2016 U.S. Open at Oakmont Discussion Thread

[Aguirre]

2 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Did it look like the guy had a GPS unit? If they also had a base station on site (likely), then they would have very precise location data.

Likely had something similar to the Shotlink laser sights used for distances on the greens.

It was two people.  The guy with binoculars and a young lady sitting in a chair. She had a tablet. There was some sort of equipment on a tripod that looked like survey gear.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Aguirre

[natureboy]

7 minutes ago, Aguirre said:

It was two people.  The guy with binoculars and a young lady sitting in a chair. She had a tablet. There was some sort of equipment on a tripod that looked like survey gear.

Ah, prob a laser surveyor like w/ Shotlink. Good to see USGA adopting this.

[Aguirre]

Just now, natureboy said:

Ah, prob a laser surveyor like w/ Shotlink. Good to see USGA adopting this.

I asked if it was Shotlink.  The old guy said it was "x," similar to Shotlink. I couldn't hear him. Talked like he ate his own teeth. And I asked if it was the USGA's version and he said yes. Mumbling. Like an old ****.

[Abu3baid]

12 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

All move on when the winner stops being great in short game and putting each week...

 

12 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

DJ bombing his driver!  But not scoring well.   Wonder why...

Scored well enough to win his first major.  I'm not sure what more you are asking for :)

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Agree. This was the weak link in the process. The on -hand RO should have made the right call then and discussed it further with DJ because DJ wasn't fully versed in the rule. If the RO was in doubt, he should have called in help to make the right call at the time.

6 hours ago, mvmac said:

Watched the interview with Brandel/Frank and the rules guys and I got a better picture of what went on.

The USGA was in a tough spot, Dustin wasn't clear on the specifics of the rule and the USGA wanted to get it right. Dustin seemed mostly concerned that he didn't address the ball, which to him meant he wasn't responsible for moving it. That's not the rule though, you can cause the ball the move without addressing it (which is what happened). After he grounded his club the second time he lifted the putter to address the ball and it moved, so because of the timing it was more than likely that the act of grounding the putter caused the ball to move.

The USGA eventually got the ruling right but obviously messed up with the process. You can't have a player in "limbo" with with 6-7 holes to play that doesn't know where he stands, same thing with the rest of the guys in the hunt. At the same time you can't stop play to explain the rule to Dustin and check the video. Like @iacas said, they should have assessed the penalty on the spot with an opportunity to discuss it after the round.

I think what would have frustrated me the most as a player was that the referee for the group made a decision and then it changed to "pending further review". I understand why they reserve that right and I get the USGA wanted to do what's right in fairness for the field but there needs to be some "finality" to things so the player can move on. 

lol just heard Dustin say he still doesn't understand the rule.

They certainly put more pressure on the entire field left playing. Getting it right is paramount, but the delay made it very difficult.

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Gunther said:

Wow, just went through my Twitter feed, which isn't extensive, but Tiger, Rory, Jordan, and Rickie, are not happy with the USGA for letting DJ play rest of round with that over his head. And, all agree, shouldn't have been a penalty in the 1st place (which I said here earlier).  Great mental strength ofor DJ to overcome it.

It should have been a rules infraction, and he was properly penalized. The way the rule is written, which is far more forgiving than it was in the past, if nothing else caused the ball to move and Dustin was very close to and took actions then he's deemed to have caused the ball to move.

6 hours ago, mvmac said:

The USGA eventually got the ruling right but obviously messed up with the process. You can't have a player in "limbo" with with 6-7 holes to play that doesn't know where he stands, same thing with the rest of the guys in the hunt. At the same time you can't stop play to explain the rule to Dustin and check the video. Like @iacas said, they should have assessed the penalty on the spot with an opportunity to discuss it after the round.

Not even 6-7 holes. Truly, they had the "wrong" score posted for 12 or 13 holes.

6 hours ago, mvmac said:

I think what would have frustrated me the most as a player was that the referee for the group made a decision and then it changed to "pending further review". I understand why they reserve that right and I get the USGA wanted to do what's right in fairness for the field but there needs to be some "finality" to things so the player can move on. 

The RO screwed up in my opinion. I should record another version of "Live from the U.S. Open" because they showed the entire interaction once, I think. It was a very brief interaction, and I feel that if a player says "my ball moved, but I didn't address it," that you have to be aware of what the rule says and know that addressing it doesn't matter.

Dustin's ignorance of the rules (as much as I might want to blame the players for not knowing the rules, DJ is far from being the only player who doesn't), it's literally the JOB of the RO to know them and get them right. It's the job of the player to play the game.

Dustin screwed up, but that RO screwed up a LOT more. The quick "oh, okay, just go ahead and play it from there" without asking more questions and getting to the heart of the matter is what caused the whole delayed ruling issue.

And @Golfingdad, 34-2 doesn't apply because the official didn't make a ruling on the ball moving per se. I still blame the rules official, per above, but suppose a player took a drop from his feet being in casual water, and told the rules official that, and the rules official later noticed that the "casual water" was in a water hazard? Similar sort of situation here. Maybe not the best example, because I'm just making it up here, and I only saw the RO/DJ interaction once. But the RO didn't get a full understanding of the situation. That's on him.

5 hours ago, natureboy said:

The issue with the rule to me is the different ruling with the French guy. The delay in timing doesn't necessarily create appreciably different causes to the ball moving. With the greens as fast as they were (~15 per the Golf Channel), the simple fact of being close to the ball with your static body weight (with some shifting) and resting the putter on the ground behind the ball for a certain length of time was probably the cause for the French guy, but those don't show up as obvious 'causes' on a video.

The delay in timing matters. If you do something and something else immediately happens, you're more likely to have caused it than six seconds later. And the greens were not 15.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

Ah, prob a laser surveyor like w/ Shotlink. Good to see USGA adopting this.

Pay attention…

That's a pretty stupid thing to say IMO.

[nevets88]

12 different winners in the last 14 majors if I'm counting it right.  Not unreasonable that we get an additional two this year. Depth of field.

[MSDOGS1976]

iacas, you are a die hard USGA guy. I get that. But in the golfing world from the top PGA tour players on down to all the golfing analysts on TV believe they got the ruling wrong. You are in the minority on this one. 

[boogielicious]

11 minutes ago, MSDOGS1976 said:

iacas, you are a die hard USGA guy. I get that. But in the golfing world from the top PGA tour players on down to all the golfing analysts on TV believe they got the ruling wrong. You are in the minority on this one. 

I think they will come around after they review the rule and emotions calm.

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, MSDOGS1976 said:

iacas, you are a die hard USGA guy. I get that. But in the golfing world from the top PGA tour players on down to all the golfing analysts on TV believe they got the ruling wrong. You are in the minority on this one. 

I'm not a die hard USGA guy.

They got the ruling right. Not only did they get it right by how it's written, they got it right by how it should be.

On the latter issue some will disagree, but on the former, you can't really disagree. It's almost literally out of the Decision which clarifies "causes the ball to move."

2 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I think they will come around after they review the rule and emotions calm.

I agree. Except that unfortunately most people will have already formed their opinion and have moved on, so they'll be stuck with their original opinion.

[saevel25]

13 minutes ago, MSDOGS1976 said:

iacas, you are a die hard USGA guy. I get that. But in the golfing world from the top PGA tour players on down to all the golfing analysts on TV believe they got the ruling wrong. You are in the minority on this one. 

Since most of them were talking from the point of view of the old rule their credibility is kinda shot on this. 

You can't have a validated opinion on a rule when you don't even the rule and how it's applied. 

 

 

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Since most of them were talking from the point of view of the old rule their credibility is kinda shot on this. 

You can't have a validated opinion on a rule when you don't even the rule and how it's applied. 

Unfortunately the validity of your opinion is relatively unimportant these days.

[ChrisP]

Here's my only question on the rule.....and this is where I don't know the full rules of golf. If you're a rules official and you "think" he caused the ball to move, is that still enough to warrant a penalty? The whole process yesterday reminded me of a football game and that whole review process. They call it no fumble on the field, they look at the review and "think" it was a fumble so change the call. But in football, you're not supposed to overturn that call unless you have 100% assurance it was a fumble

I guess that's my whole issue with it is they talked to him and didn't penalize, then they looked at it more and they "think" he caused it to move and they told him they may change their mind and then changed it completely. I would think you would have to have 100% no doubt in your mind he absolutely caused the ball to move to penalize. And I think that's why a lot of the players are coming to Dustin's side because it's all what the USGA "thinks." And from the interviews I'm hearing, they didn't sound like they had 100% no doubt in their minds he caused the ball to move.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

Here's my only question on the rule.....and this is where I don't know the full rules of golf. If you're a rules official and you "think" he caused the ball to move, is that still enough to warrant a penalty?

The weight of the evidence and "most likely" are what matter here. If you're 51%, that's a penalty (or not if the 51% is that something else made the ball move).

There are effectively two standards of certainty in the Rules of Golf. This one - simple majority - and "virtual certainty," which is roughly 99% certain.

6 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

But in football, you're not supposed to overturn that call unless you have 100% assurance it was a fumble

It's not really the same.

6 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

I guess that's my whole issue with it is they talked to him and didn't penalize, then they looked at it more and they "think" he caused it to move and they told him they may change their mind and then changed it completely.

"They" didn't truly talk to him. The RO's initial interaction was very brief, and DJ, not knowing the rule himself, did not give a full accounting of the situation.

Again, imagine a situation where a RO comes over after seeing a player drop and the player says "I dropped from casual water," and the RO doesn't notice at the time that the casual water was in a water hazard, so it wasn't actually "casual water" and the player was not entitled to free relief. The player gave a misleading statement, not intentionally, and the RO did not fully suss out all of the facts. An error - a violation of the Rules of Golf - occurred, but they can't just waive it and move on.

The RO should have gotten into it more, IMO. But DJ should have known the rules, too. In the end, they got it right, but the process was screwy because of the initial RO and DJ.

6 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

I would think you would have to have 100% no doubt in your mind he absolutely caused the ball to move to penalize.

You would be incorrect, then. Read it here:

6 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

And I think that's why a lot of the players are coming to Dustin's side because it's all what the USGA "thinks."

The players don't know the rules very well. Many of them still seem to think addressing the ball still matters.

6 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

And from the interviews I'm hearing, they didn't sound like they had 100% no doubt in their minds he caused the ball to move.

They don't need 100% certainty. Not even "virtual certainty" requires 100% certainty (though it's close).

[ChrisP]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

The weight of the evidence and "most likely" are what matter here. If you're 51%, that's a penalty (or not if the 51% is that something else made the ball move).

There are effectively two standards of certainty in the Rules of Golf. This one - simple majority - and "virtual certainty," which is roughly 99% certain.

And this is where I wasn't sure. I thought it had to be indisputable proof he caused it move in order to assess the penalty.

[boogielicious]

Dustin Johnson was #1 in GIR for the tournament.

http://www.usopen.com/en_US/scoring/stats/gir.html

 

[BallStriker]

Given the technology advances and triple cut greens and 14 foot plus stimp speeds, why not just change the rule and have the players re-mark the ball without penalty if it moves without them actually touching the ball.....I don't really see any risk of player abuse if they make this the rule.

 

 

[newtogolf]

9 hours ago, Fourputt said:

He was penalized.

Thanks, I shut it off after he finished 18 and really didn't think they were going to penalize him given there wasn't any video evidence.  I agree with what Jack said, golf is a game of honor, if DJ said he did nothing to move the ball and there isn't video to say otherwise, then the benefit of the doubt goes to the golfer, otherwise this honor stuff is a bunch of crap.