2016 U.S. Open at Oakmont Discussion Thread

[natureboy]

7 hours ago, tdiii said:

Folks have a pretty good innate sense of fairness; of what is or is not an advantage, and of what's right and wrong.  A ball wobbles and a golfer doesn't get any advantage whatsoever -- I'm hopeful we could agree in this situation DJ received no advantage.  The larger problem here is how myopic and picayune the rules are and how stuffy the USGA and rules nazis appear.  This type of situation just opens up golf to ridicule.  And the fact that the USGA does not seem able to take a step back and recognize this absurdity only exacerbates the problem.

I agree there are really three separate issues at question

• was the rule correctly applied to DJ and Wattel as written (IMO yes)
• did the rule as written allow a random judgement differentiation between two virtually identical potential causes by players (IMO yes)
• does the rule make sense for the putting green? (not sure, but given the circumstances I've seen I'm inclined toward no)

Casual viewers and golfers 'get' a stroke and distance penalty. Golf is about hitting long and straight. Casual viewers 'get' a penalty for a ball moving where the movement may affect the ability to put club on the ball cleanly. I think there is some 'wisdom' in 'not getting' how simply replacing the ball in DJ and Wattel's case when already on the putting surface and the ball having been marked and lifted already hurts the field or affects the score. To me, the fact that the ball is considered in play until it's holed (and not lifted under a rule) is the real complicating factor in addressing that perception.

An attempt by a player to intentionally try to get a ball to move is already covered by the ability to make a judgement call under 1-2 anywhere on the course IMO.

5 hours ago, boogielicious said:

But I think you are just moving the judgement call from one place to another. I don't see the benefit and I also see the potential for a competitor misusing that. What if the competitor stated that is was an advantage and the player said it was not? If there is no rules official around, how is this resolved? How do we define advantage in the rules? I just don't see this being any better.

I don't think @tdiii is advocating for applying whether 'advantage is gained' within the language of the rules, but using a bit of that judgement / evaluation to the merit of the statutes / rules themselves.

5 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I don't see that at all. Are you just saying, "who cares if it moves"? No penalty! Because I would disagree with that. It could move out of the line a a spike mark or some other deviation in the green that would make the putt easier. You claim it is not an advantage and your competitor does. You are just making it vague in a different place. That is not an improvement.

But I think he's saying the ball would be replaced where it was with agreement of opponent / rules official.

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

I guess my biggest question is whether or not this rule was applied with sufficient consistency in both Wattel's and DJ's case.  They seem so similar to me, that I find difficulty in believing that a 5 second difference in timing is enough to make a different ruling.  I have no issue with the ruling in DJ's case, but I do have some question about Wattel's.

It seems to me that the 'timing' allowance may have been intended more for situations where the player was close to the ball at one point, but then walked away from the ball and a significant amount of time later the ball moved. Rather than being right next to the ball with a time lag from the ball movement.

[iacas]

11 hours ago, ay33660 said:

I was already aware of that decision but in an earlier reply to me you quoted 34-3/8 so I surmised that it was more appropriate. You stated that by Dustin's remarks he was not aware of the new 18-2 rule and that he gave false or incorrect information to the referee who then made a determination based on that false information.

I assumed that you thought 34-3/8 was more appropriate as you would have had to read past 34-3/7 before you got to 34-3/8 so I did not bring up the 34-3/7 decision.

I honestly wasn't that concerned about it. I didn't scroll through the list and read too much. 34-3/8 seems to be this situation verbatim, though, so…

11 hours ago, ay33660 said:

As much as the USGA wants to get it right in doing so have they caused more harm to the field of competition than perhaps the initial ruling error.

As @turtleback pointed out, you do realize competitors in stroke play events have no inherent right to know where they stand, right?

11 hours ago, ay33660 said:

I just hope someone at the USGA tackles the use of video review and the timing of making a decision. As I had stated earlier when the majority of the rules of golf to which we play by were written the use of video review by either ruling officials or outside agencies (ie arm chair officials) was not contemplated. Players had to make their own ruling as the field of play was too vast and the field of competitors too large to have an official with each player.

Rules officials are tasked with getting the ruling right, and in doing so, should consider all available forms of evidence: tv replays, eyewitness testimony, etc. TV replays can help, too, as I previously pointed out with Rory's ball at Kiawah. Or they can help show where a ball crossed a hazard (or if it crossed the hazard at all). Etc.

TV replays are just a form of evidence.

10 hours ago, tdiii said:

Folks have a pretty good innate sense of fairness; of what is or is not an advantage, and of what's right and wrong.

Others have addressed your points already, but again, I'll ask you this:

My ball is sitting up in the rough. I cause the ball to shift downward (without touching the ball itself). Advantage gained or not?

Because the answer could be either way, and the answer could depend on the player, and the lie, and what he likes, and so on.

You can't base the Rules of Golf on whether an advantage was gained or not. DJ was allowed to drop in the first cut of rough because of a TIO in the way. Did he gain an advantage? Possibly. Imagine how silly the Rules of Golf would be if we had to apply what you call "common sense" to all the rules. Maybe someone is better from a certain situation than another - so they aren't entitled to the same relief or penalty because they're not the same type of player?

Silly.

---

I kept those replies short, too, because I still wish this was the lasting impression we all had:

[Buckeyebowman]

On 6/22/2016 at 9:53 AM, David in FL said:

Apparently we weren't the only ones to notice Paulina...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/paulina-gretzky-stuns-skin-tight-184700671.html

Some GREAT comments about the cameraman!  

That cameraman is now my hero!

On 6/22/2016 at 1:55 PM, saevel25 said:

11-1 since 2004  

OH! - IO!

[ay33660]

On 6/23/2016 at 6:38 PM, iacas said:

As @turtleback pointed out, you do realize competitors in stroke play events have no inherent right to know where they stand, right?

Right - perhaps the USGA should have noted this in their in their official statement on the Dustin Johnson ruling and should have added .... while we created unnecessary ambiguity for Dustin and the other players there is no inherent right to for each competitor to know where they stand in an competition ....... 

"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. " - USGA statement regarding Dustin Johnson ruling.

 

 

[natureboy]

This rule when applied strikes me a bit like the Unplayable lie rule where the potential advantage gained is often much larger than the penalty / 'adjustment' applied. It's one of the fewer 'generous' rules.

[natureboy]

On 6/25/2016 at 6:25 PM, natureboy said:

This rule when applied strikes me a bit like the Unplayable lie rule where the potential advantage gained is often much larger than the penalty / 'adjustment' applied. It's one of the fewer 'generous' rules.

I thought I posted this in the DJ tv tower thread. That's the rule (TIO) which has a comparable advantage to unplayable lie.

I am not referring to the the ball at rest rule that's been discussed here a bit.

[Grndslmhttr3]

To address one of the more important topics of the US Open - Diana Murphy's speech - apparently it's insanely difficult to speak normally when hearing your voice played back to you at a slight delay. I don't know if that was mentioned in this thread and I'm too lazy to find out, but there it is.

[boogielicious]

On June 30, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Grndslmhttr3 said:

To address one of the more important topics of the US Open - Diana Murphy's speech - apparently it's insanely difficult to speak normally when hearing your voice played back to you at a slight delay. I don't know if that was mentioned in this thread and I'm too lazy to find out, but there it is.

That would be hard.

[nevets88]

Strokes Gained: Surprise, surprise, DJ top 30 in every category. If he had Furyk's strokes gained approach number, he would have lapped the field.

Quote

U.S. Open Final Results:

	STROKES GAINED PER ROUND (RANKS IN PARENTHESES)
Player	Position	Drive	Appr	Short	Putt
Dustin Johnson	1	2.4 (1)	0.9 (11)	0.6 (24)	0.4 (30)
Jim Furyk	T2	-0.8 (60)	2.5 (1)	1.0 (8)	0.9 (14)
Scott Piercy	T2	1.0 (10)	0.8 (14)	1.5 (2)	0.3 (36)
Shane Lowry	T2	0.8 (15)	-0.1 (50)	1.5 (2)	1.4 (6)
Sergio Garcia	T5	1.2 (5)	-0.5 (62)	2.1 (1)	0.5 (29)
Branden Grace	T5	0.8 (15)	0.2 (37)	0.9 (11)	1.4 (6)
Kevin Na	7	0.3 (31)	0.2 (37)	-0.3 (53)	2.9 (1)
Zach Johnson	T8	0.3 (31)	0.4 (30)	0.7 (18)	1.4 (6)
Jason Dufner	T8	1.5 (2)	0.7 (20)	0.7 (18)	-0.1 (46)
Daniel Summerhays	T8	0.6 (21)	0.5 (28)	1.1 (5)	0.6 (27)
Jason Day	T8	0.6 (21)	0.0 (47)	1.1 (5)	1.1 (10)
	Total	Drive	Appr	Short	Putt
Top 11 average	3.3	0.8	0.5	1.0	1.0

http://www.usopen.com/en_US/news/articles/2016-06-19/strokes_gained_djs_perfect_driving_record.html

 

On 6/30/2016 at 11:25 AM, Grndslmhttr3 said:

To address one of the more important topics of the US Open - Diana Murphy's speech - apparently it's insanely difficult to speak normally when hearing your voice played back to you at a slight delay. I don't know if that was mentioned in this thread and I'm too lazy to find out, but there it is.

Someone mentioned this on reddit - it's some kind of echo effect. Here's the explanation:

 

[natureboy]

On 6/30/2016 at 11:25 AM, Grndslmhttr3 said:

To address one of the more important topics of the US Open - Diana Murphy's speech - apparently it's insanely difficult to speak normally when hearing your voice played back to you at a slight delay. I don't know if that was mentioned in this thread and I'm too lazy to find out, but there it is.

That makes sense. Like when there's a delay in a conference call due to internet phone or a cell phone mic picking up sound from a speakerphone.

[nevets88]

Let's take a trip into the sort of wayback machine. Protracer compilation of final round, 30 glorious minutes of ballflight.