Sort of sums up the USGA experience

[Jim Hoak]

I have passed commenting on this thread, because the USGA certainly didn't handle things well at Oakmont.  There is plenty of blame due there.
But I have to object to the attack on Fred Ridley.  He is a totally decent, dedicated individual, with great intelligence and understanding of the rules and golf procedure.  He was a US Amateur champion, the last one to never turn pro.  He chose law school, has been an outstanding lawyer, and is the senior partner in the largest law firm in Tampa.  He is not some USGA official working the Masters; he is the Chairman of the event.
To attack the actions of the officials at the Masters in the Tiger episode is fair game, but to attack someone personally based on the comments of some unnamed friend is silly and irresponsible.  At least, you should know someone before you make personal attacks on their intelligence!  These kind of comments undermine the credibility of this site and reflect poorly on the intelligence of the writers.  Let's all grow up.  This isn't high school.

[Anthony Butler]

I have passed commenting on this thread, because the USGA certainly didn't handle things well at Oakmont.  There is plenty of blame due there.
But I have to object to the attack on Fred Ridley.  He is a totally decent, dedicated individual, with great intelligence and understanding of the rules and golf procedure.  He was a US Amateur champion, the last one to never turn pro.  He chose law school, has been an outstanding lawyer, and is the senior partner in the largest law firm in Tampa.  He is not some USGA official working the Masters; he is the Chairman of the event.
To attack the actions of the officials at the Masters in the Tiger episode is fair game, but to attack someone personally based on the comments of some unnamed friend is silly and irresponsible.  At least, you should know someone before you make personal attacks on their intelligence!  These kind of comments undermine the credibility of this site and reflect poorly on the intelligence of the writers.  Let's all grow up.  This isn't high school.

I think you're off base here, Jim... I can't reveal the source of my comments, but they are as reported to me...

Given my experience with the USGA, which happened at a later date. I'd have to say they are not completely out of left field. Personally, I would ascribe some of this to organizational issues rather than the intelligence of particular  individuals. Then again the leaders of any organization have to take some responsibility for the design and operation of said organization. 

Since you bring up Ridley's legal experience, the basis of 'more likely than not' that was trotted out to support Johnson's penalty does seem like  a bit of an outlier in the American legal system.. which generally goes with "beyond a reasonable doubt' to assess guilt in a criminal court or proceeding.

The only other organization I can think that has gotten away with less than that is the NFL, which justified Tom Brady's suspension with "more likely that not" or words to that effect. Brady, on the other hand, signed away his right to protest Goodell's findings through the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NFL and the Player's Association..

Given the fact a ruling was rendered on the course between Johnson, his marker (Westwood) and the walking USGA rules official... and nothing in the video brought anything new to light, the USGA's legal rational for rendering the penalty at the conclusion of the round also seems very shaky. You'd have to wonder if it would hold up in a court of law..

Certainly Johnson is competing in a tournament under USGA rules, but is that particular phrase (more likely than not) written into their Rules? To justify the overrule, the video would have to reveal the ball rolled towards the direction of where Johnson soled his putter and it did not.

No agreement between Johnson and the USGA exists that assigns his right to a fair hearing completely to the USGA.. so whoever was legally advising the USGA or had a role in setting up the legal framework that rendered this decision has made a few mistakes.

Either way, if I happen to get rear-ended or tasered by a cop during a routine traffic stop while in Tampa next February, it's unlikely I'll be calling Ridley's law firm for representation..

[Carl Nichols]

Since you bring up Ridley's legal experience, the basis of 'more likely than not' that was trotted out to support Johnson's penalty does seem like  a bit of an outlier in the American legal system.

I have absolutely no dog in this fight, but this is a laughably incorrect statement.  In non-criminal cases, the relevant standard is almost never "beyond a reasonable doubt," but is usually some form of "preponderance of the evidence"--which is essentially the same as more likely than not. 

[Anthony Butler]

Since you bring up Ridley's legal experience, the basis of 'more likely than not' that was trotted out to support Johnson's penalty does seem like  a bit of an outlier in the American legal system.

I have absolutely no dog in this fight, but this is a laughably incorrect statement.  In non-criminal cases, the relevant standard is almost never "beyond a reasonable doubt," but is usually some form of "preponderance of the evidence"--which is essentially the same as more likely than not.

Carl, I am aware that a civil case requires a lower burden of proof.. Which explains why OJ Simpson had to auction off his Heisman Trophy and give the money to Fred Goldman.... and why my prior post says "in a criminal court or proceeding".

So to your point, we just have to figure if Johnson soling his putter within a foot of his ball on an Oakmont green was a civil infraction or a crime against humanity... which, according to the USGA, it was.

[Jon Wiggett]

[/size]The fact here is that no one knows what caused the ball to move. Yet the USGA seem to be going with a general rule of assumption that the player caused the ball to move and then demanding that the player proves this is not the case. This is completely contrary to how the rules have been to date in as much as they have asked the player to act in good faith in applying the rules. This new attitude will almost certainly lead to players not reporting incidences for fear of it leading to an automatic penalty which in turn will require all players to be monitored at all times to try to catch infringements. This might work for a good percentage of top professional events but is completely impractical for average competitions and will become the bane of amateur club golf for which the USGA carries the biggest responsibility.[size=78%]

[/size]Jon[size=78%]

[Terry Lavin]

Since you bring up Ridley's legal experience, the basis of 'more likely than not' that was trotted out to support Johnson's penalty does seem like  a bit of an outlier in the American legal system.

I have absolutely no dog in this fight, but this is a laughably incorrect statement.  In non-criminal cases, the relevant standard is almost never "beyond a reasonable doubt," but is usually some form of "preponderance of the evidence"--which is essentially the same as more likely than not.

Carl, I am aware that a civil case requires a lower burden of proof.. Which explains why OJ Simpson had to auction off his Heisman Trophy and give the money to Fred Goldman.... and why my prior post says "in a criminal court or proceeding".

So to your point, we just have to figure if Johnson soling his putter within a foot of his ball on an Oakmont green was a civil infraction or a crime against humanity... which, according to the USGA, it was.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, don't know the legal language, don't know Ridley, but feel free to hurl unattributed innuendo about him.

How charming.

[Bill_McBride]

I figured she had maybe four too many G&Ts but maybe not.  Her slur factor was high.  (Note:  I've been there!)

[Mike_Young]

I figured she had maybe four too many G&Ts but maybe not.  Her slur factor was high.  (Note:  I've been there!)

But he was a nice policeman

[Bill_McBride]

I figured she had maybe four too many G&Ts but maybe not.  Her slur factor was high.  (Note:  I've been there!)

But he was a nice policeman

Thank the gods!

[Terry Lavin]

Discretion is an overlooked feature in law enforcement.

[Mike_Young]

Discretion is an overlooked feature in law enforcement.

Terry,
I was watching from down the road in case I had to go to a small town Ga jail...but it worked out.....

[Steve Lapper]

Jim & Terry,


  Having been a first-hand witness to the debacle that was the final day of the 2004 Open at Shinnecock, I must mention that your man Ridley, along with his hand-picked co-conspirator, Walter Driver, both combined to  wrongly accuse, as well as throughly debase and denigrate, an hard-working, otherwise innocent man...all in the name of covering-up their own ineptitude and ignorance.


  They threw Shinny's superintendent Mark Michaud, under the proverbial bus in order to mask their own folly back then and I firmly believe those two autocratic clowns have played some of the largest parts in the USGA's demise. Co-incidentally, they've more or less run the nominating committee for the last decade and anyone who understands the USGA's incestuous governance structure would have no problem seeing just how their combined influence has brought a very misguided corporate capitalist-style to what was always meant to be a culturally-driven guardianship of the game.


  Let's not forget that it was most definitively under Fred Ridley's watch, and then passed and endorsed anew by his pal Walt Driver, that the private jet lease and allowance for the Executive and Nominating Committees was put into practice. Lots of bag tags and Open hat memberships needed to be sold to afford the J5 fuelings, not to mention the full food spreads at various well-located FBOs close to top courses around the country. And to think they spent for these planes all while simultaneously slashing USGA staffers benefits. In my mind they were the functional equivalent of the Koslowski's, O'Neill' and Dunlap's of their times!.

 Lets be at least honest when making the FULL & COMPLETE assessment of these characters. They were most definitively the staunchest advocates of taking the USGA away from those who cared more for the game and instead positioned it into protecting the interest of a few. They were also behind the beheading of quite a few senior committee folks who dared to disagree (i.e. Gleacher, Vardaman, Nagler, Katz....etc...)


Don't believe me??.....go back and read this: [size=78%]http://www.golfdigest.com/story/gw070608millard[/size]
[/size][size=78%] [/size]

[Terry Lavin]

Slapper:

In all of the coverage that I read about the 2004 Open, I don't recall Meeks or Ridley throwing Michaud under the bus for the insane green speeds on Sunday. It seems to me that Meeks admitted that they miscalculated and that they shouldn't have rolled the 7th green and should've put water on most of the greens before Sunday play.

The USGA has a history of getting aggressive with setup for the US Open. Sometimes, they push it too far (Shinny, Pebble, Olympic). Sometimes (Olympia, Congressional) they're too cautious. Mostly it comes down to miscalculations because of weather conditions.

I looked at the Driver profile and didn't see anything particularly salacious about Ridley. He may not be your cup of tea. Maybe he fired a friend of yours, but Butler's unattributed quote has no place on this website IMO.

Maybe it works better on Shack's blog. He loves bashing the USGA and the PGA. He loves talking tough about Finchem and Davis, but he bans anybody who has the temerity to criticize Shack. 

[Anthony Butler]

Slapper:

In all of the coverage that I read about the 2004 Open, I don't recall Meeks or Ridley throwing Michaud under the bus for the insane green speeds on Sunday. It seems to me that Meeks admitted that they miscalculated and that they shouldn't have rolled the 7th green and should've put water on most of the greens before Sunday play.

The USGA has a history of getting aggressive with setup for the US Open. Sometimes, they push it too far (Shinny, Pebble, Olympic). Sometimes (Olympia, Congressional) they're too cautious. Mostly it comes down to miscalculations because of weather conditions.

I looked at the Driver profile and didn't see anything particularly salacious about Ridley. He may not be your cup of tea. Maybe he fired a friend of yours, but Butler's unattributed quote has no place on this website IMO.

Maybe it works better on Shack's blog. He loves bashing the USGA and the PGA. He loves talking tough about Finchem and Davis, but he bans anybody who has the temerity to criticize Shackelford.

Please provide evidence I 'banned' anyone for talking s--t about Geoff Shackelford, who I have no particular relationship with other than an exchange of emails about his Cypress Point book and a round of golf with his father.

For a guy who's spent so much time looking into my past posts on this site, it is amazing you did not seem to discover my relationship with the USGA. Once you figure that out, you'll understand why I won't be revealing the source of the Fred Ridley 'quote'.

Needless to say, as you can see from Steve Lapper's post, my assessment, and variations thereof, are fairly common throughout the golf world.  Shinnecock, FOX, Chambers Bay, Oakmont.... How many screw ups are Ridley and his handpicked lackeys allowed before someone says 'enough'. Davis probably owes his job to him and Diana Murphy is either dealing with the effects of a minor stroke or engaged in hand to hand combat with a bottle of Tanqueray, therefore the prospects of immediate improvement look dim right now...

[Terry Lavin]

Butler,

I didn't attribute anything to you related to Shack. I was just suggesting that your unattributed bile about Ridley might be better received there. You've added nothing here except animus and this latest offering is nothing if not consistent. Nice to see you're adding your boorish voice to the chorus of those suggesting Murphy was hammered. You must feel like a big man to make her look so small.

Find an Internet rock...

[Anthony Butler]

Butler,

I didn't attribute anything to you related to Shack. I was just suggesting that your unattributed bile about Ridley might be better received there. You've added nothing here except animus and this latest offering is nothing if not consistent. Nice to see you're adding your boorish voice to the chorus of those suggesting Murphy was hammered. You must feel like a big man to make her look so small.

Find an Internet rock...

Terry Lavin - All the insults you've tossed in my direction and you still haven't addressed the very real issues that lead to these types of situations with the USGA occurring again and again..

The troika of Driver, Davis and Ridley seem to be mostly responsible for the USGA's drift from being an organization serving the game and their members to one that caters mostly to their corporate sponsors and the bottom line. In someways, it's historically similar to the NRA, who went through a similar and unfortunate transition about 25 years ago...

I can't tell if you're being smart or stupid in continuing to ask for my 'source'. Either way, I'm not revealing it.

That in itself should indicate the source.

[corey miller]

If someone as smart and skilled as President Obama can struggle with a microphone, as he did in NC yesterday, we can give Diana Murphy a pass.  Frankly, the comments smack of sexism. 

[Steve Lapper]

Butler,

I didn't attribute anything to you related to Shack. I was just suggesting that your unattributed bile about Ridley might be better received there. You've added nothing here except animus and this latest offering is nothing if not consistent. Nice to see you're adding your boorish voice to the chorus of those suggesting Murphy was hammered. You must feel like a big man to make her look so small.

Find an Internet rock...

Terry Lavin - All the insults you've tossed in my direction and you still haven't addressed the very real issues that lead to these types of situations with the USGA occurring again and again..

The troika of Driver, Davis and Ridley seem to be mostly responsible for the USGA's drift from being an organization serving the game and their members to one that caters mostly to their corporate sponsors and the bottom line. In someways, it's historically similar to the NRA, who went through a similar and unfortunate transition about 25 years ago...

I can't tell if you're being smart or stupid in continuing to ask for my 'source'. Either way, I'm not revealing it.

That in itself should indicate the source.

Anthony,


    I know Terry Lavin a bit and respect him and his opinions. Ad Hominem-style attack language on anyone's part is uncalled for.

    While I may well concur with you on some of your statements and issues (and not on all), I DO NOT believe Mike Davis deserves to be lumped in with either Ridley or Driver. 

    I know Mike a bit as well and strongly feel that he is far from the primary problem, nor one of policy-makers that so regularly places the USGA into positions of disrepute. Surely, he's it's public face and accordingly deserves, and readily accepts, some blame, but let us all not forget he's the Executive Director and not a member of the Executive or Nominating Committees (the true policy and political power nexus of the USGA). Yes, he's historically closely affiliated with the members of the long-standing, and incestuous, Nom. Committee, but Mike has real integrity IMO and wouldn't trade that anything.


   The organization dysfunction has always emanated from the top and that's the only place that meaningful reform and organizational changes will serve effective. Driver squashed such an effort in late 2013 when outgoing President Nager wanted a more independent CEO that Mike Davis would then report to. That was documented throughout the golf journalism world at the time and resulted in NAger getting pushed out and subsequently left off the nominating committee.

[Anthony Butler]

Butler,

I can't tell if you're being smart or stupid in continuing to ask for my 'source'. Either way, I'm not revealing it.

That in itself should indicate the source.

Anthony,


    I know Terry Lavin a bit and respect him and his opinions. Ad Hominem-style attack language on anyone's part is uncalled for.

    While I may well concur with you on some of your statements and issues (and not on all), I DO NOT believe Mike Davis deserves to be lumped in with either Ridley or Driver. 

Steve Lapper.... calling someone stupid or smart in this context is not an ad-hominem attack.. Anyone who has paid attention over the last five years to many of my posts would know how I might be connected to the USGA... While I don't personally know any of the people you mention above, I do know several people who have worked with them over the years... Why on earth would I jeopardize their situation by revealing their identity?

It's not beyond imagination that something shared here on GCA would be used to damage another person.. It's happened before.

I've received several personal messages from this site 'wondering' if my employers would appreciate my viewpoints... Since this is not Linked-In and I'm not identified here by the company I work for, you'll have to forgive me turning a skeptic eye towards people digging for information.

Either way, there seems to be enough people here who agree the USGA should clean house on the Executive Committee if they wish to regain the trust and credibility of the golfing public... I don't know one person who agrees with how they handled the situation on Sunday at Oakmont... Effectively they ignored Johnson's marker and the walking rules official based on a video review that revealed nothing additional from what was known at the time of the incident.

Several people who have served on rules committees on the state level pinged me with the idea the USGA called a penalty on Johnson for two reasons... Lowry had been penalized for something 'similar' the day before, and because it would not effect the result of the tournament... not sure they spoke with anyone connected to the USGA after the tournament.  If this is true, however, it's a sad indictment of the lofty legal minds on the USGA Committee. Lowry's penalty did not represent a 'precedent' since he soled his putter at address and the ball rolled in the direction of his putter. He also called the penalty on himself because he viewed his actions as having caused the ball to move. Secondly, golf rules or any laws should not be applied for the sake of 'appearances'.

There was no compelling evidence to overturn the ruling on the course, simply the arrogance of an organization who doesn't seem to understand rules they authored and implement. In attempting to shed some light on where that attitude might have sprung from, I would argue I have been the one who suffered an ad-hominem style attack. Unless being asked to 'crawl under an Internet rock' is some new form of greeting here on GCA.. 

[JESII]

Anthony,

The rule is: if the ball moves while you're right around it, you need to provide evidence that it was something other than you that caused it to move.

DJ and Lee Westwood don't think DJ caused it to move because they don't know the rule changed.

The official with them didn't call a penalty because they (DJ & LW) told him the club had not been grounded...because they wrongly thought that still meant 'while at address'. The club had been grounded so when that came to light the USGA has to help DJ understand the rule and call a penalty on himself.

Their mistake was simply not showing him the video on the 12th tee...which has never been done before; showing a video of a possible rules infraction mid-round.

Once DJ agreed to deal with it after the round, the Fox boys made sure to humiliate their new business partners as only a self centered ex-TOUR player can do!

Ever since, guys like you have salivated at the opportunity to kick the Executive Committee for a bad PR day.

Think about it...they were intent on letting DJ call this on himself or explain the true cause of the movement. He couldn't muster the spine to do either...

[Jon Wiggett]

Jim,


in effect the new rule means that if you are within 10 foot of the ball and it moves then you must penalise yourself as it is impossible to prove anything else caused the ball to move. Would be easier to say that if the ball moved the player is penalised. Stupid rule that was ill thought through.


Jon

[SL_Solow]

The rule is actually an improvement.  The old rule provided that if the ball moved after the club was grounded a player was deemed to have moved it and a penalty ensued.  Simple rule, if one never grounded his club he never worried.    But if a howling gale or even an earthquake moved the ball after the ball was addressed the penalty was incurred.  Thus the rule was changed to call for some cause.  Contrary to the comment here, the assumption is not in favor of a penalty, it must be more likely than not that the player caused the movement in order to incur a penalty.  In other words, to adopt a legal standard, it is a preponderance of the evidence test..  On balance, the ruling itself, taken in a vacuum, is defensible.  The ball was at rest, Johnson soled his club next to the ball with some pressure, upon his lifting the club, the ball moved noticeably.  The problems with the ruling are threefold.  First, as noted in many places, by setting up the course at excessive green speeds, balls moved too easily.  However, I note, there were not numerous incidents of this type.  Second, and most importantly, the delay in the final ruling along with the overruling of the walking official was a major error, particularly given its impact on the tournament.  Would there have been such an uproar if Johnson had been in 25th place?  Finally, the impact of  TV cannot be overstated. The ability to review film does not exist in regular play.  Many players are not on camera.  So replay is not universal.  Combine that with TV's need to have a story and the problem was magnified.

Clearly the USGA has to find a way to avoid problems like this by finding a way to make rulings quickly with finality.  But they aren't the only ones whose rulings create controversy.  Johnson's last problem in a major was at a PGA where the course set up and officials were not controlled by the USGA.  Its not an easy thing to officiate most sports and golf has its own problems.  I suggest this was more a problem of application rather than the rule itself.

I'll stay out of the USGA politics "debate".  I have some issues of my own but they are irrelevant to the issue that started this discussion.  There are some very good people who devote a lot of time in support of golf who are associated with the USGA and some terrific employees in the Green Section and elsewhere who can get tarred indirectly by the type of invective displayed in this thread.  Perhaps another time.

[Jon Wiggett]

Contrary to the comment here, the assumption is not in favor of a penalty, it must be more likely than not that the player caused the movement in order to incur a penalty.

SL,


though I agree with much of the rest of your post if the onus is on the player to prove that he was not the cause of the ball moving as appears to be the case than the above quote from your post is clearly incorrect. It is very difficult if not impossible to prove that you were not the reason for the ball to have moved once you are in the vicinity of the ball. It would appear that simply knowing you could not have been the cause is not sufficient if you cannot provide reasonable evidence for what else it could have been. Or is this wrong and if so provide the reasons


Jon

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's the language of the relevant decision.

"In other situations, however, there may be some question as to why the ball moved - e.g., because it is less than certain that the player's actions near the ball caused it to move, or because multiple factors were present that potentially might have caused the ball to move. All relevant information must be considered and the weight of the evidence must be evaluated (Decision 34-3/9.  Depending on the circumstances, the relevant considerations may include, but are not limited to:

• The nature of any actions taken near the ball (e.g., movement of loose impediments, practice swings, grounding club, taking stance, etc.),
  
  
• Time elapsed between such actions and the movement of the ball,
  
  
• The lie of the ball before it moved (e.g., on a closely-mown area, perched on longer grass, on a surface imperfection, etc.),
  
  
• The conditions of the ground near the ball (e.g., degree of slope, presence of surface irregularities, etc.), and
  
  
• Wind, rain and other weather conditions.
  
  

If the weight of evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the player caused the ball to move, even though that conclusion is not free from doubt, the player incurs a one-stroke penalty under Rule 18-2 and the ball must be replaced. Otherwise, the player incurs no penalty and the ball is played as it lies unless some other Rule applies (e.g., Rule 18-1."


It does not require a player to "prove" some other cause.  The determination is to be based on the "weight of evidence" and they helpfully provide you with a number of items to consider.

In the DJ situation, he took some actions near the ball; there was a very short time between the actions and the movement; the lie was on a super slick green with some slope, and; there was little to no wind, rain or other weather conditions.  Another consideration could be whether there was some other possible cause for the ball to move - I can't think of one.

To me, the only plausible reason for the ball to move is that there was so little friction  on the green that any little breeze could have provided enough force to cause the ball to move.  Perhaps there was a little puff of wind or perhaps DJ lifting the putter and moving it behind the ball caused enough draft to cause the ball to move.

The whole rule of a ball moving when at rest is really silly.  If a ball at rest moves for any reason, just replace it and carry on.

The way the USGA handled the ruling and aftermath was atrocious but it's hard to believe they did it with malevolent intent.

[Jim Nugent]

The rule is actually an improvement.  The old rule provided that if the ball moved after the club was grounded a player was deemed to have moved it and a penalty ensued.  Simple rule, if one never grounded his club he never worried.    But if a howling gale or even an earthquake moved the ball after the ball was addressed the penalty was incurred.  Thus the rule was changed to call for some cause.  Contrary to the comment here, the assumption is not in favor of a penalty, it must be more likely than not that the player caused the movement in order to incur a penalty.  In other words, to adopt a legal standard, it is a preponderance of the evidence test..  On balance, the ruling itself, taken in a vacuum, is defensible.  The ball was at rest, Johnson soled his club next to the ball with some pressure, upon his lifting the club, the ball moved noticeably.  The problems with the ruling are threefold.  First, as noted in many places, by setting up the course at excessive green speeds, balls moved too easily.  However, I note, there were not numerous incidents of this type.  Second, and most importantly, the delay in the final ruling along with the overruling of the walking official was a major error, particularly given its impact on the tournament.  Would there have been such an uproar if Johnson had been in 25th place?  Finally, the impact of  TV cannot be overstated. The ability to review film does not exist in regular play.  Many players are not on camera.  So replay is not universal.  Combine that with TV's need to have a story and the problem was magnified.

Clearly the USGA has to find a way to avoid problems like this by finding a way to make rulings quickly with finality.  But they aren't the only ones whose rulings create controversy.  Johnson's last problem in a major was at a PGA where the course set up and officials were not controlled by the USGA.  Its not an easy thing to officiate most sports and golf has its own problems.  I suggest this was more a problem of application rather than the rule itself.

I'll stay out of the USGA politics "debate".  I have some issues of my own but they are irrelevant to the issue that started this discussion.  There are some very good people who devote a lot of time in support of golf who are associated with the USGA and some terrific employees in the Green Section and elsewhere who can get tarred indirectly by the type of invective displayed in this thread.  Perhaps another time.

You did not accurately describe the sequence of events.  DJ only soled his putter during his practice strokes.  When he was ready to address the putt, he positioned his putter in the air behind the ball, raised the putter above the ball... and then the ball moved. 

i.e. the ball did not move after DJ lifted his putter off the ground.  There was a delay.  Grounding the putter or raising it off the ground did not cause the ball to move.   

The 'preponderance of the evidence' the USGA relied on was a video.  Due to the angle of the camera -- which was in front of the ball and to the side -- it was impossible to see if Dustin's putter touched the ball.  At best the video was inconclusive.  Actually, after watching it several times now, I'm about 98% sure Dustin did not touch the ball. 

While the video couldn't see everything, Lee Westwood says he did see it all.  He is sure Dustin did not cause the ball to move.  Dustin also is sure.  Yet the USGA decided a video that was not in position was more reliable than two people who were in position. 

If DJ accidentally tapped the ball with his putter, the ball would have moved forward.  It didn't.  It moved backwards -- towards DJ's putter.  I'm interested to hear how that could happen, if DJ tapped the ball. 

To sum up: the ball did NOT move right after DJ lifted his putter off the ground... the video does not show contact (or DJ moving the ball in any other way)... the two people with excellent views both agree DJ didn't cause the ball to move... and DJ accurately described what happened to the USGA official with his group (the chairman of the USGA's rules committee, who  asked him if he grounded the club and then told him to play as it lies, without imposing a penalty).   

The rule seems to me poor.  How does the player know why a ball moves?  Maybe due to greens that are among the most contoured in the country, and stimp at 14-15?  A tiny breeze (I saw a video of a guy blowing on a ball in the practice rounds, sending it sliding 30 feet away)?  An insect that bumps into it?

All the player can really know is whether he touched the ball.   

Also, it seems absurd to me that the player cannot rely on a ruling by the Chairman of the USGA Rules Committee.