USGA statement

ForeRight

USGA Statement Regarding Dustin Johnson Ruling


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.

ForeRight

It's still as clear as mud....

We don't know if he caused the ball to move but let's work off the assumption he probably did even though the player says he didn't...

My god they are having an absolute stinker here even in hindsight.

Just come out and admit they made a serious blunder and they will learn from it for the future. They would salvage a small it of respect at least then.

blue note

If they're saying he said he didn't cause it to move but he actually did is it not a lot more serious than giving him a one shot penalty? As in attempted cheating?

I'm not trying to get a playoff for Shane now! I'd say they'd seriously glad Dustin won comfortably anyway.

Senecio

Let's be clear. There is absolutely no evidence to allege cheating. Dustin said he didn't believe that he caused it to move which was supported by his playing partner and advice on how to proceed was given by the rules official that was with the group. At a later time another rules official reviewed video footage and other evidence and made a call that they believed that Dustin's action may have caused the ball to move. In consultation with Dustin after the round it was decided to assess him a one shot penalty.

Hoof Hearted2

What a crock of sh1te, and a bunch of the clowns the USGA are, if as they (the USGA) hold the belief that the player caused the ball to move, then Justin is DQ'ed, as per rule 18-2, if the player caused the ball to move other than making a stroke then it's a 1 shot penalty and the ball must be replaced, if the ball isn't replaced (as was the case on the 5th green at Oakmount) then the players incurs a 2 shot penalty.

How they arrived at this ridiculous decision is beyond belief, and it beggars belief that the majority of these rules officials are well educated and highly intelligent people but my gawd, there is not an ounce of cop on between them.

Cant wait for the Open in July and home of golf where this kind of PC, not so media savy shambolic behavior could never happen.

JIdontknow

Crazy to think they are the head of USGA, and issue that statement as a previously poster said, clear as mud. They penalised a player on "more likely than not" and " our Committee made a careful and collective judgment ".... I think personally the 1 shot penalty was somewhat of an effort to save face for the USGA, With Dustin going along the lines of yeah whatever it doesn't matter I won anyway by a few shots. Any other stronger player may have kicked up. The good thing about this happening is they may decide on in play reviews etc, can you imagine the uproar if say DJ finished a shot ahead or worse in a tie with others, would their decision have been the same? Great composure from DJ to finish like he did, considering his recent short fallings in the US Open and this looming over him.

the lawman

I think the statement is fine. They have apologised for how they dealt with the ruling but they are comfortable they made the correct choice. They have commented that they will look at how they handle these matters in the future.

It can definitely be argued that he made the ball move by placing the putter beside the ball. I can't see why the issue can't be closed and everyone moves on. DJ himself seems happy enough to do so.

Johnny_Fontane

the lawman wrote: »

It can definitely be argued that he made the ball move by placing the putter beside the ball. I can't see why the issue can't be closed and everyone moves on. DJ himself seems happy enough to do so.

If that is the case, surely now, the whole addressing the ball (and ball moves) is out the window? Basically if a ball moves on a green and you are anywhere near it, you're at fault.

the lawman

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

If that is the case, surely now, the whole addressing the ball (and ball moves) is out the window? Basically if a ball moves on a green and you are anywhere near it, you're at fault.

Not necessarily. My understanding was they took all the evidence in as they made their decision (stimp, undulations, weather etc). There was no wind and the ball had been placed so really it should not have just moved. They have said it isn't a fact that he moved it but based on the evidence it is more likely that he did.

While I accept the greens are seriously fast etc I would agree with the ruling. Not the way they handled it of course but the ruling itself.

gman127

The stupid rule was at fault really.

Solution: If a ball at rest on a green, after being marked and replaced be a player, then moves/oscillates through any action other than a stroke from the player it is replaced and played from it's original position without penalty.

There, done. No advantage gained or lost.

Russman

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

What a crock of sh1te, and a bunch of the clowns the USGA are, if as they (the USGA) hold the belief that the player caused the ball to move, then Justin is DQ'ed, as per rule 18-2, if the player caused the ball to move other than making a stroke then it's a 1 shot penalty and the ball must be replaced, if the ball isn't replaced (as was the case on the 5th green at Oakmount) then the players incurs a 2 shot penalty.

How they arrived at this ridiculous decision is beyond belief, and it beggars belief that the majority of these rules officials are well educated and highly intelligent people but my gawd, there is not an ounce of cop on between them.

Cant wait for the Open in July and home of golf where this kind of PC, not so media savy shambolic behavior could never happen.

Apparently that's not the case. I'm not sure how to copy posts etc but this is from the US Open thread, not sure who posted it:

They dont need to. Its a pre-explained 'Decision' :
34-3/7
Q.
A player’s ball in play moves and he is unsure whether he caused it to move in breach of Rule 18-2. The player asks for a ruling from a referee. Based on the evidence, the referee determines that the player did not cause the ball to move and instructs the player to play the ball as it lies without penalty. After the player plays, the Committee assesses the same evidence or additional evidence that was not available at the time and determines that the player had caused the ball to move. What is the ruling?

A.
Rule 34-3 does not prevent a Committee from changing a ruling (see Decision 34-3/1). As the player caused the ball to move, he was required to replace the ball with a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2. When he failed to doso, he played from a wrong place. However, as he did so at the instruction of a referee, he does not incur the general penalty under Rule 18 for playing from a wrong place. Nevertheless, he does incur the penalty stroke underRule 18-2 as he caused the ball to move before the ruling from the referee. The player must continue with the ball played from the wrong place. (Revised)

BigChap1759

What I don't understand is how can he "cause the ball to move" without touching it which seems to be the suggestion, that he put his putter down beside the ball for a practice stroke and this caused the ball to move??

Jawgap

BigChap1759 wrote: »

What I don't understand is how can he "cause the ball to move" without touching it which seems to be the suggestion, that he put his putter down beside the ball for a practice stroke and this caused the ball to move??

given the almost unprecdented slickness of the greens, its quite possible that moving the club close to the ball or walking on the turf near to it was enough to cause the ball to move.

BigChap1759

Jawgap wrote: »

given the almost unprecdented slickness of the greens, its quite possible that moving the club close to the ball or walking on the turf near to it was enough to cause the ball to move.

But that then is unquantifiable surely, which was why the rule about grounding the club exists, no??

mike12

Did anyone else notice when he took relief from the TV tower, a super break. He got his point of relief but took 2 club lengths from there to drop on the semi rather than in the rough.

ForeRight

mike12 wrote: »

Did anyone else notice when he took relief from the TV tower, a super break. He got his point of relief but took 2 club lengths from there to drop on the semi rather than in the rough.

There's nothing wrong with what he did there.

If everyone was familiar with the rules we would all realise that the rules are to be used for an advantage probably more than they crucify you

Jawgap

BigChap1759 wrote: »

But that then is unquantifiable surely, which was why the rule about grounding the club exists, no??

See Russman's post above - which contains the text of the relevant decision.

Jawgap

ForeRight wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with what he did there.

If everyone was familiar with the rules we would all realise that the rules are to be used for an advantage probably more than they crucify you

Indeed - he took relief from the tower (a temporary immovable obstruction), then fired his shot over it!!

I think the issue with his taking of relief was the 2 club lengths instead of one.

Hoof Hearted2

Russman wrote: »

Apparently that's not the case. I'm not sure how to copy posts etc but this is from the US Open thread, not sure who posted it:

They dont need to. Its a pre-explained 'Decision' :
34-3/7
Q.
A player’s ball in play moves and he is unsure whether he caused it to move in breach of Rule 18-2. The player asks for a ruling from a referee. Based on the evidence, the referee determines that the player did not cause the ball to move and instructs the player to play the ball as it lies without penalty. After the player plays, the Committee assesses the same evidence or additional evidence that was not available at the time and determines that the player had caused the ball to move. What is the ruling?

A.
Rule 34-3 does not prevent a Committee from changing a ruling (see Decision 34-3/1). As the player caused the ball to move, he was required to replace the ball with a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2. When he failed to doso, he played from a wrong place. However, as he did so at the instruction of a referee, he does not incur the general penalty under Rule 18 for playing from a wrong place. Nevertheless, he does incur the penalty stroke underRule 18-2 as he caused the ball to move before the ruling from the referee. The player must continue with the ball played from the wrong place. (Revised)

Yeah I saw that in the meantime, nice ninja edit by the USGA in the decisions books;):pac::D

Hoof Hearted2

Jawgap wrote: »

Indeed - he took relief from the tower (a temporary immovable obstruction), then fired his shot over it!!

I think the issue with his taking of relief was the 2 club lengths instead of one.

That rule is for the tour only afaik and it's relates to temporary immovable obstructions, and relates to line of sight not line of play, also the rules make no distinction between rough, fairway or greens(bar greens other than the one you are playing to), when taking relief.

Jawgap

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

That rule is for the tour only afaik and it's relates to temporary immovable obstructions, and relates to line of sight not line of play, also the rules make no distinction between rough, fairway or greens(bar greens other than the one you are playing to), when taking relief.

Yes, I know that's why I referenced the 'temporary immovable obstruction'

slave1

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

That rule is for the tour only afaik and it's relates to temporary immovable obstructions, and relates to line of sight not line of play, also the rules make no distinction between rough, fairway or greens(bar greens other than the one you are playing to), when taking relief.

Yeah, bang on, line of sight in these circumstances is standard two club lengths, he was dosed