Brian Davis

[iacas]

Bogus rule...it had nothing to do with the outcome of the shot. The PGA needs to rethink some rules.

The PGA doesn't write the rules. They also weren't involved in the event today. The PGA Tour and the USGA were, though.

The rule is fine. He knew it was illegal - he called himself on it - so he should have taken more care not to hit the thing. There's always a wave of people who declare a rule stupid every time something like this happens, but the rule exists for a reason - to prevent people from moving loose impediments in hazards.

[clg82]

The PGA doesn't write the rules. They also weren't involved in the event today. The PGA Tour and the USGA were, though.

So just so I know the rule correctly. Only if it is deemed in a hazard does this rule apply? so if it is in play and not in a hazard could he have just removed it no harm no foul?

[Cussin hacker]

The PGA doesn't write the rules. They also weren't involved in the event today. The PGA Tour and the USGA were, though.

Moving a loose impediment to better your shot and hardly touching it during your back swing are two different things and the rule should be stated more clearly. Some people think the rules are perfect, but when a guy gets a two stroke penalty for something that had no effect on the shot ...that's bogus. Should he have called it....YES it's a rule, but rules can and should be changed! Would I call it when playing with friends....NO. If I were in a tournament YES I would call it. I'll bet plenty touring pro's would be in agreement on this, but say nothing for fear of being labeled a cheater by some. I commend Davis for calling it. It's great to see such honesty. As I said just my .02 on the situation.

[Cussin hacker]

So just so I know the rule correctly. Only if it is deemed in a hazard does this rule apply? so if it is in play and not in a hazard could he have just removed it no harm no foul?

Yes you can move a loose impediment in the normal field of play as long as it doesn't move the ball. Also if it were a live piece of grass, etc. connected to the ground there would have been no penalty on Davis.

[iacas]

Moving a loose impediment to better your shot and hardly touching it during your back swing are two different things and the rule should be stated more clearly.

Go ahead. I'd love to see you define "hardly touching" something. The rules are black and white, and need to be that way. You're not going to win this one - better, smarter people than you (and I) have undoubtedly debated this rule for hours and hours, or days and days.

Some people think the rules are perfect, but when a guy gets a two stroke penalty for something that had no effect on the shot ...that's bogus.

Says you.

Ian Woosnam had 15 clubs in the bag at a major. Four shots penalized. He'd only hit about three clubs (driver, iron, putter, driver) when he discovered the error. Four strokes. A guy has a laser which can measure slope but disable the functionality. Penalty for even using it, disabled features or not. Michelle Wie soles her club in a hazard while her ball's still in it. No effect on the shot, but it's a penalty, and she knew better. I could go on for awhile, but again, you're not going to win. The rules are there, you know what they are before you play, so you don't do the things which penalize you. Good for Brian, but as Bobby Jones said, you may as well congratulate him for not robbing a bank.

[BallStriker]

.

I agree....I don't really consider it a great sign of sportsmanship to call a penalty on yourself....if you know you have (or may have) violated a rule, its your obligation. For a tour player -- in a playoff, with all the intense media coverage -- you would have to be crazy not to say anything in that situation. CBS would have replayed that shot 50 times and all the talking heads would have given their opinion and, eventually, they would have concluded it was at least an issue that should have been raised and discussed. If Davis just goes about his merry way, there is a chance that he would have taken a lot of heat. Dissapointing finish to be sure -- especially after that clutch putt on 18. But, some very, very solid play down the stretch by Furyk, he deserved to win.

[Bug Bunny]

Well, it was great sportsmanship in all ways! First, yeah, it would have been replayed but no one could have proved it was loose without CLOSE examination! Second, I'm so glad that the penalty didn't cost him the tourney and it was comforting that he CLEARLY was calling for an official before seeing the exact result of the stroke. I'll agree with Bobby Jones, h, since he said that more and more it seems more imperative. In todays world to see a guy in golf do that, in all the PED's, referee scandals, officials, golf is truly the game of gentlemen! Just sorry I waited until 34 to take it up!!!

But the rule is clear, and it's that way for a reason. If not, it would certainly leave a grey area where you could possibly remove something on the back swing and simply say it was part of your backswing! What's so amazing is he had no idea of knowing whether it was attached so as quickly as he reacted, it was definitely a big boy move. Hat's off to both guys for finishing with class!!

[jamo]

Good for Brian, but as Bobby Jones said, you may as well congratulate him for not robbing a bank.

Bobby Jones was never exactly Mr. Sunshine.

I think the rule was fine, but I never like seeing someone lose due to something like this. I wish the rules weren't so black and white, but I see why they are. I would like to congratulate him for it. Most people (or at least many) wouldn't have done what he did, so that is something I think he should be commended for.

[Fourputt]

Moving a loose impediment to better your shot and hardly touching it during your back swing are two different things and the rule should be stated more clearly. Some people think the rules are perfect, but when a guy gets a two stroke penalty for something that had no effect on the shot ...that's bogus. Should he have called it....YES it's a rule, but rules can and should be changed! Would I call it when playing with friends....NO. If I were in a tournament YES I would call it. I'll bet plenty touring pro's would be in agreement on this, but say nothing for fear of being labeled a cheater by some. I commend Davis for calling it. It's great to see such honesty. As I said just my .02 on the situation.

Rule 13-4 prohibits even

touching a loose impediment with your hand or club (except when making a stroke) when your ball and the loose impediment both lie in a hazard. You don't even have to have moved it. The rule cannot make exceptions for this case or that just because you think it's unfair. The rule is there to prevent any possibility of a player improving his lie in a hazard, and to be implemented equally it must be black and white. He obviously knew the rule,and failed to take the proper precautions with his backswing. He isn't the first, nor will he be the last player to fall victim to this rule. That part of this rule is unlikely to ever be under consideration for revision, so don't hold your breath.

[clg82]

Bobby Jones was never exactly Mr. Sunshine.

I think they were saying that he had never won as well....if that's the case that makes it very noble of him!

[J_Bone]

13-4. Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or a water hazard) or that, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player must not: a. Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard; b. Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club; or c. Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard. Exceptions: 1. Provided nothing is done that constitutes testing the condition of the hazard or improves the lie of the ball, there is no penalty if the player (a) touches the ground or loose impediments in any hazard or water in a water hazard as a result of or to prevent falling, in removing an obstruction, in measuring or in marking the position of, retrieving, lifting, placing or replacing a ball under any Rule or (b) places his clubs in a hazard. 2. After making the stroke, if the ball is still in the hazard or has been lifted from the hazard and may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player may smooth sand or soil in the hazard, provided nothing is done to breach Rule 13-2 with respect to his next stroke. If the ball is outside the hazard after the stroke, the player may smooth sand or soil in the hazard without restriction. 3. If the player makes a stroke from a hazard and the ball comes to rest in another hazard, Rule 13-4a does not apply to any subsequent actions taken in the hazard from which the stroke was made. Note: At any time, including at address or in the backward movement for the stroke, the player may touch, with a club or otherwise, any obstruction, any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of the course or any grass, bush, tree or other growing thing.

If I read that correct, he should have not gotten a 2 shot penalty?

[Chilli Dipper]

If I read that correct, he should have not gotten a 2 shot penalty?

That wouldn't be correct. Any loose impediments lying in a hazard are considered an extension of the hazard itself. Touching the stick like Davis did, according to the rules, is no different than had he dragged his club across the surface of the sand on his takeaway. It's grounding the club, and that's explicitly not allowed in a hazard.

[Zeph]

If I read that correct, he should have not gotten a 2 shot penalty?

Wrong I'm afraid.

Source: 1. Provided nothing is done that constitutes testing the condition of the hazard or improves the lie of the ball, there is no penalty if the player (a) touches the ground or loose impediments in any hazard or water in a water hazard as a result of or to prevent falling, in removing an obstruction, in measuring or in marking the position of, retrieving, lifting, placing or replacing a ball under any Rule or (b) places his clubs in a hazard.

The exception allows us to touch the ground or loose impediments if it is to prevent falling, while removing an obstruction, measuring, etc. Or when you place your clubs in the hazard, being a bag or couple of clubs. The rule does not give you an exception when you touch the loose impediment in the backswing. Only time you can touch loose impediments with the club is in the downswing.

[Cussin hacker]

Rule 13-4 prohibits even

Just to clarify....you said "except when making a stroke". You cannot touch a loose impediment during a stroke. Thats what got Davis...he touched it during his backswing. Unless it's live grass etc. attached to the hazard then he could have touched it during the stroke but not before. Hey we all love the game so alls good fellas just of differents of opinion. Also I believe in following the rules even if I don't like some of them.

If I read that correct, he should have not gotten a 2 shot penalty?

Sorry man but it was a penalty...although exception #1a is a clear as mud. Basically tells you that you can touch something in the hazard to prevent falling. Wie tried and failed to argue that a couple months ago. She clearly was not falling.

[jwkde]

I think CBS did a horrible job of covering. They could not even figure out what was going on . Then after it was decided there was a penalty made no effort to explain it or the rule involved. They were is such a hurry to get off the air (at least on the east coast)!

I think for the amateur watching at home, explain the rules when penalties are invoked (which is rare) helps make everyone undertand the rules of the game.

Davis is a class act!!! It is a shame that Furyk won under those circumstances but he did it as gracefully as possible!

[PiustheDrGolf]

My upmost respect to Brian. Michelle Wie's case was most recent. But one who got away from similar situation was Kenny Perry at early last year and we as SandTrappers went over the case pretty strong. Kenny didn't admit his wrong doing and got away from it. I don't know why people cheer for the guy. (Cause he is almost at age for Champions Tour but can still compete?) It was his 2nd wrong doings that had been caught and questioned for penalty... but as always, he didn't come clean. The old grumpy cheater needs to learn from Brian. Again, my hat's off to Brian.

[FHopper]

For me the event demonstrated that he made a bad choice. He spent plenty of time considering taking a drop over hitting in the hazard. I do not know who failed, the player or the caddy, but after so much consideration of the hazard shot he should have seen the issue and taken the drop. I am glad he is honest but sorry he chose poorly. ... and in today's world of HD, how much honesty is involved when you are certain at least three HD cameras at different angles are recording the shot?

[Zeph]

Taking a drop would effectively have put him out of the match too. Dropping his third, chip to the green for par, then one putt for bogey. If Furyk knew he would not be able to make par, he could just cozy the ball up to the hole for a safe par. The problem was really that he and the caddy didn't see or take notice of the stick. He could have started the club higher up to avoid it on the backswing, or move slightly forward to get away from it alltogether.