Another rule infringement - and this time it's a woman!

Hello all,

I was just reading January's edition of Worldwide Golf magazine, and there's an interesting article in there about another player being "shopped" by an armchair fan. The article reads as follows, and if these facts are true as presented, i think this is the most unfair of all the recent "trial by armchair" episodes that have blighted the game recently.

"Juli Inkster was 3 strokes behind the lead and playing well at the Safeway Classic on the LPGA Tour but ran into some slow play on the par 5 10th hole and faced a 30 minute wait.

In an attempt to keep loose, Inkster attached a small "doughnut" weight to her 9-iron and swung freely. This is a breach of Rule 13/4 as it is illegal to use a training aid during a competitive round.

However, no-one in Inkster's group picked up on the infringement and it was a TV viewer who alerted tournament officials and after consultation with the USGA the LPGA disqualified Inkster at the conclusion of her round.

Inkster was surprised and said 'i had a 30 minute wait and i needed to loosen up. It had no affect on my game whatsoever, but it is what it is. I'm very disappointed'."

Now then, now then, now then. This weight is branded a "training aid", but in real terms it's a way of preventing stiffness in a round. But how is this different to allowing Gonzalo Fdez Castano to carry around a chair upon which to sit between shots at Abu Dhabi? This too was an attempt to preserve muscle condition...which is all that Inkster was doing, no? OK, the chair isn't a "training aid", but that's just semantics. They do the same thing, the doughnut and the chair...they both help to prevent muscle tightening and prevent potential damage.

I'm not saying that Inkster didn't beak a rule; I'm asking how Gonzo didn't. And by the way, he looked like a right berk sat on that chair.

That's interesting. I don't know why Gonzo had a chair, but I assume it was for a specific medical reason and as such I'd assume he'd been granted prior dispensation, which would be at least one difference. Another would be the fact that the chair in no way related to the golf swing, which the weight specifically did - after all, she could have swung 2 clubs together to achieve the same effect without breaching the rules.

You're right, we can only assume that he was granted dispensation on medical grounds. But i still think it's a grey area. With golf's miriad of anal rules, and with a governing body keen to disqalify as many people as possible, i thought this one would be nice and simple: "if you're well enough to swing a club, you're well enough to stand up for the whole round like everyone else, or you can sit on the grass. Lastely, of course, just don't play".

The Inkster case is a little differnet in that she was subject to a 30 minutes wait. In golf, that's a long time to be stood there. She is being put at a disadvantage by circumstances beyond her control, and there should come a point where common sense prevails (oh no, wait, that's a little too much to ask). Say the wait was an hour, and it's cold and raining. It is fair on the waiting player(s) to stand there and freeze and then try to find some rhythm and form while other players have completed their rounds and are sat in the comfort of the clubhouse? Surely at some point a "slight wait" becomes a "serious delay" and some temporary rules might be enforcable?

I don't know, but this one seems harsh to me. 30 minutes standing around is long enough for all muscles to completely return to rest, and if it's cold, that's enough time to really start to feel stiff. Are the players allowed to go leave the tee area to go for a run? Can they do press ups? Can they juggle golf balls? Or is it just anbother example of golf saying "that's your bad luck, deal with it"?

I think that these weights, whilst designed for muscle loosening etc, also help by allowing you to feel the plane of your swing a little easier as it massively increases the headweight whilst not the rest of the club. As a result of that claim by whoever makes these things it comes under training aids. And as such the DQ is valid.

However in this case the playing partners could have stopped it as it's hardly something you do on the sly and they could have said... Don't do that. It'll get you a DQ. so a bit of rules knowledge needed there I think.

As for the comments by Smithers. Two clubs would have been just as effective to stretch muscles... as would (and this is really out there) some stretching exercises!

I think the bigger question should be:

Why are the powers that be, allowing "at home" armchair referees/umpires.

If they continue in this vein, then a major tour match with its huge amount of television and replays etc etc could end up with everybody being disqualified - now that would really upset the money men Highly unlikely but I hope you can see my point.

Leave it to the 'on course' official umpires.

ronin47

The problem with armchair trials is that it's 100% unfair unless cameras are on every group. How do we know that nobody else was doing the doughnut? ... we don't because there was no camera on them. Theres been too much of this latley and so unless the rules commitee are going to insist that each group are filmed, irrespective of being broadcast, so that the commitee can review ALL the footage at close of play to check nobody has infringed ........ A can of worms

Apparently Gonzo said he was carrying the chair simply to sit on and not because of an injury. No different I guess to sitting on the ground or a bench or on the bottom of the tour bag etc. Can't see any rule infringement?

I do not like the 'trial by airmchair fan' trend that seems to be appearing.
I can't see it slowing down until it happens to Tiger Woods - and it will eventually, if there are people out there watching so scrupulously to find these infringments there are definitely people looking to find them with Tiger!

That will be an interesting conversation as to whether TW should be disqualified. The sponsors would love that! Sadly, only when it happens to Tiger will the authorities think about changing this mess.

MustPutt, Tiger should have been sanctioned ages ago for some of his antics, behaviour, throwing clubs and swearing on live tv etc. So why can't the powers that be sanction an infringement which is seen and heard by millions? because they've done it for one unhappy armchair fan???

Tiger has his own rules so he won't be affected by 'trial by armchair fan'

Remember Bouldergate (loose impediment rolled out his way despite weighing about 5 tonnes and needing an army big guys to move it) and ClubhouseRoofGate (pinged one onto the clubhouse roof then got a free drop despite the clubhouse being OOB)

Doc, i agree with you. I think something needs tobe changed.
All i'm saying is, unfortunately, the powers that be won't take any notice until it happens to Tiger.
And, as D4S says, that's if he is even pulled up!

Hmmm I'm not sure about the chair being referred to in Gonzo's case. Though he (and indeed everyone else) is at liberty to sit on their golf bags or the ground in the case of delays etc. Carrying a chair isn't any advantage really, just makes people stare at you funny

I suppose in Julie Inskster's case the aid was more of an "unnatural" resource that one might not have in the bag and therefore seen as offering an advantage.

It still sucks though. I personally don't see the problem with her using it to get loose, just as you might warm up by stretching a towel between your hands across your back. Yet another case of people having too much time on their hands. It just makes our sport look silly. As if anyone needs to do that, we're more than capable of doing that on our own!