2016 U.S. Open at Oakmont Discussion Thread

[Hiway1tele]

I wonder how well the Inept decision By the USGA to wait till the Round was over, Leaving all players in a state of not knowing what the score was, or how they needed to play, would work in the Tennis or NFL world...maybe a Field Goal wins it, maybe not..we will tell you after the game...Mike Davis and his crew of Morons should resign...period.

[ay33660]

On 6/22/2016 at 4:25 AM, iacas said:

@ay33660, does this settle the case for you?

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-34,d34-3-7

 

 

I mean, it's basically exactly what happened.

I was already aware of that decision but in an earlier reply to me you quoted 34-3/8 so I surmised that it was more appropriate. You stated that by Dustin's remarks he was not aware of the new 18-2 rule and that he gave false or incorrect information to the referee who then made a determination based on that false information.

I assumed that you thought 34-3/8 was more appropriate as you would have had to read past 34-3/7 before you got to 34-3/8 so I did not bring up the 34-3/7 decision.

Mistakes in officiating will always exist in sports. It is really a part of sports.

As much as the USGA wants to get it right in doing so have they caused more harm to the field of competition than perhaps the initial ruling error.

In this case the USGA has acknowledged that not applying the penalty to Dustin at the 12th hole created harm to the field of competition as no-one knew exactly where they stood over the last 6 holes relative to the leader.

Case closed for me.

I just hope someone at the USGA tackles the use of video review and the timing of making a decision. As I had stated earlier when the majority of the rules of golf to which we play by were written the use of video review by either ruling officials or outside agencies (ie arm chair officials) was not contemplated. Players had to make their own ruling as the field of play was too vast and the field of competitors too large to have an official with each player. 

I don't think another rule has to be added merely acknowledgement of the issues caused by this instance and the shadow that was cast on an otherwise great US Open.

Edited June 23, 2016 by ay33660

[tdiii]

For purposes of discussion, let's grant that the ruling on 5 was proper.  There's a pretty healthy disagreement there, but whatever. 

Folks have a pretty good innate sense of fairness; of what is or is not an advantage, and of what's right and wrong.  A ball wobbles and a golfer doesn't get any advantage whatsoever -- I'm hopeful we could agree in this situation DJ received no advantage.  The larger problem here is how myopic and picayune the rules are and how stuffy the USGA and rules nazis appear.  This type of situation just opens up golf to ridicule.  And the fact that the USGA does not seem able to take a step back and recognize this absurdity only exacerbates the problem.

In the legal world, when strict interpretation of a statute leads to truly absurd results, more often than not, the courts take a step back and look at the policy that is being forwarded with that statute.  Why did we enact this law?  If the application of that law in a particular set of circumstance is absurd the courts will not enforce it.  Instead, the courts will try to fashion a proper remedy.  Now, there's lots to be criticized about such judicial activism (a never-ending debate we won't resolve here).  But both liberal and conservative judges and justices do it on a regular basis.  (Of course, each side of the aisle blames the other while asserting it is not guilty of it.) 

My point:  99% of the viewing public sees the situation and thinks a rules infraction is simply absurd.  Had this cost DJ a championship, I think the game would truly have suffered. 

There needs to be some ability on the part of the Rules Committee to look to commonsense fairness.  Yes, I understand the issues with that -- but in this situation, it does not appear anyone in the field would have assessed DJ the penalty.  The very people who we protect with the rules, who have the most to gain by application of a rule, would not have applied it here.

Until the rules gurus out there are ready to recognize the absurdity and unfairness in the application of picayune rules, the game will always be the subject of ridicule and, really, scorn.   

[boogielicious]

22 minutes ago, tdiii said:

For purposes of discussion, let's grant that the ruling on 5 was proper.  There's a pretty healthy disagreement there, but whatever. 

Folks have a pretty good innate sense of fairness; of what is or is not an advantage, and of what's right and wrong.  A ball wobbles and a golfer doesn't get any advantage whatsoever -- I'm hopeful we could agree in this situation DJ received no advantage.  The larger problem here is how myopic and picayune the rules are and how stuffy the USGA and rules nazis appear.  This type of situation just opens up golf to ridicule.  And the fact that the USGA does not seem able to take a step back and recognize this absurdity only exacerbates the problem.

In the legal world, when strict interpretation of a statute leads to truly absurd results, more often than not, the courts take a step back and look at the policy that is being forwarded with that statute.  Why did we enact this law?  If the application of that law in a particular set of circumstance is absurd the courts will not enforce it.  Instead, the courts will try to fashion a proper remedy.  Now, there's lots to be criticized about such judicial activism (a never-ending debate we won't resolve here).  But both liberal and conservative judges and justices do it on a regular basis.  (Of course, each side of the aisle blames the other while asserting it is not guilty of it.) 

My point:  99% of the viewing public sees the situation and thinks a rules infraction is simply absurd.  Had this cost DJ a championship, I think the game would truly have suffered. 

There needs to be some ability on the part of the Rules Committee to look to commonsense fairness.  Yes, I understand the issues with that -- but in this situation, it does not appear anyone in the field would have assessed DJ the penalty.  The very people who we protect with the rules, who have the most to gain by application of a rule, would not have applied it here.

Until the rules gurus out there are ready to recognize the absurdity and unfairness in the application of picayune rules, the game will always be the subject of ridicule and, really, scorn.   

I think we all agree there was no advantage gained. The issue really is where do you draw the line on movement? I don't think you can draw it anywhere other than "it moved". It either moved or it didn't. So when rules were created, they used that as the standard. Did the ball move to a new position however slight that may be? 

All other ways of delineation would require measurement. What is at issue in this case is cause. What caused the ball to move? That has been the basis of the discussion. Because the rules is written as a "more likely than not" standard, it just becomes a judgment call. 

But I wonder, what if the player in question was one that everyone hated. I mean really loathed. Do you think the opinions would be any different? I think almost all of us like DJ and wanted him to overcome is major drought. But if it was a jerk, I think many would switch to the USGA side.

[tdiii]

26 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I think we all agree there was no advantage gained. The issue really is where do you draw the line on movement? I don't think you can draw it anywhere other than "it moved". It either moved or it didn't. So when rules were created, they used that as the standard. Did the ball move to a new position however slight that may be? 

All other ways of delineation would require measurement. What is at issue in this case is cause. What caused the ball to move? That has been the basis of the discussion. Because the rules is written as a "more likely than not" standard, it just becomes a judgment call. 

But I wonder, what if the player in question was one that everyone hated. I mean really loathed. Do you think the opinions would be any different? I think almost all of us like DJ and wanted him to overcome is major drought. But if it was a jerk, I think many would switch to the USGA side.

Highlighted because you are merely making my point for me, wandering down the rabbit hole of rules triviality, rather than looking at the policy.  Why do we have the rule?  Since we have a judgment involved in the rule's application, why not have some judgment in when the rule is applied too?  . 

As far as DJ would it have been different if, say, it was Bubba or some other annoying person?  Maybe.  But that's not really relevant. 

Edited June 23, 2016 by tdiii

[boogielicious]

3 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Highlighted because you are merely making my point for me. 

As far as DJ would it have been different if, say, it was Bubba or some other annoying person?  Maybe.  But that's not really relevant. 

I'm not sure how I made your point. The ball moved. Regardless of whether it was an advantage or not, it moved. The USGA decided he caused it to move, therefore a one stroke penalty.

Now are you asking for the USGA to revise the rule to say, "It can move only if there is no advantage gained"? How could the determine that? It would still be a judgement call. I don't see an improvement to doing it this way. Please explain your reasoning. I'm interested in your viewpoint.

[tdiii]

Just now, boogielicious said:

I'm not sure how I made your point. The ball moved. Regardless of whether it was an advantage or not, it moved. The USGA decided he caused it to move, therefore a one stroke penalty.

Now are you asking for the USGA to revise the rule to say, "It can move only if there is no advantage gained"? How could the determine that? It would still be a judgement call. I don't see an improvement to doing it this way. Please explain your reasoning. I'm interested in your viewpoint.

I explained my reasoning.  It is unfair to be penalized when there was no advantage gained, particularly through an inadvertent act (assuming the preponderence of the evidence suggests it was his act).  Yes, there's a judgment element to it.  But we have judgment elements throughout the rules of golf. 

The larger point is this sort of myopic reasoning makes the game look silly. 

[boogielicious]

4 minutes ago, tdiii said:

I explained my reasoning.  It is unfair to be penalized when there was no advantage gained, particularly through an inadvertent act (assuming the preponderence of the evidence suggests it was his act).  Yes, there's a judgment element to it.  But we have judgment elements throughout the rules of golf. 

The larger point is this sort of myopic reasoning makes the game look silly. 

But I think you are just moving the judgement call from one place to another. I don't see the benefit and I also see the potential for a competitor misusing that. What if the competitor stated that is was an advantage and the player said it was not? If there is no rules official around, how is this resolved? How do we define advantage in the rules? I just don't see this being any better.

[tdiii]

26 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

But I think you are just moving the judgement call from one place to another. I don't see the benefit and I also see the potential for a competitor misusing that. What if the competitor stated that is was an advantage and the player said it was not? If there is no rules official around, how is this resolved? How do we define advantage in the rules? I just don't see this being any better.

And you continue to make my point.  EVERY rule, statute, regulation, etc. leads to absurd results under certain circumstances.  Do you just continue blindly applying them, or do you take a step back and think about why we have the rule?  You'd blindly apply them.

Edited June 23, 2016 by tdiii

[boogielicious]

10 minutes ago, tdiii said:

And you continue to make my point.

I don't see that at all. Are you just saying, "who cares if it moves"? No penalty! Because I would disagree with that. It could move out of the line a a spike mark or some other deviation in the green that would make the putt easier. You claim it is not an advantage and your competitor does. You are just making it vague in a different place. That is not an improvement.

[Fourputt]

39 minutes ago, tdiii said:

I explained my reasoning.  It is unfair to be penalized when there was no advantage gained, particularly through an inadvertent act (assuming the preponderence of the evidence suggests it was his act).  Yes, there's a judgment element to it.  But we have judgment elements throughout the rules of golf. 

The larger point is this sort of myopic reasoning makes the game look silly. 

 The only myopic reasoning I see here is yours.  You can't see past this one incident to realize that the rule is written to apply to every situation which involves causing a ball at rest to move.  The rule applies equally to every case, which makes it equitable.  In this case no advantage was gained.  What about the next time when the ball rolls 5 feet closer to the hole?  

The Rules of Golf are written so as to treat to both situations the same.  It doesn't matter how far the ball moves or what advantage may have been gained.  It only matters that the ball moved.  That is all the rules are concerned with.  Once that happens there must be an investigation to determine the most likely cause of the movement.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

You need to curb your outrage and learn the rules.

[tdiii]

Just now, boogielicious said:

I don't see that at all. Are you just saying, "who cares if it moves"? No penalty! Because I would disagree with that. It could move out of the line a a spike mark or some other deviation in the green that would make the putt easier. You claim it is not an advantage and your competitor does. You are just making it vague in a different place. That is not an improvement.

I'm saying, "who cares if it moves, if the movement is caused by an unintentional act, and the movement did not create any material advantage?"  What we saw Sunday.  And I'm making the larger point that strict adherence to the rule makes the game look silly. 

Now you are creating a different situation that is not before us. 

1 minute ago, Fourputt said:

 The only myopic reasoning I see here is yours.  You can't see past this one incident to realize that the rule is written to apply to every situation which involves causing a ball at rest to move.  The rule applies equally to every case, which makes it equitable.  In this case no advantage was gained.  What about the next time when the ball rolls 5 feet closer to the hole?  

The Rules of Golf are written so as to treat to both situations the same.  It doesn't matter how far the ball moves or what advantage may have been gained.  It only matters that the ball moved.  That is all the rules are concerned with.  Once that happens there must be an investigation to determine the most likely cause of the movement.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

You need to curb your outrage and learn the rules.

I understand the purpose of the rule.  I understand that all rules lead to results no one comtemplated.  I'm not outraged -- I just know the USGA and rules gurus look silly to commonsense viewers.  You can continue with the insults if you wish, but that won't change this reality. 

[saevel25]

13 minutes ago, tdiii said:

I understand the purpose of the rule.  I understand that all rules lead to results no one comtemplated.  I'm not outraged -- I just know the USGA and rules gurus look silly to commonsense viewers.  You can continue with the insults if you wish, but that won't change this reality. 

You mean viewers who didn't even know the rule? Heck the announcers didn't even know the correct rule. Viewers who just assume the USGA is out to get DJ instead of correctly calling a penalty? People can't claim commonsense when they don't even know the rules to make a logical judgement on it. 

The reality is DJ broke the rule as the rule is written. It's a rule meant so people don't abuse it for their own gain. If the golfer isn't careful enough around the ball then he deserves a penalty.

That is one of the first thing a golfer learns. You do not touch the ball unless you are making a drop, marking it on the green, or making a stroke. DJ routinely makes practice strokes very close to the ball and he grounds the putter very close to the ball. He has no one to blame but himself for this happening because he's not being careful enough. 

[tdiii]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You mean viewers who didn't even know the rule? Heck the announcers didn't even know the correct rule. Viewers who just assume the USGA is out to get DJ instead of correctly calling a penalty? People can't claim commonsense when they don't even know the rules to make a logical judgement on it. 

The reality is DJ broke the rule as the rule is written. It's a rule meant so people don't abuse it for their own gain. If the golfer isn't careful enough around the ball then he deserves a penalty.

That is one of the first thing a golfer learns. You do not touch the ball unless you are making a drop, marking it on the green, or making a stroke. DJ routinely makes practice strokes very close to the ball and he grounds the putter very close to the ball. He has no one to blame but himself for this happening because he's not being careful enough. 

Actually, we don't know that DJ broke the rule as written.  You surmise he broke the rule based on a 51% preponderence of the evidence standard.  It is absolutely possible that something else caused the ball to move and we'll never know for sure. 

Edited June 23, 2016 by tdiii

[BallStriker]

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That is one of the first thing a golfer learns. You do not touch the ball unless you are making a drop, marking it on the green, or making a stroke. DJ routinely makes practice strokes very close to the ball and he grounds the putter very close to the ball. He has no one to blame but himself for this happening because he's not being careful enough. 

 

Nearly everyone makes practice stokes and grounds the putter near the ball -- are you saying this penalty would not have been justified if DJ's putter was grounded an inch further away from the ball that it was?  

The problem with the rule is the implication that the player caused it to move unless another source can be clearly identified -- as I have said before, the rule should be changed and if the ball moves without clear and convincing evidence that the player caused it to move (e.g., struck the ball with practice stroke), then you replace the ball without penalty and move on. 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by BallStriker

[Fourputt]

37 minutes ago, tdiii said:

I'm saying, "who cares if it moves, if the movement is caused by an unintentional act, and the movement did not create any material advantage?"  What we saw Sunday.  And I'm making the larger point that strict adherence to the rule makes the game look silly. 

Now you are creating a different situation that is not before us. 

I understand the purpose of the rule.  I understand that all rules lead to results no one comtemplated.  I'm not outraged -- I just know the USGA and rules gurus look silly to commonsense viewers.  You can continue with the insults if you wish, but that won't change this reality. 

Common sense only goes so far, and it's not the best way to debate a golf rule.  After that you need to have an understanding of the rules if you  expect to be taken seriously.  Your arguments don't show that necessary level of understanding.  If you look outside of yourself, you can't help but see your outrage.  You wouldn't be so vehement if you saw this as just an intellectual exercise.

[rehmwa]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

intellectual exercise.

whoa now...let's not get carried away... 

it's more of an exercise in random subjectivity and rationalization

(in the end, whatever rules are laid down, the only important part is that they are applied consistently to the best extent possible)

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, rehmwa said:

whoa now...let's not get carried away... 

it's more of an exercise in random subjectivity and rationalization

(in the end, whatever rules are laid down, the only important part is that they are applied consistently to the best extent possible)

I guess my biggest question is whether or not this rule was applied with sufficient consistency in both Wattel's and DJ's case.  They seem so similar to me, that I find difficulty in believing that a 5 second difference in timing is enough to make a different ruling.  I have no issue with the ruling in DJ's case, but I do have some question about Wattel's.