or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation.... - Page 4  

post #55 of 71

Re: Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....

As long as I'm in the mood to post comments this morning I sure don't understand how the RO allowed a back up such that there was a 30 minute wait at the tee box. That's worse than most of the muni courses I play. Seems as if they wanted to give out penalties there should have been some for slow play.
post #56 of 71

Re: Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....

ghalfaire..........If a group is not more than a hole behind there is no cause for putting players on the clock. Cypress Point has the same problem every year at the pars 3's. (15 & 16). There is a major log jam every day. It is just in the course design some times.
post #57 of 71
Originally Posted by JWL1957 View Post
ghalfaire..........If a group is not more than a hole behind there is no cause for putting players on the clock. Cypress Point has the same problem every year at the pars 3's. (15 & 16). There is a major log jam every day. It is just in the course design some times.
Yes, this was a par five where EVERYBODY was going for it in two.

Originally Posted by DarkPrince View Post
He brought up a somewhat valid point about the can of worms nature of allowing people to call in or email rules violations. Its not the enforcing of rules that is bad, if a violation occurs, the proper penalty should be enforced, it's just that the idea that armchair rule officials can call in and report possible violations seems to maybe undermine the rules officials themselves.
How can they be undermined? They're not there to watch everything that goes on. Most events have 3 to 9 ROs and they're out wandering around in case a player calls them over. They're not watching the telecast. Heck, the LPGA rarely even telecasts in real time.

I think they appreciate being "helped" - and the field does too. Juli can only really be upset with herself, and in the end I think she's glad someone called in because if her rules infraction became known after the tournament was over she'd be in a pickle.

I don't think it undermines the ROs at all. They're not with every group or watching every player.

Originally Posted by DarkPrince View Post
His issue also came down to how exactly you can even get a hold of the rules officials or tournament directors. The numbers aren't listed since they change from week to week, you can't just find slugger white's email or phone number on the PGA Tour or USGA websites, and even members of the press/media do not have any of said phone numbers/emails (I'm sure some do, but not many). I guess his problem is more that it wasn't an "anonymous" viewer who called in, he argued that it had to be someone who was in some way associated with the tour or the tournament at hand...which kind of makes sense, but it still seems a little like jumping to conclusions.
I dunno, again, I'm sure you could call the pro shop at the host course and SOMEONE would pick up.

Originally Posted by DarkPrince View Post
He just talked about how someone had mentioned that the footage that was used as evidence never actually aired on the Golf Channel's live broadcast, but I wasn't watching it so I wouldn't know. Anyone else find this idea interesting?
I think it aired once and then was removed during their re-broadcast later in the evening.

Originally Posted by DarkPrince View Post
Personally I'd say rules are rules, but the host pointed out that its a possibility that you can quantify the strokes that would be gained by johnson "testing the conditions" of a hazard, whereas Inkster or any player using a practice aid has possibly gained an unknown amount of strokes by practicing with the aid and changing their swing (unnaturaly?) mid round, so they must be DQ'd. I don't know if it's a valid point, but it makes some sense.
It makes sense, yes.
post #58 of 71

Re: Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....

To put it in another light, if Juli won and who ever reported the violation did not afterall, whoever came in second lost a bunch of money and OWGR points. The rules are the same for everyone, if one of the players break a rule and gets away with it, it is not fair towards the others. I find it irrelevant who sees and reports the violation as long as the rules are enforced.
post #59 of 71

Re: Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....

The whole idea of rule 14-3 is that you have to play with the skills you bring to the course, period. That's why the line is sharply drawn and the penalty is so harsh.
post #60 of 71

Re: Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....

Originally Posted by ElWagonne View Post
There's no uniformity to the TV coverage. If Tiger hits 70 shots....TV shows 70 shots, however, if Matt Kuchar hits 70 shots, they may show 10 (unless he's in contention).

You don't see rules in the NFL being enforced b/c some goof at a BWW caught a holding call that the refs' missed. When the rules book makes an accomodation for outsiders with no stake in the round to call a rules violation, I'll be ok with it because I respect the rules.
The key to this argument is Rule 6-1.

6-1. Rules
The player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the Rules. During a stipulated round, for any breach of a Rule by his caddie, the player incurs the applicable penalty.

Regardless of the apparent inequality of allowing armchair quarterbacking on the rules, it is still 100% the player's responsibility to know and follow the Rules of Golf. This rule supports the fundamental concept that it makes no difference how the breach is discovered, the player is still the responsible party for his or his caddie's act of violating a rule.
post #61 of 71
Originally Posted by zeg View Post
Interesting question, jamo. I think it comes down to whether such practice is considered unusual or not, which is one of the unfortunate areas in the Decisions, IMO. Some of them seem a little random, but I think that using a head cover would be ok. Under Decision 14-3/6.5, holding a ball in your hand while making a practice stroke (to assist with alignment or something) is ok, because, "The prohibition in Rule 14-3 against using equipment in an unusual manner applies to strokes that count in the player's score and not to practice swings or practice strokes." Since the head cover is ordinary equipment, I think its use in an unusual manner would be permitted by the same logic. The donut (and similarly, weighted headcovers and alignment rods) are not permitted even for practice because they are "unusual equipment," rather than ordinary equipment used in an unusual manner.

This also answers your question about weighted headcovers---the same Decision that rules the donut to be illegal also rules out weighted headcovers. Since it doesn't ban ordinary headcovers, I believe I'm correct in my assessment.
What if you took the headcover, threw in 2-3 golf balls and used it that way? You are using your conforming equipment, you haven't added/modified your equipment, etc..

Originally Posted by majorchamp View Post
So Julie Inkster was DQ'd from the tournament because she pulled out a weighted donut to help keep her loose during a 30 minute weight on the 10th hole.

So if that training aid is illegal..are you allowed to swing the club with your headcover still on the club? Are you able to wrap a golf towel around the end of the club to get a similar effect? Maybe a wet golf towel?

Just curious where the line is drawn...that is all.
so is a wet towel or a towel in general at the end of a club to create that lag feeling or to help stretch out muscles legit?
post #62 of 71

Re: Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....

Originally Posted by majorchamp View Post
What if you took the headcover, threw in 2-3 golf balls and used it that way? You are using your conforming equipment, you haven't added/modified your equipment, etc..

so is a wet towel or a towel in general at the end of a club to create that lag feeling or to help stretch out muscles legit?
Perhaps you could read the previous post where it's pointed out that equipment used in unusual ways is fine if not used during a stroke and figure out the answer for yourself?

The point is to prohibit use of training aids. It seems rather simple and straightforward to me.
post #63 of 71

Re: Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....

Originally Posted by iacas View Post
Perhaps you could read the previous post where it's pointed out that equipment used in unusual ways is fine if not used during a stroke and figure out the answer for yourself?

The point is to prohibit use of training aids. It seems rather simple and straightforward to me.
Actually, equipment used in an unusual way is not always "fine". It is often just as wrong as using a training aid when it's done to breach the intent of a rule. Lying a club on the ground to aid in aiming and leaving it there during a stroke is just as much a penalty as using an alignment stick. It could be construed that a towel tied to the end of a club and used to provide resistance for a series of warmup swings is a sufficient aid in making a stroke that it could be a breach of 14-3. Not saying yes or no for certain, but a case might be made for such. That is the sort of case that I don't want to be making a ruling on without someone to back ask for support.
post #64 of 71

Re: Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....

Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
Actually, equipment used in an unusual way is not always "fine". It is often just as wrong as using a training aid when it's done to breach the intent of a rule. Lying a club on the ground to aid in aiming and leaving it there during a stroke is just as much a penalty as using an alignment stick.
That's not using equipment in an unusual way, that's using an alignment aid. Different rule altogether. An alignment stick is unusual equipment, a club is not.

Source: Decision 8-2a/1
Club Placed on Ground to Align Feet
Q. A player places a club on the ground parallel to the line of play to assist him in aligning his feet properly. Is this permissible?

A. Yes, provided the player removes the club before playing his stroke. Otherwise, a breach of Rule 8-2a would occur.



Source: Decision 14-3/10.3
Use of Rod During Round for Alignment or as Swing Aid
Q. During a stipulated round, a player uses a rod to check his alignment or his swing plane. What is the ruling?

A.The player is disqualified under Rule 14-3 as the rod is unusual equipment and such use, during the stipulated round, is not permitted.

Carrying the rod is not, of itself, a breach of a Rule. (New)



Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
It could be construed that a towel tied to the end of a club and used to provide resistance for a series of warmup swings is a sufficient aid in making a stroke that it could be a breach of 14-3. Not saying yes or no for certain, but a case might be made for such. That is the sort of case that I don't want to be making a ruling on without someone to back ask for support.
I don't think you can make a case that way. It's not used in making a stroke:

Source: Decision 14-3/6.5
A. Yes. The prohibition in Rule 14-3 against using equipment in an unusual manner applies to strokes that count in the player's score and not to practice swings or practice strokes.

post #65 of 71

Re: Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....

Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
Actually, equipment used in an unusual way is not always "fine". It is often just as wrong as using a training aid when it's done to breach the intent of a rule. Lying a club on the ground to aid in aiming and leaving it there during a stroke is just as much a penalty as using an alignment stick. It could be construed that a towel tied to the end of a club and used to provide resistance for a series of warmup swings is a sufficient aid in making a stroke that it could be a breach of 14-3. Not saying yes or no for certain, but a case might be made for such. That is the sort of case that I don't want to be making a ruling on without someone to back ask for support.
I agree with your last point for sure --- I wouldn't advise doing anything unusual without first clearing it with someone who actually can clear it for the competition in question.

However, since you ARE allowed to use a club for alignment as long as you pick it up before your stroke, whereas you are NOT allowed to use an alignment rod at all, even between strokes, I think it's reasonably clear that ordinary equipment can be used for almost any purpose when not making a stroke. I'd feel pretty confident that both golf balls and head covers qualify as ordinary.

Regardless of the technicalities, I'm with you: why push the boundaries? Swinging 2 or 3 clubs together achieves most of the same benefits and is both customary equipment and a customary practice for stretching, so won't raise any eyebrows.
post #66 of 71

Re: Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....

Originally Posted by ElWagonne View Post
You don't see rules in the NFL being enforced b/c some goof at a BWW caught a holding call that the refs' missed. When the rules book makes an accomodation for outsiders with no stake in the round to call a rules violation, I'll be ok with it because I respect the rules.
The NFL has how many, six officials? to cover an area 360 feet by 160 feet, and the actionable events are taking place right in front of at least one of them. In golf, six rules officials cover 150 acres. Also, football players essentially do whatever they want to and let the officials make the call. If there's no flag, then you got away with it. There's no "getting away with it" in golf. Would there be any difference between a TV viewer calling in the infraction, and a knowledgable spectator pointing out the same thing? I don't think so.
post #67 of 71

Re: Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....

Originally Posted by ghalfaire View Post
Because you have to go to some effort to call in a violation (although I believe it was emailed in this case). It isn't just pick up phone and use your speed dial or turn on the computer and email it, you have to do some research work and spend some time to find proper number or address to report a violation. But I wasn't questioning anyone's right to, just don't understand why anyone would for such a minor violation. I can't think of another sport where a spectator can call in a rules violation and change the results of a competition. But maybe there is. But since it is legal, and as I said in the original post, I don't think Julie has any complaint and apparently neither does she.

I also can't think of any other sport with the level of self imposed integrity as golf. In every other sport, athletes are keen on trying to get away with breaking the rules. When was the last time you saw a football player call a holding penalty on himself? Umm never. Or the last time a basketball player called an offensive foul on himself. Once again never, in fact they will argue with the referee, and insist that no foul was committed. I can't think of any other sport than golf in which the players themselves hold themselves to a higher standard and will call out penalties on themselves when they knowingly screw up.
post #68 of 71

The rule is there to follow so I agree with what Ingster got.  No argument there.   If the rule says she is banned for life from LPGA, so be it.   No argument there, again.  If the rule says she is to be executed by firing squad, so be it.  No argument there ... well, maybe there is. 

 

But just  think about this.   In all other sports, players will be encouraged to stay loose and warmed up by most means.  E.g, some basketball players do stationary bike during half time.  Baseball players use weights while on deck.   For golf to have this particular rule and DQ as its penalty, well, that is stupid.    IMO, the rule got to be changed.

post #69 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkim291968 View Post
 

The rule is there to follow so I agree with what Ingster got.  No argument there.   If the rule says she is banned for life from LPGA, so be it.   No argument there, again.  If the rule says she is to be executed by firing squad, so be it.  No argument there ... well, maybe there is. 

 

But just  think about this.   In all other sports, players will be encouraged to stay loose and warmed up by most means.  E.g, some basketball players do stationary bike during half time.  Baseball players use weights while on deck.   For golf to have this particular rule and DQ as its penalty, well, that is stupid.    IMO, the rule got to be changed.

 

There's nothing saying she's not allowed to stay loose and stretch. There is a rule saying you can't use unusual equipment during a round.

 

The rule that says you can't use unusual equipment during a round eliminates a LOT of things FAR more serious than what she did.

 

In other words, rule 14-3 talks about "Artificial Devices, Unusual Equipment And Unusual Use Of Equipment" and rather than provide a laundry list of what kinds of equipment is "unusual" or anything, they define it in broad strokes and then leave well enough alone.

 

The Rule won't be changed because there are plenty of far worse ways to use "unusual equipment" and "artificial devices" during a round, and listing all of that out would take pages and pages and pages and STILL not be complete.

post #70 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

There's nothing saying she's not allowed to stay loose and stretch. There is a rule saying you can't use unusual equipment during a round.

 

The rule that says you can't use unusual equipment during a round eliminates a LOT of things FAR more serious than what she did.

 

In other words, rule 14-3 talks about "Artificial Devices, Unusual Equipment And Unusual Use Of Equipment" and rather than provide a laundry list of what kinds of equipment is "unusual" or anything, they define it in broad strokes and then leave well enough alone.

 

The Rule won't be changed because there are plenty of far worse ways to use "unusual equipment" and "artificial devices" during a round, and listing all of that out would take pages and pages and pages and STILL not be complete.

 

Ring weight is an unusual equipment?  I don't think so.   Also, why would it matter which tool is used to stay warmed up?   Forget what I said about changing the rule.  I will be ok with just removing the rule altogether.     That is, there should not be any restriction on how a player keeps himself warm up in between holes.     Golf is a game at the end of the day.  Having a rule book much thicker than Bible for a game .... that's an overkill in my Bible.

post #71 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkim291968 View Post
 

 

Ring weight is an unusual equipment?  I don't think so.   Also, why would it matter which tool is used to stay warmed up?   Forget what I said about changing the rule.  I will be ok with just removing the rule altogether.     That is, there should not be any restriction on how a player keeps himself warm up in between holes.     Golf is a game at the end of the day.  Having a rule book much thicker than Bible for a game .... that's an overkill in my Bible.

 

Before you go making rules change you really ought to acquaint yourself with what the rules are.  What they are NOT is thicker than the Bible.  The rules book has 210 pages. many of which deal with rules that have nothing to do with on course play.  I doubt I have a Bible with less than 1000 pages.  So you are off by more than a factor of 5.

 
And you want to remove the rule altogether.  What rule is that?  Rule14-3?  The whole rule?  Because I am sure you know that there i actually nothing in that rule about keeping warmed up or loose while waiting.  The least you could do is be specific about exactly what rule you want to change.
 
If, that is, you want to be taken seriously.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
This thread is locked  
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....