2016 U.S. Open at Oakmont Discussion Thread

[Fourputt]

7 hours ago, BallStriker said:

Good for Butch for calling it as he sees it.......too good of shot for that to happen

If it had been a good shot, it would have stayed on the green.

3 hours ago, Aflighter said:

He couldve went to the right.Just dsnt seem fair to get to drop outside a different area that improves lie that much.

It isn't a different area.  1st cut, 2nd cut, fairway - it's all through the green under the rules.

[iacas]

 

[Golfingdad]

31 minutes ago, iacas said:

They could have reviewed it exactly the same way.

Well sure ... They could have.  No way on earth WOULD they have, but they certainly COULD have.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

Well sure ... They could have.  No way on earth WOULD they have, but they certainly COULD have.

?

I'll say it again. The issue was not "did the ball move?" It was "what were you doing that could have caused the ball to move?"

They could have watched SD video and seen the events.

And then arrived at the same conclusion: there was no evidence that something else caused the ball to move.

Nobody questions whether the ball moved. DJ stepped back right away and said (whatever words he used) "the ball moved." So you don't need HD video to see a guy stepping in, making strokes VERY close to the ball, and then stepping back.

[Golfingdad]

24 minutes ago, iacas said:

?

I'll say it again. The issue was not "did the ball move?" It was "what were you doing that could have caused the ball to move?"

They could have watched SD video and seen the events.

And then arrived at the same conclusion: there was no evidence that something else caused the ball to move.

Nobody questions whether the ball moved. DJ stepped back right away and said (whatever words he used) "the ball moved." So you don't need HD video to see a guy stepping in, making strokes VERY close to the ball, and then stepping back.

OK.

One related question:. Why wasn't 34-2 in play here?

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-34,34-2

[ChrisP]

Really enjoyed this tourney. From actually going to it on Thursday to a great finish today. While I'm not a huge DJ fan, I was happy to see him win. He's been so close the last few years it was definitely his time.

And Nice little payday for me (although NP says all my predictions are wrong):

 

[colin007]

I would just say that in these circumstances (I believe they were referred to as "extreme" conditions) it's just as easy to ASSume that the lighting fast greens were enough to cause the ball's instability as it is to say DJ caused it.

22 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

OK.

One related question:. Why wasn't 34-2 in play here?

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-34,34-2

Hmmmm, good point.

[Hardspoon]

Just now, colin007 said:

I would just say that in these circumstances (I believe they were referred to as "extreme" conditions) it's just as easy to ASSume that the lighting fast greens were enough to cause the ball's instability as it is to say DJ caused it.

Not really...did something like this (a ball moving that much after being at rest for some time) happen AT ALL elsewhere in the tournament, when a player wasn't close to the ball?  I doubt it.  Obviously, we wouldn't necessarily see it on TV, but if you're a rules official, and you go an entire tourney without seeing a ball at rest move, and then the one that moves had a putter millimeters from it...it's a pretty big leap to say it was just the greens.

[Golfingdad]

2 minutes ago, colin007 said:

I would just say that in these circumstances (I believe they were referred to as "extreme" conditions) it's just as easy to ASSume that the lighting fast greens were enough to cause the ball's instability as it is to say DJ caused it.

Hmmmm, good point.

Somebody else mentioned it to me earlier - @jamo iirc.  Not my find. ;)

[Fourputt]

30 minutes ago, iacas said:

?

I'll say it again. The issue was not "did the ball move?" It was "what were you doing that could have caused the ball to move?"

They could have watched SD video and seen the events.

And then arrived at the same conclusion: there was no evidence that something else caused the ball to move.

Nobody questions whether the ball moved. DJ stepped back right away and said (whatever words he used) "the ball moved." So you don't need HD video to see a guy stepping in, making strokes VERY close to the ball, and then stepping back.

Not only what the player was doing but was there any other agency that could have been the cause of the movement.  In this case, it is possible that the greens conditions could have been deemed the cause, but the rules committee chose not to consider that.  

What I saw in the clearest video cut was that DJ did not touch the ball or the ground at the moment that the ball moved.  There was no wind and the ball was not lying on one of the nasty slopes.  At that point it becomes a judgement call, and the committee judged that there was no outside influence that could have moved the ball, therefore DJ was the default cause.  Thankfully it did not affect the ultimate outcome.  

[Golfingdad]

3 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Not really...did something like this (a ball moving that much after being at rest for some time) happen AT ALL elsewhere in the tournament, when a player wasn't close to the ball?  I doubt it.  Obviously, we wouldn't necessarily see it on TV, but if you're a rules official, and you go an entire tourney without seeing a ball at rest move, and then the one that moves had a putter millimeters from it...it's a pretty big leap to say it was just the greens.

Does that not work both way though?  I could also say "how many times during ANY tourney did a ball at rest move with a putter near it and then the one that does move happens at the tournament known for lightning fast greens on the edge of fair at the course known for cutting and rolling 14 stimp greens 3 times a day ... It's a big leap to say it's not from the greens." :P

[Natural Patrick]

2 hours ago, Shindig said:

Long John just gave himself a two shot penalty.

 

 

I love it!

[Buckeyebowman]

25 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

If it had been a good shot, it would have stayed on the green.

It isn't a different area.  1st cut, 2nd cut, fairway - it's all through the green under the rules.

Exactly right! Anyone but me remember Ernie Els back in '94? He was given "line of sight" relief from a camera crane that turned out to be "movable". In that case the USGA rules official got in trouble for giving the wrong ruling, not Els! In this case the camera tower was an "immovable" obstruction that is not normally on the course.

I figured this last huge flurry of posts was mainly about the possible penalty stroke. I noticed that the USGA guys kept insisting that they felt the ball moved because of DJ's "grounding" of the putterhead. But, they were very careful not to say where he grounded it! I can only guess that's because he never grounded his putter directly behind the ball, which is the direction the ball moved. As iacas said, the rule is much more fair now. Back in the day you could walk 5 feet behind your ball, and if it moved, you did it!

Anyway, beside all that, it was a heck of a championship! And how about DJ's play of the 18th hole?! Bombs a drive, has to back off his approach because of a noise, then proceeds to stripe it in close and make the birdie putt to remove all doubt! Good for him!

And God bless Paulina for wearing that dress!

[Hardspoon]

6 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Does that not work both way though?  I could also say "how many times during ANY tourney did a ball at rest move with a putter near it and then the one that does move happens at the tournament known for lightning fast greens on the edge of fair at the course known for cutting and rolling 14 stimp greens 3 times a day ... It's a big leap to say it's not from the greens." :P

Ha - OK...my first reaction is to just say, "It doesn't work that way"...but I can't exactly say why not.  I feel like if I try, we'll end up in a silly argument about Bayesian reasoning.

So...I yield!!! 

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Does that not work both way though?  I could also say "how many times during ANY tourney did a ball at rest move with a putter near it and then the one that does move happens at the tournament known for lightning fast greens on the edge of fair at the course known for cutting and rolling 14 stimp greens 3 times a day ... It's a big leap to say it's not from the greens." :P

His ball was not on a steeply sloped section of the green.

[Natural Patrick]

2 hours ago, David in FL said:

Ok.  Credit where it's due.  I've gotta commend Fox on their camera work following Paulina walking with DJ to the scorer's tent...

Especially the walk up the stairs.

[anthony]

55 minutes ago, iacas said:

making strokes VERY close to the ball

This is important to highlight. While it's my opinion that he didn't make the ball move, his practice strokes were extremely close to the ball. So close, that it's probably a route cause of the officials closer examination. If he was taking strokes an inch or two further away, I think the ruling would have been clearly in his favor.

Edited June 20, 2016 by anthony

[Fourputt]

8 minutes ago, anthony said:

This is important to highlight. While it's my opinion that he didn't make the ball move, his practice strokes were extremely close to the ball. So close, that it's probably a route cause of the officials closer examination. If he was taking strokes an inch or two further away, I think the ruling would have been clearly in his favor.

Or more likely a root cause.... sorry but I couldn't resist.  

That is the real explanation.  There were simply no other discernible outside influences that could have been the cause.