Source: http://www.usga.org/news
Interesting Rules Incidents In 2008
October 29, 2008
By Craig Smith and Bernie Loehr
Whether the venue is a professional tour event, a national championship or a weekend four-ball at your
home course, the Rules of Golf serve to guard the tradition and integrity of the game. For the
average golfer, day in, day out, they serve as the basic foundation, allowing players of all abilities to
compete fairly against one another.
Then there are times when unusual situations occur, and often it’s when the stakes are highest. The on-
course Rules Officials huddle in consultation and a decision is rendered. As you will see from the handful
of noteworthy scenarios we highlight below from the 2008 season, sometimes the verdict is dire, and it’s a
costly learning experience for the player involved. Michelle Wie can attest to that. Other times, the
situation involves an issue that is already being discussed by those who write and interpret the Rules
themselves – the USGA and the R&A – as an unusual situation early in the year involving Stewart Cink
demonstrates.
But the Rules, as written, apply to all golfers, and a familiarity with them can often make a difference
in your game. Learn them as best you can, and keep a copy of the Rules of Golf book in your bag to refer
to. And if you find yourself in need of an expert opinion, call, write or e-mail the USGA Rules Department –
as did nearly 20,000 golfers this year with Rules queries or comments. On the course, Hale Irwin was
involved in a Rules situation at the U.S. Senior Open. His situation was just one of the more interesting
Rules incidents from this past year.
Stewart Cink’s Disqualification at the 2008 PGA Tour Zurich Classic
Rule 13-4: Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions
Stewart Cink’s drive on the 15th hole during the third round of the Zurich Classic at the TPC Louisiana in
Avondale, La., was slightly offline and came to rest near a fairway bunker. Cink thought nothing of it as he
walked into the adjacent fairway bunker to survey his next shot. He subsequently took his stance outside
the bunker and played his stroke. His approach shot landed in a greenside bunker about 180 yards away
from where he was standing. Cink’s caddie raked the footprints in the fairway bunker, and they headed up
toward the green.
The result was a breach of Rule 13-4a: "before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard and testing the
condition of a similar hazard," and Cink incurred a two-stroke penalty when his caddie raked the fairway
bunker. Cink had not played his ball from the fairway bunker, so under the Rules of Golf he (or his caddie)
was not allowed to rake the bunker.
However, Cink was not aware that he had incurred a penalty, so at the conclusion of his round he returned
his score card without including the two penalty strokes in his score for the 15th hole. Cink learned of his
mistake the next morning while on the practice putting green, and after a discussion with the Rules
Committee, Cink was disqualified for a breach of Rule 6-6d for returning a score card with a lower score
than actually made.
Nine days later on April 8, the USGA and the R&A, at the regularly scheduled semi-annual Joint Rules
Committee meeting, continued its previous discussions on testing the condition of a hazard and agreed on
a position to say that a player would no longer incur a penalty if he or his caddie smoothed a bunker while
his ball lies in another bunker in certain situations. The agreed-upon position states that the player incurs
no penalty if (a) the smoothing is for the purpose of tidying up the bunker, (b) the smoothing does not
breach Rule 13-2 (Improving Lie, Area of Intended Stance or Swing, or Line of Play) with respect to his
next stroke and (c) there is not a reasonable possibility that the smoothing could affect a subsequent
stroke by the player.
The April 8 press release can be found on the USGA's Web Site at: http://www.usga.
org/news/2008/april/JRCAnnouncement.html. This position will be reflected in the next edition of Decisions
on the Rules of Golf, which will be effective Jan. 1, 2010.
Hale Irwin’s Untimely Downswing at U.S. Senior Open
Decision 14/1.5: Intent to Strike Ball
Hale Irwin was a local favorite when the U.S. Senior Open came to the Broadmoor Resort in Colorado
Springs, Colo. He was the honorary chairman of the championship, having attended the University of
Colorado in nearby Boulder, where he was a standout football player and golfer. As the always-
competitive Irwin posted a mediocre 74 for Thursday’s first round, it was time to make a move.
He stood poised on the first tee Friday after having been announced for his 8:45 a.m. tee time to the large,
supportive crowd. As he drew his driver back in preparation for his stroke, the bells rang out from the
nearby Will Rogers Shrine on the mountain slopes overlooking the course.
Irwin tried to halt his swing, but couldn’t. He struck the ball off the end of the club, and the ball came to rest
approximately 20 yards in front of and to the left of the first tee, directly under a big Rolex clock.
The stroke counted because Irwin did not successfully check his downswing and struck the ball. The
situation is covered under Decision 14/1.5 (Intent to Strike Ball Ceases During Downswing; Club Not
Stopped But Path of Clubhead Altered to Avoid Striking Ball). A USGA official showed Irwin the Decision.
Irwin was then given relief without penalty from a Rolex clock and went on to make par on the 429-yard,
par-4 opening hole. He followed that up with birdies on holes two and three, finishing the round with a 1-
over-par 71.
Another applicable Decision to this incident is 1-4/1 (Player Distracted by Ball Dropped by Another Player
Mis-Hits Ball). Distractions are a common occurrence which players must accept.
Michelle Wie’s "Walk-off" DQ at the LPGA State Farm Classic
Rule 6-6b: Signing and Returning Score Card
Michelle Wie had just finished her second round with a 5-under-par 67 at the State Farm Classic on July
17 at Panther Creek Country Club in Springfield, Ill., but she failed to sign her score card and was
subsequently disqualified following Saturday’s third round of play. Wie checked her score with the
Committee in the nearby scoring area, but she left the scoring area without signing her score card. A
scoring volunteer noticed that her score card was unsigned and called Wie back to the scoring area from
about 40 yards away. Wie then signed the score card, but once the situation came to light the next day,
her belated action was too late.
Wie was playing her third round when the Committee heard of the incident. They gathered the facts and,
deciding not to interrupt on-course play, waited until Wie completed play to inform her that she was
disqualified for a breach of Rule 6-6b. The Rule governs signing and returning a score card. After
completion of a round, a competitor must check the score for each hole and have any questions answered
by the Committee. A marker must also sign the score card.
The LPGA routinely distributes a notice telling the players that they are deemed to have officially returned
a score card to the Committee when they leave the roped area of the scoring tent or leave the scoring
trailer -- Decision 6-6c/1 (When Score Card Considered Returned). There are usually markings on the
ground, as well, to define a roped-off scoring area.
"It’s just really unfortunate," said Wie following her disqualification. "I don’t know what happened to me.
Usually, I sign it first, but I forgot. Unfortunately, I left the tournament area and a couple of the scorers went
after me and I signed it and turned it in. I thought it would be OK. "It was an honest mistake. I don’t know
how or why it happened, but I just forgot to sign it. Hopefully, it won’t happen again. It was a good learning
experience."
The player’s signature is required per Rule 6-6b and is a traditional part of the game. Players are
responsible for verifying their own scores. In addition, the player’s signature gives a finality and certainty to
the process of recording scores.
Brandt Snedeker Fumbles Away a Stroke at the U.S. Open
Rule 20-3: Placing and Replacing a Ball
While playing the fourth round of the 2008 U.S. Open Championship at Torrey Pines, Brandt Snedeker
had marked the position of his ball with a ball-marker and lifted his ball from the putting green of the ninth
hole. When it was his turn to play, he bent down to replace his ball in front of his ball-marker. As he was
bending down, the ball fell from his hand when it was approximately at knee height and struck the ball-
marker, causing the ball-marker to move. Snedeker asked for a ruling from the Referee with the group.
Rule 20-3a states that if a ball-marker is accidentally moved in the process of replacing the ball, the ball-
marker must be replaced. There is no penalty, provided the movement of the ball is directly attributable to
the specific act of replacing the ball. Otherwise, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke.
Decision 20-1/15 clarifies what is meant by the phrase "directly attributable." The phrase means the
specific act of replacing a ball in front of a ball-marker (i.e., the player’s hand and fingers are holding the
ball immediately above or actually replacing the ball on the surface of the putting green). Any accidental
movement of the ball-marker before this specific act, such as dropping the ball on the ball-marker
regardless of the height from which it was dropped, is not considered to be "directly attributable" to the act
of replacing the ball.
In Snedeker’s case, as the ball was at knee height when he dropped it, the movement of the ball-marker
was not directly attributable to the replacement of the ball, and he therefore incurred a one-stroke penalty.
Snedeker shot an even-par 71 on Sunday to finish the championship at 4-over-par 288, five strokes
behind Tiger Woods and Rocco Mediate. His T9 finish was his best-ever performance at the U.S. Open.
The Rules Scenario That Often Confounds You
Rule 22-1: Ball Assisting Play
The Rules Department at the USGA fields approximately 20,000 Rules questions annually. Though some
are unusual situations like those detailed in the Decisions, many of the questions relate to Rules 24-28. A
basic familiarity with these Rules can go a long way toward helping you and your golf buddies navigate
your way around the course without confusion or delay.
One of the most frequently asked questions relates to when one player’s ball is in a position on the putting
green where it would assist a second player making a stroke from off the putting green. What’s the proper
procedure? And does that procedure differ when it applies to partners in match play from when the players
involved are competing in stroke play?
Here’s the scenario that USGA Rules Officials use to explain the proper procedure when Rule 22-1 comes
into play:
Players A and B are partners and Players C and D are partners in the same group in a competition. Player
B’s ball is in a position on the putting green where it would assist Player A who is making a stroke from off
of the putting green. Player A would like to have Player B’s ball left on the putting green. Is Player B
permitted to leave his ball on the putting green to assist Player A?
Yes, Player B may leave his ball on the putting green; however Rule 22-1 states that except when a ball is
in motion, if a player considers that a ball might assist any other player, he may (a) lift the ball if it is his
ball, or (b) have any other ball lifted.
Player C or Player D could require Player B to mark the position of and lift his ball if either player believes
Player B’s ball could assist Player A. In match play, there would be no penalty if Players C and D elected
not to have Player B lift his ball. However, in stroke play, as Players C and D have an obligation to protect
the field, they could be subject to disqualification if the Committee in charge of the competition believes
they intentionally allowed Player B’s ball to be left on the green to assist Player A.
If Player B refused to lift his ball when requested to do so, he would be disqualified from the hole in match
play and Player A would also be disqualified from the hole if Player B’s ball did assist Player A. If Player B
refused to lift his ball in stroke play, both Players A and B would be disqualified from the competition (Rules
3-4 and 31-7a).
Interesting Rules Incidents In 2008
October 29, 2008
By Craig Smith and Bernie Loehr
Whether the venue is a professional tour event, a national championship or a weekend four-ball at your
home course, the Rules of Golf serve to guard the tradition and integrity of the game. For the
average golfer, day in, day out, they serve as the basic foundation, allowing players of all abilities to
compete fairly against one another.
Then there are times when unusual situations occur, and often it’s when the stakes are highest. The on-
course Rules Officials huddle in consultation and a decision is rendered. As you will see from the handful
of noteworthy scenarios we highlight below from the 2008 season, sometimes the verdict is dire, and it’s a
costly learning experience for the player involved. Michelle Wie can attest to that. Other times, the
situation involves an issue that is already being discussed by those who write and interpret the Rules
themselves – the USGA and the R&A – as an unusual situation early in the year involving Stewart Cink
demonstrates.
But the Rules, as written, apply to all golfers, and a familiarity with them can often make a difference
in your game. Learn them as best you can, and keep a copy of the Rules of Golf book in your bag to refer
to. And if you find yourself in need of an expert opinion, call, write or e-mail the USGA Rules Department –
as did nearly 20,000 golfers this year with Rules queries or comments. On the course, Hale Irwin was
involved in a Rules situation at the U.S. Senior Open. His situation was just one of the more interesting
Rules incidents from this past year.
Stewart Cink’s Disqualification at the 2008 PGA Tour Zurich Classic
Rule 13-4: Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions
Stewart Cink’s drive on the 15th hole during the third round of the Zurich Classic at the TPC Louisiana in
Avondale, La., was slightly offline and came to rest near a fairway bunker. Cink thought nothing of it as he
walked into the adjacent fairway bunker to survey his next shot. He subsequently took his stance outside
the bunker and played his stroke. His approach shot landed in a greenside bunker about 180 yards away
from where he was standing. Cink’s caddie raked the footprints in the fairway bunker, and they headed up
toward the green.
The result was a breach of Rule 13-4a: "before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard and testing the
condition of a similar hazard," and Cink incurred a two-stroke penalty when his caddie raked the fairway
bunker. Cink had not played his ball from the fairway bunker, so under the Rules of Golf he (or his caddie)
was not allowed to rake the bunker.
However, Cink was not aware that he had incurred a penalty, so at the conclusion of his round he returned
his score card without including the two penalty strokes in his score for the 15th hole. Cink learned of his
mistake the next morning while on the practice putting green, and after a discussion with the Rules
Committee, Cink was disqualified for a breach of Rule 6-6d for returning a score card with a lower score
than actually made.
Nine days later on April 8, the USGA and the R&A, at the regularly scheduled semi-annual Joint Rules
Committee meeting, continued its previous discussions on testing the condition of a hazard and agreed on
a position to say that a player would no longer incur a penalty if he or his caddie smoothed a bunker while
his ball lies in another bunker in certain situations. The agreed-upon position states that the player incurs
no penalty if (a) the smoothing is for the purpose of tidying up the bunker, (b) the smoothing does not
breach Rule 13-2 (Improving Lie, Area of Intended Stance or Swing, or Line of Play) with respect to his
next stroke and (c) there is not a reasonable possibility that the smoothing could affect a subsequent
stroke by the player.
The April 8 press release can be found on the USGA's Web Site at: http://www.usga.
org/news/2008/april/JRCAnnouncement.html. This position will be reflected in the next edition of Decisions
on the Rules of Golf, which will be effective Jan. 1, 2010.
Hale Irwin’s Untimely Downswing at U.S. Senior Open
Decision 14/1.5: Intent to Strike Ball
Hale Irwin was a local favorite when the U.S. Senior Open came to the Broadmoor Resort in Colorado
Springs, Colo. He was the honorary chairman of the championship, having attended the University of
Colorado in nearby Boulder, where he was a standout football player and golfer. As the always-
competitive Irwin posted a mediocre 74 for Thursday’s first round, it was time to make a move.
He stood poised on the first tee Friday after having been announced for his 8:45 a.m. tee time to the large,
supportive crowd. As he drew his driver back in preparation for his stroke, the bells rang out from the
nearby Will Rogers Shrine on the mountain slopes overlooking the course.
Irwin tried to halt his swing, but couldn’t. He struck the ball off the end of the club, and the ball came to rest
approximately 20 yards in front of and to the left of the first tee, directly under a big Rolex clock.
The stroke counted because Irwin did not successfully check his downswing and struck the ball. The
situation is covered under Decision 14/1.5 (Intent to Strike Ball Ceases During Downswing; Club Not
Stopped But Path of Clubhead Altered to Avoid Striking Ball). A USGA official showed Irwin the Decision.
Irwin was then given relief without penalty from a Rolex clock and went on to make par on the 429-yard,
par-4 opening hole. He followed that up with birdies on holes two and three, finishing the round with a 1-
over-par 71.
Another applicable Decision to this incident is 1-4/1 (Player Distracted by Ball Dropped by Another Player
Mis-Hits Ball). Distractions are a common occurrence which players must accept.
Michelle Wie’s "Walk-off" DQ at the LPGA State Farm Classic
Rule 6-6b: Signing and Returning Score Card
Michelle Wie had just finished her second round with a 5-under-par 67 at the State Farm Classic on July
17 at Panther Creek Country Club in Springfield, Ill., but she failed to sign her score card and was
subsequently disqualified following Saturday’s third round of play. Wie checked her score with the
Committee in the nearby scoring area, but she left the scoring area without signing her score card. A
scoring volunteer noticed that her score card was unsigned and called Wie back to the scoring area from
about 40 yards away. Wie then signed the score card, but once the situation came to light the next day,
her belated action was too late.
Wie was playing her third round when the Committee heard of the incident. They gathered the facts and,
deciding not to interrupt on-course play, waited until Wie completed play to inform her that she was
disqualified for a breach of Rule 6-6b. The Rule governs signing and returning a score card. After
completion of a round, a competitor must check the score for each hole and have any questions answered
by the Committee. A marker must also sign the score card.
The LPGA routinely distributes a notice telling the players that they are deemed to have officially returned
a score card to the Committee when they leave the roped area of the scoring tent or leave the scoring
trailer -- Decision 6-6c/1 (When Score Card Considered Returned). There are usually markings on the
ground, as well, to define a roped-off scoring area.
"It’s just really unfortunate," said Wie following her disqualification. "I don’t know what happened to me.
Usually, I sign it first, but I forgot. Unfortunately, I left the tournament area and a couple of the scorers went
after me and I signed it and turned it in. I thought it would be OK. "It was an honest mistake. I don’t know
how or why it happened, but I just forgot to sign it. Hopefully, it won’t happen again. It was a good learning
experience."
The player’s signature is required per Rule 6-6b and is a traditional part of the game. Players are
responsible for verifying their own scores. In addition, the player’s signature gives a finality and certainty to
the process of recording scores.
Brandt Snedeker Fumbles Away a Stroke at the U.S. Open
Rule 20-3: Placing and Replacing a Ball
While playing the fourth round of the 2008 U.S. Open Championship at Torrey Pines, Brandt Snedeker
had marked the position of his ball with a ball-marker and lifted his ball from the putting green of the ninth
hole. When it was his turn to play, he bent down to replace his ball in front of his ball-marker. As he was
bending down, the ball fell from his hand when it was approximately at knee height and struck the ball-
marker, causing the ball-marker to move. Snedeker asked for a ruling from the Referee with the group.
Rule 20-3a states that if a ball-marker is accidentally moved in the process of replacing the ball, the ball-
marker must be replaced. There is no penalty, provided the movement of the ball is directly attributable to
the specific act of replacing the ball. Otherwise, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke.
Decision 20-1/15 clarifies what is meant by the phrase "directly attributable." The phrase means the
specific act of replacing a ball in front of a ball-marker (i.e., the player’s hand and fingers are holding the
ball immediately above or actually replacing the ball on the surface of the putting green). Any accidental
movement of the ball-marker before this specific act, such as dropping the ball on the ball-marker
regardless of the height from which it was dropped, is not considered to be "directly attributable" to the act
of replacing the ball.
In Snedeker’s case, as the ball was at knee height when he dropped it, the movement of the ball-marker
was not directly attributable to the replacement of the ball, and he therefore incurred a one-stroke penalty.
Snedeker shot an even-par 71 on Sunday to finish the championship at 4-over-par 288, five strokes
behind Tiger Woods and Rocco Mediate. His T9 finish was his best-ever performance at the U.S. Open.
The Rules Scenario That Often Confounds You
Rule 22-1: Ball Assisting Play
The Rules Department at the USGA fields approximately 20,000 Rules questions annually. Though some
are unusual situations like those detailed in the Decisions, many of the questions relate to Rules 24-28. A
basic familiarity with these Rules can go a long way toward helping you and your golf buddies navigate
your way around the course without confusion or delay.
One of the most frequently asked questions relates to when one player’s ball is in a position on the putting
green where it would assist a second player making a stroke from off the putting green. What’s the proper
procedure? And does that procedure differ when it applies to partners in match play from when the players
involved are competing in stroke play?
Here’s the scenario that USGA Rules Officials use to explain the proper procedure when Rule 22-1 comes
into play:
Players A and B are partners and Players C and D are partners in the same group in a competition. Player
B’s ball is in a position on the putting green where it would assist Player A who is making a stroke from off
of the putting green. Player A would like to have Player B’s ball left on the putting green. Is Player B
permitted to leave his ball on the putting green to assist Player A?
Yes, Player B may leave his ball on the putting green; however Rule 22-1 states that except when a ball is
in motion, if a player considers that a ball might assist any other player, he may (a) lift the ball if it is his
ball, or (b) have any other ball lifted.
Player C or Player D could require Player B to mark the position of and lift his ball if either player believes
Player B’s ball could assist Player A. In match play, there would be no penalty if Players C and D elected
not to have Player B lift his ball. However, in stroke play, as Players C and D have an obligation to protect
the field, they could be subject to disqualification if the Committee in charge of the competition believes
they intentionally allowed Player B’s ball to be left on the green to assist Player A.
If Player B refused to lift his ball when requested to do so, he would be disqualified from the hole in match
play and Player A would also be disqualified from the hole if Player B’s ball did assist Player A. If Player B
refused to lift his ball in stroke play, both Players A and B would be disqualified from the competition (Rules
3-4 and 31-7a).
Interesting Rules Incidents In 2008
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Southbay Nikkei Golf Club |
| WE GOLF EVERY FRIDAY AT 10:00 am |