scubascuba3
Assistant Pro
I think the issue is it looks like he replaced the ball rather than play it as it lies. Anyone agree? They want him to review the video to confirm
Dustin Johnson potential penalty
- Thread starter scubascuba3
- Start date
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
no he was told to play it as lies, he then chooses to mark it and replace where hes marked it, thats not the issue (not that there is one)
scubascuba3
Assistant Pro
Its the only thing i could think of, it looked like he marked it then "potentially" moved it back to the original position where as the official said play it as it lies
Spuddy
Challenge Tour Pro
He didn't. He marked it then realigned the line on the ball.
scubascuba3
Assistant Pro
In that case i have no idea what they want to review on video
bluewolf
Money List Winner
They're reviewing whether he caused the ball to move by touching it whilst moving in, or whether the ball hit the putter whilst falling back.
Jake O'Reilly
GM Staff
The USGA just confirmed the one shot penalty was for DJ moving the ball on the 5th green at address. He didn't replace that ball, so should there have been a further penalty, or is there a decision specific to addressing a ball on a green that works round this?
Colin L
Tour Winner
As I understand the situation, the referee at the time ruled that he had not caused his ball to move and a a result of that he correctly played from where the ball ended up after moving. This ruling was changed after a review and a one stroke penalty applied for causing the ball to move. There could not be a penalty for not replacing the ball because he correctly played from where the ball ended up in terms of the referee's original ruling and cannot be penalised for doing what the referee told him to do.
I hope I've got the facts of what happened right!
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
Delaying the ruling until after the round was ridiculous.
Imagine if scores were tied or DJ one ahead.....
If they knew about the potential breach on the 12th tee, someone should have grown a pair and made the ruling.
It's s good job the penalty because academic....
USGA not covered in glory this week
Imagine if scores were tied or DJ one ahead.....
If they knew about the potential breach on the 12th tee, someone should have grown a pair and made the ruling.
It's s good job the penalty because academic....
USGA not covered in glory this week
Colin L
Tour Winner
I agree. Waiting till the end of the final round to resolve the matter is the strangest aspect of it, and really the only aspect that is controversial, the ruling itself being quite straightforward.
I thought that the normal practice was to leave such matters to the end of rounds 1, 2 or 3 but to deal with them right away in the final round - obviously because of the effect it could have on the player's strategy for the closing holes.
scubascuba3
Assistant Pro
Ridiculous rule anyway, for me it needs to be changed to a common sense way to do it, such as always replacing the ball before the next stroke with the clause it must not have been caused on purpose.
bladeplayer
Money List Winner
Ball was at rest , DJ took practice swings and placed the putter on ground beside it , lifted putter , ball moved , unless there is evidence of some other influence that cause the ball to move ( wind , etc) it has to be taken that the players action caused it to move ..
Stupid fast greens didn't help mind
Stupid fast greens didn't help mind
Hosel Fade
Tour Rookie
This, really quite simple.
Doesn't help the cause of growing golf when idiots like Monty spout nonsense such as "he hasn't addressed it". If you are going on telly to commentate on something to an audience of hundreds of thousands you really ought to have read the most recent rule changes or even remotely looked at them in the past 10 years.
Also taking 7 holes to inform Dustin (Which at Oakmont is the best part of 2.5 hours) to have a problem with what happened and not even take a bloody decision is pathetic. Cities have been conquered in less time. Then they can't even figure it out in the next two bloody hours.
Like it really mattered what Dustin was going to say "I really really didn't touch the ball and my putter was super duper in the air behind the ball when it moved" still wouldn't have made a difference. They knew they were giving him a +1 so should have done so as soon as they figured that out ie. inside 30 minutes.
Rant over
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
He didn't ground the putter - video clearly shows that......
So he hadn't addressed the ball.
So he hadn't addressed the ball.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
I'm sorry but this is completely wrong (apart from the last bit possibly).
DJ hadn't addressed the ball so there is no basis for the players actions to be deemed to have caused it to move.
As to the additional penalty for not replacing issue, the referee ruled (correctly) on procedure at the time, based on the facts as presented to him. These facts subsequently proved to be incorrect and the penalty was applied but the procedural penalty for not replacing was no longer applicable.
For those slating the USGA they were simply following the agreed actions after the much slated by the same people on here fiasco with TW at the masters when the committee ruled on what they saw without speaking to the player involved! When the player subsequently announced his side of things in a press conference they realised the folly of such rulings.
So the question then becomes 'should you stop a tournament in its tracks and take a player aside to go through such a situation in full or do you advise them that they should consider the probability that they have a penalty and discuss it in detail later?
IMO the TV commentators did a very poor job and simply fanned the flames of uncertainty in addition to taking over 30 minutes to realise that it wasn't a question of whether he addressed the ball.
There was also significantly less uncertainty than they kept going on about - all the players would have known that it was extremely unlikely that there was not a penalty coming to DJ; the USGA wouldn't have said there might be if they weren't 99.9% sure.
I personally believe that Shane's putting was more affected by the spectators having left the greens to follow DJ on course before he got there than any question of uncertainty - but that's obviously only my view. At the time the uncertainty over 1 shot of DJs score was introduced there wasn't a whole lot of strategy in play - players were trying to score the best they could.
pokerjoke
Money List Winner
This is how I understood the case to be when I went to bed last night,have they actually said he caused it to move?
It was a fiasco and badly handled.
To be fair to the referee of said match he was only going by what Dustin and Lee had told him as he never saw the incident himself,however they should have gone to video straight away and resolved it within the next couple of holes.
I disagree with Butch slightly that it effected everyone surely you just play your own game still.
I believe the occasion got to Lowry even though he seemed really at ease when being interviewed prior to the last round.
The person who it should have effected most just got on with it.
woody69
Journeyman Pro
If he hadn't addressed the ball, why was the 1 shot penalty added?
And can you clarify what facts were subsequently proved to be incorrect? I'm a little confused.
MashieNiblick
Tour Winner
Although by no means an expert this is how I see it having seen the footage and looked at the Rules.
I can see why they ruled that he caused it to move. He placed his club on the ground near the ball when making his practice swing and within half a second or so the ball moved. Decision 18-2/0.5 - Weight of Evidence Standard for Determining Whether Player Caused His Ball to Move, says (I have highlighted what I think are the key bits).
Of course now the act of addressing the ball isn't in itself the determining factor any more. Previously Rule 18-2b provided that if you addressed the ball and it moved you were deemed to have caused it to move. This has now been withdrawn. In that regard, Justin raised the wrong issue with the official , i.e. whether he had addressed the ball. The official should really have been aware that the issue wasn't whether he had addressed the ball but whether his actions may have caused the ball to move. Justin grounded his club pretty much as near to the ball as he would have done if had addressed it.
On that basis I think I agree with Bladeplayer,
In terms of the review and delay, on making a ruling, I guess it is in line with Rule 34-3 and decision 34-3/9 which says
I can see why they ruled that he caused it to move. He placed his club on the ground near the ball when making his practice swing and within half a second or so the ball moved. Decision 18-2/0.5 - Weight of Evidence Standard for Determining Whether Player Caused His Ball to Move, says (I have highlighted what I think are the key bits).
"When a player's ball at rest moves, the cause of the ball's movement has to be assessed. In many situations, the answer will be obvious: the player may have kicked the ball inadvertently, dropped his equipment on it, or otherwise clearly caused it to move; alternatively, the player may have taken no action near the ball and something else (such as a spectator or animal) clearly caused it to move.
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).
With reference to the considerations above, examples of situations where the weight of the evidence would indicate that the player caused the ball to move are:
A player's ball lies on a flat portion of the putting green on a day with light winds. The player addresses the ball and the ball immediately moves. Under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that the act of addressing the ball caused the ball to move."
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).
With reference to the considerations above, examples of situations where the weight of the evidence would indicate that the player caused the ball to move are:
A player's ball lies on a flat portion of the putting green on a day with light winds. The player addresses the ball and the ball immediately moves. Under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that the act of addressing the ball caused the ball to move."
Of course now the act of addressing the ball isn't in itself the determining factor any more. Previously Rule 18-2b provided that if you addressed the ball and it moved you were deemed to have caused it to move. This has now been withdrawn. In that regard, Justin raised the wrong issue with the official , i.e. whether he had addressed the ball. The official should really have been aware that the issue wasn't whether he had addressed the ball but whether his actions may have caused the ball to move. Justin grounded his club pretty much as near to the ball as he would have done if had addressed it.
On that basis I think I agree with Bladeplayer,
In terms of the review and delay, on making a ruling, I guess it is in line with Rule 34-3 and decision 34-3/9 which says
"It is important that any questions of fact be resolved in a timely manner such that the competition may proceed in an orderly way. Thus, the referee may be limited to evaluating the evidence available to him in a timely manner. Any such ruling is always subject to further review by the referee, or Committee as a whole as additional evidence becomes available."
Last edited:
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
Rule 18 - 2 says that if you cause your ball at rest to move you are penalised 1 shot. It doesn't require you to have addressed it.
The facts presented to the referee at the time were that the ball had moved and that he hadn't addressed the ball. The last part of the discussion, brief and almost throw away, seems to be DJ stating that he didn't move it - this was subsequently proved incorrect (as agreed between DJ and the rules officials after detailed review).
