US Open 2016

[the_coach]

strictly to the letter of the law the usga were correct in how they applied them to what they believed happened on the 5th - but i don't think personally they were 'correct' to surmise/interpret what they did

my take I think their belief that DJ caused the ball was misguided

the study of what takes place in slow-mo DJ grounds the putter with the ball off the 'toe' of the putter head, practice stroke/s occur sole of putter head not in contact with grass or ground during this motion

DJ starts his moves to start his 'address to the ball' by sliding putter head behind the ball while it's not in contact with grass or ground
ball makes small part rotation directly backwards towards the putter head - so ball motion is 'backwards'

couple of observations of the 'incident'

- putter head when eventually hovered behind the ball but off the ground could not have caused the ball to roll
- when the ball 'moved' some time had lapsed since the practice stroke/s & little more time since the putter head was grounded with the ball off the 'toe end' of the blade and the ball 'motion' was not in a direction of movement to where the toe of the putter head had been in contact with the grass/ground

my own take usga acted correctly to what 'they' (rules committee in situ) 'believed' might have happened
but their belief was misguided and probably brought about by some fear of what might have been said afterwards over the incident so a fear of some negative reaction through the media, press etc

seems to me they (usga) did not pay enough mind to the spirit of the game and the honesty of all actually involved on the 5th green, fellow competitors, the rules official to this grouping who made a correct call in my view - and not least DJ's own integrity during play

knowing oakmont to a degree having played a couple times, the slopes on the greens are pretty pronounced and if you instruct that sharp a cut to have that speed on those slopes you are making this kinda occurrence pretty likely given even a pretty slight wind - my own opinion course is tough enough to not have the greens with those slopes probably effectively in many areas running at 15, 15+

take my cap off to both DJ and Lowry who didn't make the situation any more difficult for the usga by how they reacted, to what had taken place on the 5th and the 12th and the remaining holes, in their post match interviews

 

[Region3]

Added a word as it seems too many have missed this very important rule change that was implemented in January.

As I understand it, the rule change just removed the part that said the player is responsible for the movement if they've addressed the ball.
If they haven't addressed the ball, the rule is as it always was, ie in the absence of evidence that something else is likely to have caused the ball to move, the player is penalised.

 

[Region3]

the study of what takes place in slow-mo DJ grounds the putter with the ball off the 'toe' of the putter head, practice stroke/s occur sole of putter head not in contact with grass or ground during this motion

DJ starts his moves to start his 'address to the ball' by sliding putter head behind the ball while it's not in contact with grass or ground
ball makes small part rotation directly backwards towards the putter head - so ball motion is 'backwards'

couple of observations of the 'incident'

- putter head when eventually hovered behind the ball but off the ground could not have caused the ball to roll
- when the ball 'moved' some time had lapsed since the practice stroke/s & little more time since the putter head was grounded with the ball off the 'toe end' of the blade and the ball 'motion' was not in a direction of movement to where the toe of the putter head had been in contact with the grass/ground

After watching it again I think he sets the putter down after the practice strokes as well as before them.

I think the penalty was harsh, but playing devils advocate for a minute, isn't the wording of the rule saying that the onus is on finding something else responsible for the movement rather than proving it was the player?

As you said though, crazy fast severely sloping greens were more than likely the cause. Maybe if DJ only won by one he would have argued his case more.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Does anyone think the USAga were conscious of the fact that Lowry had called a penalty on himself for this during an earlier round and were concerned about accusations that DJ "got away with it"?

Personally, I think it's just a bad rule. So what if you accidentally move the ball? Just replace it and carry on, no advantage gained, no penalty.

 

[patricks148]

TBH i think the title should be given to Brooks

 

[MashieNiblick]

Have the USGA issued any statement at all? Can't see anything on the website.

 

[williamalex1]

Does anyone think the USAga were conscious of the fact that Lowry had called a penalty on himself for this during an earlier round and were concerned about accusations that DJ "got away with it"?

Personally, I think it's just a bad rule. So what if you accidentally move the ball? Just replace it and carry on, no advantage gained, no penalty.

Years ago a well known player was penalised for causing his ball to move even though he was a couple yards away.
Seemingly he stood on the buried end of a old broken branch that was covered by leaves and moss .
Anyone remember his name, and details ?

 

[the_coach]

After watching it again I think he sets the putter down after the practice strokes as well as before them.

I think the penalty was harsh, but playing devils advocate for a minute, isn't the wording of the rule saying that the onus is on finding something else responsible for the movement rather than proving it was the player?

As you said though, crazy fast severely sloping greens were more than likely the cause. Maybe if DJ only won by one he would have argued his case more.

understand what you mean Gary

and yep that is the 'rule'

[h=3]18-1. By Outside Agency[/h] If a ball at rest is moved by an outside agency, there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced.

Note: It is a question of fact whether a ball has been moved by an outside agency. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that an outside agency has moved the ball. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must play the ball as it lies or, if the ball is not found, proceed under Rule 27-1.

my take would still tend to the view that given the 'breeze' and the nature of the prepared surface, how the greens are composed would be enough to ascertain that gravity and conditions combined to be that outside agency particularly when what happened from the players involvement and the eventual direction of the balls movement would suggest (to me) that DJ did not cause the ball to move

am guessing that back in the 'room' they were spooked some by the possible media reaction to the incident

although thankfully it had no input into the final result given the actual scoring (but did it as an 'outside agency" effect the players involved near the top of the leader board thought process playing in from the 12th) think what happened overall and the resulting viewpoint and outcome will sit pretty uncomfortable with any subsequent similar occurrences - without any 'rule' review taking place

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I totally agree with this. The current rule is typical golf and very daft.

 

[Hacker Khan]

I thought this was a fair summary

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/36581181

 

[MashieNiblick]

I thought this was a fair summary

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/36581181

Not sure I agree. Seems to be saying better to get a wrong decision quickly than take time to get the right decision. I do think it is fair given the circs that DJ was given the chance to see the evidence. When was it a good time to do that? Unsatisfactory as it was I'm not sure that the USGA really deserves quite so much flak. It was going to be messy whatever. Of course it suits journalists to have a pop at golf. Let's not forget they have their agenda but unsatisfactory rules or refereeing issues happen in every sport.

USGA have released the following statement. Looks like they are going to learn from this and review their processes.

The USGA wishes to congratulate Dustin Johnson on his victory and thank him, and the other players in the field, for their professionalism and grace throughout the championship. Dustin is a wonderful champion, a talented golfer and a gentleman.

Our team at the USGA has seen and heard a great deal of discussion and debate about the ruling on Dustin’s ball moving during the final round of the 2016 U.S. Open Championship at Oakmont Country Club. In addition to the explanations we offered upon the conclusion of the final round, we add these comments.

Upon reflection, we regret the distraction caused by our decision to wait until the end of the round to decide on the ruling. It is normal for rulings based on video evidence to await the end of a round, when the matter can be discussed with the player before the score card is returned. While our focus on getting the ruling correct was appropriate, we created uncertainty about where players stood on the leader board after we informed Dustin on the 12th tee that his actions on the fifth green might lead to a penalty. This created unnecessary ambiguity for Dustin and the other players, as well as spectators on-site, and those watching and listening on television and digital channels.

During any competition, the priority for Rules officials is to make the correct ruling for the protection of the player(s) involved and the entire field. In applying Rule 18-2, which deals with a ball at rest that moves, officials consider all the relevant evidence – including the player’s actions, the time between those actions and the movement of the ball, the lie of the ball, and course and weather conditions. If that evidence, considered together, shows that it is more likely than not that the player’s actions caused the ball to move, the player incurs a one-stroke penalty. Officials use this “more likely than not” standard because it is not always apparent what caused the ball to move. Such situations require a review of the evidence, with Decision 18-2/0.5 providing guidance on how the evidence should be weighed.

Our officials reviewed the video of Dustin on the fifth green and determined that based on the weight of the evidence, it was more likely than not that Dustin caused his ball to move. Dustin’s putter contacted the ground at the side of the ball, and almost immediately after, the ball moved.

We accept that not everyone will agree that Dustin caused his ball to move. Issues under Rule 18-2 often require a judgment where there is some uncertainty, and this was one of those instances. We also understand that some people may disagree with Rule 18-2 itself. While we respect the viewpoints of those who disagree, our Committee made a careful and collective judgment in its pursuit of a fair competition played under the Rules of Golf.

In keeping with our commitment to excellence in all aspects of our work on behalf of the game of golf, we pledge to closely examine our procedures in this matter. We will assess our procedures for handling video review, the timing of such, and our communication with players to make sure that when confronted with such a situation again, we will have a better process.

We at the USGA deeply appreciate the support of players, fans, and the entire golf community of our championships and our other work for golf – and we appreciate your feedback as well. We have established an email address (comments@usga.org) and phone mailbox (908-326-1857) to receive comments. We thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

We all share an abiding love of this great game. Let us continue to work together for its good.​

 

[delc]

The whole point of Rule 18-2 is that you have to be careful not to cause the ball to move before taking a shot, if you are anywhere near it. With no penalty it could be a cheat's charter. The Dustin Johnson incident was probably not well handled, but not a good case for changing the rule.

 

[duncan mackie]

The whole point of Rule 18-2 is that you have to be careful not to cause the ball to move before taking a shot, if you are anywhere near it. With no penalty it could be a cheat's charter. The Dustin Johnson incident was probably not well handled, but not a good case for changing the rule.

I don't believe it.... huge :thup:

 

[delc]

I don't believe it.... huge :thup:

It was Rule 18-2b and the exception clause that I didn't like, but that has been removed from the latest version of the rules.

 

[MashieNiblick]

The whole point of Rule 18-2 is that you have to be careful not to cause the ball to move before taking a shot, if you are anywhere near it. With no penalty it could be a cheat's charter. The Dustin Johnson incident was probably not well handled, but not a good case for changing the rule.

I don't believe it.... huge :thup:

But would replacing with no penalty say on the green or a closely mown area when the player is deemed simply to have the "caused" the ball to move really open up that many opportunities for cheating. Might make it more likely people will acknowledge it has happened or call it rather than hope no one has noticed or turn a blind in order to avoid a penalty or a face off.

 

[Deleted member 18645]

The USGA seem to be on a mission to bugger up their flagship event every year. It was the appalling greens at Chambers Bay last year, the farce of watering the greens at Shinnecock in 2004, the flag location on the 18th at Olympia and now this farce.

My own view is that once the on-course rules official made his decision, it was over. I thankfully have a lot more faith in the R&A to do it right at the Open.

 

[Region3]

Tweeter Alliss ‏@TweeterAlliss 22h

Breaking; UEFA announce USGA's Mike Davis to set up pitch for the Euro Championship Final on July 10th. Splendid.

 

[Slab]

... I do think it is fair given the circs that DJ was given the chance to see the evidence. When was it a good time to do that? Unsatisfactory as it was I'm not sure that the USGA really deserves quite so much flak. It was going to be messy whatever. Of course it suits journalists to have a pop at golf. Let's not forget they have their agenda but unsatisfactory rules or refereeing issues happen in every sport.

USGA have released the following statement. Looks like they are going to learn from this and review their processes.

USGA: It is normal for rulings based on video evidence to await the end of a round, when the matter can be discussed with the player before the score card is returned.​

But I don't see what the point was in waiting till after the round:
DJ stuck to his point of view saying 'wasn't me' and got 1 stoke pen anyway
If after viewing slo-mo video DJ conceded the point then its a one stroke pen anyway

Exactly the same outcome in either scenario!

It seems the primary objective of waiting until the round is over is to explain to the player why they're getting a penalty stroke rather than whether a penalty stoke is being applied

 

[Hacker Khan]

Not sure I agree. Seems to be saying better to get a wrong decision quickly than take time to get the right decision. I do think it is fair given the circs that DJ was given the chance to see the evidence. When was it a good time to do that? Unsatisfactory as it was I'm not sure that the USGA really deserves quite so much flak. It was going to be messy whatever. Of course it suits journalists to have a pop at golf. Let's not forget they have their agenda but unsatisfactory rules or refereeing issues happen in every sport.

USGA have released the following statement. Looks like they are going to learn from this and review their processes.

The USGA wishes to congratulate Dustin Johnson on his victory and thank him, and the other players in the field, for their professionalism and grace throughout the championship. Dustin is a wonderful champion, a talented golfer and a gentleman.

Our team at the USGA has seen and heard a great deal of discussion and debate about the ruling on Dustin’s ball moving during the final round of the 2016 U.S. Open Championship at Oakmont Country Club. In addition to the explanations we offered upon the conclusion of the final round, we add these comments.

Upon reflection, we regret the distraction caused by our decision to wait until the end of the round to decide on the ruling. It is normal for rulings based on video evidence to await the end of a round, when the matter can be discussed with the player before the score card is returned. While our focus on getting the ruling correct was appropriate, we created uncertainty about where players stood on the leader board after we informed Dustin on the 12th tee that his actions on the fifth green might lead to a penalty. This created unnecessary ambiguity for Dustin and the other players, as well as spectators on-site, and those watching and listening on television and digital channels.

During any competition, the priority for Rules officials is to make the correct ruling for the protection of the player(s) involved and the entire field. In applying Rule 18-2, which deals with a ball at rest that moves, officials consider all the relevant evidence – including the player’s actions, the time between those actions and the movement of the ball, the lie of the ball, and course and weather conditions. If that evidence, considered together, shows that it is more likely than not that the player’s actions caused the ball to move, the player incurs a one-stroke penalty. Officials use this “more likely than not” standard because it is not always apparent what caused the ball to move. Such situations require a review of the evidence, with Decision 18-2/0.5 providing guidance on how the evidence should be weighed.

Our officials reviewed the video of Dustin on the fifth green and determined that based on the weight of the evidence, it was more likely than not that Dustin caused his ball to move. Dustin’s putter contacted the ground at the side of the ball, and almost immediately after, the ball moved.

We accept that not everyone will agree that Dustin caused his ball to move. Issues under Rule 18-2 often require a judgment where there is some uncertainty, and this was one of those instances. We also understand that some people may disagree with Rule 18-2 itself. While we respect the viewpoints of those who disagree, our Committee made a careful and collective judgment in its pursuit of a fair competition played under the Rules of Golf.

In keeping with our commitment to excellence in all aspects of our work on behalf of the game of golf, we pledge to closely examine our procedures in this matter. We will assess our procedures for handling video review, the timing of such, and our communication with players to make sure that when confronted with such a situation again, we will have a better process.

We at the USGA deeply appreciate the support of players, fans, and the entire golf community of our championships and our other work for golf – and we appreciate your feedback as well. We have established an email address (comments@usga.org) and phone mailbox (908-326-1857) to receive comments. We thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

We all share an abiding love of this great game. Let us continue to work together for its good.​

I agree that incorrect decisions happen in every sport, but that is kind of the point I think. In no other sport do you wait until the end of the game/match until you make a decision on something that happened during the match/game that would effect the result. It kind of makes the game look stupid. As added to that is the fact that it is patently obvious that there was no advantage gained here whatsoever.

In a way I'd say it is better to make a decision as quickly as possible based on the best evidence you have at the time and then move on. I think every other sport does that. Yes it may turn out that one or two of them are the wrong decision, but that is sport to a certain extent, it is not a science. It is entertainment and they are in the business of putting on a show. To let that drag on and confuse the viewing public plus the players is a bit of an own goal. IMHO. Can you imagine if the 1 shot penalty had put him into a playoff or had even lost him the championship by 1 stroke.

 

[duncan mackie]

My own view is that once the on-course rules official made his decision, it was over. I thankfully have a lot more faith in the R&A to do it right at the Open.

I have absolute confidence that the R &A would have ruled the same way, and probably implemented it the same way in the same circumstances as well.

As to the referee, he is ruling on the basis of 'if this then that' - when 'this' is not as advise then 'that' may not be correct either.