Well said Jennifer!

It doesn't take a genius to figure out this guy Bamberger had an agenda.


If he was so "concerned" why wait until the next day to say anything so she can get disqualified!

That poor girl got bamboozled!

That string business at the end was pure BS. How can Michelle and her caddy remember where exactly the ball was and where she dropped it from the day before?

This is a pure witch hunt-if it was ANYONE else none of this would have happened.

I agree with Melissa. "If this had happened to someone else none of this would have happened." I think some of the media people are just waiting for her to fall, ever since she wanted to turn pro. Well these media people got 'lucky' when it happened on her debut. Good for Michelle for acting like a champ in dealing with it. Talk about 'intergrity'? Don;t think that reporter has one.

I am personally disappointed that Michelle didn't win, I was cheering for her to win. But as the father of 4 girls and grandfather to 2 more, I also suspect it was far better for Michelle both as a person and a golfer that she didn't.

Instead she got some tremendously valuable lessons.

Lesson 1: Holes 2 and 3 of her third round taught her a lesson that all too many pros in other sports (basketball and football come immediately to mind)seem to never learn: When your ego starts to outstrip your talent you are on your way to a fall. Lesson learned--when you get to feeling infallible, start talking to your caddy and do what he says...not what you "know" you can do.

Lesson 2: Putting is important, not the kind of putting you do alone on the practice green on a sunny day when you're feeling great; the kind you do when your confidence is shattered, your self-esteem is in the gutter, the rain in starting to fall and slightly over a million people are watching. You only get to practice that kind of putting on the course, in the tournament...so Annika could do it and Michelle couldn't...because Annika had many more years of practice. Lesson learned--some things take time.

Lesson 3: The Rules Officials are at your beck and call, any time you have to take a drop summon one of them to the spot and don't stroke until you have their agreement that you made a legal drop. Annika called Robert O. on Friday. Annika didn't like what Robert O. ruled, got steamed and messed up one hole. On Sunday, Michelle didn't bother the officials, did what she, her caddy and her playing partner honestly thought was right and ended up blowing 72 holes via a DQ. If Robert O. had said on the spot, "this is where you can take your drop" as he did for Annika on Friday, then the issue would have been settled; SI would not have a "story"; in all likelihood she would have dropped at exactly the same spot; even if the drop would have been one maybe two feet further back, it probably would not have made a difference, or at worst, Michelle would have been one stroke further back.

Lesson 4: There are people in this world who profit by your misfortune. Accept that fact. Don't let it make you bitter, just let it make you cautious. A lesson her interview afterward seems to indicate she already knows. Kudos Michelle on handling your first professional disaster in a manner that was...well, professional.

$50,000 is a hefty tuition at any University in the world. But I expect the value of the lessons Michelle learned at the Bighorn University of Life will make it worth it in the end.

Oh, and the most important lesson of all, at 16 years of age, Michelle learned she is only 3 strokes a round away from being the best Lady Golfer in the World. Somewhere out over the Pacific on the ride home, she'll stop crying and start mentally shaving those strokes away.

Oh, and by the way, I'll bet you'll find Annika on the practice range tomorrow. Cause she's the best there is. She won't sit on her laurels no matter how wide the margin was. She may not be looking back, but she can hear more than one set of footsteps behind her. They're still a long way back but they're getting closer, and she's not about to "go gentle into any dark night". Not just yet anyway.

Boy are we going to have some great LPGA golf coming our way next year! Stay tuned.

I swear that I did not read Jennifer's blog before I wrote my own. If, however, some other writer would like to measure the length of my blog and compare it to Jennifer's, or track my web activity before, during, and after the writing of said blog, and then contact me about it tomorrow in an accusative way, I will personally kick his assonance and consonance all the way to his publishing house. Bamberger has had his day in the sun, has done some fine writing, but this is inexcusable. Contrast it with what happened to Stadler on the PGA Tour. Little ding in your shaft, don't know when it happened, don't know if you played with it like that, too bad, too sad, DQ. Hard-Knock Life, these pro tours.

Agree. After this episode, Wie has go learned something. I find it quite pathetic however to cheat a 16 year-old out of her first tournament, just to get some recognition. It's quite sad.

This story has so much full of it, its not even funny.

Getting story is one thing, but to make story is quite another; for reporter to do; and for Sport’s Illustrate, not to know this; seemingly gives any me a pause.

First there is other people; all the eyes were focused on her, and no one caught it;
Meaning, no one saw anything out of ordinary; and yet, somehow Bamberger saw it; and even then, it was mere suspicion; not probable;

second, it took measuring to get bottom of it; unlike football where measurements are constantly made, in every play, in golf, while it is enumerated, in rule book; it is not consistent;

meaning, anything overtly done, which can affect scores with proportional effects, become critical issue; but a foot within realm of what appears to be in tens of yards? could not have made any difference.

If such were to happen in putting green; where measurements are measured in feet; then foot or two creates great deal of difference, not to mention inches;

i do believe if she decline to be interviewed; she would be justified.
And any pro players who feel similarly should boycott Sports Illustrated;

if they feel, this reporter freelance or not; who believe this incident was unfair; must boycott Sports Illustrated; of granting interview; or photos sessions;

because there is more money in Golf than football;
more people of wealth, more people of influence, are interested in golf than any other sports;

its time to teach behaviors of reporters; in what golfers would and would not tolerate;

most sacred of all things as reporter ought not to do is create story;
they are mouth piece; of incident; of their skills of judgment;

this ability to judge without bias is the key to being good journalist;
not sensationalism, not subjectively varnished reporting is not, definitely not being a good journalist.

Because of their ability to judge, is why they are granted access to all things unhindered;
This reliance is what public trusts, this reliance is why public trusts reporter;

And this reporter has violated it.

violated public’s trust, which they are entrusted with. And for that reason, entire journalism world must be made aware, violating trust of public is no, no.

Herr Bamberger's email may well be...

mbamberger0224@aol.com

...this from an article he wrote for the Philadelphia Inquirer about a year and a half ago...might be outdated though.

In case anyone might want to send their opinion to him (pro or con).

In addition to the writer being a jerk, the LPGA compounded the issue by isuing the DQ. As one writer said above, a day removed, who knows exactly where the drop was made? When have you ever seen someone break out a measuring device to check a drop, and there was nothing done in an attempt to get an illegal advantage. Shame on the LPGA or whatever organization runs this event.

What is this Women's Golf that you speak of? Does it involve men playing golf and winning the amour of young women, instead of prize money? Please advise

The SI reporter is a slimebag. He makes a totally unconvincing argument why he didn't report the incident sooner. His disclosure after the final round, 30 hours after the incident speaks volumes about his true motives. "to protect the integrity of the game, what a crock! Reporting it after Sat. round would have only resulted in a DQ. But that wasn't good enough, I bet he was hoping that she'd win the thing, then get DQ'd. What a story that would have made, and the attention that he obviously craves.

I'm hoping Nike and Sony have a talk with the brass at SI.

Bamberger has one fan - Morgan Pressel.

To John above.

I think yours may be the best posted comment I have ever seen on this blog. You are the type of fan that Michelle desreves. It seems so many cannot express themselves other than in anger with inappropriate language.

It was a careless mistake and she will learn from it. It is a mistake that could have been made in a much more important and costly situation in the future. This should guarantee it will not happen again.

I am a bit puzzled why the caddie did not prevent this. When you see the replay it seems like it was done in haste will little care for the angle of the drop with regard to the pin. The caddie could have prevented this.

I agree we should see a lot of fun LPGA golf in the future. The attention given to Michelle clearly motivated Annika who is the best. History may prove someone else is better but only after really hard work and years of experience.

Well done John!!

You're right Joe--the silver lining of this is she knows not to do it again in the future. Get an offical out there even if she's the least bit unsure of what is kosher or not.

Better to learn this now than in the future -imagine if this happened at a major.

PLEASE!! Yes the reporter brought i up the next day, so what!
You want to blame someone look to her caddy for crying out loud! This is suppossed to be the support for this young girl. HE should have known, and now he's ticked because he might've blown his meal ticket!

I like Wie, but this was a lesson she NEEDED to learn! Welcome to the tour.

Throw the bum out !!!! I'm never buying another Sports Illustrated !!!
Let him apply for a job at The National Enquirer....they love that stuff.

There was no link to comment on Baldwin's piece, so I have to do it here. Golf (PGA/LPGA) should not allow an outside party to have an effect on it's tournaments. I saw the Michigan receiver catch a pass out of bounds on their game-winning drive, but I can't call the NCAA and have the outcome reversed. Unfortunate for Michelle, but lesson learned. Oh, and Baldwin...the correct phrase is "COULDN'T care less". You sound uneducated when you say "could care less".

As a PGA member who has often officiated, I can understand fan disappointmnet, but this is pure "blame the nessenger" to me. I can tell you that Wie, Stadler, Watson, Nicklaus, Palmer and any tour professional would rather know if they unintentionally break a rule whether it's before or after playing the round. So get over the error made by Wie (and her caddy)and move on to the next event, just like they do!

Welcome to the professional world! It is the obligation of each contestant to intimately know the rules by which the game is played, even if the contestant is only a teenager. Expensive lesson? Not when you consider all the hype that has been heaped upon her and the resulting endorsement contracts. We all have made mistakes at our jobs that might have cost us something. Remember Roberto DiVensenzo? Those are the rules, kid!

Ed

Thank you for your succint and appropriate comment.

I am not a Wie-fanatic, by any stretch of the imagination, but you have to be daft not to agree that she got screwed. This simply would not have happened to a different player.

Read the articles about this incident -- her caddie told her specificially to "Make sure you don't drop it nearer to the hole." They triangulated it out and honestly thought that they were no closer to the hole, which in any other situation is good enough. But this reporter had to go and find a story. He is NOT a rules official...he should not even have been on the green.

I play golf all the time, and I watch tons of pro golf on television. Trust me: pro men bend the rules EVERY weekend. Ernie Els at the Masters a few years ago begged and whined until he found someone that agreed that a pile of brush in the woods in front of his ball was really temporary and meant to be removed later on. Tiger Woods got an army of fans to move a one-ton stone that wasn't buried in the ground and therefore qualified as a "Loose Impediment" (this incident led to a rules change, by the way).

My point is that these guys are really pushing it in terms of "playing by the rules." Wie, on the other hand, played the situation correctly and honestly. When you take a drop, you figure out a line that looks perpendicular to the whole and you drop behind it. Even when you have a rules official there with you, they aren't going to measure it out.

I'm sure that, in that same weekend, 5-10 other players took a drop that ended up technically being "closer to the hole." But because they weren't Wie, nobody bothered to get out the surveyor's equipment to confirm it.

Golf is played on the honor system. In this case, Wie's honor remains intact, but the reporter's is gone.

Missing the point. Michelle and her caddy will move on professionally. But when reporters decide - again - decide to create news stories, not report on them, they remove themselves from the profession of journalism. The individual in question had ample opportunity to bring his concern as an informed spectator to Michelle, her caddy, and LPGA officials on the day of concern, but CHOSE instead to create a story and wait until the tournament was over. CREATED A STORY - NOT REPORTING - that's the issue at hand.

Again -let me reiterate no one is blaming Bamberger for going to the officials if he thought something was suspicious he should have.

The problem is he sat on that information for a day and a half until the possibility of Michelle Wie's disqualification existed.

I find him quite disingenous since he had ample time and opportunity to rectify this situation without incident. Yet he chose to inject himself into the limelight and be part of the story.

Michelle's mistake is not calling an official right before she dropped the ball.
This whole thing is so fishy because everything is inconclusive-- officials had to go by what Michelle and her caddy recollected from the day before.

Who knows what the true measurements really are ? There is no possible way to have everything recreated exactly what happened in the last round.

Mike

If you see the replay and hear the officials explanation you can see that the line where the triangulation took place is in itself closer to the hole by more tha 12 inches. The fault is with the caddie who should have seen where Michelle was placing the tee at the far end was the wrong angle and clearly closer to the hole.

The players you refer to who are "pushing it" in your words are arguing a ruling with an official. As you may be aware there can be several different rules that can be applied to the same situation. If Michelle had done this she would have been told the angle was putting her drop area closer to the hole.

In any event she would not have won the tournament. I think the lesson learned will be worth much more than the $50,000 she may have given up. In time I think she will look back and appreciate that she learned this lesson with little cost.

You Wie-bots really are comical. She made a mistake, inadvertently broke the rules of golf, and was assessed the appropriate penalty. An experienced spectator saw it and reported it to officials, which is entirely the right thing to do. And you idiots who think the reporter had an agenda - Bamberger has been a professional caddie on the PGA Tour and the European PGA Tour. He also sought counsel from his editor before doing anything, as he didn't want to get involved. What you have here is an unintentional mistake by Wie, witnessed by a professional caddie who knows the rules of golf, who did the right thing. Michelle's not the first golfer this has ever happened to and she won't be the last. Not having Grace Park come over and witness the drop was her mistake. To blame the messenger is ridiculous.

To John, father of 4 & grandfather of 2:

Your post was so on the money that I do not have to waste anybody's time reading mine.

Those girls of yours are very lucky indeed to have someone like you behind them. Well said, sir!

This is another reason why outsiders and TV should not play a part in golf rulings in tournaments. If it had been someoneelse and they were not on TV it wouldn't even be a question. The pros and their playing partners should be allowed to play within the rules giving some allowance for judgement calls that should not be questioned unless, flagrant. Where a ball entered a hazard or where to drop a ball are judgements. If the golfers are applying the rules, their judgement and integrity should not be questioned or challenged especially when the rules officials have to go to extremes to make a ruling.

Maybe Wie isn't ready to play on the big circuit,yet? Afterall, an improper drop does appear to be a move you would expect from an amateur.

This whole situation is contrived. Video inconclusive. Pacing inconclusive. String measurements of approximate locations of a ball and a drop from the day before? Beyond ridiculous.

Forget about ANY of the participants (Wie, Bamberger, Robert Smith, etc). This ruling angers me because it lowers golf on the sporting scale. While figure skating has tremendous viewership, it also has a stigma, one that was enhanced greatly by the Olympic scandal in Salt Lake over the judging of the pairs competition. I have not been this angry about an outcome in a sporting event since those Olympics.

Just as in that instance, the final determination was made by "judges", the final outcome determined by highly subjective means. All sports have subjective elements - was the player's foot in bounds in football? Was that a strike in baseball? But in NONE of these sports will you see a game decided AFTER THE FACT by a review of, essentially, the unreviewable data. In most sports, like football or baseball, you actually CAN review the facts I mention above quite distinctly on video tape. But if the game has ended, there will still not be a change at that point.

Why? Because that makes the sport reasonable. Fair. Finite. And less prone to the ridiculousness that events like figure skating and gymnastics have to deal with. There are no appeals looking to see if someone completed all necessary moves, or to review the complexity of a routine, in what we call "mainstream" sports. And golf used to be that way - which is why golf has become more and more popular, among other reasons. We can play it, and identify with it, and watch it and KNOW what the outcome of the match is when that match completes play.

Until now. Now we are all forced to wonder about the outcome. Now every tournament is subject to this kind of review and revision. Now any fan, reporter, caddy, official, what have you, can come up AFTER the end of the tournament and question a couple dozen decisions made during the tournament by players and caddies and look for ways to overturn the results. You think Wie has her fanatics? There are men's players, Tiger being the most notable, that have much bigger followings. There is money bet on these contests. If this is the way golf will be "officiated", or more correctly termed "judged" at this point, look out. There will be a FLOOD of "questionable" decision that people point out.

But of course this is not how golf is really played. This is not how tournaments will be decided in the future. Because it's bad for golf. And it's actually NOT in keeping with the rules of golf, which state that respect should be accorded to competitors and their decisions.

No, this is a one-time situation. You won't see string brought out after Tiger's next tournament. You won't see pacing off of Annika's next drop the day after she dropped it. The players themselves would revolt over such decisions. That's not how golf is played.

Which just goes to show that no matter how angry, sad, happy, or indifferent you are over this happening to Wie, it's clear that this happened to her BECAUSE it's her. To say differently is to simply ignore the facts.

The game of golf took a hit with this circus, but it will move on. Shame on the LPGA and Samsung officials for their handling of this situation - read your rule book again, you missed the parts that refer to the honor and respect for the game and it's players. You missed the parts where officials are given leeway to be stewards of the game, to rule as appropriate in their estimation.

As for Bamberger, he did his job. He saw something, and then he cautiously mentioned it AFTER the scorecard was signed, and then brought the matter to a head in as attention maximizing a way as possible. What can you say? That's his job.

Just some examples of disqualifiactions for people to know about:

Recently Paula Creamer realised she had changed a club in her bag the morning after a rain delay caused the round to be finished the following day. After the Tournament was over she called Officials and disqualified herself.

1996 Bay Hill Invitational

After the second round Jeff Sluman was only two back of the leaders, but he became concerned the night after the round when he thought he may have taken an incorrect drop after hitting into a water hazard. The next morning Sluman returned to the scene and confirmed that the drop area which he used was closer to the hole and that his drop was incorrect. He then disqualified himself from the tournament.

1996 Nike Shreveport Open

While P.H. Horgan III was waiting for the final group to finish before the start of the playoff between himself and Tim Loustalot, he was talking with a Nike Tour tournament director and related an incident that happened during the third round. It seemed that Horgan accidentally moved his ball marker by dropping his ball on it. In talking with his playing partner they agreed there was no infraction and proceeded to play. However, it was a violation of Rule 20-1/5.5 and Horgan should have assessed himself a one-stroke penalty. Since he signed an incorrect scorecard he was disqualified from the tournament, and Loustalot won without having to have a playoff.

1996 Canon Greater Hartford Open

Defending champion Greg Norman, who shared the first-round lead, was disqualified before the third round when it was found that the ball he was using was improperly stamped and not certified by the USGA.

1996 Jamie Farr Kroger Classic

Meg Mallon took the first-round lead with a 6-under-par 65, but then the next day was disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard. She had stroked a putt that ended next to the hole and slowly moved for another 18 to 20 seconds until it fell in. At the time, she thought she made a birdie and signed her card for the birdie. But later on LPGA officials caught wind that it could have been a Rules infraction. After investigating the situation, the officials found out that Mallon did violate a Rule by waiting to long for the putt to drop and had no choice but to disqualify her because she signed an incorrect scorecard.

1997 Players Championship

In the final round on the 17th hole, Davis Love III accidentally hit his ball on the putting green with a practice stroke. He did not replace the ball, two-putted from there, and scored himself as having made a bogey 4. However, he should have replaced his ball to the original spot before continuing to putt. Not doing so is a one-stroke penalty, and thus his score for the hole was actually a double-bogey 5. Officials found out about the mistake, but unfortunately for Love it was after he signed his scorecard. So instead of finishing T7th, he was disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard. The mistake cost Love $105,000 as well as valuable Ryder Cup qualifying points. However, he did go on to make the 1997 U.S. Ryder Cup team.

1998 NEC World Series of Golf

In the first round, Lee Janzen was another in violation of Rule 16-2, waiting too long for his putt to drop in the hole. On the 17th hole his birdie putt hung on the lip. Janzen walked up to the hole, then past it, bent down to survey the ball, and stared at it. He looked at his fellow competitor Vijay Singh, who also walked up and bent down to see the ball creeping toward the hole. About 20 seconds after Janzen arrived at the ball, he went to tap the ball in but it dropped into the hole. After the round he signed for a birdie 3 instead of a par 4. When the incident was later shown on television, viewers contacted PGA Tour officials, who in screening the tape realized that Janzen violated the Rules and disqualified him. At the time, it wasn¹t a big deal, but at the end of the year the disqualifaction did cost him a spot on the Presidents Cup team. He luckily got to play on the squad only because Hal Sutton's father-in-law died, forcing Sutton to withdraw and give his spot to Janzen.

These are very experienced, prominent players. There is no embarassment to a disqualification things happen to the best of players. It is a good lesson learned at a young age.

The enforcement of the Rules of Golf by Neutral Rules Officials is the hallmark to the integrity of golf even when these rules seem unfair.

For all you dolts who get upset when someone other than a player calls a rules violation and laments how "golf is the only sport that allows such a travesty to occur" - do you realize that GOLF IS THE ONLY SPORT THAT DOESN'T HAVE REFERREES WATCHING YOU PLAY AT ALL TIMES. Do you people forget this? And whose responsibility is it to assist Wie in not making the mistake? The answer is nobody but herself. You don't see referees in other sports jumping in to stop an infraction by a player. The responsbility here lies solely with Wie and her caddy. She chose not to seek out a rules official or even her playing partner. It was an amateur mistake and one she won't make again.

Of course, it could just be a grand conspiracy against her. You know how people hate successful young people...

More Questions on Wie's DQ:

How they measure it was 3" or 12" or 18" to the hole. Which pin they are talking about, Saturday? Sunday?

The more I think about the issue, I have more and questions and doubts.

Do anybody has exact distance? Again, Doubts.

WHAT THE F***!!!!

If the video wasn't conclusive what makes people think the recreation a whole day after is going to be accurate.

What a crock!

They placed a tee on the mark where the Pin had been on Saturday. If anyone heard the Rules Official Robert O Smith handle the Rules decision with Annika on Saturday you know he is an experienced guy who knows how to enforce the Rules properly.

The only questions are from people who are not familiar with the Rules of Golf which can seem very confusing, vague and archaic at times. This is not one of those times and the decision is correct and clear. Things like this are also a fairly common occurence in all levels of golf.

I think the only thing that is not clear and never will be for some is the motive of the writer who reported the violation. I must feel he wanted to do the right thing but many will not agree.

Once officials are aware of a possible violation they are obligated to investigate it and make a determination without regard to the player involved.

Thank you, Jennifer. Bamberger's motives are certainly in question, but what's more disturbing is how the ruling bodies used that information in their decision.

The decision does nothing but advance the perception that Golf is a game of quirky rules governed by stodgy old fuddy-duddy’s.

Rules official Robert O. Smith, the man who made the final call to disqualify Wie, defended his decision, ``The Rules of Golf are based on facts,'' Smith said. ``They had to tell us where it was. The fact was, the ball was closer to the hole by 12 to 15 inches.''

FACT?! There were no facts uncovered in the “investigation”, which culminated in a ridiculous re-enactment.

The FACT is that a review of the video tape was inconclusive.
The FACT is that pacing the distances proved inconclusive.
The FACT is that even after measuring with a length of silly string, they still could not pinpoint a distance – “12 to 15 inches”. Well, which was it?

The FACT is that the exact location of the ball and the exact location of the point of relief could not be determined expos facto.

The FACT is that there are NO FACTS supporting the disqualification.

Smith also said that he was "hand-cuffed by the rules" and that he was required to "administer the rules as written".

Well, as written, you’ve got to go all over The Book to find all the relevant rules.
•6-1: Player’s responsibility
•6-6: Scoring in Stroke Play
•20-2: Dropping and Re-Dropping
•20-7: Playing from Wrong Place
•28: Ball Unplayable

Wie clearly exhibited knowledge of the rules (6-1) as evidenced by her adherence to rules 20-2, 20-7 and 28.

Interestingly, Mr. Smith made no mention of the following rules as written:

•Spirit of the Game
•1-4: Points not Covered by the Rules
If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision should be made in accordance with equity.

Note: The Rules of Golf offer no definition for “Equity”, however Merriam-Webster does:
1a: justice according to natural law or right; specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism
1b: something that is equitable
Equitable
1: having or exhibiting equity: dealing fairly and equally with all concerned

It seems to me that the Spirit of the Game should not and does not only apply to players, but also to the other Agencies of the game:

A “referee’’ is one who is appointed by the Committee to accompany players to decide questions of fact and apply the Rules. He must act on any breach of a Rule that he observes or is reported to him.

An “outside agency’’ is any agency not part of the match or, in stroke play, not part of the competitor’s side, and includes a referee, a marker, an observer and a forecaddie.

An “observer’’ is one who is appointed by the Committee to assist a referee to decide questions of fact and to report to him any breach of a Rule.

Which definition defines Mr. Bamberger’s role in this? Was he appointed by the committee to report a breach of a Rule? As written, it is difficult to determine how Mr. Smith administered the rules in their entirety.

Furthermore, given the inexcusable delay on Mr. Bamberger’s behalf in reporting the possible rules violation; the lack of a ‘statue of limitations’ for reporting such violations; the omission of guidelines for determing if rule 20-7 had been violated (video, silly string, etc.); and the lack of clear evidence that the rule had actually been violated -- Rule 1-4 could have and SHOULD have been invoked:

Rule 1-4 is vital to the Wie scenario and cannot be ignored. Had a Referee, Outside Agency or Observer raised the concern prior to the signing of the card, the Rules, as written, clearly provide Wie an opportunity to avoid disqualification.

However, perhaps the most important exclusion of Mr. Smith’s administering of the rules is the Spirit of the Game clause, conspicuously located at the top of the Rules of Golf. Mr. Bamberger’s golfing experience and knowledge of the game and its rules are beyond question – this could not be clearer than it is today.
His knowledge of the rules makes the FACT that he waited until after Wie had signed her scorecard suspicious at best. It is clearly not in the Spirit of the Game, nor was the dog-and-pony show that took place at the 7th hole on Sunday evening.

There is but one rule left to be administered. For the spirit of the game. For the good of the game. For the fairness and equity of all concerned.

33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion
A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.
Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.
If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.

To Joe and Arnie:

All of the examples you give are of players calling the infraction on themselves when they believe they committed a violation. And Arnie, you cite a lack of referees - correct! So how does a spectator (who happens to be a journalist, but let's leave any conflicts in that regard out of the question) calling a foul 36 hours later factor into this discussion? And when consulted, the player does not feel that there was an infraction. You cite the examples of when a player feels there WAS an infraction - when either the player or the playing partner, or a rules official when the situation is discussed after being brought up BY players, feels there has been an infraction. This situation is different precisely BECAUSE it is a spectator who brings up the question, and the player does not feel there is an infraction, and yet the officials go to further "evidence" collection by examining first videotape, then pacing to approximate locations, and finally exact measurement to approximate locations to determine if the player is WRONG about the facts of the situation.

Do you not see the difference here? It's not a matter of whether or not the drop was closer to the hole - we cannot determine that absolutely at this point in time anyway. It's a matter of how the situation was brought up, examined and resolved. There is little doubt in my mind that there are numerous drops each year on tour that end up an inch closer to the hole - simple human error says it's almost certainly the case. But unless the player, or a playing partner, or a rules official ON THE SCENE, brings this up for review, it's not going to be properly scored.

Those ARE the referees, Arnie. The players, the playing partners, the rules officials and marshals and observers (not spectators, Observers, which is clearly defined in the Rules of Golf as a group identified by the tournament committee and is a part of the tournament organization). The KNOWLEDGEABLE parties involved - and not just knowledgeable about golf, but about the particular instance in question, because they are INSIDE the ropes.

Infractions happen - the DQ is not the problem. It's HOW the DQ came about that is the problem.

And as I said, you are ignoring the reality of the situation if you think Michelle received equal treatment in this regard. Why isn't anyone looking to see the line of drop for Grace park on 8 on the third round? Was she really in line between the thorn bush and the hole when she dropped in the seventh fairway? How far out of line would constitute a violation? Why didn't someone ask the rules committee to review that decision? And if videotape and eyesight cannot confirm the angle, why wasn't a compass brought out onto the seventh fairway to examine her line and angle back to the eighth hole?

Because Grace felt she dropped legally. Did she ask Michelle to look at her drop and confirm it was OK? I doubt it as Michelle was not within sight, since Grace could barely see the flag from down there. But if Bamberger felt that Grace was a worthy story for the weekend, he may have followed her down there, and might have seen her line, and might have questioned it, and maybe the rules officials would have gone to these lengths, and maybe Grace would have been DQed.

A lot of maybes and mights. This kind of situation comes up all the time in golf. How many players have been subjected to the string test, as Michelle was, based on a spectator call?

The referees WERE in place - their names were Michelle, Grace, and their caddies. They felt it was OK at the time, and didn't feel afterward that there was anything further to review there.

Bamberger feels differently, and suddenly the tournament officials go to greater lengths, literally with the string, than anyone you mention in ANY of those DQs was subjected to, Joe. The honor of the players as referees is exactly what was NOT respected here, Arnie. And as for calling in a rules official as veterans would do, is that really what they do? Did Grace have a rules official review her removal of rocks behind her ball on 8? Did she have one check her line of drop back into the seventh fairway? Is it NOT common practice to review and resolve these decision on your own, with your playing partner as your primary reference, if you feel you need one, except in extreme cases when a rules official is warranted?

This was bad. This was badly handled and badly ruled. The process was flawed every which way.

Does anyone know how far the hole was from Michelle's drop?

What a joke. When will some journalists learn they are there to report on the event not be apart of it. The PLAYERS are the ones who uphold the rules - if Wie, her playing partner and the officials saw no foul then case over. This is all jealously just like they tried to do with Tiger and his caddie. Get over it all of you who can't appreciate excellence and achievement!

Couldn't agree with you more, Jennifer. Bamberger did the worst thing possible for any respectable journalist. Did he not only create the news, but he chose the worst possible moment to raise the non-existant issue with LPGA official for the maximum effect. In short, Bamberger is a penilely challenged a-hole, envious of Michelle's golfing skills and talents who makes more money in a year than he could ever make in his life time.

Curious,

In one article, it said the drop spot is 45 ft away from the hole. 45 ft. 12" close to the hole 45 ft away? How ridiculous is that? More importantly , can Michelle really make out the difference of 12" in 45 ft with naked eye? Do we still have any doubt when she said she thought the drop was good?

45 ft!!!!!

45 ft!!!!!

Hi Candace!! James and his friend Tom were playing a round of golf with their wives early on a Sunday. It was a four ball, better ball format with a little bit of cash on the line. James stood on the 10th tee having hooked his previous three tee shots, and to no one's surprise he hooked his drive again. When he found his ball, it was right up against one of the greenskeepers buildings. His wife advised him to hit the shot through a narrow gap between the side of the greenskeepers building and some branches. "I can't do that," James said. "Look how narrow that gap is!" But his wife was persistant in urging him on, and she persuaded James to attempt the risky shot. So James took a mighty swing and struck the ball ... and the ball caromed off a tree branch, richocheted off the building and hit his wife in the head, knocking her stone cold. A week after the funeral, James and another friend, Ashley, were having a round. James teed up the ball on No. 10 and hit the exact shot he had hit a week before. He found his ball in the same spot, and once again his partner advised him to hit through the gap. "No way," James said. "I can't hit that shot." "Why not?" Ashley asked him. "Well," James replied, "you know what happened last time." "No, I don't," said Ashley. "What happened?" "Well, last time I tried that shot," James said, "I made a double bogey!"

Michelle Wie accepted the LPGA ruling. It's interesting nevertheless that when she made the drop, there were other journalists and even Grace Park (a competitor) were there.

If Michael Bamberger from SI is a honest person and reporter, he
should have approached the LPGA officials on Saturday or on Sunday morning. He is not retarded therefore to claim his alledged reporter's mode made him forget to question the ball drop until the tournament was over. If he had seen something allegedly wrong, he should have challenged the situation immediately, but for him to wait until the tournament is over, a day later, in order to challenge a questionable play only showed that he just wanted a scoop at all costs. It is obvious even to a 10-year old that Bamberger's priority is clearly NOT
about integrity, but to create his scoop and self-importance.

I don't recall the newspapers going bonkers and fully grown sports
newscasters gleefully cackled on television when Tiger's caddie
supposedly stepped on the ball, or when Creamer switched club.

June, I agree. At 45 feet I would think that the official's determination should be inconclusive. Unless you know EXACTLY where the ball was in the bush and EXACTLY where the ball was after the drop, how can anyone be certain as to their distances from the hole? And on top of this the ball locations are being recalled a day and half later? There must be some margin for error in the official's determination. Am I missing something?

Candace P

You must not have read the examples I mentioned above because Paula C and Jeff Sluman are the only ones who called a penalty on themselves.

P J Horgan, Greg Norman and Meg Mallon in 1996, Lee Janzen in 1998 and Davis Love in 1997 had the penalties called by others.

Michelle advised Grace Park that she was taking a drop which is customary. MW did NOT ask her if the drop area she setup was ok. Even if she did and the fellow competitor said it was ok this would not exempt the player, MW, if it is determined later that it was an illegal drop. This is what happened above to Lee Janzen after he asked Vijay Singh. This penalty was the result of a TV viewer calling in to the officials. If you read the above again you will see that the situation was much more important than a 4th place finish.

Michelle, Grace and their caddies are competitors and they cannot be referees as you sugggest above. None of them are impartial. The lesson clearly learned is to ask for an official ruling. Even if the official gives an incorrect ruling the player is exonerated even if this is discovered later.

If you watched the 3rd round there was a very good exchange between Mr Smith and Annika regarding a drop where the ball was behind a scoreboard. He was very rigid and did not give her what she thought the rule said.

I am still amazed that so many people cannot see this ruling clearly. If you look at the replay the triangulation was done very hastily by Michelle and the angle taken from where the ball landed put the drop area closer to the hole. I would expect the Golf Channel to show clearly what took place and perhaps more people will understand why the ruling is correct.

You can take issue on why there is no limit to when a violation can be called and who can call it on a player. History has shown that the USGA has permitted enough precedents in thsi regard.......for better or for worse. Perhaps when they next review Rules changes based on Decisions made they will address this issue.

I had this exchange with a very helpful Britney over at Tim McDonald's blog. This should end the conspiracy theories aspect of the Wie DQ on the part of the Wie Warriors:

** Comment from: Britney [Visitor]
George,
If her mistake has been discovered right after her shot, she would have been given a 2 stroke penality. However, as soon as she signed her score card at the end of that day, there was nothing left to do but disqualify her (disqualifation is the automatic penality for submitting an incorrect score for the round). **

George:

Hi, Britney, thanks for your response.

I thought that was the case, but I wasn't sure. So being as it was a round-by-round sich, there is no conspiracy.

To rescue Wie & her caddy from their blunder, Bamberger actually would have had to become part of the story, by speaking up at the moment the drops occurred.

Two scenarios:

"Hey, Michelle, the way you're doing that drop is wrong. You've advanced the ball toward the hole."

Or...

"Hey, Michelle, you had better not sign that round-3 scorecard, you might get disqualified. You took an illegal drop and didn't take a 2-stroke penalty."

In both of these hypothetical scenarios, that would be a case of the reporter actually interjecting himself into the events, and no longer being an observer.

The events happened and the reporter was honest and reported the infraction to the officials.

In reality, so long as Wie conducted the drop, didn't take the 2-stroke penalty, and then signed the scorecard, she was over with and done after round 3, as soon as she signed that card.

It matters not when it was brought to the officials' attention, she was a goner and DQ'd, as long as the officials found out about it.

-George

It is obvious that Wie made a mistake, a very careless one at that. And as someone listed awhile ago, great players make those careless mistakes too. I don't think most of us here a calling into question the ruling. Wie admitted she was at fault herself. The question at stake was the timing that Bamberger had told officials. Eye brows must be raising after he chose to inform officials 24 hours later, knowing quite well the result (he was a veteran caddy)

However, the lesson here isn't who's to blame. Michelle has come to respect the rules, learn from her mistakes, and move on from this debacle. As we all should. So thanks Jennifer for pointing it out. I'm pretty sure this won't overshadow the career she is going to have.

My lingering unease in this matter is simply this: When Robert O was discussing Annika's drop the day before, he specifically addressed the issue of "closer to the hole", ruling her first drop to be "closer" and asking Annika to take a second drop.

He did all of this "visually". He did not get out a laser rangefinder, which he could legally have used although Annika could not, nor did he get out a piece of string and measure the distance to the hole. He simply looked at it.

I have no reason to believe that had Michelle had the fortuitous foresight to have summoned him to her aid he would have done anything different. He would have looked at it, and either asked her to redrop, or agreed that it was "not closer to the hole".

So why, on Sunday night when he had reconstructed the best available approximation of original lie and dropped position and was unable to "conclusively" determine that a violation existed based upon his visualization of the angles, did he not simply drop the matter there as having "no definitive evidence a violation occurred"?

To use pacing, and direct measurement of distance--two methods not available to the player at the time of drop--to determine that a violation occurred after the fact, when such means would not have been used on course at the time the drop was made seems to me to be an egregious violation of the primary principle underlying all of the Rules of Golf "When in doubt, do what is equitable to all."

The key word is why did the guy reported it 24 or 36 hours after the 'incident'? Not the issue about the DQ. Why he waited so long to report it?

Luckily the caddie is not Michelle's dad.

Jennifer you are awesome!! You got to the heart of this...the timing was simply unacceptable. Because he waited..Michelle broke two rules rather than one. Had he acted earlier..he could have made sure she received only the two shot penalty that the infraction he saw warranted.

June and Curious.

The exact distance is not relevant, the fact is Michelle created a situation where she dropped the ball CLOSER to the hole than she should have.

If you have seen the actual replay or the example on the Golf Channel she placed a tee where the ball originally landed, then moved 2 club lengths from that spot and placed another tee. In between the two tees is where she can drop the ball. The problem is that the line she chose to place the second tee was at an angle that setup the drop area closer to the hole. The rule says you take relief but NO CLOSER to the hole.

Below is my attempt to show what happened. On the first line is what should have happened. Imagine a line from the left tee to tee A. The mistake was that MW took a line from A to C not from A to B. the O is where the ball would be dropped. Sorry it is not a better example.


Tee A-----------O---tee B. This is ok.
O tee C. This is closer to the pin



Pin

Clearly the placement of the basll between A and C would be closer to the Pin. This is why I blame the caddie because he should have been able to see the proper angle. It may be a poor example but it is what happened.

Sorry the above example changed after it was posted so it does not clarify anything.

Reply to George A.

Your comment below makes me think this:
--------------------
To rescue Wie & her caddy from their blunder, Bamberger actually would have had to become part of the story, by speaking up at the moment the drops occurred.
--------------------

The way I see it, because Bamberger waited to talk to an official about this, he is not just a part of the story, HE IS THE STORY now.

Either he simply lacks the ability think about the possible consequences of one's actions (that goes with many many people, such as our president :) ) OR he's biased against her for some reasons such as when he supposedly was mocked by her in a press conference or when you have a book coming out soon and gaining some name recognition means more $ for you.

IMHO

Sceanario: Tiger Woods just won Masters 2006, A reporter (pro Phil Michelson) reported to the rules officials that there seem to be an 'improper drop' on the third round (some 24 or 36 hours later), what would the officials do now?

Bamberger needs to stop talking to the media so much-he's making himself into a bigger ass every time he opens his mouth.

That whole "reporter mode" comment was a gem-- Look Jerk, if you were in reporter mode why didn't you "report" it to the officials when you had numerous chances.

There are tour officials scattered all over the grounds which means he had an opportunity each time Michelle's group was walking to the next hole to say something. Yet he didn't do anytning.

Joe, Thanks for your explanation. I understand what you are saying and I understand the rule regarding a drop no closer to the hole. My concern is accuracy of recreating MW's two club drop line. It just seems to me that trying to recall exactly where your drop line was 36 hours later is not going to be very accurate (unless the original marking tees were left there). Thinking about your example (Tee A and Tee B) it does not take much variation between the placement of Tee A and Tee B to make up a 12" difference. For example if Tee A was placed 6" closer to the hole and Tee B was place 6" farther from the hole the 12" difference would be zero. It is because of these inaccuracies and variations that I question the official's determination. Put in another way, from 45 feet plus or minus 6" could have changed their determination. That is why I see thier decision as inconclusive.

Has anyone read this?

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051017/SPORTS09/510170349/1032/SPORTS

Joe,

In EVERY ONE of your cases, the "evidence" needed was collectable from video or personal viewing of the event by rules officials. No one had to try to "re-create" any scenario and use that (by definition unreliable) recreation as the basis for the rules decision. No one had to use three different methods to approximate the key facts relevant to the rule.

No one on hand had a problem with the drop. Video was inconclusive. Pacing off was inconclusive. It required a string to determine the rules violation, and the measurement covered over 45 feet to see a difference of at most 15 inches. If you know geometry and (more appropriately, Michelle) trigonometry, you know that the difference between these lines is less than a few degrees. I maintain that there are MANY cases of drops and other rules-related issues in EVERY tournament that do not receive NEAR this level of scrutiny. You can quote the DQs of past tourneys all you want - I have no problem with Michelle being DQed, given that it was determined she dropped closer to the hole. The problem I have is with the method of determining that she was, in fact, in violation of the rules. I am not at all convinced that she was clearly in violation. Not because I think Michelle walks on water, but because the entire process of determining her adherence, or lack thereof, to the rules is incredible to say the least.

Can you cite ONE example of a player being DQed under such murky circumstances? Drawing out a string the next day to measure approximate drop location and approximate ball location? It's ridiculous.

And not a one of your examples has anything close to this kind of variance, Joe.

John D wrote:
-----
Maybe Wie isn't ready to play on the big circuit,yet? Afterall, an improper drop does appear to be a move you would expect from an amateur.
-----
Does anyone remember a PGA tournament earlier this year where a non-rookie PGA player positioned his caddie down the slope. I can't remember why he was making the drop, just that it happened. He made the drop and the ball started down the slope, he then asked his caddie to catch the moving ball which his caddie did. After doing this twice, he place his ball and made his shot. Several holes later he was informed of the penalty.

Several years ago veteran golfer Craid Stadler placed a towel on the ground to protect his pants while playing his ball. He incurred a penalty for this.

In an interview about 2 years ago (when Michelle was 14 years old) for 60 Minutes, she was asked how she felt about some men not wanting her to play in their field. Michelle's response was "men's egos are so fragile. They can easily be taken down." When Michelle made a remark on Saturday about feeling like she was teaching geometry, she took Jerk Hamberger's ego down and so he took her down. Tit for tat.

When the news broke regarding the drop infraction, I initially thought it was with regard to the height at which she dropped the ball from on her second drop, prior to her placing the ball.

If you watch the replay, her second drop was substantially lower than shoulder height. She dropped it from chest height. I really thought someone would call in about that.

Candace

YOu do not seem to think 15 inches is a lot, well in golf it is huge. I think you and others are getting things so convoluted that is is impossible to explain this to someone who does not want ot be open minded. The only reason a line was used was to prove Michelle why she was closer to the hole.

None of the people on this Blog understand the Rules of Golf as well as the officials who made the decision. To people who know the Rules this decision is quite clear.

You and the other people who come to watch golf because of your interest in Michelle need to learn the Rules.

I have no doubt Michelle and her caddie both kow these rules but they marked the drop area carelessly and I am sure this will not happen again. Golf officials always give every consideration to what is best for the player but in the end they must enforce the rules. That is all they did in this case.

Candace,

Well said. I have no problem with MW DQ'd if in fact she violated the rule. But how many of us can actually remember where the ball was 24 or 30 hours later on a golf course? LPGA messed up and SI reporter was merely getting back to her. Now it backfired in his face... Serves him right. Thanks to him and LPGA. No doubt this incident will make MW better and stronger. I am very proud of the way MW handled herself in the end.

Comment from: John [Visitor]
My lingering unease in this matter is simply this: When Robert O was discussing Annika's drop the day before, he specifically addressed the issue of "closer to the hole", ruling her first drop to be "closer" and asking Annika to take a second drop.

John this is a very different situation.

First, the mistake Michelle made was in where she marked her drop area NOT in making the drop itself. Her drop area was setup on a slightly forward angle as opposed to a lateral area no closer to the pin. This meant that when she dropped the ball it would have to be closer to the hole.

Second, Annika had asked for a Ruling on where to setup her drop area. She was behind a temporary scoreboard.Once this is agreed then when the player drops the ball it is clear if it rolls toward the hole or back or stays still. What you raised is after Annika had already agreed the drop area (although she was not happy about it) and after her ball dropped it rolled forward. This is clear to the eye. After you drop twice and it rolls closer to the hole you are then permitted to place the ball.

Ho-J

The LPGA did not mess up as you state. Once a violation is pointed out there is an obligation to pursue it. They did what they should do which is what the PGA, USGA and any other tournament would do.

If there should be a time limit or if an outside spectator can raise the vilation are a suject that might be worth discussing by the USGA and the R & A rules people for the future. As it stands nowthere are many cases of vioaltions being pointed out by spectators or TV viewers.

This was all done by the Rules even if you do not like it or understand it.

Joe regarding your comment "You and the other people who come to watch golf because of your interest in Michelle need to learn the Rules."
Where in the Rule book does it say anything about SI reporters monitoring play and TV cameras to review situations?
Bottom line is that this type of review and DQ has always been rediculous because there can't possibly be a camera on every shot, every player in evary situation. Hence it should not be allowed.

Joe,

I appreciate your comment. But I said that LPGA messed up because of the fact that the measurement was based on "approximation". I don't know if you are a golfer. But do you honestly believe that people know exactly where their balls were on a golf course (which is very big I might add) after 24 to 36 hours had passed? Here we are talking about inches, not feet or yard. LPGA's decision was based on "inconclusive" data. I have no problem LPGA enforcing the rules if done right.

Ho-J

Yes I am a golfer although never to be seen on TV. I think the replay was sufficient to show where the ball was and I think both the caddie and Michelle could remember easily how they figured the drop area. I think the replay also showed how they did this rather hastily which I do not understand particularly with the experience of the caddie.

In any event they have moved on and so should we.

Great point by Ron Mon on his blog--I wish more people would
check out his blog on this website-he's a lot more "balanced" than Baldwin or Mcdonald.

http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ron.mon/2005/10/16/bambam_bamberger_has_a_new_club_let_s_hi

"What does that mean, "my reporter's mode"? Does that mean he resisted justice in order to advance a story line by his non-action? If so, he should have his press credentials confiscated. What could have been so god-awful compelling that he would not bring it up to Michelle or an official on the spot? Were Mr. and Mrs. Haverkamp hitting more balls into the pond?

"I thought about it more and was just uncomfortable that I knew something. Integrity is at the heart of the game." Is integrity at the heart of reporting? Clearly Bamberger does not subscribe to simple human compassion. While individual integrity is at the heart of the game, so is communal integrity."

For better or for worse, M. Wie accepted the final outcome and handled the press and scrutiny in the best way that she could.

She will go on and flourish and succeed beyond this past sunday's episode.


http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Oct/18/ln/FP510180340.html

If this is the way the USGA runs their tournaments - let me off the boat. Yes, the rules official correctly identified the fact that the ball was dropped closer to the hole, thus incurring two stroke penalty. However the only way it was discovered was with a string???????? Does he expect all GOLFERS to now carry a 100 yds of string to validate their drops? Welcome to the 7 hour round. If that official couldn't visually determine that Wie's drop was closer to the hole - how could the USGA expect Wie to. Was the infraction intentional, done with forethought or malious, I think not. One of the worst decisions ever made. My opinion of the USGA just dropped tremendously