2016 U.S. Open at Oakmont Discussion Thread

[tdiii]

If the USGA knows it got the ruling right, why isn't there anything on the USGA website explaining this?  They have articles about DeChambeau's rules issue, and about DJ having an issue in an earlier tourney. If it is so clear they got it right, why don't they explain it?

And, of course, the larger issue is that the game of golf looks absolutely absurd if this is the rule. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by tdiii

[xcott]

5 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

What reasons?  DJ gave no other reason--when specifically asked--to the USGA ruling official when they were on the 12th hole.

Gravity, wind, seismic activity a strong fart from the gallery. 

[Missouri Swede]

Gravity didn't change.

If there were wind, they why wouldn't DJ mention it? It would have been an obvious explanation--"I was practicing my stroke, I felt a little gust, and the ball moved."  But he didn't.

Flatus: get some stats, then write it up.

[tdiii]

2 minutes ago, xcott said:

Gravity, wind, seismic activity a strong fart from the gallery. 

What if the greens are spongey.  In the act of addressing, the settling of my feet cause the ball to move?  Penalty, right?  Even though there would have been no way for me to prevent the movement.  The rule is absurd. 

[xcott]

5 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

Gravity didn't change.

If there were wind, they why wouldn't DJ mention it? It would have been an obvious explanation--"I was practicing my stroke, I felt a little gust, and the ball moved."  But he didn't.

Flatus: get some stats, then write it up.

No gravity likely didn't change, although it's a weak force and over the time it's sitting there could slowly pull the ball down the slope. 

Because DJ didn't feel it doesn't mean it didn't happen and jsut because he didn't explain it didn't mean it didn't happen either.

To move an object there needs to be a force, the lower the initial force needed the greater amount of things can affect the potential movement. With the slope and speed of the greens that floor was lowered  dramatically.

 

[bplewis24]

Shame on the USGA for bungling this so poorly in more ways than one, and then on top of all that still penalizing him when they have so clearly misinterpreted and misapplied the rule through sheer idiocy.  And congrats to DJ for rising above it and preventing it from causing a complete catastrophe.  

 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Dustin Johnson was #1 in GIR for the tournament.

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

GIR is King, @pumaAttack.

2 hours ago, BallStriker said:

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.

Because players could cause the ball to move. What if you ground your club lightly in rough behind the ball and the ball moves? Do you just replace it because you didn't actually touch the ball? What if you wave your club over the ball and the air movement causes the ball to move? You didn't touch the ball.

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

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.  

There was video evidence, and Dustin called the official over because he saw his ball move.

There is no "benefit of the doubt" to be applied here. It's a majority decision. Given the absence of other things which could cause the ball to move, they had to rule against DJ.

The ball moved. That much is not up for debate.

2 hours ago, Gunther said:

There was video evidence.  The ball moved back maybe 1 dimple, very slightly.  DJ didn't cause it to move, ostensibly but understanding the rule better than when I first posted on this topic and having seen that video, I've changed my opinion and now believe the ruling was correct.  It was not handled well but as the rule is currently written, I believe the penalty should have been assessed.

It is more likely that DJ caused it to move than anything else.

2 hours ago, xcott said:

I think the slope of the greens and the speed they are running at in that tournament actually favor the fact that DJ didn't move the ball. 

Why didn't the ball move in the minute or two it was sitting there before DJ soled his putter a few times and took practice strokes 1/2" from the ball?

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Nor does the rules official if he asked if Dustin if he grounded the putter. Due diligence was not done by the rules official. In the end they should have spent more time on it there at that moment. 

I think the Rules Official did a very bad job there. Dustin also didn't give an accurate description. He did ground the putter… just not immediately behind the ball. Players still seem to be under the impression that addressing the ball still matters. It does not. 18-2b is no more.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

I agree with this but I see a delay in the video yesterday too. I don't consider that immediate.  I also factor in that his action that supposedly caused the movement was touching the ground beside the ball, yet when it moved (1/2 second or so later - not a lot of time but certainly not immediately) it clearly moved straight backwards.  If his ground touching caused the movement, I'd expect that ball to move in that direction.

Why?

Also, it happened pretty quickly. Not "immediately" but very, very quickly right after DJ took actions very, very close to his golf ball.

Again the rule simply asks if the player is more likely than not to have caused the movement.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

But here's the thing:  by no means whatsoever am I saying he should not have been penalized.  But what I am saying is that in this very grey area of whether or not he caused the ball to move, perhaps you can say like you said above that it's 51% likely that he did.  That's cool, I'm down with that .... IF the RO made that call right then and there.  (Also, if DJ had not consulted an RO and just made the call himself, I'd be OK with them handling exactly like they did afterwards too)

Look at the video. DJ failed in giving an inaccurate description of the events. The RO failed in asking probing questions to suss out the details.

What if the player had said "I took a drop from casual water?" but it turns out the casual water was in a hazard? The RO should do a lot more to determine the actual facts of the matter, but in both situations the player effectively lied about the facts of the matter.

1 hour ago, ay33660 said:

Didn't the rules committee violate it own rules by overruling the referee?

No.

1 hour ago, ay33660 said:

In this case Johnson did the right thing and got a ruling therefore it should stand regardless. I am not a rules geek so perhaps someone can explain to me why USGA's own rule 34-2 did not apply here?

I don't know exactly, but I suspect it had a bit to do with DJ misrepresenting the situation.

Kinda like the water hazard/casual water example I made up. (I'm still waiting for a hole to be poked in that, but it's held up thus far… so maybe it's not as bad as I assume almost all synonymous examples tend to be…).

1 hour ago, ay33660 said:

Does this mean now players not only have to get the referee's ruling but should wait until the rules committee has had a chance to give it their blessing too. Should make for a long round of golf.

No, it means they should take care - both the players and the RO - to make the facts all known. Neither DJ nor the RO did that.

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Another golfer had his ball move after grounding the club behind it (before DJ) and the rules official was consulted, told him to replace the ball and play.  I don't get how one was a penalty and the other wasn't.  

The time between the golfer's actions and the ball moving. Lowry was penalized for his ball moving, too.

53 minutes ago, Lastpick said:

I think the ruling that was made at the time on the 5th green was correct.

The RO had bad information at the time.

53 minutes ago, Lastpick said:

Where they are wrong is that they became the story for the last two hours of the broadcast.

DJ shares in the blame for that. As does the original RO.

53 minutes ago, Lastpick said:

I also don't understand why tour golfers take such a chance of making practice strokes at such a close proximity to the ball.  A one stroke penalty can change a career. 

I hate that too. Move back more. The farther you are from it the less likely you are to cause it to move.

@david_wedzik said the same thing to me earlier today. He said if he was playing there with those conditions in a U.S. Open he'd take his strokes a foot from the ball.

38 minutes ago, Deryck Griffith said:

Personally, I feel this whole thing is less about the rule itself and more about the application of the rule by the USGA.

I think we have to separate the original RO who made a hasty call with the USGA itself.

Once the RO made the hasty call, it could have gone two ways:

• The USGA could have done what they did and, in their opinion, gotten the call right.
• The USGA could have secretly said "man that guy screwed up, it's a penalty, but we can't do shit about it now, so we'll just give that guy a firm talking to and ship him down to high school matches for screwing the pooch at our biggest event."

I honestly wonder if they don't think they should have chosen the second option in hindsight. They'd have to live with the fact that they got the ruling "wrong," but they'd have avoided the black eye they're getting today.

I think they value the honest truth more, though, so I think they'd still have gotten it right. And that RO might be shipped down to officiating high school matches…

http://www.usga.org/about/mark-e-newell-2147496271.html

But probably not.

38 minutes ago, Deryck Griffith said:

If we agree that DJ did perform a rule infraction, and I'm sure the USGA had already made up their minds that they were going to apply it, then he should of been told on hole # 12 that the penalty will be applied so everything could be adjusted and changed; scoreboards, fox and their online leaderboard, PGA Tour radio and their reporting, my PGA Tour app, etc. .

I agree. I also don't agree that they think it would have taken very long. Here's how such a conversation could have gone:

USGA: "Dustin, we'd like to ask you one very specific question about the ball moving on the fifth green. Can you give us any other reasonable cause for the ball to move so shortly after you took actions so near in time and distance to the ball?"

Dustin: "I dunno, man, gravity? I didn't address my ball."

USGA: "Addressing the ball is not really relevant. We have video here on this iPad if you want to see it. You can see here that you're very close to the ball, touch the putter to the ground and make practice strokes very near to the ball, and the ball very soon after moves. Do you see that?"

Dustin: "Yeah but I didn't address the ball with the club behind the ball. It moved from gravity."

USGA: "Well, the ball sat there for two minutes without moving and gravity still being there, so unless you can give us a cause, the way the rule is written, we have to conclude that it was more likely than not that you caused it to move and we're going to assess you a one-stroke penalty. Please add it to your score for the fifth hole, and alert Lee, and we'll alert FOX and the rest. Thank you."

4 minutes ago, Deryck Griffith said:

The USGA handled this whole situation poorly.  The official that was with DJ's group screwed up, big time and the USGA should say that he did and say that they reversed / made the change due to the mistake instead of beating around the bush about it. 

I think the RO Newell handled it poorly. I think the USGA did what they felt they had to do. They had to choose between the lesser of two evils: either stand by a ruling they felt was wrong, or take their time and try to get it right (which was softened by the fact that it was already four to seven holes later before they determined it was likely a penalty).

36 minutes ago, tdiii said:

No.  The rule should be that if the ball moves, unless the ball is touched by the putter, you replace it.

So if your ball is in the rough, so long as your club doesn't touch the ball, you can move the grass around your ball and cause the ball to fall into a different position and lie, and that's all fine too?

You can cause a ball to move without directly touching the ball.

36 minutes ago, tdiii said:

DJ gained no advantage - in fact he had to hit a longer putt.  Oh wait, maybe 1/16" longer.  The ball moved AFTER DJ moved his putter, not as he did so. It is speculation to say that he caused the ball to move.  You can't assess a penalty based on speculation. 

You can, because they deemed it more likely that he caused the ball to move than not.

34 minutes ago, Patch said:

I am of the opinion DJ needs to learn what "grounding" the club is. He says didn't. The replays I saw show that he did.  If he knew he did, then perhaps he was trying save a stroke by not agreeing that he did. If he really is ignorant of the rules, and their application, then this is just as much his fault as the USGA. Just a guess on my part. 

DJ still seems to think 18-2b exists and that's why he was being penalized.

18-2a (now just 18-2) has existed for awhile.

He is ignorant of the rules. He's not alone in that among PGA Tour players.

30 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

What reasons?  DJ gave no other reason--when specifically asked--to the USGA ruling official when they were on the 12th hole.

Right. He gave no reason. His entire "defense" is "I didn't address the ball" or "I didn't ground my putter." Yet that's not even accurate.

28 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I agree, if you're permitted to ground your club, you don't come in contact with the ball and you don't gain an advantage, there shouldn't be a penalty.

The Rules of Golf cannot concern themselves with trying to determine whether you've gained an advantage. Is a straighter putt an advantage? Is it an advantage or a disadvantage for your ball to be hovering high up in the rough? (Maybe, like me, that particular player tends to catch those high on the clubface, so it's an advantage if it settles down into the grass a little bit?)

You're reacting with your gut, not thinking about the ramifications of such a rules change.

28 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I have seen some golfers ground their club in the rough to push down the grass behind the ball to make better contract with the ball and gain an advantage.  If the ball moves in that circumstance, a penalty should be called, but on the green, it's a non penalty.  

Uh, if they've improved their lie, that's a rules infection right there whether the ball moves or not.

26 minutes ago, tdiii said:

If the USGA knows it got the ruling right, why isn't there anything on the USGA website explaining this?

What do they need to explain? Here you go:

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-2-0.5

20 minutes ago, tdiii said:

What if the greens are spongey.  In the act of addressing, the settling of my feet cause the ball to move?  Penalty, right?  Even though there would have been no way for me to prevent the movement.  The rule is absurd.

So players should be allowed to cause their ball to move without making a stroke at the ball?

Stop reacting with your gut, and think, please.

The rule simply says that if the player is more likely than not the cause of the ball's movement, he's penalized.

7 minutes ago, bplewis24 said:

Shame on the USGA for bungling this so poorly in more ways than one, and then on top of all that still penalizing him when they have so clearly misinterpreted and misapplied the rule through sheer idiocy.

They didn't misapply or misinterpret the rule at all. I don't think I've seen anyone else saying that.

[ay33660]

53 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

I saw the vid again this morning and the only reason why I think I believe DJ that he didn't cause the ball to move (by putter touching it) because if he did I would have thought the ball would have rocked slightly forward first and THEN backwards. Didn't see it move forward at all.

Now causing the ball to move just by grounding it during the practice stroke (which I think what happened with ball moving back toward the putter just a delayed response to the 'vibration') is also a penalty then, well, it's a penalty like assessed.

I don't blame the USGA too much in how they handled it because I think always better to err on the side of caution, which I think they took it a bit too far, but that's it. Firing without being sure would have been a graver issue.  

I understand the disapproval, but let's be honest, how often do this type of situation actually occur? Compared to other sports/games, golf has much fewer controversial incidences like this.

Not arguing whether the first ruling was correct or not but it seems to me the USGA broke their own rules by not adhering to rule 34-2. 

34-2. Referee's Decision

If a referee has been appointed by the Committee, his decision is final.

IMHO if the USGA wishes to have an additional layer of oversight in order to get the rulings absolutely correct and therefore err on the side of caution then why have rule 34-2 in place?

This is the reason I made the comment that now players are going to not only look for a referee's ruling but to also look for the rules committee's blessing because obviously the USGA does not wish to adhere to it own rule 34-2.

IMHO this whole fiasco would have gone away had the USGA simply invoked rule 34-2 and left the ruling as determined by the original referee.

 

 

 

 

[natureboy]

5 minutes ago, xcott said:

Is till maintain that with the slope and speed of these greens, the possibilities for the ball moving for reasons beside a putter go up dramatically. 

I agree. There were at least 3 such incidents during the tournament. Two involved penalties. One did not.

DJ's putter never touched the ball. I know that's not important under the wording of the rule, but I don't think such incidental contact of the ground ought to be a penalizing action.

The rules state that you are allowed to rest the weight of the club on the ground. Had DJ rested more than the weight of the putter on the ground or bashed the ground with his putter in anger and it moved I say fair penalty. Had he pressed down on the interleaved blades of grass in the rough behind his ball and it moved another fair penalty. Lightly soling the putter on ground to the side of the ball on a shaved putting surface where no blades of grass are interleaved does not meet what I think is a reasonable standard for not interfering with the ball / improving the lie. DJs action that caused the movement involved his 'equipment' but it involved less force than a footfall.

I could definitely see a situation where a player standing near the ball preparing to address it sneezes or stumbles, which causes a sudden weight shift that causes the ball to move. How would that be handled under the rule?

I still think the Frenchman caused the ball to move just due to being close to the ball in a micro version of isostatic depression. There was no wind, what else caused his ball to move? Bad juju?

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, ay33660 said:

Not arguing whether the first ruling was correct or not but it seems to me the USGA broke their own rules by not adhering to rule 34-2.

I've addressed this.

2 minutes ago, ay33660 said:

IMHO if the USGA wishes to have an additional layer of oversight in order to get the rulings absolutely correct and therefore err on the side of caution then why have rule 34-2 in place?

I think the USGA would say they didn't make a ruling because they didn't have the facts.

That the RO didn't get those facts is his fault, and a big screw-up. That DJ misrepresented the facts is his fault, too.

I'm not speaking for the USGA, but I don't think 34-2 applies here because of the misrepresented facts.

Just now, natureboy said:

The rules state that you are allowed to rest the weight of the club on the ground.

They also state that if you cause the ball to move you're penalized. You don't get to rest the weight of the club on the ground if in doing so you cause the ball to move… whether you're on the putting green or in the rough.

Just now, natureboy said:

Lightly soling the putter on ground to the side of the ball on a shaved putting surface where no blades of grass are interleaved does not meet what I think is a reasonable standard for not interfering with the ball / improving the lie. DJs action that caused the movement involved his 'equipment' but it involved less force than a footfall.

It was also significantly closer to the ball than a footfall. And vibrations, etc. don't need blades of grass to be interleaved. You can cause a ball to move, too, by altering wind patterns. Or swatting at a fly and the resulting air movement…

Just now, natureboy said:

I could definitely see a situation where a player standing near the ball preparing to address it sneezes or stumbles, which causes a sudden weight shift that causes the ball to move. How would that be handled under the rule?

The same exact way this was handled: by considering what is the most likely cause of the ball's movement.

Just now, natureboy said:

I still think the Frenchman caused the ball to move just due to being close to the ball in a micro version of isostatic depression.

The timing was quite different.

[Golfingdad]

46 minutes ago, Patch said:

I am of the opinion DJ needs to learn what "grounding" the club is. He says didn't. The replays I saw show that he did.  If he knew he did, then perhaps he was trying save a stroke by not agreeing that he did.

You're conflating two different moments.  When he's talking about not having grounded his club, he's talking about when he goes to address it.  He was correct about that, his club didn't touch the ground then yet.  When he did ground the club, it was next to the ball after his practice swing.

[rehmwa]

So he touches the ground a couple times for practice strokes.  Pauses briefly.  Then he moves the putter behind the ball in preparation for addressing the ball.

If, during that pause, he steps back a just a couple feet - instead of repositioning the putter head.

and the ball moves in the same timing.......but now he's nowhere near the ball when it moved....

does this change anyone's mind?

[iacas]

---

Also…

 

Quote

34-3/1 

Correction of Incorrect Ruling in Stroke Play

Q.During the first round of a 36-hole stroke-play competition, a competitor plays a wrong ball from a bunker at the 6th hole and the ball comes to rest on the green. He then realizes that he has played a wrong ball and corrects his mistake. The competitor reports the facts to the Committee before returning his card and is incorrectly advised that he has incurred no penalty since the wrong ball was played from a hazard.

During the second round the Committee realizes that it made a mistake and retrospectively adds to the competitor's first-round score two penalty strokes at the 6th hole.

The competitor objects on the ground that the Committee reached a decision on the matter the previous day and that, as Rule 34-3 states that the Committee's decision is final, it cannot now impose a penalty.

Was the Committee's procedure correct?

A.Yes. Under Rule 34-3, a Committee's decision is final in that the competitor has no right to appeal. However, Rule 34-3 does not prevent a Committee from correcting an incorrect ruling and imposing or rescinding a penalty provided that no penalty is imposed or rescinded after the competition is closed, except in the circumstances set forth in Rule 34-1b. (Revised)

 

2 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

does this change anyone's mind?

Given the disagreement about this as it exists now, let's please avoid hypotheticals.

[rehmwa]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

---

Given the disagreement about this as it exists now, let's please avoid hypotheticals.

I think it feeds into how one looks at it in terms of how close (time) would one's actions need to be in order to be considered contributing.  Which is part of the interpretations of the new rule.

there was a delay between the practice putt groundings and the actual movement of the ball - how do we draw that line for that aspect?

but if you want to guide the discussion elsewhere - no biggie

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I think it feeds into how one looks at it in terms of how close (time) would one's actions need to be in order to be considered contributing.  Which is part of the interpretations of the new rule.

there was a delay between the practice putt groundings and the actual movement of the ball - how do we draw that line for that aspect?

but if you want to guide the discussion elsewhere - no biggie

You make the same type of determination: what is the most likely cause of the ball to move.

Again, since there's enough disagreement and/or misunderstanding of the current rule and situation, I would like to avoid hypotheticals that stretch it farther, particularly as everyone's going to picture a slightly different situation regardless of how well you define it.

[tdiii]

42 minutes ago, iacas said:

What do they need to explain? Here you go:

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-2-0.5

So players should be allowed to cause their ball to move without making a stroke at the ball?

Stop reacting with your gut, and think, please.

The rule simply says that if the player is more likely than not the cause of the ball's movement, he's penalized.

They didn't misapply or misinterpret the rule at all. I don't think I've seen anyone else saying that.

They need to explain their application of the rule.

No.  Players should not be allowed to cause their ball to move without making a stroke.  Whether they cause it to move or not, it is replaced. 

The "stop reacting with your guy comment" is an obvious case of transference.  You want the USGA to be right so you lash out at commonsense reactions of others.  Get over it.   

Yes.  The USGA misapplied or misinterpreted the rule.  DJ did not cause the ball to move. 

[xcott]

52 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why didn't the ball move in the minute or two it was sitting there before DJ soled his putter a few times and took practice strokes 1/2" from the ball?

We don't know that it didn't move. It very well could have, but there wasn't a person standing right next to it watching it intently.

7 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Yes.  The USGA misapplied or misinterpreted the rule.  DJ did not cause the ball to move. 

I think they probably didn't misapply or misinterpret, I think that they came to the wrong conclusion on the % chance it was Dustin who made the ball move. 

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, tdiii said:

Yes.  The USGA misapplied or misinterpreted the rule.  DJ did not cause the ball to move. 

No they didn't. 

Quote

If the weight of evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the player caused the ball to move, even though that conclusion is not free from doubt, the player incurs a one-stroke penalty under Rule 18-2 and the ball must be replaced. Otherwise, the player incurs no penalty and the ball is played as it lies unless some other Rule applies (e.g., Rule 18-1).

You have to weight the evidence at hand. Was it a windy day, no. Was the greens sloped and fast, yes. Was his ball struggling not to move when he placed it back down after marking it, no. I think that is the key there. The ball was near the hole, not on a ridge. He routinely practices his putts extremely close to the ball. He grounded his putter next to the ball before lifting it to place it behind the ball. You can see in the video he hesitates to ground the putter behind the ball because he notices that the ball is shifting. He hovers the putter and than backs the putter away so the ball doesn't roll into it.  

So we ask what is the most likely cause? It is DJ grounding the club very near to the ball most likely caused it to shift slightly enough to slowly move as he was addressing the ball. 

Yes he deserved a penalty. It was correctly applied.