2016 U.S. Open at Oakmont Discussion Thread

[Hardspoon]

6 minutes ago, tdiii said:

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.

Did Brandel really say that?  Yikes.

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, tdiii said:

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.

I didn't assert that Dustin caused the ball to move. In context, I've asserted that the rule was applied properly and DJ should have been penalized.

His actions were proximal in time and space and could have caused the ball to move and, given the lack of other alternative explanations that carry enough weight to be the more likely cause, he's deemed to have caused the ball to move.

13 minutes ago, tdiii said:

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

I never said it was. But it's a factor in determining the most likely cause of the ball's movement.

13 minutes ago, tdiii said:

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.

No, Brandel is speaking as a player and doesn't seem to understand the construct of the rule either. I could create scenarios where a ball will sit, at rest, for an hour or two, but a light tap of a putter nearby would cause the ball to move.

I believe that Brandel, in his mind, has never seen a ball move as a result of a player causing it to move but without touching it. That doesn't mean a player can't cause a ball to move without touching it.

I could say I've never seen a 500-yard drive in person. That doesn't mean it's not possible given the right circumstances.

13 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Using the evidence standard, then, that means it is something like 0.0001% of a chance what he did caused the ball to move.

That's not how stats or chances work.

I could create a situation wherein you could could drop a bowling ball two inches away from a ball and not cause the ball to move, and I could create a situation where a fly landing on the ball causes it to move… or a putter being dropped from two inches causes it to move.

That Brandel says he never saw the latter doesn't prove or disprove anything, and it definitely doesn't produce anything close to a statistic or a probability.

---

So, @tdiii, what caused the ball to move?

Because until you come up with something that is more likely to have caused the ball to move, the only logical conclusion is that DJ's actions, proximal in both time and space, were the cause.

5 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Did Brandel really say that?  Yikes.

Yes. It was pretty stupid, IMO.

I could say I've never seen someone miss a tap-in by hitting the ball off the liner of the cup to miss Q-School by one stroke… and that'd be true right up until I saw video of it happening:

 

[mvmac]

10 minutes ago, tdiii said:

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

It this case it is, he grounded his putter and then the ball moved right after as he was about to address it. Could it have been something else? Sure but it is "more likely than not" that Dustin caused it to move. That's the standard by which it's determined.

[Hiway1tele]

Brandle should call them out...show me any other sport, including tennis, where you have to play the game not knowing what the score will be till its over...Thats BS..If the RO in the field cant make a decision, he shouldnt be there..as Rory Later said, stop play and get a decision, and then move on with play knowing whats what..The USGA deserves all the fire its getting and more...

[tdiii]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

---

So, @tdiii, what caused the ball to move?

 

 

I've said wind and gravity (and a burrowing gopher) caused the ball to move.  You point to proximity even though in thousands of other identical instances, proximity did not cause the ball to move.  Since the rule requires probabilities, we can "reasonably" determine that, when something has not happened thousands of times before, that it did not cause the event this time.  We also know that gravity and wind have moved balls thousands and thousands of times. 

7 minutes ago, mvmac said:

It this case it is, he grounded his putter and then the ball moved right after as he was about to address it. Could it have been something else? Sure but it is "more likely than not" that Dustin caused it to move. That's the standard by which it's determined.

It's more likely than not that, when this identical action does not cause a ball to move 99.999% of the time, that it did not cause the ball to move here. The burden is on you to prove what was different here about how he moved he moved his putter or soled his club to cause a different outcome. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by tdiii

[No Mulligans]

More likely than not DJ did not cause the ball to move.  The ball didn't move when he grounded the putter, it didn't move until he lifted it and moved it in front of the putter.  That's the preponderance of the evidence right there

I've seen balls move before be it settling or the wind or a blade of grass bending from fatigue.  We all know that balls move without the players causing them to move.  These alternative explanations do carry more weight in the circumstance.  After all it was video'd in slo-mo, he didn't cause the ball by touching the ground or touching the ball.  

I've never seen a ball move by someone holding a putter in the air near the ball.

[Hardspoon]

5 minutes ago, tdiii said:

It's more likely than not that, when this action does not cause this reaction 99.99% of the time, that it also did not cause this reaction here. 

That argument doesn't work.  In every other case of a player addressing the ball without it moving...the wind, gravity, and burrowing gopher ALSO didn't make it move.  So, if those actions did not cause the reaction 99.99% of the time, they didn't cause it here.

So, you're back to square one.

[tdiii]

1 minute ago, Hardspoon said:

That argument doesn't work.  In every other case of a player addressing the ball without it moving...the wind, gravity, and burrowing gopher ALSO didn't make it move.  So, if those actions did not cause the reaction 99.99% of the time, they didn't cause it here.

So, you're back to square one.

No you're not.  We're only looking at the instances where a ball has moved.  Wind and gravity causes it more often than a player who did not touch the ball. 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, tdiii said:

I've said wind and gravity (and a burrowing gopher) caused the ball to move.

Those were deemed to be less likely to have caused the ball to move than DJ.

The ball sat there with the same very little wind and the same gravity for quite some time, and only moved when DJ took proximal (time/space) actions.

3 minutes ago, tdiii said:

You point to proximity even though in thousands of other identical instances

They weren't identical.

3 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Since the rule requires probabilities, we can "reasonably" determine that, when something has not happened thousands of times before, that it did not cause the event this time.

It happened to Shane Lowry a few days earlier. It's happened to other players, too.

3 minutes ago, tdiii said:

It's more likely than not that, when this action does not cause this reaction 99.99% of the time, that it also did not cause this reaction here. 

I don't agree, and neither do the Rules Geeks at the USGA.

And that's the thing. That's your argument. You don't agree, and you have to stretch to say "wind/gravity/gophers."

All of those things existed ten seconds earlier and his ball didn't move. Only when DJ made motions proximal (time/space) did the ball move.

Just now, Hardspoon said:

That argument doesn't work.  In every other case of a player addressing the ball without it moving, the wind, gravity, and burrowing gopher ALSO didn't make it move.  So, if those actions did not cause the reaction 99.99% of the time, they didn't cause it here.

So, you're back to square one.

That too.

3 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

More likely than not DJ did not cause the ball to move.  The ball didn't move when he grounded the putter, it didn't move until he lifted it and moved it in front of the putter.  That's the preponderance of the evidence right there

You don't know when the ball moved. I think the ball was likely moving as DJ was moving his putter behind the ball - that's why he nearly instantly pulled the putter away. He saw the ball moving. Before we could see it moving on our TVs.

Heck, the French guy's ball moved, and you can't even see it moving. So DJ, I think, saw the ball moving as he lifted his putter and put it behind the ball.

3 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

I've seen balls move before be it settling or the wind or a blade of grass bending from fatigue.  We all know that balls move without the players causing them to move.

We also all know that the player can cause a ball to move without touching it.

3 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

These alternative explanations do carry more weight in the circumstance.

I disagree.

3 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

I've never seen a ball move by someone holding a putter in the air near the ball.

You're assuming that's what caused the ball to move. You're assuming the ball wasn't already in motion.

[tdiii]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Those were deemed to be less likely to have caused the ball to move than DJ.

The ball sat there with the same very little wind and the same gravity for quite some time, and only moved when DJ took proximal (time/space) actions.

They weren't identical.

It happened to Shane Lowry a few days earlier. It's happened to other players, too.

I don't agree, and neither do the Rules Geeks at the USGA.

And that's the thing. That's your argument. You don't agree, and you have to stretch to say "wind/gravity/gophers."

All of those things existed ten seconds earlier and his ball didn't move. Only when DJ made motions proximal (time/space) did the ball move.

That too.

You don't know when the ball moved. I think the ball was likely moving as DJ was moving his putter behind the ball - that's why he nearly instantly pulled the putter away. He saw the ball moving. Before we could see it moving on our TVs.

Heck, the French guy's ball moved, and you can't even see it moving. So DJ, I think, saw the ball moving as he lifted his putter and put it behind the ball.

We also all know that the player can cause a ball to move without touching it.

I disagree.

You're assuming that's what caused the ball to move. You're assuming the ball wasn't already in motion.

More appeal to authority.  Get over the Rules Geeks -- who got it wrong.  We've all seen a ball sit still for 10 seconds and then move from wind or for no reason whatsoever.  We've all seen DJ go through the same routine hundreds of times without the ball moving.  And we're talking about the French guy's ball -- when he wasn't penalized.  You just want to see the ball moving as he lifted the putter.  It didn't move until the putter was beyind the ball. 

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, tdiii said:

More appeal to authority.  Get over the Rules Geeks -- who got it wrong.  We've all seen a ball sit still for 10 seconds and then move from wind or for no reason whatsoever.  We've all seen DJ go through the same routine hundreds of times without the ball moving.  And we're talking about the French guy's ball -- when he wasn't penalized.  You just want to see the ball moving as he lifted the putter.  It didn't move until the putter was beyind the ball. 

Get it right: it's appeal to THE authority in this case. You're saying the guys in charge of writing and interpreting the rules were wrong. Good luck with that.

You disagree. Cool. Good for you.

You cannot prove anything. I can't either. But I can state why I feel the rule was applied properly, and feel I've made more sense in doing so than you.

You are welcome to feel the opposite. Cool.

As this is going nowhere, I'm out for now.

P.S. You don't know when it started moving.

[Hardspoon]

So...when does the Open Championship thread get started?

[BallStriker]

My opinion is that the application of the rule and the inherent fairness of the situation were at odds.....one problem with the rule is that it implicitly "assumes" the player is to cause the ball to move unless you can really point to another outside force and, given the speed of greens, stuff like this can happen without any obvious reason for the movement (other than the proximity of the player to the ball).

In my opinion, any movement should require the replacement of the ball and no penalty unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the player cause the ball to move (e.g., contact).

[nevets88]

In Year Two of FOX Deal, U.S. Open Overnights Among Lowest on Record

Quote

Some unexpected drama kept the U.S. Open from setting a final round record low, but it was another lost weekend for the USGA’s crown event.

usopen16logoFinal round coverage of the U.S. Open earned a 3.8 overnight rating on FOX Sunday afternoon, down 21% from last year’s West Coast tournament, which bled further into primetime (4.8) but up 15% from 2014 on NBC (3.3). The 3.8 overnight is the second-lowest on record for Sunday coverage of the event (dates back to 1988), ahead of only 2014.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/06/us-open-ratings-down-fox-overnights-lowest-years/

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, BallStriker said:

My opinion is that the application of the rule and the inherent fairness of the situation were at odds.....one problem with the rule is that it implicitly "assumes" the player is to cause the ball to move unless you can really point to another outside force

It doesn't. It simply asks what the most likely cause is. If it's the player, penalty.

Also, to all, here's the transcript.

http://asaptext.com/orgs/usga/136/browse_file.php?browse_file_name=./transcripts/8845.html

[nevets88]

USGA's official statement on the DJ debacle:

Quote

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 leaderboard 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.

http://golfweek.com/2016/06/20/us-open-usga-rules-ruling-response-statement-dustin-johnson/

[Natural Patrick]

Thin skinned moderation at it's best.The good ole boys club wins again. Cool

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, tdiii said:

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.

 

 

Dustin did ground the club beside the ball.  The rule is worded such that if there are no other discernible factors to have caused the movement, and if the player took any action in relative proximity to the ball, then the player is deemed to have cause it to move.  This does not require proof that he moved the ball, only that there is no evidence of any other cause that might absolve him of fault.  For this reason the rule was ultimately applied correctly, albeit not as seamlessly as it should have been.