Comments on: The fans agree: Johhson falls victim to a bad ruling

By: MikeZ

MikeZ — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:44:05 +0000

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.

By: BD

BD — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:18:35 +0000

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.

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:01:36 +0000

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.

By: BD

BD — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:36:24 +0000

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.