Zurich. Cink DQ's. No news?

[Eracer]

WTF? Cink DQ's and there is absolutely nothing on the PGA website that talks about it. It is embarassing? Is is somehow NOT NEWS? I want to know what happened, and I can't find any comment on it.

 

[Rockford35]

Tour Officials said that Cink 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."

R35

 

[Eracer]

My take? A crock of horsehockey.

Your thoughts?

 

[Wi-Golfer]

That's totally asinine! Who would even make up such a stupid rule?

 

[Clugnut]

Probably the most stupid rule in a sport full of stupid rules. How the hell are you testing the consistency of the sand when your ball is in another trap 180 yards away? Pure idiocy.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

Kinda stupid, but in it's defense and without it what would keep a player from going to another greenside bunker and start taking practice swings to prepare for their shot in the other bunker?

Actually I still think getting disqualified for using a towel to keep your pants from getting wet, and calling it "improving your lie" is still more ridiculous.

I guess from now on, Cink will let his Caddie rake the bunker.

edit 1 - kinda curious though, did no one point this out at the time? While it would be a penalty, it is not grounds for disqualification. Which I would assume was for not knowing and signing the incorrect scorecard.

Although if you catch me doing the same on a weekend round and tell me I need to take a penalty, you would be lucky by my just asking you to rake the bunker, and not clubbing you to death with the rake. I can see it now, this is going to be the new excuse for slow play on weekends. "Well, I had to walk back to the fairway to rake the bunker after playing out of the greenside bunker." Wouldn't want to break the rules for the sake of being courteous to the golfer behind me.

Yeah, I probably couldn't count times I have broken this rule on my fingers and toes.

 

[Armygolf]

I believe he was DQ'd because he signed his card without taking the 2 strokes for the bunker violation.

 

[Garrett]

regarless he is a pro and golf is what he does to make a great living. I bet he feels like a tool for getting Dq'd.

 

[Sandpiper3]

Yea, he was DQed for signing his card without he 2 stroke penalty.

What im wondering, is if he does that, regardless of where the ball goes, he just flat out cant rake that bunker can he? without the 2 stroke penalty? Correct?

 

[Augster]

Kinda stupid, but in it's defense and without it what would keep a player from going to another greenside bunker and start taking practice swings to prepare for their shot in the other bunker?

EXACTLY!

What happened was that Cink's ball was just outside the first bunker. He had to walk into the bunker in order to take his stance, thus messing up the bunker. This is fine as long as he is addressing his shot.

He then proceeded to hit it into a different bunker. His Caddie then raked the first bunker. By the Rules he hadn't actually "been in a bunker" yet that hole as his ball lied outside the bunker. If his ball was actually in the bunker, then he hit it to the different bunker, his caddie could go ahead and rake the first bunker because his SHOT "tested the conditions" of the hazard.

This happened in the second round. I guess he was paired with Zach Johnson in the 3rd round and was discussing it or something and Zach told him of the violation or somesuch. Because he had signed his card for the lower score, he was DQ'd.

You are correct SP3, he or his caddy can't rake the bunker until he has played his next shot from the new bunker.

 

[Armygolf]

You are correct SP3, he or his caddy can't rake the bunker until he has played his next shot from the new bunker.

So if that shot (from the edge of the bunker) had stayed on the fairway Cink would would have been fine to rake the bunker?


At what point could he hit one in the bunker without taking the 2 strokes?

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

So if that shot (from the edge of the bunker) had stayed on the fairway Cink would would have been fine to rake the bunker?


At what point could he hit one in the bunker without taking the 2 strokes?

NO...The key here was that his ball was not in the hazard previously, and he tested the conditions of the hazard with the rake in relation to his next shot. Had his ball been in the hazard, there is an exception to the rule listed in the rule book edit 1 - actually rereading your post I mis understood in thinking that you meant his initial shot. You are correct, had his ball from the edge of the bunker come to rest on the green or the fairway, he would have been fine. - "If the ball is outside the hazard after the stroke, the player may smooth sand or soil in the hazard without restriction."

3. If the player makes a stroke from a hazard and the ball comes to rest in another hazard, Rule 13-4a does not apply to any subsequent actions taken in the hazard from which the stroke was made.

... this of course being an assumption on my part that they checked rules official first to check this out further, as I did not see the incident.

Further, it was not a violation until they got out the rake, or grounded a club, or used his hand, or what not. As it is not considered testing the condition with your feet. That is actually how most players do this, in building their stance and digging in their feet, or simply walking to the ball.

Although I didn't event think of in the sense that it applied to the Caddie as well, but that certainly makes sense that it would when giving it any thought.

 

[Armygolf]

In this instance the action of raking the bunker is not considered "testing the conditions" of the bunker unless on your next shot the ball lands in another bunker?

Whether his ball landed in the bunker or on the fairway, it's the action of raking that tests the conditions.

Seems odd.

 

[Eracer]

Did this rule get changed after the Cink incident? Here's the rule as it reads today (from www.usga.org):

13-4. Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions​

Except as provided in the ​

Rules, before making a stroke at a ball
that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or a water hazard) or that,
having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in
the hazard, the player must not:​

a. ​

​

Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard;​

b.​

​

​

Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water
hazard with his hand or a club; or​

c.​

​

​

Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the​

hazard​

​

​

.​

Exceptions:
1.​

​

​

Provided nothing is done that constitutes testing the condition
of the hazard or improves the lie of the ball, there
is no penalty if the player (a) touches the ground or loose
impediments in any hazard or water in a water hazard as a
result of or to prevent falling, in removing an obstruction,
in measuring or in marking the position of, retrieving,
lifting, placing or replacing a ball under any Rule or
(b) places his clubs in a hazard.​

2.​

​

​

After making the stroke, if the ball is still in the hazard or
has been lifted from the hazard and may be dropped or
placed in the hazard, the player may smooth sand or soil
in the hazard, provided nothing is done to breach Rule
13-2 with respect to his next stroke. If the ball is outside
Rule 14 47​

the​

​

hazard after the stroke, the player may smooth sand or
soil in the hazard without restriction.​

3. ​

​

​

If the player makes a stroke from a hazard and the ball
comes to rest in another hazard, Rule 13-4a does not
apply to any subsequent actions taken in the hazard from
which the stroke was made.

--------------

It sure seems to me as that the rule shows Cink was within his rights to rake the bunker, even though his shot ended up in another bunker.​

 

[MyBluC4]

From what I am reading, it seems odd for the rule book to assume he would know the shot he took while standing in bunker #1 would ultimately end up in bunker #2 thus allowing him to have tested the hazard. In retrospect he should have asked an official for a ruling on the spot, however, why would he think to do so as he isn't a mind reader?