We are witnessing the stupidest decision I've ever seen in sports

[Carl Nichols]

...  But I do think Dustin made the ball move.  If Lowry did, so did DJ.  DJ deserves the penalty.  But the USGA did blow this.

As usual, your logic fails the smell test. Lowry grounded his putter behind the ball. DJ did not.

Grounding the club has nothing to do with the ruling. In fact, the ball moved before he had a chance to ground it. The question is, did him grounding twice on the putting green, or taking the club from practice to address cause the ball to move.

All very true.
Given that you've taken the lonesome courageous decision of defending the USGA, why exactly could they not call the penalty after the second time they spoke to DJ ?(and asked all the right questions they felt the referee had missed)
His story never changed so speaking to him a third time after didn't lead to the penalty.


I recognize they were using a prior decision they felt more relevant than the actual rule 34-2 about the referee's call being final.
My first problem is that the video showed nothing to clearly overturn the referee's decision, but I accept the overruling-just not the timing (or lack of)


I'd bet that if DJ was a stroke ahead at the end, they would have made a different ruling and gone with 34-2,
but we'll never know.


Regardless, the burden of proof is now on the player to prove he is innocent, rather than being presumed innocent.
Game of honor indeed

I think they handled the overall situation poorly.  But I do think the original conversation, on the 5th green, between DJ and the official didn't really address the key question (or at least didn't do so in the right way) and thus I can see why the USGA didn't want to rely on that official's "decision"--since it seemed insufficiently informed. 

[Joe Hancock]

Why would such a great game ever allow a championship...let alone any competition..to be decided by such an archaic, inconsequential rule?

Address things that include intent and advantage...things that constitute purposely cheating. No one, not one golfer, is going to move his or her ball one dimple to gain an advantage over the field.

All the bumbling has been discussed, now let's rewrite the rules to prevent this kind of embarrassing controversy that can affect not only tournament outcomes, but careers.

I'm certain golf was never intended to be this complicated.

[Mark_Fine]

To me, it doesn’t matter if “the USGA got the rule and decision right” as they stated they did by Jeff Hall!  It was the execution that was HORRIFIC and completely EMBARRASSING FOR GOLF!  There is a referee with every group and they are there to protect the field and to make decisions.  If their decisions are not final (or after calling for help, they can’t make a decision on the spot), there is no reason for the referee to be there.  If I were a player and had a situation like DJ where I consulted the referee, I wouldn’t hit another shot until I knew absolutely for sure what the FINAL ruling was.  It was complete insanity and sad for the game of golf in front of a global audience to have a golfer be told by the referee that there is no penalty and then seven holes later be told there might be a penalty and that "we will talk about it after the round and decide then what to do"!  They might as well put a disclaimer on the TV screen before every golf tournament stating:


“The outcome of this event will NOT BE DETERMINED for 48 hours until any fans have called in with their questions and concerns about possible rules violations and until all video is reviewed (including any personal video or photos that anyone happens to take with their camera/cell phone, etc while watching the tournament).  We will then assess any additional player penalties, tally up the strokes, and let everyone know who the winner is”! 

[Jim Hoak]

I think Mark states the issue as best I have seen in this long thread.  Referees may make mistakes, but they do in all sports.  We have to live with that.  In this case, the referee may rightfully be criticized for not taking the time to get the ruling better, but once it's made in something as important to golf as the US Open everyone should live with it.  Rub of the green if he gets it wrong.

[Mike_Young]

Why would such a great game ever allow a championship...let alone any competition..to be decided by such an archaic, inconsequential rule?

Address things that include intent and advantage...things that constitute purposely cheating. No one, not one golfer, is going to move his or her ball one dimple to gain an advantage over the field.

All the bumbling has been discussed, now let's rewrite the rules to prevent this kind of embarrassing controversy that can affect not only tournament outcomes, but careers.

I'm certain golf was never intended to be this complicated.

Joe,
The USGA and golf are two separate things.  The elitism involved in the organization and the arrogance and attitude are very evident on the executive committee.  They are so far removed from the majority of the game and everything they do is pomp and circumstance with no substance.  The sad thing is it often works it way down into the volunteer segment as well.  We give them too much press and attention.  If they would just place a set of rules out there that could be used by golf courses and when playing their competitions it would be good.  Everything else including the green section could go on down the road....Golf would be just fine...

[Jon Wiggett]

I can't be bothered to look through all the posts on the various threads on this topic so I will ask even though it might have been answered.


DJ was penalised 1 stroke for causing his ball to move. This rule also requires the player to replace the ball and failure to do so is a two stroke penalty. As he did not replace his ball was he not subject to a two shot (I understand he only had a one shot penalty). If that is the case has he not signed for a score that is one less than it should have been and therefore be disqualified?


Jon


Just realised he did replace the ball. Questioned answered.

[David_Tepper]

Jon -

Your question has been asked and answered (on this or one of the other threads ).

The answer seems to be that, since DJ consulted with the rules official in his group and the rules official told him he did not have to replace his ball, there is no penalty for not replacing his ball.

DT 

[MClutterbuck]

Jon -

Your question has been asked and answered (on this or one of the other threads ).

The answer seems to be that, since DJ consulted with the rules official in his group and the rules official told him he did not have to replace his ball, there is no penalty for not replacing his ball.

DT

34-3/7


Most of the controversy is due to lack of understanding of rules and people averse to reading them.

[MClutterbuck]

I can't be bothered to look through all the posts on the various threads on this topic so I will ask even though it might have been answered.


DJ was penalised 1 stroke for causing his ball to move. This rule also requires the player to replace the ball and failure to do so is a two stroke penalty. As he did not replace his ball was he not subject to a two shot (I understand he only had a one shot penalty). If that is the case has he not signed for a score that is one less than it should have been and therefore be disqualified?


Jon


Just realised he did replace the ball. Questioned answered.

34-3/7 [/font][/color][/font][/size][/color]Referee Determines Player Did Not Cause Ball to Move; Committee Subsequently Changes Ruling[/font][/color][/size]
[/color]Q.A player's ball in play moves and he is unsure whether he caused it to move in breach of Rule 18-2. The player asks for a ruling from a referee. Based on the evidence, the referee determines that the player did not cause the ball to move and instructs the player to play the ball as it lies without penalty. After the player plays, the Committee assesses the same evidence or additional evidence that was not available at the time and determines that the player had caused the ball to move. What is the ruling?
A.Rule 34-3 does not prevent a Committee from changing a ruling (see Decision 34-3/1). As the player caused the ball to move, he was required to replace the ball with a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2. When he failed to do so, he played from a wrong place. However, as he did so at the instruction of a referee, he does not incur the general penalty under Rule 18 for playing from a wrong place. Nevertheless, he does incur the penalty stroke under Rule 18-2 as he caused the ball to move before the ruling from the referee. The player must continue with the ball played from the wrong place. (Revised)[/font][/size][/size][/color]34-3/8 [/font][/color][/size][/color]Player Proceeds on Basis of Ruling; Player's Version of Facts Subsequently Found to Be Incorrect[/font][/color][/size]
[/color]Q.A player's ball in play moves, and the player asks for a ruling from a referee. When asked, the player informs the referee that he had not caused the ball to move. The referee instructs the player to play the ball from its new location without penalty. After the player plays, the referee becomes aware that the player had in fact caused the ball to move. What is the ruling?
A.As the player caused the ball to move, he was required to replace the ball with a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2. When he failed to do so, he played from a wrong place and loses the hole in match play or incurs a penalty of two strokes in stroke play under Rule 18.
The player must continue with the ball played from the wrong place except that, in stroke play, if a serious breach is involved and the player has not yet played from the next teeing ground or, in the case of the last hole of the round, before the player leaves the putting green, the referee must require the player to cancel the stroke made with the ball from the wrong place and any subsequent strokes and play from the original location of the ball.

[/font]

[MClutterbuck]

They applied the rule correctly?

The rule specifically states that the ball must be replaced to the original position, if the player caused it to move. So if they deem Dustin moved the ball, he would also have had to replace it. Which he didn't. So he incurs two more penalty strokes for failing to replace the ball.

Hence, playoff.

Ulrich

PS: I'm joking. He still wins by one. But if they had told the field that Dustin is due a three stroke penalty, they might have played more conservatively

No!

[MClutterbuck]

Out of curiosity, over the 4-days did any players other than DJ and Shane get penalised for a ball moving on a green?
Atb

Yes, Lowry I believe.

[MClutterbuck]

...  But I do think Dustin made the ball move.  If Lowry did, so did DJ.  DJ deserves the penalty.  But the USGA did blow this.

As usual, your logic fails the smell test. Lowry grounded his putter behind the ball. DJ did not.

Grounding the club has nothing to do with the ruling. In fact, the ball moved before he had a chance to ground it. The question is, did him grounding twice on the putting green, or taking the club from practice to address cause the ball to move.

All very true.
Given that you've taken the lonesome courageous decision of defending the USGA, why exactly could they not call the penalty after the second time they spoke to DJ ?(and asked all the right questions they felt the referee had missed)
His story never changed so speaking to him a third time after didn't lead to the penalty.


I recognize they were using a prior decision they felt more relevant than the actual rule 34-2 about the referee's call being final.
My first problem is that the video showed nothing to clearly overturn the referee's decision, but I accept the overruling-just not the timing (or lack of)


I'd bet that if DJ was a stroke ahead at the end, they would have made a different ruling and gone with 34-2,
but we'll never know.


Regardless, the burden of proof is now on the player to prove he is innocent, rather than being presumed innocent.
Game of honor indeed

Jeff,


I am not defending the official that took the first quick decision (and ultimately the problem). I think the official was too quick in stating everything was ok. He should have asked several more questions. For example, he asked apparently if DJ has grounded the club. DJ said no, evidently thinking of address. But he had in fact grounded the club for the practice swing. The official should have asked a lot more. Referres I am talking too initially said it was not a penalty but are now mostly changing their thought.


The official is very knowledgeable but made a mistake.


After the mistake, I can fault USGA for taking a long time. But the application of rules was spot on. Same with the tower.


In my opinion, Rule 18 needs to be changed further and no penalties should exist for causing the ball to move on a green, as long as it is replaced.

[MClutterbuck]

...  But I do think Dustin made the ball move.  If Lowry did, so did DJ.  DJ deserves the penalty.  But the USGA did blow this.

As usual, your logic fails the smell test. Lowry grounded his putter behind the ball. DJ did not.

Grounding the club has nothing to do with the ruling. In fact, the ball moved before he had a chance to ground it. The question is, did him grounding twice on the putting green, or taking the club from practice to address cause the ball to move.

All very true.
Given that you've taken the lonesome courageous decision of defending the USGA, why exactly could they not call the penalty after the second time they spoke to DJ ?(and asked all the right questions they felt the referee had missed)
His story never changed so speaking to him a third time after didn't lead to the penalty.


I recognize they were using a prior decision they felt more relevant than the actual rule 34-2 about the referee's call being final.
My first problem is that the video showed nothing to clearly overturn the referee's decision, but I accept the overruling-just not the timing (or lack of)


I'd bet that if DJ was a stroke ahead at the end, they would have made a different ruling and gone with 34-2,
but we'll never know.


Regardless, the burden of proof is now on the player to prove he is innocent, rather than being presumed innocent.
Game of honor indeed

I think they handled the overall situation poorly.  But I do think the original conversation, on the 5th green, between DJ and the official didn't really address the key question (or at least didn't do so in the right way) and thus I can see why the USGA didn't want to rely on that official's "decision"--since it seemed insufficiently informed.

Carl, this is spot on. Players dont know the rules (as they showed in their various tweets) and DJ answered incompletly assuming grounding the club on address or not was the sole test. The official should have asked the right questions and he did not. The top R&A official also made a mistake in the last Masters. Officiating mistakes happen. Rules should be simplified so that less mistakes happen. Both the USGA and then R&A are working on a completely new set of rules that should be much simpler.

[Carl Nichols]

...  But I do think Dustin made the ball move.  If Lowry did, so did DJ.  DJ deserves the penalty.  But the USGA did blow this.

As usual, your logic fails the smell test. Lowry grounded his putter behind the ball. DJ did not.

Grounding the club has nothing to do with the ruling. In fact, the ball moved before he had a chance to ground it. The question is, did him grounding twice on the putting green, or taking the club from practice to address cause the ball to move.

All very true.
Given that you've taken the lonesome courageous decision of defending the USGA, why exactly could they not call the penalty after the second time they spoke to DJ ?(and asked all the right questions they felt the referee had missed)
His story never changed so speaking to him a third time after didn't lead to the penalty.


I recognize they were using a prior decision they felt more relevant than the actual rule 34-2 about the referee's call being final.
My first problem is that the video showed nothing to clearly overturn the referee's decision, but I accept the overruling-just not the timing (or lack of)


I'd bet that if DJ was a stroke ahead at the end, they would have made a different ruling and gone with 34-2,
but we'll never know.


Regardless, the burden of proof is now on the player to prove he is innocent, rather than being presumed innocent.
Game of honor indeed

I think they handled the overall situation poorly.  But I do think the original conversation, on the 5th green, between DJ and the official didn't really address the key question (or at least didn't do so in the right way) and thus I can see why the USGA didn't want to rely on that official's "decision"--since it seemed insufficiently informed.

Carl, this is spot on. Players dont know the rules (as they showed in their various tweets) and DJ answered incompletly assuming grounding the club on address or not was the sole test. The official should have asked the right questions and he did not. The top R&A official also made a mistake in the last Masters. Officiating mistakes happen. Rules should be simplified so that less mistakes happen. Both the USGA and then R&A are working on a completely new set of rules that should be much simpler.

Yes, I think you and I see it the same way -- based on the rules as they are currently written. 


In my view, however, there should be an entirely different rule for a ball on the green:  if it moves for any reason (other than the player intentionally moving it), then it's replaced and played without penalty.   

[Michael Felton]

Carl,


How do you deal with a player hitting his ball onto the green and the ball appears to come to rest, but while he is on his way to the green, still 100 yards away the ball starts to roll. How long does it need to be still before you have to replace it? How do you determine from 100+ yards away, whether it had stopped, where it had stopped?


I think a cleaner way to do it would be to say that you play it from where it rolled to, unless you touched the ball or deliberately caused it to move, in which case, add one and replace it.

[Carl Nichols]

Carl,


How do you deal with a player hitting his ball onto the green and the ball appears to come to rest, but while he is on his way to the green, still 100 yards away the ball starts to roll. How long does it need to be still before you have to replace it? How do you determine from 100+ yards away, whether it had stopped, where it had stopped?


I think a cleaner way to do it would be to say that you play it from where it rolled to, unless you touched the ball or deliberately caused it to move, in which case, add one and replace it.

I was talking about after it has been marked by the player (so it has come to rest by then).  But I'm ok with your proposal too.  I just think there's no reason to penalize players if a ball on the green moves without their touching it.

[Sean Leary]

Seems to me that essentially there needed to be a 51 percent chance or more that DJ's actions caused the ball to move for them to call the penalty as they did based upon the wording of the rule. The rule in itself needs to be changed, and I believe that after the referee ruled onsite, it should have  been over. But there is no chance that I could say  that it was more than 50 percent.  Balls move all the time on greens, especially at that speed and slope. It is 50% at most that his actions (shadow, breeze created from the practice putt, whatever). No way its more than 50 in my mind.


I also think that had he finished one shot ahead or in a tie that they would not have called it. Easier to make that call when it doesn't matter than if you are impacting the result directly.

[Mike_Young]

As long as we have soft spikes balls will move unexpectedly....replace it with no penalty.

[Thomas Dai]

Out of curiosity, over the 4-days did any players other than DJ and Shane get penalised for a ball moving on a green?
Atb

Yes, Lowry I believe.

Shane.......Lowry.


Now if the greens had so little friction etc about them and both SL and DJ got penalised (once each) how many other competitors also 'caused' a ball to move on a green (whether penalised or not)?


I believe that 156 players teed-up in round 1, 154 played round 2 and 67 players made the cut (and played in both rounds 3 and 4). This is I believe 7,992 holes of golf played.


Now I'm not saying there's any deliberate intent or naughtiness on the part of players, but the odds on 7,992 holes on super-slick, limited friction greens being played and only 2 incidents happening of players 'causing' their golf balls to move on the greens, and those 2 incidents just happen to be by the players who finished 1st and joint 2nd in the championship are well, the odds on that being correct are I would suggest decidedly slim.


Atb

[Andrew Buck]

In hindsight, however, it may have still worked to Dustin's benefit to not have the decision immediately made on the 5th hole, to have him go from looking at a birdie to a bogey.  He also was behind at that point, so it may have been harder to overcome mentally.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Shot this email from the USGA.

USGA STATEMENT REGARDING DUSTIN JOHNSON RULINGThe USGA wishes to congratulate Dustin Johnson on his victory and thank him, and the other players in the field, for their professionalism and grace throughout the championship. Dustin is a wonderful champion, a talented golfer and a gentleman. Our team at the USGA has seen and heard a great deal of discussion and debate about the ruling on Dustin's ball moving during the final round of the 2016 U.S. Open Championship at Oakmont Country Club. In addition to the explanations we offered upon the conclusion of the final round, we add these comments. Upon reflection, we regret the distraction caused by our decision to wait until the end of the round to decide on the ruling. It is normal for rulings based on video evidence to await the end of a round, when the matter can be discussed with the player before the score card is returned. While our focus on getting the ruling correct was appropriate, we created uncertainty about where players stood on the leader board after we informed Dustin on the 12th tee that his actions on the fifth green might lead to a penalty. This created unnecessary ambiguity for Dustin and the other players, as well as spectators on-site, and those watching and listening on television and digital channels. During any competition, the priority for Rules officials is to make the correct ruling for the protection of the player(s) involved and the entire field. In applying Rule 18-2, which deals with a ball at rest that moves, officials consider all the relevant evidence - including the player's actions, the time between those actions and the movement of the ball, the lie of the ball, and course and weather conditions. If that evidence, considered together, shows that it is more likely than not that the player's actions caused the ball to move, the player incurs a one-stroke penalty. Officials use this "more likely than not" standard because it is not always apparent what caused the ball to move. Such situations require a review of the evidence, with Decision 18-2/0.5 providing guidance on how the evidence should be weighed. Our officials reviewed the video of Dustin on the fifth green and determined that based on the weight of the evidence, it was more likely than not that Dustin caused his ball to move. Dustin's putter contacted the ground at the side of the ball, and almost immediately after, the ball moved We accept that not everyone will agree that Dustin caused his ball to move. Issues under Rule 18-2 often require a judgment where there is some uncertainty, and this was one of those instances. We also understand that some people may disagree with Rule 18-2 itself. While we respect the viewpoints of those who disagree, our Committee made a careful and collective judgment in its pursuit of a fair competition played under the Rules of Golf. In keeping with our commitment to excellence in all aspects of our work on behalf of the game of golf, we pledge to closely examine our procedures in this matter. We will assess our procedures for handling video review, the timing of such, and our communication with players to make sure that when confronted with such a situation again, we will have a better process. We at the USGA deeply appreciate the support of players, fans, and the entire golf community of our championships and our other work for golf - and we appreciate your feedback as well. We have established an email address (comments@usga.org) and phone mailbox (908-326-1857) to receive comments. We thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. We all share an abiding love of this great game. Let us continue to work together for its good.[/c]

[Jerry Kluger]

I heard on PGA Tour radio that they were admiring Lee Westwood for supporting DJ and also for at one point not marking his ball when DJ was playing out of a bunker and his ball could have served as a backstop. Host commented that this was getting quite common on the PGA Tour and had no problem with it.  What happened to protecting the field? 

[A.G._Crockett]

By the 5th hole of the 4th round, including practice rounds and practice putting, let's assume that Johnson had gone thru that EXACT preshot routine several hundred times, and let's assume that the 5th hole yesterday was the ONLY time the ball moved. 

If Johnson's preshot routine hadn't caused the ball to move at any time before the 5th hole, then his statement that he didn't cause the ball to move not only makes sense, but it the best evidence for what actually happens.  We SAW the ball NOT move while he went thru that routine beside the ball, and we SAW the putter NOT touch the ground or the ball when it DID move.

Add to that Johnson was on triple-cut and rolled greens running 14+, why doesn't Occam's Razor explain what we saw?   (And that doesn't even address the idiotic lags from the 5th hole to the 12th hole, and from the 12th hole to the end of the round.  Azinger knew in real time that Jeff Hall was actually saying that there was going to be a penalty, and lo, it came to pass...)

This doesn't seem complicated to me, and it is next to impossible for me not to condemn the USGA for yet another situation in which they show incompetence.  Be it grooves, anchoring, playing alone, or the local rule for sprinkler heads at Pinehurst and Chambers Bay, these guys just come across as asshats whose grandfathers made a lot of money.  I'm sure that's unfair, but perception becomes reality at some point.

[Benjamin Litman]

Does anyone know who wrote the rule? Instead of applying the non-rule-specific "more likely than not" standard to the rule-specific "cause" standard, the standards should be merged, so that the test is whether the golfer "more likely than not was the principal cause for the movement of the ball." In short, the use of the singular, unqualified "cause" is the root of the problem.

[Greg Tallman]

It is not as though they could not have presented the video to him at the 12th tee and made a DEFINITIVE ruling at that time (or before). As they accept they created an uncertainty that could have led to one of the worst situations imaginable.

Beyond that the rule and the wording likely need reviewed and tweaked. What occurred on that green should not be considered a penalty situation.