Sort of sums up the USGA experience

[SL_Solow]

Jon, Jim  As Bryan noted, nothing in the rule places the burden on the player.  As far as the video, I have commented about my issue with it.  But the video was used to provide evidence of what happened and the sequence is what I described.  Yes it occurred in connection with a practice stroke but that is irrelevant.  if a player causes a ball to move he is penalized.  Had it been me, I would have relied on the judgment of the walking official who happened to be the chairman of the rules committee.  But I understand the decision and had the walking official decided the other way, I could have supported him.  Like many rules decisions, judgment is involved.  My biggest problem was the delay.

[Anthony Butler]

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.

Anyone care to come to Diana Murphy's defense after today's presentation debacle?

[Dan Herrmann]

Ms. Murphy should be prevented from any leading all trophy ceremonies.


Clumsy beyond belief.  How the heck do people like Murphy ascend to such a lofty position?    (has nothing to do with her gender - the USGA has had male buffoons serving as president too)

[Bruce Katona]

....and to the best of my knowledge there is still no video replay rule in golf.

Until Such time as the USGA gets ongoing with UEFA regarding goal
Line technology, there is no review.

Call 'em the way you see 'em in real time.

[Mike_Young]

Ms. Murphy should be prevented from any leading all trophy ceremonies.


Clumsy beyond belief.  How the heck do people like Murphy ascend to such a lofty position?    (has nothing to do with her gender - the USGA has had male buffoons serving as president too)

dig around on Walter Driver and Reg Murphy and eventually you will figure it all out....it's a Ga thing...

[Bruce Katona]

If it wasn't for Portugal upsetting France in the Euro 2016 tournament without Cristiano Ronaldo this would be an even larger social media fiasco for the Blazers. Luckily there is another story to hide behind.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon, Jim  As Bryan noted, nothing in the rule places the burden on the player.  As far as the video, I have commented about my issue with it.  But the video was used to provide evidence of what happened and the sequence is what I described.  Yes it occurred in connection with a practice stroke but that is irrelevant.  if a player causes a ball to move he is penalized.  Had it been me, I would have relied on the judgment of the walking official who happened to be the chairman of the rules committee.  But I understand the decision and had the walking official decided the other way, I could have supported him.  Like many rules decisions, judgment is involved.  My biggest problem was the delay.

But clearly the USGA do not interpret it in that way as both player and marker were certain the player had NOT caused the ball to move yet the USGA decided on hand of video evidence that he had. I will go back to my point that DJ did not replace the ball and so if the USGA were correct then he should have and has therefore incurred a further penalty which was not included in the score he signed for and so should have been disqualified.


It was just one HUGE mess of entirely the USGA's own making and these are the people partly in charge of golf.

[Mike_Young]

It was just one HUGE mess of entirely the USGA's own making and these are the people partly in charge of golf.

Jon,
With respect, that is where I see the problem.  They think they are in charge of golf.  If we have 24 million golfers in this country.  23,995,000 are going to play on the courses in this country whether the USGA exist or not...they outgrew themselves.  They are an organization meant for the small grop of clubs that act as the original five.  They view the rest of golf as getting their hands dirty but they don't say it.  Zero respect for professionals.

[Steve Lapper]

Ms. Murphy should be prevented from any leading all trophy ceremonies.


Clumsy beyond belief.  How the heck do people like Murphy ascend to such a lofty position?    (has nothing to do with her gender - the USGA has had male buffoons serving as president too)

Ladbrokes just opened up a a betting line on whether or not Ms. Murphy gets the "hat trick" for fouling up another USGA trophy presentation. All eyes are on the upcoming US Juniors!


Maybe Diageo gets the next USGA corporate sponsorship?

[Anthony Butler]

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 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?

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

One of the defining characteristics of any legal system or set of rules is precedent. Even the great legal mind of Terrry Lavin's pal, Fred Ridley would admit to that.. Yet the decision to penalize Johnson, I would argue, is directly contradicted by the USGA's decision not to penalize Jon Rahm in the third round of the US Open.

The Johnson video shows no additional evidence to suggest he did anything to make the ball move.. The decision to overrule Johnson's marker, and the USGA Official walking with the group was made based on the timing of his 'activity' around the ball.. yet the manner and direction in which the ball moved had nothing to do with anything Johnson did on the green. The ball did not move towards where he lightly soled his putter on the green, or away from him... indicating his putter touched the ball.

Rahm, on the other hand, had addressed his ball according to the Rules of Golf. He then apparently lifted his putter.. the ball then moved approximately 6 seconds after he lifted his putter.. rolling towards where his putter had been at address.. Couple of things here.. I've never seen anyone lift their putter or club in the air for 6 seconds at address without hitting the ball...  since Rahm had already addressed the ball, at what point during this sequence is he not addressing the ball.?  If he stepped away from the ball after addressing it, what was the reason? Was the ball looking like it was about to move before it actually did?

On the surface, it seems there was far more circumstantial evidence that Rahm's actions caused the ball to move. I also don't believe Rahm had to answer the same question asked of Johnson..i.e.  "So if you didn't cause the ball to move, please explain why the ball moved?"

I'm not sure Rahm deserved to be penalized because I haven't seen the video of his incident, but the basis on which they decided not to penalize him seems far shakier than Johnson's case. If you address the ball on an Oakmont green and it moves towards your putter within 10 seconds of that happening, the onus is on you to prove something else caused the ball to move.. and have your marker and rules official back you up.

Look, it's great that Ridley knows the right judge when his friends get pulled up on a loitering charge in Tampa..

"Your honor.. this was all just a huge misunderstanding with the undercover policeman in the next stall." 

Since I don't require that kind of legal assistance, I wouldn't seek him out for an opinion on a parking ticket based on recent performance....
 

[MClutterbuck]

Jon, Jim  As Bryan noted, nothing in the rule places the burden on the player.  As far as the video, I have commented about my issue with it.  But the video was used to provide evidence of what happened and the sequence is what I described.  Yes it occurred in connection with a practice stroke but that is irrelevant.  if a player causes a ball to move he is penalized.  Had it been me, I would have relied on the judgment of the walking official who happened to be the chairman of the rules committee.  But I understand the decision and had the walking official decided the other way, I could have supported him.  Like many rules decisions, judgment is involved.  My biggest problem was the delay.

 I will go back to my point that DJ did not replace the ball and so if the USGA were correct then he should have and has therefore incurred a further penalty which was not included in the score he signed for and so should have been disqualified.

No Jon. That part is the clearest of the whole ruling. Please see below.


34-3/7Referee Determines Player Did Not Cause Ball to Move; Committee Subsequently Changes Ruling
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)

[MClutterbuck]

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.

+1. Well explained.


I also need to agree with Jon in the next reply that the rule needs to change, with no penalty and replacement for unintentionally moving the ball.

[JESII]

I wouldn't have a problem with the rule changing...I just think it's easier said then done. As much as people like to bash the USGA right now, the current rules are the result of 100+ years of people working hard to make them work...and work as well as possible considering all the complexities of the game.

[JESII]

Jon, Jim  As Bryan noted, nothing in the rule places the burden on the player.

Shelly and Bryan,


In so much as it's really the players responsibility to call penalties on themselves, it does.


In the DJ scenario, if a decent wind had been blowing in the direction the ball moved, this would be an easy call. The reality is, the ball probably resettled into the very same depression it had been in before he moved and replaced it from Lee Westwood's line. In my view, this is on him virtually no matter how we shake it up.


The delay? Not ideal, but what would have been? He was intent on denying responsibility. I don't think a contentious argument on the 12th tee would have looked good. Perhaps the commentary team could get a rules refresher!?!

[Anthony Butler]

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.

+1. Well explained.


I also need to agree with Jon in the next reply that the rule needs to change, with no penalty and replacement for unintentionally moving the ball.

This notion of 'right around the ball' sounds way too open to dispute frankly.. but let's pretend you're right... how does it stack up to the Rahm situation as described in my subsequent post?

[JESII]

Anthony,

I believe the requirement for determining if the player is at address or not is gone from the new rule.

It must have been determined that something other than Rahm's club on the ground 6 seconds earlier was the most likely culprit. Was there any wind at all? Did gravity pull the ball down a slope?

Even as light as Johnson soled his putter, there is some seismic measurement, right?

If the ball is hanging on the top edge of the cup for 8 seconds and I go to tap it in and ground the club in doing so, is that extra stroke counted?

[Mike_Young]

If the USGA went away tonite golf would still be fine for 99% of the participants.

If they continue to make rules that penalize a golfer while that golfer is not gaining an advantage then it is too complicated.  DJ gained no advantage.....nor did the lady in the bunker yesterday....It's sort of like asking a police officer who stops you for a rolling stop violation.  If you say you stopped and he says no.Take a quarter and flip it in the air and ask him if he saw it stop when it changed directions.  You either get a ticket or he walks away....but that quarter stopped

[MClutterbuck]

If the USGA went away tonite golf would still be fine for 99% of the participants.

If they continue to make rules that penalize a golfer while that golfer is not gaining an advantage then it is too complicated.  DJ gained no advantage.....nor did the lady in the bunker yesterday....It's sort of like asking a police officer who stops you for a rolling stop violation.  If you say you stopped and he says no.Take a quarter and flip it in the air and ask him if he saw it stop when it changed directions.  You either get a ticket or he walks away....but that quarter stopped

While I agree DJ did not gain advantage and the rule should be changed, I completely disagree with the bunker. She is 100% at fault and she should have been more careful and added the penalty herself. I am amazed she did not realize she scraped sand while starting her swing. And I disagree this rule should be changed, where do you put the limit as to how much sand you can move?

[Sean_A]

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.

+1. Well explained.


I also need to agree with Jon in the next reply that the rule needs to change, with no penalty and replacement for unintentionally moving the ball.

It seems hard to believe a player can be penalized for approaching his ball.  Sure, his movement can be a contributing factor in the movement of the ball, but its not a reasonable test imo.  That said, I would never use wording like intentionally or unintentionally in a rule because that means only one person can then make the ruling and that is the player.  I don't know the way to deal with the DJ situation...maybe there isn't a good solution except for the USGA not cutting the greens so short.  Has technology outpaced the rules?  I think so, both in terms of course presentation and on course rulings.




Ciao

[Rob Marshall]

If the USGA went away tonite golf would still be fine for 99% of the participants.

If they continue to make rules that penalize a golfer while that golfer is not gaining an advantage then it is too complicated.  DJ gained no advantage.....nor did the lady in the bunker yesterday....It's sort of like asking a police officer who stops you for a rolling stop violation.  If you say you stopped and he says no.Take a quarter and flip it in the air and ask him if he saw it stop when it changed directions.  You either get a ticket or he walks away....but that quarter stopped

While I agree DJ did not gain advantage and the rule should be changed, I completely disagree with the bunker. She is 100% at fault and she should have been more careful and added the penalty herself. I am amazed she did not realize she scraped sand while starting her swing. And I disagree this rule should be changed, where do you put the limit as to how much sand you can move?

How can you see it if it happens below the head of your club? What if your eyes are focused on your ball? What if it happened to Lang in the first round when there is no camera? You can't call a penalty on yourself when you don't know you did it. The video replay has to go. It's not a fair system when a camera is not watching every player, play ever shot. It's supposed to be a game of honor and integrity. The officials are there to help the players with the rules not watch to see if players are breaking the rules.

[Bill Brightly]

There is a very simple fix. Change the rule to say once a player marks his ball on the green and replaces it, if it moves fro any reason (other than the player touching it with his body or equipment) the ball is replaced with no penalty. Green speeds from 12-15 are not going away, so just change the damn rule and play golf.

[Jeff Fortson]

Once a ball has been placed (after it has been marked) it is in play (this even applies to a ball that has been placed and the marker is still on the ground behind it).  Considering the Rules consider a ball "in play" once it has been placed, there have to be rules that govern it.  Otherwise, a ball is never "in play".  Replacing a ball should only occur when a player has been penalized for exerting influence via equipment, personal touch, or significant action that could reasonably be deemed to have made the ball to move. 


With that said, I think the Rules should be written to suggest that the burden of proof lies in proving the player actually was the cause of the ball moving, not forcing a player to prove he/she is innocent.  If no proof could show a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest the player was the cause, then the ball should be played from its new location, without penalty. 


This would make a situation like DJ's in the US Open very different.  Instead of DJ having to prove that his putter or actions (which showed his putter never touched the ball and only lightly rested on the ground) didn't make the ball move, the USGA, a fellow competitor, or the player him/herself would have to bring significant evidence forward to enforce a penalty on the player.


That's my opinion at least.

[MClutterbuck]

If the USGA went away tonite golf would still be fine for 99% of the participants.

If they continue to make rules that penalize a golfer while that golfer is not gaining an advantage then it is too complicated.  DJ gained no advantage.....nor did the lady in the bunker yesterday....It's sort of like asking a police officer who stops you for a rolling stop violation.  If you say you stopped and he says no.Take a quarter and flip it in the air and ask him if he saw it stop when it changed directions.  You either get a ticket or he walks away....but that quarter stopped

While I agree DJ did not gain advantage and the rule should be changed, I completely disagree with the bunker. She is 100% at fault and she should have been more careful and added the penalty herself. I am amazed she did not realize she scraped sand while starting her swing. And I disagree this rule should be changed, where do you put the limit as to how much sand you can move?

How can you see it if it happens below the head of your club? What if your eyes are focused on your ball? What if it happened to Lang in the first round when there is no camera? You can't call a penalty on yourself when you don't know you did it. The video replay has to go. It's not a fair system when a camera is not watching every player, play ever shot. It's supposed to be a game of honor and integrity. The officials are there to help the players with the rules not watch to see if players are breaking the rules.

1. I would assume she feels it. These players have tremendous feeling. 2. She left a clear trail with the club, you dont see that? I dont disagree with the rest of what you say.

[Jeff Fortson]

The fact that anyone thinks Anna dragged the club through the sand on her backswing is mind-boggling to me.  Any imprint you are seeing is the path her ball made rolling through the sand before it came to rest, not some trough she made gouging her club through the sand in her backswing.  Her club-head elevates fairly abruptly as she initiates the backswing. If fact, you can actually see the path of smoothed out sand under her club before she even takes it back.  Absolute misinformation to suggest otherwise. 


Here is a link to see the video...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGdJ1Wn698A

[Bob Harris]

The fact that anyone thinks Anna dragged the club through the sand on her backswing is mind-boggling to me.  Any imprint you are seeing is the path her ball made rolling through the sand before it came to rest, not some trough she made gouging her club through the sand in her backswing.  Her club-head elevates fairly abruptly as she initiates the backswing. If fact, you can actually see the path of smoothed out sand under her club before she even takes it back.  Absolute misinformation to suggest otherwise. 


Here is a link to see the video...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGdJ1Wn698A

a better view from behind shows the trail existed before she started her swing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgrSq5gxHeo