Cink DQ'd - crazy rule

[redi630]

A person shouldn't have to back peddle from one bunker to the next in order to rake where they first hit.

The player would have to finish the round before raking the bunker...right? What if this situation happened on the 3rd hole, and the player is in the bunker on the 15th hole. This rule would still affect him/her as "testing the conditions of a similar hazard".

[Ogg]

I thought the rake end would not qualify for testing of a bunker, however if you stuck the handle in, that would be considered testing it?

[iacas]

I thought the rake end would not qualify for testing of a bunker, however if you stuck the handle in, that would be considered testing it?

Rakes always qualify.

[Craig Mac]

The player would have to finish the round before raking the bunker...right? What if this situation happened on the 3rd hole, and the player is in the bunker on the 15th hole. This rule would still affect him/her as "testing the conditions of a similar hazard".

The player would be allowed to rake the initial bunker after they hit the shot out of the second bunker, granted that shot didn't end up in a third bunker.

I believe had that shot ended up not going in another bunker(ended up somewhere like the green, fairway, rough), then he would have been allowed to rake the bunker he was standing in.

[larlev]

The player would be allowed to rake the initial bunker after they hit the shot out of the second bunker, granted that shot didn't end up in a third bunker.

This is correct...to avoid the DQ Cink or the caddy would have had to go back after hitting out of the 2nd bunker and raked the 1st bunker.....which is stupid...what if a player teeing off hit in the same 1st bunker in Cinks footprints??? Like they said on TV, pace of play would be an issue..

[Doctorfro]

I'm sorry. I like having rules....integrity.....common sense. This is just plain stupid.

[Eore]

so if i understand correctly, the only thing that would have been "right" for him to do would be.....
1. hit his shot
2. go to the bunker he hit into
3. hit his shot, rake that bunker
4. run back (or send caddy) to rake the bunker from the previous shot

wow, that is mentally ill. i understand testing a hazard, but COME ON! somebody in the USGA needs to take off their stiff pants and put on their big boy boots and get rid of this rule

[iacas]

The player would be allowed to rake the initial bunker after they hit the shot out of the second bunker, granted that shot didn't end up in a third bunker.

No, I think that's incorrect. If the shot ended up in a third bunker, he'd have already played his "initial shot" from the bunker and thus would be free of this rule.

I believe had that shot ended up not going in another bunker(ended up somewhere like the green, fairway, rough), then he would have been allowed to rake the bunker he was standing in.

Yes, that's true. So if you're standing in a greenside bunker and chip onto the green, you can rake the bunker. You could then subsequently putt into a bunker and not incur a penalty for having previously raked.

Or you can chip it into the bunker you're standing in, blast out across the green into another bunker, rake the one you were standing in, and then go play your next shot from the other bunker.

[Craig Mac]

No, I think that's incorrect. If the shot ended up in a third bunker, he'd have already played his "initial shot" from the bunker and thus would be free of this rule.

I was kinda joking about the third bunker, but I see where you are coming from, once the initial shot from the bunker is played you can rake.

Or you can chip it into the bunker you're standing in, blast out across the green into another bunker, rake the one you were standing in, and then go play your next shot from the other bunker.

Was that you behind me watching me play the other day???

[tiger_who]

wtf so what if i was standing in a bunker and ball out of the bunker and hit into another bunker i would have to hit from the other bunker and then go back and rack that one but what if the caddy racks it then tells me if the sand is hard or soft

[Craig Mac]

wtf so what if i was standing in a bunker and ball out of the bunker and hit into another bunker i would have to hit from the other bunker and then go back and rack that one

Exactly right

[cbaileyau]

I believe he was only DQ'd because the incedent occured on a previous day and he had already signed his card. Had he realized his fault before the end of the round, he would have only been penalized a stroke or two. He was DQ's because he signed an incorrect scorecard.

Right?

[Thrash13]

I believe he was only DQ'd because the incedent occured on a previous day and he had already signed his card. Had he realized his fault before the end of the round, he would have only been penalized a stroke or two. He was DQ's because he signed an incorrect scorecard.

That is correct.

[Big_M]

I believe he was only DQ'd because the incedent occured on a previous day and he had already signed his card. Had he realized his fault before the end of the round, he would have only been penalized a stroke or two. He was DQ's because he signed an incorrect scorecard.

this is correct... penalty for testing conditions is 2 strokes... but he had already signed.