Wie's disqualification

[Thrash13]

I rag on her a bit harder than I should, but she's elected to allow this now. I expect more of a professional golfer, and "not nearer the hole" is hardly a difficult concept.

I have to admit I had to ask Rafi about a drop situation at the Newport Cup.

Then again, I'm an amateur's amateur. As for Wie's situation, everyone probably already knows I'm not the president of her fan club by any means. I think both sides of the story were in the wrong. I think the media guy was a complete idiot by not bringing up the penalty when it occurred. Honesty is one of the things that makes golf so great. Players are supposed to call penalties on themselves, and I think media members should be honest with everyone as well. It should have been common courtesy for the guy to mention it when it happened. On the other hand, Wie has probably dealt with the situation 1000 times in her career already, and it was inexcusable to let that one slide. Her playing partners should have been brought in to determine the correct drop, just to make sure everything was correct. If all else fails, bring in the playing partners. I know I do. All in all, the $50,000 isn't going to kill her financial plans. That is one thing that's 100% certain. I hope she learned a thing or two. I'm also glad I knew what an equilateral triangle was when I read about it. I remembered something from 3rd grade at least.

[Rafcin]

I rag on her a bit harder than I should, but she's elected to allow this now. I expect more of a professional golfer, and "not nearer the hole" is hardly a difficult concept.

Stupid is a big word. If I read the article correctly it was an issue of 6 inches. My wife might think it is plenty (and a nice thing to have it), but I'd say 6" added to an uneven lie / view angle is very little. Obviously it was not siginificant enough for her and her caddie to risk a rule violation KNOWING a rule was violated. I'd think it's safe to assume that they looked at it and deemed legal. I don't think it has anything to do with stupidity or lack of understanding of the "not nearer to the hole" concept. Don't tell me it never happen to you, that your playing partner pointed out to you, that your drop was closer when you thought it was ok? Actually it happend to me last sunday - I teed up in a front of the tee markers w/o knowing about it and some dude pointed it out to me.... AFTER I hit the ball

[muskegman]

Of all the goofy things concerning the rules of golf, this is one of the goofiest. In no other sport would a referee or game official give a rat's ass what some spectator, sports writer or concession stand cashier saw or thought they saw in the way of a rules violation.

I'm with you almost 100% on this one Larry. Personally, I feel that the SI Journalist should have kept his nose out of it, especially a day after the supposed infraction.

However, I think that golf's open policy is one of the things that makes it a unique and great game. You have to draw the line somewhere on how much a fan can participate/interfere. In this case I believe it was interference, but I would not always feel that way. Had he immediately brought up the issue it would have been justified. Another thing the LPGA could have done was issued Wie a warning. That would have been a better course of action than DQ.

Most posters here have already made up their minds as to the motivations of the reporter. I'd like to think that perhaps part of his hesitancy was the realization that he was about to stick his nose into something that really was none of his business. If so, I wish he'd have followed that first inclination.

Yep, none of his business the day after.

[iacas]

Stupid is a big word. If I read the article correctly it was an issue of 6 inches. My wife might think it is plenty (and a nice thing to have it), but I'd say 6" added to an uneven lie / view angle is very little. Obviously it was not siginificant enough for her and her caddie to risk a rule violation KNOWING a rule was violated. I'd think it's safe to assume that they looked at it and deemed legal. I don't think it has anything to do with stupidity or lack of understanding of the "not nearer to the hole" concept. Don't tell me it never happen to you, that your playing partner pointed out to you, that your drop was closer when you thought it was ok? Actually it happend to me last sunday - I teed up in a front of the tee markers w/o knowing about it and some dude pointed it out to me.... AFTER I hit the ball

In match play, of course, I can request that you re-tee and re-hit your shot. We opted not to. You and I both know it's bad form to interrupt someone mid-swing. C'mon now, no need to get defensive cuz I'm pickin' on your girlfriend...

FWIW, I have never dropped a ball closer to the hole. It's not hard - I measure out two clublengths from the ball angling slightly away from the hole, then I drop the ball behind that line. It's not hard, and I'm guaranteed to be six inches to a foot further away. "Angling away" isn't hard, either - you just envision a line straight at the flag, a line 90° to that, and you angle the measurement between those two lines. Michelle Wie was stupid, and I'll keep using that word to describe her actions in this one case. She didn't need to ask a rules official (though she could have) - all she had to do was ask her playing partners to verify that she had made a valid drop. Had she done so, and had the reporter still said "I think it was closer," then she'd have had a much better defense - there would have been no need to go out and check things (which I also think was dumb, as the tournament had ended, and her opponents/playing competitors said nothing at the time, either, which is their responsiblity too). But she didn't do that (ask an official or the other players), and that's the part I feel was stupid. Not knowing what an equilateral triangle is just put the icing on the cake.

[Rafcin]

...Personally I dislike players who look for an advantage thru rule interpretations...

The Rules aren't intended to harm you every time, they're intended to provide equal base competition for all. In same instances they ARE in place to give you an advantage (i.e. it's legal to clean the green before you putt - removing leaves and sand is definitely taking an advantage of the rule, isn't ?

). I'd countless situation where knowing the rules (and their proper interpretation) helped me (read=give me an advantage). If you dislike me for that... oh well, it's your right - but I don't care

[iacas]

The Rules aren't intended to harm you every time, they're intended to provide equal base competition for all. In same instances they ARE in place to give you an advantage (i.e. it's legal to clean the green before you putt - removing leaves and sand is definitely taking an advantage of the rule, isn't ?

Agreed. The rules aren't there to give people an advantage, but to keep people from being unfairly disadvantaged. How would you like it if you had to play out of that massive dirt pile marked "ground under repair"?

[Rafcin]

...In match play, of course, I can request that you re-tee and re-hit your shot. We opted not to...

It wasn't my point. My point was that I teed up closer without realising it. Was I cheating or was I stupid? I'd say neither. It didn't even occur to me that I'm doing something wrong. I looked at the tee markers and it looked O.K. to me. I'd never ask for a rules official or a playing partner to verify if I'm teed-up correctly.... Get it? That's exactly what she did. What the reporter did would be the same, as if you (noticing it on the tee) would wait until the round is over and I sign my scorecard and tell me about it THEN, disqualifing me from the competition (if it was stroke play - in the matchplay we didn't violate rules in our "teeing off outside of the tee box" as per :

"Rule 11-4: If a player, when starting a hole, plays a ball from outside the teeing ground there is no penalty, but the opponent may immediately require the player to cancel the stroke and play a ball from within the teeing ground ."

C'mon now, no need to get defensive cuz I'm pickin' on your girlfriend...

I Wish !!!!

[iacas]

It wasn't my point. My point was that I teed up closer without realising it. Was I cheating or was I stupid? I'd say neither. It didn't even occur to me that I'm doing something wrong. I looked at the tee markers and it looked O.K. to me. I'd never ask for a rules official or a playing partner to verify if I'm teed-up correctly.... Get it? That's exactly what she did. What the reporter did would be the same, as if you (noticing it on the tee) would wait until the round is over and I sign my scorecard and tell me about it THEN, disqualifing me from the competition (if it was stroke play - in the matchplay we didn't violate rules in our "teeing off outside of the tee box" as per :

I know what the rule is re: the teeing ground, and as we were playing match play, I knew that I could technically request it. That's really not the point, though: we were in totally different circumstances. You even hit a good drive on that hole - I wasn't going to make you replay it under any circumstance.

Wie was playing for money, as a professional, and in a stroke play tournament. Not making damn sure that she was following the rules (look at video of her dropping - she does it from near waist level, not shoulder level, as the rules state - she'd better fix that soon too!) is stupid, in my opinion. I ignored the "teeing off in front of the markers" thing because it bears little if any resemblance to the circumstances under which Wie behaved "stupidly." I'm not in this to fight you, Rafi, and you know that. I think that what she did was stupid, and you have your own opinion, which I also respect. I also don't think she should have been disqualified, and I think that the reporter should have let it go. One of the pervading rules of golf is intent and equality. One inch or one mile are both closer to the hole, and that's all well and good and a very clear line, but since they were guessing anyway, I would figure personally that Michelle Wie's drop fell within the margin of error. Better safe than sorry, you bet, and she paid the penalty for dropping ahead of or at least very close to the line when a foot behind wouldn't have caused a stir. For not asking her playing partners or a rules official, I think she learned. She's played at this level before, obviously, and should have paid attention. She should also know that every move she makes is going to be scrutinized. Yet she said she'd do it exactly the same again... right after saying she learned her lesson? Huh? Oh well... Last note: the Golf Channel's site has a good article about it all.

[iacas]

Another Michelle Wie quote:
"It was a good learning experience, I guess," she said. "Now I won't do that anymore."

Where's that from? Try three years ago:
http://www.golfweb.com/story/6464956

That line sure does sound familiar, doesn't it?

[LarryK]

You have to draw the line somewhere on how much a fan can participate/interfere. In this case I believe it was interference, but I would not always feel that way. Had he immediately brought up the issue it would have been justified.

I appreciate the 98% support, Muskie. I rarely get that kind of endorsement....but here's why you still owe me 2%.

As you say, the line between fan "participation/interference" must be drawn somewhere. I say it should be that yellow polypropolene rope between us and the competitors. Pretend for a moment that you and I were standing by the SI reporter last Saturday as Michelle was taking her relief. You observe nothing amiss, but I start jumping up and down yelling "Egads, a transgression most foul". You: "Are you nuts?" Me: "No, she botched the drop!!" Several of your friends, who naturally agree with you, threaten to put a few more dimples in my balls. SI Reporter Bamberg: "Actually, I think he's right!" Me: "I swear by the grave of old Tom Morris, I shall not endure this. I'm going to fetch a rules official!" You: "Swell, moron. Bring me a beer and a brat on your way back!" Now the rest of the crowd is getting into it. Half says she did. The other half says she didn't. It starts to resemble a Miller Lite commercial ("Taste's Great! "Less Filling!"). Meanwhile, I find an official and pour out my story. Right or wrong I have at least "brought up the issue immediately" as you say. But in a world where apparently Annika Sorenstam doesn't understand the concept of line of sight relief and where Kevin Stadler doesn't know that a bent wedge is non-conforming and where Michelle Lee's equilateral triangles occasionally contain more than 180 degrees....in a world where it would appear that people who play this game for a living don't necessarily know the rules that well, WHY IN THE HELL SHOULD A RULES OFFICIAL (or anyone else) LISTEN TO MY INTERPRETATION OF THOSE SAME RULES!?!?!? If the rules of golf are as sacred and as important as so many say they are, then perhaps we need a few more TRAINED, PROFESSIONAL guardians of those rules rather than relying on a random fan base that may range from rabid to reasonable. It doesn't matter that a fan or sports writer might be correct in their call. What matters is that the game of golf (whose scores of "official interpretations" of the rules are as thick as the actual rule book itself) deserves, at least on the professional level, a more professional process of ajudication than informal consultations with faces in the crowd. If you and I tee it up on a weekend, we play it as it lies and correctly hold each other accountable to the rules as written and as best as we can interpret them. If we attend a professional golf tournament as spectators, we buy our tickets, leave the cell phones in the car and applaud enthusiastically whenever and wherever it is appropriate. And otherwise shut-the-hell-up.

[Rafcin]

If we attend a professional golf tournament as spectators, we buy our tickets, leave the cell phones in the car and applaud enthusiastically whenever and wherever it is appropriate.

Bravo! You got it right on the money.

In the meantime I'm going to call NFL to tell them, that Vinnie Testaverde didn't break the plane of the goal line on a QB Sneak in 2004 playoff game. I just saw that on the NFL Classic again and now I'm sure he was short!

[iacas]

I won't quote all that you wrote, Larry, but you seem to be demonstrating a severe lack of understanding of the concepts that underlie the Rules of Golf.

Stewart Cink put it well on Golf Central when asked about it: "In other sports, the officials guide the players. In golf, the Rules are the guidelines." In other words, for example, in football, holding is only holding if a ref sees it. In golf, a rules violation is a rules violation.

Kelly Tilghman saw Karrie Webb at the 199x (1996?) U.S. Women's Open replace her coin to the left of her coin mark (after moving it left to get out of someone else's line). Kelly had ready access to an official and pointed it out. Play was stopped and Karrie was thankful to Kelly later on for preventing her from making a forgetful, boneheaded mistake (she should have replaced the coin to the right, in case I wasn't clear). She corrected the mistake without penalty and, as I said, was very thankful later on as she finished within the top 10.

Rules are rules, and the charge in the Rules of Golf is that everyone who plays the game is in charge of enforcing them. If you leave a ball in the bunker and take a swipe at the sand in anger, well, you may not be in the mood to remember to call a penalty on yourself. Should we allow you to get away with that?

I'm all for policing yourself. I have called penalties on myself. But sometimes it doesn't happen, and so I've also called penalties on others, and I've pointed out rules infractions in other groups if we're playing in some kind of competition, just as I've helped professional golfers find a ball hit offline.

The fans deserve to see golf played, and as some people will say, golf isn't golf if it's played by a different set of rules. We don't have officials precisely because of what Stewart Cink said: the rules are the guidelines, not appointed "referees." All the rules officials do is advise players and interpret the rules as decided by the ruling bodies. They don't "penalize" players, and saying "WHY IN THE HELL SHOULD A RULES OFFICIAL (or anyone else) LISTEN TO MY INTERPRETATION OF THOSE SAME RULES!?!?!" is really non-sequitur because it's not your interpretation that matters at all - it's already been interpreted by the ruling bodies. Wie didn't have an official nearby, which is unfortunate, because had she - or had Grace Park approved that drop as being valid - there probably wouldn't have been an issue. It would have been a "sanctioned" drop, basically, and Bamberger wouldn't have had to think about anything.

What if Nick Faldo or Paul Azinger see a rules infraction while broadcasting? Or Mike Tirico? What if a fellow competitor in the tournament, watching TV after their round is over, sees a rules infraction? What about the sign carrier or the ShotLink person? It doesn't matter - rules are rules.

So, I'm with Cink: the game of golf is governed by the rules, and that's precisely what separates it from every other sport with "referees." If a rule is broken, a rule is broken - and that much is very, very clear. It matters not to me how it comes to be known that a rule is broken, and maintaining the clarity - the precise line between right and wrong - is important to me and I would suspect to many who care about the game of golf.

[Rickins]

I'm not saying a word, Erik. (I'm already in enough trouble.)

Rick

[LarryK]

Stewart Cink put it well on Golf Central when asked about it: "In other sports, the officials guide the players. In golf, the Rules are the guidelines." In other words, for example, in football, holding is only holding if a ref sees it. In golf, a rules violation is a rules violation.

I absolutely understand the concept of self-policing that underlies the rules of golf, and I am familiar with the Stewart Cink quote. In fact, at the amateur and recreational level I embrace the concept whole heartedly.

It is simply my belief that at the PROFESSIONAL level, this aspect of golf's tradition does not always serve us well. That we would be better served by PROFESSIONAL rules officials rendering informed rulings independent of any outside influence or inputs other than the competitors and perhaps their caddies within the ropes. My argument is not about what is, but what should be. I believe you and Cink are splitting the hair awfully thin in your analysis of the "difference" between golf and other pro sports. Stewie sez: "In other sports the officials guide the players..." You say: "All the [golf] rules officials do is advise players..." Sounds awfully similar to me. And then when you suggest that Wie's illegal drop would have been a-ok had it only been "sanctioned" by a rules official or her playing partner, I not only find myself in total agreement, but I am immediately reminded of a wise man who once said something like "holding isn't holding if a referee doesn't see it." Yeah, well, true enough! Officials may occasionally be wrong, but at least they are official . And how can you say that a golf rules official does not penalize a player when that official invokes a rule which assesses the player a 1 or 2 stroke penalty ? That's the word the rulebook uses, right? Do you really believe that is significantly different than a hockey referee enforcing a rule that prohibits tripping? You say: "In golf a rules violation is a rules violation" I say: "In ALL sports a rules violation is a rules violation and in ALL sports it is up to an umpire, referee, rules official, tournament committee or other official agency to enforce those rules by assessing penalties for their violation. But in golf, it would seem that even at the professional level, every Tom, Dick and Harry has a semi-legitimate role in the enforcement of those rules. Why is that a bad idea? Well, as some have suggested in this very forum, reporter Bamberger may have had less than pure motives in the manner and timing with which he brought this issue to light. I would like to believe that is not true, but what if I'm wrong? Would the integrity of the game be served by "rules snipers" intentionally waiting to reveal their knowledge of a rules violation until the moment when it would do their dispised player the most harm? Professional sports officials are hardly perfect, but I automatically have greater faith in their integrity and impartiality simply because they are....well, (supposedly at least) professional. So that's my position and I'm sticking to it. It's not based on any "lack of understanding" about golf's tradition, but rather a firm belief on how one aspect of the game -- professional competitions -- could be improved if we adopted a different procedure. Now at best, I would say this match was halved...........but as long as we're shaking hands on the 18th green....

[iacas]

It is simply my belief that at the PROFESSIONAL level, this aspect of golf's tradition does not always serve us well. That we would be better served by PROFESSIONAL rules officials rendering informed rulings independent of any outside influence or inputs other than the competitors and perhaps their caddies within the ropes. My argument is not about what is, but what should be.

I think that what should be, is. In other words, the system we have now is good already.

I believe you and Cink are splitting the hair awfully thin in your analysis of the "difference" between golf and other pro sports.

That's not what he said. He didn't say "guide" - he used a much stronger word to say that basically they force play one way or another. "Guide" is too weak a word. Even "enforce" is too weak a word, since golfers "enforce" the rules, even on themselves. I don't remember Stewart's quote exactly, but I can assure you "guide" was not the word he used - he used a much stronger word to basically say that players cheat as much as possible without the ref seeing it.

Sounds awfully similar to me. And then when you suggest that Wie's illegal drop would have been a-ok had it only been "sanctioned" by a rules official or her playing partner, I not only find myself in total agreement, but I am immediately reminded of a wise man who once said something like "holding isn't holding if a referee doesn't see it." Yeah, well, true enough! Officials may occasionally be wrong, but at least they are

That doesn't mean golfers should need rules officials following them around, slowing the already snails pace of play on Tour. Michelle Wie had what should have been a simple drop and she

goofed it up . That's the only reason we're talking about it - because she dropped like a moron and because Grace Park didn't come over and watch her.

And how can you say that a golf rules official does not penalize a player when that official invokes a rule which assesses the player a 1 or 2 stroke

The player penalizes themselves under the rules. The official merely informs them of the infraction.

In other sports, people don't call holding on themselves, or travelling in basketball, etc. In other sports, even if a rule isn't broken, a ref can call something on someone. In all my years of golfing I've never seen a rules official in a golf match jump out and go "Penalty! Penalty!" I have seen players ask for a rules official and have the official tell them "well, under the rules, that's a penalty for you." This is a somewhat fine line, but again, I sense the difference. I've seen pass interference calls in football that didn't exist, yet the player was penalized. I've never seen someone penalized for something in golf when they did nothing wrong.

You say: "In golf a rules violation is a rules violation"

And that's true 100% of the time.

I say: "In ALL sports a rules violation is a rules violation and in ALL sports it is up to an umpire, referee, rules official, tournament committee or other official agency to

On the esoteric, perfect, logical plane, sure. In reality, though, players cheat as much as they can get away with cheating. How many shortstops basemen actually touch second base on a double play? How many, after being credited with the out, actually say "nah, I never touched the bag."

In every other sport, a rules violation is only a rules violation if the ref or umpire sees it and calls it. And sometimes it goes the other way - no rule is broken but someone is flagged or called on it anyway.

But in golf, it would seem that even at the professional level, every Tom, Dick and Harry has a semi-legitimate role in the enforcement of those rules. Why is that a bad idea?

I don't think that it is.

Well, as some have suggested in this very forum, reporter Bamberger may have had less than pure motives in the manner and timing with which he brought this issue to light. I would like to believe that is not true, but what if I'm wrong? Would the integrity of the game be served by "rules snipers" intentionally waiting to reveal their knowledge of a rules violation until the moment when it would do their dispised player the most harm?

That's non-sequitur. Michelle broke a rule. She was disqualified because she didn't correct the rules situation before she signed her card. Had she not broken the rule, you'd have nothing to talk about here Larry.

Professional sports officials are hardly perfect, but I automatically have greater faith in their integrity and impartiality simply because they are....well, (supposedly at least) professional.

I'm not even sure what point you're making here. I have faith in the integrity of golfers. I have faith in the integrity of fans, too.

If Michelle Wie hadn't broken a rule, Bamberger wouldn't have had anything to say. Some thought Tiger broke a rule at the Masters both by placing his ball on the putting green (you're allowed) and some thought he stood astride the line of a putt when putting out on 14 (I think). In both situations, Tiger was correct, so there was no issue. Michelle broke a rule. Why shouldn't she be called on it, and why should it matter from whom the call came? She failed in her duty to call it on herself. If you start to get into defining a list of people that are allowed to inform players of infractions, you're going to find yourself in a tough spot. Who counts? Rules officials, caddies, and playing partners only? What if they've finished a round and see it on TV or as they are walking to the parking lot? What if they're on a different hole? That's just silly. A rules infraction is a rules infraction, and who spots it and informs the player of the rules infraction is meaningless. Anyone can. Had "your rule" been in place, Karrie Webb wouldn't have been able to thank Kelly Tilghman for saving her from a two-stroke penalty or a possible DQ. What about searching for a lost ball? Under your rules, maybe spectators aren't allowed to help? I'm not in favor of your way of looking at things because I see no clear place to draw the line between who can and can't get involved.

So that's my position and I'm sticking to it. It's not based on any "lack of understanding" about golf's tradition, but rather a firm belief on how one aspect of the game -- professional competitions -- could be improved if we adopted a different procedure.

Thing is, I'm not sure how saying "only these people can comment on the rules" is an "improvement" over the way things currently are. You've yet to display that life would be "better" or "improved" this way.

Michelle broke a rule. Had "your rule" been in play, she'd have effectively cheated (by strict rules standards, I'm not assuming any "intent" here) and gotten away with it. How is cheating, by definition, an improvement over not cheating?

[iacas]

Bamberger has a Q&A; available for those interested in reading it.

I think his "my first priority is the subject" line is a bit weak, but then again, I'm not exactly a reporter.

New information includes his talking about a Yucca tree/bush behind her drop area that would have affected her swing if she had dropped properly.