By Robert D. Thomas
SCGA Senior Director of Communications
There are Rules and there are stupid rules, as college football fans and golfers discovered today.
In the BYU-Washington football game, Washington's quarterback Jake Locker scored on an athletic six-yard run with two seconds left to pull his team within one point of the favored Cougars. Locker flipped the ball into the air and joined his teammates in celebrating the score, only to be flagged 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct. That turned a PAT into the equivalent of a 35-yard field goal attempt, which BYU blocked.
So it's come to this. A rule that was originally put in to prevent taunting opponents nails a kid who drives his team the length of the field and scores with two seconds to go. The officials were technically right to call the penalty but it's a stupid rule.
Bart Bryant can understand the frustration, at least if the media reports are accurate. According to the Associated Press, "Martin Laird tamped down his own pitch mark on the fringe of the 16th green during the second round, which he was not supposed to do because it was in the line of Bryant's ball in the rough. The fact Bryant said, "Yes" when Laird asked if it was in his line meant Bryant was penalized because he allowed his line to be improved. Laird was not disqualified because it was not his intent to help Bryant, who chipped well over the mark."
I'm not at all sure why Brant was penalized. There are several decisions that seem to state that, in similar situations, a player is entitled to the lie and line of play when his ball came to rest.
Consider, for example, Rule 13-2/8.5:
Q: A's ball is on the apron between the green and a bunker. A's partner, opponent or fellow competitor (B) plays from the bunker and deposits on or around the ball. Is A entitled to any relief?
A: Yes. A is entitled to the lie and line of play (my bold face) he had when his ball came to rest. Accordingly, in equity, (Rule 1-4), he is entitled to remove the sand deposited by B's stroke and lift his ball and clean it, without penalty.
I don't see any difference between Bryant's situation and this decision, other that it was a pitch mark that altered the line of play instead of sand. In fact, the question Bryant answered wasn't whether he wanted it repaired, merely was it in his line. I assume that the Rules officials were guided by Decision 13-2/36, which essentially says that Bryant would have had to tell Laird, "Don't fix it," to avoid getting a penalty.
And, to top it off, Laird — the guy who actually broke the rule and asked the question — didn't draw a penalty because, according to the report, "it was not his intent to help Bryant, who chipped well over the mark." If it wasn't, then why did he ask the question?
In this case, I can't decide whether it's a stupid rule or one misapplied. Neither option is good. Maybe some Rules official can educate me — it wouldn't be the first time that's happened.
