Cink decision released

[Fourputt]

Attaboy for the USGA:

See THIS.

The USGA has made a very quick response to the situation which Stewart Cink was caught up in, leading to his disqualification. To all who feel that the Rules Committees are just a bunch of Nazis waiting to dump on you, this should demonstrate that they will also lean firmly toward equitable treatment when such issues arise. In this case the Rule was in conflict with etiquette, and they ruled that the player (or his caddie) should be allowed to rake the bunker he messed up, even though he hadn't actually played a stroke at his ball when it lay in that bunker.

The ruling against Cink was a correct one at the time, but it won't pop up again to ruin another player's day.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Attaboy for the USGA:

See THIS.

The USGA has made a very quick response to the situation which Stewart Cink was caught up in, leading to his disqualification. To all who feel that the Rules Committees are just a bunch of Nazis waiting to dump on you, this should demonstrate that they will also lean firmly toward equitable treatment when such issues arise. In this case the Rule was in conflict with etiquette, and they ruled that the player (or his caddie) should be allowed to rake the bunker he messed up, even though he hadn't actually played a stroke at his ball when it lay in that bunker.

The ruling against Cink was a correct one at the time, but it won't pop up again to ruin another player's day.

This is already being discussed in another thread on this topic but the rules still allow for a penalty to be assessed if it is determineable that the player is testing. They should have changed the rule to allow for it instead of making an exception which can be left to the imagination.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by coralpro

This is already being discussed in another thread on this topic but the rules still allow for a penalty to be assessed if it is determineable that the player is testing. They should have changed the rule to allow for it instead of making an exception which can be left to the imagination.

It isn't an "exception", and it doesn't leave anything to the imagination. It's the JRC's position, and you can expect to see it as an official Decision in 2010 when the next Decisions book is published. You certainly will not see any change in the wording about "testing the surface", because that is so integral to the Rules treatment of all hazards. That has always been a judgment issue with regard to just how much "digging in" or just what is allowed in using a club for a cane in entering a hazard. This is no different. If it is clear that the player is just repairing the surface by raking, then it will be allowed. If he is doing anything beyond simply raking out footprints or other depressions in the bunker, then he can be called for testing. It really shouldn't be that big a deal anyway.

As far as the other discussion... It think it belongs here in the Rules forum, as it is a significant Rules issue.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It isn't an "exception", and it doesn't leave anything to the imagination. It's the JRC's position, and you can expect to see it as an official Decision in 2010 when the next Decisions book is published. You certainly will not see any change in the wording about "testing the surface", because that is so integral to the Rules treatment of all hazards. That has always been a judgment issue with regard to just how much "digging in" or just what is allowed in using a club for a cane in entering a hazard. This is no different. If it is clear that the player is just repairing the surface by raking, then it will be allowed. If he is doing anything beyond simply raking out footprints or other depressions in the bunker, then he can be called for testing. It really shouldn't be that big a deal anyway.

As far as the other discussion... It think it belongs here in the Rules forum, as it is a significant Rules issue.

That is precisely my point and as a rules buff you should realize the way they worded it it still allows for someone to be penalized according to the previous way the rule was stated. It leaves open the scenerio where someone does the exact thing Cink did except maybe he tests while fixing the footprints. There will come a time when someone does point a finger and I'm sure it will happen eventually.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by coralpro

That is precisely my point and as a rules buff you should realize the way they worded it it still allows for someone to be penalized according to the previous way the rule was stated. It leaves open the scenerio where someone does the exact thing Cink did except maybe he tests while fixing the footprints. There will come a time when someone does point a finger and I'm sure it will happen eventually.

Don't hold your breath... You act like this is something new... it's always been there. And as it's always been, you have to do something really crazy to be called for it. Players have been penalized for digging their feet in too enthusiastically, and that is a far more likely scenario than getting penalized for overly vigorous raking.

You pop back in and let us all know the next time you see this called on someone for inappropriate raking....

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Don't hold your breath... You act like this is something new... it's always been there. And as it's always been, you have to do something really crazy to be called for it. Players have been penalized for digging their feet in too enthusiastically, and that is a far more likely scenario than getting penalized for overly vigorous raking.

You pop back in and let us all know the next time you see this called on someone for inappropriate raking....

I don't know if it will positively happen but I'm pointing out the rules does allow for that scenerio to incurr. I have read it and reread it and it still allows for a penalty so in reality it is no different except to say the rules didn't mean to violate the etiquette of the game.

[Texas Wedge]

I haven't read and re-read the rule ... but I like that the USGA has tried to clarify the situation. If they leave it to the judgment of the official as to whether the player was "testing" the sand or just standing in it or raking it, I'm okay with that. I don't think anyone would have suggested that Cink was testing the sand, therefore it would have been a non-issue...as it should have been.

Good job, USGA!

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by coralpro

I don't know if it will positively happen but I'm pointing out the rules does allow for that scenerio to incurr. I have read it and reread it and it still allows for a penalty so in reality it is no different except to say the rules didn't mean to violate the etiquette of the game.

You don't seem to get my main point. That judgment call has ALWAYS been there. Some acts are automatically deemed to be testing others are judgmental. There is even a decision to help clarify it:

13-4/0.5 Meaning of “Test the Condition of the Hazard” in Rule 13-4a

Q. What is meant by “test the condition of the hazard” in Rule 13-4a?

A. The term covers all actions by which the player could gain more information about the hazard than could be gained from taking his stance for the stroke to be made, bearing in mind that a certain amount of digging in with the feet in the sand or soil is permitted when taking the stance for a stroke.

Examples of actions that would not constitute testing the condition of the hazard include the following:

• digging in with the feet for a stance, including for a practice swing, anywhere in the hazard or in a similar hazard;

• placing an object, such as clubs or a rake, in the hazard;

• leaning on an object (other than a club) such as a rake while it is touching the ground in the hazard or water in a water hazard;

• touching the hazard with an object (other than a club) such as a towel (touching with a club would be a breach of Rule 13-4b); or

• marking the position of the ball with a tee or otherwise when proceeding under a Rule.

Examples of actions that would constitute testing the condition of the hazard in breach of Rule 13-4a include the following:

• digging in with the feet in excess of what would be done for a stance for a stroke or a practice swing;

• filling in footprints from a previous stance (e.g., when changing stance to make a different type of stroke);

• intentionally sticking an object, such as a rake, into sand or soil in the hazard or water in a water hazard (but see Rule 12-1);

• smoothing a bunker with a rake, a club or otherwise (but see Exception 2 to Rule 13-4);

• kicking the ground in the hazard or water in a water hazard; or

• touching the sand with a club when making a practice swing
in the hazard or in a similar hazard (but see Exception 3 to
Rule 13-4). (New)

I expect this decision to be modified to include the new position. but it won't change the fact that these judgment decisions have always existed. Nothing has changed in that respect

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You don't seem to get my main point. That judgment call has ALWAYS been there. Some acts are automatically deemed to be testing others are judgmental. There is even a decision to help clarify it:



I expect this decision to be modified to include the new position. but it won't change the fact that these judgment decisions have always existed. Nothing has changed in that respect

I understand what they have said mostly although I can guarantee I wouldn't be able to quote them verbatim. Cinks situation didn't require what would be defined as testing yet the rule was said to apply to him and with the clarification it basically states it is allowed as long as testing isn't done which can still be a judgemental decision as well no different than before. It is one of those issues with the rules some of us have stated before. It is intent to break the rule that should be understood as a violation and not something as trivial as following course etiquette. Now they clarify and all is supposed to be super when it should have never been a penalty to begin with. It's called common sense but when issues like this have been sounded in the past all hades would break out because of those that say the rules are simple if one just reads and follows them. Appearantly it wasn't in this case.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by coralpro

I understand what they have said mostly although I can guarantee I wouldn't be able to quote them verbatim. Cinks situation didn't require what would be defined as testing yet the rule was said to apply to him and with the clarification it basically states it is allowed as long as testing isn't done which can still be a judgemental decision as well no different than before. It is one of those issues with the rules some of us have stated before. It is intent to break the rule that should be understood as a violation and not something as trivial as following course etiquette. Now they clarify and all is supposed to be super when it should have never been a penalty to begin with. It's called common sense but when issues like this have been sounded in the past all hades would break out because of those that say the rules are simple if one just reads and follows them. Appearantly it wasn't in this case.

This makes no sense at all. If rulings were made by common sense, then we might as well throw out the rule book and just have a free for all. Rulings are and must be made from knowledge of the rules and the decisions and from an understanding of the principles that those rules are founded on.

Intent has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf (aside from a couple of very specific cases). Almost nobody who breaks a rule actually intended to do so. By your reasoning, there would be no penalties at all. The player could just say that he didn't mean to do it, and everything would be just jolly. That may be some people's idea of a fun game, but it certainly wouldn't be anything resembling golf.

The Rules of Golf aren't drafted to be cruel, but they aren't drafted to be whimsical either.

[coralpro]

OK, you're right. Now do you feel better?

[Fileygolfer]

The Rules Committee have seen the NEED to slightly change a NEW 2008 RULE.

If you walk into an adjacent Bunker and start swinging, you will still be penalised for smoothing it.
But if you have to stand in a Fairway bunker to hit a ball that is not in the sand and it ends up in a Greenside bunker, you can now smooth your footprints.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Fileygolfer

The Rules Committee have seen the NEED to slightly change a NEW 2008 RULE.

If you walk into an adjacent Bunker and start swinging, you will still be penalised for smoothing it.
But if you have to stand in a Fairway bunker to hit a ball that is not in the sand and it ends up in a Greenside bunker, you can now smooth your footprints.

A voice of reason....

[OnePutt]

This is still a bunch of nonsense. If you get in one bunker during the practice round, you can test the bunker. If you have half a brain, you should be able to remember what you learned from the practice round and use that imformation the next time you've in a bunker. I really doubt any golfer could get much usefull information from his caddy raking a bunker, that he couldn't get himself from hitting out of a bunker earlier in the tourniment.