2016 U.S. Open at Oakmont Discussion Thread

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, 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.

I believe Nobilo may have misspoken.

My understanding was that, since the line was no longer how he wanted it, he marked and replaced it so the line was again where he wanted it to be pointing. He didn't move it back, as I understand it, he just marked the new position.

3 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

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.)

That's what I'm thinking.

[Golfingdad]

26 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'm simply in favor of applying the rules properly.

So am I ... But we just have seemingly different ideas about what is proper. :)

[Chris E]

15 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…

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

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.

I don't recall that, at all. I remember you shutting down the conversation in that thread, stating TW should not have been DQ'd. I guess you are hanging your hat on the 'after the fact' BS about what a rules official did or didn't tell TW before signing his card. If irony was in play a cynic could say something similar happened on the 5th green yesterday. I don't recall you with a 'let's get it right' position then, because if it was 'gotten right' then he would have been DQ'd for signing the incorrect card, for a blatant rules violation. 

Look, I'm not sure I disagree with your assessment on the current situation. If I had to bet $, I would say whatever he did around the ball made it move. It is too much of a coincidence that it moved when it did. That doesn't absolve the fact that the rule is stupid, and should be amended to take judgment into account on whether the player improved his position. Nor does your energy in defending it in the manner you have in this thread make alot of sense either. You can make your point based upon pure interpretation, while conceding the idiocy. 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

So am I ... But we just have seemingly different ideas about what is proper. :)

Properly = getting the best and most evidence and determining what are most likely the facts. And unlike what @Chris E was seemingly implying, I don't care who does it - I'm still in favor of arriving at the best, most accurate, most factually authentic and complete understanding and application.

[atb5079]

I guess I am going to resign myself to this:

The rules are the rules and I get 18-2 while I still think its a little absurd. The penalty didn't affect the result, but could down the road. My problem is what most people's issues are with waiting 7 holes to notify the player then making the decision post round. I think the USGA will learn from that. But also I really have a big issue with the fact that the player's police themselves and that is what is great about golf compared to most sports, along with the playing partner's opinion/take as well as the walking rules official who also gave the blessing. Seems like there is far too much belittling for lack of a better word to the player, partner and walking rules official, along with technology being a double edged sword. Is what it is, but I do think the rule should be looked at going forward.

The biggest issue of all is the thing with Wattel.

[Hardspoon]

Interesting video (fast forward to 2:46):

Neat little experiment, if nothing else.

 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Interesting video (fast forward to 2:46)

Neat, sure. But it wasn't very windy at that time.

[Shooting29]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Properly = getting the best and most evidence and determining what are most likely the facts. And unlike what @Chris E was seemingly implying, I don't care who does it - I'm still in favor of arriving at the best, most accurate, most factually authentic and complete understanding and application.

Maybe I  have missed it, there are 60+ pages on this thread, but if you are interested in only properly applying the rules, why are you not advocating a two stroke penalty for playing from the wrong place under rule 20-7? According to the ruling, he caused the ball to move but didn’t replace it. 18-2 requires replacement. 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Shooting29 said:

Maybe I  have missed it, there are 60+ pages on this thread, but if you are interested in only properly applying the rules, why are you not advocating a two stroke penalty for playing from the wrong place under rule 20-7? According to the ruling, he caused the ball to move but didn’t replace it. 18-2 requires replacement. 

Because he acted at the direction of a RO and unlike assessing or not assessing a penalty, that's not something you can change later.

[newtogolf]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

I believe Nobilo may have misspoken.

My understanding was that, since the line was no longer how he wanted it, he marked and replaced it so the line was again where he wanted it to be pointing. He didn't move it back, as I understand it, he just marked the new position.

That's what I'm thinking.

He said the ball moved and referenced the line on his ball as proof that it had moved.  The RO had him proceed without penalty.  

[Buckeyebowman]

On 6/19/2016 at 10:30 PM, 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.

 

On 6/19/2016 at 10:41 PM, Fourputt said:

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.

Ehhhh, I don't know about that. I did notice that his practice putting strokes were quite close to the ball, but that is not what caused the ball to move. At least as far as the visible "evidence" is concerned. There was no issue when he made his practice putting strokes. It was only when he attempted to ground his putter head behind the ball, which NEVER happened BTW, that the issue arose, which DJ called to an official's attention.

I also found it interesting in the post tournament interview with the "Stepford Rules Officials", a couple of dweebazoid robots who look like they've never smiled in their entire lives, that they kept referring to the "evidence" that DJ caused the ball to move. But, they never honed in on what that "evidence" actually was! This was one of the times that I wished that I was the interviewer. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! I'd have screwed them to the wall!

And, listening to Dan Patrick this morning, his comment was, "How about we agree that the rule is just plain silly! What advantage was gained?"

[70sSanO]

1 hour ago, Hardspoon said:

Interesting video (fast forward to 2:46):

Neat little experiment, if nothing else.

 

While interesting I would tend to disagree with this experiment based on how much air a hair dryer puts out.

But I am still wrestling with the fact that we live on a planet that is rotating at 800 mph or so (Pittsburg latitude) and speeding along at 65,000 mph.  I would think that the sheer forces in nature could have some effect on a millimeter of movement.

I wonder what is the approved distance from the ball for it not to be caused by the player... A foot? 5 feet? 10 feet?  If a player is 10 feet away and the ball moves a millimeter, what is the official cause of the movement.

John

[b101]

To me, the biggest shame about this is that we aren't talking about DJ getting the monkey off his back in four fantastic rounds at a course where few would have predicted him to win given his putting woes. He was the best player in the field by a distance over the course of the tournament and it feels like the USGA debacle, right or wrong, has slightly taken his moment from him. I'm absolutely delighted for him and it's such a shame that all he's being asked about is whether he caused his ball to move a fraction rather than the many times he nailed it off the tee or that incredible 8 iron to win it.

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

Interesting video (fast forward to 2:46):

Neat little experiment, if nothing else.

 

That is interesting. I would expect it was a one-two punch from the soling the blade near the ball creating a fractional instability that the movement of the blade accentuated. IMO what most people are irate about is that such small, light, and slow movements should not cause a ball that is a tenth of a pound to move.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Neat, sure. But it wasn't very windy at that time.

You missed the point of the video. It was arguing that the movement of the putter itself created a turbulent, low pressure wake / vortices. Movement of the putter in the air = 'effective' breeze.

28 minutes ago, b101 said:

To me, the biggest shame about this is that we aren't talking about DJ getting the monkey off his back in four fantastic rounds at a course where few would have predicted him to win given his putting woes. He was the best player in the field by a distance over the course of the tournament and it feels like the USGA debacle, right or wrong, has slightly taken his moment from him. I'm absolutely delighted for him and it's such a shame that all he's being asked about is whether he caused his ball to move a fraction rather than the many times he nailed it off the tee or that incredible 8 iron to win it.

He's given two consecutive lights-out ballstriking clinics at the U.S. Open. Has he been learning to peak his game? If he continues to improve his putting, Augusta may be in his reach. The issue there is that his driving advantage is negated a bit by the more accommodating fairways and rough there.

1 hour ago, 70sSanO said:

I wonder what is the approved distance from the ball for it not to be caused by the player... A foot? 5 feet? 10 feet?  If a player is 10 feet away and the ball moves a millimeter, what is the official cause of the movement.

It varies with the tides and relative positions of Jupiter, Venus. and Mars. Those tables will be available as a supplement in the next edition of the rules. 

Edited June 21, 2016 by natureboy

[DrvFrShow]

6 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

Interesting video (fast forward to 2:46):

Neat little experiment, if nothing else.

 

It didn't have to be very windy at all. It also would depend upon whether DJ had an uphill putt as well. If the putt was uphill even a slight breeze with the greens as fast and as firm as they were could be enough to cause the ball to move. It only moved a dimple. Bottom line is that DJ did not cause the ball to move. He had not grounded the club nor had his club touched the ball. It was a bad ruling.

[iacas]

6 hours ago, newtogolf said:

He said the ball moved and referenced the line on his ball as proof that it had moved.  The RO had him proceed without penalty.  

Because he wasn't deemed to have moved the ball. There was no penalty and, I believe, he properly played it from where it lie. Since it barely moved, and he wanted the line to be on top again, he marked and replaced the ball with his line on top. But he marked the new position, I believe, per the rules.

6 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

I also found it interesting in the post tournament interview with the "Stepford Rules Officials", a couple of dweebazoid robots who look like they've never smiled in their entire lives, that they kept referring to the "evidence" that DJ caused the ball to move. But, they never honed in on what that "evidence" actually was! This was one of the times that I wished that I was the interviewer. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! I'd have screwed them to the wall!

The "evidence" that they had to weigh was simply:

• The ball didn't move before DJ got close to it and did things.
• The ball did move after DJ got close to it and did things.

What changed? DJ getting close to it and doing things. The slope didn't change. The wind wasn't a factor (there was hardly any breeze, and no gusts). Etc.

6 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

And, listening to Dan Patrick this morning, his comment was, "How about we agree that the rule is just plain silly! What advantage was gained?"

You can't base individual rulings on whether an advantage is gained.

5 hours ago, natureboy said:

You missed the point of the video. It was arguing that the movement of the putter itself created a turbulent, low pressure wake / vortices. Movement of the putter in the air = 'effective' breeze.

I disagree that was the point of the video. The point of the video was to demonstrate how a squared shape behind a ball could cause the ball to move toward it, even with the wind blowing away. Either way, my comment stands: there was nowhere near the same amount of wind as a hair dryer.

1 hour ago, DrvFrShow said:

It didn't have to be very windy at all. It also would depend upon whether DJ had an uphill putt as well. If the putt was uphill even a slight breeze with the greens as fast and as firm as they were could be enough to cause the ball to move. It only moved a dimple. Bottom line is that DJ did not cause the ball to move. He had not grounded the club nor had his club touched the ball. It was a bad ruling.

The putt was not on a steep part of the green. It wasn't long enough. The USGA doesn't set U.S. Open pins on 4% slopes, and even that wouldn't lead to spontaneous roll. A small surface imperfection could be a higher slope, sure, but the ball also moved more than "a dimple" or "a millimeter" as people are saying. Not much more, no… but it rolled a few dimples (2-4?) and closer to a cm than a mm.

Again, not that any of that matters: "moved" is "moved" whether it's a mm or a m.

[Marty2019]

I haven't read everyone's comments, but nonetheless, here is my opinion on the penalty controversy.   I would not have called a penalty for these reasons.   Dustin Johnson notified the officials immediately when the ball moved.  Dustin Johnson stated that he did not cause the ball to move.  Lee Westwood said DJ had not caused the ball to move.   The rules official on the spot said, no penalty, play on.  The replay shows that DJ did not sole his putter behind the ball.   The replay shows the ball moved towards DJ's putter, not away from it.   With the speed of the greens, almost anything could cause a ball to start moving.   But it moved towards his putter, not away from it.  

For all those reasons, I would have said no penalty. 

[boogielicious]

12 hours ago, nevets88 said:

USGA's official statement on the DJ debacle:

http://golfweek.com/2016/06/20/us-open-usga-rules-ruling-response-statement-dustin-johnson/

I'm disappointed they did not go into more detail on the RO at the seem making the wrong call. All this would have been avoided if that RO had correctly applied the rule at the time and explained it to DJ. DJ wasn't clear on the rule and the RO has that responsibility.

8 hours ago, Chris E said:

I don't recall that, at all. I remember you shutting down the conversation in that thread, stating TW should not have been DQ'd. I guess you are hanging your hat on the 'after the fact' BS about what a rules official did or didn't tell TW before signing his card. If irony was in play a cynic could say something similar happened on the 5th green yesterday. I don't recall you with a 'let's get it right' position then, because if it was 'gotten right' then he would have been DQ'd for signing the incorrect card, for a blatant rules violation. 

Look, I'm not sure I disagree with your assessment on the current situation. If I had to bet $, I would say whatever he did around the ball made it move. It is too much of a coincidence that it moved when it did. That doesn't absolve the fact that the rule is stupid, and should be amended to take judgment into account on whether the player improved his position. Nor does your energy in defending it in the manner you have in this thread make alot of sense either. You can make your point based upon pure interpretation, while conceding the idiocy. 

What does this add to the conversation? Bringing up old gripes from previous threads does not help anyone. Conversations are only shut down when posters start to get immature and attack each other.