Dustin Johnson wins U.S. Open amid controversy

[BC MIST]

There are at least two questions that have to be considered separately. First, did they get the ruling right? Second, did they handle the decision properly?
The ball moved. The putter was near it. There was no other obvious cause. On balance of probabilities, DJ caused it to move. Penalty. That's the easy part.
The first ruling proved nothing, because the official had no video and had to rely on DJ's profession of innocence. As soon as the officials saw the video, they knew a penalty was called for. They did not announce it immediately because they were hoping that DJ would call it on himself, either immediately by taking the hint when they told him they were considering it, or when he saw the video at the end of the round. That's why it hung in the air for so long. They had to do that to give him the chance to do the right thing.
In some alternate universe, DJ backed away from the ball, called a penalty on himself and went on to win. In that universe the penalty is not a distraction but a crucial and beautiful part of the legend.
There is no way to avoid the odd cock-up about rules in the era of hi-def cameras.

The voice of reason.

[jeffc]

There are at least two questions that have to be considered separately. First, did they get the ruling right? Second, did they handle the decision properly?
The ball moved. The putter was near it. There was no other obvious cause. On balance of probabilities, DJ caused it to move. Penalty. That's the easy part.
The first ruling proved nothing, because the official had no video and had to rely on DJ's profession of innocence. As soon as the officials saw the video, they knew a penalty was called for. They did not announce it immediately because they were hoping that DJ would call it on himself, either immediately by taking the hint when they told him they were considering it, or when he saw the video at the end of the round. That's why it hung in the air for so long. They had to do that to give him the chance to do the right thing.
In some alternate universe, DJ backed away from the ball, called a penalty on himself and went on to win. In that universe the penalty is not a distraction but a crucial and beautiful part of the legend.
There is no way to avoid the odd cock-up about rules in the era of hi-def cameras.

there was another reason that could have caused it to move. Gravity. Plain and simple. To deny that is ignoring the obvious. At best it was a guess by the rules officials.

Rule 18-2 applies to ALL situations where the player's ball moves, not just one very isolated incident in one particular PGA tournament. The application of the rules of golf is to GET IT RIGHT, unlike the rules of other sports, so the use of high tech in Tour events helps to achieve this. This ensures that no player is either advantaged or disadvantaged, a concept that many obviously do not understand, including those who write opinion pieces.

The ruling was correct. The procedure of informing the player in the DJ kind of situation needs to be improved. To say that golf is on the decline because the game has fair and consistently enforced rules is nonsense. Besides, how many golfers make up their own rules anyway?

Do they review every shot by every player? If not, then the idea of flawed.

This one incident is just one of many the perpetuates the idea that golf is too complicated and does nothing to grow the game. When you have tour pros, writers, and golf boards full of people condemning the actions of the USGA and the USGA themselves writing a half baked apology, then there is something definitely wrong.

[Rocket Man]

to those who agree with the ruling, what exactly did DJ do to cause the ball to move. That whole "timing" thing is circumstantial and not concrete evidence that DJ did anything to make the ball move when it otherwise wouldn't have. What did he do that was any different that what every tour pro does?

The USGA never came out and said what he did to cause the ball to move. After watching the replay over and over again, I don't see what DJ did to cause the ball to move, let alone backwards. Truth is, they have no idea what caused the ball to move but based on the circumstantial timing "evidence" that they see, they believe more likely than not that he caused it to move. But HOW?! What did he do?

Can you imagine if our justice system worked like that?! HAHAHAHA....sorry, we found you guilty of murder because you were walking by just as the crazy person was jumping off the bridge. So we feel more likely than not that you pushed him.

If DJ, the walking rules official and his fellow playing partner all agree that he didn't make the ball move and you do not have SOLID, CONCRETE evidence showing otherwise, then that should be the final decision. Because otherwise, you are questioning the integrity of the player and if you do that, you better be sure.

To casual players and outsiders, it looks ridiculous and is a serious black eye for the game.

[nolrac2]

Everyone agrees ...DJ got no advantage , identified the ball moved , was willing to replace if needed, ok with fellow competitor.. conclusion no penalty..everyone still playing with integrity and protecting each other. Silly rule as it is applied and the rules are not for the PGA tour they are for all golfers so if I was trying to get an advantage (as the penalty clearly suggests DJ did) then I am doing this all over the course when the no one is looking. Zero incentive to play by the rules when the rules penalize me for having integrity. Lowry should not have been penalized either...even if he did make the ball move (not in the act of making a stroke) as long as he reported it immediately and then replaced to the satisfaction of fellow competitor and officials..again if Lowry was trying to cheat he is doing this at other times in less conspicuous circumstances (not leading the US open) and certainly not telling anyone.

[BC MIST]

http://www.virtuallycertainmissy.com/

Instead of articles from those who know little about the game and less about the rules, here is one from someone who knows both.

[big easy]

Everyone agrees ...DJ got no advantage , identified the ball moved , was willing to replace if needed, ok with fellow competitor.. conclusion no penalty..everyone still playing with integrity and protecting each other. Silly rule as it is applied and the rules are not for the PGA tour they are for all golfers so if I was trying to get an advantage (as the penalty clearly suggests DJ did) then I am doing this all over the course when the no one is looking. Zero incentive to play by the rules when the rules penalize me for having integrity. Lowry should not have been penalized either...even if he did make the ball move (not in the act of making a stroke) as long as he reported it immediately and then replaced to the satisfaction of fellow competitor and officials..again if Lowry was trying to cheat he is doing this at other times in less conspicuous circumstances (not leading the US open) and certainly not telling anyone.

Totally agree. I know the rule doesn't take this into consideration but the ball had a barely noticeable rotation...backward! The rules are there for fairness and integrity but 1) he didn't improve his lie and 2) certainly didn't get closer to the hole! Remember on #6 on that day. He got a drop out of the rough but nonetheless, went over the TV tower. In addition, how many of us have crowd and stands we can hit into when we play golf to prevent us from getting in an even worst position

[R-22]

MY 2 bits on this one, Yes the USGA did not handle the Ruling very well at all. Let’s step back 50 Years, “NO HD-TV coverage” but basically the same RULE. I think Dustin would have called the Penalty on Himself and got on with the task at hand, i.e.: he saw the Ball MOVE. God forbid if he had Blinked. Today the players are always asking for a RULING, to improve their situation. The USGA is trying to change the RULES to accommodate the NEW Game of Golf. Golf is a Game of Integrity. So basically when Dustin asked for a Ruling, the USGA was put in the situation of deciding if “HE” had caused the ball to move. A blade of grass that decides to stand up, is MOST LIKELY to me & the Immediate USGA Official what actually happened, so “HE” didn’t cause the ball to move was decided. The USGA looking at the Video and running a stopwatch Decided that “HE” had caused the ball to move, There-by deciding Dustin You’re a CHEAT. Jack Nicholas spent MINUTES over putts; I bet if this had happened to Jack there would be no penalty! So let me think- Jack you have Integrity but Dustin You’re a CHEAT. The USGA must have read the Dictionary just before making this -RULING -to exercise dominating power or influence; predominate. -to exercise authority, dominion, or sovereignty. -to make a formal decision or ruling, as on a point at law. Concerning the Lag-Time of the Decision: if other players were close to him or even. How are they suppose to decide if they need to PRESS or just Par a hole. If they Press & take a Bogey, maybe lose by a stroke. Sit back on Par & maybe lose by a stroke. This again is only my 2 bits “ABSOLUTELY NO VIDEO JUDGMENT” in Golf. Baseball has Blind Umpires, Football has a Huge field to cover, and Hockey is too FAST so these Sports NEED VIDEO REPLAY. Golf is primarily a STATIC game, the on course rulings should be Final, right or wrong FINAL. I think the USGA couldn’t have been MORE WRONG with this decision.

[BC MIST]

MY 2 bits on this one, Yes the USGA did not handle the Ruling very well at all. Let’s step back 50 Years, “NO HD-TV coverage” but basically the same RULE. I think Dustin would have called the Penalty on Himself and got on with the task at hand, i.e.: he saw the Ball MOVE. God forbid if he had Blinked. Today the players are always asking for a RULING, to improve their situation. The USGA is trying to change the RULES to accommodate the NEW Game of Golf. Golf is a Game of Integrity. So basically when Dustin asked for a Ruling, the USGA was put in the situation of deciding if “HE” had caused the ball to move. A blade of grass that decides to stand up, is MOST LIKELY to me & the Immediate USGA Official what actually happened, so “HE” didn’t cause the ball to move was decided. The USGA looking at the Video and running a stopwatch Decided that “HE” had caused the ball to move, There-by deciding Dustin You’re a CHEAT. Jack Nicholas spent MINUTES over putts; I bet if this had happened to Jack there would be no penalty! So let me think- Jack you have Integrity but Dustin You’re a CHEAT. The USGA must have read the Dictionary just before making this -RULING -to exercise dominating power or influence; predominate. -to exercise authority, dominion, or sovereignty. -to make a formal decision or ruling, as on a point at law. Concerning the Lag-Time of the Decision: if other players were close to him or even. How are they suppose to decide if they need to PRESS or just Par a hole. If they Press & take a Bogey, maybe lose by a stroke. Sit back on Par & maybe lose by a stroke. This again is only my 2 bits “ABSOLUTELY NO VIDEO JUDGMENT” in Golf. Baseball has Blind Umpires, Football has a Huge field to cover, and Hockey is too FAST so these Sports NEED VIDEO REPLAY. Golf is primarily a STATIC game, the on course rulings should be Final, right or wrong FINAL. I think the USGA couldn’t have been MORE WRONG with this decision.

It seems that some still do not understand that, in golf, and to ensure fairness, it is essential to get all rulings right. Decision 34-3/9 describes the means the Committee has at its disposal to accomplish this and if it takes a video review to "get it right," then so be it. That some don't care that the final result is fair and just, is hard to comprehend.

[nolrac2]

It seems that some still do not understand that, in golf, and to ensure fairness, it is essential to get all rulings right. Decision 34-3/9 describes the means the Committee has at its disposal to accomplish this and if it takes a video review to "get it right," then so be it. That some don't care that the final result is fair and just, is hard to comprehend.

History tells us that making decisions according to "the rules" and with "all means at our disposal" does not equate with fairness and justice it just means you followed a rule....the measure of fairness and justice always should come down to the individual case (more difficult for sure) and when that occurs changes to rules , policies etc etc occur. They followed a rule ..good for them ....does anyone in the field think it was fair and just..I doubt it.

[sliceleft]

Applying the Rules equally to all competitors is, by definition, fair and just. There is no alternative.
There might be some confusion about whether the result was, in some cosmic sense, fair, like when a great approach shot bounces off the flagstick and into the water, or hits the stick while rolling fast and falls in. That kind of fairness is in play on every shot. The Rules are like the flagstick: usually, they don't figure into the play much, but sometimes they give you a great result, and sometimes a bad result (if not for the Rules, you would have to hit off paved cart paths without relief). But no one thinks the flagstick was "unfair", even while cursing and dropping a new ball -- maybe life is unfair but the flagstick was not. It was just telling you where to aim. The rare bounces off the Rules are no more fair or unfair than the bounces off the flagstick, and as long as the Rule itself makes sense, no more subject to being overridden by fairness.

[Big Johnny69]

I think the point that most of you "purists" are missing is that golf is supposed to be a game of integrity. That's how rulings were applied before slo-mo replays and HD cameras. Players were asked what happened and a ruling was made.

So if "everything at their disposal" is supposed to be used to protect the field, then don't ask the player what happened. Have cameras on every player/group, review every shot and then take a player aside at the end of their round before submitting/signing their card and tell them of any incurred penalties.

And if that is your reasoning for how golf should do things then don't tell me that hockey, football etc are different. All of these sports could easily review all plays and replay portions of the game after a break.

Or If HD reviews are here to stay as part of the game, ROs should have tablets with them to review things immediately. Don't ask the player what happened. A certain forum member has a signature that reads, and I'm paraphrasing "when applying the rules of golf, they should be read line by line, not between them". Review the incident, apply the rules as written, move on. Now if any of you rules gurus say its not that simple, then you are being hypocritical. You claim the rules are there to follow, plain and simple, then you can't claim discussion is needed. There is a penalty or there isn't, simple.

Golf is the only professional sport I know off where the outcome can be changed after the conclusion of play, and even so after an individual has proceeded, to what they would believe to be appropriately on course after a discussion with a RO. Probably the reason so many take issue with how golf handles things.

[sliceleft]

Golf is a game of integrity and the player is responsible for reporting his score. Integrity is not the same as infallibility; only the Pope's score cannot be questioned.
A golfer with integrity will take all the known information into account when putting in a score, and will be equally grateful to be told that he has incurred a penalty of which he was ignorant as to hear that he did not incur one that he thought he had. Would any of us honestly say that we would rather not be told of a penalty that we had incurred? (Yes, of course we would, but we are pretending to be paragons here) Imagine you won the club championship by a stroke and at dinner later, your buddy mentioned that you had moved something in a hazard without noticing; he didn't tell you at the time because he was rooting for you to win. Had you been asked by your opponent or an official at the time, you would have said with full integrity that you had not moved anything. How does the trophy feel now? What does your integrity require you to do? Compare that to Brett Hull who scored the Cup winning goal with his foot in the crease -- golf is different.
There was a case a few years back of a kid who won a state title, then went home and realized he had an extra club in his bag. He disqualified himself. Was he an idiot or a hero? At the 2010 PGA Championship, DJ and his caddy would have sworn on a bible that he did not ground his club in a hazard on the last hole; is Kaymer's title tarnished by the video evidence that he did?
Cameras et al are not a replacement for integrity. They can't be since they don't follow all players all the time. They are, though, sources of additional information that a player can -- must -- use to determine HIS OWN SCORE with integrity, no more or less than his caddy, his opponent, an official on the scene or a spectator shouting from behind the ropes. If we exclude cameras as information sources, do we exclude those other information sources also? If not, why not, given that the player has integrity? Integrity demands the best available facts.

[Big Johnny69]

And you said exactly what I wanted someone to say....cameras can't follow all the players around all the time.

So I ask you this, someone in an early group has the round of his life, and before the cameras catch up to him to watch him, the same situation happens to him that happened to DJ. Same discussion with RO, plays on without penalty. So because no cameras were following him early enough to thoroughly review the incident and properly assess a penalty as in DJ's case, this guy goes on to win the tourney by a stroke.

Now how is that protecting the field and making sure the rules committee "gets it right"? Some of the rules pundits are so quick to just jam "the rules are rules" down our throats. But sometimes all we are asking them to do is look at all sides of stories and situations.

And if I'm not mistaken, in 2010 DJ admitted to grounding his club and not reading the Local Rules sheet for that tournament that stated all sandy areas were considered bunkers.

[sliceleft]

Both players signed scores that reflected all the known information, with integrity. That is the best result possible. It sucked to be the guy on camera, who had more information available. But that's no different than if one player had been advised by a spectator or his caddy of an infraction and the other had not. That situation could have happened a century ago, with larger galleries following the later players -- it's not an entirely new problem.
Yes, it's unfair that one player gets penalized and one does not; that's not in dispute. The three possible responses are (a) maintain the rules and sympathize (b) be flexible with the application of the rules depending on the source of the information, making each one a judgment call ("should he have seen/known about this?") or (c) film everything from every angle and release the players from any responsibility for rules enforcement. None is perfect, but I would unquestioningly vote for (a).
As a totally off-topic comment, professional golfers are in the entertainment industry, and the reason they play is to get our eyeballs in front of TV sets to sell them to advertisers, in return for which the Tour gets rivers of money from, ultimately, us. Our interest is why cameras follow them and record every movement of the leaders. From the point of view of the purity of golf, the Tour made a deal with the devil: the ever-present cameras are a cost to earning the millions of dollars the golfers compete for. The Tour is in business, and what is important to the business is that they play and we watch. Who wins and loses is important only in how it affects viewership; it's not really that important to the Tour (although it is for the individual players). The Tour could take care of the problem by banning cameras, but they probably prefer the boost that an occasional controversy gives them.

[sliceleft]

I had a late thought -- suppose the early guy carries on, then later hears of the later guy's one-stroke penalty, sees the video and realizes he had done the same thing, and maybe that his rules official also remembers. He has to record a penalty -- if he has not already signed his card. Now who's the victim of the camera?

[jeffc]

Both players signed scores that reflected all the known information, with integrity. That is the best result possible. It sucked to be the guy on camera, who had more information available. But that's no different than if one player had been advised by a spectator or his caddy of an infraction and the other had not. That situation could have happened a century ago, with larger galleries following the later players -- it's not an entirely new problem.
Yes, it's unfair that one player gets penalized and one does not; that's not in dispute. The three possible responses are (a) maintain the rules and sympathize (b) be flexible with the application of the rules depending on the source of the information, making each one a judgment call ("should he have seen/known about this?") or (c) film everything from every angle and release the players from any responsibility for rules enforcement. None is perfect, but I would unquestioningly vote for (a).
As a totally off-topic comment, professional golfers are in the entertainment industry, and the reason they play is to get our eyeballs in front of TV sets to sell them to advertisers, in return for which the Tour gets rivers of money from, ultimately, us. Our interest is why cameras follow them and record every movement of the leaders. From the point of view of the purity of golf, the Tour made a deal with the devil: the ever-present cameras are a cost to earning the millions of dollars the golfers compete for. The Tour is in business, and what is important to the business is that they play and we watch. Who wins and loses is important only in how it affects viewership; it's not really that important to the Tour (although it is for the individual players). The Tour could take care of the problem by banning cameras, but they probably prefer the boost that an occasional controversy gives them.

yes the tour is business. And the USGA made a farce of this tournament. IMHO that was not good for business.

[Big Johnny69]

I get what you're saying and we could spin this many different ways. Maybe if I had played golf first instead of coming from a team sport first, I'd have a different view. My beef is that golf is the only sport where people with absolutely no vested interest can determine the outcome of the event.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the tour had cameras follow every player from the first tee shot on Thurs to the last putt on Sun. ROs with every group, always in contact with a type of HQ constantly reviewing play and some form of device to discuss with players any rulings, if required. Let the game police itself, as was originally intended. Some say this isn't possible, I say, why not?

[R-22]

I don't want to beat this thing to death, just a few thing still bother me. The USGA offers up an appology of sorts, for how it was handled. TKX that was nice. About the actual ruling, how many USGA Officials are involved in making the Rulling? One Guy, Three, 22 or was it an ONLINE POLL, maybe it's just arbitrary? Nothing was said other than WE. This is something I would like to know. I understand the Rules & the Ruling, not that I agree with this one but I would like to know the Protocol the USGA uses to make a RULING.