[Garland Bayley]

What I don't understand is that how these USGA guys can have played much golf, since it seems they have not seen balls move on what appears to be their own accord, even in the absence of wind. I have seen balls move when no was was near them, and the ball had been sitting in one position for a significant period of time. Haven't they been on the course enough to have this experience? If you cannot point a specific factor, such as touching the ball, or the green surface in the direction which the ball moved, then it is "more than likely" that the player did not cause the ball to move.

[MClutterbuck]

I think the worse ruling was his line of sight debacle! Drop out of a shitty lie into a perfect lie where the tv tower was still clearly in line of sight as the ball flew straight over it! Now that's BS!

I wondered about that, too. Didn't Els get a similar line-of-sight relief ruling in 1994 that was later viewed as a bad ruling?

i was under the impression that if you took relief it had to be "total" relief. This was a case of getting a good lie to advance the ball. I blame the referee.

He did take full relief. But from the shorter grass he was able to play it above the tower, something which was in question from the longer grass. Decision was fine. The alternative was moving a bit further left which was fine as well.

[Sven Nilsen]

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

Ron:


You'd be surprised to know that this actually happens (the USGA has a decision (16-2/3) covering the issue).


Its an old caddie trick, doesn't work every time, but in the last month I've seen it pulled off twice.


If your shadow affects the grass to the point where a ball will rotate into the hole, it is not unconceivable that the shadow of a putter on extremely fast greens might just cause a ball to move.  If you're deemed not to have caused the ball to move on the lip edge, why would you be deemed to have caused it away from the hole, pre-putt?

In the larger scheme, it seems to me that unless the rules officials can point out exactly what made the ball move, there is no way a penalty is justified.


Sven

[MClutterbuck]

I'm with the USGA. It's not about the honesty but the evidence and the process of scoring being completed after play.
The pros take long enough to play a round of golf without stopping in the middle of a round to look at every shot on video. The problem is the media thinking they have the right to know before the official process has been completed.
We all knew it was going to be assessed at the end of the round,it was over a ONE shot penalty, if you can't cope with that switch over.
It's all hype that it was any more than that.
Well done DJ

+1


The only thing to fault here is how long it took them to let him know. The USGA followed the rules perfectly. 18-2/0.5 and 34-3/7


Plus, they should change the rule for no penalty if player causes to move the ball on green, if it is replaced.

[Carl Nichols]

What I don't understand is that how these USGA guys can have played much golf, since it seems they have not seen balls move on what appears to be their own accord, even in the absence of wind. I have seen balls move when no was was near them, and the ball had been sitting in one position for a significant period of time. Haven't they been on the course enough to have this experience? If you cannot point a specific factor, such as touching the ball, or the green surface in the direction which the ball moved, then it is "more than likely" that the player did not cause the ball to move.

I agree that there are other reasons his ball might have moved (though I'm not willing to presume that I know, and I certainly doubt you know).  But either way I don't think this is the way the conversation should go:


DJ:  My ball moved.
Official:  Why did it move?
DJ:  I didn't ground my putter behind the ball.
Lee:  He didn't ground his putter behind the ball.
Official:  Ok, play it from where it lies.


"I didn't ground my putter behind the ball" isn't an answer to the question of why the ball moved, or whether DJ might've caused the ball to move in some other way.  Putting aside the question of whether the Rule, as currently drafted, is stupid or not, seems like the official pretty clearly should've done more to ask DJ why he thought the ball moved.  [I get that DJ preemptively said something like "I didn't make it move," but I'm not sure he wasn't thinking about whether he had grounded the club behind the ball.]

[Carl Nichols]

I think the worse ruling was his line of sight debacle! Drop out of a shitty lie into a perfect lie where the tv tower was still clearly in line of sight as the ball flew straight over it! Now that's BS!

I wondered about that, too. Didn't Els get a similar line-of-sight relief ruling in 1994 that was later viewed as a bad ruling?

i was under the impression that if you took relief it had to be "total" relief. This was a case of getting a good lie to advance the ball. I blame the referee.

He did take full reliefe. But from the shorter grass he was able to play it above the tower, something which was in question from the longer grass. Decision was fine. The alternative was moving a bit further left which was fine as well.

The TIO ruling seemed clearly correct to me.  The only quibble might be whether he should've moved even farther to the left.  It's irrelevant to the question of whether the drop/ruling were correct, but moving even farther left would've put him in the fairway, with an  even better lie.

[MClutterbuck]

I agree, Jeff.  It's like taking away a 1st quarter touchdown in the 4th quarter.  At some point speed of decision and finality outweigh exactitude.

Even better and seemingly more important than a decision


Rule 34-2
If a referee has been appointed by The Committee, his decision is FINAL


or not....
WTF was the USGA thinking?

No Jeff, 34-3/7

[MClutterbuck]

This is a symptom of the real problem: the players in general don't respect the USGA to administer a fair tournament. You heard complaints about some groups having the practice green set up for the next round while others had no chance, no warm up after first delay and now this. The USGA should contract with the PGA tour and let those guys run the rulings. The players were piling on which says either something about DJ or more probably something about how little they respect the USGA.

As if the PGA Tour doesn't run into their own bunch of problems at tournaments... they cant even run a proper anti doping program and a transparent disciplinary process.

[MClutterbuck]

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

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

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

[Matthew Sander]

After just listening to the replay of the Golf Channel post round interview with Jeff Hall (and the other gentleman - his name escapes me) one particular item is not sitting well with me. It may just be verbal semantics, but I think it is an important point.

They keep suggesting that after Johnson grounded his club (for a practice stroke) the second time, the ball moved instantaneously. That is simply UNTRUE and if they are going to keep using that line they need to rethink their verbiage.

First, he grounded his club for the practice stroke - ball did not move. Then he lifted his putter to move it behind the ball - ball did not move. Lastly, he placed his putter behind the ball without grounding the putter - ball then rocked backward. Stop using the term "instantaneously" as it does not apply here.

[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.

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

I'm not talking about ruling. I'm talking about physics.

[MClutterbuck]

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

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

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

I'm not talking about ruling. I'm talking about physics.

Neither USGA nor anybody is disputing the ball might move because of many other reasons, including gravity and 14.5 stimp greens. Question is can we rule out DJ caused it or not.

[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.

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

I'm not talking about ruling. I'm talking about physics.

Neither USGA nor anybody is disputing the ball might move because of many other reasons, including gravity and 14.5 stimp greens. Question is can we rule out DJ caused it or not.

Anyone who has seen balls move on greens for no apparent reason can easily rule out DJ causing it. Gravity causes blades of grass to give slightly, balls move. Happens all the time whether someone is or is not near the ball. You don't even need 14.5 on the stimp for it to happen.

[Benjamin Litman]

Why can't all ball-moving-at-address rules be decided simply by the golfer's intent? That is, if the ball moves, but not as a result of an intentional stroke by the golfer to move it, replace the ball without penalty. As a lawyer, I'm well aware that intent is a difficult concept to discern, but in golf, it's pretty discernible to most everyone.

[Andrew Buck]

Why can't all ball-moving-at-address rules be decided simply by the golfer's intent? That is, if the ball moves, but not as a result of an intentional stroke by the golfer to move it, replace the ball without penalty. As a lawyer, I'm well aware that intent is a difficult concept to discern, but in golf, it's pretty discernible to most everyone.

I certainly think this can be the case on the greens, where we are already allowed to touch the ball and place it after marking.  I see no benefit of the rule on the greens, and the most consistent position to protect the field is it can always be replaced on green without penalty if it moves once addressed. 

I think it is harder through the green.

[Bruce Katona]

The USGA needs to convene a Warren Commission  review of the alleged rules infraction and then spin the Press Release on how the magic bullet defied gravity...... I like the shadow defense.


More importantly, THERE IS NO VIDEO REVIEW IN GOLF.  The Rules Official asked the question on #5 green of what occurred, both players gave responses, he made the his ruling, now move on......no going back 90 minutes later and saying maybe we have to penalize you after you look at the video.....that's where the blazers made a complete hash of this.


 

[MClutterbuck]

Jaime Diaz gets it right.


The USGA was slow to react. They applied rules correctly. Rules need to change.


http://www.golfworlddigital.com/gw/06_20_2016/MobilePagedArticle.action?#articleId905972

[Ulrich Mayring]

They applied the rule correctly?

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

Hence, playoff.

Ulrich

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

[Matthew Petersen]

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

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

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

I'm not talking about ruling. I'm talking about physics.

Neither USGA nor anybody is disputing the ball might move because of many other reasons, including gravity and 14.5 stimp greens. Question is can we rule out DJ caused it or not.

Anyone who has seen balls move on greens for no apparent reason can easily rule out DJ causing it. Gravity causes blades of grass to give slightly, balls move. Happens all the time whether someone is or is not near the ball. You don't even need 14.5 on the stimp for it to happen.

This is really what gets me about it. They make a big deal out of the "if there's a 51% chance that DJ caused it, then it's a penalty." I'm sorry but a sloping green running at 14+ is always going to be at least 50% of the likelihood for a ball moving, because like you I've seen balls move on much less sloping and slower greens with no one around them. Dimpled balls replaced after being marked and all that. I can get that maybe his presence in proximity to the ball was part of what made it move ever so tiny amount, but not to it being more likely it was him than anything else, if for no other reason that that the ball moved back toward his club, down the hill. That makes the hill and the grass the more likely culprits in my mind.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Karma evened everything out.


In hockey, it's called a "make up call". When a ref calls a "soft"(questionable) penalty on a player, then - just moments later - they do the same thing to the other team.


On Sunday, DJ got f--ked exactly - IMO - as Matthew Sander explains above.


But soon after, regardless of timeline, DJ received a very favorable ruling when the TV tower was supposedly in play (almost like Ernie in 1994....?) and he was allowed to remove his ball from the cabbage and drop on nice first cut.


Sure, it may have been perfectly "legal", but come on...DJ could have picked a line easily and hit over that tower. The ball would not have held the green and it could have lead to a (probable) bogie or worse.


The rules work FOR you as much as they sometimes work AGAINST you.
I agree that USGA screwed the pooch with DJ. But let's acknowledge that DJ caught a monster break that perhaps contributed to his victory.

[Thomas Dai]

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

[Kalen Braley]

The fundamental problem is see is...

There was more than enough plausible deniability that the ball moved on its own based on the slope its on.  I get this isn't a court where "proof" is needed....but after watching the replay I'm just not convinced that its "very likely" that DJ caused that ball to move.

Thank goodness it didn't cause him to lose at the end...imagine the uproar then.


Kalen

[Sean_A]

They applied the rule correctly?

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

Hence, playoff.

Ulrich

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

Ulrich

34-3/7
Referee Determines Player Did Not Cause Ball to Move; Committee Subsequently Changes Ruling
Q. A player’s ball in play moves and he is unsure whether he caused it to move in breach of Rule 18-2. The player asks for a ruling from a referee. Based on the evidence, the referee determines that the player did not cause the ball to move and instructs the player to play the ball as it lies without penalty. After the player plays, the Committee assesses the same evidence or additional evidence that was not available at the time and determines that the player had caused the ball to move. What is the ruling?

A. Rule 34-3 does not prevent a Committee from changing a ruling (see Decision 34-3/1). As the player caused the ball to move, he was required to replace the ball with a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2. When he failed to do so, he played from a wrong place. However, as he did so at the instruction of a referee, he does not incur the general penalty under Rule 18 for playing from a wrong place. Nevertheless, he does incur the penalty stroke under Rule 18-2 as he caused the ball to move before the ruling from the referee. The player must continue with the ball played from the wrong place.

[Andrew Simpson]

Karma evened everything out.


In hockey, it's called a "make up call". When a ref calls a "soft"(questionable) penalty on a player, then - just moments later - they do the same thing to the other team.


On Sunday, DJ got f--ked exactly - IMO - as Matthew Sander explains above.


But soon after, regardless of timeline, DJ received a very favorable ruling when the TV tower was supposedly in play (almost like Ernie in 1994....?) and he was allowed to remove his ball from the cabbage and drop on nice first cut.


Sure, it may have been perfectly "legal", but come on...DJ could have picked a line easily and hit over that tower. The ball would not have held the green and it could have lead to a (probable) bogie or worse.


The rules work FOR you as much as they sometimes work AGAINST you.
I agree that USGA screwed the pooch with DJ. But let's acknowledge that DJ caught a monster break that perhaps contributed to his victory.

"Supposedly"? it was in line. Now had he a decent lie and the point of relief was in the cabbage he certainly would have played it as it lay.

[jeffwarne]

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()