Opinion & Analysis
The most ridiculous element of the Dustin Johnson ruling isn’t the ruling
A scroll through the PGA Tour’s Twitter list of pros using the social media service during yesterday’s U.S. Open final round reveals a boiling over of rage and disbelief directed at the USGA from nearly all the big names in the sport, including the usually radio silent Tiger Woods. And while there are several avenues of furor to be traveled, there’s a main drag of absurdity that hasn’t yet been widely trafficked.
But first, the main points of ire, from the players’ perspective.
First: Players don’t seem to think Rule 18-2b was written with U.S. Open-fast Oakmont greens in mind. As Adam Hadwin tweeted, “If the usga wants to stimp greens at 15 on sloped greens, then they should expect ball to wobble without player influence.”
So there’s issue with the rule itself. Yes. Fine. Entirely justified.
This was nothing compared to the rage directed toward golf’s governing body regarding how DJ’s one-stroke penalty was assessed.
To recap: The lunacy began when Johnson invited a rules official to weigh in after his golf ball wobbled as he prepared to address a three-foot par putt at the fifth hole. The official walking with the group indicated the ball did not move due to the golfer’s agency, and thus he was free to replace it without penalty. When Johnson made it to the 12th tee, however, he was approached by another of the blue-blazer clan and told that the events on the fifth green would be reviewed after the round with the golfer.
For the viewers, the back-nine drama was compromised by the absurdity of the hovering rules situation — whether a penalty was to be assessed or not — and it superseded the drama of DJ notching his first major victory, which was a travesty. For Johnson, however, the final six holes of his his round were played in a fog.
A staunch defender of the golf’s governing goofs and the lords of integrity might say that not only was the ruling correct based on this passage from the USGA’s Decisions — a player’s ball lies on a flat portion of the putting green on a day with light winds. The player addresses the ball and the ball immediately moves. Under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that the act of addressing the ball caused the ball to move — but that Johnson ought to have assumed the worst after the 12th hole, expecting that he’d be assessed a penalty and playing accordingly, such a situation is patently absurd. And the players agreed.
What Johnson actually did, was the opposite.
“I felt like I wasn’t going to be penalized, so I just went about my business,” he said. “I just focused on the drive on 12 and from there on out, I knew it’s something we’d deal with when we got done. I’m glad it didn’t matter because that would have been bad. But, you know, it worked out.”
Lucky for DJ, but even luckier for the USGA, in everyone’s minds it seemed. What’s the operative assumption here? Johnson would have gained unfair advantage by testing the speed of the green with the one millimeter of roll? That he’s technically taken a stroke because it was “more likely than not” his agency caused the ball to roll.
All of this flies in the face of common sense. But even in a “Just doing my job, ma’am” situation, the insanity of an initial determination being overturned later is truly bonkers and it is the crux of the problem.
Imagine a parallel situation in any other sport. Something like this in the NFL (a league that certainly doesn’t corner the market on sanity): “We’re not sure if there was offensive pass interference on the second-quarter touchdown. We’re ruling a touchdown for now, but after the game, we’re going to talk to the wide receiver and show him the video. So, just so you guys know, you may or may not have scored in the second quarter. Now carry on for the rest of the game.”
Here’s the determination and the bitter pill to swallow. The USGA got it right, as per their own rules and standards. “As a committee, when we reviewed the tape, we said, given the timing of his actions, it was more likely than not that Dustin was the cause of the ball’s movement,” said Thomas Pagel, senior director of Rules for the USGA. “There’s doubt there, and we understand not everyone is going to agree with that. But the standard is not 100 percent. It’s more likely than not.”
So… Mark Newell, walking rules official with the Johnson-Westwood group got it wrong, which is the origin of the problem here: An initial determination, which substantially affects a tournament, is made and play continues under that assumption. Fine. Great. Good. This is what happens in sports.
However, Newell should have referred to the “more likely than not” standard, absurd as it is. We can argue about the rules as they are written and enforced an inherent issues there, yes, but the material problem at the 2016 U.S. Open was the fact that Newell made a ruling, everyone accepted it, and then seven holes later, that ruling was tossed out and replaced with a confused face emoji.
True, Newell is ultimately more of a consultant than an arbiter within the system as it is. But that situation and those limited power are problematic as well, as indication by, well, exactly what happened Sunday. Rage against the rules and the associated barriers to entry in a dwindling game. Rage against the USGA. Rage against Mike Davis. Rage against the sapping of Sunday drama and whatever else. However, I’ll say it again. The USGA got it right with respect to their rules and their standards. The walking rules official, Newell, got it wrong.
And to add to the absurdity: the officials who approached Johnson on the 12th tee couldn’t make a binding decision either! All they could do was offer a different perspective with that promise that things would be sorted after the round when DJ was afforded the opportunity to watch tape of the incident in question.
A singular, ludicrous situation in the world of sports.
A USGA rules official at a U.S. Open has to be invested with the power to make a binding decision, even if it’s a wrong one. Too many significant assumptions are made as the result of their consultation and a tournament can be too materially affected, as we say. Otherwise, s/he must offer the disclaimer that “I may/may not know what I’m talking about: proceed accordingly.”
Otherwise, players might as well just read their Rules of Golf and Decisions in the Rules of Golf and draw their own conclusions, knowing nothing is written in stone or engraved into the U.S. Open trophy until any post-round pow-wows are complete.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
g-train
Jul 6, 2016 at 1:44 pm
The USGA got it sooo wrong. Golf is supposed to be a game of integrity. By asking DJ if he caused the ball to move and him answering “No”, they have effectively called him a liar (technically that they disagree with him; and only their opinion counts). In making their ruling, they abandon such principles as “virtual certainty” which is used to handle rulings in situations where visual evidence isn’t available… which is the case with DJ… there is no visual evidence that shows him causing the ball to move. DJ says he didn’t cause the ball to move. Westwood says he didn’t cause the ball to move. The cameras didn’t show anything that indicates he caused the ball to move. Two things caused the ball to move… friction and gravity! less of some and more of the other. if all parties agree that DJ didn’t do anything to cause the ball to move, then you are virtually certain he did not cause the ball to move.
Larry
Jun 25, 2016 at 9:31 am
The officials/ruling presentation, was a distraction of a major concequence. It would get into anyone’s head for sure. Especially with a major at stake. Like others have stated, good thing that DJ was able to overcome it. I do know for sure, this has to be the best pressure training ever. It will only make DJ a better player, and will be a valuable experience, even though the ruling and how it was presented got into the game. Golf isn’t like football or hockey, where the officials decide to “stay out of the game and let em play”. They are compelled to keep the playing field absolutely even. That is golf. It is a shame when an official makes a mistake, and it always happens. But when it is for a world title or a major, the concequence can be disasterous. We are human. With that comes mistakes. Congrads to Justin. Great win, and a great display of your mental toughness.
BD57
Jun 23, 2016 at 1:57 pm
There were at least three instances of “ball moving” issues during the tournament, two on Sunday – and it’s not as if the tournament was played in high winds.
IMO, none of the players involved had anything to do with the ball moving and none of them should have been penalized. If a player had nudged the ball, or the ball’s motion was in response to some movement / motion of the player, it’d be pretty obvious. DJ’s especially wasn’t – he’d finished his practice strokes, was in the process of moving his putter behind the ball and it tumbled backward a smidge. What’s the theory – – – – the wind draft created by the outrageous speed of his putterhead caused the rotation? Garbage.
Want to know what’s going on? And then do something about it?
It’s the insane pursuit of green speed.
Oakmont opened for play over 100 years ago. They didn’t “triple cut” greens and then roll them to get ridiculous speeds.
Cut the grass down to nearly nothing, roll them to get them even closer to linoleum, set the pins on 3-4% slopes, get even a hint of breeze & see if any golf balls wander off on their own without any outside assistance. And that’s dealing with an Oakmont that was moist.
Here’s a thought.
If you want to double/triple cut the greens, roll them & get the stimp to 14-15, put the pins on 1 & 2 degree slopes;
OR
Acknowledge that the golf course was built at a time when such speeds weren’t even imagined, set the speeds at 12, play golf & let the winner shoot what he shoots.
Larry
Jun 25, 2016 at 9:31 am
That’s it. DJ is known for his great club head speed! Great theory! The officials/ruling presentation, was a distraction of a major concequence. It would get into anyone’s head for sure. Especially with a major at stake. Like others have stated, good thing that DJ was able to overcome it. I do know for sure, this has to be the best pressure training ever. It will only make DJ a better player, and will be a valuable experience, even though the ruling and how it was presented got into the game. Golf isn’t like football or hockey, where the officials decide to “stay out of the game and let em play”. They are compelled to keep the playing field absolutely even. That is golf. It is a shame when an official makes a mistake, and it always can happen. But when it is for a world title or a major, the concequence can be disasterous. We are human. With that comes mistakes. Congrads to Justin. Great win, and a great display of your mental toughness.
Justin
Jun 22, 2016 at 4:59 pm
If I hadn’t already seen your comments in other posts over the last few months, I’d think you were crazy. But because I’ve seen your comments before, I already KNOW you’re crazy!
“USGA got it right”…. going for the against the grain comment, huh? Good luck with that! I know you won’t need it though, because idiots don’t need luck. The only things idiots need is time to show how little they matter and we certainly have plenty of time for that.
If this was the response you were looking for I hope you are happy. Now stop being a little See You Next Tuesday and get a grip on life.
AllBOdoesisgolf
Jun 22, 2016 at 9:37 am
another politically correct run organization. They’ll never get another dime of my money for membership. Only donation they will receive from me is my entrance to the Open qualifying. Which I consider a donation because odds of me qualifying are slimmer than them slim cut mens pants.
pepperwhiteknight
Jun 22, 2016 at 6:55 am
The USGA pulled a stunt. The initial ruling was made on hole 5 with a rules official. They made a ruling after the round like they caught him doing something wrong. It doesn’t matter if he caused the ball the move or not, the ruling cannot be dragged out for 15 holes. I actually was upset/annoyed because they were dragging the drama out and showing it over and over and over and over. Referees trying to make themselves a factor in the game. That approach shot on 18 was awesome!
Tom Morris
Jun 21, 2016 at 4:30 pm
The USGA has become a political dumbnuts organization …. the rules of golf as written in 1744 are all we need:
1. You must Tee your Ball within a Club’s length of the Hole.
2. Your Tee must be upon the Ground.
3. You are not to change the Ball which you Strike off the Tee.
4. You are not to remove Stones, Bones or any Break Club, for the sake of playing your Ball, Except upon the fair Green and that only / within a Club’s length of your Ball.
5. If your Ball comes among watter, or any wattery filth, you are at liberty to take out your Ball & bringing it behind the hazard and Teeing it, you may play it with any Club and allow your Adversary a Stroke for so getting out your Ball.
6. If your Balls be found any where touching one another, You are to lift the first Ball, till you play the last.
7. At Holling, you are to play your Ball honestly for the Hole, and not to play upon your Adversary’s Ball, not lying in your way to the Hole.
8. If you should lose your Ball, by it’s being taken up, or any other way, you are to go back to the Spot, where you struck last, & drop another Ball, And allow your adversary a Stroke for the misfortune.
9. No man at Holling his Ball, is to be allowed, to mark his way to the Hole with his Club, or anything else.
10. If a Ball be stopp’d by any Person, Horse, Dog or anything else, The Ball so stop’d must be play’d where it lyes.
11. If you draw your Club in Order to Strike, & proceed so far in the Stroke as to be e Accounted a Stroke.
12. He whose Ball lyes farthest from the Hole is obliged to play first.
13. Neither Trench, Ditch or Dyke, made for the preservation of the Links, nor the Scholar’s Holes, or the Soldier’s Lines, Shall be accounted a Hazard; But the Ball is to be taken out teed /and play’d with any Iron Club.
cjhl79
Jun 21, 2016 at 3:37 pm
The most ridiculous the incredibly telling element of this debacle is the fact that this is all there really is to talk about after one of the most prestigious tournaments in the sport. And it was a very similar storyline after the Masters.
You know a sport is in serious trouble when the only thing being talked about after a major is an untimely ruling and the winning golfer’s wife’s short skirt.
Snoopy
Jun 21, 2016 at 1:47 pm
Just wanna throw my points in:
1) As stated by others, I’m in the camp that based on the actions and the timing, DJ couldn’t have caused the ball to move. In addition to wind and green speeds, I’ll throw in that the golf ball is an irregular shape, and so it tends to move in irregular ways.
2) The rule as written obviously needs a tune up. It’s a huge pet peeve of mine in sports that certain rules still come down to a judgement. It’s clear the ball moved. It’s either a penalty for everyone, or a penalty for no one.
3) For me, the ball didn’t really “move”. It changed its orientation, which obviously involves movement, but the putt before and after the move was negligibly affected. Play on.
4) This is my biggest thing here… the purpose of the rules of golf are to ensure that everyone is playing an equal and fair game. To me, this whole situation goes against the spirit and purpose of the rules. I’m always amazed that something can be so obviously wrong, and most people can agree on it, but then a certain decision is reached because “rules are rules”. By the rules and procedures, sure, the USGA did what they were supposed to. But that doesn’t make it right, and for me that’s not an excuse to do something totally absurd and backwards. It’s clear there is an issue with the rule, but instead of FIXING it for the future, they said “Sorry, GOTCHA!”.
5) No matter what they say, I’m sure the USGA is THRILLED that this whole situation happened. I’ve heard the letters USGA more times this weekend than I have in my life. I never cared about who or what the USGA was, but I guess I have to now. A case of, “Look at me! Referee!”
Dennis clark
Jun 21, 2016 at 11:07 am
We may need to consider a revision to the rule: unless the putter contacts the golf ball there’s no penalty if the ball moves. Or perhaps if the ball moves BACKWARD no penalty at all. Who wants a longer putt?
Shank
Jun 21, 2016 at 10:10 am
The cameras should only be used to watch the players play golf, not to make rulings! If they want to use video to make decisions then every player needs to have a camera watching every shot.
Rich
Jun 21, 2016 at 9:46 am
Writer, get your facts straight. The ruling made by the referee walking with the group was to play it as is. He did not replace the ball as he did not cause it to move. If he had caused it to move, he would have had to replace it. In effect, DJ could have been assessed a 2 stroke penalty because he did not replace the ball, even thought later they decided it was likely he moved it. Thank god they didn’t go down that road. And for the official on the course getting it wrong? Rubbish. He made the right decision and it should have been left at that. The USGA are a joke.
James G
Jun 21, 2016 at 9:18 am
Seems to me the current USGA powers have lost sight of the spirit of the game. They have become rules Pharisees where they look for violations of the rules and want to place penalties on players. Common sense application of the rules has been overcome by rules zealots who are intent on finding violations. The USGA screwed this up royally.
KJ
Jun 21, 2016 at 8:40 am
“Stuck up weany”? Why? Do you know him? Please fill us in. Not a “MAN”? He sure played like one.
KJ
Jun 21, 2016 at 8:19 am
I see most on this site get it. We have a few irrational DJ haters that appear biased but that’s okay. I’m indifferent. But I’ll provide a little insight. I’ve worked as a golf professional for years and hosted dozens of PGA Tour events. The PGA Tour is run very well and the rules officials are truly professional. The USGA rules guys are in full CYA mode. The excuse of the 7 holes needed to make a decision because of logistics is absolute nonsense. The have communication equipment and access to golf cars. Was there something going on that was more pressing than a ruling involving one of the leaders? Of course not. It would have been handled immediately by the PGA Tour officials. The USGA is truly an amateur organization compared to the PGA Tour. The USGA can tell themselves and the public they are comfortable that they made the correct ruling all day. That’s debatable. They cannot hide the fact that they have made a mockery of our national championship.
JTW
Jun 21, 2016 at 3:15 pm
Agreed, the USGA is a joke. They have no control over the direction of the game as far as equipment goes. They have no idea how to officiate a golf tournament apparently. They have no idea of the history of their own event as judged by the courses they have picked for their tournament. (Oakmount and Merion not withstanding) Now we get another links course next year in Erin Hills. When did the USGA
decide to be the Open Championship. Mike Davis is a failure of epic proportions in his position. These guys are supposed to be the guardians of golf and are so confused it takes them an hour and a half to take a golf cart somewhere so they can look at video. They should be thanking there lucky stars DJ didn’t have one of his normal melt downs and have this awful ruling actually effect the outcome of what used to be the Major Tournament all american golfers wanted to win the most. Would this crap happen at Augusta or the PGA championship. Hell no. Please people quit sending these idiots money for membership it is the only thing they care about.
Robert
Jun 20, 2016 at 11:29 pm
Hahah, man. Everyday you guys become more of a tool than you were yesterday. If there were no video evidence to review, I would understand that the “more likely than not” rule would go into effect and he would be penalized. With that being said, you have CLEAR EVIDENCE that he in no way touched his ball, he in no way grounded his club behind the ball not to mention, if you look closely, you can see somewhat of the balls reflection in his club and it’s CLEAR the ball rolled BACKWARDS. What the f$&@ is wrong with you guys?
colinroberts
Jun 20, 2016 at 10:27 pm
The rule itself needs to be scrapped. What purpose does it serve? the game is almost entirely self-regulated so therfore the players must be entrusted to abide by the rules, period, end of story. If a ball moves on the green for any reason. the rule should be that it gets placed back in position. Someone needs to tell me why the that would not work. This is not the NFL.
KJ
Jun 21, 2016 at 8:27 am
I agree 100%. I hope that’s the direction this will go.
Nocklaus
Jun 20, 2016 at 9:59 pm
A ruling made on the course must stand. What if it was matchplay…?
KJ
Jun 21, 2016 at 8:23 am
Great point.
krsgolf
Jun 20, 2016 at 8:56 pm
I wonder when changing this rule if the USGA conducted countless hours of studies softly setting putters alongside a ball on greens. If you conducted a test 10,000 times softly setting a putter down alongside a ball I would guess that the vast majority of the time it wouldn’t move unless you tapped the ground aggressively or touched the ball. Even greens with these speeds. Unless your results concluded that more than 50% of the time the ball moved from these motions how could you create a rule which says if in doubt it is likely the player caused the movement? I have never putted on greens rolling 14 or 15 but I have on 12’s and I can say that while I have seen balls move after setting them down and removing my marker, or oscillating because of the wind, a blade of loose grass or even the tiniest grain of sand, I have never in my golfing career seen a ball move because I or anyone else set a putter alongside it unless it was physically touched. The rule needs to be changed.
And I have a significant issue using television coverage to go back after the fact and overturn the ruling of an on course official. I believe that each and every one of these players, regardless of their personal transgressions, do everything possible to uphold the honesty and integrity of the game. The fact that video coverage can be used against those that are lucky or unlucky enough to be in a covered group should be an outrage to all PGA players. If you can’t use video playback to review every player in the field you shouldn’t use it at all. Use of it is not in the spirit of the game. Shame on the USGA this weekend.
KJ
Jun 21, 2016 at 8:24 am
Another great observation.
Tom
Jun 20, 2016 at 8:37 pm
Bad rule made worse by the green speed. At least unlike the British Open last year they did not have to stop play due to wind. Green speeds are simply ridiculous now they should never be so fast a ball can not be easily marked and replaced, so fast wind can cause suspension of play, etc.
I could not help thinking as I watched the US Open it’s not the same game the rest of us play and that had nothing to do with how far the drives went etc…
Andrew
Jun 20, 2016 at 8:24 pm
Truly great win for Dustin – so well deserved. With all the distractions going on he played like a true champ. His second into 18 was IMHO one of the best shots ever (especially after having to back away first time around!) A true testament to perseverance under the greatest pressures in championship golf. And I’m a European; I know……
emerson boozer
Jun 20, 2016 at 7:23 pm
Wait that was actually a technical foul. Golden State gets two free throws and the ball.
Sorry, Cleveland.
USGA, great way to ruin a great event with that cloud hanging over DJ. I’m not a fan but I am now and this is why people get fed up with golf.
Matto
Jun 20, 2016 at 5:36 pm
But who was the other player that got away with it earlier, his name slips my mind? They were fine with him not having moved his ball, and he actually grounded his club behind the ball!!
Conversely, imagine they DIDN’T tell DJ on the 12th and he finishes 18 tied. Or worse yet, 1 up? Throws his hands in the air in victory, only to be tapped on the shoulder during the crowd’s roar, “Er, excuse me DJ, hold that thought & come with us to watch a video.”
The immediate ruling, right or wrong, should ALWAYS stand.
Forsbrand
Jun 20, 2016 at 5:31 pm
Can we replay the final round perhaps 🙂
Justin
Jun 22, 2016 at 5:00 pm
Shane… is that you?? haha
KJ
Jun 20, 2016 at 3:43 pm
I think we can all agree that the USGA blew it. It wasn’t handled well and leaves the organization with a black eye. Furthermore, it hurts participation in the game by the confusion between players and officials as to what the rules are. So many are intimidated to even take up the game and then the USGA adds these nonsensical rules to it. This is terrible PR.
On top of that, the best players in the world chime in supporting their fellow-competitor. The USGA looked completely foolish and rightfully unsupported. They went out of their way to penalize DJ who, in my opinion, handled it fairly well. Correction. Extraordinarily well, as exemplified by his birdie on 18.
I don’t know or care why some people on this site have it in for DJ, but I don’t know how he could have handled it better. He and Westwood truly believe he didn’t cause the ball to move. The USGA did, in effect, call them both (for lack of a better word) liars.
The attacks on the USGA could very well snowball from here as it’ll be open season on them. Hopefully, the game will be stronger for it in the long run. Unfortunately, the USGA’s reputation has been dealt a severe blow from which it may never fully recover.
Sadly, it’s back to video games for our youth as they witness this fiasco.
CL
Jun 20, 2016 at 3:29 pm
The decision is one thing but the timing is by far the dumbest thing in this situation.
can someone explain to me why it took so long for the USGA to decide on a review? It took them 6 holes to figure out “hey lets watch the tapes and decide it might help” @15mins a hole that’s an hour and a half. What were they doing?!?
Christen_the_sloop
Jun 20, 2016 at 7:20 pm
Playing the rusty trombone.
Scooter
Jun 20, 2016 at 10:36 pm
Peter Kostis walks the course and diagnoses players swings in real time using a small portable monitor. The USGA’s excuse for taking so long was that it was crowded and it took awhile to get back to the tape room. The walking rules officials ruling doesn’t count? The USGA seems to be dorked-up on so many things … sigh.
KJ
Jun 20, 2016 at 2:58 pm
Oops. “no right to know”. Sorry.
Johny Thunder
Jun 20, 2016 at 2:30 pm
A better question for the USGA is this: if the “weight of evidence” caused them to penalize Dustin, how can they explain that EVERY SINGLE TV Commentator and EVERY SINGLE Tour Pro watching (as far as I’ve heard) does NOT believe Dustin caused the ball to move and has said as much. Assuming the USGA doesn’t have additional footage, it seems abundantly clear to everyone else in the world that nothing Dustin did could have caused the ball to move in the way, in the direction and at the time it moved.
Moreover, the idea that a ball rotating 1/4 turn on the green incurs the same penalty as chunking a ball into the middle of a water hazard seems inequitable.
Dustin composed himself extremely well both during and after the round in the face of this ludicrous action. The USGA and in general tournament officials need to improve their process so this never happens again. It almost ruined the entire back 9 of what’s supposed to be the more important U.S. major (though everyone knows it’s the Masters).
Iutodd
Jun 20, 2016 at 1:26 pm
Forget about everything else other than this:
The USGA called DJ and Westwood liars! And broke their own rule.
The rule states that it must be known or virtually certain that an outside agent caused the ball to move. DJ and Westwood were both virtually certain that the ball moved because of the wind/green speed/etc and not because of DJ touching or hitting the ball. The walking referee agreed because he had no instant replay. And, as, Dana stated above – rule 34-3 in very plain language gives the walking referee final authority on ruling matters.
Golf is a sport that teaches honor and honesty. It teaches us to accept our faults and penalties and ask for help when we need it. DJ knew what happened but still did the right thing by asking his playing partner and the walking referee for confirmation. Everyone agreed and that should have been that.
The fact that they went back and reviewed it and gave him a penalty calls into question DJ’s and Westwood’s integrity – which is disgusting. Both are longtime pros and winners. And now DJ is representing the USGA as the winner of their highest honor. And they called him a liar. And apparently the USGA can break their own rules if they have TV coverage – so it also calls into question the integrity of the entire rulebook!
DJ was very classy about the whole thing of course – the USGA owes DJ a public apology for impugning his integrity as a professional.
4pillars
Jun 20, 2016 at 1:55 pm
“The fact that they went back and reviewed it and gave him a penalty calls into question DJ’s and Westwood’s integrity – which is disgusting”
Didn’t DJ deny he had a drug problem?
Where is his integrity there
KJ
Jun 20, 2016 at 2:33 pm
That’s his personal life which we have know right to know. Nice try. Stick to the issue.
Donald Quiote
Jun 20, 2016 at 3:07 pm
His personal life is his personal life. Lots of people have made bad choices but in todays world everything is out there to the masses. The ruling against DJ comes across as a shot to all players. They now have been told that what they say doesn’t really matter. The USGA doesn’t care that so many players have spoken up saying that the greens were crazy and very easily could have caused that ball to move. The rule should read that the player must be able to prove that they did not cause the ball to move because that is how the USGA enforced it. This rule is vague and poorly written and the USGA decided to flex its muscle in a very poor manner. The whole situation was handled very poorly by the USGA. It is ridiculous to bring up DJ personal life in this matter though and compare that to his on course actions.
ooffa
Jun 20, 2016 at 1:25 pm
If it was Tiger they would have let him take a few practice putts with no penalty.
Andy B
Jun 20, 2016 at 1:07 pm
I think everyone posting here is looking at the wrong piece of this situation. The piece here that stinks to high hell is the fact that they let him play the last 6 holes with the uncertainty of being a stroke down. Why even approach him at 12 if you weren’t sure (which clearly they were sure they’d assess the stroke). The USGA is the governing body and should be making a ruling regardless of “well we wanted Dustin to see it”. Who cares if he sees it?! You’re going to rule how you’re going to rule. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this LOOKED (may not have been) like an ugly ploy to get into Dustin’s head. The crime in all of this imo is informing him at 12 and letting him play through 6 holes with uncertainty. If you’re just addressing the rule itself I think you miss the truly criminal part of this whole thing. However, looking at just the rule I would say that Dustin never addressed the ball…..and other pros seem to agree.
Donald Quiote
Jun 20, 2016 at 3:00 pm
Completely agree. I can’t imagine how much that would rock me and we all know that DJ hasn’t had the best head game in the past. I personally don’t think he caused the ball to move but they should have just told DJ they decided it was a penalty and moved on. Did they think DJ was going to come into the clubhouse and watch the video and say oh yea I did actually touch the ball or cause it to move. He didn’t think he caused it to move. The outcry from all the other players on twitter really showed what they thought also. The biggest names in golf had DJ back saying it was ridiculous to try and pin that ball movement on DJ. Still the biggest problem is the USGA no having the cajones to just tell DJ they were assessing him a penalty.
Murph
Jun 20, 2016 at 1:06 pm
The real issue is that many people seem to ignore is that the USGA guy on TV had pretty much concluded that it was a penalty. At that point, he should have just made a decision and issued the penalty. I am in the camp that thinks its absurd that DJ caused that ball to move and I have yet to see any evidence that supports the theory that he did. The whole thing makes DJ out to be a cheater and a liar by claiming that he caused the ball to move and he says that he didn’t. I think the spirit of the rule is to prevent people from gaining an unfair advantage by “accidentally” testing green speeds but a fraction of a revolution is hardly testing anything. The USGA, on their biggest stage, looked like a bunch of stooges and they tried to make DJ the scapegoat.
Dunn2500
Jun 20, 2016 at 12:52 pm
It was bs call…….greens are stupid fast and ball moves all the time…the ball wouldnt even sTay on half the greens……grass is a living thing it is changing constantly, very well could have been on a little mound and being as fast as they were it just settled into a flatter area…….the way they handled it was unprofessional……they are lucky it wasnt a factor, if Johnson lost by a stroke because of that they would be in serious s$&% storm today…..I believe speed and grass were more of an issue than DJ…….one thing I hate about golf is all the little petty rules and uptight governing people who run it……..in a declining game not good
Dana Upshaw
Jun 20, 2016 at 12:48 pm
“A USGA rules official at a U.S. Open has to be invested with the power to make a binding decision, even if it’s a wrong one.”
They are under 34-2. Referee’s Decision – If a referee has been appointed by the Committee, his decision is final.
IMO, the USGA broke Rule 34-3 Committee’s Decision – In the absence of a referee, any dispute or doubtful point on the Rules must be referred to the Committee, whose decision is final.
Atlantagolf
Jun 20, 2016 at 3:54 pm
Totally agree Dana. They put a referee with each group and his decision should have been final! The guy (referee) must have had some qualifications to be put in that position (he obviously was not there to be eye candy).
Cr
Jun 20, 2016 at 7:13 pm
Exactly
Bert
Jun 20, 2016 at 8:17 pm
Perfect Dana
Chuck
Jun 20, 2016 at 12:40 pm
Oh, Ben you have got this all so perfectly wrong.
First, a point of agreement (which I hope you hate). I agree that green speeds have gotten excessive. And they are the central, original problem. Actually, they aren’t the original problem. I like fast greens. By “fast,” I mean the 9.5 to 10.5 of Oakmont in the past. But when greens get too fast, we see this thing happen. Balls blowing around in the wind. Like at The Old Course just a year ago. And Augusta about five years ago.
And the fault there is that golf balls haven’t been properly regulated. Ultrafast greens are a bad way to protect scoring against balls that go too far, especially off the tee. So let’s get that part squared away, ASAP. Roll back the golf balls, and support the USGA when Acushnet sues the USGA.
Next; your completely inappropriate comparison of golf to other sports. Golf doesn’t have referees; at least not in the sense that other sports have them. The official on Five green with DJ didn’t see what happened. He relied on what DJ told him. But tv showed what happened. And the USGA cannot ignore video evidence. This is qualitatively not like baseball or football and as far as I am concerned, anybody who gets into this argument with a line about how, “Can you imagine this happening in a basketball/football/baseball game?” has lost it from the outset.
I expect to be flamed for this; for simply agreeing with a ruling that the USGA made after consideration, after reviewing video evidence, after hearing from DJ, and after consideration. Yawn.
The absolute easiest thing for the USGA to do would have been to forget about it and let it go. The fact that they didn’t (and the fact that they have all spent more hours in training, testing and officiating than you or I will in our lifetimes) tells me how totally convinced they are, of the rightness of the ruling.
fred
Jun 20, 2016 at 1:14 pm
Dinosaurs like the USGA and Chuck are on their way out. Yay!!!
Chuck
Jun 20, 2016 at 1:26 pm
I want to say, that my comment was mostly aimed at the freds of the golfing world, and not the Ben Alberstadts.
Let’s give Ben Credit (along with Geoff Shackelford) for citing the relevant USGA Example from the Decisions on the new 18-2, and for correctly identifying the nature of the decision. I actually regret being so hard on Ben, as I expect there is more agreement between me and Ben, than between people like fred and Ben.
Get your own game, fred. You don’t have to get a handicap, enter a state Am, or play by anyone’s rules.
You don’t even have to play with conforming equipment! You should just buy some Bandit balls and let rip! Chicks dig the long ball.
Jimmy D
Jun 20, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Regarding the USGA’s Decisions, the example Ben refers to is from “situations where the weight of the evidence would indicate that the player caused the ball to move” does NOT apply since DJ did NOT address the ball (USGA’s defn of address = Grounding the club immediately behind or in front of ball), and was any part of those greens flat?
If you read the entire section of the USGA’s decisions on this matter you will find a more relevant example of “situations where the weight of the evidence would indicate that the player did NOT cause the movement are: A player’s ball lies on an upslope in a closely-mown area. He makes a practice swing, but does so some distance from the ball as he is concerned that the ball may move. He carefully takes his stance but does not ground his club. Prior to making his backswing for the stroke, the ball moves. As the ball did not move while the player made the practice swing or took his stance, it is more likely than not that other factors (i.e., the ball’s lie on an upslope) caused the ball to move. (New)”
Maybe the rules officials should have read the entire section…
Philip
Jun 20, 2016 at 2:56 pm
What video evidence are you referring to? Did you see him ground his putter behind or in front of the ball before his practice stroke beside the ball? From the video I saw he did not appear to touch the ball causing it to move backwards when he placed his club behind the ball. Since he moved his club sideways I would have expected the ball to spin, not just roll back if he actually touched it.
Ronald Montesano
Jun 20, 2016 at 5:17 pm
This is the element that my good colleague Ben’s thesis ignores: backward roll. There is no way that DJ could make the ball roll backward UNLESS he depressed the ground behind the ball, creating a void that would force the ball to move toward the void. Since he so clearly hovered the putter, he could not have been the agency (love that word) that caused the ball to move. Thanks for picking up on it, Philip.
Chuck
Jun 20, 2016 at 11:41 pm
Ron, which way did Shane Lowry’s ball roll; that is, when Shane called a penalty on himself, no rule official needed… ?
I don’t think Shane Lowry’s putter touched or tapped the ball. I think he addressed the ball and it moved. My impression was that Shane’s ball rolled a fraction backward, much like Johnson’s.
Perhaps you know better.
Justin
Jun 22, 2016 at 5:18 pm
“I think he addressed the ball” – you’ve answered your own question. DJ never addressed the ball because he never grounded his club behind it
larrybud
Jun 20, 2016 at 3:23 pm
The part you’re missing is that for the USGA not to make the call one way or another after reviewing it is nonsense. It took 7 holes to review? lol, ok, let’s even say that’s true (what’s that, like 2 hours?) Once the USGA reviews it, they MUST make the decision then and there for ALL players, not just DJ. Why should it take yet another 6 holes and the end of play to make a decision? What does it matter if they show DJ the video or not?
But you’re right, golf isn’t like the other sports. Today, people are laughing at golf after one of their biggest events.
Paul Lafleur
Jun 20, 2016 at 12:36 pm
I disagree with the claim that the USGA did get it right. There was zero direct evidence that DJ caused the ball to move. There was only circumstantial. What do we know? We know the ball did not move during the practice movements nor the groundings. Those are over-the ball is still. We also see nothing to suggest contact between the putter and the ball. We then see the ball rock back and down. This suggests movement from a high to low place. Grass is an uneven surface, even those cut as low as US open greens. The USGA is using assumptions here. The more reasonable assumption is that the ball was going to find that area of rest no matter what. It just happened to do so with the putter behind the ball. None of this comes close to more likely than not.
Croonie15
Jun 20, 2016 at 12:34 pm
Absolutely ludicrous. In a situation like that it is down to the players and the walking rules official to determine the situation. This is why they are there in the first place. In over 20 years of playing, US Amateurs, European Challenge tour, Mini Tours etc. I have never seen or incurred myself a practice stroke on the inside part of the ball, grounding, no grounding, cause a golf ball to move from its static position. The USGA had nothing better to do in this situation. Ironically enough none of them were present and the original ruling should have stayed. It’s embarrassing and having played in several USGA Championships I’m absolutely disgusted with how the situation was handled.
Logical
Jun 20, 2016 at 12:30 pm
I don’t agree with the ruling itself, regardless of the vague wording of “more likely than not”. I’m a degreed mechanical engineer. I’ve watched the video multiple times, and no matter how many times I watch, the ball DOES NOT move in direct response to him soling the club next to the ball, nor does it move in response to the club sitting in the air behind the ball. On greens of 14, if he caused it to move, it would have moved instantly with whatever motion they claim were causing it to move. It actually moves between his two actions, independent of anything he’s doing. It is “more likely than not” the incredibly dry and fast green speeds were more likely the culprit causing the ball to move as some grass or dirt shifted underneath. Anyone that has played golf with regular green speeds has had trouble getting the ball to stay still when replacing it on a side hill to putt. Now amp them up to 13/14 and try to get it to stay…it has to be really hard. More likely than not, the USGA messed it up again, alienating more folks from the game.
Dale Doback
Jun 20, 2016 at 12:49 pm
Agreed. If it cannot be 100% determined that DJ moved the ball than they should take the players word if they caused it to move or not. I understand that is not how the rule is written and that’s the problem. If there is doubt it should be left to the player. The bigger problem I have is that a ruling was made and then overturned after the round. They must be able to have rules that allow rulings on the spot so everyone knows their standings. A ruling was made right or wrong on the 5th green, Westwood agreed with it as did the official thinking that more likely than not DJ did not cause the ball to move. Then you get a committee that has a different feeling of “more likely than not” and decides to try and effect the outcome of the tournament. Rules need to be changed.
Jimmy D
Jun 20, 2016 at 12:28 pm
With all due respect, your conclusion is Incorrect. Rule 18-2.b was REMOVED in 2016, and the purpose was to prevent an automatic penalty if the ball moves after it was addressed (club grounded behind the ball). Under the old rule 18-2.b, if you addressed the ball and it subsequently moved you were deemed to have caused the movement even if it looked like a gust of wind or a spike mark collapsing actually caused it (i.e., Wattel would have been penalized regardless of what actually caused the ball to move). I am assuming that the decisions you reference apply to this old rule; regardless, we are not talking about a flat portion of the green, and DJ did NOT yet address the ball, so the decision does not apply (you can actually see the reflection of the ball as he hovered his club behind it).
With the removal of rule 18-2.b the penalty is not automatic and they are supposed to determine whether the player actually caused the ball to move. Most observers seem to concur that nothing in the video shows that DJ’s actions caused the ball to move, and he should not have received a penalty. (Now the drop from the TIO is another matter completely!)
pgadt
Jun 20, 2016 at 12:45 pm
USGA got it wrong. Why rewrite the rule if the same criteria apply? How can you prove a negative……DJ did not cause it to move? The rules are riddled with these situations that require some eggheads’ “interpretation” of what HE thinks the rule is. “Weight of evidence?” The only evidence they had was: the ball moved. If they wanted to penalize DJ, they should have done it immediately, informed him and let the tournament continue. Why “let him review” the tape with us after the round, when it’s your decision, not his. The USGA is run by a bunch of amateurs.
FredTheBishop
Jun 24, 2016 at 12:23 pm
No, actually most of them are lawyers. Now you understand why a phrase like “weight of evidence” might appear in the Rules (actually the Decisions)?