PGA Tour Pro Dahmen Accuses Fellow Tour Player Kang of Cheating

[Lihu]

13 hours ago, Valleygolfer said:

I say it will not affect him on the PGA tour. Since Kang is a Korean golfer and in the minority of the PGA in America, no one will care. Besides only cheaters would have to worry. Korean golfers seem to get caught cheating more frequently than any other. They obviously need to get better at it or realize there are to many cameras to get away with it.

I applaud Dahmen for saying it but I really think he would not have if the offender was an American.

1

I didn't know Lexi Thompson was Korean?  😁

Quote

The PGA Tour also issued the following statement on the matter:

“During Sunday’s final round of the 2018 Quicken Loans National, there was a discussion between fellow competitors Sung Kang and Joel Dahmen as to where Kang’s second shot crossed the margin of the lateral hazard at the par-5 10^th hole before ultimately coming to rest in the hazard.

“A PGA Tour Rules Official handled the ruling, interviewing both players, caddies and marshals in the vicinity. The official then took Kang back to where he hit his second shot, and Kang confirmed his original belief that his shot had indeed crossed the margin of the hazard. With no clear evidence to prove otherwise, it was determined by the official that Kang could proceed with his fourth shot as intended, following a penalty stroke and subsequent drop. The PGA Tour will have no additional comment on this matter.”

1

 

[MacDutch]

Wait ‘with no other clear evidence to prove otherwise’ that is not how it works when a ball crossed or did not cross a waterhazard.

They did not find the ball? They did not see it land and there were at least two persons stating otherwise. And Kang himself said the first time asked it was 95%. So thats a clear f***up by the RO.

 

Edit: hey I did not write those 3 *, I wrote uck

😂

Edited July 3, 2018 by MacDutch

[iacas]

 

More people…

[Moxley]

There is a weight of evidence against Kang, and given his own '95%' , it now seems hard to believe that the eventual drop location was the correct one. Has anybody independent actually come out supporting Kang's story? 

Whether or not he deliberately cheated, which only he knows, it seems clear enough that he shouldn't have dropped where he did , and his score is incorrect. I think he should take on board these witness reports, conclude he may have been in error ,and do the right thing by withdrawing from the open. It would be different if he knew for certain that his version of events were true, but the '95%' comment makes it an open and shut case. 

[MacDutch]

No, I think he needs to DQ himself from the Quicken and Loans. Is that still possible?

But he will not be convinced by this extra evidence. So that makes him a cheat.

Edited July 3, 2018 by MacDutch

[Golfingdad]

6 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Oh yeah, sure. But when you have multiple witnesses saying the ball crossed way back and one guy saying it crossed by the green, why are you taking the one guy at his word?

I’m not, that’s not the point.  What I’m saying is that Kang could be dead wrong and the other guys both dead right, and yet Kang could still not be a “cheater.”

If he legitimately believes that his ball crossed the hazard when it didn’t, he’s just mistaken, not cheating.

It is a very strong accusation short of other information.

[BamaWade]

From all accounts (and they seem credible), I tend to believe Kang took a dishonest drop.  If I was his playing competitor, and 100% sure I was in the right, I'd have insisted to Kang (and the RO once involved) that it didn't cross a second time, and if he took the bad drop, there's no way I'd sign his card--none.  Not saying I'd take to social media (not sure), but my main statement on the matter would be to Kang, and then in the scoring tent.

If I was in Kang's position in this scenario, and thought it crossed back but my playing partner and other witnesses insisted it didn't, I'm going with their word and taking the drop 200y back.

To me, Kang really doesn't look good here.

Edited July 3, 2018 by BamaWade

[Shindig]

7 hours ago, onthehunt526 said:

I thought that was an automatic Dairy Queen for refusal to sign your playing competitor's scorecard?  I'm not sure...

Well, if it's determined that he knowingly took the wrong drop, his reception at future events will be cold like a Blizzard. 

[Valleygolfer]

5 hours ago, Lihu said:

I didn't know Lexi Thompson was Korean?  😁

 

What I wrote was pretty accurate...🤔

[Club Rat]

After watching the golf channel yesterday and seeing the camera view of the 10th hole which the shot is in question, I think I agree with JD.
Also, the red stakes are far above the creek which make the boundaries wider than a person would be able to clearly see in some spots.

Even if the ball appeared to cross the stakes, it would still seem uncertain as to the actual point outside the hazard where Kang was declaring.

In a PGA event with spotters everywhere, I find it had to believe someone did not clarify the point of entry.

With JD being so sure he only carried the hazard 200 out, and making such a time consuming argument, there probably was no virtual certainly as described in the ROG.

[BaconNEggs]

What's the margin of error here between their two accounts of the ball flight, anyone know? Like, are they 5 yards off but that 5 yards is the difference between crossing the hazard and not (or whatever the exact situation was)? I know Dahmen said something along the lines of there was no way it crossed back, but that's... well, tbh, pretty meaningless to me. People say things like that all the time and turn out to be wrong.

I'm skeptical of any eyewitnesses here, particularly those who are coming out of the woodwork now to state definitively that they know XYZ happened. Even more so now that the accusation of him cheating is out there, which can definitely influence one's perception and recreation of the event in their memory.

I have a hard time discerning how big of a difference the accounts of the ball flight were.

2 hours ago, BamaWade said:

If I was in Kang's position in this scenario, and thought it crossed back but my playing partner and other witnesses insisted it didn't, I'm going with their word and taking the drop 200y back. 

Kang had the best angle on his shot. Even being a few yards off can give you a distorted perception of ball flight. Kang seemed pretty convinced of his flight. The people who had less than ideal views of his ball also seem pretty convinced. Without being there, I don't know that I'd take their word for it just because, particularly when we're talking about projecting ball flights. And I'm very hesitant to insist that he deliberately cheated.

I think the whole thing will be a relative non-issue in a few days. Kang might have cheated, Dahmen came off as a DB, both players are nobodies.

[Golfingdad]

9 minutes ago, BaconNEggs said:

What's the margin of error here between their two accounts of the ball flight, anyone know? Like, are they 5 yards off but that 5 yards is the difference between crossing the hazard and not (or whatever the exact situation was)? I know Dahmen said something along the lines of there was no way it crossed back, but that's... well, tbh, pretty meaningless to me. People say things like that all the time and turn out to be wrong.

I'm skeptical of any eyewitnesses here, particularly those who are coming out of the woodwork now to state definitively that they know XYZ happened. Even more so now that the accusation of him cheating is out there, which can definitely influence one's perception and recreation of the event in their memory.

I have a hard time discerning how big of a difference the accounts of the ball flight were.

Kang had the best angle on his shot. Even being a few yards off can give you a distorted perception of ball flight. Kang seemed pretty convinced of his flight. The people who had less than ideal views of his ball also seem pretty convinced. Without being there, I don't know that I'd take their word for it just because, particularly when we're talking about projecting ball flights. And I'm very hesitant to insist that he deliberately cheated.

I think the whole thing will be a relative non-issue in a few days. Kang might have cheated, Dahmen came off as a DB, both players are nobodies.

I agree with you mostly, however, it's not a guarantee that Kang had a better view.  Like we discussed in the other thread on this, if Kang hit a hook and Dahmer is to the right of him, then he could/would have a better view if he's on the extension of the line of the hazard and sees the path of the curve.

Imagine a guy in the world cup taking a free kick out near the corner but 5 yards upfield from the endline.  The linesman standing on the endline is going to have a better view of whether or not his curling cross went out of bounds than the kick taker would.

[iacas]

9 hours ago, BamaWade said:

If I was in Kang's position in this scenario, and thought it crossed back but my playing partner and other witnesses insisted it didn't, I'm going with their word and taking the drop 200y back.

Yeah, I'm the same way. Unless maybe my caddie - and I'd implore him to be honest as integrity means more than one shot saved - really felt strongly and I felt pretty strongly, I'm going to go with what others say.

It's not like Dahmen was near the same spot on the leaderboard. They weren't duking it out. An extra shot to Kang wouldn't cost Dahmen a thing. Dahmen was like T23 or something. And this was late enough in the round that they knew they weren't near each other.

6 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

I'm skeptical of any eyewitnesses here, particularly those who are coming out of the woodwork now to state definitively that they know XYZ happened.

They voiced their concerns at the time, too. And it's not coming out of the woodwork to say things the very next day when asked.

6 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

Kang had the best angle on his shot.

Not necessarily.

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I agree with you mostly, however, it's not a guarantee that Kang had a better view.  Like we discussed in the other thread on this, if Kang hit a hook and Dahmer is to the right of him, then he could/would have a better view if he's on the extension of the line of the hazard and sees the path of the curve.

Yep.

But I think the guy hit a cut. Maybe Dahmen was further up the fairway, having already played, and could see where it landed? If it was left, and cutting, and it STILL didn't get back to the hazard… then that would be a good view, too.

[Golfingdad]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yeah, I'm the same way. Unless maybe my caddie - and I'd implore him to be honest as integrity means more than one shot saved - really felt strongly and I felt pretty strongly, I'm going to go with what others say.

It's not like Dahmen was near the same spot on the leaderboard. They weren't duking it out. An extra shot to Kang wouldn't cost Dahmen a thing. Dahmen was like T23 or something. And this was late enough in the round that they knew they weren't near each other.

They voiced their concerns at the time, too. And it's not coming out of the woodwork to say things the very next day when asked.

Not necessarily.

Yep.

But I think the guy hit a cut. Maybe Dahmen was further up the fairway, having already played, and could see where it landed? If it was left, and cutting, and it STILL didn't get back to the hazard… then that would be a good view, too.

I’d the dude hits a cut then physics and geography alone is enough to show that Kang is wrong about it crossing out of the hazard.

This is something that will stick with both of these guys for at least a bit.  Kang will have some FCs watching him a little closer I imagine.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I’d the dude hits a cut then physics and geography alone is enough to show that Kang is wrong about it crossing out of the hazard.

Maybe, but if he hit a cut and Dahmen saw the area where it landed, it's possible for him to know for certain it didn't cross by the green.

Especially if he was 50 yards ahead of Kang because, say, he'd already hit his second shot and walked up a ways.

Is this a hazard with a double red line (i.e. one to the left too), or just the one hazard line right of the hazard and left of the fairway?

[Aflighter]

Is everyone a cheater now geez.Is there any video of the shot showing anything and how far up closer to hole did Lang drop?Ok I see now that he gained like 165 yards after dropping where he did.Doesn't sound to good for kang but in the end its his opinion against Dahmens.Did his finish qualify him for Open cause other than that why would he withdraw?

Edited July 4, 2018 by Aflighter

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

Is everyone a cheater now geez.Is there any video of the shot showing anything and how far up closer to hole did Lang drop?

About 180 yards closer to the hole. Not an insignificant distance.

[DeadMan]

16 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I’m not, that’s not the point.  What I’m saying is that Kang could be dead wrong and the other guys both dead right, and yet Kang could still not be a “cheater.”

If he legitimately believes that his ball crossed the hazard when it didn’t, he’s just mistaken, not cheating.

It is a very strong accusation short of other information.

Okay, I got you now. I'm just wondering why the RO took Kang at his word when everybody else is saying that it didn't cross twice. If he just says no, you have to drop back there, then this isn't a controversy.