2016 U.S. Open at Oakmont Discussion Thread

[saevel25]

20 minutes ago, Lastpick said:

I am leaning toward the conclusion that this was a bad rule change that should be reviewed.  DJ should not have been penalized IMO.

The current rule is much better than before.

DJ should have been penalized because the rule was applied correctly. The USGA can not choose when to apply rules based on when it happens in a tournament or if the public opinion thinks it is a bad rule. As it stands the entire tournament was played under the same rules of golf for the entire duration of the tournament. That is all you can ask for by a rule governing body is to apply the rules 100% of the time as they are written. 

[ay33660]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

The current rule is much better than before.

DJ should have been penalized because the rule was applied correctly. The USGA can not choose when to apply rules based on when it happens in a tournament or if the public opinion thinks it is a bad rule. As it stands the entire tournament was played under the same rules of golf for the entire duration of the tournament. That is all you can ask for by a rule governing body is to apply the rules 100% of the time as they are written. 

I agree the current rule is better than before.

I do not believe that the entire field played under the same conditions though.

The television cameras were not trained on every player equally. I am sure that rule 18-2a came into play with other players and they consulted with their playing partner or the referee, obtained a ruling and continued play based on that ruling. Had any or all of those rulings been subject to instant replay I would suggest that at least one or more may have been overruled by the committee.

In Johnson case he obtained a ruling and with the agreement of the referee and his fellow competitor continued play based on that ruling. However because of the TV camera trained on every one of his shots the rules committee was able to subsequently review the situation and overrule the referee and his playing competitor and assess a penalty. The playing field is not level for every player.

The Rules of Golf did not contemplate the use of instant replay. They exist because the playing field is vast and there cannot be a referee on the spot for every shot and therefore it depends on the integrity of the player to call his own penalty and also to consult with his playing partner. The ability to use instant replay has changed the spirit of that in my opinion.

Ruling mistakes will happen. For all these major tournaments a referee is present with every group. Let him makes a ruling then let it stand regardless of what instant replay subsequently shows. This way the entire field is playing under the same conditions.

Mistakes will happen and accepting that is part of all sports.

The USGA does not need to change any of the current rules they just need to apply Rule 34-2.

Would there be this sh*t storm had the USGA simply stated that they applied rule 34-2 and accepted the ruling of the referee. To those arm chair officials that would argue that 18-2a should have applied the USGA could simply state that there was insufficient evidence to overrule the referee.

 

Edited June 21, 2016 by ay33660

[BallStriker]

3 hours ago, ay33660 said:

and

 

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.

 

 

 

Great post....this just keeps getting more interesting.  

For what its worth, I think it is totally unfair (and wrong) to make any claim that DJ misrepresented any facts....

[natureboy]

8 hours ago, iacas said:

What changed? DJ getting close to it and doing things. The slope didn't change. The wind wasn't a factor (there was hardly any breeze, and no gusts). Etc.

Same situation with Wattel other than the elapsed time. Of course you can't see from a video if Wattel was pressing into the ground with his putter. Whether or not he was, IMO his presence near the ball was more likely than not the proximate cause.

8 hours ago, iacas said:

I disagree that was the point of the video. The point of the video was to demonstrate how a squared shape behind a ball could cause the ball to move toward it, even with the wind blowing away. Either way, my comment stands: there was nowhere near the same amount of wind as a hair dryer.

The video was basically explaining this: http://howthingsfly.si.edu/aerodynamics/pressure-drag. Whether the air flows by the object or the object moves through the air, the turbulent wake is  formed and creates a trailing area of low pressure.

True no breeze and the movement of the putter does not equal the same amount of wind as a hair dryer. But the Open Championship intentionally keeps their greens slow due to the likelihood of wind so there's a relationship between green speed and susceptibility to the amount of 'effective' airflow.

8 hours ago, iacas said:

4% slopes, and even that wouldn't lead to spontaneous roll.

Likeliness to roll on it's own does depend on the stimp where the ball is resting.

Does progressive foot traffic increase or decrease the stimp on already fast greens? I've heard some pros use a description of 'crusty' to some greens later in the day of a competition.

6 hours ago, Lastpick said:

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.

I agree that evidence failed to be collected per the new rule. Even the experienced official may have been less familiar, or more used to the old procedure. The rule change has certainly achieved widespread awareness now hasn't it?

1 hour ago, ay33660 said:

Mistakes will happen and accepting that is part of all sports.

I think that's a good perspective to take into account, but many sports now also include ruling review procedures or challenge allowance.

Edited June 21, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Lastpick said:

First, I doubt that few if any of us knew the rule change about the ball moving due to one's actions around it.

I knew. Absolutely.

And many, many other people knew, too, because 18-2 used to have parts a and b. They removed part b, which was just about the ball moving after the player had "addressed" it. The current rule 18-2 is basically the old rule 18-2a, which has been around for many, many years.

So yeah, people knew.

7 hours 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?  

Asked and answered by the USGA. I'm not going to speak for them. They answered that question, and I've shared their answer a few times with you.

5 hours ago, newtogolf said:

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

No, that's not how I've used that phrase. I've used that phrase to say that players are not all playing under the exact same conditions. Some have a larger gallery, more wind and rain, or more TV cameras than others. Or countless other variations. You can't regulate fairness in all areas, and it's impractical to regulate even those you can like "every player gets the same exact camera coverage" because even that would be unfair - players would be playing with the cameras positioned at different angles: they'd still clearly show some things while being able to show other things.

5 hours 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.

The players don't always know the rules. They can be honest, but still break a rule.

5 hours ago, newtogolf said:

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.  

According to the USGA, it went beyond just accepting his word: they made a determination as well.

5 hours ago, ay33660 said:

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.

At this point, I'll just tell you to ask the USGA. I guessed at what their answer might be, and we disagree on whether Dustin misrepresented the truth. I blame the initial RO Mark Newell for not asking questions and making DJ demonstrate and all sorts of things, but DJ said "the putter was in the air" and that he didn't "ground the club" and Lee added that he didn't "address the ball" (irrelevant), and all sorts of things.

I wish - and I bet the USGA really, really wishes, and that Mark Newell really, really, really wishes that he'd done his job properly and gotten all of the facts, because then it wouldn't have been a thing at all, I imagine. I think they'd have been comfortable with his judgment call having gotten all of the facts, and worst case, it may have taken a minute or two for Mark Newell to look at the video with DJ, and the matter would have been resolved.

Ask the USGA. I wasn't involved in their discussions. I'm talking only about 18-2 and whether its as applied properly, as well as how Mark screwed up in his initial ruling. I quoted a Decision earlier re: how the committee can reverse their decisions. There are others, too, like a referee ruling that player A wins a match but really player B did and he is allowed to reverse the decision later, etc.

But ask the USGA.

3 hours ago, ay33660 said:

I do not believe that the entire field played under the same conditions though.

The entire field never plays under the same conditions. It's impossible. Clearly.

3 hours ago, ay33660 said:

I am sure that rule 18-2a came into play with other players and they consulted with their playing partner or the referee, obtained a ruling and continued play based on that ruling.

Two quick comments. The first is minor: there is no 18-2a. It's just 18-2.

Secondly, had Mark Newell asked DJ to show him exactly what he did and tell him when the ball moved, and DJ had done so faithfully, and accurately, and also been unable to come up with another cause for the ball moving like a gust of wind, an insect landing on the ball, etc., Mark Newell or any other RO would have been just and fair in assessing the penalty.

That there was video simply allowed those involved to see what happened. It's a piece of evidence.

But, failing the existence of video on other players, they simply use the best available evidence. The RO screwed up, and while the video was useful, it wasn't necessary. A RO could have still penalized DJ without video if DJ accurately demonstrated what had occurred.

3 hours ago, ay33660 said:

The playing field is not level for every player.

Again, it never will be.

Rory McIlroy hit his ball into a tree at Kiawah Island a few years ago when he won. Had he been, I don't know, some other guy, then he'd have been hitting three off the tee as the ball would have been ruled lost since they wouldn't have found it.

TV cameras, galleries, etc. can help players or hurt players. But TV cameras, it's worth understanding, simply show us what happened. They don't judge. They show us what happened. Just as they allowed NBC or whomever to tell the on-course reporters where Rory's ball was lodged in the tree, they allowed us to see what had happened - timing, actions, proximity, movement, etc. - to DJ's ball.

Cameras don't judge. They simply allow us to see what happened.

And the field will never be 100% level for every player. Even two players in the same group face different lies, different wind conditions, etc.

3 hours ago, ay33660 said:

The Rules of Golf did not contemplate the use of instant replay.

That's not true. They've added rules to consider things like super-zoomed in HD video (to the benefit of the players, even though they may reveal an infraction). The Rules of Golf have always stressed gathering the facts. Rules Officials are asked to consider and weigh spectator testimony, video if available, and any other facts available to them. Video is just a fact available to them, and something they must weigh in their considerations.

The Rules of Golf have contemplated instant replay by not excluding it and by stressing the use of all reasonably available resources to determine what actually happened. To get to the truth.

3 hours ago, ay33660 said:

Let him makes a ruling then let it stand regardless of what instant replay subsequently shows. This way the entire field is playing under the same conditions.

They're still not. Even if we limit it to this very very narrow set of circumstances… different ROs might rule slightly differently. We're human, and we're all a little bit different.

3 hours ago, ay33660 said:

The USGA does not need to change any of the current rules they just need to apply Rule 34-2.

You should ask them about that. I'd be curious what they will say. Seriously. I will too, but I won't be allowed to share what I find out. Not publicly.

1 hour ago, BallStriker said:

For what its worth, I think it is totally unfair (and wrong) to make any claim that DJ misrepresented any facts....

He did, because he didn't understand the rules. He said he hadn't soled his putter, or grounded it, or whatever. He had. Just not behind the ball, seemingly because he thought 18-2b still existed or something.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

True no breeze and the movement of the putter does not equal the same amount of wind as a hair dryer. But the Open Championship intentionally keeps their greens slow due to the likelihood of wind so there's a relationship between green speed and susceptibility to the amount of 'effective' airflow.

You're reaching. The wind at the British Open is often 30+ MPH. The wind on Sunday at Oakmont was substantially less.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

Likeliness to roll on it's own does depend on the stimp where the ball is resting.

I know the math on what causes a ball to roll on its own. (Learned that from Mark Sweeney a long time ago.) The ball wasn't on an area where it was going to roll on its own. Not even close.

That's not to say at a micro level the ball wasn't on an old ball mark or something so, within the space of a dimple or two, it wasn't on a 6% slope… but then why did the ball sit for two minutes before rolling?

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

I agree that evidence failed to be collected per the new rule. Even the experienced official may have been less familiar, or more used to the old procedure. The rule change has certainly achieved widespread awareness now hasn't it?

The old procedure (18-2a) was basically the same as the new procedure (18-2), except that the new procedure is more forgiving via the decision and it allowing for other things to have been most likely to cause the ball to move (like wind). In failing to determine exactly what happened, he failed in his duties as an RO. On a big stage.

---

Yes, absolutely, had the RO done his job, whether he ruled for or against DJ, this isn't really a story at all. Particularly if he had won by 3 or 4 as he did. If he had won by 1 and not been penalized, I'm sure a few people might want to talk about it (if they showed it on the coverage at all). But it wouldn't be the thing it is now, had the RO Mark Newell done his job properly.

I do hope @ay33660 emails or calls the USGA, and I'll follow up with my contacts, too.

@Rulesman, @Asheville, @Fourputt, @Dormie1360, @Martyn W… do you care to weigh in on 34-2?

[rehmwa]

Aside - One of the Golf Channel articles noted the hubbub started when someone called in about the situation of the moving ball.

Wonder if that's true or just another GC goofup.....they aren't famous for accuracy lately

[Fourputt]

To be honest, I'm split on 34-2.  I too feel that a ruling should be correct, but I also don't see why they bother to have a RO with a group if they are going to second guess him later.  It used to be the RO's ruling was the end of the matter, right or wrong, so they were usually careful to get it right from the start.  That was why we each had a radio when I was officiating, so that if we had a question, we could get assistance from the committee immediately.  I know that in this case the same option was available, but the RO was confident that there could be no issue with such a simple ruling.  As it turned out, he was too confident and failed to do his job properly and completely.

The only time one of my decisions was disputed, the player simply questioned my ruling that his act was in breach of a rule.  I actually called the RO from the next hole and he supported me, then when it was reported to the committee and we went back out on the course to reenact it, the ruling was still affirmed.  It didn't have any effect on the pace of play, but it did affect the ultimate outcome of the tournament, as the 2 stroke penalty which was upheld caused him to lose by one stroke instead of winning by one.

I feel that RO's need to be more cautious and follow prescribed procedure for even the simplest situations.  When that is done, then their ruling needs to be considered final unless there is overwhelming evidence to overturn it.  The real evidence against DJ was somewhat underwhelming, but in the end I do believe that the ruling was correct.  It would probably have been made correctly in the first place and been a non-issue if the RO had done his job and followed complete procedure.

[No Mulligans]

8 hours ago, Lastpick said:

First, I doubt that few if any of us knew the rule change about the ball moving due to one's actions around it.  

I knew about it because it was published as part of the 2016 rules change.  I read about it here, and a few other places ... probably golf digest, maybe an email from the U.S.G.A... not sure exactly where but I read about it several times.  I'm sure a lot of folks around here read about the rules change on more than one occasion also.

http://www.usga.org/articles/2015/11/the-latest--rules-changes-for-2016.html

[BallStriker]

48 minutes ago, iacas said:

He did, because he didn't understand the rules. He said he hadn't soled his putter, or grounded it, or whatever. He had. Just not behind the ball, seemingly because he thought 18-2b still existed or something.

 

Garbage.....my recollection is that he said "I did not do anything to cause the ball to move" -- this was his opinion and I am certain he believed that 100%.  He was asked two other questions -- one, "did you ground your putter behind the ball" -- he answered truthfully that he did not (and, BTW, please do say that whether he did or did not ground the putter behind the ball is not relevant -- it is absolutely relevant and, if true, would have been more "evidence" to point to the conclusion that it more likely than not that he did cause it to move).  He was then asked if he knew what may have caused the ball to move -- he said he did not.

He never said "I did not ground my putter next to the ball" nor was he ever asked.

Misrepresentation is the false representation of fact with the intent to deceive......I will stand by my opinion that it is both wrong and unfair to DJ 

 

[No Mulligans]

22 minutes ago, BallStriker said:

 

 He was asked two other questions -- one, "did you ground your putter behind the ball"

 

That kind of changes things regarding the assertion that Dustin misrepresented the situation. 

I'm looking for a transcript or a recording as I'd be interested in hearing the discussion between the RO and Dustin on hole 5.  I'm having trouble finding it.  Could you point me to a source?

[Missouri Swede]

21 minutes ago, BallStriker said:

Garbage.....my recollection is that he said "I did not do anything to cause the ball to move" -- this was his opinion and I am certain he believed that 100%.  He was asked two other questions -- one, "did you ground your putter behind the ball" -- he answered truthfully that he did not (and, BTW, please do say that whether he did or did not ground the putter behind the ball is not relevant -- it is absolutely relevant and, if true, would have been more "evidence" to point to the conclusion that it more likely than not that he did cause it to move).  He was then asked if he knew what may have caused the ball to move -- he said he did not.

He never said "I did not ground my putter next to the ball" nor was he ever asked.

Misrepresentation is the false representation of fact with the intent to deceive......I will stand by my opinion that it is both wrong and unfair to DJ 

 

Are you talking about the conversation on the 5th green or the 12th hole?  I don't know that the conversation on the 12th was audible on the broadcast.  

Here is the conversation, as best I can transcribe it, from the 5th green:

Quote

DJ (looking toward his caddie, Westwood and his caddie, as DJ moves off the ball): (partly inaudible)…I didn’t address it.

(a couple sentences back and forth—poor audio)

(Westwood?): It rolled that way, but you hadn’t addressed it.

RO comes over to DJ

DJ: Now my ball, before, my putter was in the air, and it was inside the ball, and it rolled backwards.

RO: OK. You hadn’t … 

DJ: No…

RO:  You hadn’t grounded the putt or anything? It just moved?

DJ: Yep.

RO: OK. Just play it from where it lies.

On the 5th green:

1. The RO didn't specify behind the ball or not. 
2. DJ wasn't asked if he knew what caused it.

8 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

That kind of changes things regarding the assertion that Dustin misrepresented the situation. 

I'm looking for a transcript or a recording as I'd be interested in hearing the discussion between the RO and Dustin on hole 5.  I'm having trouble finding it.  Could you point me to a source?

See my post above.

[iacas]

I've posted the video a few times. I stand by my recollection that DJ misrepresented things. He had soled or grounded the putter. That he hasn't "addressed" it is no longer relevant as 18-2b is no more.

I'll review the video later but the "transcript" above matches my recollection pretty well.

[nevets88]

Some good behind the scenes photos of DJ post win. I like the ones where he is watching the engraver, pretty sure most are going to go straight to the ones with his finance.  You also get an idea of how much facetime you put in with the media. But I'm sure he's a happy tired. Was he on the late night shows, early morning shows? Haven't been keeping up.

http://www.usopen.com/en_US/news/gallery/2016-06-20/behind_the_scenes_with_the_champion.html

[Papa Steve 55]

The other part of this is did they handle it correctly? I think they should have made a decision at the time. Told DJ your getting one, or if they were too uncertain to make a call, move on. Players need to know what they need to score on the last couple holes, it will affect the decision process. The only other comparable  situation I think of in another sport is when a winner fails a drug test and some poor soul who got a silver gets the gold in the mail a month later. Every ref or official in sports has to make a decision in seconds, or with in a couple minuets with video review. The USGA better figure out how to do the same because this is going to happen again.

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

You're reaching. The wind at the British Open is often 30+ MPH. The wind on Sunday at Oakmont was substantially less.

I'm not saying the average conditions (gusts) are comparable, just that there's a relationship between green speed and susceptibility of the ball to move. Even with slower green speeds adopted by the Open Championship and reduced slope on one green to account for the issue, balls moved on their own with 40 mph gusts from relatively flat spots.

The longer the tufts of grass around the ball at rest on a green the more of a stabilizing pocket it sits in.

3 hours ago, iacas said:

… but then why did the ball sit for two minutes before rolling?

Was it two minutes before rolling? When did he mark and replace it relative to when he started to address it?

The same question could be asked of Wattel's situation and I understand there is a consideration for timing in the rules that technically differentiates them, but I think what most perceive is that functionally they are the same proximate cause with one on a slightly longer delay. There was no other immediate outside cause for either situation. When DJ grounded his putter the ball did not immediately move. The delay for Wattel was just longer.

For all we know the underlying cause for both was the impact of a few heavy semis rolling through on the turnpike. Did the USGA have a seismometer and anemometer at each green so referees could rule out such outside influences and appropriately collect evidence? That's intentionally hyperbolic, but it's also fulfilling the rules direction to collect 'evidence'.

Personally I don't want to see the act of normally stepping in to address the ball and lightly grounding the putter on the green to create a penalty situation. I also don't want to see anemometers and seismometers being consulted. Keep it simple. Golf is hard enough and the rules complex enough.

If Wattel and DJ set up a ball moving scenario by marking and replacing the ball, I don't want to see players spending dreary minutes making sure they now replace the ball perfectly so no odd blades of grass will cause later movement if they sneeze. I don't want to see a cheater who may be willing to press the ball in a hair gain an advantage over someone following the rules. In terms of potential penalties, will lightly built players have a future advantage over heavier players on slick greens because the relative ground deformation as they step in to putt will be less?

I think more than the technical correctness of the ruling, it's this perception that most were upset about. It's a distraction from the display of athletic golf skill while favoring focus on relative nitpicking. The TIO situation was much more relevant to DJ's expected score. 

 

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I feel that RO's need to be more cautious and follow prescribed procedure for even the simplest situations.  When that is done, then their ruling needs to be considered final unless there is overwhelming evidence to overturn it.  The real evidence against DJ was somewhat underwhelming, but in the end I do believe that the ruling was correct.  It would probably have been made correctly in the first place and been a non-issue if the RO had done his job and followed complete procedure.

I wondered if the best scenario for this had been that the on-site ref had found out that DJ indeed touched the ground with the putter before attempting to address the ball then applied a penalty and DJ played a 2nd ball. That would have been technically correct and still have given DJ an out at the scorer's tent. But if he missed one of the putts that could have made the impact of the ruling 2 strokes, yes?

But the RO probably didn't see DJ's putter touch the ground (I think he was behind him). What if the RO had done a proper interview and DJ hadn't corrected that he had soled the putter before trying to address it? Without the benefit of a video close up and angle, would the ref have ever known? Likeley DJ didn't even consciously remember tapping the ground it's such an automatic routine for him and he was clearly habituated to the old rule.

 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I've posted the video a few times. I stand by my recollection that DJ misrepresented things. He had soled or grounded the putter. That he hasn't "addressed" it is no longer relevant as 18-2b is no more.

It's not relevant as a rule, but IMO his essentially innocuous actions stepping in to putt are what people find objectionable in the application of the penalty, and for me particularly when an essentially identical cause is absolved due simply to an interpretation of timing. To me touching and thereby moving the ball on the green after the mark is removed or making overt actions to cause the ball to move (stomping, blowing, arm waving) is cause for penalty, not otherwise.

Edited June 21, 2016 by natureboy

[Missouri Swede]

14 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Was it two minutes before rolling? When did he mark and replace it relative to when he started to address it?

As I watch on the DVR, we see him kneeling to replace the ball, and then they show Westwood on the side of the green for a few seconds (not showing Johnson replacing his ball), so this is an estimate:   About 23 seconds from the time he replaces the ball to when he places his feet and putter in a position to take his practice strokes.  He then takes his practice strokes (including whatever soling he includes in his routine) for the next several seconds continuously to when he sees the ball move at about 32 seconds from when he replaced the ball.

[natureboy]

24 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

As I watch on the DVR, we see him kneeling to replace the ball, and then they show Westwood on the side of the green for a few seconds (not showing Johnson replacing his ball), so this is an estimate:   About 23 seconds from the time he replaces the ball to when he places his feet and putter in a position to take his practice strokes.  He then takes his practice strokes (including whatever soling he includes in his routine) for the next several seconds continuously to when he sees the ball move at about 32 seconds from when he replaced the ball.

Kind of what I thought.

I suspect the act of replacing (along with green conditions) is ultimately what created instability of DJ's and Wattell's balls. Perched on an odd blade or two of grass that randomly releases due to deformation of the ground from their body weight and/or vibrations from the putter lightly touching the ground and/or lightly pushing some air by it with the moving putter. Each of which seems like a serious infraction of the spirit of the game. 

Edited June 22, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

I'm not saying the average conditions (gusts) are comparable, just that there's a relationship between green speed and susceptibility of the ball to move. Even with slower green speeds adopted by the Open Championship and reduced slope on one green to account for the issue, balls moved on their own with 40 mph gusts from relatively flat spots.

Okay. Cool. Relevance?

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

The longer the tufts of grass around the ball at rest on a green the more of a stabilizing pocket it sits in.

You should realize that most people here probably understand this sort of rudimentary physics.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

The same question could be asked of Wattel's situation and I understand there is a consideration for timing in the rules that technically differentiates them, but I think what most perceive is that functionally they are the same proximate cause with one on a slightly longer delay. There was no other immediate outside cause for either situation. When DJ grounded his putter the ball did not immediately move. The delay for Wattel was just longer.

We have different definitions of immediately. DJ's ball moved pretty quickly after he took proximal actions. Wattel's did not. Beyond that, argue with the USGA. You have a different opinion. Cool.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

For all we know the underlying cause for both was the impact of a few heavy semis rolling through on the turnpike. Did the USGA have a seismometer and anemometer at each green so referees could rule out such outside influences and appropriately collect evidence? That's intentionally hyperbolic, but it's also fulfilling the rules direction to collect 'evidence'.

No, it's not "fulfilling the rules direction." It's hyperbolic, and frankly, silly. Plus, no heavy semis rolled through when DJ was putting on the fifth green, which isn't even as close to the turnpike as other greens on the course.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

Personally I don't want to see the act of normally stepping in to address the ball and lightly grounding the putter on the green to create a penalty situation. I also don't want to see anemometers and seismometers being consulted. Keep it simple. Golf is hard enough and the rules complex enough.

This rule is not complex. Did the ball move? If yes, was the player most likely the cause, or was it something (could be plural) else? Simple. You use all available evidence, which does not mean that you're required to install extra evidence collecting devices. If a short time after your ball moves your iPhone alerts you to an earthquake 50 miles south and you felt the ground shake a bit when your ball moved, then you'd likely be quite justified in saying that the earthquake most likely caused the ball to move. Maybe that'll come into play at Torrey Pines some year. This year, the earth did not shake at Oakmont until about the time DJ made his par putt on the 16th on Sunday…

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

If Wattel and DJ set up a ball moving scenario by marking and replacing the ball, I don't want to see players spending dreary minutes making sure they now replace the ball perfectly so no odd blades of grass will cause later movement if they sneeze. I don't want to see a cheater who may be willing to press the ball in a hair gain an advantage over someone following the rules. In terms of potential penalties, will lightly built players have a future advantage over heavier players on slick greens because the relative ground deformation as they step in to putt will be less?

You keep pushing this "odd blades of grass" gag, but I'm not buying. Balls moving around happens very seldom. Consider that at Augusta National, with severely sloping and fast greens, we don't see it all that often, either. Occasionally, and Billy Herschel doesn't like it, but even there it doesn't happen much.

The movement has to be noticeable to the naked eye, basically. And as others noted, I don't want players being cavalier around their ball. I don't want balls rolling all over the place, either, no. But I don't think we've crossed that line yet. Maybe you do. If so, cool.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

I think more than the technical correctness of the ruling, it's this perception that most were upset about. It's a distraction from the display of athletic golf skill while favoring focus on relative nitpicking. The TIO situation was much more relevant to DJ's expected score.

You don't get to decide such (i.e. what constitutes a "distraction from the display of athletic golf skill") things in the middle of a round of golf. If DJ is deemed to have caused the ball to move, then he's assessed the penalty. This isn't the Stanley Cup Finals where penalties called all year are not called in the interest of "just letting them play."

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

But the RO probably didn't see DJ's putter touch the ground (I think he was behind him). What if the RO had done a proper interview and DJ hadn't corrected that he had soled the putter before trying to address it? Without the benefit of a video close up and angle, would the ref have ever known? Likeley DJ didn't even consciously remember tapping the ground it's such an automatic routine for him and he was clearly habituated to the old rule.

The RO screwed up. Big time. I've said this many times already. Mark Newell. No argument there.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

It's not relevant as a rule, but IMO his essentially innocuous actions stepping in to putt are what people find objectionable in the application of the penalty, and for me particularly when an essentially identical cause is absolved due simply to an interpretation of timing.

The timing matters. If you eat suspicious sushi on a Tuesday and get sick that Friday, you probably don't blame the sushi. If you get sick an hour later, you likely blame the sushi.

Timing matters.

I don't really care what people who don't understand the rule think about the rule. This includes DJ, who admitted he didn't understand the rule. It's a very simple rule. Yes, it requires some judgment, but the rule is very simple.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

To me touching and thereby moving the ball on the green after the mark is removed or making overt actions to cause the ball to move (stomping, blowing, arm waving) is cause for penalty, not otherwise.

Then participate in the other thread where you get to suggest another version of the rule. Of course, you'll have to define "overt actions" and a few other things, perhaps.

44 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I suspect the act of replacing (along with green conditions) is ultimately what created instability of DJ's and Wattell's balls.

The USGA disagrees. You have your opinion. I have mine. The USGA has theirs.

44 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Perched on an odd blade or two of grass that randomly releases due to deformation of the ground from their body weight and/or vibrations from the putter lightly touching the ground and/or lightly pushing some air by it with the moving putter. Each of which seems like a serious infraction of the spirit of the game. 

The ball moved due to the player in DJ's case, and Lowry's case, and not in Wattel's case, in the opinion of the USGA.

---

It has been said, too, but since this the U.S. Open thread I will say it again… It's a shame that this happened. It's a shame Mark Newell did so poor a job when he was called in on the fifth hole. That entire interaction, which should have taken one or two minutes, was instead dispatched in under ten seconds.

It's unfortunate because instead of celebrating a GREAT win by Dustin Johnson, who finally pushed the heartbreak of several failures into his rear-view mirror, and who hit some of the most clutch putts and shots in recent major championship history, we're talking about this stuff.

To that end, I'm done talking about the rules stuff, and will talk only about Dustin Johnson, Lowry, Furyk, Garcia, Day, Rory… and the actual competition that took place, not an RO's goof-up on the fifth hole that resulted in a penalty that, ultimately (thankfully) was irrelevant to the outcome.

Congratulations Dustin Johnson. With the monkey off your back, I suspect you'll have many more good chances to earn more majors.