I was going to write a post about how great a PGA championship Whistling Straits golf course in Kohler WI., was. The views of the golf course was splendid. The competition was great... Until the last hole in regulation, when Dustin Johnson got screwed.
Johnson hit a ball into the crowd, where the crowd has been for all four rounds and it landed in a small patch of sand.
No one on site of the shot said the ball was in a bunker. No official, player, caddy or crowd.
The area looked liked it was only a few feet long and it was trampled and had foot prints on it.
The weasel PGA official said that anything could be considered a bunker- any size- the size of his hand or arm. WTF??? So, now, any flat spot without grass now can be considered a bunker? That's what PGA weasel said.
Whistling Straits has over 1000 bunkers. Was each one mapped? Was this "bunker" mapped?
So, instead of having a great PGA Open at Whistling Straits, we have a questionable call by a PGA weasel(s) that has ruined the tournament.
No matter who wins now, this bogus ruling will be the one thing remembered about the tournament.
Sunrise — 6:18.
5 hours ago
You're absolutely right, and I want to add something that every self-righteous golf rules snob who has defended the ruling completely misses, and I will be as technical, no wait, more technical, than them about it. The local rule states that all areas that were "designed and built" as bunkers will be treated as bunkers even if they have footprints in them, are inside or outside the ropes, etc. Furthermore the local rule states that "where necessary" the bunkers will by marked by "blue dots". So, first of all, where is the evidence that the tiny little grassy area in question was designed and built to be a bunker? Where are the course blueprints that show that the area is intended to be a bunker, as opposed to just a trampled, flat, denuded patch of turf? Can't come up with any proof? I thought so. Not even the groundskeepers know what is and what isn't a bunker, because no one has an accurate count, and therefore other than a course blueprint there can be no way of determining what was designed as a bunker. Second of all, given that the location of this supposed "bunker" was at least 50-70 yards outside of the trajectory of the approach to the hole, where were the "blue dots" that would have marked it as a bunker intended to be in play as a hazard? No one has commented on the fact that the location from where the ball was struck, though not out of bounds, was not within the area in which one would usually find a bunker that is intended to constitute a hazard within or at the edges of a fairway. An area so removed from the intended field of play could not be assumed to be a "bunker" unless marked as such. The officials were obviously aware that such ambiguous situations would arise, and thus stipulated for blue dots "where necessary". Third, by permitting the entire area with the exception of a five-foot-wide wedge through which the shot was hit to be 20-deep with spectators, the rules officials failed to enable the player to determine whether the area in question was or was not a hazard. Without any ability to observe the context of the area, the player was deprived of the ability to determine the intention of the course designer. For these reasons, no penalty could rationally be assessed, and the rules weasels, who were so obviously just itching to get in on the action and assess somebody, should (i) hang their heads in collective shame for being such idiots, and (ii) be forced to be permanent contestants on Wipeout.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point, hammerfielder. No one has mentioned those blue dots.
ReplyDeleteI played on another Kohler course, Black Wolf Run and it had a lot of traps, but nothing that strange or out of the course range.
Thanks for stopping by.