2016 U.S. Open at Oakmont Discussion Thread

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Natural Patrick said:

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

Contribute to the discussion. Your habit of doing little more than taking shots at people is wearing thin.

Yep. I deleted your comment. It added nothing to the actual topic, as is typical of you lately.

[newtogolf]

24 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 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).

I agree, if video doesn't prove the player caused it to move and no other reason for movement can be determined it should be replace the ball and no penalty.  

While i understand that given all the possible causes of the ball moving DJ would be the most likely cause it still doesn't seem fair to penalize the golfer if they feel certain they were not the cause.  

Golf is either a game of honor or not.  If it's proven that DJ lied or misrepresented what happened then it should have been a 2 stroke penalty.  

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I agree, if video doesn't prove the player caused it to move and no other reason for movement can be determined it should be replace the ball and no penalty.

If the player didn't cause the ball to move you do not replace it.

3 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

While i understand that given all the possible causes of the ball moving DJ would be the most likely cause it still doesn't seem fair to penalize the golfer if they feel certain they were not the cause.

Golf is either a game of honor or not.  If it's proven that DJ lied or misrepresented what happened then it should have been a 2 stroke penalty.  

DJ didn't even know the rule. Should we let criminals go if they don't think they committed a crime/were unaware that they committed a crime?

I'm mostly done but I'm gonna swat away the easy ones.

[Hiway1tele]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

If the player didn't cause the ball to move you do not replace it.

Isnt that what the RO in the field decided...The penalty should have been made right then and there...not two hours after the fact..

[Fourputt]

I love how few here are outraged by the wonderfully good fortune DJ had with the relief from the TV tower.  It's mostly okay if the player is helped by a rule, but it's abuse by Nazi rules officials if they are penalized.  I'm thinking that the tower ruling may have saved him more strokes than he lost on the Rule 18 issue.

By the way there is no doubt that both rulings were correct.

[BallStriker]

“Watching the video, I still don't think I caused the ball to move, but the USGA, they said I did,” Johnson said. “So with the rule, I don't even understand the rule, but I got a penalty. It didn't matter at the end of the day. That's it.”

 

Gotta love you some DJ........such speaking the truth....LOL

[DrvFrShow]

There is a sensible solution to this problem: don't make the greens as fast and as firm as a concrete garage floor. This seems to be a test that only Mike Davis wants. He seems to like controversy. A course where even par might be good enough to win. Well with these players you really have to tweak a course to do that: really tall rough, aprons trimmed to putting length so balls roll back 20 yds, fast and firm greens stimping at 14+ where a little breeze or even a blade of grass growing can cause a ball to oscillate. You can have the greens fast but have them hold. 

Golfers were complaining about Chambers last year. Glad to see them complaining about Oakmont this year. One thing in common? Mike Davis.

I watched the video, and I don't think he caused the ball to move. I think the call was BS. At the end of the day, fortunately it didn't matter. And rule 18-2 is pretty poorly written. 

[Lastpick]

Haven't read all the post, but I will.  DJ was in no way at fault about the ruling on the fifth green.  I his estimation, he did nothing to cause the ball to move.  It is not possible to determine that DJ caused the ball to move.  I could make an argument that there was an imperfection in the green that was negligible.  I think the USGA should have stood by the original ruling and determined what to do before anymore USGA events are held.  The PGA can certainly make a decision as to their future decisions.  As for this incident, the USGA screwed the pooch and detracted from their premier event of the year.  The US Open was also held on the best course that they have had in years.

I will add that previously I had stated that the greens were to fast and I think that I was wrong.  The greens were fast, but I was initially fooled by the false fronts that force the golfers to hit a quality shot to a specific location on the green.

One other thing that interest me and I will google it is the turnpike through the golf course.  I find it amazing that the original designer had the foresight to leave room for the turnpike as the course was built in the early 20th century.

 

 

 

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, Lastpick said:

Haven't read all the post, but I will.  DJ was in no way at fault about the ruling on the fifth green.  I his estimation, he did nothing to cause the ball to move.  It is not possible to determine that DJ caused the ball to move.

You don't need 100% conclusive evidence. If the weight of the evidence shows that the most likely cause of the movement was the player then he gets assessed a 1 stroke penalty. 

4 minutes ago, Lastpick said:

One other thing that interest me and I will google it is the turnpike through the golf course.  I find it amazing that the original designer had the foresight to leave room for the turnpike as the course was built in the early 20th century.

It looks like the only thing that might have happened is #2 might have been shortened a tad. 

http://www.historicaerials.com/

 

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, Lastpick said:

One other thing that interest me and I will google it is the turnpike through the golf course.  I find it amazing that the original designer had the foresight to leave room for the turnpike as the course was built in the early 20th century.

I believe a railroad ran through there originally. So he left room for that, and it later turned into the turnpike.

[Hardspoon]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

I believe a railroad ran through there originally. So he left room for that, and it later turned into the turnpike.

Yup:

http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2016/6/14/11878152/us-open-2016-oakmont-country-club-highway-interstate-76

[Lastpick]

Thanks for the clarification on the turnpike.  Interesting link I will read.

 

51 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You don't need 100% conclusive evidence. If the weight of the evidence shows that the most likely cause of the movement was the player then he gets assessed a 1 stroke penalty. 

. 

http://www.historicaerials.com/

 

Did you know the specifics of the rule prior to Sunday.  I didn't.  

[Hardspoon]

6 minutes ago, Lastpick said:

Thanks for the clarification on the turnpike.  Interesting link I will read.

This may have been posted here already, but if you're interested in the development of the course itself, this is also a great read:

http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/oakmont/

 

[Missouri Swede]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

If the player didn't cause the ball to move you do not replace it.

Wattel's ball moved, and they ruled that he didn't cause it.  But he replaced it as directed by the RO.  Wrong call by the RO?

[Chris E]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

If the player didn't cause the ball to move you do not replace it.

DJ didn't even know the rule. Should we let criminals go if they don't think they committed a crime/were unaware that they committed a crime?

I'm mostly done but I'm gonna swat away the easy ones.

Why don't you spend your considerable energy on the subject swatting down the multiple articles and overwhelming comment sections after those articles taking the opposite opinion as yourself. You could make an evening out of righting this wrong. 

I need to go back and see how energetic you were about the rules when TW moved that twig. 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

Wattel's ball moved, and they ruled that he didn't cause it.  But he replaced it as directed by the RO.  Wrong call by the RO?

I don't think that's accurate. I don't think they had him replace the ball. If they did, that may have been an error. I know they deemed no penalty…

6 minutes ago, Chris E said:

Why don't you spend your considerable energy on the subject swatting down the multiple articles and overwhelming comment sections after those articles taking the opposite opinion as yourself. You could make an evening out of righting this wrong.

Why? I post here. I discuss things with people here.

6 minutes ago, Chris E said:

I need to go back and see how energetic you were about the rules when TW moved that twig. 

You do know that I was the first person outside David Eger, who took a different path while Tiger was still playing, to call for Tiger to be DQed at the Masters when he hit the flagstick and dropped improperly, right? I talked to rules officials on-site, I talked to some media people, etc.

Sorry if that doesn't fit the narrative you've constructed. I don't like or dislike Dustin Johnson. I'm simply in favor of applying the rules properly.

[Missouri Swede]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't think that's accurate. I don't think they had him replace the ball. If they did, that may have been an error. I know they deemed no penalty…

They showed the video of Wattel this morning on the Golf Channel.  After the RO left, Wattel marked his ball, picked it up, and placed it again.  Nobilo's voiceover states that Wattel had to replace the ball 1 mm or so back to its original spot, with 2 stroke penalty if he didn't replace it.

But for all I know, maybe Nobilo's commentary was wrong, and Wattel just decided to start over with his putting routine--begin over by marking the ball, placing it, etc.  (Wouldn't be the first time a commentator got it wrong in this whole series of events.)

[Hardspoon]

Just now, Missouri Swede said:

They showed the video of Wattel this morning on the Golf Channel.  After the RO left, Wattel marked his ball, picked it up, and placed it again.  Nobilo's voiceover states that Wattel had to replace the ball 1 mm or so back to its original spot, with 2 stroke penalty if he didn't replace it.

But for all I know, maybe Nobilo's commentary was wrong, and Wattel just decided to start over with his putting routine--begin over by marking the ball, placing it, etc.  (Wouldn't be the first time a commentator got it wrong in this whole series of events.)

Maybe he just decided to mark it to be safe?  If you mark it and place it, what are they going to do, argue that you didn't replace it that 1mm?  That seems like a good hedge...maybe I'm missing something in the rules, though.