PGA Tour Pro Dahmen Accuses Fellow Tour Player Kang of Cheating

[Patch]

I don't have a problem with some one naming names, as long as the truth is being told. In fact I would give the accuser plenty of respect for it. 

However, in this case, since a rules official was involved, using the "C" word might be way too much. Seems like it's more of disagreement in opinions, and the RO had to make a decision.  

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Patch said:

I don't have a problem with some one naming names, as long as the truth is being told. In fact I would give the accuser plenty of respect for it. 

However, in this case, since a rules official was involved, using the "C" word might be way too much. Seems like it's more of disagreement in opinions, and the RO had to make a decision.  

The RO could only hear the two sides and pick a side.

It's not like his "ruling" has much actual merit. Unless - and this is possible - he interviewed far more people who were in a position to see the shot.

I don't think it ever struck land after it was hit, or the ruling would be pretty simple.

[Club Rat]

I watched the replay today but there was no discussion of the situation by the announcers.
Although here was a follow up on https://www.yahoo.com/sports/pga-tour-player-accuses-fellow-095654052.html

Quote

Golf Digest received the following statement from the PGA Tour:

"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 10th 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."

I'm still puzzled, where was the RO when all this developed?
Why would the RO go back to the spot he hit's the shot? 
The argument was "where the ball last crossed the hazard"

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

Why would the RO go back to the spot he hit's the shot?

So he could show the RO what he saw as the flight of the ball.

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Because there's literally nothing to be gained in not signing it. The Rules Official made his ruling/determination.

I probably wouldn't have signed. I would have said "then get the RO to sign it." But like I said (and like he said "delaying the inevitable," there's literally no difference.

But this is all true about the accusation as well, isn't it?  He's got nothing to gain by calling the guy out, so he's seemingly doing it on principle, therefore it probably would have made more sense for him not to have signed.

2 hours ago, Valleygolfer said:

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

Not sure about the nationality, but I have been wondering the same thing in regards to it being a no-name guy vs. a star player.  I saw that he was with Tiger on Saturday - if this same thing happened then instead of Sunday with Kang, would he have reacted the same?  It's 100% speculation because I don't know ANYTHING about the guy, but my guess would be no.

4 hours ago, rehmwa said:

But, if Dahman is off to Kang's right during the shot, then he has zero ability to assess where Kang's shot went out - whether he's right or wrong.

I wondered this too ... according to his shot tracer on the hole, he was 260 out on the right side after his tee shot, and because it doglegs left, it looks like he likely had a decent viewing angle of the shot in question.

---

Does the hazard come all the up up to the fairway, or is it just the creek part?  I assume that it must come all the way to the fairway and Kang hit his next shot from 35 yards away whereas Dahmen was saying he should be hitting from darn near the same spot, I guess?

Edited July 2, 2018 by Golfingdad

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

But this is all true about the accusation as well, isn't it?  He's got nothing to gain by calling the guy out, so he's seemingly doing it on principle, therefore it probably would have made more sense for him not to have signed.

 

Maybe they wouldn’t let him leave the tent without signing. Or waiting for another RO.

Like I said I wouldn’t have signed.

[Club Rat]

44 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Dahmen was saying he should be hitting from darn near the same spot, I guess?

The GC commented Dahmen was declaring Kang's drop should have been 200 out, not up by the green just 35 yds.

[BallStriker]

Just heard Joel D. on local radio -- he is not commenting further on the matter (he says big brother is listening and doesn't need to continue to stoke the fire on an unfortunate situation), but did very clearly say he stands by his prior Twitter comments (which, of course, is a comment itself)......

If you don't know about this guy, he is a great story...small town, family hardship, cancer survivor and just all around solid dude....I am a Seattle guy and know of him since his days playing golf for the UW

[rehmwa]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't think it ever struck land after it was hit,

that's a hell of a shot

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

that's a hell of a shot

I don’t think you read that properly.

If it had struck land they’d be able to narrow down where it crossed pretty easily. I think it must have landed in the hazard.

[rehmwa]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don’t think you read that properly.

If it had struck land they’d be able to narrow down where it crossed pretty easily. I think it must have landed in the hazard.

that was tongue in cheek, E.  Launched it into orbit.  I know what you mean and agree - find the ball, trust that Kang described the shot shape correctly and interpolate the flight roughly......

Too bad there wasn't someone official the RO couldn't interview near the green that was watching the flight.....or at least saw the splash or grass ruffle on impact....

Edited July 3, 2018 by rehmwa

[BallStriker]

From the guy running SHOTLink on the hole...............

 

Michael Klock‏ @mklock7

FollowFollow @mklock7

More

Replying to @Joel_Dahmen @jdfla1974 @PGATOUR

He (Kang) sure did cheat. I was running SHOTLink on the green. That ball never came close to entering up where he dropped... Should’ve been 200 yards back. Told your caddie who told the rules official but Kang threw a fit and got his way. He won’t get away w/ that @ The Open.

[MacDutch]

So there was someone present with more knowledge of the shot? This is not going away if the shotlink guy proves to be a valid source.

[DeadMan]

https://golfweek.com/2018/07/02/pga-tour-witness-describes-what-led-to-cheating-accusation-by-golf-joel-dahmen/

What in the world was that RO doing?

[Golfingdad]

Unless Kang has a history or a reputation, I’m not too keen on Dahmer and the SHOTLink guy actually calling him a cheat.  Even if they’re correct about the ball flight, the only guarantee there is that Kang would be very wrong, but to be a cheat he’d also have to know he was wrong.

29 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

https://golfweek.com/2018/07/02/pga-tour-witness-describes-what-led-to-cheating-accusation-by-golf-joel-dahmen/

What in the world was that RO doing?

Just wanted to point out that I’m pretty certain they’re misrepresenting the ball flight in that article.  Unless I’m mistaken, those diagrams always just show straight lines connecting point a to point b ... that is not the ball flight.  Doesn’t mean it couldn’t be, but if it was it would be coincidental. 🙂

Edited July 3, 2018 by Golfingdad

[MacDutch]

Kang said himself he was 95% certain. Well thats just not enough, thats not how the rules work. If he really said that to the RO.....

Edited July 3, 2018 by MacDutch

[onthehunt526]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

Because there's literally nothing to be gained in not signing it. The Rules Official made his ruling/determination.

I probably wouldn't have signed. I would have said "then get the RO to sign it." But like I said (and like he said "delaying the inevitable," there's literally no difference.

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

[DeadMan]

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Just wanted to point out that I’m pretty certain they’re misrepresenting the ball flight in that article.  Unless I’m mistaken, those diagrams always just show straight lines connecting point a to point b ... that is not the ball flight.  Doesn’t mean it couldn’t be, but if it was it would be coincidental. 🙂

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?