Everyone has an opinion on the ruling that kept Dustin Johnson out of a playoff at the PGA. And that includes you, the fan. Letters poured into the editors of Golf Digest.com, articles appeared everywhere accompanied by rants and raves, and posts and comments galore at geoffshackelford.com.
And, most importantly, a poll at ESPN revealed what the fans think about the fiasco. It turns out that only 41% of you think that Johnson should have been penalized - which also means that a strong majority of 59% think it was a mistake.
These percentages give us our baseline. But, thanks to ESPN’s state-by-state maps, we can see voter tendencies across our great land, and internationally as well. As suspected, these maps revealed voter bias.
Johnson comes from South Carolina, so guess what - 65% of the voters from his home state feel that he was given a raw deal, or 6% more than the national average.
Now consider the great state of Wisconsin, home of Steve Stricker and Whistling Straits. Its residents are justly proud of having hosted the PGA, so they got a bit defensive at the possibility that their Pete Dye masterpiece was in any way flawed. The result: only 52% of the fans in WI believed that Johnson got a raw deal, the fewest in any state.
Voters from around the world also participated. Predictably, they were proud that Martin Kaymer, a non-American, had won, so they wanted nothing to take away from his victory. As a result, only 53% thought Johnson got screwed.
Despite the outrage, nothing is going to change the final result, though perhaps golf will take the steps to make sure this never happens again. Besides filling in 80% of the bunkers at Whistling Straits that never come into play, even for 30 handicappers, golf needs to have better trained officials accompany the groups in contention, especially those with huge galleries.
The overhead views of Johnson as he approached his tee shot on 18 while surrounded by a horde of fans made it clear that this situation was unlike 99.9% of shots from off the fairway those not in contention face. In other words, those in contention need the very best in officiating.
Did Johnson get a fair shake from the official with his group? I’ve read that he did, and that he didn’t. The later opinion was best expressed by John Feinstein on the Golf Channel. He queried several top officials and they were unanimous in their belief that an official should have been all over the situation, advising Johnson about the state of his ball - that is was in a hazard.
Johnson has said that it never dawned on him that his ball was in a bunker, which means that his assigned official did not do his job, at least not in the opinion of the other top official that Feinstein queried.
Johnson obviously did not get word that he had incurred a penalty until after attempting his putt on 18 for what he thought would have given him the win. That means, of course, that his penalty was assessed from long range, from the HD taping of CBS, which the official said Johnson could see if he needed proof. So, officiating could not be done from a distance of five feet, but it could from 250 yards away.
After Johnson played his second, is there any way that the PGA could have not assessed the penalty and still looked like they were not favoring Johnson, and were properly administering the rules? Is there a gray area for interpretation? How about this: the player can assume the best, that his ball was in a position where he could ground his club because there was so little evidence that he was in a bunker that he must be given the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, that he was able to hit without a warning from the official in charge that he was in a hazard is another point in his favor.
If you listen to the sadness expressed by Martin Kaymer and Bubba Watson, both gentleman of the highest caliber, I think it is reasonable to conclude that they would have had no problem with Johnson joining them in the playoff, even if it dropped their theoretical odds of winning from 50% to 33%.
All week long golf was set to come out of the week’s final major as a big winner even though Tiger and Phil failed to contend. Mega-talent Rory McIlroy showed up on the leaderboard again with his third third in the last five majors. The young bombers, such as Johnson and Watson, showed that they had plenty of game, and a throng of new talent, such as Kaymer, Jason Day, and Nick Watney looked to be on the verge of a breakout. And then there was Whistling Straits with its postcard vistas, which compared favorably with Pebble Beach.
The sport was also graced with a shootout for the ages as any of six or seven players had a chance to win on the back nine. And then disaster hit. Now to those of us who know the quirky nature of the game, we sort of understand what happened - its golf - though it’s a side of the game we certainly don’t like. But to those who are casual fans, but who watch the majors and entertain thoughts of taking it up some day, this ridiculous ending could be the thing that keeps them from taking up the game some day.
RSS
4 responses so far ↓
1 BD // Aug 17, 2010 at 10:36 am
It’s unfortunate and perhaps the referee could have done a better job in warning him, but the fact remains that DJ grounded his club in a bunker. There shouldn’t be any controversy about the resulting 2-stroke penalty. It would be far more controversial — unthinkable, in fact — for the PGA or the other playoff contenders to somehow waive the rule violation. If DJ had gone ahead and won the championship on the basis of a such an exception, it would have forever tarnished the accomplishment.
2 Phil // Aug 17, 2010 at 1:01 pm
BD
Since Johnson felt he had nothing to confess at the end of play, and since the rules official in his group did not call a penalty, it seems as if the prying long distance eye of TV is responsible for the calling of he penalty - and after the fact. If Johnson could be allowed to play his next two shots without being notified that he has indeed incurred a penalty, then a case can be made that the rule officials in the booth did not think there was grounds for one, or they were super slow in informing him. They want the rules to be applied evenly, but how evenly can they be when some players are under the watchful eye of TV, and others aren’t. And, in the case of the leaders, every effort should be made to make sure they receive the ultimate treatment. Heck, for years Woods has gotten away with a super slow putting routine down the stretch, a clear violation of the 45/60 second rule on the greens.
I understand that the rules are the rules, but golf needs to understand there are gray areas that need to be explored.
3 BD // Aug 18, 2010 at 6:18 am
I’m not saying that the situation couldn’t have been handled better or even avoided. However, it seems to me that DJ’s ball was either in a hazard or it wasn’t. Everyone seems to agree that it was, in fact, in a hazard. However, people are saying (a) it didn’t LOOK like a bunker, and (b) an area like that shouldn’t be considered a bunker because it’s outside the ropes and people were walking through it all week. But neither of these observations/arguments alters the fact that the area was, in fact, a hazard. I’m pretty sure the Committee can’t redefine what is or isn’t a hazard, or redraw the lines of a hazard, once a tournament begins. They certainly can’t do it for the benefit of one player’s scorecard after an infraction has occurred.
As for Tiger and the 45/60 rule, I don’t think this is an actual rule of golf that he can “violate.” I believe players, after a warning, can be assessed a stroke penalty for slow play, but this hasn’t happened to ANY player for something like 20 years. So it isn’t a case of other players being penalized for slow play but Tiger being allowed to play as slow as he wants.
As for the prying eyes of the camera, I agree it can lead to some violations being called and others not, but, as a practical matter, it means that those players in contention have to be more careful than those not in contention. I don’t really see anything wrong with that. Anyway, the rules are the rules. You don’t have the right to break a rule just because nobody sees you doing it.
4 MikeZ // Aug 26, 2010 at 8:44 am
Personally, I have a hard time getting past the idea that a rules official should be expected to warn a player if he might be about to commit a violation. This seems to me a violation of the spirit of the game. The rules say that a player may only receive help of any kind from his caddie, right? Why should a rules official be an exception? With the rules of golf being as complex as they are, I think it’s fine – even preferred – to have officials readily available to answer questions, but not to proactively help a player. Especially since not every group has a rules official walking with them on every hole.
Leave a Comment