US Open 2016 - Oakmont Country Club

Jawgap

siblers wrote: »

Did anyone else hear Ewan Murray say something along the lines of "Dustin may not be the brightest bulb in the floodlights" seemed a bit harsh

Heard that - and wondered what he meant by it. Clearly DJ can play, but I wasn't sure if he meant that he wasn't up on the rules considering the incident and the previous one at Whistling Straits?

Or if he meant he was a bit thick?

Or that he was just a quite guy who wasn't looking to be the centre of attention? I'd like to think he just meant DJ is a quiet unassuming type of character, happy to play golf and not really interested in much beyond the game.

fred funk }{

Jawgap wrote: »

Heard that - and wondered what he meant by it. Clearly DJ can play, but I wasn't sure if he meant that he wasn't up on the rules considering the incident and the previous one at Whistling Straits?

Or if he meant he was a bit thick?

Or that he was just a quite guy who wasn't looking to be the centre of attention? I'd like to think he just meant DJ is a quiet unassuming type of character, happy to play golf and not really interested in much beyond the game.

DJ is known to be a bit not-so-clever. Someone American commentator made a comment before that "DJ is dense that even light bends around him".

I'm surprised at Murray making that comment.

heebusjeebus

The commentators are always saying he's thick, mainly with back handed compliments.
"He has the ability to forget his last shot" is one you hear a lot.

newport2

siblers wrote: »

Did anyone else hear Ewan Murray say something along the lines of "Dustin may not be the brightest bulb in the floodlights" seemed a bit harsh

Butch Harmon said about a year or two ago that DJ wasn't the "brightest spanner in the box". I remember thinking it was out of line at the time, especially as he was DJ's swing coach. Since then, the Sky team have been making regular jibes at his intelligence or lack of it so to speak. Ewen Murray and Robert Lee do it regularly. I don't think it sits well.

PARlance

Even DJ would understand what was meant by that comment Poor comment to be making live on air.

I've been hoping that DJ would win one for a while, it's just a shame that it (was kind of) at the expense of Shane. How he hasn't won one before now is hard to fathom. Along with McIlroy, he's the most gifted golfer out there and they're just another level when on form.

Wichita Lineman

Exciting final round marred by the ruling incident and Lowry's poor putting cost him in the end. Still a great performance.

endabob1

Wichita Lineman wrote: »

Exciting final round marred by the ruling incident and Lowry's poor putting cost him in the end. Still a great performance.

His putting was only part of the problem, his approach play was very poor, he left himself very difficult puts on 14 & 15 both with short irons in his hand. Having just got himself right back in it at birdieing 12 and holed a great par putt on 13, those 2 irons at 14 & 15 cost him the tournament imo.
You could actually see his whole demeanour change as he walked to the green on 14, it was a bit of a bad bounce but he looked broken and I knew then he wasn't going to win.
I love the guy, think he has a fantastic game but he needs to be able to keep mentally up when it's not going his way.

Seve OB

TheCitizen wrote: »

No he didn't win he finished 2nd. McIlroy and Spieth weren't even in contention.

He's in top form right now. In actual fact it would be daft if he were to suddenly embark on some life altering fitness regime in the middle of this streak of form. He has played two Majors this season did well in the Masters even better in the US Open, there are two more coming up soon, he needs to continue what he's doing right now, not rip up the schedule. If he wants to go on some fitness regime to prolong his career at the top then that's for some stage in the future. Right now he should concentrate on bringing his form into the British Open and use the experience of yesterday if he finds himself with a chance of winning.

You and the other fella Niallo are sitting there at your computers ranting about what you think is the bleedin obvious, I'd safely say you haven't a balls notion what you're talking about.

Well actually he is not. He has just had one good tournament which he finished very poorly, IMO making some bad strategic decisions early on which cost him dearly. His streak of form as you put it, has been average at best. Do you even follow golf :rolleyes:

Dublin Spur

gutted for Lowrey but he will have plenty more opportunities.

If he had to lose it I was glad it was to DJ, the fella has long deserved a major, he could really kick on now that he has bagged his first.

As for Westwood - WTF ? He was like an average club golfer out there last night - weird ?!?!?

fullstop

vienne86 wrote: »

Well that was a pity for Shane all right - he actaully played quite well, but nothing ran for him. And I wouldn't grudge DJ the win. Shane up to 25 in the world, and DJ is up to 3, bumping Rory to 4.

He didn't play well. He hit a lot of pulls and hooks off the tee and left himself in some bad spots. I thought he made the wrong call on the 2nd hitting iron off the tee and that bogey put him on the back foot straight away.

Seve OB

kiers47 wrote: »

http://www.randa.org/RulesEquipment/Rules/QuickGuide/Ball-at-Rest-Moved

HighLine wrote: »

No - if you cause the ball to move, you must replace it. That is why Lowry replaced his ball yesterday and was given a 1 stroke penalty.

Not that it matters, but it should have been 2 strokes for DJ.

Yea guys. Aware of the rule. It is just a silly one IMO for the reasoning I outlined above.

I mean imagine a putt which hangs on the lip. wait a while.... it doesn't drop. time up so you go to tap it in. putt your putter down, it oscilates a fraction and drops. why can't that be just considered a shot and left as it is? But oh no, it has to be a penalty, the ball taken back out of the hole, replaced, hanging on the lip, where it could easily drop again.

so lets say your ball is in the fairway, you walk up to address the ball and by accident touch the top of your ball with your club it rolls a fraction.... penalty shot and replace the ball. but 2 shots if you don't replace it.
now lets say you walk up to your ball and try to hit it, but you top it and it results in the same movement as above. its called a shot and you now play it from new position.

IMO, whenever you cause the ball to move like that, it should just be called a shot (not a penalty) and ball played from new position. but then again, that would make sense!

Seve OB

I was thinking about the penalty. Bloody thing kept me up all night! lol

So by the rules, it should have been a penalty and replace the ball. By not replacing the ball, it should have been a 2 shot penalty.

Could it be that the reason he got only one shot penalty was because the rules official clearly told him to play it as it lies? Rules guy made the mistake, so therefore hard to punish DJ????

RikkFlair

Comment of the night

https://twitter.com/LukeDonald/status/744681954298204160

kiers47

Seve OB wrote: »

Yea guys. Aware of the rule. It is just a silly one IMO for the reasoning I outlined above.

I mean imagine a putt which hangs on the lip. wait a while.... it doesn't drop. time up so you go to tap it in. putt your putter down, it oscilates a fraction and drops. why can't that be just considered a shot and left as it is? But oh no, it has to be a penalty, the ball taken back out of the hole, replaced, hanging on the lip, where it could easily drop again.

so lets say your ball is in the fairway, you walk up to address the ball and by accident touch the top of your ball with your club it rolls a fraction.... penalty shot and replace the ball. but 2 shots if you don't replace it.
now lets say you walk up to your ball and try to hit it, but you top it and it results in the same movement as above. its called a shot and you now play it from new position.

IMO, whenever you cause the ball to move like that, it should just be called a shot (not a penalty) and ball played from new position. but then again, that would make sense!

Ya agreed its an awful rule.

kiers47

Seve OB wrote: »

I was thinking about the penalty. Bloody thing kept me up all night! lol

So by the rules, it should have been a penalty and replace the ball. By not replacing the ball, it should have been a 2 shot penalty.

Could it be that the reason he got only one shot penalty was because the rules official clearly told him to play it as it lies? Rules guy made the mistake, so therefore hard to punish DJ????

Thats a possibility. Tbh i think once the rules official ok'd it it should have been nipped in the bud there. By replaying it and telling him he caused it to move you are basically questioning the guys etiquette and ethos and that can only have bad results.

The whole thing left a sour taste. DJ said as much in his interview after that he still didnt think he caused the ball to move but took the penalty anyway as it didnt make any difference.
In hindsight for the greater good of the game he should have stood up to them and told them no if he believed he didnt cause it. I thought this whole HD video evidence to prove people touched balls or hazards etc... was behind us.

newport2

kiers47 wrote: »

Thats a possibility. Tbh i think once the rules official ok'd it it should have been nipped in the bud there. By replaying it and telling him he caused it to move you are basically questioning the guys etiquette and ethos and that can only have bad results.

The whole thing left a sour taste. DJ said as much in his interview after that he still didnt think he caused the ball to move but took the penalty anyway as it didnt make any difference.
In hindsight for the greater good of the game he should have stood up to them and told them no if he believed he didnt cause it. I thought this whole HD video evidence to prove people touched balls or hazards etc... was behind us.

They should change things so they either make a ruling that it's a penalty or not. Coming up to someone on the back nine of the final round of a major and telling them they might have a penalty after the round is a joke. Fair play to him for handling it. If he'd been in the lead by one shot on the 18th fairway he would not have known whether he needed a birdie or par to win which totally determines his next shot, stupid to even create the possibility of that situation arising. He said he didn't cause the ball to move. Either believe him and move on or don't and give him a penalty. "Let's have a chat over the video after the round and decide then" is a joke. Butch made a comment last night on a professional event being run by an amateur organisation.

valoren

heebusjeebus wrote: »

The commentators are always saying he's thick, mainly with back handed compliments.
"He has the ability to forget his last shot" is one you hear a lot.

Rick Reilly’s famous remark was that “Dustin is so dense, light bends around him”.
Seems to be a consensus among the journo's.

I remember Butch Harmon being asked on Sky about Johnson's 'strategy' for a final round a few years ago where he said after a chuckle.

"Driver on 1, Driver on 2, Driver on 3...."

TheCitizen

Seve OB wrote: »

Well actually he is not. He has just had one good tournament which he finished very poorly, IMO making some bad strategic decisions early on which cost him dearly. His streak of form as you put it, has been poor at best. Do you even follow golf :rolleyes:

Recent form includes a decent showing in The Masters up 'til the Final Round. He seems to have the temperament for the Majors and will have gathered much needed experience at The US Open and at The Masters a while back. It's usually the case that you need to be in contention for a couple of Majors or leading the field at certain points before you eventually go on and a win a Major. You'd know that if you watch much golf:rolleyes:

Seve OB

TheCitizen wrote: »

Recent form includes a decent showing in The Masters up 'til the Final Round.

agree. other than that, he has been average at best, but really not great. You claimed he was on a good run of form. He quite clearly is not though.

TheCitizen wrote: »

He seems to have the temperament for the Majors and will have gathered much needed experience at The US Open and at The Masters a while back. It's usually the case that you need to be in contention for a couple of Majors or leading the field at certain points before you eventually go on and a win a Major.

Can't argue with you there

TheCitizen wrote: »

You'd know that if you watch much golf:rolleyes:

When did I ever say say any different?

TheCitizen

Seve OB wrote: »

agree. other than that, he has been average at best, but really not great. You claimed he was on a good run of form. He quite clearly is not though.

In relation to the Majors I think he is in good form, two good showings in the two Majors so far this year, an improvement in the latter one. Keep doing what he's doing and with the experience he has gathered recently he'll win a Major soon.

Seve OB wrote: »

Can't argue with you there


When did I ever say say any different?

So that's agreed then. Good, carry on.

Glenbhoy

kiers47 wrote: »

Thats a possibility. Tbh i think once the rules official ok'd it it should have been nipped in the bud there. By replaying it and telling him he caused it to move you are basically questioning the guys etiquette and ethos and that can only have bad results.

The whole thing left a sour taste. DJ said as much in his interview after that he still didnt think he caused the ball to move but took the penalty anyway as it didnt make any difference.
In hindsight for the greater good of the game he should have stood up to them and told them no if he believed he didnt cause it. I thought this whole HD video evidence to prove people touched balls or hazards etc... was behind us.

I was watching this on Fox, the USGA official came into the studio and explained what was going on just after they talked to DJ.
Essentially, with the recent rule changes, whether or not the ball has been addressed and club grounded is no longer the be all and end all. DJ asking the official meant that the max penalty would be one stroke as he was told to play it from where it lay, that was based on DJ's assertion that he hadn't caused the ball to move.
They reviewed the footage and essentially, they didn't believe him (although the official didn't quite say that). They felt that the best option was to alert him to the fact that they would be reviewing the footage with him after the round, as opposed to taking from the 12th tee and reviewing the footage in the media tent, which they felt would disrupt him even more.
The rule now states that if they feel that he caused the ball to move, especially in the absence of any other reason for the ball moving, then they are obliged to give the penalty. When they spoke to DJ on the twelfth, they asked him if he knew of any other reason why the ball might have moved and he said he didn't, so they were pretty much obliged to give him the penalty.
Hard to know what way they should have proceeded other than how they did imo.

abff

Looking at the updated Ryder Cup points tables, Shane is in 10th place in both lists and just over 10 world ranking points outside the automatic qualifying places. I know the European Tour are refusing to ratify the WGC Bridgestone this year, but I presume any World Ranking points won at that event will count towards the world ranking points list.

Can anyone confirm this (or otherwise)?

First Up

abff wrote: »

Looking at the updated Ryder Cup points tables, Shane is in 10th place in both lists and just over 10 world ranking points outside the automatic qualifying places. I know the European Tour are refusing to ratify the WGC Bridgestone this year, but I presume any World Ranking points won at that event will count towards the world ranking points list.

Can anyone confirm this (or otherwise)?

Yes, of course they will. They just won't count towards his European points.

abff

First Up wrote: »

Yes, of course they will. They just won't count towards his European points.

Thanks. That's what I thought.

Be nice to see him make the team, but it seems he will have to do so through the world rankings list unless he does something extraordinary at The Open.

Senecio

"Glenbhoy wrote: »

The rule now states that if they feel that he caused the ball to move, especially in the absence of any other reason for the ball moving, then they are obliged to give the penalty. When they spoke to DJ on the twelfth, they asked him if he knew of any other reason why the ball might have moved and he said he didn't, so they were pretty much obliged to give him the penalty.
Hard to know what way they should have proceeded other than how they did imo.

It appears that the current interpretation of the rule since the changes this year is one of guilty until proven innocent. Unless you can provide the official with a plausible explanation of why it moved then it is assumed that you must have caused it. I don't believe that was the intent of the R&A and the USGA when they introduced the rule change to simplify and remove confusion from the previous rule.

Dustin should have just responded to the official with "I believe it happened as a result of poor course design or inappropriate course setup for the conditions". Would love to hear their response to that.

Ormus

Senecio wrote: »

It appears that the current interpretation of the rule since the changes this year is one of guilty until proven innocent. Unless you can provide the official with a plausible explanation of why it moved then it is assumed that you must have caused it. I don't believe that was the intent of the R&A and the USGA when they introduced the rule change to simplify and remove confusion from the previous rule.

Dustin should have just responded to the official with "I believe it happened as a result of poor course design or inappropriate course setup for the conditions". Would love to hear their response to that.

Yeah it's not DJ's responsibility to come up with an alternate theory as to why the ball moved. The question should have been "Do you believe you caused the ball to move?". If he answered no, his playing partner backed him up, and a ref ruled on it, that should have been that.

I assume that ref will resign immediately. That rule change is fairly minor, but it's probably one of the most significant of the last few years at least, very negligent not to inform the player of it.

HighLine

https://twitter.com/DJRussellgolf/status/744778137737670656

Milkers

Senecio wrote: »

It appears that the current interpretation of the rule since the changes this year is one of guilty until proven innocent. Unless you can provide the official with a plausible explanation of why it moved then it is assumed that you must have caused it. I don't believe that was the intent of the R&A and the USGA when they introduced the rule change to simplify and remove confusion from the previous rule.

Dustin should have just responded to the official with "I believe it happened as a result of poor course design or inappropriate course setup for the conditions". Would love to hear their response to that.

Was gonna say imagine if it had happened to Harrington or a stronger, experienced (more argumentative?) player and the answer they got back was "yeah the greens are like fking glass" how it would have gone. :pac:

Milkers

Anyway the whole spirit of the rule is completely flawed. In golf if you swing at the ball and miss it completely it is rightly deemed a shot because you intended to hit the ball. Conversely in any circumstance where you had no intent to hit the ball and the ball moves (even if it's your fault) it should simply be replaced and played with no penalty. Simple.

stockdam

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Shane is playing in a corporate event in Dublin tomorrow/Monday , poor guy will be completely wrecked

He said that the penalty controversy had little impact on him

But others here "know" that it did have an impact and wrecked Shane's strategy!

Oh and Dustin said this about the incident:

"I knew that it was something we would deal (with) at the end of the round"
"I just tried to leave it at that and play golf. It didn't change my game plan or how I played the course. I just tried to just go about my business".


The same people on here will probably say that he was just saying this as it is the right thing to say.......well actually it is the right thing to say as he clearly didn't let it affect him and I doubt that Lowry was affected either; if he was then he needs to learn to control himself better.

Martin567

HighLine wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DJRussellgolf/status/744778137737670656

This is nitpicking in the extreme.

He didn't believe he caused the ball to move and the referee cleared him to play it from where it lay.

90 minutes later they came back and decided he must have caused it to move. It wasn't then possible to travel back in time and move the ball forward about 0.5mm!

People complain about professional golfers taking too long to play a round. Imagine if Dustin had a two shot penalty applied for not replacing his ball. This would have a huge knock on effect and would eventually lead to play becoming even slower. Any player in Dustin's position (where the ball oscillates) would have to refuse to continue playing until such time as the officials had categorically determined whether his ball needed to be replaced or not. Unless time machines can be brought into use, downing tools is the only way to be sure to avoid an extra shot penalty.

eagle eye

Isn't it the player's own responsibility to know the rules? Officials are only there for advice on rules, even if they tell you something that turns out to be incorrect the player is still responsible as far as I'm aware.

HighLine

Martin567 wrote: »

This is nitpicking in the extreme.

He didn't believe he caused the ball to move and the referee cleared him to play it from where it lay.

90 minutes later they came back and decided he must have caused it to move. It wasn't then possible to travel back in time and move the ball forward about 0.5mm!

People complain about professional golfers taking too long to play a round. Imagine if Dustin had a two shot penalty applied for not replacing his ball. This would have a huge knock on effect and would eventually lead to play becoming even slower. Any player in Dustin's position (where the ball oscillates) would have to refuse to continue playing until such time as the officials had categorically determined whether his ball needed to be replaced or not. Unless time machines can be brought into use, downing tools is the only way to be sure to avoid an extra shot penalty.

Well it's not really nitpicking. It's about consistency and rules structuring.

If you cause a ball to move, you replace it, otherwise it's a 2 stroke penalty. The same thing happened to Shane on Saturday... only he called the breach on himself and then correctly replaced it and received a 1 stroke penalty.

Whatever about the harshness or inequity that fell upon DJ - they should have been consistent with their ruling and given a 2 stroke penalty.

Martin567

HighLine wrote: »

Well it's not really nitpicking. It's about consistency and rules structuring.

If you cause a ball to move, you replace it, otherwise it's a 2 stroke penalty. The same thing happened to Shane on Saturday... only he called the breach on himself and then correctly replaced it and received a 1 stroke penalty.

Whatever about the harshness or inequity that fell upon DJ - they should have been consistent with their ruling and given a 2 stroke penalty.

The whole point in this case is that he didn't believe he caused it to move. Lee Westwood agreed with him. That should have been the end of the matter.

If officials are free to come back 6 holes later and make a different determination then they have to follow through with some degree of logic. By then, it was impossible for him to go back and replace the ball.

What do you think a player should do if his ball oscillates on the green? If he replaces it, he is accepting he caused it to move even if he strongly believes he didn't and he will then receive a penalty. If he doesn't replace it, he is risking an additional penalty once the officials have put away their magnifying glasses.

As I said earlier, the only way to avoid this is to sit at the side of the green and refuse to play for as long as it takes the officials to come to a definite conclusion.

Letree

I think the responsibility should have been on the official to make a determination there and then and if the official thought it needed to be looked into he should have said so. But this nonsense of making a decision and then coming back to it 6 holes later is poor standards.

Russman

I'm fairly sure DJ marked the ball after the ref cleared him to play, so, if the original movement was so miniscule he could plausibly be deemed to have replaced I guess in the act of marking and re-aligning.

thisonetaken

Milkers wrote: »

Anyway the whole spirit of the rule is completely flawed. In golf if you swing at the ball and miss it completely it is rightly deemed a shot because you intended to hit the ball. Conversely in any circumstance where you had no intent to hit the ball and the ball moves (even if it's your fault) it should simply be replaced and played with no penalty. Simple.

I couldn't disagree more. That defies all logic. If you don't hit the ball, even if you meant to hit it, it should not count as a shot. You haven't touched the ball and haven't gained any advantage, why on earth should it be counted? It's mental.

Likewise if you don't mean to hit the ball but do touch it of course it should count as a shot, otherwise you will have people "accidentally" hitting the ball so it moves closer to the pin.

Joe_ Public

thisonetaken wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. That defies all logic. If you don't hit the ball, even if you meant to hit it, it should not count as a shot. You haven't touched the ball and haven't gained any advantage, why on earth should it be counted? It's mental.

Likewise if you don't mean to hit the ball but do touch it of course it should count as a shot, otherwise you will have people "accidentally" hitting the ball so it moves closer to the pin.

Don't see what logic is being defied here. It's fairly simple, an airshot counts as a shot and there's no earthly reason why it shouldn't. I've never witnessed a pro doing one, but probably happened at one time or another.

And say, for example, you're feathering the ball on the tee, as a lot of players do, and inadvertently touch it off your tee. I'm open to correction, but I don't believe that counts as a penalty.

Potential Underachiever

Milkers wrote: »

Anyway the whole spirit of the rule is completely flawed. In golf if you swing at the ball and miss it completely it is rightly deemed a shot because you intended to hit the ball. Conversely in any circumstance where you had no intent to hit the ball and the ball moves (even if it's your fault) it should simply be replaced and played with no penalty. Simple.

thisonetaken wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. That defies all logic. If you don't hit the ball, even if you meant to hit it, it should not count as a shot. You haven't touched the ball and haven't gained any advantage, why on earth should it be counted? It's mental.

Likewise if you don't mean to hit the ball but do touch it of course it should count as a shot, otherwise you will have people "accidentally" hitting the ball so it moves closer to the pin.

I'd agree with Milkers here myself, if you step up to a shot and take a swipe at it and completely miss it then yes that should be a stroke, you intended to hit it so tough shít that you're shíte and missed it!

Secondly punishing people like Lowry or Dj for their ball moving on the green is a stupid rule imo, what advantage are they gaining? You just drop the putter behind the ball to take a putt and it moves two dimples? Big deal, just tweak it back to it's proper position and carry on, it's not like a chip when you could be trying to effect your lie, so there's no good reason I can see why a player should be docked a shot, especially on the super slick undulating greens they play on. Imagine losing a major because you put the putter down behind the ball, what will pro's have to do next hover the putter in fear of costing themselves a shot, come on!

thisonetaken

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Don't see what logic is being defied here. It's fairly simple, an airshot counts as a shot and there's no earthly reason why it shouldn't. I've never witnessed a pro doing one, but probably happened at one time or another.

I will try to explain it further.

A logical rule would be:
- Hitting the golf ball counts as 1 stroke.
- Not hitting the golf ball counts as 0 strokes.

Therefore that is the logic that is being defied here.

People grew up with these rules and accepted them and nobody likes change, so of course everyone views it as reasonable, but anyone taking up the sport will view the current rule as crazy.

Joe_ Public

thisonetaken wrote: »

I will try to explain it further.

A logical rule would be:
- Hitting the golf ball counts as 1 stroke.
- Not hitting the golf ball counts as 0 strokes.

Therefore that is the logic that is being defied here.

People grew up with these rules and accepted them and nobody likes change, so of course everyone views it as reasonable, but anyone taking up the sport will view the current rule as crazy.

Ok fair enough, but by that logic Lee Westwood hasn't, in fact, hit a shot here:

The Rape of Lucretia

HighLine wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DJRussellgolf/status/744778137737670656
I wonder how the USGA are going to explain the fact that if Dustin caused his ball to move he should have replaced it ,2 shot penalty not 1

They dont need to. Its a pre-explained 'Decision' :
34-3/7
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 doso, 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 underRule 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. (Revised)

HighLine

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

They dont need to. Its a pre-explained 'Decision' :

Great find ... had been looking for the decision but couldn't see it.

The Rape of Lucretia

HighLine wrote: »

Great find ... had been looking for the decision but couldn't see it.

Welcome.

http://www.randa.org/Rules-of-Golf/MainRules/34-Disputes-and-Decisions/SubRules/3-Committee-s-Decision#alldecisions

Seve OB

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

They dont need to. Its a pre-explained 'Decision' :
34-3/7
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 doso, 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 underRule 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. (Revised)

So my theory which kept me awake last night turns out to be right

HighLine

USGA release a statment about their decision. The digging has begun.

https://twitter.com/JasonSobelESPN/status/745012902239870976

newport2

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

They dont need to. Its a pre-explained 'Decision' :
34-3/7
Q.
A player’s ball in play moves and he is unsure whether he caused is sure that he did not cause 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?

Would that change the answer to the ruling above? Very close scenario, but I think it's a key difference. The USGA even admit themselves they are not sure he caused it to move.

Jawgap

newport2 wrote: »

Would that change the answer to the ruling above? Very close scenario, but I think it's a key difference.

Generally in sports the referee is the arbiter of facts - even if the player says he did not cause the ball to move, and his partner and their caddies agree, if the referee is of the opinion he did, that's the perspective that counts.

It was poorly handled by the officials at the time - so much so that there is almost as much chatter about that one 'stroke' as there is about the player's first Major victory!

Hoof Hearted2

Jawgap wrote: »

Generally in sports the referee is the arbiter of facts - even if the player says he did not cause the ball to move, and his partner and their caddies agree, if the referee is of the opinion he did, that's the perspective that counts.

It was poorly handled by the officials at the time - so much so that there is almost as much chatter about that one 'stroke' as there is about the player's first Major victory!

Golf is uniquely different to all other sports, where there are no referees, but rules officials, the player himself is the referee, and only on big occasions like Majors are rules officials made available.
Only the player himself knows whether he caused the ball to move or not, and he was backed up in this case by his playing partner.
How the USGA can determine that the players actions caused the ball to move and not the condition of the green or something else, even after the player stated he had not addressed the ball and not caused the ball to move is nothing short of calling him a liar and a cheat.
The USGA are a bunch of clowns and have a track record of time and again sticking their feet firmly in it.

Jawgap

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

Golf is uniquely different to all other sports, where there are no referees, but rules officials, the player himself is the referee, and only on big occasions like Majors are rules officials made available.
Only the player himself knows whether he caused the ball to move or not, and he was backed up in this case by his playing partner.
How the USGA can determine that the players actions caused the ball to move and not the condition of the green or something else, even after the player stated he had not addressed the ball and not caused the ball to move is nothing short of calling him a liar and a cheat.
The USGA are a bunch of clowns and have a track record of time and again sticking their feet firmly in it.

'Cause' and 'intent' are different concepts. I don't doubt that DJ didn't intend for the ball to move while practising and preparing to make his stroke, but that doesn't mean he didn't cause the ball to move, even if it was inadvertent on his part. Only the player can speak to his true intent, but everyone, including the officials, get to address the causation issue.

I agree its a far from satisfactory way to deal with the situation but clearly some official, more senior than the Johnny-on-the-spot one who gave the initial ruling, thought differently and felt the weight of evidence was against DJ.