What does the USGA Do Now?

[mckennwa]

So I have a question - If my 400 lb playing partner walks up to hit his putt on a windless day, never grounds his club, and then the ball moves. Couldn't I determine under the rules of golf that it is more likely than not that his sheer weight on the green near the ball caused the ball to move and then say that he deserves a penalty?

 

The rule needs to be changed so that it is only a penalty if the player touches the ball and causes it to move. Otherwise, merely replace it and move on with no advantage having been gained. As green speeds continue to go up and HD video gets better, this problem is going to happen more and more.

 

Quite frankly, the "change" that they made to the rules to supposedly "fix" this only made it worse. Now a player can be penalized for any movement of the ball when he/she is near the ball. Before, at least he/she was protected during the time before the ball was addressed.

[jslane57]

if the ball moves, and you honestly weren't trying to make it move, just replace the ball and play away.

 

Still have to determine if player caused it to move or not...if the player didn't cause it, it should not get replaced.

 

But the rule could be changed so that there is no penalty.

 

Oh, and I'm glad DJ won, too!

Yeah, I think the rules are good as they are. The USGA just got excited and botched an easy situation. If you simply let a person put the ball back every time they accidentally move it (like on the tee box) you will have people bumping the ball all over the course by accident. Addressing the ball can be a twitchy thing at times, proceed cautiously...

[gators78]

One more stick of dynamite in the impending explosion of the USGA. They've lost Tour players, course owners, superintendents, control of the equipment, pace of play, club pros, and the broader public. Pretending to uphold the "honor" of the game is laughable at best when you need a law degree to interpret the rules.

 

I would like to see the USGA explain the exact law of physics which would result in such actions, particularly in light of the ball moving backwards.

 

My opinion on what could have happened in post #79. No defying the laws of physics required.

 

Again a complete farce. Don't understand the point in revising 18-2 if you're arugment is the potential infintesimal number of reasons around player movement that aren't visibile, reasonable, or provable. Maybe it was a bird flapping it's wings 9 holes over? Maybe it was hydrolic fracturing in Ohio? Change in barometric pressure? Imperfection on the ball?

[HitEmTrue]

Before, at least he/she was protected during the time before the ball was addressed.

 

Before the rule change, it was already a penalty for causing the ball to move before addressing it.

 

The rule change made it so the player was not automatically ASSUMED to have caused it move by addressing the ball.

[mckennwa]

Thanks for the correction.

[Marand]

Honestly I don't think it's that the players can't make these procedures, I think it's more that they are covering their own butts out of fear. The professional game isn't as "self governing" as they make the rank and file game appear.

 

So I guess while I agree with you on the disdain of the result, I disagree that it is the fault of the rules, but rather the rulers. It's shame that the players can't be trusted, or feel like they can be trusted, to protect their own fields anymore.

 

I guess I should feel better about the USGA. When they changed the handicap rule that my single rounds can't be counted unless witnessed - even if only by my 7 year grandson - I thought it was a wholesale gratuitous smear on the honesty of amateur players. It turns out they don't trust professional players either (nor apparently their own on-course referees). Turns out I'm in pretty good company.

 

Perhaps I should have gotten a clue when they ruined Shinnecock Hills a while back, making it literally unplayable. Then fixed the problem by watering the greens during the competition, which benefited the players following the hoses while penalizing the players preceding them. The USGA, dedicated to growing the game.

[The Pearl]

I would like to see the USGA explain the exact law of physics which would result in such actions, particularly in light of the ball moving backwards.

 

My opinion on what could have happened in post #79. No defying the laws of physics required.

 

Sorry, I don't think any agronomist or physics professor would think your explanation to be highly probable, certainly not to a 51% standard. You are advocating that extremely short grass has the ability to generate the force necessary to overcome the weight of the golf ball creating a "springing" action to propel a ball. Even with the aid of a slope, I think this is virtually impossible. Even if this is plausible, it is wholly dependent on Dustin Johnson applying enough pressure downward, while grounding his putter to create such conditions necessary for the grass to "spring". The hardness of the greens and the height of the green cut work against your theory. And we have not even addressed the physics of this happening by grounding the putter adjacent to the ball/slope. And we also haven't considered the distance from the tip of DJ's putter to the ball. In order for your theory to even be remotely possible, it would have to include some kind of microscopic blade of grass "domino theory" that cascaded from the tip of DJ's putter to the ball.

 

In order for your theory, about 4 things need to occur, all with a low probability of each individual occurrence. When the weighted probability of each separate event is taken in aggregate, your chances of being correct are close to zero.

 

 

Certainly, it is far more likely for extremely short and weak grass to "succumb" to the weight of a golf ball on a slope.

[c7015]

ha , and they wonder why the players are slow ... not they gotta make 100% sure there is no chance their ball can move before they remove their marker ...

[Lodestone]

can a butterfly flapping it's wings in a meadow in Wisconsin really cause a Hurricane in the Caribbean?

[jacot23]

I would like to see the USGA explain the exact law of physics which would result in such actions, particularly in light of the ball moving backwards.

 

My opinion on what could have happened in post #79. No defying the laws of physics required.

 

Sorry, I don't think any agronomist or physics professor would think your explanation to be highly probable, certainly not to a 51% standard. You are advocating that extremely short grass has the ability to generate the force necessary to overcome the weight of the golf ball creating a "springing" action to propel a ball. Even with the aid of a slope, I think this is virtually impossible. Even if this is plausible, it is wholly dependent on Dustin Johnson applying enough pressure downward, while grounding his putter to create such conditions necessary for the grass to "spring". The hardness of the greens and the height of the green cut work against your theory. And we have not even addressed the physics of this happening by grounding the putter adjacent to the ball/slope. And we also haven't considered the distance from the tip of DJ's putter to the ball. In order for your theory to even be remotely possible, it would have to include some kind of microscopic blade of grass "domino theory" that cascaded from the tip of DJ's putter to the ball.

 

In order for your theory, about 4 things need to occur, all with a low probability of each individual occurrence. When the weighted probability of each separate event is taken in aggregate, your chances of being correct are close to zero.

 

 

Certainly, it is far more likely for extremely short and weak grass to "succumb" to the weight of a golf ball on a slope.

 

Beyond that, if he caused it shouldn't the ball have moved towards him, NOT backwards; from what I can tell he NEVER grounded the putter BEHIND the ball, only beside it.

[Frankensteins Monster]

Dustin's putter contacted the ground at the side of the ball, and almost immediately after, the ball moved.

 

 

This is an outright lie. That ball didnt move until Johnson had the putter off the ground behind the ball, almost a full couple of seconds after his practice strokes at the side of the ball.

 

The USGA should be ashamed of itself.

 

It moved within a fraction of a second of him LIFTING the putter from the ground. If blades of grass sprung upward when he lifted the putter, it could have caused the ball to roll backward (down hill).

"Fraction of a second", wrong. The ball moved when the club was hovering behind the ball. There's no way Johnson moved from his practice stroke to hovering behind the ball in a "fraction of a second." Also, his putter was not near enough to make a "blade of grass" spring up and cause the ball to roll backwards anyway. You think the grass was a half inch long on the greens? Because that's what it would take to spring up and hit the golf ball after being compressed by the putter head. Unless you think his putter defied physics and he was ground the putter under neath the ball and we were seeing a mirage of his putter next to the ball? Yours is the most cockamamie excuse I've read.

[jslane57]

I would like to see the USGA explain the exact law of physics which would result in such actions, particularly in light of the ball moving backwards.

 

My opinion on what could have happened in post #79. No defying the laws of physics required.

 

Sorry, I don't think any agronomist or physics professor would think your explanation to be highly probable, certainly not to a 51% standard. You are advocating that extremely short grass has the ability to generate the force necessary to overcome the weight of the golf ball creating a "springing" action to propel a ball. Even with the aid of a slope, I think this is virtually impossible. Even if this is plausible, it is wholly dependent on Dustin Johnson applying enough pressure downward, while grounding his putter to create such conditions necessary for the grass to "spring". The hardness of the greens and the height of the green cut work against your theory. And we have not even addressed the physics of this happening by grounding the putter adjacent to the ball/slope. And we also haven't considered the distance from the tip of DJ's putter to the ball. In order for your theory to even be remotely possible, it would have to include some kind of microscopic blade of grass "domino theory" that cascaded from the tip of DJ's putter to the ball.

 

In order for your theory, about 4 things need to occur, all with a low probability of each individual occurrence. When the weighted probability of each separate event is taken in aggregate, your chances of being correct are close to zero.

 

 

Certainly, it is far more likely for extremely short and weak grass to "succumb" to the weight of a golf ball on a slope.

It is possible that all the physics is correct. And it is possible that DJ simply didn't replace his ball in the spike-mark dent that it stopped in. He may have moved it a 16 of an inch to higher ground, and gravity moved it back to a low spot at just the wrong time.

[mark m]

Guys, keep one thing in mind. If they decide to change the rule to a penalty only if the player touches the ball on the green and causes it to move - and if the ball does move on it's own - any new rule will most likely not make it a requirement to replace the ball and it will have to be played from the new position. Why do I say this? Because currently if the ball is on the green but marked, and it moves - well, here is the rule:

 

20-4/1

 

Ball Replaced on Putting Green But Ball-Marker Not Removed; Ball Then Moves

 

 

Q.A player replaces his ball on the putting green but does not remove his ball-marker. Subsequently the wind moves his ball to a new position. What is the ruling?

 

 

A.Under Rule 20-4, a ball is in play when it is replaced, whether or not the object used to mark its position has been removed. Consequently the ball must be played from the new position - see Decision 18-1/12.

 

So - if you did not cause it to move, why would you replace the ball? Food for thought.

[The Pearl]

One other chain of logic that the USGA failed on is that they viewed that the ball could have "only" been caused to move by either an "active" action by DJ or an "active" action by an outside agency. They failed to consider that the ball moved due to the "passive" action of slope and grass giving way to the weight of the golf ball.

 

Golf balls don't move of their own accord. The laws of physics can't be rewritten.

[HitEmTrue]

"Fraction of a second", wrong. The ball moved when the club was hovering behind the ball. There's no way Johnson moved from his practice stroke to hovering behind the ball in a "fraction of a second." Also, his putter was not near enough to make a "blade of grass" spring up and cause the ball to roll backwards anyway. You think the grass was a half inch long on the greens? Because that's what it would take to spring up and hit the golf ball after being compressed by the putter head. Unless you think his putter defied physics and he was ground the putter under neath the ball and we were seeing a mirage of his putter next to the ball? Yours is the most cockamamie excuse I've read.

 

At 2:36 he picks club up and moves it behind ball. In less than a second, he reacts because he knows it is moving.

 

Turf can be thick (connected together) without being tall.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amtUNj_Lr_o

[15Over]

 

 

The 'Commentary' in the local rag this morning, seen by golfers and non-golfers alike.

 

"For the good of the game" indeed. What a freakin' debacle.

[Frankensteins Monster]

"Fraction of a second", wrong. The ball moved when the club was hovering behind the ball. There's no way Johnson moved from his practice stroke to hovering behind the ball in a "fraction of a second." Also, his putter was not near enough to make a "blade of grass" spring up and cause the ball to roll backwards anyway. You think the grass was a half inch long on the greens? Because that's what it would take to spring up and hit the golf ball after being compressed by the putter head. Unless you think his putter defied physics and he was ground the putter under neath the ball and we were seeing a mirage of his putter next to the ball? Yours is the most cockamamie excuse I've read.

 

At 2:36 he picks club up and moves it behind ball. In less than a second, he reacts because he knows it is moving.

 

Turf can be thick (connected together) without being tall.

 

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amtUNj_Lr_o[/media]

 

No way a ball can be moved by a putter two inches from center of the ball, only part of the ball touching the green, away by "springing grass." Balls that move on the green are caused by green abnormalities (slight depressions or humps), ball settling because of dimples, wind or the player shakes the ground with his putter. Dustin's practice putts didn't cause this. Since the ball didn't continue to move after it tumbled backwards, logic suggests that it settled into a slight depression it was teetering on.

[Sixcat]

 

 

The 'Commentary' in the local rag this morning, seen by golfers and non-golfers alike.

 

"For the good of the game" indeed. What a freakin' debacle.

 

Sally Jenkins is Dan Jenkins daughter. Very intelligent and passionate about the game.

 

"C. Stillborn Drunklord IV", incredibly apropos.

[MarkCPA]

 

http://www.usga.org/articles/2016/06/statement-regarding-dustin-johnson-ruling.html

 

U.S. OPEN

Statement Regarding Dustin Johnson Ruling

JUNE 20, 2016

 

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.

 

So, we'll all get nothing and like it? Ok, thanks Judge Smails.

[15Over]

 

 

The 'Commentary' in the local rag this morning, seen by golfers and non-golfers alike.

 

"For the good of the game" indeed. What a freakin' debacle.

 

Sally Jenkins is Dan Jenkins daughter. Very intelligent and passionate about the game.

 

"C. Stillborn Drunklord IV", incredibly apropos.

 

Terrific opinion piece. For those who haven't had a chance to read it, she winds it up by saying:

 

"The USGA's fair application of an over-inflated rule book depends entirely on whether they're lucky enough to have some sensible member on the rules committee. The rule book should be reduced, and they should seek out an expert administrator, a paid professional, to apply them at the Open. A player's livelihood and legacy shouldn't depend on a pack of dilettantes with the judgment of a soused house party."

 

Amen.

[Sixcat]

 

 

The 'Commentary' in the local rag this morning, seen by golfers and non-golfers alike.

 

"For the good of the game" indeed. What a freakin' debacle.

 

Sally Jenkins is Dan Jenkins daughter. Very intelligent and passionate about the game.

 

"C. Stillborn Drunklord IV", incredibly apropos.

 

Terrific opinion piece. For those who haven't had a chance to read it, she winds it up by saying:

 

"The USGA's fair application of an over-inflated rule book depends entirely on whether they're lucky enough to have some sensible member on the rules committee. The rule book should be reduced, and they should seek out an expert administrator, a paid professional, to apply them at the Open. A player's livelihood and legacy shouldn't depend on a pack of dilettantes with the judgment of a soused house party."

 

Amen.

 

Here is the full article for those interested. It is a very good read, in my opinion.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/golf/sloppy-usga-shouldnt-escape-the-mess-it-created/2016/06/20/0efc7214-36eb-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

[BeautifulNice]

Guys, keep one thing in mind. If they decide to change the rule to a penalty only if the player touches the ball on the green and causes it to move - and if the ball does move on it's own - any new rule will most likely not make it a requirement to replace the ball and it will have to be played from the new position. Why do I say this? Because currently if the ball is on the green but marked, and it moves - well, here is the rule:

 

20-4/1

 

Ball Replaced on Putting Green But Ball-Marker Not Removed; Ball Then Moves

 

 

Q.A player replaces his ball on the putting green but does not remove his ball-marker. Subsequently the wind moves his ball to a new position. What is the ruling?

 

 

A.Under Rule 20-4, a ball is in play when it is replaced, whether or not the object used to mark its position has been removed. Consequently the ball must be played from the new position - see Decision 18-1/12.

 

So - if you did not cause it to move, why would you replace the ball? Food for thought.

 

To avoid scenarios like Billy Horschel's ball being blown off 15 green into the pond at Augusta. Once a ball comes to rest on the green, that should be the place from which the next stroke is played. No need for players to run up to mark their balls or being worried about balls being blown off greens at Augusta or a British Open.

[jons1]

Maybe the USGA can run the Olympics .... People from all over the world should feel our pain

[larrybud]

People that don't know or understand a strict reading of the rules, arguing from feelings rather than facts. Johnson brought this on himself by fiddling around so close to the ball on extremely fast and sloped greens.

 

C'mon Ky. No matter if you agree with the penalty or not, there's no way you can in good conscious support the USGA in waiting for 6 more holes for the round to end, can you? It's absurd.

[mark m]

Guys, keep one thing in mind. If they decide to change the rule to a penalty only if the player touches the ball on the green and causes it to move - and if the ball does move on it's own - any new rule will most likely not make it a requirement to replace the ball and it will have to be played from the new position. Why do I say this? Because currently if the ball is on the green but marked, and it moves - well, here is the rule:

 

20-4/1

 

Ball Replaced on Putting Green But Ball-Marker Not Removed; Ball Then Moves

 

 

Q.A player replaces his ball on the putting green but does not remove his ball-marker. Subsequently the wind moves his ball to a new position. What is the ruling?

 

 

A.Under Rule 20-4, a ball is in play when it is replaced, whether or not the object used to mark its position has been removed. Consequently the ball must be played from the new position - see Decision 18-1/12.

 

So - if you did not cause it to move, why would you replace the ball? Food for thought.

 

To avoid scenarios like Billy Horschel's ball being blown off 15 green into the pond at Augusta. Once a ball comes to rest on the green, that should be the place from which the next stroke is played. No need for players to run up to mark their balls or being worried about balls being blown off greens at Augusta or a British Open.

 

Good luck getting that rule changed. Might be easier to ask Augusta not to shave the bank so tight?

[jons1]

People that don't know or understand a strict reading of the rules, arguing from feelings rather than facts. Johnson brought this on himself by fiddling around so close to the ball on extremely fast and sloped greens.

 

C'mon Ky. No matter if you agree with the penalty or not, there's no way you can in good conscious support the USGA in waiting for 6 more holes for the round to end, can you? It's absurd.

 

 

They couldn't get all the people needed to make a decision off the course any faster... is what they say

[Sixcat]

People that don't know or understand a strict reading of the rules, arguing from feelings rather than facts. Johnson brought this on himself by fiddling around so close to the ball on extremely fast and sloped greens.

 

C'mon Ky. No matter if you agree with the penalty or not, there's no way you can in good conscious support the USGA in waiting for 6 more holes for the round to end, can you? It's absurd.

 

Don't feed the trolls! :stop:

[lopey986]

People that don't know or understand a strict reading of the rules, arguing from feelings rather than facts. Johnson brought this on himself by fiddling around so close to the ball on extremely fast and sloped greens.

 

C'mon Ky. No matter if you agree with the penalty or not, there's no way you can in good conscious support the USGA in waiting for 6 more holes for the round to end, can you? It's absurd.

 

I couldn't even care what they ruled it, but just make the damn decision on the spot. None of this "reviewing the tape" for 2 hours before making the decision.

[duffer987]

Maybe the USGA can run the Olympics .... People from all over the world should feel our pain

 

LOL! The USGA are small fries there... they'd need a many more of these c0ck ups to get to IOC, FIFA, IIAF, UCI levels... one day... one day ;)

[drake47]

Does the USGA even have a video review policy like all the other major sports? I couldn't find anything. Would they not have to have equal, usable video coverage for every shot taken from every player in the entire tournament, just to make using video review fair?

 

Every other sport has a policy of what can and cannot be reviewed and they have cameras set up just for that use, in equal and fair locations so there is no advantage. It is then reviewed on the spot, so the verdict is known before play restarts, and all competitors know where they stand.

 

I guess in the end, I don't see how they could have fairly used the video evidence at all in this situation. I really feel because of the logistical limitations in respect to video review being fair to every golfer in the tournament, maybe video should not be used in golf rules decisions.