Julie Inkster DQ over rule violation....

[iacas]

The ruling on Inkster was fine by me. One question: what if it had been her swinging a club with a headcover? My assumption is that it would be fine, I've never heard a headcover considered a training aid, but would warming up with that between holes be a violation? And then where is the line drawn? If I had secretly stuck a weight inside my headcover and used that a warm up, that has to be violation, right?

Headcover is fine. Swing donut is still not. You'd know it and, as soon as the headcover flew off and hit a spectator in the face, they'd know it too.

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.

Yep.

The rules don't prevent you from grabbing two clubs and swinging those together. Or from stretching by using the golf cart, a wall, or the tee markers (don't move 'em though). They prevent you from using training aids. It's pretty simple.

[ElWagonne]

Rule's pretty cut and dried. Hard but fair is what I say. However, the meddling viewers that call in rules violations need enhance their lives instead of watching their flat screens for rules violations. It takes a fair amount of effort to 1) catch the violation...2) verify that it is a violation....3) look up a phone # to call XYZ network....4) stay on hold for who knows how long. I'm just saying

[ERdiesel]

Rules are rules as echoed by everyone else and she should have known better despite your opinion of the rule.

However........I didn't watch the round, but how the heck did things get backed up by half an hour and why didn't any groups in front get penalized for slow play? These are pros and they're not exactly playing on a muni course full of weekend hackers and duffers. I simply don't understand how there could be a 30 minute wait at a tee box for a pro tournament.

[PooN]

I think the rule was clearly broken, and Julie absolutely should have been penalized. I just think a DQ is a bit over the top.
I would think that a 2 stroke penalty is plenty sufficient for using a training aid while away from the ball in play. Perhaps rewrite the rule for a 1st offense of 2 stroke penalty, any recurrence would then constitute DQ.

[ghalfaire]

Well the rules are the rules and one would think if you play golf for a living you would be familiar with them. I don't think either Julie or Dustin have any legitimate complaint and neither one has indicted they believe they do either.
Having said that I personally believe that DQ is an awful severe penalty for what Julie did. It would not hurt the USGA to review the rules penalties for appropriateness (e.g. make the penalty fit the crime). I agree with ElWagonne also that the "better golfers" get most of the TV attention and so are maybe more subject to being penalized just because more eyes are watching. But I am not sure how you fix that other than some people "need to get a life".

[iacas]

However........I didn't watch the round, but how the heck did things get backed up by half an hour and why didn't any groups in front get penalized for slow play?

If there are no open holes, under current rules on the major tours, you're not behind pace. They don't have a time par and they don't start timing individual players until you fall a hole behind.

[JWL1957]

Julie Inkster is a class act. Too bad she brain farted.

[ERdiesel]

I agree with ElWagonne also that the "better golfers" get most of the TV attention and so are maybe more subject to being penalized just because more eyes are watching. But I am not sure how you fix that other than some people "need to get a life".

Not sure why you feel a viewer who knew the rules, caught the rule violation, and called it in qualifies as someone who "needs a life". Isn't there an official of some kind with every pair who should have caught the rule violation? I mean she had a donut weight on her club and most likely was swinging it around or holding it for a considerable amount of time and no official there saw it? Or if they did, they were willing to let it slide?

[iacas]

I wasn't aware of the rule Inkster violated, but you'd think a veteran pro would be. Also, I think it's cool that someone watching on TV called in the infraction. Golf is the only interactive sport that way,

http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/...#ixzz0xRQ2Z9Xg

[Zeph]

Headcover is fine. Swing donut is still not. You'd know it and, as soon as the headcover flew off and hit a spectator in the face, they'd know it too.

So a normal headcover is fine, but not a weighted one? A headcover surely give the club more weight. You could even put a rubber band around it's neck so it won't fall off, or perhaps that would make it a training aid. Some covers have a zipper that make sure it won't come off, I've got a hybrid with that kind of cover. I can take a full swing and the cover stays on. Serves the same purpose as the doughnut, at least somewhat.

Source: USGA 14-3/10 Use of Training or Swing Aid During Round Q. During a round, may a player make a stroke or a practice swing using a club with a weighted headcover or "donut" on it, or use any other device designed as a training or swing aid? A. No. The player would be using an artificial device to assist him in his play in breach of Rule 14-3, but see also Decision 4-4a/7 for use of a weighted training club.

That she used the doughnut to warm up, and people think it is stupid that they should not be allowed to use it when they are waiting half an hour on the tee is just silly. You get just as warm by using a club that is not weighted, you can even swing two clubs. Won't take a whole lot of swings with just one club to get the blood pumping.

[ElWagonne]

Not sure why you feel a viewer who knew the rules, caught the rule violation, and called it in qualifies as someone who "needs a life". Isn't there an official of some kind with every pair who should have caught the rule violation? I mean she had a donut weight on her club and most likely was swinging it around or holding it for a considerable amount of time and no official there saw it? Or if they did, they were willing to let it slide?

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.

[pittpanther]

Some thoughts about Inkster's DQ:

1. If you're a fan watching an event, see a violation, and want to call in, exactly WHO do you call?
2. Assuming Inkster had made the cut, does her DQ mean all remaining players who made the cut get slightly more money?
3. When does an event officially "end?" Meaning, when is it too late for a discovered violation to affect the results? When are results "final?"
4. A follow-up to #3 - Imagine a player commits a violation in the first round which is not discovered until the middle of the fourth round. Can he still be penalized at that point, or is it too late since the first round ended 3 days ago?

[albatross]

Some thoughts about Inkster's DQ:

I'm interested in the answers to these questions.

[zeg]

3. When does an event officially "end?" Meaning, when is it too late for a discovered violation to affect the results? When are results "final?"

These are answered by Rule 34-1 b., quoted below (34-1 a. handles match play, which is rather simpler because the parties involved in the match are both present for every stroke). Basically, when the result of the competition (at the end of the tournament, so after the 4th round in a tour event) is announced, that's the end of the window when "ordinary" penalties can be imposed (or rescinded). After that, the only penalties that can be applied are certain penalties that result in DQ. These are basically for outright cheating---either waiving the rules, knowingly returning better scores than you made, or knowingly failing to report a penalty that would have DQed you.

So the answer to 3 is that it's over when the results are announced. The answer to 4 is that he could be penalized for an infraction in the first round during the 4th, and if that meant his score did not include the penalty strokes, he'd be DQ at that point.

[34-1]b. Stroke Play In stroke play, a penalty must not be rescinded, modified or imposed after the competition has closed. A competition is closed when the result has been officially announced or, in stroke-play qualifying followed by match play, when the player has teed off in his first match. Exceptions: A penalty of disqualification must be imposed after the competition has closed if a competitor: (i) was in breach of Rule 1-3 (Agreement to Waive Rules); or (ii) returned a score card on which he had recorded a handicap that, before the competition closed, he knew was higher than that to which he was entitled, and this affected the number of strokes received (Rule 6-2b); or (iii) returned a score for any hole lower than actually taken (Rule 6-6d) for any reason other than failure to include a penalty that, before the competition closed, he did not know he had incurred; or (iv) knew, before the competition closed, that he had been in breach of any other Rule for which the penalty is disqualification.

[Clambake]

If Tiger hits 70 shots....TV shows 70 shots, however, if Matt Kuchar hits 70 shots, they may show 10

When Tiger hits 70 shots in a round the announcers talk about "he's struggling" and when Kuchar does it "he's on fire!"

[Mrd19abhs]

I think this was completely bogus that she was dq'ed but whats worse is a tv viewer called in the infraction. WTF seriously.

[iacas]

1. If you're a fan watching an event, see a violation, and want to call in, exactly WHO do you call?

Who knows? Most probably don't. You could probably try some of the phone numbers at the host course.

2. Assuming Inkster had made the cut, does her DQ mean all remaining players who made the cut get slightly more money?

They dole out money the same way they would have before. First place gets $x, second place gets $y, etc.

3. When does an event officially "end?" Meaning, when is it too late for a discovered violation to affect the results? When are results "final?"

Answered already.

4. A follow-up to #3 - Imagine a player commits a violation in the first round which is not discovered until the middle of the fourth round. Can he still be penalized at that point, or is it too late since the first round ended 3 days ago?

Yes, she can be DQed. She signed an incorrect scorecard.

I remember a story about Paula Creamer DQing herself after an event had concluded because she realized she'd switched clubs during a rain delay. She DQed herself while driving (IIRC) to the next tournament.

After that, the only penalties that can be applied are certain penalties that result in DQ. These are basically for outright cheating---either waiving the rules, knowingly returning better scores than you made, or knowingly failing to report a penalty that would have DQed you.

As was the case with Paula, yes.

[zeg]

I remember a story about Paula Creamer DQing herself after an event had concluded because she realized she'd switched clubs during a rain delay. She DQed herself while driving (IIRC) to the next tournament.

That's odd, since according to the rule I quoted, unless she realized this before the competition had closed, I don't think the results should be changed. In all the enumerated cases (except violation of 1-3), unless you're

aware of the penalty before the close of competition, there's no DQ. So if she'd later remembered that she forgot to include a penalty but she knew that she'd violated the rule during the round, then she'd be right to DQ. Similarly if she had finished early and was driving before the close of competition. At least, that's how I read that rule (and I've been known to be wrong before...)