Inkster DQ at Safeway

[NTB]

Here is the rule that Putter put up. Is it the same as you are talking about?Originally Posted by Putter
Ask the USGA to explain the advantage - here's the rule:

Except as provided in the Rules, during a stipulated round the player must not use any artificial device or unusual equipment, or use any equipment in an unusual manner:
a. That might assist him in making a stroke or in his play; or
How would her staying warmed up help her for an advantage anymore then swinging two clubs or rubber bands.
b. For the purpose of gauging or measuring distance or conditions that might affect his play; or
c. That might assist him in gripping the club, except that:
Seems "clear" to me!
These second two would not apply. I heard the commentators say rubber bands
would not be breaking the rules. Seems the same to me.
must not use any artificial device or unusual equipment Rubber bands would be the same as the donut.

[LoJo]

Originally Posted by bangkokbobby

...ultimately, what I or anybody who voted for a two stroke penalty thinks doesn't matter...Juli got the boot...but when was it not ok to disagree with a rule? Sports fans do that all the time. I think the OT rule in pro football during the regular season is terrible...so do some other fans...I think baseball should expand their use of replay...there are others who agree and disagree...don't even get me started on the college bowl system vs. a playoff...

...and tennis...I think they should play lets (they do in World Team Tennis)...but they don't...

...just because something is a rule, or part of the way the game is played doesn't mean fans don't have open disagreement with the rule...whether it's pine tar or a weight on a club to loosen up...

BKB....I am not saying it's not OK to disagree with the Rules of a game....any game. I also disagree w/ the overtime Rule in pro football, and the outcome basically being decided on the flip of a coin.

But...there has to be concrete 'reason' for disagreeing w/ a particular Rule. In respect to the various DQ penalties in golf, I can't think of one of them that I disagree with. Most of them have to do with the player gaining an unfair advantage over the rest of the field...i.e, using a non-conforming club, or a non-conforming ball...or agreeing to waive the Rules of Golf....or practicing on the course during the round....or failing to hole out...or signing an incorrect scorecard with lower number than scored...or even failing to sign one's card...or ? ? ....what else? Oh....using an artificial device or training aid during a stipulated round.

The Rules have been formulated over the years (MANY years) to reflect the appropriate penalty for various violations. I can't tell you the thinking of the governing bodies (USGA and R&A) regarding each penalty, but unless and until the Rule (14-3) is amended for some good reason, then ...in the cliche....Rules is Rules.

You do realize, I'm sure, that the Rules of Golf and the Decisions on the Rules are reviewed and possibly changed/amended every 4 years? 2008 had some major changes to some important Rules. Some of these changes are a result of the governing bodies' belief that certain Rules need to be modified in order to make the game equitable for all.

Trust me...they will not be modifying R. 14-3 from DQ to 2 strokes. There are too many variables as to what constitutes Artificial Devices or Unusual Equipment and their effect on the play of the game.

[LoJo]

Originally Posted by notaxbill

Here is the rule that Putter put up. Is it the same as you are talking about?Originally Posted by Putter
Ask the USGA to explain the advantage - here's the rule:

Except as provided in the Rules, during a stipulated round the player must not use any artificial device or unusual equipment, or use any equipment in an unusual manner:
a. That might assist him in making a stroke or in his play; or
How would her staying warmed up help her for an advantage anymore then swinging two clubs or rubber bands.
b. For the purpose of gauging or measuring distance or conditions that might affect his play; or
c. That might assist him in gripping the club, except that:
Seems "clear" to me!
These second two would not apply. I heard the commentators say rubber bands
would not be breaking the rules. Seems the same to me.
must not use any artificial device or unusual equipment Rubber bands would be the same as the donut.

NTB...I don't recall Putter posting any Rules other than what we all already know, but I'll try to answer your questions, and maybe questions that others have had regarding R. 14-3.

You must keep in mind that the Rules of Golf are not JUST the 34 Rules as they exist in the ROG book, but also include all the Decisions on the Rules of Golf. So...in answer to your first question as to why swinging an Artificial Device such as a weighted training aid differs from rubber band stretching devices, I'd refer you to Decision 14-3/10.5:

Decision 14-3/10.5 Use of Stretching Devices
Q. Rule 14-3a prohibits a player, during a stipulated round, from using any artificial device or unusual equipment, or using any equipment in an unusual manner, that "might assist him in making a stroke or in his play." Would the use of a stretching device during a stipulated round be a breach of Rule 14-3?

A. During a stipulated round, it is permissible to use a device designed for stretching unless the device is designed specifically to be used in a golf swing and is used during a golf swing (see Decision 14-3/10). For example, the following stretching devices may be used:
• Items designed specifically for golf but not used in a golf swing (e.g., a bar to place across the shoulders);
• Items designed for general stretching (e.g., rubber tubing); and
• Items not originally designed for stretching (e.g., a section of pipe).

Further, swinging two or three or ten of one's own golf clubs (equipment) to loosen up muscles or whatever would not in any way be a violation of the Rules since golf clubs are neither Artificial Devices nor are they Unusual Equipment...nor does swinging them consitute using them in an "unusual manner." This is perfectly fine and many players do it.

Unfortunately, Juli did not do this. She used an Artificial Device (training Aid). Was that in any way different than players who swung a coupla clubs to loosen up? Yes, it was.

Mothra, one of our regular posters here, has explained exactly how Juli's training aid works, and how it does have benefits to golfers other than just warming up muscles. His golfer daughters use this device in their training, and not just for "loosening up." Where it is placed on the clubshaft determines its various benefits....BEYOND just swinging it for a bit of weight to loosen up.

Read the Rules and the Decisions on the Rules. It's all very clear.

Folks...I'm not quitting on y'all regarding this discussion, but I see no further point in going on and on discussing the ins and outs of it. Juli clearly breached R. 14-3 and the penalty was DQ.

[heddwyn]

For those who think it should only be a 2 shot penalty consider this. Suppose Inkster had won by 3 strokes having used this aid with still a few holes to play, the penalty was imposed and she still won the tournament. Wouldn't you, as one of the runner up players, feel that she had won by having an advantage over you and the rest of the field? Wouldn't you wonder if that player had won in the past having gained some assistance? That is why it's a DQ and not a stroke penalty.

[Saint-Just X]

What a brouhaha.

If it was Ji Young Oh or Na On Min there wouldn't have been a text poll,it would have been forgotten soon after it happened ;Judy Rankin wouldn't have leapt to their defence,as they are neither American nor friends of hers;the tournament wouldn't have been 'marred' (as the Golf Channel's website put it) by the disqualification.

And,anyway,Ai-Chan would have kicked her arse on the final day,regardless...

Pax Vobiscum
Saint-Just X

[NTB]

Hey Lojo.. Thanks for your rules input I really appreciate your expertise.

This will be my last thought on this DQ business as it takes no money out of my pocket.

I believe all these rules were originally written to apply to striking the ball or improving your game in the course of actual play.
If Julie had attached a device to help her hit the ball better in any way I would have screamed foul.

I read it that way because of how it was written.
Except as provided in the Rules, during a stipulated round the player must not use any artificial device or unusual equipment, or use any equipment in an unusual manner:
a. That might assist him in making a stroke or in his play;
This just doesn’t seem to apply in this case it was clear to me she was warming up.
Not preparing to strike a ball.
If they had not put the(a. part) in then yes it would mean she broke the rules.
When you are waiting you aren’t in the act of playing and I believe that is the meaning of the rules of golf “in the act of playing.”

[Blue]

Originally Posted by heddwyn

For those who think it should only be a 2 shot penalty consider this. Suppose Inkster had won by 3 strokes having used this aid with still a few holes to play, the penalty was imposed and she still won the tournament. Wouldn't you, as one of the runner up players, feel that she had won by having an advantage over you and the rest of the field? Wouldn't you wonder if that player had won in the past having gained some assistance? That is why it's a DQ and not a stroke penalty.

Possibly.

The reason I think it's a DQ and not a stroke penalty is, as I posted above, that there is an infinite number and variety of training aids. Some are more of an aid than others. It's unreasonable for the rules to list every possible aid and give them a pro-rated penalty based on how much of an aid they might be. So they group them all together and just say, "don't use any."

[Blue]

Originally Posted by LoJo

Thanks for the recap. Un-freakin'-believable.

I used to think Rankin was the cat's meow, but I have been losing respect for her recently.

As a Wie-fan, I find Rankin's over-the-top fawning and hyping of Wie to be annoying and adding fuel to the anti-Wie fire. (I give TGC credit during the Safeway tourney for their restraint in cutting back on that hype.) Rankin needs to shut up and let Wie make her own way on the Tour. That's what most of her sensible fans are hoping for.

With what was reported about this Inkster rules incident and Judy's comments....she surely must know that her credibility as a golf professional would take a huge nosedive with such ignorant remarks about the Rules of Golf.

Leaving Wie out of this, Judy's gone downhill lately. She has shown serious lapses in knowledge and seems to be reporting more and more like a fan and less like a somewhat objective golf professional.

[xman5]

Decision 14-3/10.5 Use of Stretching Devices
Q. Rule 14-3a prohibits a player, during a stipulated round, from using any artificial device or unusual equipment, or using any equipment in an unusual manner, that "might assist him in making a stroke or in his play." Would the use of a stretching device during a stipulated round be a breach of Rule 14-3?

For those trying to do there own interpretation of the rules don't. The rule has been well established, since it actually defines other items that are permitted. Notice those other items are independent devices seperate from the actual equipment used to play the game. This has been well thought out.

YOU CAN'T use artifical devices period, unless said device has been specifically exempted. This is well known. Sounds like she may have had a temporary brain lock. She should have know better.

For those trying to argue that it does not "assist in making the stroke", read the second part, "OR IN HIS PLAY". Once you step on the the first tee until you sign your score card, that time is "IN PLAY".

It can't be, or shouldn't be a penalty of strokes because the violation does not involve the actual playing of an individual stroke or hole.

The rules are very clear in this case. These rules seem strange but they are written in this manner so that things are made fair for all and that there is no ambiguity when the need to be enforced. That is why you see the special rulings within the rules, they are the evolution of new situations that have come up during the years. Sort of like a court ruling that helps define the application of the law when it may be ambiguous.