player's right and we were comfortable with that.”

Haigh said officials were made aware of the potential violation at the same time they learned of the possibility that Johnson had grounded his golf club, an infraction that ultimately led to a two-stroke penalty and cost him a spot in the playoff which was won by Martin Kaymer.