very good comments. Michelle will learn form this and not make the same mistake in a more important time in a Tournament.

She does deserve better than many of her wacko fans many of whom seem to know little or nothing about golf. I trust her fans that know and understand golf will agree that is was the only decision that cold be made. She will be better off for it.

You can't possibly think that no one in this whole world, Wie Warrior or not, who would not look at that and raise an eyebrow at Bamberger would you? That's kind of a naive assumption--especially with the spectacular timing...Wie finishes her round and signs her card only to find out that she disqualified. Yes people can think what they want, Bamberger did it on purpose or he was just in reporter mode--but if one reporter out of hundreds noticed a violation that no one else noticed, you don't expect hundreds to call him on it when the timing looks off? Honest mistake or not, for both Michelle Wie and Michael Bamberger, no one gets away without scrutiny when the stakes are this high. If you can call people names (nut cases) for scrutinizing Bamberger, don't you think people ought to be able to call you names for scrutinizing them? I'm all for public discourse, but name-calling is kind of below the belt. Now where's the class in that?

Ty, thanks for the comment -- you make my case for me. You are deflecting the issue, which is the fact Wie made an illegal drop, as judged by the LPGA rules official, the proper channel for deciding these things. I have little doubt it was an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

The timing does not look off to me. As a sportswriter for 20 years, I know what it is like to be in "reporter mode." Reporters are concerned with getting their story out first and foremost -- and then you deal with other issues. The timing is a non-issue. It is far from "spectacular."

Besides, what does "timing" have to do with it anyway? A mistake was made, it was caught and reported, the proper action was taken. End of story. Move on. Michelle probably will. Calling someone "naive" is another subtle form of diversion.

As for my description of "nut cases," you only have to look at the comments of dozens, if not hundreds, Wie Warriors have made, at this site and many others, to see that that is an apt description.

I advise you to look at Joe's comment, above yours, for a reasoned and rational response.

When you call Wie-warriers "nut cases", you forgot to mentioned a nut case among your so-called coworkers.

Nut cases (Baldwin) draw nut cases to him in the first place. And it seems like you are becoming one yourself.

Have a nice day with your fellow nut case, Baldwin.

Amen, brother.

People taking Bamberger to task have no issue with him taking what he thought to be suspicious to the officials.

The issue that the "nut cases" as you refer to them--is the timing of Bamberger's reporting of the problem.

To his credit-Bamberger did tell the press that he did not think Michelle Wie cheated and that it was an honest mistake. However that does not excuse his poor decision to wait to inform the officials until Michelle could be disqualified.

Michael Bamberger is not only a golf sportswriter but a former caddy--he knows the rules. He cannot in good conscience talk about the integrity of the game when he himself sat on his hands with this information for a day and a half without informing the Wie's or the officials.

By waiting that long- he caused Michelle to be disqualified and by doing so got his name in the papers.
This did not have to happen at all since if he had reported it anytime between his suspicion and the signing of cards at the end of the tournmanet then there would have been no incident.

Bamberger is a writer tired of living in obscurity and found an opportunity to inject himself into the limelight -unfortunately he did so by humiliating a 16 year old making her pro debut.

Bamberger and Baldwin have much in common in that they are using Michelle Wie to get attention despite their mediocrity.

Man if going into "reporter mode" for this guy is waiting a day and a half to act on something he saw--then SI is in a whole heap of trouble.

As a fan of golf I find this whole situation bizarre. Here we have a reporter actually waiting for Wie to go to the eighth tee, walk off the distance from the drop area to the pin, considers it to be questionable, does not inform an official of his finding at the time of discovery and then uses the excuse that he was in "reporter mode". After he thought deeply about it (you know "the integrity of the game") he decided to let the officials know after the final round was completed. Since the video or the pace off were inconclusive the officials then used a string to determine the distance. I have followed golf for some 50 years and I never ever recall seeing this done before. To actually go out and measure the distance to make an official ruling. Where is the integrity of the game when this needs to be done.
Now if the reporter had told officials of his findings before Wie signed her third round card, he certainly would not have been well liked by Wie fans but he would have at least saved her from being disqualified. He chose to be silent until his conscience would not allow him to. Now I find that very bizarre!
Finally, they want to speed up play on tour, yet if players have to keep calling for official rulings play will become even slower. Let's not take away a player's judgement on where to drop a ball ("for the integrity of the game").

Tim, I guess this wasn't the column you originally meant to write!

But just look at most of the replies in this thread alone (along with the replies to Baldwin and skeptical posters in other threads.)

They provide all the proof anyone needs that the vast majority of the Wie Warriors -- at least the ones who post on the Internet -- are lunatic, venom-filled, foul-mouthed, paranoid, whiny weasels who need for Michelle to WIN THIS VERY INSTANT to validate their self-worth.

-George

Sheryl -- you are one of the "nut cases" I refer to. Bamberger did not "cause" Wie to be disqualified. She did that on her own, with her illegal drop.

You accuse Bamberger being tired of "living in obscurity." Do you not know Sports Illustrated is probably the most prestigious sports magazine in the U.S.? I would hardly call that "obscurity."

Interesting how you are able to ascribe all these motives to him. You must know him pretty well. I suggest you first take a look at your own motives.

George -- exactly. They need to validate their self-worth. Exactly the words I was searching for.

First of all I don't appreciate you calling me a nut case-- that just shows how classless you are.
Did I or have I ever insulted you in my comments prior? -I believe I didn't.

You need to read all my comments-- Michelle erred in not calling the tour official when she was unsure where to drop the ball. She made a mistake and I don't have a problem with her getting called on it. The problem is Bamberger waiting a day and a half later to report it when he had every oppotunity to report it earlier and with no incident.

This occured at the 7th hole--he had the rest of the day to contact officials yet didn't. There was a rain delay the next day, yet he didn't report it. He could have reported it at any time during the 4th round yet he didn't.

He never contacted anyone at the tournament yet surprisingly he found time to call his editor at SI to discuss the situation.

He found a way to get some publicity and he took it - and I'm calling him out on it.

Forgive me but I have never heard of Bamberger and neither has anyone who reads this website and I am a subscriber to Sports Illustrated.

Sheryl -- my point is, why do you and others INSIST on making such a big deal about the timing? There are all sorts of things that can explain why he waited. He may have wanted to consult with his editors, for example. He may have considered his being a member of the media, for another. He may have wrestled with his conscience. What difference does it make?

The fact is, he did report it, not to mention the fact he brought it up at the press conference that day, when Wie basically made a joke of it.

She made an honest mistake, she got caught, and she received the appropriate penalty. End of story. Why insist on blaming someone else?

Unbelievable.
The rules of golf need changing.
My understanding is that Wie called over her playing partner who witnessed the drop. If she was happy shouldn't that be the end of it?
Is there any other sport where such a ridiculous thing could happen. Waiting for her to finish the tournament is unforgivable.
I think that this will actually make Wie more popular. Go Wie.
I read a comment that the one person that would have been happy with this ruling would be Pressel. I'm not keen on Pressel but I doubt even she would be happy about this.
How can you go back the next day and measure where you think the ball was. Bizarre!!

Alan M

That was certainly one of the weirdest things I've ever seen in golf. I'm betting that a good percentage of these drops end up a little closer to the hole, but nobody scrutinizes them because they're not the "next big thing." I just don't get it. All those people were there. They all saw it. Honesty, if it were me, I would not have waited until after the tournament was over. I could even understand it if he reported it Sunday morning (which would still have meant a DQ), but to wait until after the final round??! That just doesn't make sense to me.

While I agree that Wie's DQ was fundamentally correct, I think there should be a more clear and more stringent statute of limitations on when a complaint can be filed. What if Wie had left by the time the LPGA started looking into this. Nothing would have happened then. Also, a less than neutral spectator, or in this case a journalist, can wait till the scorecard is signed and then reveal his doubts thereby DQ'ing the concerned individual. Another problem is that if every player requests a tour official for every drop and divot fix, each round is going to take 6+ hours, a nightmare for spectators and for TV. It is unfortunate that Michael Bamberger waited over 25 hours [actually, over 30 hours] after the drop to bring this to the attention of the tour. I don't think he was intentionally malicious, but at the same time, I don't think he's entirely blameless. What should have been a simple two stroke penalty turned into a DQ and a media hoopla. And who benefits? Not Wie or the tour, but the media.

Not a nutcase, jsut a consumer of journalism...

I was most disturbed by the idea of Bamberger creating the new and not just reporting it.

This behavior is rampant among bloggers turned journalists like Drudge and the rest.

Apparently Mr. McDonald feels a little drawn out by this sentiment, as expressed by the so-called Wie-warrior, and has chosen to attack them.

What a shame...

Comment from: Sheryl [Visitor]

** Bamberger is a writer tired of living in obscurity and found an opportunity to inject himself into the limelight -unfortunately he did so by humiliating a 16 year old making her pro debut. **

Sheryl, I'll focus on this part of your "reasoned commentary" to illustrate you and the other Wie Warriors act like loons.

First of all, would you agree that the Michelle Wie debut was one of the top sports stories this weekend? It probably would rank 2nd, at worst, only to the ChiSox going to the World Series for the first time in decades.

Plus, Bamberger clearly was assigned by SI to cover the event. Bamberger appears to be the only Sports Illustrated reporter we've heard of who covered this. And with only 20 golfers to cover, you probably wouldn't need more than 1 reporter per media outlet.

So, SI had to know going in that this would be one of their top stories of the week. They couldn't know ahead of time that Chicago would clinch that quickly, for example.

Do you REALLY think that SI would pluck a reporter "toiling in obscurity" to cover what they knew going in would be one of their top stories of the week?

Do you REALLY think the SI editors got together and said, "Hey, let's get Bamberger out of the alley he's been lying in for the last 10 years, clean him up, put him in detox, and see if we can get him to string together three coherent words and maybe we'll be lucky enough to extract a story from him about Michelle Wie's debut."

Riiiiiight. I'm sure that's how it went. They would NEVER pick an experienced writer to cover a big story like that.

In the real world -- one that you and the Wie Warriors don't inhabit -- Bamberger probably is one of their better golf writers, considering his prior experience and being a pro caddy. He already writes for SI. So he already has considerable notoriety among those who read the magazine regularly, and those in the golf world.

Plus, how do you know that Bamberger did not approach the Wie BrainTrust sometime Saturday and gave them his opinion about what he saw, perhaps giving them a chance to remedy the problem without a DQ? Some indications have surfaced that this did happen, but I definitely am not sure. I have no first hand knowledge.

Still, the fury against Bamberger seems to be a "shoot the messenger" situation. Bamberger is not the golfer who could not control a shot. Bamberger did not hit a golf ball into an unplayable lie. Bamberger did not drop the ball incorrectly. Bamberger did not sign a score card incorrectly. That was Michelle Wie and her caddy who are responsible for what happened. That's called personal responsibility.

Paula Creamer a few weeks ago outed her own mistake with the switched clubs incident. She took her medicine and took a DQ after she called it in to the officials. Unlike the Wie incident, no one pitched a fit. Paula and Michelle bungled, handled it with class, and moved on.

Paula's fans did not engage in some sort of fury about whether the rules are silly or not, or fair or not.

That's the whole point about rules for any professional sport. The rules are meant to be contrived, they are meant to strict and constraining -- because the sports are meant to be unique and distinctive. Football, basketball, baseball, hockey, golf, and so forth, are meant to bear no resemblance to each other. That's why each of those sports has very restrictive and byzantine rules.

See how easy it is, Sheryl, when you apply some common sense?

But when you and the other Wie Warriors go off your meds, life becomes all that much tougher.

-George

Tim--

I think why a lot of people are making a big deal about the timing is the timing was the difference between a 2 stroke penalty and a disqualification.

Everyone here would agree it would have been much better for Michelle had she finished 7th or 8th rather than being disqualified.

Every article I've read about Michael Bamberger has him quoted as "concerned" about the drop- if it was that important to him he should have contacted someone as soon as possible.

This whole thing is just regrettable because not only did his indecision cause Michelle this embarassment -it also took all the attention from Annika's amazing win .

The issue that I have with this whole thing is with LPGA. Think about it. Did Bamberger get a special treatment from LPGA because he is a reporter from SI?? Could I or any of you have reported the incident to LPGA and taken seriously? If the answer is a "no" then it's a big problem with LPGA and this incident. Mr. Bamberger is a spectator, not a LPGA tournament offical. When LPGA allowed his "suspision" (it doesn't matter how it turned out) and investigated the incident in this detail, LPGA must do the same for ALL suspisions rasied by anyone and anytime.

Circling the wagon around a fellow "writer" LOL Of course you would.

This fellow Bamberger interjected himself into the story as an ego objective pure and simple.
He is trying to pump his book sales which by all accounts are a huge disappointment.
Poor Michelle didn't realize the golf nazi was behind her waiting to pounce.

I like her, I cancelled my subscription to S.I. .... Long over due anyway.

George--

Why do you always resort to personal attacks when you make your points ?

It just cancels out what you're trying to say.

By the way-Bamberger has said he never contacted anyone in the Wie "brain trust" before this incident. He asked her about it during the Saturday media interviews but that was it.

That's the whole point of this mess--
Bamberger never contacted anyone to rectify this situation until it was too late.

He had the access to report this all Saturday afternoon, and most of Sunday and didn't do anything.

** Sheryl
George--

Why do you always resort to personal attacks when you make your points ?

It just cancels out what you're trying to say. **

Nope. Nothing is canceled out.

1. I see you failed to refute my point that Bamberger is likely an experienced writer.

2. If Bamberger brought it up during the media conference, he brought it to their attention. In fact, he brought it up in front of all the media. So it sounds as if he was quite public about it. Bamberger, from what you say, did not sneak around with a gotcha scenario.

The Wie BrainTrust had an opportunity to remedy the matter, maybe without a DQ, and failed to do so. They paid the price. How much they learn from this in the future is unknown.

And yeah, the Wie Warriors need to take a pill. Just read the venom, personal attacks, insecurity, parnoia and conspiracy theories that abound in this and the other threads.

That includes your own conspiracy theory that Bamberger suddenly became tired of his obscurity and cooked up a way to get in the limelight. That's not a personal attack, that's an observation. You are engaging in conspiracy theories.

-George

Imagine that spectators call/write in to complain about each drop or divot fix or adjustment a player makes in the absence of a tour official. If the tour were to investigate each complaint, that'd be a real nightmare.

"my point is, why do you and others INSIST on making such a big deal about the timing?" because any reasonable person would think it suspicious that he waited till after the tournament, over a day after the incident

"There are all sorts of things that can explain why he waited." and none of what he presented seems convincing, basically he said he was in "reporter mode" and then forgot about it

"He may have wanted to consult with his editors, for example." get on the cell phone, maybe 30 minutes, not 30 hrs!

"He may have considered his being a member of the media, for another." hmm, isn't that obvious? what's your point?

"He may have wrestled with his conscience."
does he have any?

"What difference does it make?" DQ vs 2 stoke penalty

Conspiracy theories aside, or Michelle's apparent lapse of the rules, this whole thing stinks. The game of golf and its rules are the problem. How ridiculous is it that a player can be penalized for something that is inconclusive. Even one of the rules official who oversaw this mess stated that after going back to video it was inconclusive. Now you put the player and caddie in a horrible position of guessing, one and half days later, to guess exactly where the ball was in the bush and exactly where the ball was dropped. If you guess wrong then you are DQ'ed. That is completely insane. Gee, I think the next time I see Alan Iverson travel in an NBA game I will call the NBA and report a week later. Heck lets watch an ESPN classic football game from 20 years ago and lobby for a holding call that was obviously not called. Unless something is conclusive you move on and I think that is exactly what should have happened. How completely arrogant on the rules officals part to measure off from where they thought the drop occurred. If you were paying attention I said "THOUGHT" the dropped occurred. The reason why it is so arrogant is because by my guess there were probably 50 drops made during that tournament and is anyone going to go back and measure them. As for the reporter, would he have done the same thing if it was Meena Lee or Jeong Jang? Would the rules offical have pressed the issue with inconclusive video footage with these two individuals? I guess we will never know but one things is for sure this stinks.

Tim - I saw a rules violation in the American Express event, can we go back and review all tapes? :) Seriously. I have no problem with Bamberger reporting this infraction but to me it seems odd that this is the only infraction he has ever reported in all the years he has covered golf events? Why is this? Can you honestly tell your viewers, readers, that in the many years he has covered golf (and you) he has never seen another infraction until this weekend? Did he get caught up in the hype around Wie and watch closer than he has for others? Honestly, what is your take on this? You have seen thousands of matches, do you ten to watch the "hyped" players closer? or with a bigger magnifying glass?

Just to be clear I am not a Wie warrior, I am not even a golf warrior. To be honest, I haven't even seen her play.

I find it hillarious that all these people are defending Wie. She is a professional athlete being paid millions of dollars, it is her job to know the rules. (along with her caddy) She is at fault. Unlike other sports, where rules infractions happen in every game (NBA, NFL,etc) golf allows a "spectator" to change the outcome of the event. I am not sure if this is good or bad? I do know that I reported to the NBA in 97 that Jordan had pushed Byron Russell to the floor and I had indisputable video evidence but they still gave the title to the Bulls....my book sales weren't even slumping.

This whole thing is just bizarre--

The actual video of the drop was inconclusive.

Yet they relied on an most probably inaccurate recreation of the drop to decide a disqualification.

Can't blame the conspiracy theorists on this one.

Victor, a precedent has been set for this nightmare. People are pointing finger at the wrong places. LPGA has allowed a spectator to question a play and changed the outcome. Integrity of LPGA will be questioned if next spectator's suspision is ignored. Yes, Miss Wie learned a lesson. We don't know about Mr. Bamberger's real motive. The bigger question is "has LPGA learned a lesson" from this to change the rule regarding who and when a non-official can raise a rule violation during a tournament play. Or, they will keep this biased rule..... (I called it biased because they won't listen to you and I).

A more measured article.. http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051017/APS/510170584 Bamberger's point of view.. http://starbulletin.com/2005/10/17/news/story01.html

I can't agree more with Jason.

The more I think about this whole mess-the more bizarre I think it is.

The actual video of the event was deemed inconclusive.

Yet the officials relied on Michelle and her caddy to recreate the event an entire day after and concluded based on this inaccurate recreation that she be disqualified.

The video is the ONLY accurate medium in all of this since it is the only tangible record of what actually happened -if that was inconclusive then that's that.

There is no way Michelle and her caddy could remember the absolute spot where everything was and for the officials to rely on this iffy information to disqualify her is just unfair.

Ultimately, this 'controversy' may actually be a good thing for the lpga -- more eyes may tune in when Wie plays, boosting ratings and purses which was what the lpga elders were banking on even as she turned pro.

Reporters aren't supposed to become part of the story. Michael Bamberger should be fired, period, especially with the timing.

And as a former journalist, I wouldn't have called it out. Imagine of journalists let out all the "secrets" they knew...

There's no question that given the way events unfolded, Wie had to be disqualified.

But there's also no real justification for the fact that Bamberger waited until after Wie signed her card to report it. What would have been a two-stroke penalty (or no penalty at all if Wie had been told to correct the drop on the spot) ended up in a disqualification.

We have to remember that Bamberger himself had been a professional caddie. He knew exactly what it meant to withhold what he knew until after she signed her card.

So, blame Wie for the bad drop, but blame Bamberger for poor judgment as well. Both did wrong, and neither person's transgression excuses the other.

Calisurf -- I'd feel uncomfortable responding on Bamberger's behalf. I don't know what he's seen or hasn't seen. But, yes, it is human nature to watch well-known players like Wie closer than you might others, especially with all the hype around this tournament.

I've covered a ton of golf and have never witnessed personally an infraction. If I had, I'm not sure what I'd do. Probably report it. Reporters are people, too. Remember, he did bring it up at her press conference.

I find his explanation about why he didn't report the incident til Sunday plausible. He had work to do, for one thing, which takes precedence. It's his paycheck.

He also said he took time to mull it over, apparently wrestling with his conscience. I can buy that.

These conspiracy nuts would have us believe he waited a day because he either wanted to make sure Wie was disqualified, or he wanted publicity. That is what I find not only implausible, but conspiracy-nut-minded, if I may use such a phrase.

This is a no brainer. If someone saw it that have to turn her in (we can have a long discussion about whether non contestants sould be allowed to turn someone in..but today this is the rule).

The field must be protected..that is the most important thing. Many great players have been DQ'd in the past (Paula Creamer called it on herself last week and was DQ'd).

This is a nobrainer, Michelle should have been disqualified (Hey I love Michelle-- but I love golf more). It may be a shame...but it is right.

Here is what I learn from Interviews regarding Wie's DQ:

After 3rd round, Michelle was asked about drop by same CNN reporter Bamberger in interview session and they had exchange of words and Michelle made the mistake by saying "seems link I am giving Geometry lesson" and eveybody laughed off except "him".

Do your homework, my friends!

As I was watching on TV, I wondered how she could be so deep in the brush one minute, and have a clear shot at the pin the next. A proper drop 12-18 inches further back would have obviously brought the brush back into play again. That's why they the rules officials measured so carefully. If I had done the same thing while golfing with my friends, they would have called me a cheater immediately. Don't blame the reporter for her mistake.

Tim-
I see what you're saying but--

It would not have taken Bamberger 30 minutes to report the infraction yet he waited a day and a half to do it. That is hardly interfering with his work since he was getting paid to be there.

He asked her how she figured out where to drop the ball at the Saturday press conference and she proceeded to tell him she used the triangle method. When he pressed her to be more specific she made a joke about feeling like she was teaching geometry. He didn't ask her any more questions afterwards.

That was the extent of his conversation with Michelle Wie-- he did not give them specifics of what he felt were infractions.

Nothing in that conversation would lead someone to think maybe she made a mistake, he merely asked her how she figured where to drop the ball. If he had said that it could have been an illegal drop to her or the officials then I think the whole situation could have been avoided.

That's why I don't believe it is such an implausible conspiracy that he waited so long to say anything--after all he was doing his media rounds this morning.

Hey, ask all golfers how they drop.
They all drop on the border line. Within a foot with no better is OK.
That most pro golfers do. Let me put it this way, golfer uses two club length, I bet they all mark a few inches longer. This is no science, guy.

I agree with Naoki on her statement:
"The bigger question is 'has LPGA learned a lesson' from this to change the rule regarding who and when a non-official can raise a rule violation during a tournament play." The "when" should be within a few minutes of the suspected violation. There are probably countless unintended violations done by veteran and rookie players all the time, and it is impossible to catch every occurrence. But if someone were to physically witness one (even if that person was unsure that a violation occured), they should notify a tour official right away.

This is a response from Robert O Smith, LPGA Tournament Official and Manager of Rules, from the LPGA website:

---Q. Was the spectator here yesterday or did he see it on TV and did either of you know the spectator?
ROBERT O. SMITH: I don't know who it was. They were here yesterday and they told us about it today. Unfortunately, what we like to do, if a spectator sees something like, they need to tell us because if they can tell us right away, if she could have played that, and we could have caught her in the tent at 18, it would have been a two-stroke penalty. Play golf today. But once that scorecard is signed, it's history. That's the unfortunate part of it. That's the sad part of this whole thing.----

Notice that he says once the scorecard is signed "it's history". That is very interesting to me, because if it is indeed history then its done with, you can't change it anymore.

Just my $0.02
Brian

Brain,

You are a good "history" teacher.

I totally agreed with you in this case.

Tim,
Please don't judge the typical Wie fan by the comments provoked by Baldwin's inflammatory gloating posts. I, like most Wie fans, felt the incident was unfortunate and perhaps motivated by the publicity it would generate, but am not overplaying it or buying into far-reaching conspiracy theories.

Claire - you're right. I'll try not to.

Unless there is something that has not come out yet the DQ is completely incorrect. The game of golf and its rules are very black and white. There are no gray areas. How can a penalty be access if the point at which the drop occured can not be determined exactly? The rules are very clear about dropping no closer to the hole but when all parties can not determine the exact spots someone is taking the game into their own hands and I think the LPGA should apologize for some very over zealous rules officials.

Thanks, Tim. There are millions of Wie fans around the world. The number of sniveling malcontents posting on these blogs you can count on your fingers. On one hand.
There's been a lot of criticism of Wie's parents. But what's clear to me is that they've raised a remarkable young woman, someone who's confident and ambitious but who also, despite all the money and hype, seems to have a sense of proportion about things. She's smart, stable, and is obviously loved by her parents no matter what. How about a little acknowledgement of that? I work with kids in my job and believe me, most kids who have less than a tenth of Michelle's talents display more than ten times the attitude.

I have a question. I'm not clear on this aspect of the ROG.

Was Michelle a dead duck as soon as she signed that scorecard for R3?

Is it a round-by-round situation whereby the DQ is applied as soon as a player signs an incorrect score card for any round?

Or does the player sign a cumulative card for all four rounds at the end of the tournament?

In other words, is it a moot point whether Bamberger called the officials immediately or the next day? Was Wie already effectively disqualified as soon as she signed that card at the end of the round? Or do they even have to sign cards at the end of every round?

Just wondering.

-George

Just to add to Claire's comments about Wie's parents which I agree with, I just read in the Boston Globe that Wei's father reached out and shook Bamberger's hand and said "no hard feelings" after the announcement. With all the stories about sports dad's attacking referees under much less stressful circumstances, that's an inspiration. I only hope I could take it that well.

Tim,
I'm not deflecting the issue, never once said Wie was right or what a horror it must be that she got QD'd...but I'd hope that by now you would acknowledge that Bamberger wasn't completely in the right either. While the timing may be a non-issue for you, there seems to be a lot of people who think it is an issue who are not Wie Warriors. I really don't care what Bamberger wanted out of it--clear conscience, notoriety, payback, etc., the point is that his excuse just rings hollow to most people. So there are people out there who are wondering what is going on, who are not hard core golf fans nor Wie fans, who think it is just strange. You can say people are jaded or whatever, but that doesn't mean their response is that of a nut case. The fact that you imply the only rational response is your and Joe's response is quite myopic when the world is so large. Whether you were directing all that to people you incensed and vice versa is not my problem. I just find it naive, yes naive, that the only rational response in your view is that everyone ought to move on without questioning all parties involved.

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).

Brit.

Classy move by Michelle's dad--just wish that Bamberger was that classy.

This has little to do with Wie and less to do with you or me. It's about Bamberger's role and 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.

Since the video was inconclusive--does this mean this whole fiasco was merely based on the word of one person??

This same person who wasted numerous opportunities to report the incident until the only consequence possible was a disqualification ??

This whole thing is a little too suspicious and I'm the furthest from a conspiracy theorist .

C'mon Tim-you're a writer and this does not pique your journalistic suspicions one bit??

I wish Brian and Barry Jaynes posts are much better and give insights than those paid-columists. Good job, guys!

** 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). **

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 eligible for DQ, as long as the officials found out about it.

-George

George,
I don't think it would have been a problem for anyone if he had said something between the 7th hole and when she signed her card in the third round because a penalty would have only been a footnote in the tournament. But what Bamberger did made the violation into a media frenzy, which had his name all over the place. Mistake or not on his part, it just seems suspicious to people.

I'm glad to see the Wie's were classy about the whole thing--

I would have chased Bamberger's ass all over Bighorn with my 5 iron and tried to drown him in that waterfall.

Golf is a game of integrity. End of story.

That being said, I believe the R&A, USGA, and PGA should review and revisit the rules regarding this situation. Michelle did inform her playing partner, Grace Park, of her intention to take an unplayable lie and take a drop. It is the responsibility of the playing partner to witness said action and advise if he or she thinks the action is not appropriate.

She took her drop and received no contrary opinion from Grace Park. She dropped twice and eventually placed the ball at the point it hit the ground on the second drop. All per correct procedure.

The reason why it was ruled she took an improper drop is because she incorrectly marked the drop area (placing her tee in the ground too close to the hole to define the area).

As a player I have made many a drop in this way. The bottom line is that behind the drop line you have a full club length distance to drop. Far too many times I've seen players (amateur and professional) that insist on dropping as close as possible to the front of the drop area. When in doubt drop well behind the line.

The fact that Bamberger (the SI reporter who is so well respected that he isn't even given a listing on the SI web site) would report on his observations the day AFTER observing what he thought to be an incorrect drop is in my opinion an interference in the tournament. Grace Park and her caddie were in the tournament and allowed to observe the drop, it was their responsibility to advise Michelle Wie and her caddie if they thought the drop was improper.

I believe the Rules of Golf for tournament play should be amended to specifically bar outside observers from participation in discussion of rulings that would affect the outcome of a tournament. We have seen far too many cases of TV viewers, etc. calling in to report from the comfort of their arm chairs. The integrity of the game notwithstanding I think the intent of the player(s) and participation of competitors and rules officials should trump all those "outside agencies".

Tony, no it doesn't really pique my interest. In order for it to do that, I would have to question Bamberger's motives, and I've said before his explanation seems plausible. Maybe that's because I've been in his situation -- covering a golf tournament with a deadline looming. Believe me, everything, even a miscue by Michelle Wie, is secondary.

Having said that, I have to admit I was a little troubled by the official's version of the "facts." They checked the spot of the drop a day later, and it was only an approximation. It was not a "fact" as he said.

Still, the way I understand it, if Wie's drop had been anywhere in the area, even in the vicinity of where she and her caddy claimed she made the drop, it would have been illegal.

Bambergers news making aside, I blame the tournament officials for their conclusions after the report had been made. Door wide open for some interesting complaints in the future after the race decided. There was no conclusive evidence that the drop was illegal and her playing partner and observers did not see a problem at the time. Unless conclusive evidence exists then Bambergers concerns are just that, and it should have gone no further. Don Human, MD

Tim,

Whatever happened to your story about Michell Wie being a good capitalist?

** Comment from: Kevin [Visitor]

I'm glad to see the Wie's were classy about the whole thing--

I would have chased Bamberger's ass all over Bighorn with my 5 iron and tried to drown him in that waterfall. **

Now you're talking! That at least would have gotten the Golf Channel to resume live coverage! ;)

-George

ESPN's Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser referred to Bamberger as a "snitch and something else that rhymes with snitch"--- now that more facts are coming out about this- I have to agree.

It seems the only people on Bamberger's side are the folks who never liked Michelle Wie in the first place.

** Comment from: Ty [Visitor]
George,
I don't think it would have been a problem for anyone if he had said something between the 7th hole and when she signed her card in the third round because a penalty would have only been a footnote in the tournament. But what Bamberger did made the violation into a media frenzy, which had his name all over the place. Mistake or not on his part, it just seems suspicious to people. **

But why would it be Bamberger's responsibility to try to fix Michelle's screw up? That's where he would have injected himself into the story.

-George

Bamberger's excuse of being in a "reporters mode" is ironic since he didn't report anything. He admitted walking off the distance right after she played the hole. That is called the "investigative mode" for those paying attention. After that you should go into "reporting mode" and tell someone. Clearly he had intent to use this information in some way shape or form or he wouldn't have paced it off and not said anything. Reporting mode....if this guy cared about golf at all and its integrity he would have told Wie's caddy at the next hole. I am going to make a bold guess hear that SI sent him there to cover Wie so I am sure he was following the Wie group on more then just that hole but yet he didn't say anything because he was in his "non-Reporting mode". During his next review at SI I hope he gets low marks for multi-tasking because apparently the guy can't chew gum and walk at the same time.

Well, well what do you know----

Michael Bamberger just happens to have have a golfing book set for release in 2 weeks---

HMMMMMMM

Very interesting Mike---he was the catalyst for Michelle Wie's disqualification for not informing officials until Sunday and now his name is everywhere in the press.

Hmmmmm indeed....

Verrrrry Interrresting......


Well I'll be the first in line to buy his golfing book--NOT!!

You guys should be reading George. He's making a point that renders all yours' moot.

The Golfing Life by Michael Bamberger --

The shortest chapter in the book --
How to avoid seeking publicity and underhandedness in golf.

The issue is if George would have gone to tour officals during the THIRD round rather than the fourth, the result would not be disqualification.

One can not argue that Bamberger did not wish to become a part of the story (as he did anyway).

One could argue that if he went to officals DURING the third round (as happened to John Daly during the third round at crooked stick) it could have been dealt with as lost strokes rather than a DQ.

Michelle committed the infraction, not the writer, but Bamberger had the choice of WHEN to inform officials (or Michelle)....

George A .. Bamberger did a third thing "Hey officals Michelle misplayed a drop yesterday and I saw it... sure I didn't tell her either at the time or before she signed her card... but I have t tell you now

Informing was the right thing to do...

Informing ON TIME would have been better

Sorry Gorge I didn't mean to insert your name for Bamberger's (ok maybe a little)

Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member]
You guys should be reading George. He's making a point that renders all yours' moot.

Tim,
George along with you, are still forgetting that Wie had no idea she had made an illegal drop. She even re-dropped to make sure it was ok. If she still didn't think the second drop was legal, she would have dropped again (it wouldn't have costed her a penalty). She thought the second drop was legal and no one questioned her or made it apparent that it was otherwise. It's not like she thought, "ok I'm going to sign this scorecard with an illegal drop and hope no one saw it." If that was the case, like I mention before, she could have easily dropped it again without penalty. She thought she played within the rules and signed her scorecard accordingly.

Brian, I don't want to speak for George, but I think his point is that if Bamberger had intervened Saturday, then he would have been inserting himself into the story intead of reporting it.

True, by reporting it Sunday, he still became involved. So he's sort of damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

The only way he could have not gotten involved is if he had said nothing. Apparently, his conscience wouldn't let him. I, for one, respect that.

I for one do not respect him at all, and I doesn't matter if he is a reporter or not. If a spectator that saw something he/she thought was wrong, then they should say something right away. I don't know why you and George are so stuck on him "inserting" himself. All the spectator needs to do is notfiy an official. What is the big deal with that?

I agree with Tim. All else considered, the DQ was the best case scenario. If allowed to pass, just imagine the caterwalling about Michelle's "preferential treatment". Better she learned it now anyway, than say, at the LPGA Championship (or at the 2015 Masters, hehe). I also thought she showed the composure and class of a future champion. At 16, I might have run bawling to the nearest tree, wrapping my clubs around the trunk, and not releasing myself from the branches until brought down by tranquilizer dart.

Let's all agree... Bamberger SHOULD have reported the infraction (the field has to be protected).

Let's also agree he SHOULD have informed officials on saturday when the penalty could have been addressed without DQ.

As his conscience was correct to compel him to speak up...it should not have selfishly worrying about whether "he" would be a part of the story...and he should have told officals on saturday.

There is no excuse whatsoever for the delay (in doing so he harmed Michelle without allowing her redress).

No one should attack him for what he did. NO ONE, TIM-- should commend him for when he did it

Wha's that old maxim... Justice delayed is Justice DENIED

He was both so right and so very wrong