Was Dustin Johnson treated fairly in the PGA ruling that cost him a shot at the title? Poll

Did Dustin Johnson deserve the two stroke penalty that cost him a spot in the playoffs for the PGA Tour title?

OK, 'fess up. You've used that ol' foot wedge a time or two, haven't you? Played "winter rules" in July? Ruled that big maple between you and the green is a manmade obstruction, since SOMEBODY had to plant it 20 years ago, thus entitling you to relief? Decided sacrificing an expensive Pro-V1 Titleist to Neptune was penalty enough?

Us, too, to be honest. But we weren't in contention for a $1.35 million paycheck. A $2 nassau? Maybe, but even then, probably not. Golf is still the only self-policed sport going.

Even so, does it seem fair that Dustin Johnson received a two-stroke penalty for grounding his club in what for looked more like a section of an off-road moto-cross track than a bunker at an elite golf course. The decision knocked Johnson out of a three-way playoff for the PGA Tour championship, eventually won by Martin Kaymer over Bubba Watson.

In discussing whether he'd grounded the club, a rules officials told Johnson that  "pretty much every grain of sand on the course" is a bunker. When he heard that, Johnson knew he was toast.

Yeah, it's the right decision under the strict interpretation of the rules. Players had been warned that all 1,200 or so patches of the sand would be treated as regular bunkers (so why they allowed fans to stand in them is beyond Starting Blocks' comprehension; you can't be a little bit pregnant. They're either bunkers or they're spectator areas).

But was it a FAIR decision?