Stewart Cink DQ'ed

[pioneer]

Cink Disqualified from Zurich Classic
By turnover
Posted on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:18:02 PM EDT
</I>


According to the Golf Pregame show on TGC, Stewart Cink has been disqualified from the final round of the Zurich Classic after a series of events that can best be considered ... well ... bizarre.
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/playerbreakingnews.asp?sport=GOL&id=126&line=4634&spln=1
("Stewart Cink was disqualified on Sunday from the Zurich Classic.
Tour Officials said that Cink, on the 15th hole of the third round, ran into a recent ruling by a USGA ruling on Rule 13-4a. Cink apparently stood inside a bunker to play a ball that wasn't in the hazard and then hit his next shot into a bunker, at which point he raked the bunker he was standing in. The UGSA recently ruled, "that the player is in breach of Rule 13-4a by testing the condition of a similar hazard. As his ball did not lie in the first bunker, Exception 2 the Rule 13-14 does not apply. Additionally, the answer is the same regardless of whether at the time of the raking he knew his ball lay in the other bunker." )


It seems that Cink and Zach Johnson were discussing over breakfast this morning some of the more arcane rules of golf. Johnson brought up an odd one, indeed, and Cink thought..."Hmm...I wonder if I've ever done that? Wait...I think I did that yesterday!".
Yesterday on 15, Cink's tee shot came to rest adjacent to a fairway bunker, necessitating that Cink stand in the bunker to play his second shot, which came to rest in a greenside bunker. He then proceeded to rake the fairway bunker in which he had been standing.
This is, according to the rules, a no-no: "Testing the surface of a hazard", it results in a two stroke penalty.
Unfortunately, no one caught the violation at the time, and as such Cink finished his round and signed his card w/o a penalty. So, when he called a rule official this morning to self-report the apparent rules violation, he was disqualified for having signed an incorrect scorecard. Now, can someone remind me why we like this crazy-ass game so much?

I love golf and find the honorable behavior of the players to be admirable, but someone has got to stand up and tell the Emperor that he is wearing no clothes...ie. the rules of golf are beyond stupid.

 

[jwunderdog]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

now I have a reason to never rack a bunker. :+textinb3

 

[Blackcloud]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

Makes no sense. I could see it if he played his next shot from the bunker he just raked but not from a bunker that had to be 150+ yards away.

 

[Brock]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

New caddy. Dumb rule but when that much prize money
is at hand the caddy should have known the rules. Part
of his job.

 

[pioneer]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

Of course it's a dumb rule, it makes no sense. The only thing worse would have been Cink blaming it on his caddy. At least Cink was too honorable to do that.
One question for Brock...you must have read another article because the article I posted says nothing about Cink's caddy raking the trap against the explicit instructions of Cink. So since there is so much prize money involved, shouldn't it be part of Cink's job to know the rules?

 

[Jeff Jones]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

Only white zillionaires bother about this.

 

[Brock]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

I think its on the caddy. Yea they should both be aware of that
rule. Apparently neither one was. I heard them talking about this
when watching golf over the weekend.

 

[peter]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

Can anybody answer some questions I still have about this incident as I have read 2 totally different scenarios. Did Stewart make the shot standing in the bunker or did he only go into the bunker to get his line of play? Did he rake the bunker or his caddy, I have read both. Although the 2nd question should not matter.

Then, are we to play a regular game of golf on a Sat like this: I hit onto a bank of a bunker. I stand in the bunker to hit my shot, my shot goes into a green side bunker, am I not to rake my shoes prints for all of thr players behind me?

Now what is my shot goes over the green and into bunker that I can't see until I get up there. Now if I had raked my shoe prints do I now need to assess myself a penalty?

 

[Rxx]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

Can anybody answer some questions I still have about this incident as I have read 2 totally different scenarios. Did Stewart make the shot standing in the bunker or did he only go into the bunker to get his line of play? Did he rake the bunker or his caddy, I have read both. Although the 2nd question should not matter.

Then, are we to play a regular game of golf on a Sat like this: I hit onto a bank of a bunker. I stand in the bunker to hit my shot, my shot goes into a green side bunker, am I not to rake my shoes prints for all of thr players behind me?

Now what is my shot goes over the green and into bunker that I can't see until I get up there. Now if I had raked my shoe prints do I now need to assess myself a penalty?

I think that rules that seem rather arcane, like this one, in reality should only apply to professionals and formal club tournaments. In my regular golf game on Saturday, if on of my friends called me on that, i would tell him that he can rake all the bunkers from now on. If you play public courses, just getting guys to rake bunkers should be the goal.

I understand the theory behind the rule, not giving advantage to testing the bunker, but it just seems a bit absurd to have this rule apply in this set of circumstances. I hope that the rule guys at St. Andrews visit this one again.

Parenthetically, i once hit a ball which landed in a red staked area from which i was going to play out of. While waiting for my turn to play, i was leaning on my club, which was touching the ground, in the staked area. As it was match play, i immediately lost the hole. It was a tough lesson to learn.

 

[pioneer]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

I understand the theory behind the rule,

You do? Then please explain it to me, because it makes no sense at all to me. The rule should be, as you said, to not give a player an advantage. If I move some sand in the bunker around my ball, that gives me an advantage; I am very much in agreement with not touching the sand before hitting my ball in the sand trap. But how is it an advantage for a player(Cink) to have his caddy or even himself, rake a bunker 180 yds away from his next shot in another bunker? That's a question; I'll wait for a reply, but I won't hold my breath because the obvious answer is that it doesn't give the player an advantage! One can say, "well, that's the rule and the rule must be followed", and I can agree with that but at the same time I have to agree with you, RXX, the rule is absurd! I'd say the same thing as you would to a playing partner who tried to enforce that rule on you(and a whole lot more!!!!)
And another question, isn't walking in the sand trap actually a way of testing the sand? YES!!! This is a perfect example of a rule which is good if, and only if, a little common sense is applied, ie. the rule is meant to not give a player an advantage. Cink got no advantage from this action of raking the trap, therefore a rules official with a modicum of common sense should have declared this to NOT be a breach of the rules and play on. Just like the infamous ruling against Craig Stadler, when he laid down a towel and knelt on it to hit his shot out from under the pine tree...this was another perfect example of an action by a player that did not result in any advantage to him and yet the rules officials failed to exercise any common sense. It just hurts the game overall; I for one have no respect for the rules of golf and would not play with anyone who insisted on playing by them! I saw in one of the golf magazines, Golf or Golf Digest, about 20-30 years ago, an article on the "Common Sense Rules of Golf"(I'll have to google and see if I can find them after all these years). I don't remember them verbatim of course after all these years, but they're really very simple, and based on the premise of not taking unfair advantage of the course or other players. For instance, in your parenthetical example, there is a good reason for not being allowed to ground your club in the hazard. Grounding your club in the red staked hazard around your ball,(or even taking a practice swing in the hazard around your ball), might serve as the same thing as grounding your club in the sand trap, ie. testing/improving your lie. That, I'm sure you'd agree, should not be allowed. But leaning on your club in the same hazard some distance away from your ball does not give you any advantage and thus it should be declared that the "spirit" of the rule has not been breached. I'll give you another very similar parenthetical experience of mine...I was playing in a military tournament about 30-40 years ago and my ball landed in a sand trap. The rakes were not kept in the traps like they are nowadays, (which brings up an interesting point; say your ball lands in the sand trap where the rake interferes with your swing; wouldn't the act of moving the rake be considered by the letter of the law, to be testing the sand in the bunker?), in fact, there was only one rake per trap, so I carried the rake into the trap with me and laid it down beside my ball and proceeded to play the shot and then rake the trap. A member of my foursome, whom I didn't know, declared this was a 2 shot penalty; I said fine, we'll take it up with the pro after the round. The pro wisely applied some common sense and declared this NOT to be a breach of the rules and did not assess any penalty(I won the first flight of the tourney, I believe it was a $25 gift certificate in the pro shop).

 

[ArchieBunker]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

Pioneer says"

I for one have no respect for the rules of golf and would not play with anyone who insisted on playing by them!


Then you're not playing golf. You're merely hitting a little white ball around some well manicured piece of ground.

 

[pioneer]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

Of course it goes without saying that I wouldn't play with an idiot like AB. I found this while googling the common sense rules of golf...



Bad Decisions
October 1998 By DAVID BARRETT
Senior Editor, GOLF Magazine
The Rules book isn't the final word on the Rules of Golf. That distinction belongs to the "Decisions on the Rules of Golf," a 600-page publication produced by the USGA and R&A.
Since there are so many crazy things that can happen on a golf course and the 130-page Rules book can't cover all possible interpretations, the game's ruling bodies are constantly called on to make rulings on doubtful situations (the USGA fields a couple of hundred Rules questions a week). The most interesting and/or common of those rulings are gathered and put into the Decisions book, giving them official status.
On the whole, the Decisions represent sensible attempts to uphold the letter of the law while invoking the concept of equity in situations not specifically addressed by the Rules. On occasion, though, it seems that common sense takes a vacation. Here are 10 decisions we think are wrong-headed:
DECISION 4-2/1.5. Situation: A player bends the neck of his putter when he bangs it on his shoe in frustration, then uses it to tap in a one-inch putt. The Rules call for disqualification, because a player isn't allowed to use a club that has been damaged other than during the normal course of play (a display of temper isn't considered normal). Can the Committee waive or modify the disqualification penalty if the player doesn't use the putter for the rest of the round? The answer: No.
OUR VIEW: The Rules makers hold to a strict interpretation of the fact that the Committee can modify a disqualification penalty only in exceptional individual cases. This case isn't considered exceptional; the fact that the player is being disqualified for something that had zero affect on his play doesn't seem to matter. (We have a quibble with the Rule, not just the Decision. Disqualification is a severe penalty for using a damaged club).
DECISION 4-4c/1. Situation: A player discovers before the round that there are 15 clubs in his bag. He declares one of them out of play, putting it on the floor of his golf cart. Is the player subject to penalty? The answer: Yes, because a player is not allowed to start a round with more than 14 clubs.
OUR VIEW: Under Rule 4-4c, once he has started the round, the player must declare an excess club out of play after discovering he has more than 14 clubs (and suffering a penalty). Not allowing him to declare a club out of play before the round?‹and making him return to the clubhouse or his car to put the extra club back?‹is nit-picking.
DECISION 13-2/25. Situation: A player removes an out-of-bounds post interfering with his play. He then realizes that he isn't allowed to move a boundary post and returns it before playing his next shot. Is he penalized? Answer: Yes, he broke the Rules as soon as he moved the post.
OUR VIEW: We don't see why the player should be penalized since he restored the original situation and his play was not affected.
DECISION 13-3/2. Situation: A player's ball is under a tree. He plays his next stroke from his knees, putting a towel on the ground to keep his pants from getting wet. Is he penalized? Answer: Yes, as Craig Stadler can attest.
OUR VIEW: Eleven years after Stadler was penalized in San Diego, we still don't agree.
DECISION 14-2/1. Situation: A player physically aligns his partner's putter and then moves away before his partner plays. Is this permissible? Answer: Yes, the Rule prohibiting physical assistance in making a stroke doesn't apply prior to the stroke (the same ruling holds for a caddie).
OUR VIEW: We don't even like a caddie or partner giving verbal help on alignment. Physical help in lining up the clubhead is ridiculous. Even without a Rules change, we think this could be interpreted as physical assistance in making a stroke even if it's not during the stroke.
DECISION 15-3/2. Situation: A player plays a wrong ball, discovers his error, then plays another wrong ball before finally playing the correct one. Is he penalized two strokes or four strokes? Answer: Two strokes.
OUR VIEW: We see two distinct violations here. If a player is stupid enough to play two different wrong balls in a row, we don't see why he shouldn't be penalized twice.
DECISION 20-1/15. Situation: In the process of pulling a coin out of his pocket to mark his ball on the green, a player drops the coin onto the ball, and the ball moves. Is he penalized for causing the ball to move? Answer: Yes, the exemption from penalty for accidentally causing the ball to move in the process of marking it only applies to the specific act of placing a coin behind the ball.
OUR VIEW: Why is clumsiness in handling the coin while taking it out of your pocket worse than clumsiness when placing it behind the ball?
DECISION 20-6/1. Situation: A player drops a ball when he should have placed it. Is he penalized? Answer: Yes, although he can avoid the penalty if he corrects his error before playing the next stroke.
OUR VIEW: It makes sense for a player to be penalized for placing a ball when he should have dropped it. But he's putting himself at a disadvantage by dropping it instead of placing it; there's no need to slap him with a penalty, too.
DECISION 27/6. Situation: Two players hit their tee shots into the same general area. Player A hits Player B's ball. Player B searches for his ball; eventually he finds Player A's ball and realizes Player A played a wrong ball. What is the ruling? Answer: If the five-minute period allowed for a search has expired, Player B must take a lost-ball penalty in stroke play (in match play, Player A loses the hole for playing a wrong ball).
OUR VIEW: A player shouldn't incur a lost-ball penalty if another player hits his ball. Of course he couldn't find it! Player B shouldn't have to pay for Player A's mistake.
DECISION 27-2a/2. Situation: A player, thinking his ball might be in a water hazard, plays what he announces as a provisional ball. Is this allowed? Answer: No. The Rules provide for play of a provisional ball only if the ball might be lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds. The second ball played from the tee is the ball in play, and the player lies three.
OUR VIEW: Let's say you hit your tee shot 200 yards, all of it over a water hazard, and see it land on the bank of the hazard. You can't tell if the ball a) is playable in the hazard, b) jumped out of the hazard and into the light rough or fairway, or c) is unplayable in the hazard. The Rules?‹and this Decision?‹say you've got to walk 200 yards to find out if your ball is playable, then, if it's not, walk 200 yards back to the tee to play again. This is just the kind of time-wasting situation the provisional ball Rule is supposed to enable a player avoid. <!-- URL:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/golfonline/rules/hatedrules/oldruleside31098.html --><TABLE align=right><TBODY><TR></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[pioneer]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

Pioneer says"

I for one have no respect for the rules of golf and would not play with anyone who insisted on playing by them!


Then you're not playing golf. You're merely hitting a little white ball around some well manicured piece of ground.

I must admit, Archie, you're right. I'm not playing golf...I'm playing "sortagolf". Check out their website which I found while searching for the common sense rules of golf.

SortaGolf :

...their motto is "Gimme Mulligan or gimme death"...LOL

 

[Rxx]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

You do? Then please explain it to me, because it makes no sense at all to me.

And another question, isn't walking in the sand trap actually a way of testing the sand? YES!!! This is a perfect example of a rule which is good if, and only if, a little common sense is applied, ie. the rule is meant to not give a player an advantage.

quote]


pioneer- i dont disagree with anything you have written. i only said that i understood the intent in that the rule is, as you wrote, not to allow the testing of the bunker and provide an advantage. In no way do i really believe that Cink obtained an advantage.

To your point on applying common sense- well, that is always the more difficult part. Amongst friends in my saturday game, that is what we do every day. I dont pull out my driver to measure 2 lenths from the water when a drive goes wayward- i toss a new ball pretty close to where i think it went out. But common sense in the pro game is something else. The way this rule was applied, on the face of it, defies common sense. But if that is the way USGA and R&A wrote it- then they need to change it.

if you come to the west coast, i'd be happy to take you to my CC to play.

 

[pioneer]

Re: Stewart Cink DQ'ed

if you come to the west coast, i'd be happy to take you to my CC to play.

ditto if you ever come to Vegas.

Have you checked out the SortaGolf : site? Take advantage of the free download there of the book, The Muldooney Revisions...I just read it today and it is a tongue-in-cheek, satirical masterpiece...I haven't LOL'ed like that since I read Catch-22 many years ago.