Just last month at the US Open, the golf world debated the player code of conduct policy as Joaquin Niemann was penalized for his misconduct. This week at The Open, Bryson DeChambeau’s two-stroke penalty has reignited a conversation about the consistency in golf rulings. While the R&A has clarified that the ruling does not consider intention under the rule, Shortgun Start podcast analysts Joseph LaMagna and Brendan Porath pushed the conversation further, questioning whether the R&A would have made the same call on a different player.

“I do think a lot of other players, they’re not putting a penalty there. It’s not necessarily the LIV affiliation, but I think there’s, if Justin Rose is in there or Rory McIlroy is in there; I think it’s very unlikely the penalty gets assessed.” LaMagna said during their recent episode.

Fried Egg Golf analyst Brandan Porath agreed, adding, “I think we have expressed our skepticism that this was totally a penalty. There’s a lot of room between being a LIV bot shouting about grievances and suggesting that maybe the rules are being applied in a subjective way based on who’s on the receiving end.”

🤔 golf trivia

This Should Be an Easy One, Right?

01/10

How Many Shots Was Bryson DeChambeau Penalized in R2 of the Open?

2134

Oops, bogey!

But don’t worry, there’s still the back 9 to prove your high golf IQ

PLAY GOLF TRIVIA

As previously reported, a video review of Bryson DeChambeau‘s second shot on the par-4 fifth hole showed him taking several exaggerated steps through the fescue before playing his approach. The R&A officials ruled that he had improved his line of play under Rule 8.1. The penalty dropped him down the leaderboard, and he argued with officials for over 20 minutes, calling them “crooks” and briefly threatening to withdraw before agreeing to continue.

Despite uncertainty, R&A stands firm, sparking debate over bias in rulings.

These questions aren’t new. In 2019, Rory McIlroy faced a bunker incident during his second round at the Northern Trust. He appeared to touch sand while attempting to move what he thought was a stone, which turned out to be a clump of sand. After review, officials confirmed no penalty, ruling he hadn’t improved his lie or line of play.

Speaking to the media, McIlroy addressed the situation.

“It’s such a gray area, but the way the rule is written, it’s like 12.1 and then refers to 8.2 or whatever it is. But it says if there’s no intent and if you haven’t improved your lie and you haven’t improved your line of play, I’m very comfortable,” he said.

Since 2019, the rules have shifted. R&A executive Grant Moir clarified that intent no longer factors into rulings, making DeChambeau’s case stand out even more.

That said, this wouldn’t be the first time discussions around inconsistent treatment of tour pros have taken a turn.

A Precedent for Preferential Treatment

Last month, the PGA Tour confirmed it would waive its 15-event minimum requirement for Rory McIlroy. He was on pace to finish 2026 one start short of the threshold. Missing that number usually threatens the player’s card. But the officials instead invoked a discretionary clause built in for medical reasons for extraordinary circumstances. It highlighted how McIlroy had withdrawn, citing back injuries ahead of championships.

The discretion highlighted how exceptions are often extended to golf’s biggest names, fueling claims of favoritism.

The conversation around inconsistency is not limited to a single player. Last month, Joaquin Niemann became the first player to be penalized under the majors’ new code of conduct policy, docking two strokes after throwing a club and kicking a marshal’s flag during his opening round at Shinnecock Hills.

Fans quickly pointed out that in 2025, McIlroy threw a club at the 12th hole and broke a tee marker at the 17th at Oakmont—yet no penalty followed.

Similarly, other tour pros at the Open, like Jon Rahm, have been seen throwing their clubs at Shinnecock Hills as well as the Open. However, he has been excused with a warning.

DeChambeau now enters round three carrying both the penalty and questions about credibility. Whether he can overcome the ruling on the leaderboard remains to be seen.