PGA Tour Pro Dahmen Accuses Fellow Tour Player Kang of Cheating

[Moxley]

2 hours ago, Rulesman said:

The issue is about the player's best estimate. That is what the rule requires. No more, no less

I stand corrected, it seems I'd confused this definition with the definition for deciding whether the ball is in the hazard. 

Best estimate would indeed allow him some latitude, although I still think the 'best estimate' might have been the original entry point, rather than the one only he thinks he saw 200+ yards away, to which others said they saw the opposite. 

[Rulesman]

9 minutes ago, MacDutch said:

If the marker says, that is the wrong place to drop, thats the wrong place to drop.

 

A "marker" is one who is appointed by the Committee to record a competitor's score in stroke play. He may be a fellow-competitor. He is not a referee. He cannot make decisions or rulings. He may refuse to sign a card however.

[Valleygolfer]

8 hours ago, Lihu said:

He looks like an idiot, but Dahmen looks like a jerk.

I'd guess that more people would be apt to want to play with Kang and correct him if he makes more mistakes than a rat who goes to public media and could potentially call them out for cheating when it's more of a disagreement.

F that. A rat? I guess you rather that if someone knew someone killed someone they just keep their fat mouth shut... Not supporting someone who come forward to expose  injustice is a big enough problem these days, Weinstein... 

Edited July 4, 2018 by Valleygolfer

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, MacDutch said:

We discuss here at this forum many times decisions made by RO’s. Why would it this time end with ‘RO decided, end of discussion’?

Why is the player the best source here? How many times did it occur that you were looking for your ball at the wrong spot? The other player(s) in the flight are the markers. If the marker says, that is the wrong place to drop, thats the wrong place to drop.

Should be interesting to know more about Kang’s golfing backgound.

The RO can only go off the information given to him because he didn’t see it happen.  And all he has is two guys both insisting they know where it last crossed.  It’s just a case of he said/he said.

Given that, how could he NOT go with the word of the player?

Imagine the aftermath of that scenario.  That RO would be basically calling the player a liar and/or cheater with that ruling, wouldn’t he?

[iacas]

31 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Imagine the aftermath of that scenario.  That RO would be basically calling the player a liar and/or cheater with that ruling, wouldn’t he?

Right.

The RO can imply heavily that it may be in the player's best interests, both short and long term, to consider what his fellow competitor is saying.

But absent any more information than what a few people think they saw… then he's gotta rule as he did in this case.

[Moxley]

I'm not disputing whether or not the RO made the right call , but for the purpose of being accurate, witness reports indicate that the rules official spoke to several witnesses, including Marshalls, who were adamant that the ball didn't come back into bounds. Michael Klock stated that his views were passed on to the RO too . JD wasnt alone, either then or afterwards. 

Kang would have undoubtedly heard those accounts.

[Hardspoon]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Right.

The RO can imply heavily that it may be in the player's best interests, both short and long term, to consider what his fellow competitor is saying.

But absent any more information than what a few people think they saw… then he's gotta rule as he did in this case.

Yeah - exactly.  I don't blame the RO for this...would have been tough for him to rule against Kang without being there.

I bet if Dahmen could go back in time, he'd pick his words a little more carefully ("I think Kang cheated today" is a bit more palatable than "Kang is a cheat")...but good for him for speaking up, and not trying to bs.

[Jeremie Boop]

20 hours ago, Lihu said:

I agree that Kang should have taken the drop somewhere else, but he did have an RO to confirm that's it was okay to take the drop where he perceived was correct. At that point, Kang was in the right. Both Kang and RO were very likely mistaken allowing it, but it was within the rules.

The issue is that it's all based upon their personal perceptions of what happened, and to attempt to ruin a person's career over that is a little bit overboard. Not a trustworthy thing, playing politics like that.

Dahman signed the card, because an RO allowed the shot to be made. A call by an RO is a call, and it's valid at that point right or wrong.

For example, the "Hand of God" was possibly the worst call in modern football, but was allowed. Maradona is still considered a national hero.

On top of all this, I doubt it would have changed the outcome. He hit the shot to about 17'. It wasn't like he chipped it in.

IMHO, Dahman just showed really poor sportsmanship. He might have been correct in his perception of where the drop should have been taken, but showed really poor sportsmanship in the end.

That's your opinion, but I don't agree. I still see nothing wrong with bringing the situation to light. He probably could have worded the tweet better as mentioned by @Hardspoon, but I'm glad he put out the rest of the information. Also, given more and more people coming forward saying to back up Dahman's story and perception of where the drop should have been, only reinforces that he did the right thing by putting it out for people to know. I just can't see what he did as poor sportsmanship when he's convinced, and has backup, that something was done incorrectly and an unfair advantage was gained.

[colin007]

How good is Kang's command of the English language? Is it possible there was a language barrier?

[Golfingdad]

13 minutes ago, colin007 said:

How good is Kang's command of the English language? Is it possible there was a language barrier?

I wondered that too.  When you start getting into the semantics of his language (the 95% vs. 100% comment, specifically) then that could become relevant.

Regardless, my hope is that both guys have cooled off and that Kang was being honest and this issue dies soon for both of them. 🙂

[MacDutch]

My hope is that someone does a search and rescue for Kang’s ball, so we will know the truth.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, MacDutch said:

My hope is that someone does a search and rescue for Kang’s ball, so we will know the truth.

I don't think that's really going to help, if I understand the dispute correctly.  They didn't argue over where the ball ended up, they argued over the path it traveled to get there, and whether or not a portion of that path near the end of its flight went over a bit of land outside the hazard.

[Lihu]

This thread was supposed to be getting our opinions if Dahman should have said exactly the words he did, and it seems to have become a Kang bashing one instead. I don’t think there’s enough evidence saying Dahman’s an angel and Kang is that foreign cheating devil. Just saying...

[Golfingdad]

21 minutes ago, Lihu said:

This thread was supposed to be getting our opinions if Dahman should have said exactly the words he did, and it seems to have become a Kang bashing one instead. I don’t think there’s enough evidence saying Dahman’s an angel and Kang is that foreign cheating devil. Just saying...

I agree with your last sentence ... but I don’t really agree that this has become a Kang bashing thread.  To be honest, I’ve been kind of looking out for exactly that, but I think people have been pretty fair. 🙂

[Moxley]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

This thread was supposed to be getting our opinions if Dahman should have said exactly the words he did, and it seems to have become a Kang bashing one instead. I don’t think there’s enough evidence saying Dahman’s an angel and Kang is that foreign cheating devil. Just saying...

On the contrary, most people on here have been measured in what they have said, while I think you've gone over the top in criticising Dahmen. You've called him a jerk and a rat ( a particularity odd pejorative, given it implies that a willingness to be give witness to potential wrongdoing is somehow a bad thing). You've also made exaggerated statements, like saying that he was attempting to ruin Kang's career (you don't know that was his intention any more than we know whether Kang intended to cheat) , or equating him responding to a single twitter conversation to 'blabbing all over the internet'. And, I realise you're not quoting anybody verbatim here, but nobody has suggested he is anything like a 'foreign-cheating devil'.

I understand and respect the concern you have here, and I have longstanding concerns myself with the 'trial by twitter' trend, but at the end of the day I think most people on this thread have just tried to understand what has happened and how the rules of golf apply. Most of us have tried to be objective about this, and bear in mind that it's difficult to evaluate Dahman's behaviour without considering the event that took place which he is referring to. 

So no, I don't think the posts here are off topic, or that they equate to bashing. 

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Lihu said:

This thread was supposed to be getting our opinions if Dahman should have said exactly the words he did, and it seems to have become a Kang bashing one instead. I don’t think there’s enough evidence saying Dahman’s an angel and Kang is that foreign cheating devil. Just saying...

Uhhhhhh, no @Lihu. Not at all.

[Valleygolfer]

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I agree with your last sentence ... but I don’t really agree that this has become a Kang bashing thread.  To be honest, I’ve been kind of looking out for exactly that, but I think people have been pretty fair. 🙂

Agreed, it looks more to me like @Lihuhas jumped on the Kang side in some personal facet. We have harshly judged cheaters before regardless of who they are. Maybe you (lihu) should take some time to figure out where your argument is coming from. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Valleygolfer

[Lihu]

On 7/5/2018 at 10:29 PM, Golfingdad said:

I agree with your last sentence ... but I don’t really agree that this has become a Kang bashing thread.  To be honest, I’ve been kind of looking out for exactly that, but I think people have been pretty fair. 🙂

In general, yes, but a few posts resonate as a habitual cheating by a specific nationality. In my experience, I have never seen any indication of that behavior.

 

On 7/6/2018 at 4:05 AM, iacas said:

Uhhhhhh, no @Lihu. Not at all.

Just a few posts that seem to "indicate" a habitual cheating nature of certain foreign nationals. 😂

 

On 7/6/2018 at 4:49 AM, Valleygolfer said:

Agreed, it looks more to me like @Lihuhas jumped on the Kang side in some personal facet. We have harshly judged cheaters before regardless of who they are. Maybe you (lihu) should take some time to figure out where your argument is coming from. 

If Dahman said he cheated on that play, I wouldn't have any argument at all. Unfortunately, he said that Kand is a cheater indicating a habitual nature. I know you agree with that statement, and I was just indicating that you are not correct regarding that particular Nationality. In my experience, Korean's are by far the most critical people of their own games.