Jump to content
Subscribe to the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 3302 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Erik asked this in the US Open thread, but I think it will get lost there, so I thought I'd start a new thread here under Rules.  This was his question:

  Quote

@Rulesman, @Asheville, @Fourputt, @Dormie1360, @Martyn W… do you care to weigh in on 34-2?

Expand  

The question came up in reference to the actions of the official and the subsequent reaction of the committee in the Dustin Johnson fiasco.  I'll copy my reply from over there:

 

  Quote

 

To be honest, I'm split on 34-2.  I too feel that a ruling should be as correct as possible, but I also don't see why they bother to have a RO with a group if they are going to second guess him later.  It used to be that the RO's ruling was the end of the matter, right or wrong, so they were usually careful to get it right from the start.  That was why we each had a radio when I was officiating, so that if we had a question, we could get assistance from the committee immediately.  I know that in this case the same option was available, but the RO was confident that there could be no issue with such a simple ruling.  As it turned out, he was too confident and failed to do his job properly and completely.

The only time one of my decisions was disputed, the player simply questioned my ruling that his act was in breach of a rule.  I actually called the RO from the next hole and he supported me, then when it was reported to the committee and we went back out on the course to reenact it, the ruling was still affirmed.  It didn't have any effect on the pace of play, but it did affect the ultimate outcome of the tournament, as the 2 stroke penalty which was upheld caused him to lose by one stroke instead of winning by one.

I feel that RO's need to be more cautious and follow prescribed procedure for even the simplest situations.  When that is done, then their ruling needs to be considered final unless there is overwhelming evidence to overturn it.  The real evidence against DJ was somewhat underwhelming, but in the end I do believe that the ruling was correct as the rule currently reads.  It would probably have been made correctly in the first place and been a non-issue if the RO had done his job and followed complete procedure.

 

Expand  

 

 Comments or ideas?

  • Upvote 2

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Just some initial comments as I've have been "off the grid" having missed the open on Sunday as well as much of what has taken place since then.  I have not had a chance to look at the various threads yet.

As far at 34-2 has anyone mentioned the last paragraph of  D34-2/6 as well as D34-3/7

It would seem the USGA acted correctly under the rules, if you accept the fact Dustin caused his ball to move.  How he was notified/not notified is certainly a valid discussion, however. 

I would also add, the player is protected in the sense he can not incur an additional penalty for following the referee's instruction or ruling.  In Justin's case that would mean no additional penalty for playing from a wrong place.

As far as having ruling "replay's" now with HD cameras and fan call ins..........I don't know.  Do you want to treat players differently given the fact that most players are not televised during the competition and not subject to the same level of scrutiny, or do you want to protect the field at all costs? 

 

Regards,

John

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
  On 6/22/2016 at 4:16 AM, Dormie1360 said:

Just some initial comments as I've have been "off the grid" having missed the open on Sunday as well as much of what has taken place since then.  I have not had a chance to look at the various threads yet.

As far at 34-2 has anyone mentioned the last paragraph of  D34-2/6 as well as D34-3/7

It would seem the USGA acted correctly under the rules, if you accept the fact Dustin caused his ball to move.  How he was notified/not notified is certainly a valid discussion, however. 

I would also add, the player is protected in the sense he can not incur an additional penalty for following the referee's instruction or ruling.  In Justin's case that would mean no additional penalty for playing from a wrong place.

As far as having ruling "replay's" now with HD cameras and fan call ins..........I don't know.  Do you want to treat players differently given the fact that most players are not televised during the competition and not subject to the same level of scrutiny, or do you want to protect the field at all costs? 

 

Expand  

Thanks for those references, Dormie...  On another note, per 34-3/8, the committee must not have decided that DJ gave incorrect information, otherwise, they would have given him 2 penalty strokes, not just one (at least that's how I read that decision...).

Also, I think rule 34-2 should be clarified in the ROG.  I'm not sure exactly how, but various decisions make it clear that the referee's decision may not be final when it comes to ruling on whether a player's action was proper or not.  Whether he made a ball move or not is the obvious example here.  I'm sure there are others, I just can't think of any right now.


Posted

The are many reasons why a referee's ruling may be faulty.

His not actually seeing the incident, nor being close enough to be sure, incomplete or incorrect information from the player or other witnesses, HD TV .........

That is why the various decisions are necessary.

 

 

  On 6/22/2016 at 4:52 AM, boil3rmak3r said:

Thanks for those references, Dormie...  On another note, per 34-3/8, the committee must not have decided that DJ gave incorrect information, otherwise, they would have given him 2 penalty strokes, not just one (at least that's how I read that decision...).

 

Expand  

DJ proceeded under instruction from the referee, so no extra penalty.

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


Posted
  On 6/22/2016 at 7:43 AM, Rulesman said:

DJ proceeded under instruction from the referee, so no extra penalty.

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

Expand  

Per 34-3-8, if a player's version of facts is subsequently found to be incorrect, a 2 stroke penalty would come into play - even though the player followed the referee's instruction to proceed (right?).  The only reason I mention this is people have guessed in other threads that rule 34-2 didn't apply to DJ's situation because DJ gave incorrect information....

 


Posted
  On 6/23/2016 at 4:06 PM, boil3rmak3r said:

Per 34-3-8, if a player's version of facts is subsequently found to be incorrect, a 2 stroke penalty would come into play - even though the player followed the referee's instruction to proceed (right?). 

Expand  

No. The referee's instruction exempted DJ from any second penalty stroke regardless of what may or may not have been said or done before.


Posted
  On 6/23/2016 at 8:39 PM, Rulesman said:
  On 6/23/2016 at 8:39 PM, Rulesman said:

No. The referee's instruction exempted DJ from any second penalty stroke regardless of what may or may not have been said or done before.

Expand  

 

Expand  

You must not understand what I am saying.  There were others (in other threads) saying that rule 34-2 was not applicable in DJ's case because DJ gave incorrect information.  Per 34-3-8, If that was the case, DJ would have incurred a two stroke penalty.  The decision is very clear on this...

 

 


Posted

The difference is that in 33-3/8 the referee did not give the player an instruction. In DJ's case he played under instruction.


Posted
  On 6/23/2016 at 4:06 PM, boil3rmak3r said:

Per 34-3-8, if a player's version of facts is subsequently found to be incorrect, a 2 stroke penalty would come into play - even though the player followed the referee's instruction to proceed (right?).  The only reason I mention this is people have guessed in other threads that rule 34-2 didn't apply to DJ's situation because DJ gave incorrect information....

 

Expand  

His info wasn't so much incorrect as it was (to some) incomplete.  He hadn't grounded his club at address which is basically what was asked of him.  He had grounded it next to the ball after his practice swing but the ref didn't ask any questions to extract that fact from DJ.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
  On 6/24/2016 at 7:47 AM, Rulesman said:

The difference is that in 33-3/8 the referee did not give the player an instruction. In DJ's case he played under instruction.

Expand  

From 34-3/8: " The referee instructs the player to play the ball from its new location without penalty."

The decision and DJ incident seem identical with the exception of relationship of committee/referee.   


Posted
  On 6/24/2016 at 1:15 PM, Whiner said:

From 34-3/8: " The referee instructs the player to play the ball from its new location without penalty."

The decision and DJ incident seem identical with the exception of relationship of committee/referee.   

Expand  

Oops. Missed that.

Perhaps the committee decided that DJ did not give wrong information deliberately because he misread the question.


Note: This thread is 3302 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    TourStriker
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Just exaggerating the crap out of sending the club head back and behind me in the downswing.  just trying to learn how to feel the club head working down back and under my hands into impact. It’s been a battle against the steepening pattern.  most of the time, as soon as I initiate torso, turn the right hand just wants to twist over the left and steep in the club to send the club out towards the ball. 1. Back swing looks better and it’s getting easier to not have to think as much about it. Lots of maintaining the hands in front of my torso as I turn.  2. From A2.5 to A5, its juts trying to flip the wrists over and drop them down. Trying to keep the right palm up as much as possible. Then pray I can turn to hit the ball. 
    • Day 69 (9 Jul 25) - Work in the backyard today - focus was on proper weight shift and keeping tempo smooth.  
    • Thank you, sir.  As I sit here right this moment I'm mentally gearing up for Wednesday Night golf league. I'm stoked to play as I'll be very curious if I've found something real or if it's just a blip on the radar. 
    • That is a 9.8 differential if my calculations are correct. That would be an exceptional score if it is 7.0 less than your handicap index. Congrats
    • I believe that @billchao has suggested that I fall into this category.  .... Although technically I believe he referred to me as an "ass-clown". ... Which at the time seemed like a compliment. 🤷‍♂️
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...