Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mike_Young on June 22, 2016, 10:57:25 AM
-
https://twitter.com/MGLaValva/status/744694947136282624/video/1 (https://twitter.com/MGLaValva/status/744694947136282624/video/1)
-
I was watching her face as she garbled the English language......perhaps a bit of Botox....the corners of the mouth really didn't move much.
-
Ted Bishop got a raw deal.... :) :)
-
Doesnt botox violate rule 14
-
Ward:
Touche!
-
Do you notice how uncomfortable people are with this....press is not touching it....so so many people who work in the business are intimidated by the USGA and saying anything against them. I know a person who interviewed MD re the long putter a couple years ago and and did not agree on decision; relationship hasn't been the same with USGA since..
-
Much of her speech was pre-written and she could not get that done. What I find even worse than that was she referred to Scott Piercy twice and both times called him Scott PERCY. If you run the US Open, and your second place finisher has won 3 times on tour, don't you think you could get his name right? I keep waiting for some kind of flu/sunstroke/vertigo excuse but I guess they are going to ignore it.
-
Anyone know where Jim Furyk went to for the awards? his chair was empty.
-
We all saw it - the blogosphere's been working overtime - there ought to be a point where indignation gets replaced by compassion.
-
Forget her. What about this?
http://www.golfdigest.com/story/lee-westwood-talks-for-first-time-about-playing-with-dj-on-crazy-sunday-at-oakmont
-
Ronald,
pretty damning story for the USGA. How can they treat the marker like that? It seems to me that the officials were so engrossed with their own importance that they forgot many of the basics when dealing with such a situation.
Jon
-
We all saw it - the blogosphere's been working overtime - there ought to be a point where indignation gets replaced by compassion.
Jim,
Agree but it is a position where she should have been replaced the next day...just like Ted. And compassion should have been shown and given DJ back his penalty stroke.
-
Ronald,
pretty damning story for the USGA. How can they treat the marker like that? It seems to me that the officials were so engrossed with their own importance that they forgot many of the basics when dealing with such a situation.
Jon
There seems to be a belief among tour players, a certain entitlement, to "their" officials. They seem to expect the same faces week in and out. Does the PGA Tour provide officials at the Masters? at the PGA? I don't know and wonder.
That said, the USGA needed to circle the wagons, back its walking official, and let things play out. No competitor would have begrudged Dustin his opinion, even if the stroke had been critical.
One would think that the USGA would invite a tour official to walk with each group (maybe it costs too much money) as a second set of eyes, as an observer only.
-
We all saw it - the blogosphere's been working overtime - there ought to be a point where indignation gets replaced by compassion.
Jim,
Agree but it is a position where she should have been replaced the next day...just like Ted. And compassion should have been shown and given DJ back his penalty stroke.
I read on another site that this happens to people when the they are not used to speaking using a PA system. There is a delay of some sort that causes confusion to the speaker.
-
We all saw it - the blogosphere's been working overtime - there ought to be a point where indignation gets replaced by compassion.
Jim,
Agree but it is a position where she should have been replaced the next day...just like Ted. And compassion should have been shown and given DJ back his penalty stroke.
Apples and oranges, or maybe more like this, (http://insideheads.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/apple-orange.jpg)
but I missed the part where she tweeted "Yours vs. His? Lil Girl", and "Sounds like a little school girl squealing during recess. C'MON MAN!".
-
Jim,
It's not that I don't have empathy for Murphy or anyone else with such an issue. The problem is that as you get closer and closer to the top there is less and less room for tolerance of mistakes without someone taking the fall. The enitre mess is much worse than Ted Bishop. I promise you someone would have schooled her well before hand on PA systems and their nuances so that doesn't fly either. USGA is a very flawed organization presently.
As for all the stuff about "yours vs. his" "lil girl" etc....my new favorite is when Scott Brown says Elizabeth Warren " take a DNA test Pocohontas" love it...
-
My "new favorite" thing is watching all the bigots, like Brown, come out of the woodwork.
All Ted Bishop had to do was make a real apology and he'd have remained at his job - and Ted Bishop knows that.
His tell-all book should be an interesting read.
-
Seems like with all the poop coming out of the mouths of our current crop of politicians, Ted could find a fine career there.
Losing your job for calling a player a little girl? That's nothing compared to the crap HRC and Trump are getting away with...
-
Kudos to Golf.Com for not letting this thing go quietly into that dark night of history:
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/shane-lowry-us-open-penalty-fiasco-affected-my-final-round
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/mike-davis-admits-problem-usgas-moving-ball-rule
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/jordan-spieth-us-open-ruling-i-wouldnt-have-hit-another-shot
-
Jim,
It's not that I don't have empathy for Murphy or anyone else with such an issue. The problem is that as you get closer and closer to the top there is less and less room for tolerance of mistakes without someone taking the fall. The enitre mess is much worse than Ted Bishop. I promise you someone would have schooled her well before hand on PA systems and their nuances so that doesn't fly either. USGA is a very flawed organization presently.
As for all the stuff about "yours vs. his" "lil girl" etc....my new favorite is when Scott Brown says Elizabeth Warren " take a DNA test Pocohontas" love it...
Jeepers...it was a bad speech...one of thousands. Let it go.
Ciao
-
And Golf Digest. This one is absolutely surgical.
http://www.golfdigest.com/story/what-really-happened-dustin-johnson-the-usga-and-the-us-open-fiasco
-
From the article:
"According to a USGA spokesperson, more than 10,000 letters, emails, texts and phone calls were sent or made to the association within three days of Johnson’s victory, some of them nasty and even threatening."
To paraphrase the title of this thread, that "Sort of sums up the USA experience".
Pathetic. :P
-
Kudos to Golf.Com for not letting this thing go quietly into that dark night of history:
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/shane-lowry-us-open-penalty-fiasco-affected-my-final-round (http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/shane-lowry-us-open-penalty-fiasco-affected-my-final-round)
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/mike-davis-admits-problem-usgas-moving-ball-rule (http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/mike-davis-admits-problem-usgas-moving-ball-rule)
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/jordan-spieth-us-open-ruling-i-wouldnt-have-hit-another-shot (http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/jordan-spieth-us-open-ruling-i-wouldnt-have-hit-another-shot)
I don't think they will since Fox took the contract form them and NBC...
The fun part will be when the tour finally speaks....come on..the US Open is what it is because of the pros. The USGA got an e4xtra 60 mill a year with the new contract and only upped the purse about 1 mill....don't think that sits too well with all the shenanigans going on...I hope GC stays on their butt....
-
Ronald,
pretty damning story for the USGA. How can they treat the marker like that? It seems to me that the officials were so engrossed with their own importance that they forgot many of the basics when dealing with such a situation.
Jon
There seems to be a belief among tour players, a certain entitlement, to "their" officials. They seem to expect the same faces week in and out. Does the PGA Tour provide officials at the Masters? at the PGA? I don't know and wonder.
One would think that the USGA would invite a tour official to walk with each group (maybe it costs too much money) as a second set of eyes, as an observer only.
The USGA does, however, have officials working the Masters.. in fact, the very same people who brought you Tiger Woods' "Dropgate" were USGA officials...
That particular clusterf__k was the handiwork of Fred Ridley, past president of the USGA.
A man who, in the eyes of one of my colleagues who had dealings with him, 'Had the same ability to understand new concepts as someone in a special ed program, combined with a belief in his own opinions you would ordinarily find in a Warren Buffett or Steve Jobs."
As the writer Charles Bukowski said; "The problem with the world is the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid people are full of confidence."
-
The USGA does, however, have officials working the Masters.. in fact, the very same people who brought you Tiger Woods' "Dropgate" were USGA officials...
That particular clusterf__k was the handiwork of Fred Ridley, past president of the USGA.
A man who, in the eyes of one of my colleagues who had dealings with him, 'Had the same ability to understand new concepts as someone in a special ed program, combined with a belief in his own opinions you would ordinarily find in a Warren Buffett or Steve Jobs."
As the writer Charles Bukowski said; "The problem with the world is the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid people are full of confidence."
I have to give Murphy some credit in that supposedly she dropped a few of the rules officials that had scored under 95 on test and the last few regimes was letting them remain...
But this unknown quote sort of sums them up for me: "Nothing as dangerous as mediocrity dressed up as sincerity" ;D ;D
-
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 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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
[/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%]
-
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.
-
I figured she had maybe four too many G&Ts but maybe not. Her slur factor was high. (Note: I've been there!)
-
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 ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
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 ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thank the gods!
-
Discretion is an overlooked feature in law enforcement.
-
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..... ;D ;D
-
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]
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.. :)
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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)
-
....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.
-
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...
-
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, 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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....
-
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 (http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-18,18-2). 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 (http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-34,34-3) does not prevent a Committee from changing a ruling (see Decision 34-3/1 (http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-34,d34-3-1)). As the player caused the ball to move, he was required to replace the ball with a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2 (http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-18,18-2). 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 (http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-18,18) for playing from a wrong place. Nevertheless, he does incur the penalty stroke under Rule 18-2 (http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-18,18-2) 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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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,
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?
-
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?
-
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 ;D ;D
-
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 ;D ;D
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?
-
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
-
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 ;D ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;D ;D
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.
-
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGdJ1Wn698A)
-
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 (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
-
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 (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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgrSq5gxHeo)
Exactly. How this is even being debated is bizarre.
-
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 (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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgrSq5gxHeo)
Exactly. How this is even being debated is bizarre.
You are right, I am wrong. I had seen it only on 1 video and it appeared the imprint was with the club.
However, I still feel this is not a rule that should be changed.
Hi resolution video on some players and not on others yes is something to be looked at.
-
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 ;D ;D
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.
The trail was from the BALL rolling in the bunker!
-
Forget about the trail...look under the hosel of the club from the front view and two grains of sand move....that's what they are talking about.
BUT..forget all of that....it's the USGA that needs to change or go away...we have four pages discussing a minute ball movement and two grains of sand that gave no one an advantage and probalities say it happened many more time during both the men's open and the women's open. The pompous attitudes need to do their thing and just try and rule the few clubs they deem worthy. Let the rest of golf do it's thing....
-
Forget about the trail...look under the hosel of the club from the front view and two grains of sand move....that's what they are talking about.
BUT..forget all of that....it's the USGA that needs to change or go away...we have four pages discussing a minute ball movement and two grains of sand that gave no one an advantage and probalities say it happened many more time during both the men's open and the women's open. The pompous attitudes need to do their thing and just try and rule the few clubs they deem worthy. Let the rest of golf do it's thing....
We should cover this in next month's news letter ;)
-
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 (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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgrSq5gxHeo)
Exactly. How this is even being debated is bizarre.
You are right, I am wrong. I had seen it only on 1 video and it appeared the imprint was with the club.
However, I still feel this is not a rule that should be changed.
Hi resolution video on some players and not on others yes is something to be looked at.
Sorry if I came off harsh. Like I name dropped on a separate thread, I've been fortunate enough to have spent some time with Anna and her parents. There is no way she'd drag her club through the sand and not call that on herself. She's a solid, class individual. I hope that explains my heightened sense of defending her. Glad you took another look and changed your opinion.
-
Only an idiot would think she saw that and didn't call it on herself. If her club made the "trail" you would have seen that from the blimp. It was a couple of grains of sand only captured in HD. It's absolutely a joke to use instant replay when the cameras are only focused on a few players.
-
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)
Never heard of Ms. Murphy before these two episodes. She says she's nervous under pressure. I can understand that. I'd hope she can take some sort of training to fix the problem. If not, the best thing for her to do would be to bow out from the awards presentations and let someone more comfortable with that sort of thing take over. Doesn't mean she's unqualified for her presidential leadership role. (Now, she may not be qualified, but the public speaking issue doesn't, alone, prove it.)
-
Only an idiot would think she saw that and didn't call it on herself. If her club made the "trail" you would have seen that from the blimp. It was a couple of grains of sand only captured in HD. It's absolutely a joke to use instant replay when the cameras are only focused on a few players.
Don't have a huge problem with this... this level of scrutiny is part of what the players accept when a tournament is televised.
In terms of rendering a decision, once you saw the video, this one was a no-brainer... which probably explains how the USGA managed to get it right..
-
since this is still alive I include my response to friends who know I was a rules official for a while. cant comment on Ladies situation but it sounds like more in The HD sphere of new ground
Gentlemen,
[/size]I have been to two rules schools, worked as an USGA rules volunteer, and strongly supported the Rules of Golf and their ability to protect the field etc. and the work of the USGA.
[/size]In my opinion your committee overreached when they determined that Mr. Johnson caused his ball to move inserting themselves as divine arbiter in a question of fact.
[/size]Everyone is aware of the exaggerated green speeds you employed in your course setup. Your committee acknowledged that when they opted to not call a penalty on another competitor earlier. Is it not inconsistent to deem a player moved a ball when your committee has already acknowledged a ball will move on its own on your greens? Johnson has used this practice routine many times without moving his ball. I could envision a ball move when the player treads close to the ball on these freakish greens so would he have moved the ball in that instance?
The most direct source, Mr. Johnson, still believes he did not cause the ball to move yet your committee has tarnished your own champion by refuting him and, to many it seems, compromising his sportsmanship and honor. The player's word is accepted in other situations such as point of entry in a hazard so is it not inconsistent to overrule him in this instance? Ultimately I believe the committee could have accepted that the player was just as unlikely to have moved the ball as to have moved it and the committee could have let the other source closest to the incident, the walking official's, ruling stand.
[/size]Half-hearted apologies regarding how this was subsequently handled will not erase the overwhelming reaction that this was an unnecassarily punitive judgement as opposed to an informed application of a rule; an abuse of power bordering on subtle arrogance.
I have a member renewal notice I will park until I feel that the USGA properly acknowledges the flaws in the committee's actions during their championship.
-
Good note Ward, well done.
-
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 (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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgrSq5gxHeo)
Exactly. How this is even being debated is bizarre.
You are right, I am wrong. I had seen it only on 1 video and it appeared the imprint was with the club.
However, I still feel this is not a rule that should be changed.
Hi resolution video on some players and not on others yes is something to be looked at.
Sorry if I came off harsh. Like I name dropped on a separate thread, I've been fortunate enough to have spent some time with Anna and her parents. There is no way she'd drag her club through the sand and not call that on herself. She's a solid, class individual. I hope that explains my heightened sense of defending her. Glad you took another look and changed your opinion.
I deserved it for rushing to judgement based on 1 view of a very short clip that indicated she had dragged her club.