2016 U.S. Open at Oakmont Discussion Thread

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I'm disappointed they did not go into more detail on the RO at the seem making the wrong call. All this would have been avoided if that RO had correctly applied the rule at the time and explained it to DJ. DJ wasn't clear on the rule and the RO has that responsibility.

I firmly believe Newell made the single biggest mistake(s) in that whole scenario. That's why I posted the video several times. He screwed up, big time, IMO. If a player told me "the ball moved" I'd like to think that I'd do a lot better job of determining the facts, what caused it to move, and so on. I wouldn't barely talk to the player and accept statements that were contrary to the truth (Dustin did sole his putter, he didn't address the ball, but addressing it doesn't matter anymore as 18-2b is gone, etc.).

Spoiler

This is off topic, and @Chris E, if you want to pick a bone, well, don't, particularly because you're so spectacularly off base in your recollection of things. I immediately and consistently called for Tiger to be DQed. I was the first to do so and played a big role in the events that followed, excluding David Eger calling in privately, but including the "media attention" they mentioned that evening in the wrap-up show, and then bringing Tiger in the next morning, and so on.

I am always a "get it right" kind of guy, regardless of the player involved.

And as I said, I don't care one way or the other for Dustin. The only player I truly dislike is Ian Poulter. He wasn't involved.

23 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

What does this add to the conversation? Bringing up old gripes from previous threads does not help anyone. Conversations are only shut down when posters start to get immature and attack each other.

Plus, @Chris E is quite simply wrong. I was calling for Tiger's DQ and I was calling for it immediately and first. I contacted rules officials, and had conversations with the press, and my tweets and Facebook posts were shared with even more.

9 hours ago, Chris E said:

I don't recall you with a 'let's get it right' position then, because if it was 'gotten right' then he would have been DQ'd for signing the incorrect card, for a blatant rules violation.

[saevel25]

Here is a statement form the USGA

Spoiler

The USGA wishes to congratulate Dustin Johnson on his victory and thank him, and the other players in the field, for their professionalism and grace throughout the championship. Dustin is a wonderful champion, a talented golfer and a gentleman.

Our team at the USGA has seen and heard a great deal of discussion and debate about the ruling on Dustin’s ball moving during the final round of the 2016 U.S. Open Championship at Oakmont Country Club. In addition to the explanations we offered upon the conclusion of the final round, we add these comments.

Upon reflection, we regret the distraction caused by our decision to wait until the end of the round to decide on the ruling. It is normal for rulings based on video evidence to await the end of a round, when the matter can be discussed with the player before the score card is returned. While our focus on getting the ruling correct was appropriate, we created uncertainty about where players stood on the leader board after we informed Dustin on the 12th tee that his actions on the fifth green might lead to a penalty. This created unnecessary ambiguity for Dustin and the other players, as well as spectators on-site, and those watching and listening on television and digital channels.

During any competition, the priority for Rules officials is to make the correct ruling for the protection of the player(s) involved and the entire field. In applying Rule 18-2, which deals with a ball at rest that moves, officials consider all the relevant evidence – including the player’s actions, the time between those actions and the movement of the ball, the lie of the ball, and course and weather conditions. If that evidence, considered together, shows that it is more likely than not that the player’s actions caused the ball to move, the player incurs a one-stroke penalty. Officials use this “more likely than not” standard because it is not always apparent what caused the ball to move. Such situations require a review of the evidence, with Decision 18-2/0.5 providing guidance on how the evidence should be weighed.

Our officials reviewed the video of Dustin on the fifth green and determined that based on the weight of the evidence, it was more likely than not that Dustin caused his ball to move. Dustin’s putter contacted the ground at the side of the ball, and almost immediately after, the ball moved.

We accept that not everyone will agree that Dustin caused his ball to move. Issues under Rule 18-2 often require a judgment where there is some uncertainty, and this was one of those instances. We also understand that some people may disagree with Rule 18-2 itself. While we respect the viewpoints of those who disagree, our Committee made a careful and collective judgment in its pursuit of a fair competition played under the Rules of Golf.

In keeping with our commitment to excellence in all aspects of our work on behalf of the game of golf, we pledge to closely examine our procedures in this matter. We will assess our procedures for handling video review, the timing of such, and our communication with players to make sure that when confronted with such a situation again, we will have a better process.

We at the USGA deeply appreciate the support of players, fans, and the entire golf community of our championships and our other work for golf – and we appreciate your feedback as well. We have established an email address (comments@usga.org) and phone mailbox (908-326-1857) to receive comments. We thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

We all share an abiding love of this great game. Let us continue to work together for its good.

Here are a few pertinent areas regarding the rule about the ball moving

Quote

During any competition, the priority for Rules officials is to make the correct ruling for the protection of the player(s) involved and the entire field. In applying Rule 18-2, which deals with a ball at rest that moves, officials consider all the relevant evidence – including the player’s actions, the time between those actions and the movement of the ball, the lie of the ball, and course and weather conditions. If that evidence, considered together, shows that it is more likely than not that the player’s actions caused the ball to move, the player incurs a one-stroke penalty. Officials use this “more likely than not” standard because it is not always apparent what caused the ball to move. Such situations require a review of the evidence, with Decision 18-2/0.5 providing guidance on how the evidence should be weighed

Here is why they gave DJ the penalty

Quote

Our officials reviewed the video of Dustin on the fifth green and determined that based on the weight of the evidence, it was more likely than not that Dustin caused his ball to move. Dustin’s putter contacted the ground at the side of the ball, and almost immediately after, the ball moved.

 

[Lastpick]

A couple of quick points that are of my opinion only.  First, I doubt that few if any of us knew the rule change about the ball moving due to one's actions around it.  Second, on hind sight, the official should have let DJ putt out from where he did and then checked that exact spot for any tiny imperfections in the green that could have caused the ball to move.  The touring pros are going to need to adjust their preshot routine around the ball when putting.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Lastpick

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Because he wasn't deemed to have moved the ball. There was no penalty and, I believe, he properly played it from where it lie. Since it barely moved, and he wanted the line to be on top again, he marked and replaced the ball with his line on top. But he marked the new position, I believe, per the rules.

Well given you said in defending the USGA's ruling on DJ that it wasn't windy and there wasn't an earthquake so therefore 51% or greater chance DJ caused the movement, what analysis was used to determine Wattel didn't cause his ball to move even though he grounded his putter too?  

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, Lastpick said:

Second, on hind sight, the official should have let DJ putt out from where he did and then checked that exact spot for any tiny imperfections in the green that could have caused the ball to move.  

Every green has imperfections. It doesn't matter. As long as the ball is at rest then the rules apply. If the green was so bumpy or whatnot then DJ would have struggled to keep his ball from rolling/moving when he was replacing it after marking and lifting it previously.

[Chris E]

7 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Well given you said in defending the USGA's ruling on DJ that it wasn't windy and there wasn't an earthquake so therefore 51% or greater chance DJ caused the movement, what analysis was used to determine Wattel didn't cause his ball to move even though he grounded his putter too?  

I believe everybody is stating the time that elapsed for Wattel. The line of demarcation for timing earthquakes vs player fault is not in the rules either. 

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, Chris E said:

I believe everybody is stating the time that elapsed for Wattel. The line of demarcation for timing earthquakes vs player fault is not in the rules either. 

Maybe they need to add that because it seems arbitrary and "golf isn't fair" isn't an acceptable answer when it comes to application of rules.  

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Well given you said in defending the USGA's ruling on DJ that it wasn't windy and there wasn't an earthquake so therefore 51% or greater chance DJ caused the movement, what analysis was used to determine Wattel didn't cause his ball to move even though he grounded his putter too?  

I really believe that it was never examined as closely simply because he was not a factor in the outcome of the tournament.  Was there even any video available for them to review?  I never saw anything.  The cases may or may not have been that much different, but the existence, or lack, of video evidence has been at issue in past rulings, and it will probably pop up again.  One player certainly can be treated differently depending on whether or not he is in a position to have the cameras on him for every act.

[newtogolf]

9 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I really believe that it was never examined as closely simply because he was not a factor in the outcome of the tournament.  Was there even any video available for them to review?  I never saw anything.  The cases may or may not have been that much different, but the existence, or lack, of video evidence has been at issue in past rulings, and it will probably pop up again.  One player certainly can be treated differently depending on whether or not he is in a position to have the cameras on him for every act.

It was televised but I agree they probably didn't care about Wattel so they didn't review it.  I believe all golfers should be scrutinized by the same number of replay cameras to make it fair for everyone.  

[70sSanO]

I think the USAG needs to watch a little more hockey...

"If the review is not conclusive and/or there is any doubt whatsoever as to whether the call on the ice was correct, the On-Ice Official(s) will be instructed to confirm their original call."

Since the On-Green Official ruled that there was no penalty, unless there was conclusive evidence that DJ did in fact cause the ball to move, the call on the green should stand.  I realize that unlike hockey, the video angles will not be optimum, but it is just wrong that in every other sport with video replay, a decision is rendered before play is resumed.

The problem is that in the quest to get it right, it will never really be right as there will always be situations where someone blew a call.  I think most people can accept a situation like that.  What isn't acceptable is when all video review has been expended and a decision is not rendered.  Waiting for DJ to show up to show him the review is stupid.  What is he going to do?  At that point Webster has not invented the words that would change the decision of the USGA.

My personal opinion is that if it would have changed the outcome the USGA may not have added a penalty stroke, since it didn't it allowed the organization to flex its ruling muscles.  Either way it would drive a USGA president to drink.

John

Edited June 21, 2016 by 70sSanO

[rehmwa]

10 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

It was televised but I agree they probably didn't care about Wattel so they didn't review it.  I believe all golfers should be scrutinized by the same number of replay cameras to make it fair for everyone.  

they should care about every player - one player moving up or down a stroke usually affects the income of several other players in addition to the player in question, rankings, eligibilities, etc etc etc

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

they should care about every player - one player moving up or down a stroke usually affects the income of several other players in addition to the player in question, rankings, eligibilities, etc etc etc

I agree with you but I'm told that falls under "golf isn't fair".  

[GolfLug]

Was reading a GC blog about Mike Davis' statement. What I am getting is that details notwithstanding, what people (not this board - seems to be a much more sensible and details oriented discussion going on here) are really mad about now (yesterday it was - 'they made him wait too long') is that USGA did not simply accept DJ's statement that 'he did not cause the ball to move'. Period. That they should have accepted it under golf's code of honor and the matter should have been closed right then an there with no penalty - with none other than Jack Nicklaus leading the charge. People are cancelling subscriptions and such out of spite. Just goes on to show that a large majority of folks are short on thought and long on emotion.  

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

Was reading a GC blog about Mike Davis' statement. What I am getting is that details notwithstanding, what people (not this board - seems to be a much more sensible and details oriented discussion going on here) are really mad about now (yesterday it was - 'they made him wait too long') is that USGA did not simply accept DJ's statement that 'he did not cause the ball to move'. Period. That they should have accepted it under golf's code of honor and the matter should have been closed right then an there with no penalty - with none other than Jack Nicklaus leading the charge. People are cancelling subscriptions and such out of spite. Just goes on to show that a large majority of folks are short on thought and long on emotion.  

I do agree with some of that sentiment, golf is a game of honor or it's not.  The players either self govern themselves or we have rules officials watch every stroke, anything in between allows for an inequity in the application of the rules.  

In Wattel's case they accepted his word that he didn't cause the ball to move but didn't in DJ's.  We're talking about millions of dollars so it's imperative from a rules perspective at least it's fair for everyone.  

[GolfLug]

12 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I do agree with some of that sentiment, golf is a game of honor or it's not.  The players either self govern themselves or we have rules officials watch every stroke, anything in between allows for an inequity in the application of the rules.  

In Wattel's case they accepted his word that he didn't cause the ball to move but didn't in DJ's.  We're talking about millions of dollars so it's imperative from a rules perspective at least it's fair for everyone.  

Yes, but they did not question the integrity of his statement. Just that he was ignorant of what all things are included in him causing the ball to move. Do they not have the responsibility of above all getting the final decision right???

Nobody including themselves (USGA) is denying that they waited too long to finalize a decision and possibly screwed up the thought process of some... FAR CRY from disrespecting golf's 'code of honor'. PLEASE!!!

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

Yes, but they did not question the integrity of his statement. Just that he was ignorant of what all things are included in him causing the ball to move. Do they not have the responsibility of above all getting the final decision right???

Nobody including themselves (USGA) is denying that they waited too long to finalize a decision and possibly screwed up the thought process of some... FAR CRY from disrespecting golf's 'code of honor'. PLEASE!!!

I don't know if Wattel was reviewed later or not but as long as both he and DJ were treated the same I have no issue with them not taking DJ's word for it.  

[ay33660]

22 hours ago, iacas said:

22 hours ago, ay33660 said:

IMHO if the USGA wishes to have an additional layer of oversight in order to get the rulings absolutely correct and therefore err on the side of caution then why have rule 34-2 in place?

I think the USGA would say they didn't make a ruling because they didn't have the facts.

That the RO didn't get those facts is his fault, and a big screw-up. That DJ misrepresented the facts is his fault, too.

I'm not speaking for the USGA, but I don't think 34-2 applies here because of the misrepresented facts.

and

22 hours ago, iacas said:

  Quote

34-3/1 

Correction of Incorrect Ruling in Stroke Play

Q.During the first round of a 36-hole stroke-play competition, a competitor plays a wrong ball from a bunker at the 6th hole and the ball comes to rest on the green. He then realizes that he has played a wrong ball and corrects his mistake. The competitor reports the facts to the Committee before returning his card and is incorrectly advised that he has incurred no penalty since the wrong ball was played from a hazard.

During the second round the Committee realizes that it made a mistake and retrospectively adds to the competitor's first-round score two penalty strokes at the 6th hole.

The competitor objects on the ground that the Committee reached a decision on the matter the previous day and that, as Rule 34-3 states that the Committee's decision is final, it cannot now impose a penalty.

Was the Committee's procedure correct?

A.Yes. Under Rule 34-3, a Committee's decision is final in that the competitor has no right to appeal. However, Rule 34-3 does not prevent a Committee from correcting an incorrect ruling and imposing or rescinding a penalty provided that no penalty is imposed or rescinded after the competition is closed, except in the circumstances set forth in Rule 34-1b. (Revised)

 

iacas:

You made the argument that 34-2 does not apply because 1) the referee did not have all the facts and 2) because the facts were misrepresented.

"I think the USGA would say they didn't make a ruling because they didn't have the facts.

That the RO didn't get those facts is his fault, and a big screw-up. That DJ misrepresented the facts is his fault, too.

I'm not speaking for the USGA, but I don't think 34-2 applies here because of the misrepresented facts."

I am not going to argue whether or not that is true as I do not know whether if this has a bearing on the application of 34-2 however under the decisions of the USGA handbook they do make reference to where a incorrect decision is made by the referee and how to proceed -

34-2/2

 

Referee Authorizes Player to Infringe a Rule

Q.In error, a referee authorized a player to infringe a Rule of Golf. Is the player absolved from penalty in such a case?

A.Yes. Under Rule 34-2, a referee's decision is final, whether or not the decision is correct.

The referee incorrectly ruled that Johnson did not cause the ball to move and therefore no penalty is applied and he should play the ball in the new position. Even if it is subsequently reviewed by the committee and they are of the view a penalty did occur the committee could have relied on the decision noted in the USGA Handbook that while the referee made the incorrect decision the decision stands and Johnson is not given a penalty stroke.

 

 

Edited June 21, 2016 by ay33660

[Lastpick]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Every green has imperfections. It doesn't matter. As long as the ball is at rest then the rules apply. If the green was so bumpy or whatnot then DJ would have struggled to keep his ball from rolling/moving when he was replacing it after marking and lifting it previously.

The point of doing a close visual inspection of the spot on the green is to determine if something other than the golfer could have caused the ball to move.  It would be to gather evidence as to whether anything other than DJ caused the ball to move.  When the ruling is based on coming to the 51% ruling, it does matter if there was a slight imperfection in the green surface.  I am leaning toward the conclusion that this was a bad rule change that should be reviewed.  DJ should not have been penalized IMO.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Lastpick