Did The USGA Get it Right?

Follow Thread

By Dino J

  • 0 Likes
  • 5 Replies
  1. Dino J

    Dino J
    Burnaby, BC

    Hi Fellow TT'ers, A big hats off to DJ for finally winning a major - and the US Open at that after his heartbreak at Whistling Straits and again last year.

    So fellow TT'ers ... did the USGA screw up or did they apply the rule correctly? The rule in question is 18.2 Ball Moved at Rest : ____________ (from the USGA Rules 2016) these are the same rules in Canada under the RCGA.

    Rule 18 - Ball at Rest Moved

    Definitions All defined terms are in italics and are listed alphabetically in the Definitions section.

    18-1. By Outside Agency 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. (Player's ball at rest moved by another ball - see Rule 18-5)

    18-2. By Player, Partner, Caddie or Equipment

    Except as permitted by the Rules, when a player's ball is in play, if

    (i) the player, his partner or either of their caddies:

    • lifts or moves the ball, • touches it purposely (except with a club in the act of addressing the ball), or • causes the ball to move, or

    (ii) the equipment of the player or his partner causes the ball to move, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke.

    If the ball is moved, it must be replaced, unless the movement of the ball occurs after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of the club for the stroke and the stroke is made. . . . ______

    So given the above rule and given the brief explanation on the joint USGA/R&A YouTube video on the changes to the 2016 Rules of Golf, it seems to me that Dustin Johnson was unfairly penalized 1-stroke.

    From the TV angles that I saw, DJ walked up to his ball and was in the process of addressing the ball, BUT he neither ground his putter nor touched the ball. Further, he did not jump on the ground near the ball. Therefore, it can only REASONABLY be concluded that he DID NOT CAUSE his ball to move and that the ball "moved of its own accord".

    To suggest otherwise as per the USGA, goes against the entire spirit of the rule change. The purpose of the rule change was to clarify this situation but if this interpretation is allowed to stand, it only confuses the issue more.

    After all, lets keep in mind that this is Oakmont where the greens are reading 14+ on the stimpmeter (USGA's numbers) and move at the slightest vibration, puff of wind, shadow, etc. It is the USGA that has the greens running so fast at the US Open, that this likelihood or probability increases.

    Furthermore, if you apply a logical or legal rationale, how does DJ benefit from the situation? He doesn't -- nor are the other players impaired unfairly in their play. In other words, the penalty is far, far worse than the infraction.

    Anyway fellow TT'ers, that's my take on the situation -- perhaps others agree? Or have a different perspective on it?

  2. Darius V

    Darius V
    Barrie, ON

    I do have to agree that from my watching the multiple re-plays, DJ did nothing to cause the ball to move. It had to be due to it rolling backwards off a blade of grass. With the greens that fast, it is extremely likely. I am surprised however that DJ did not note that this was a possibility when he marked and replaced his ball before putting in the first place.
    I firmly believe the on-course ruling should have been made immediately by the rules official called to the green by DJ, and that should have held up. Period.
    To do otherwise then also calls into question the purpose of having on-course rules officials in the first place.
  3. Wendell H

    Wendell H
    North Battleford, SK

    I agree with you, the rule was applied unfairly. Especially since it was applied after the fact, when a rules official who was following DJ's and Westwood's group already made a ruling, in real time and who had the benefit of a live view of the event. Anyone watching a replay from various angles over and over again in slow motion can come up any number of interpretations. Even though the penalty did not have a baring on the outcome I am still very disappointed it was even assessed. Had the penalty stroke ended up having effect on the outcome this would have been the last time I watched a US Open.
  4. Dino J

    Dino J
    Burnaby, BC

    Hi guys,
    I agree with your comments - observations wholeheartedly. The rule decision, when considered in its entirety and in the broader context, simply does not stand up to scrutiny in a number of areas:

    Firstly, golf is not a static game ... it is dynamic. This means that as a player goes to approach his putt on the green, walking up to it in the normal manner (meaning not jumping up or down, etc.) there is a chance that the slight vibrations from the approaching player, among other factors, may contribute to the ball moving.

    This means that in the normal course of play, a golfer would have to tiptoe, or step gingerly, as if navigating a mine field in order to approach his/her ball to putt. This just is not realistic nor reasonable.

    Secondly, the potential "injury" to the field and to the player is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. When watching the video, you can see Johnson's ball oscillate ever so slightly before settling into a very minor depression in the green a millimeter or two away at the most.

    There simply is no advantage to Johnson nor is there any disadvantage to the remainder of the field -- especially when his playing partner stated that he was fine with the situation.

  5. MRau

    MRau

    I agree that the ruling was wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong , but the was not the only time during that round a similar issue occurred at oakmont. Golf is a game of honour and if DJ said he didn't cause the ball to move and the official concurred with him at the time then there should be absolutely no reviewing that. Video review is used in a all major sports now which is fine , but is not able to be used after another play has occurred and the officials ruling then stands. So if golf wants to video review something then it needs to be done on the spot, and not after the round. Regardless of what the right ruling was or not , DJ should have the right to play the rest of his round knowing whether or not he has incurred the penalty , which is the same procedure used in all major sports.

    Refs , officials do make bad calls but that's to me besides the point. The problem here was the procedure the usga used . Either golf is a game of honour or not it cannot be an officiated game and a game of honour at the same time The usga needs to review its processes
  6. Stephen F

    Stephen F
    Belleville Ontario, ON

    The USGA totally blew it in my opinion. Like everybody previously stated it was clear that DJ did nothing to cause the ball to move. What really got me was that there was a high ranking rules official on the scene and he agreed that there would be no penalty and his decision should be final. That is right in their rules. What the USGA put DJ, and the rest of the field through surrounding this whole thing was absurd and it took away from one of the biggest tournaments in golf. I'm just thankful that he won by the margin that he did so the penalty stroke didn't matter anyway. That however does not make the USGA's process in the matter right!!

Please login to post a comment.

Sign In

Haven't registered for Team Titleist yet?

Sign Up

Ein Golfgeschäft in meiner Nähe finden