Like Billy Joel Said, Golf Is a Matter of Trust

(In truth, that’s probably hunters. There is almost no way to lie about you actually killing something, right?)

That puts those who hunt sea creatures (fishermen) in the same category as those hunters to which you refer, right?

towards MW prior to this incident. If the video had shown any other player grounding the club in the way she did, my reaction would have been the same – “Oh no!” I would have been equally credulous if they had then tried to claim that they were in danger of falling over based on the evidence of said video. Does this make her less trustworthy for me in the future? Sadly, yes. I still hope she can play fantastically well in future tournaments however.

Just assume for a second that what just happened with MW didn’t for a second.

Lets just say its Sunday afternoon at the Nabisco. Michelle Wie is leading by 2 shots with 3 holes to play and it is Yani Tseng that is in the hazard and does the identical thing that MW did and gets a favorable ruling. You can bet your bottom dollar that Team Wie would be screaming bloody murder about the ruling, both during and after the round, especially if she ended up losing because of it.

Because it’s Michelle Wie I betcha the blogs would be filled to the gills with comments, because it’s Michelle Wie.

Now if the role was reversed and it was Yani Tseng in the lead by 2 with three holes to play and Michelle Wie in the hazard and she gets a favorable ruling. I DOUBT VERY MUCH that it would hardly be discussed, by the mainstream media or bloggers.

Like I said, pure speculation on my part here, but I bet dimes to donuts my scenerio would hold true.

“on the short end of video replays” ?? “an archaic rule about signing score cards” ?? RB – you’ve lost it this time…unless you’re thinking that she has probably broken more rules when out of sight of the cameras. :-D

The rules are the rules – you don’t get to retroactively change them or make girlish claims about “fairness” – and especially not a white skirt !!

The rules official were correct – and they were more than nice to Wie. Now I’m starting to wonder if she will ever bother to grow up and out of this entitlement mentality she has developed over the years.

Some of them, very few, just don’t mix well with the players. Not sayin’ that was the case here. Wie is a target because she circumvented a rule at Anika’s tournament. It’s pretty common knowledge. If it was Paula or Lorena,…???…it may have been different. Personally, I like Ben Hogan’s response when informed that the USGA was considering penalizing him for slow play. “Just tell me how many it’s gonna be before I start,….so I know what I’ll need to shoot to win !!!”. Classic Hogan. Wie should just realize she’s a target and tough it out. When in doubt, call in an official, and then proceed accordingly…………………Z.

MW withdrew from Aiika’s event, while on her way to a 90+ round. That score would have kept her out of that years remaining events. Instead ,she posted a DNF. It is very common knowledge that Anika and the LPGA were miffed over a percieved circumventing of the regulations. And yes, other players have been given the “benefit of the doubt”. See Rory McIlroy at the 2009 Masters. The Green Jackets gave him a pass after he clearly tested the condition of a hazard, by kicking the sand at the 18th, with his ball still in the hazard. When asked if that was his intent, Rory said “no”. Wie grounded her club, but was she testing the condition of the hazard ? That is clearly the intent, or spirit of said rule. Nobody asked MW what her intent was. So yes, another player could have been given a reprieve,…just not Wie. Rules officials are people, not saints. They have personal bias too, just like most folks. Ask Paddy Harrington about the “timing” incident. Paddy and official John Paramor had several “run in’s” on the European tour over the years. It can and does impact whether you get any benefit of the doubt. It’s rare,very rare,… but personalities have come into play in the past. Sometimes you get a break(as in McIlroy) but sometimes you don’t. MW will always be held to the letter of the rules. So was Hogan and he did pretty well. ………………….Z.

The situations of Wie and McIlroy are identical, save for one thing. The Green Jackets asked Rory his intent in the bunker(hazard), but nobody asked Michelle anything. They just assessed the 2 stroke penalty and told her she could review it in the TV truck. Clearly she was treated differently from McIlroy due to her previous history. She has “earned a reputation to be watched”, and I view that as being targeted. No rules official would deliberately “create” a situation against her,…however,she doesn’t recieve the benefit of any doubts either. Paddy and Paramor have a history that goes way back, as told me by several people while at the Open Championship in 2008. Remember ,Paramor is an Englishman while Paddy is from Dublin,…The Republic of Ireland,… that for decades was not recognized by Britain. I do not fully understand the conflict between these countries, but I can attest to the bad vibes still present, and which I felt, in 2008. There has been some very bad blood between these nations, and it continues to simmer just below the surface. Does that effect the interaction between Paddy and Paramor ? I cannot say,…but neither can I say it is not an element of the friction between the two. I am never surprised when people act like people. All I know is, Paramor has timed Paddy several times before, and Woods was incensed at the Bridgestone situation. Draw your own conclusions as to why…………………………….Z.

Wow – you’re turning all these official decisions into personal vendetta’s against particular players. Paramor called the time warning on Woods and Harrington because Paddy is IRISH ? You can’t really believe that. If Paramor has put Paddy and his groups on the clock, it’s because…drumroll please…he’s a friggin’ slow player !

McIllroy was assessed the penalty, then had it reviewed. That’s the process. (by the way – the “green jackets” aren’t officials – they are members and don’t call penalties) I still don’t understand your point – if McIllroy was lying about his intent and the officials believed him, they obviously saw enough VISUAL evidence to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Wie tried to lie her way out of a penalty – the visual evidence contradicted everything she babbled…errr….said. She said her eyes were closed when she put the club on the ground – clearly she looked at the ball hit the ground and roll back towards the water. She said her face was covered in water making her close her eyes – yet she never wiped her face with the towel – she barely wiped off the arms and legs – and the white skirt didn’t show a drop of water or mud. She said she was about to fall down – yet she never put any pressure on the club and she was completely relaxed standing in the water. There was no hesitation or request for help in getting out of the water – which you would expect if she was slipping or off balance. She didn’t even use the club as leverage. Sorry, 3i – the evidence says she’s pulling the old “tears and cleavage” act women use to get out of a ticket.

I really doubt that an official – who has spent a LOT of time studying and testing to be able to do the job they do – would try to bring a personal prejudice against a particular player. Wie has a history of screwing up where the rules are concerned, and admitted that she hadn’t even read the rulebook just 2 years ago…because they were too boring. REAL professional, eh ? If an official was suspected of carrying a grudge against a single player, they would be replaced…but there are only a small handful of tournaments where an official is assigned to a group – and this wasn’t one of them. Officials are put out in an area of holes. This guy was across the pond watching. THEN the incident had to be looked at by three other officials. NOW you have a conspiracy if your theory is correct – and that’s just not likely.

before responding to 3irons! John Paramor put BOTH Padraig & TW on the clock. Padraig blew it, TW didn’t. Others had been put on the clock earlier in the round. Exceptions are not made for the final grouping. I am not aware of any " history" between John Paramor and Padraig other than slow play warnings to the latter because of his ….slow play. You might as well suggest that Paramor puts American players on the clock because of American/British historical friction, for heaven’s sake. Paramor is called (usually by radio) by course officials to alert players personally that they are on the clock and/or to give rulings on violations. No-one likes the ruling going against them. Maybe Woods was incensed because Paramor had dared to put him, TW, on the clock. I found his sympathy towards Padraig to be somewhat condescending. Paramor is as straight as an arrow (sorry, couldn’t resist!) 3irons.

I think McIlroy was somewhat lucky not to be penalised, but assume the officials found room for doubt. Don’t see any room for doubt in the MW situation.

We may need Paramor to clarify the following :o)

You have several times emphasised “testing the condition of a hazard” as being the reason for the penalty. My understanding of the rule is different:

“The player shall not:

a) test the condition of the hazard
b)TOUCH THE GROUND IN THE HAZARD OR WATER IN THE WATER HAZARD WITH A CLUB.

Michelle was penalised under b) as the exception to this being that she was either falling or in danger of falling was clearly not the case.

Rory could have been penalised under a) but not b) as he had not grounded his club in the hazard, but the officials accepted that he was not testing conditions.

I might well be wrong, but that is why I disagree with you that the Wie/McIlroy situations were identical.

I’m not absolving MW of wrong doing. Clearly she dropped her club and thus grounded it. Cut and dry. However, the rules officials have lee-way in situations like this. They could have asked her why she grounded the club, as they asked McIlroy. Testing the condition of a hazard, is what grounding the club does. Kicking the sand in a bunker, is also testing the condition. That is why the rule is there inthe first place,…players are not allowed to test the condition of any hazard. Was MW testing the condition of the hazard ? I think not. Did she ground the club,….yes. Therefore, she should have been asked why . She wasn’t ,and her history plays a significant role on all this. I’ve seen it before when I was touring, and it is a fact of life in professional sports,…personalities do impact outcomes from time to time. As for Paramor,…you’d better ask Woods why he was so incensed with him. I was told of the friction between Paramor and Harrington by some Brits I met at the 2008 Open,…before the incident at Bridgstone. Now,….count to 10 again and go very slowly. LOL…………………….z.

MW was entitled to be asked the question,…"What was the intent of allowing her club to touch the hazard ? " Others have recieved this same “courtesy”(McIlroy) in the past. MW was not. Why ? I know precisely why, and have commented to you about this earlier. It is, what it is……………………Z.

Exceptions ARE indeed made from time to time. The 1988 US Open at Brookline is a perfect example. Faldo and Strange played the 18 hole playoff in over 5 hrs,….AS A TWOSOME ! Nobdoy put them on the clock. Paramor didn’t “NEED” to clock Woods/Harrington as the last group on the course ,but he “HAD” the authority to do so. Poor judgment on his part.. Quite obviously Woods was not appreciative of Paramor’s judgement, and voiced his displeasure to CBS. That is a violation of the “code of conduct” on the PGA Tour and usually results in a fine. FYI,…Woods wasn’t fined. Draw your own conclusions on that………………………Z.

Testing the condition of a hazard and touching the ground with a club in the hazard are TWO DIFFERENT sections of Rule 13-4 Ball Lying In or Touching Hazard. Get the rule book out and have a look if you don’t believe me.

McIlroy did not ground his club in the hazard. His offense comes under section a) testing the condition. This was not clear-cut so he was given the benefit of the doubt when he claimed this was not his intent.

 Michelle was NOT accused of a) testing the condition, so her intent (and entitlement to be asked what it was) is not in question.. She was accused of b)grounding her club in a hazard plain and simple. The only exception for a penalty for doing that is if it was done as a result of falling or to prevent her falling. This was clearly NOT the case and therefore she was penalised.

 I’m not trying to be pedantic, but I hope you’ll try and read what I am saying with an open mind. Two DIFFERENT rules, two different outcomes. No bias for/against the individual that I can see – although I still think McIlroy was fortunate. I might have penalised him a shot for petulance/temper – but that’s not against the rules, just the etiquette!

I think players are entitled to their opinion about the fairness/unfairness of being put on the clock. I ‘m sure TW was incensed about it and I do have some (only a little) sympathy with his reasons. The PGA Tour did not deem TW’s comments as sufficient to be a violation of the code of conduct and therefore he wasn’t fined. Simple as that.

I hardly think a play-off is a " perfect example" of an exception to the slow-play rule. That’s snatching at straws.

Just as a PS – we’ve all moaned about slow play, so when two of the top players in the world are told to get a move on, shouldn’t we applaud?

You’re missing the point here. McIroy and Wie BOTH TESTED THE CONDITION, albeit in different ways. The player is entitled to a benefit of the doubt based on their response to an inquiry. MW was not given that opportunity. She was told during the round that she grounded her club and was assessed a 2 shot penalty. She was told she could view footage in the TV truck.My point is not wheter she grounde her club (she did), but rather was her intent to “TEST” the condition. They were very abrupt with her, and we all know why. McIlrtoy was handled properly. In your view he was lucky, ???… in my experience McIlroy was handled courteously, and in good faith. I toured professionally over 20 yrs and I didn’t see any “good faith” or trust shown bt the official. I also know why…Maybe re-read Ryan’s article. Golf is supposedto be a matter of trust, for all payers ! Even MW,… inspite of her history. Ryan’s article absolutely nails this. When I need a refresher on “rules intent”, I’ll let you know. LOL The Rule book is NOT always enforced to the letter. There is always the "intent factor, and interpretation process. Perhaps you should get a copy of the “Decisions Book”, to fully understand the processes involved. If every rule were cut and dry, the Decisions book wouldn’t be neccessary. As for Paramor,…he over reacted. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that Harrington was involved, or that Woods was adamant that he wouldn’t be fined for his comments ! He posted that on his website by the way………………….Z.

but you might in good faith simply re-read the actual rule in question.

“The player shall 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 a club
c. Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard

You appear to be totally fixated on a. alone rather than seeing a.b. & c. as individual and equal in their own right.

McIlroy came under a. and Wie came under b. (therefore her “intent” was irrelevant).

I know what you are saying but the points a & b have the same intent. They are there to prevent the player from gathering ANY information that would influence a players strategy for the next shot. It is this “intent” that sometimes allows a player a free pass. McIlroy one example. A player slipping and accidentally grounding the club is another. That is why the player is usually asked about it, before a penalty is assessed. MW was not asked, she was told, and rather abruptly from my experience in these situations. The reasons for which are obvious to me. She is under scrutiny because of past history. The question should be, “Was MW trying to gain an advantage by allowing the club to slip through her hand and contact the hazard?” Or was it an involuntary reaction to a poor shot ? Clearly ity was the latter, and no “criminal intent” was involved. However, they cut her no slack. You think Tiger might have gotten a reprieve ? He get’s breaks all the time, …but space here is limited. Lets just think about PHX Open and Firestone in his case, but there are others…………….Z

I fundamentally disagree with you that a. and b. have the same intent. They stand in isolation. The reasons why MW was penalised are obvious to you. The reasons why she was penalised are obvious to me. They happen to be totally are odds. We do agree that she was not trying to gain an advantage/ there was no criminal intent involved in grounding her club. She grounded it – no impending fall/ no fall. Penalty. A player slipping and accidentally grounding the club is clearly covered under “Exceptions”.

I wish her all the luck in the current tournament.

A wise man once told me “to never argue with a lady, because even if I won the argument, I would still be the loser”. That man was my father, and he’s been married to my mother for 53 glorious years. We shall agree to disagree on this point. I too wish Ms. Wie well …………..Z.

What is golf with out a little controversy.LOL By the way, I love the British pronunciation of “controversy”. You make it sound almost elegant. FYI,…Hunter Mahan had a little bunker controversy today. Did you happen to catch it ?

I thought the second syllable was accented. It sounds cool when Peter Ooterhuis says it. “con-TROV-ersy” Mahan made the cut, barely. There was something mentioned about his putter touching the sand, but I didn’t see the incident, so I don’t know what took place. He wasn’t penalized is all I got from the telecast…………………….Z.

as the leaderboard shows Hunter as having missed the cut. I’ve used many a club for a bunker shot – but never a putter that I recall. Can someone who saw the incident comment, pls?

I, too, put the emphasis on the second syllable of controversy (and will always do so in future now that it may sound cool :) but I don’t feel as strongly about the pronunciation as I do about the rules of golf ( j/k).