Stewart Cink Vindicated

[indacup]

The R&A And USGA Announce Position On Raking A Similar Hazard | USGA

[footballking732]

Now they should give Cink something in return for that rules bs. While the book kinda said that, that ruling is simply unjust. He shouldnt have been DQ'd for helping other players. He knew that he wouldnt have liked it if his ball came to rest in a foot imprint of another players.

[Sandpiper3]

It was funny, my playing partner had the bunker to bunker thing on sunday, we told him right away when he reached for the rake to put it down.

I went over and raked it for him, we aint walking all the way back, but I think it was fine at the time, like last weekend when someone asked Bones (phil's caddy) to rake up for his player after he hit into another bunker. We just didn't want anyone watching to point that out since it was fresh in everyone's minds, dont want to see a playing partner to get a penalty for that, thats just brutal.

[Eracer]

Maybe they'll see their way to making the Renegade legal.

Nahhhh....

[ualtim]

I thought that original ruling was kind of daft. I recall reading somewhere (I am thinking the decisions section of the USGA web site) that it was OK to rake the bunker unless the ball landed in the same bunker. If it landed in a different bunker, conditions would be different so raking the original bunker was not considered "testing the conditions". If it lands in the same bunker, you can not rake it.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by ualtim

I thought that original ruling was kind of daft. I recall reading somewhere (I am thinking the decisions section of the USGA web site) that it was OK to rake the bunker unless the ball landed in the same bunker. If it landed in a different bunker, conditions would be different so raking the original bunker was not considered "testing the conditions". If it lands in the same bunker, you can not rake it.

You are correct. Hoewver, the original rule allowed you to rake the original bunker only if you had made the shot from that bunker. Cink was standing in the bunker, and hit from grass. Thus, he was ruled to be "testing the condition" of a similar bunker, i.e. the one his ball flew into.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by footballking732

Now they should give Cink something in return for that rules bs. While the book kinda said that, that ruling is simply unjust. He shouldnt have been DQ'd for helping other players. He knew that he wouldnt have liked it if his ball came to rest in a foot imprint of another players.

The ruling was correct. The announcement does not "vindicate" anyone, it simply clarifies an inequity in the Rules. At the time of the incident, the rule (Rule 13-4) superseded any point of etiquette (Care of the Course). This new position by the JRC allows the point of etiquette to take precedence in this situation. But at the time of the ruling, the official had no choice but to rule as he did. The incident which occurred was something that the rules simply did not anticipate.

Kudos to the JRC for prompt action and a good decision on this for future incidents. I actually had a similar situation yesterday myself... I was standing in a fairway bunker hitting my ball which was in the rough outside of the hazard. In my case, the shot ended up 2 feet short of the greenside bunker, or I'd have faced the same dilemma, only I hadn't yet seen the ruling at that time.

[ualtim]

Originally Posted by Eracer

You are correct. Hoewver, the original rule allowed you to rake the original bunker only if you had made the shot from that bunker. Cink was standing in the bunker, and hit from grass. Thus, he was ruled to be "testing the condition" of a similar bunker, i.e. the one his ball flew into.

Quite frankly, whats the difference? You stood in the bunker on either shot whether or not the ball was in or out of the bunker. Wouldn't walking in the bunker be considered testing the condition of a similar bunker?

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by ualtim

Quite frankly, whats the difference? You stood in the bunker on either shot whether or not the ball was in or out of the bunker. Wouldn't walking in the bunker be considered testing the condition of a similar bunker?

Taking a stance is not cosidered "testing the condition". Don't get me wrong, I think it's a stupid rule. But the USGA, in its wisdom, feels that there is a difference, and they make the rules.

[ualtim]

Originally Posted by Eracer

Taking a stance is not cosidered "testing the condition". Don't get me wrong, I think it's a stupid rule. But the USGA, in its wisdom, feels that there is a difference, and they make the rules.

I agree with you 100%.