Some of the rules are unfair to the point of being infuriating, but the 'breach' by Dustin Johnson defies even our own comic character at the recent USPGA championship and takes the top spot in the league of the unfathomable regulations for unfairness which borders on the inexplicable.

It begs the question, when is sand a bunker and not a bunker , for do the rules governing sand 'traps' not end at those which are identified on course planners or are those written versions of golfing GPS merely for the amateurs.

Whistling Straits is said to have up to 1,200 bunkers (more possibly if you were Dustin) so we can safely deduce that the course was not designed for any save professionals and hot-shot amateurs who both know how to keep on the straight (s) and narrow and are fully-versed (as they surely will be now) with the rules, such as those seemingly peculiar to just one course when the builder wished to incorporate features from leading Irish courses but no-one told him he did not have to add all the bunkers in all of them and transfer the total number to his dream.

The notice posted for the benefit of the players, and apparently not read by a number, said "all areas of the course which were designed and built as sand bunkers will be played as bunkers…" but what the course PGA and staff forgot was to tell the spectators that they could not, as on any other course, trample bunkers and that is exactly did, but they too could not recognise insignificant-looking patches of sand as official bunkers, but if it was open terrain then surely it should have been outside the bunker rules.

Doubtless the Straits, through an owner who wanted to construct something out of the ordinary in a bid to draw image and reputation, has probably caused something of a sandstorm (sic) in the game, if not only in the US then over here where the R and A will arguably not wish to welcome any new courses (hardly in our fiscal climate anyway) with any more than the average number of bunkers.

The Straits has undoubtedly caused us over here to examine how we address 'sand' on coastal courses, that is sand beyond the defined and recognised bunkers and which now could cause the average duffer to fear grounding his club well off the centre line beyond which so many of us stray on any average day.

The Rules of Golf describe a bunker as "a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like."

That definition, from what we ignorant duffers could see on television and from pictures of the course in the media, hardly extended to Johnson's predicament and the local rules gurus have some explaining to do as to how they arrived at scrub-like terrain taken to be covered by the bunker-sand rule, but then a little authority caused such grief to one player and celebration to another. The gods givith and the gods taketh away.

Just how did they make almost global sand a 'bunker' rule in Wisconsin is beyond many club players who have never seen as much sand beyond a beach or will ever face Whistler problems for it is a once-off course built by an ego-tripper who wanted something to set his headstone apart from ordinary course owners/designers.

He has succeeded, but not in the way he might have wished and it's doubtful if he'll pay the bills from amateur green fees for who other than the single figure brigade would want to go for an afternoon over sand and in Johnson's case patches trampled by the spectators.

Apparently the administrators did not consider the consequence of the unusual Straits topography for the definition of bunker/sand (is sand a grounding peril beyond designed bunkers?) was a new step in course design and one for which they obviously were not prepared and oddly the competitors not questioning either, even though they were apparently 'warned' that grounding in sand carried a penalty.

Considering that the course in question is not considered a links in its true meaning, but a manmade edition of (170,000 truck loads of if we are to believe varying media figures) sure even spillage during construction would have deposited sand in unlikely areas and not even in quantity to introduce rules governing bunkers and the one which probably denied Dustin the PGA title hardly falls under the R and A definition of 'bunker' and I cannot find any reference to 'sand' beyond designed bunkers in the paragraph relating to 'penalty ground.'

Doubtless the Johnson situation will, if not already, cause clashes of opinion in the corridors of influence, on both sides of the Atlantic, and conclaves of the learned who must see the foolishness of 'passing' an almost sand-locked course on the edge of a lake for God's sake where sand should have been a foreign material save for that in a normal number of bunkers.

Even believing the players were forewarned of the perils of the sand did they mean that players had to be prepared to play on spectator-trampled terrain, and on sand which any golfer would expect to be off limits to the fans and thus protected zones. Only the cynical will shout that players should not have been there in the first place. All ye off 18-plus stand up.

If the instruction was to govern sand beyond designed traps would players not be entitled to, or advised of, that rakes would be provided to give similar fair play to those falling into that was ridiculously termed bunkers?

We duffers trust the gurus might address a few other questionable 'rules' in somewhat more depth than they did the Straights situation, and by that I draw attention to two of the most ridiculous regulations in that the wee R and A booklet

The two which spoil my sleep are, one, prevention of players repairing foot damage (spike and stud dragging) on greens when plug marks may be addressed, and even more aggravating the forcing of players to play from the divot marks of the ignorant and indifferent (a scourge on Spanish holiday courses where etiquette is taken as some foreign language and often greens pock-marked like a map of the moon).

The number of divots taken on many Irish courses, and particularly during the summer rush, is grossly unfair to those whose shots land in the indentions and restrict a fair shot forward, generally to green. The word relief is bandied about in golf, so how does it apply to players penalised by the carelessness, indifference or indeed sheer ignorance of others and with possibly a detrimental effect on a promising score?

One snide answer I have got to the same query was to blame birds or course creatures (not human mind you) when a sensible course would be to treat drag marks and divots with the same attention given to flooded bunkers, GUR and plug marks. Is that asking too much? Consider that many of us plebs (golfing ability of course) have graduated from within the chalk of contact sports, and are well versed in the confusion of poor and complicated rules (GAA) and laws (rugby), but please R and A, save us from taking up the more sedentary activity and having to wrestle with an even more complicated set of regulations.

While at it perhaps the seers in the leather armchairs, cushioning G and Ts, might address the breaches of 'amateur' regulations (overseas finals/holidays?) before tackling other areas which need redress with even greater urgency.

Is there nothing simple in life?

- Paul Donaghy