Dustin Johnson potential penalty

[woody69]

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).

OK, that is what I thought. I was confused because you stated that what BladePlayer had said was completely wrong when he said pretty much what you have just said above, i.e. he caused the ball to move.

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

I'm sorry but this is completely wrong (apart from the last bit possibly).

 

[duncan mackie]

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facts subsequently proved to be incorrect and the penalty was applied but the procedural penalty for not replacing was no longer applicable.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.

My sincere apologies to bladeplayer - I miss read his post; sorry.

Basically I agree!

Time I stopped responding on the issue I have clearly developed an itchy trigger finger.

Apologies to this I confused too...

 

[drdel]

Surely the aim of a penalty is to discourage players from gaining an advantage.

Since in this instance the offending movement was probably less than 2/3mm the real advantage was beggar all: so he should have been allowed to carry on unhindered. I can hear the loud offended
shouts of the Rules Gods - "...but the Rules say..."

Sometimes when the rules are out of kilter with the aims and philosophy of the game and good sportsmanship the human referee on the spot should be the decider. Had this happened the game would have proceeded smoothly with no-one upset.

 

[scubascuba3]

Surely the aim of a penalty is to discourage players from gaining an advantage.

Since in this instance the offending movement was probably less than 2/3mm the real advantage was beggar all: so he should have been allowed to carry on unhindered. I can hear the loud offended
shouts of the Rules Gods - "...but the Rules say..."

Sometimes when the rules are out of kilter with the aims and philosophy of the game and good sportsmanship the human referee on the spot should be the decider. Had this happened the game would have proceeded smoothly with no-one upset.

I agree, but far too much common sense so will never happen.

 

[Colin L]

Surely the aim of a penalty is to discourage players from gaining an advantage.

Since in this instance the offending movement was probably less than 2/3mm the real advantage was beggar all: so he should have been allowed to carry on unhindered. I can hear the loud offended
shouts of the Rules Gods - "...but the Rules say..."

Sometimes when the rules are out of kilter with the aims and philosophy of the game and good sportsmanship the human referee on the spot should be the decider. Had this happened the game would have proceeded smoothly with no-one upset.

The problem with your point is that you then have to define how much movement is significant enough to justify a penalty. As we have it, the definition is clear: any movement counts. That is much easier to apply than an arbitrary limit such as 20mm which you could not measure accurately since you wouldn't know exactly where the ball had been before it moved in order to put your measuring tape in the right place. The cost of the clarity achieved is that on occasion the movement of a ball is so slight that it seems daft to count it as having moved.

 

[scubascuba3]

Just replace the ball every time, then there's no advantage

 

[Slab]

You can imagine this scenario popping up in a monthly medal and other than a video review being available the whole process would run pretty much as the USGA carried it out on Sunday (The committee certainly wouldn’t have trooped out to the course to make a ruling mid round, it would have been done at the end and rightly so)

What the USGA failed to consider fully enough was when the round is played live to a global audience in exchange for millions of dollars then their rules for the game still need to be fit for purpose

I can’t see them making two sets of rules yet so it falls on the competition rules needing to be strong enough to cover anomalies like this (even if that means a condition of the competition may breach a rule of golf)

 

[ManinBlack]

Surely the aim of a penalty is to discourage players from gaining an advantage.

Since in this instance the offending movement was probably less than 2/3mm the real advantage was beggar all: so he should have been allowed to carry on unhindered. I can hear the loud offended
shouts of the Rules Gods - "...but the Rules say..."

Sometimes when the rules are out of kilter with the aims and philosophy of the game and good sportsmanship the human referee on the spot should be the decider. Had this happened the game would have proceeded smoothly with no-one upset.

I agree, materiality must come into it. If you were completely pedantic you could say that no player ever replaces his ball exactly in the same place as it was before he marked it, it's physically impossible to get it within a fraction of a millimetre. I would guess that many are replaced further from the original spot than Johnson's ball moved. Perhaps the rule should specify no penalty where no significant advantage was gained.

 

[Colin L]

Perhaps the rule should specify no penalty where no significant advantage was gained.

But how easy is it to determine advantage from one set of circumstances to another? Do you penalise the player who accidentally knocks his ball from the edge of the rough to the fairway but not the one who accidentally knocks his ball the same distance from fairway to rough?

 

[bobmac]

What's wrong with this rule.........
If the player didn't move the ball by blowing it, touching it or using Jedi mind powers, then there is no penalty. Play it from where it lies.

As it stands, he was penalised for doing exactly what he does on every putt where the ball doesnt move.
Fortunately it didnt seem to affect the result but to lose a tournament because you are penalised for not touching a ball is ludicrous in my opinion

 

[MashieNiblick]

Just replace the ball every time, then there's no advantage

If it was simply of case of removing the current part of the rule which refers to causing the ball to move, so that the rule only imposes a penalty if the player lifts or moves the ball, or touches it purposely (except with a club in the act of addressing the ball), and instead including a provision that in other situations if the player causes the ball to move, there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced, I think that might be workable. However I think there should be a provision to cover the ball moving as a result of moving a loose impediment.

The other option would be to exclude any penalty for causing the ball to move when the ball is on the green and simply replace without penalty. Again I think that would be workable.

 

[rulefan]

What's wrong with this rule.........
If the player didn't move the ball by blowing it, touching it or using Jedi mind powers, then there is no penalty. Play it from where it lies.

As it stands, he was penalised for doing exactly what he does on every putt where the ball doesnt move.
Fortunately it didnt seem to affect the result but to lose a tournament because you are penalised for not touching a ball is ludicrous in my opinion

He wasn't penalised for not touching a ball. He was penalised because the committee deemed that he had more likely than not caused a ball to move.

 

[scubascuba3]

If it was simply of case of removing the current part of the rule which refers to causing the ball to move, so that the rule only imposes a penalty if the player lifts or moves the ball, or touches it purposely (except with a club in the act of addressing the ball), and instead including a provision that in other situations if the player causes the ball to move, there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced, I think that might be workable. However I think there should be a provision to cover the ball moving as a result of moving a loose impediment.

The other option would be to exclude any penalty for causing the ball to move when the ball is on the green and simply replace without penalty. Again I think that would be workable.

Totally agree, i like your thinking, find a workable solution.

 

[ManinBlack]

But how easy is it to determine advantage from one set of circumstances to another? Do you penalise the player who accidentally knocks his ball from the edge of the rough to the fairway but not the one who accidentally knocks his ball the same distance from fairway to rough?

I really meant this to refer specifically to balls moved on the green. When a player addresses the ball in the rough I bet that most of the time the ball moves fractionally, possibly by half a millimetre, possibly as far as Johnson's moved on the green. Does anyone penalise themselves under these circumstances? Materiality has to come into it.

 

[scubascuba3]

This ruling really makes me think the powers that be can't see the wood for the trees, this is why some big names were incensed plus most people see this as a ridiculous rule. They need to find a workable solution around replacing the ball before the next stroke. If the ball isn't replaced only then is a penalty shot incurred. Simplify the rule.

 

[duncan mackie]

I really meant this to refer specifically to balls moved on the green. When a player addresses the ball in the rough I bet that most of the time the ball moves fractionally, possibly by half a millimetre, possibly as far as Johnson's moved on the green. Does anyone penalise themselves under these circumstances? Materiality has to come into it.

In my experience, the world is split between those who, when faced with a shot from the rough, will go out of their way not to touch anything so that they can't cause their ball to move and those who will ignore any (small) movement as inevitable and irrelevant.

 

[bobmac]

He wasn't penalised for not touching a ball. He was penalised because the committee deemed that he had more likely than not caused a ball to move.

So he caused the ball to move by not touching it............and was penalised

 

[Hosel Fade]

So he caused the ball to move by not touching it............and was penalised

Who knows, might have had a particularly vicious fart.

 

[MashieNiblick]

I wouldn't be surprised if the rule was looked at and revised for the next edition. We have already seen an exception to 18-2b, followed by the ditching of 18-2b altogether, so there may be a natural progression here.

 

[duncan mackie]

I wouldn't be surprised if the rule was looked at and revised for the next edition. We have already seen an exception to 18-2b, followed by the ditching of 18-2b altogether, so there may be a natural progression here.

I think we are at one end of that natural progression now - if you cause it to move it gets replaced and you get penalised; if something else does you play it where it lies and don't get penalised. It's pretty simple as an underlying rule!