"Most tour pros seem quite happy to live in ignorance even though their livelihoods depend on the 34 rules"
Alistair Tait of Golfweek joins Bamberger and Herrington expressing concern that the latest effort to stop viewer call-ins will not repair professional golf's run-ins with the rules. 
Tait views the player as largely to blame and has little faith they will begin learning the rules even post-2019 simplification.
Tour pros will spend eight hours a day working on all aspects of their game yet can’t find 10 minutes to read the rules. It’s not as if they don’t have enough down time on flights, in courtesy cars and in hotel rooms. As European Tour chief referee John Paramor once said, even 10 minutes a day learning the Definitions would go a long way toward increasing their knowledge and stopping violations.
Imagine a banker who didn’t know the banking code? A lawyer who didn’t know the law? Yet most tour pros seem quite happy to live in ignorance even though their livelihoods depend on the 34 rules that govern the game.
The European Tour once set up regular rules seminars to teach players. The tour had to cancel them because players weren’t turning up.
Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 11:07 PM
Reader Comments (22)
For the most part I think that the vast majority are comfortable in the knowledge of the rules but if there is an "expert" there they'd rather be safe than sorry.
The problem is only further enabled now the USGA/R&A allow “intent” to factor into rule matters. Do golfers intend to hit shots Out of Bounds?
Additionally, Tour officials not cracking down on player’s who leave their balls unmarked in close proxcimity to the hole providing a possible “backstopping” is further evidence the spirit of the game at the highest level is being eroded. Today we have some professional players on the PGA Tour and the LPGA Tour thinking it’s okay to not put their marked ball in the same spot.
Some of our top players today don't have proper accountability… in any form of competition players will take advantage of any opportunity if it leads to their benefit. The largest share of blame must stay with those in charge of protecting and enforcing the rules and the spirit of the game.
On all but the simplest and most straightforward situations, the prudent decision for the pro is to consult the rules official.
Having said that it would behoove the pro tours to require that all participants attend a rules course. And like required continuing education for other professions, repeat it every few years.
(Maybe not, but) I think it would leave the pro empowered to better know his options before he gets into trouble, not after. They are cheating themselves by not doing this.
Failing to crack down on back-stopping is a problem. But, I'd say that a greater failure from those whose responsibility is enforcement is failing to call out players who abuse the rules. Keeping quiet when Dustin Johnson knows full well that he was in a bunker or when Michelle Wie knows that he drop from a bush was beyond her permitted 2 club-lengths etc. only emboldens players to shirk their responsibility.
I’m not sure I understand either of those examples.
Do you think a PGA rules official stood there knowing DJ was grounding his club?
On the Wie deal, Bamberger stood there watching her drop then told an official later that, in his opinion, she did it wrong. Told the official after she signed her card to make sure she was DQ’d if he was right. He’s a clown.
No. I think DJ knew he was in a bunker and knew that he grounded his club. However, when the PGA kept quiet
about DJ's side of the conversation (on/around the 18th green when DJ was informed that his 2nd stroke was being reviewed)
they allowed the Feherty angle ( "no one would think that was a bunker!") and DJ's feigned ignorance to become the dominant story.
I think DJ had a significant brain cramp under stressful conditions; a brain cramp that he should have owned-up to at the time.
Putting aside Bamberger's behavior, which I agree reflects poorly on him, Wie ignored her caddie's concerns about the legality of the
drop and in purposely measuring improperly managed to escape the entirety of that bush (and the fairly deep depression in which it was rooted). A credible argument could be made that her play from a wrong place constituted a serious breach of Rule 20-7
as the advantage gained by escaping that depression was significant. The subsequent theatrics of going out to the hole and measuring
(when the breach was clear to the naked eye) gave Wie some 'cover' and allowed her to be cast as the victim of the nasty sports
writer and the oh-so cruel Rules of Golf instead of as the player who tried to cheat her way out of a bush.
The USGA/R&A’s recent scale slide on “intent’ with some of these rules is not good at all… Intent is a slippery slope and the slide has begun in 2017 … and it appears to be growing like a tumor.
This new version of “intent” the USGA/R&A has and is now setting precedence. It has provided opportunity and supports this unhealthy trend with some of today’s young professionals. As you mentioned, it shirks responsibility, accountability character and the spirit of the game.
The answers to the after the fact questions on Lexi, Jon Rahm and Matsuyama gave us a look into their souls. What we witnessed was not good. Moreover, the golf media pandered to them. The rule examples of Lexi, Rahm and Matsuyama don’t pass the smell test on “intent”. These rules need to be rendered the same way as my OB example – intent should be irrelevant.
https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/96019-intent-in-the-2019-proposed-rules/
I don't see the Matsuyama ruling as a failure _of_ the rules but I do think there was a failure to _apply_ the rules.
If intent were removed from that incident then the ruling would be 'no penalty' as the area that was improved (the scuff) ultimately
was not where the ball came to rest nor was it near enough to that spot to affect the subsequent stroke.
In your 'Disco Dick' days what was your intent in listening the music. Was it to help you with tempo, was it to block distractions, was it to avoid having to make small talk with other players, was it just because a man has a need to rock-out!?!
[BTW, I think we agree more than we disagree.]
I believe we agree more than not as well and agree with you on the Matsuyama ruling.
On my Disco Dick days, I listened to music to calm my hyperactive thoughts. I recall after finishing the 1st round wearing the Walkman, shooting a 65 to hold the lead in the ’82 GMO, Tour officials had to call the USGA to see if I violated the rules… had I been listening to golf lessons I would have been DQ’d.
In 2012 when the USGA disallowed listening to music for “prolonged periods” I mentioned to my old BYU teammate and now USGA executive, John Bodenhamer, I don’t believe the USGA should be in the business of determining what constitutes a “distraction” in the minds of players… quite frankly some players find John Daly’s pants a distraction.
BYW, rocking it out to music in competition is a wonderful feeling. Loved listening to ZZ Top and the Eagles walking the fairways of the PGA Tour.
I think it's important to make the distinction between the application and the rule themselves. A "soft" ruling like Matsuyama's doesn't, IMO, do anyone any favors (except H.M. in the short term). I would imagine the halls in Far Hills echoed with the common refrain that "the PGA Tour is a member-run organization" after that ruling.
In 2019 he'd have been penalized, too, as he "deliberately" improved the area where his ball, still in motion, was likely/reasonable to end up.
I know.
>> Hideki should have been penalized.
I know.
>> He intended to improve that lie and it was likely/reasonable that the ball was coming back to that area.
I agree.