2016 U.S. Open at Oakmont Discussion Thread

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, xcott said:

Off the top of my head I can't think of a negative of allowing a player to replace a ball which was not moved via stroke on the green. 

That's the problem. You're not going any deeper than "off the top of my head."

 

[mvmac]

1 hour ago, coachjimsc said:

So in essence, the USGA is calling DJ a liar 51% of the time. 

No they aren't because DJ didn't understand that you don't have to address the ball in order to cause it to move.

1 hour ago, coachjimsc said:

My question is, why didn't they just penalize him immediately if no matter what he said after the round made no difference in their decision?

Because the walking official didn't do his job properly. He didn't ask the right questions and make sure DJ was clear on the rule.

I also think they just wanted to give him an opportunity to discuss things further, explain the details of the rule to him and double check to see if something else (wind) could have caused the ball to move.

 

At the end of the day the USGA got the ruling right, the walking official screwed up, it would have also helped for DJ to have a better understanding of the rule. People are pissed off and should be frustrated with how things manifested. What I'm surprised at is how upset people are. Saying the USGA ruined the US Open forever, will not be renewing their USGA membership, the PGA Tour should have their own rules. I think people just don't like "rules people" and like @iacas brought up, they had an opportunity to secretly "let it go" and people see them pursuing the correct ruling as unfair, unsportsmanlike or even vindictive. The USGA is there to uphold the Rules of Golf, they don't have an agenda to screw players or make fans unhappy.

[tdiii]

The ruling is not right.  Dustin did not cause the ball to move.  There is not even 51% evidence that he "caused" the ball to move.  There was wind, gravity, other people's voices, shadows, and several explanations beyond Dustin.  The delay between his interaction with the ground near the ball and the ball's movement shows, in fact, that he did not cause the ball to move. 

And then, if one takes a step back, and thinks was the field at all disadvantaged by the ball wobbling back one dimple?  Of course it was not.

So, the rule was not broken, and the policy for the rule (protecting the field) was not in question. 

The USGA looks stupid to any commonsense fan.  Another reason for folks to hate golf. 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, tdiii said:

The ruling is not right.  Dustin did not cause the ball to move.  There is not even 51% evidence that he "caused" the ball to move.  There was wind, gravity, other people's voices, shadows, and several explanations beyond Dustin.

There was no wind at the time. The ball did not move for quite a long time (gravity is fairly constant…), and only moved when Dustin took actions very proximal in time and distance to the golf ball. Shadows and voices did not cause the ball to move.

The only reasonable conclusion is that DJ caused the ball to move… at least to 51%+ certainty.

4 minutes ago, tdiii said:

The delay between his interaction with the ground near the ball and the ball's movement shows, in fact, that he did not cause the ball to move.

The delay was incredibly short. And you don't know when the ball started moving - it started pretty quickly because DJ saw it and pulled his putter back.

4 minutes ago, tdiii said:

And then, if one takes a step back, and thinks was the field at all disadvantaged by the ball wobbling back one dimple?  Of course it was not.

You can not base rules like this on whether someone is advantaged/disadvantaged.

4 minutes ago, tdiii said:

So, the rule was not broken, and the policy for the rule (protecting the field) was not in question.

Nobody I've talked to who knows the Rules of Golf very well at all has said that they'd have not penalized DJ in that instance. Now, nobody was 100% certain, or even 90%. But they were all > 50%, and that's what's required.

[70sSanO]

I haven't read all of the posts, but I have read a number of them.  Has anyone done any scientific analysis of the probability that the ball would only move a millimeter with "any" contact with the putter based on the slope, speed, and direction of the blades of grass of the green and the speed of the putter?

If you can't touch the ball even the faintest amount and keep it from moving "more" than the amount the ball moved you have your answer.  No more peeling over HD video or frame by frame or trying to guess if DJ moved the ball and believing this or that.  Just work out the physics to see if it is even possible for a ball to only move that amount.  Or was it just a blade of grass settling.

In light of Diana Murphy, I would not be surprised that no one at the USGA would have any clue how to do this.

John

[tdiii]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

There was no wind at the time. The ball did not move for quite a long time (gravity is fairly constant…), and only moved when Dustin took actions very proximal in time and distance to the golf ball. Shadows and voices did not cause the ball to move.

The only reasonable conclusion is that DJ caused the ball to move… at least to 51%+ certainty.

The delay was incredibly short. And you don't know when the ball started moving - it started pretty quickly because DJ saw it and pulled his putter back.

You can not base rules like this on whether someone is advantaged/disadvantaged.

Nobody I've talked to who knows the Rules of Golf very well at all has said that they'd have not penalized DJ in that instance. Now, nobody was 100% certain, or even 90%. But they were all > 50%, and that's what's required.

Yes.  There was a breeze. 

Voices cause vibrations.  People walking around a green cause vibrations.  Trains going by on nearby tracks cause vibrations.  Yes, I was being silly about shadows.

You contradict yourself:  "only reasonable conclusion" and then "at least to 51%".  Which is it?

I don't know when the ball started moving?  You don't either.  You have no evidence that it started the moment he either laid the putter down or removed it. 

All laws and rules are put in place to forward certain policies.  The rules of golf serve to level the playing field. 

I'm not impressed that nobody you've talked to thinks there should not have been a penalty.  The call to higher authority does not make an argument any better. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by tdiii

[Gunther]

Does anyone find it ironic that under the old rule, that got so much ridicule, DJ would not have been assessed a penalty because he didn't ground his putter behind the ball?  

They changed the rule to ostensibly provide more leeway in the interpretation of these situations and which would theoretically more often than not, help the player.  Under the new rule, as it is now written, it was a penalty.  

Golf is a fkd up game (I say that with all due love and respect).

[mvmac]

3 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Yes.  There was a breeze. 

Well DJ would disagree with you 

3 minutes ago, tdiii said:

I don't know when the ball started moving?  You don't either.  You have no evidence that it started the moment he either laid the putter down or removed it. 

Just watch the video, it moved after he grounded his putter and was about the ball the ball.

4 minutes ago, tdiii said:

You contradict yourself:  "only reasonable conclusion" and then "at least to 51%".  Which is it?

Because of the timing of when the ball moved, DJ's proximity to the ball, it more than likely that he caused it to move.

[tdiii]

2 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Well DJ would disagree with you 

Just watch the video, it moved after he grounded his putter and was about the ball the ball.

Because of the timing of when the ball moved, DJ's proximity to the ball, it more than likely that he caused it to move.

HE was asked about wind, not breeze

"and was about . ..  "  In other words, at a time when he wasn't interacting with the ball.

No it is not.  It is more likely than not that gravity, breeze, passing trains, loud noises, and bad luck combined to cause the ball to shift one dimple away from the hole. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by tdiii

[70sSanO]

Where are Jamie and Adam from MythBusters when you need them?

John

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Yes. There was a breeze.

:sigh: I was there. Describing it as even a "breeze" is over-stating it.

Regardless, at the end of the day, they consider all of the factors and determine which is most likely. DJ is most likely to have caused the ball to move.

10 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Voices cause vibrations. People walking around a green cause vibrations.

None of which were really happening with any magnitude at the time the ball moved, or proximal to that time. DJ was closer. You can't tell me "people walking around" cause vibrations and then disregard DJ swinging his putter back and forth and soling it on the ground don't cause vibrations (bigger ones, more likely) or little breezes of air, too.

10 minutes ago, tdiii said:

You contradict yourself:  "only reasonable conclusion" and then "at least to 51%".  Which is it?

That's not a contradiction. And I said "The only reasonable conclusion is that DJ caused the ball to move… at least to 51%+ certainty."

10 minutes ago, tdiii said:

I don't know when the ball started moving?  You don't either.  You have no evidence that it started the moment he either laid the putter down or removed it.

Sure I do. I have video. I have Dustin's reaction and statements.

10 minutes ago, tdiii said:

I'm not impressed that nobody you've talked to thinks there should not have been a penalty.  The call to higher authority does not make an argument any better. 

You've yet to make an actual argument.

7 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Does anyone find it ironic that under the old rule, that got so much ridicule, DJ would not have been assessed a penalty because he didn't ground his putter behind the ball?

Yes he would have.

http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules2012.html#1802

18-2a is basically the current 18-2 with the added 0.5 decision. 18-2b is what went away. He'd have still been penalized.

7 minutes ago, Gunther said:

They changed the rule to ostensibly provide more leeway in the interpretation of these situations and which would theoretically more often than not, help the player.  Under the new rule, as it is now written, it was a penalty.

That is incorrect.

[70sSanO]

5 minutes ago, tdiii said:

It is more likely than not that gravity, breeze, passing trains, loud noises, and bad luck combined to cause the ball to shift one dimple away from the hole. 

The Caddyshack defense!

John

[tdiii]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

:sigh: I was there. Describing it as even a "breeze" is over-stating it.

Regardless, at the end of the day, they consider all of the factors and determine which is most likely. DJ is most likely to have caused the ball to move.

None of which were really happening with any magnitude at the time the ball moved, or proximal to that time. DJ was closer. You can't tell me "people walking around" cause vibrations and then disregard DJ swinging his putter back and forth and soling it on the ground don't cause vibrations (bigger ones, more likely) or little breezes of air, too.

That's not a contradiction. And I said "The only reasonable conclusion is that DJ caused the ball to move… at least to 51%+ certainty."

Sure I do. I have video. I have Dustin's reaction and statements.

You've yet to make an actual argument.

Yes he would have.

http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules2012.html#1802

18-2a is basically the current 18-2 with the added 0.5 decision. 18-2b is what went away. He'd have still been penalized.

That is incorrect.

You were there on 5 standing next to Dustin? No you weren't.  You claim a putter waving next to a ball causes a breeze that could move a ball but then assert there was no wind. You are wrong. 

Yes, they consider all the factors and, if they did so properly, it was more likely that other factors caused the movement.

Yes, It is a contradiction. 

Show me the ball moving immediately after he moved his putter.  There was a delay.  And you know it based on your earlier comment.

Not sure what you mean by I haven't make an argument.  I have.  He did not cause the ball to move -- there are more possible explanations for outside influences causing the move.

 

[Gunther]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes he would have.

http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules2012.html#1802

18-2a is basically the current 18-2 with the added 0.5 decision. 18-2b is what went away. He'd have still been penalized.

That is incorrect.

I read it but I think the common interpretation of being the cause of movement was grounding the club behind.  Perhaps strictly speaking, it would have been a violation, but I don't think it would have been assessed, which is why DJ lifted his club upon addressing it before grounding.  He thought he was safe and under the old interpretation I believe he would have been.

On the other, ok, that was my understanding.

[MrDC]

He caused the ball to move, that's obvious, it was probably sitting on the edge of a slight indentation, maybe a fixed pitch mark, and when he grounded his club near the ball it thumped just enough to cause it to fall into the groove, it's just that simple IMO, and he knows it.

My problem with this whole thing is that exact movement probably happens a 100 times in a tournament, but nobody is going to say anything- because it's a silly rule! the ball should have to really rotate, and that goes for anywhere on the course, let's say at least half a rotation before an infraction is even considered, but this? dumb, just play on, the 1mm oscillation had zero impact on the play.

Edited June 20, 2016 by MrDC

[tdiii]

17 minutes ago, 70sSanO said:

The Caddyshack defense!

John

Good point.  A gopher could have been digging around under there too. 

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, tdiii said:

You were there on 5 standing next to Dustin? No you weren't. You claim a putter waving next to a ball causes a breeze that could move a ball but then assert there was no wind. You are wrong.

You don't know where I was.

I'm saying that DJ caused the ball to move, and you've yet to demonstrate otherwise. How you get "you are wrong" out of that, I don't know. It's you who has yet to demonstrate anything.

The rule was applied properly.

28 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Yes, they consider all the factors and, if they did so properly, it was more likely that other factors caused the movement.

No, it wasn't more likely.

Hey, I like this method of argument! You just keep repeating yourself and hope it sticks! Is that how we're going about it now?

28 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Yes, It is a contradiction. 

It isn't!

Oooh, is it working? Maybe I should do it more.

It isn't.

It isn't. It isn't. It isn't. It isn't.

Did I win yet?

28 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Show me the ball moving immediately after he moved his putter.  There was a delay.  And you know it based on your earlier comment.

Define "immediately." And tell me what else caused his ball to move? The rule was applied correctly. DJ caused the ball to move.

Here's how it looks; Factors that Could have Caused the Ball to Move:

• DJ waving his putter back and forth within a second or so of the ball moving.
• DJ soling his putter once or twice within a second or so of the ball moving.
• The wind (really wasn't any at the time)
• The slope (the ball wasn't on an appreciable slope - balls roll off at about 5.5% at stimp 13).
• Casper the Friendly Ghost?

When you consider the factors that could have caused the ball to move, DJ is most likely to have caused the ball to move.

28 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Not sure what you mean by I haven't make an argument.  I have.  He did not cause the ball to move -- there are more possible explanations for outside influences causing the move.

You haven't provided an argument to the contrary.

23 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I read it but I think the common interpretation of being the cause of movement was grounding the club behind.

It isn't. Rule 18-2a essentially became rule 18-2. 18-2b was dropped.

23 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Perhaps strictly speaking, it would have been a violation, but I don't think it would have been assessed, which is why DJ lifted his club upon addressing it before grounding.

He would have been penalized. He was actually more likely to be penalized because the Decision that added leeway to allow for the wind moving the ball or something wasn't in place prior to 2016.

19 minutes ago, MrDC said:

He caused the ball to move, that's obvious, it was probably sitting on the edge of a slight indentation, maybe a fixed pitch mark, and when he grounded his club near the ball it thumped just enough to cause it to fall into the groove, it's just that simple IMO, and he knows it.

I agree.

19 minutes ago, MrDC said:

My problem with this whole thing is that exact movement probably happens a 100 times in a tournament, but nobody is going to say anything- because it's a silly rule! the ball should have to really rotate, and that goes for anywhere on the course, let's say at least half a rotation before an infraction is even considered, but this? dumb, just play on, the 1mm oscillation had zero impact on the play.

And disagree.

Players call these things on themselves, so I really, really, really doubt it happens 100 times in a tournament. If players see their ball move, they call an RO over.

And you can't make a rule that says "a ball has to really move, like rotate a LOT, or else who cares?"

[tdiii]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

You don't know where I was.

I'm saying that DJ caused the ball to move, and you've yet to demonstrate otherwise. How you get "you are wrong" out of that, I don't know. It's you who has yet to demonstrate anything.

The rule was applied properly.

No, it wasn't more likely.

Hey, I like this method of argument! You just keep repeating yourself and hope it sticks! Is that how we're going about it now?

It isn't!

Oooh, is it working? Maybe I should do it more.

It isn't.

It isn't. It isn't. It isn't. It isn't.

Did I win yet?

Define "immediately." And tell me what else caused his ball to move? The rule was applied correctly. DJ caused the ball to move.

Here's how it looks; Factors that Could have Caused the Ball to Move:

• DJ waving his putter back and forth within a second or so of the ball moving.
• DJ soling his putter once or twice within a second or so of the ball moving.
• The wind (really wasn't any at the time)
• The slope (the ball wasn't on an appreciable slope - balls roll off at about 5.5% at stimp 13).
• Casper the Friendly Ghost?

When you consider the factors that could have caused the ball to move, DJ is most likely to have caused the ball to move.

You haven't provided an argument to the contrary.

It isn't. Rule 18-2a essentially became rule 18-2. 18-2b was dropped.

He would have been penalized. He was actually more likely to be penalized because the Decision that added leeway to allow for the wind moving the ball or something wasn't in place prior to 2016.

I agree.

And disagree.

Players call these things on themselves, so I really, really, really doubt it happens 100 times in a tournament. If players see their ball move, they call an RO over.

And you can't make a rule that says "a ball has to really move, like rotate a LOT, or else who cares?"

You asserted Dustin caused the ball to move, but he did not touch the ball, there's no video showing him grounding the club and the ground rebounding or moving as a result thereof, and there's a delay between his removing the club and the ball moving.  It's ridiculous that you point to the absence of "wind" but then point to the club waving by the ball -- and now you are repeating that absurdity. 

No.  Proximity is not causation.  DJ happened to be there when the ball moved. 

As Brandel says, he's seen people do what Dustin has done for 40 years without the ball moving -- that would imply thousands of times.  Using the evidence standard, then, that means it is something like 0.0001% of a chance what he did caused the ball to move.