[JESII]

Strangely...line of sight obstructions are for line of sight.

[Mike_Young]

well put, but whatever questions needed to be asked should've been asked on #12 at the latest and once they decided to overrule, they should have overruled-rather than giving Dustin the illusion they hadn't made up their mind.
Imagine penalizing him at the end to cost him the title and Dustin and his scorekeeper not agreeing?

Jeff,
Do you think in their little secret room they had decided if Dustin happened to have a lead that allowed for the penalty they would assess and if not they would not and thus wanted to wait it out?....I do....

[Will MacEwen]

   Can someone who understands it please answer Jerry's question?  I spoke to a USGA rules maven yesterday and he says the temporary obstruction drop was correct.  I don't understand why, for the same reason Jerry states.

He couldn't see the pin from the initial location. He is entitled to nearest point of relief to where he can see the pin, no closer to the hole. By good luck, that took him out of a bad lie and into a good one.

[Jay Mickle]

It is most certainly the USGA attempting to attract a whole new group of golfers. The appeal is obvious😆

[archie_struthers]

 




I thought there was a rule change regarding the ball moving .?  As long as you didn't touch it ??

[Ronald Montesano]

i wish that Ran had SEO for this thread. It would be a big hit on the Google and the Bing. It is supremely entertaining. Here's how it looks from the strait of Niagara:


Comment on shadow moving the ball: absolutely brilliant. I thought of Tinkerbell and Peter Pan immediately, and realized that there was a fictional precedent that the USGA could cite in its defense. #JMBarrie


Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle: Harold is guilty of projecting his personal opinions and values onto historical figures to whose every move, transgression and charitable act he cannot possible have had access. Kumar is guilty of dipping the kindling in kerosene, then lighting it with an X15, albeit with solid wording.


Shane, Brother Shane: That's a Buffalo disc jockey (not DJ) reference. What Lowry said: “I had a straightforward two-putt from 30 feet up the hill,” Lowry said. “I addressed the ball and the ball moved back. I had to penalize myself. It’s very frustrating in a tournament like that.”

The Clock Ticked Backward: Similar to Ferris' backward-ticking clock, DJ's ball rolled backward toward his putter. If he touched the ball, it would have had to move forward. It did not. He soled the putter to the side of the ball, then hovered it behind it, which is not the same as addressing the ball, which Lowry indicates he did on the weekday.

You Love Him or You Don't: The thin veil that guards true intentions is freshly laundered on this thread. There are some who wish to burn Dustin Johnson at the stake, and are micro-inspecting every detail of his every step, to find justification for their dislike and, dare I say, jealousy. On the other side of the road are the supporters, who wish to vindicate the tall one from the injustices and bad breaks of previous tournaments. They are just as skilled at micro-inspection, 'cept they do it from the opposing slant.

I'm certain that there is more, but I've run out of my allotted time. I'll hand the filibustering phone book off to the next cat.

[Jim Nugent]

Another rules decision in the last round surprised me.  Garcia hit his drive into one of the Church Pew bunkers.  His ball was right up against the lip of a pew, buried so deep he could only see the top 10% or so: not enough to identify that it was his ball. 

He faced a nearly impossible shot.  Don't think he could advance the ball forward: he was looking to his left, deeper in the rough.  No guarantee he could even gouge the ball out, it was so deep. 

Yet if I understood the ruling, because he couldn't identify the ball, he got a free drop a little further back in the bunker.  From there he had a pretty simple play. 

Is that right?  If so seems ludicrous to me. 

[Jerry Kluger]

It seems extraordinary to me that by moving 5 feet to the left he could suddenly see the pin from a couple of hundred yards away and then hits it over the object causing the obstructed view to get the ball to the green - just seems strange.

[Will MacEwen]

It seems extraordinary to me that by moving 5 feet to the left he could suddenly see the pin from a couple of hundred yards away and then hits it over the object causing the obstructed view to get the ball to the green - just seems strange.

Hitting it over the object is irrelevant because it is line of sight relief.


I thought he moved more like 12 feet and I don't really see what is extraordinary about it. Something is blocking your view, you move to a point where it is no longer blocking your view.

[Niall C]

Seems to me that DJ used the rules to his advantage. Maybe the question should be what the feck was a TV tower doing over there ?


Niall

[Michael Felton]

So could someone clarify the line of sight ruling that seems to have not caused nearly as much controversy.  From what I could see he was in the primary rough and there was a temporary immovable obstruction about 100 yards away and in these events they give him line of sight relief.  It was then okay for him to drop 5 feet to the left out of the primary rough and somehow the obstruction was no longer in his way as he then proceeds to hit it directly over the obstruction and at the green.  To my mind the official should have walked with him to a location where the obstruction was no longer in play.

Jerry - the ruling calls for relief for line of sight. Your nearest point of relief is the first point you can see the flag plus one clublength. You then have to drop it within a clublength of that point. The slope of the green (you remember his ball wound up funneling way off to the left) dictated that he had to play the shot out to the right of the flag. The relief is for line of sight, not the line of the shot you want to play. He was very lucky indeed to be allowed to drop it, but it was the correct ruling. He then played his shot out to the right because that's where he needed to play it.


Funnily enough, given the rest of what we are talking about here, part of the fun of the rules is that they have to be applied to everyone in the same way. You can't say "you can't advance that ball at the flag from that lie, so you don't get relief for the TIO" to one person and to another say "you can advance that ball at the flag, so you do get relief for the TIO". There shouldn't be any place for a subjective judgement.


As to the original question, I wonder if there was anything that Dustin could have said that would make them not apply the penalty. I'd love to know how exactly they think that he moved it. Only thing I can think of is that his practice stroke was so close to the ball, that the air movement as a result of the practice stroke shifted the ball slightly so that gravity pulled it back. It's an interesting concept. And dreadfully applied by them.

[Tom Birkert]

I have a couple of issues with what happened.

Firstly, it took way too long and created a huge issue not only for DJ, but for Lowry and the others who did not know what his actual score was.

Secondly, the USGA overruled their official with the group, who DJ called in when it happened. Westwood also confirmed that Johnson hadn't addressed the ball. The ball moved backwards as well.

For me, there shouldn't have been any penalty whatsoever.

[Bruce Katona]

But the blazers" ...can't waiver about the rules of golf" because " We play by the rules" says Jeff Hall.


When Jack Nicklaus says you morons at the USGA have made a hash out of your stupidity by waiting 90 minute to tell a tournament competitor you think their might be a penalty; when the walking Rules official and your playing partner both say there is none; the rocket scientists in Far Hills need to address the issue of video replay.....call it or don't call it on the spot.  If we're going to let video replay into the game; set a time limit like every other sport; if there is nothing called by the time your on the next tee. your done.  This is not the Zapruder film we're analyzing looking for smoke puffs on the grassy knoll for heavens sake.


Thankfully DJ won by enough strokes so the blazers could inflict their penalty stroke to be proven right, if not correct.  they protected the rules of golf .........LOL.


If there wasn't a great Game 7 of the NBA Finals this lunacy would be above the fold on page 1 of many a paper.


Carry on you defenders of par. Keep up the good work.

[Peter_Collins]

Golf, on its biggest stage, at a time when it desperately needs a big boost in interest and participation, completely tripped on its penis with an arcane rules dispute that saw the tournament leader  play the last 6 holes of the tournament without knowing his score, and perhaps the most hated sports broadcaster in the country talking non-stop about it for the last 2 hours of the  broadcast.  SMH, you couldn't make this up if you tried. 

[Ronald Montesano]

For its value, the major golf publications have hammered the Association for the snafu.

[Terry Lavin]

But the blazers" ...can't waiver about the rules of golf" because " We play by the rules" says Jeff Hall.


When Jack Nicklaus says you morons at the USGA have made a hash out of your stupidity by waiting 90 minute to tell a tournament competitor you think their might be a penalty; when the walking Rules official and your playing partner both say there is none; the rocket scientists in Far Hills need to address the issue of video replay.....call it or don't call it on the spot.  If we're going to let video replay into the game; set a time limit like every other sport; if there is nothing called by the time your on the next tee. your done.  This is not the Zapruder film we're analyzing looking for smoke puffs on the grassy knoll for heavens sake.


Thankfully DJ won by enough strokes so the blazers could inflict their penalty stroke to be proven right, if not correct.  they protected the rules of golf .........LOL.


If there wasn't a great Game 7 of the NBA Finals this lunacy would be above the fold on page 1 of many a paper.


Carry on you defenders of par. Keep up the good work.

Very well stated.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Mike:

One of the greatest interviews after an event was done by Darren Clarke the day after he won The Open....he hadn't been to bed and was completely"hydrated" and admitted it to the media.....my hero!!!!

Ted Turner after winning the America's Cup in 1977 is still the undisputed champion.

[Garland Bayley]

Wrong then, wrong now.

One last time because you're apparently too slow to realize I'm trying to help you see how much of a fool you're making of yourself.

Reply #48.  Name calling.  By you.  At me.  None prior.  Indisputable. 

All the rest is nothing more than predictable back-pedaling and deflection by you to try to save face by making us both look bad, like a hockey fight where one guy instigates and after that, his main goal after that is to elevate the fight to make sure both guys go to the penalty box.

Pretty clear what your childish little antics are all about. But  this is not an equal-fault situation.  You name called.  You instigated.  You continue to double down in playing the fool.  I'm actually delighting in this.  Plus,  if I can get you to keep doing this for days on end, I'll be laughing even harder at you than I was last night and I am right now. 

But keep on nipping at my heels, groupie.

DS,


Are you trying to be the Donald Trump of GCA?

[Bruce Katona]

Terry Lavin:

Thank you!


Much appreciated.


BK

[Garland Bayley]

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

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

[Niall C]

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

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

Whether he grounded it in front, beside or behind the ball is neither here nor there, the question is whether any action of DJ made the ball move. Swishing the club back and forwards and grounding the club by the ball is as likely to cause the ball to move as Lowry's actions, IMHO.


Niall

[Ronald Montesano]

if you have yet to see the usga footage of the war-room decision to finally, comfortably assess the penalty, here it is:


https://youtu.be/3EkBuKQEkio

[David Lott]

Seems to me that DJ used the rules to his advantage. Maybe the question should be what the feck was a TV tower doing over there ?


Niall

Exactly. And a really ugly one at that. Even a drone would have been better.

[Garland Bayley]

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

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

Whether he grounded it in front, beside or behind the ball is neither here nor there, the question is whether any action of DJ made the ball move. Swishing the club back and forwards and grounding the club by the ball is as likely to cause the ball to move as Lowry's actions, IMHO.


Niall

Grounding the putter behind the ball is "here". It depresses the grass, thereby adding slope and "more than likely" causing the ball to roll towards it. Grounding the putter beside the ball is "there". Especially since the ball rolled away from where the putter was grounded. I saw no "swishing" that would cause a ball to roll in the direction it did at the time it did.

[Carl Nichols]

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

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

Whether he grounded it in front, beside or behind the ball is neither here nor there, the question is whether any action of DJ made the ball move. Swishing the club back and forwards and grounding the club by the ball is as likely to cause the ball to move as Lowry's actions, IMHO.


Niall

Exactly.  I don't know what caused the ball to move, but if DJ caused the ball to move by grounding his club next to the ball, or by taking practice strokes very close to the ball, there's a penalty--even if he didn't then ground his club behind the ball.  (And the focus by DJ, Lee, and the rules official only on whether DJ had grounded the putter behind the ball missed this issue -- as others have said, the rules official really should've asked more questions about why the ball moved, since it indisputably did move.)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()