Monday, August 16, 2010

Logic Takes Another Vacation


The gentleman pictured above, Dustin Johnson, lost a chance to win the PGA Championship this weekend because idiots who failed logic and common sense said he hit the above shot out of a "bunker" after he had grounded his club in the "supposed bunker". Rules of golf forbid grounding of the club in a bunker and doing so is a two-stroke penatly. The penalty assessed for the above "infraction" was enough to cost Johnson a chance for a major golf championship.

Now, I very infrequently write about non-serious stuff here and winning a golf championship would certainly qualify as non-serious.

But, it's the failed logic here that has me so exercised. Go to any "news" account on this story and it all starts with the "fact" Johnson's ball was in a bunker. The "fact" simply isn't and this should be where the discussion starts and ends.

Mark Wilson, co-chairman of the PGA of America Rules Committee, and apparently the final arbiter of the penalty, is an idiot. While deciding Johnson's fate, and in order for him to look and sound fair, he offered Johnson the opportunity to go to the "CBS truck" and review as much videotape as needed to become satisfied that he grounded his club. Ugh! No one was contesting if he grounded his club. The penalty is only enforceable if the ball is in a bunker, shouldn't establishing the ball was in the bunker be the first order of business? If the player doesn't think he's in a bunker and his pre-shot routine is to ground his club, I'm pretty darn sure he's going to ground his club.

Instead of going to the "CBS truck" to review videotape, there should have been a trip to the spot pictured above, with the gallery removed, to determine if the ball was in fact in a bunker and not on some sand or dirt kicked from the bunker. God, what a waste of time it was to discuss if Johnson grounded his club.

Of the videotape I've seen from behind the shot, there does appear to be a bunker lip in front of Johnson. However, the left edge of the lip (when facing the green) appears to take a turn that if reasonably followed, it would put the ball outside the left edge of a reasonably constructed bunker. Only a drastically cut edge from the contour of the front edge would include the spot where Johnson's ball was. If if my analysis of the videotape is wrong, the logic still says the conversation begins and ends with whether the ball was in the bunker or not.

For those who love the ridiculous and asinine, Alex Rodriguez recently became just the 7th player in MLB history to hit 600 home runs. Ooohh! He was also just the 7th player to hit 599 (what, no ooohhs?). And 598 (no ooohhs?). And 597 (ooohhs?). And 596 (ooohhs?). And 595 (ooohhs?). And 594 (ooohhs?). And 593 (ooohhs?). And 592 (ooohhs?). And 591 (ooohhs?). And 590 (ooohhs?). And 589 (ooohhs?). And 588 (ooohhs?). And 587 (ooohhs?). And, get this, he'll be the 7th all the way up to 609! No kidding!

I have the constitutional right to have a fairly loud backyard party every night . . . but I don't for many reasons, one of which is I don't want to offend my neighbors.

July 2010 was the deadliest month for US troops in Afghanistan since 2001. July topped June 2010 as the previous deadliest month.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Completely disagree with your assessment of the bunker ruling. That was indeed a bunker and all the golfers were notified in writing prior to the tournament that all bunkers would count as real bunkers and all rules would apply to every bunker. Cannot start bending the rules once they've been establsihed. Thay are what they are. The officials ruled this one correctly.

4:33 PM  
Blogger Zack said...

Anonymous,

I appreciate the comment and I agree with every single word you wrote starting at ". . . and all the golfers . . . ."

Matter of opinion, I'd even go so far as to concede he was very near a bunker.

I'm saying the entire ruling depends on whether the ball was actually in a bunker.

Johnson should have agreed to use video reply to only place the ball near the spot he actually hit from. Then, with all the powers that be, the decision should have been made as to whether the ball was in the bunker or not. Yes, I'm aware there was sand/dirt beneath the ball and around the ball, but the rule sheet says somethink about space that was originally designed as bunkers - well, was the ball actually in such a space. If so, penalty. If not, no penalty. What we know for sure, is there was no assessment at all of whether the ball was actually in a bunker.

August 17, 4:48 pm

4:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home