Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I dunno.Rules official made his call, no penalty on Johnson. One hour later USGA officials interject themselves into the tournament and warn Johnson "he may be assessed a penalty after all". What a crock, that's like over-ruling an umpire an hour after he makes an out call at the plate. "Oh well we looked at it again and he was safe. You lose. Fucking douche bags just ruined the US Open.
It was a good call in the end. There would have been a cloud over the whole situation.Congrats Dustin Johnson, and F* Off USGA!
I don't agree that it was a good call at all. Total joke.It was a good call in the end. There would have been a cloud over the whole situation.Congrats Dustin Johnson, and F* Off USGA!
1 stroke penalty, Johnson won. Air is cleared and there is closure.
I'm not particularly a Johnson fan. He seems to have the same morals as Tiger Woods
Hey but the Americans won.
The pro at my club gave me an interesting theory and thinking about what he said, I think he might be right. I believe it was hole 10, where Dustin Johnson got relief cause of a TV tower in his "line of sight" to the green. Well, he was allowed to get a two club length relief. Just so happened to give him a great lie from a spot where his ball was buried in the rough.
Well, it was shortly after that that the official from the USGA (Jeff Hall) came up to him to let him know they are reviewing the putt from hole 5. I think (according to my pro) the USGA was offended how Dustin Johnson took advantage of a technicality and used their rules to give him a great lie. I think they thought to themselves that if he is going to do that and get relief due to a technicality then we are going to see if we can use a technicality against him.
Now, on it surface it seems absurd. However, after thinking about it, the notion that he moved the ball was equally absurd. So, what would motivate the USGA officials to create a problem where it was BEYOND OBVIOUS that he did nothing to move the ball on that putt? Especially when the walking official at the time already made a ruling. Then it was pretty much right after Dustin Johnson got that line of sight relief. I think it is entirely possible that the USGA became a bit irate that Johnson was awarded that based on tecnicality.
BTW, after Johnson got that relief, the TV tower was STILL IN HIS LINE SIGHT. He, of course, all of a sudden had a great lie in the short grass and he hit the ball right over the tower.
I did not really think they would try to get pay back, but I have met these officials. Trust me, they are filled with pride and arrogant. I have actually heard them talking about making rulings to "even things out" if they feel a golfer has bent the rules in their favor.The pro at my club gave me an interesting theory and thinking about what he said, I think he might be right. I believe it was hole 10, where Dustin Johnson got relief cause of a TV tower in his "line of sight" to the green. Well, he was allowed to get a two club length relief. Just so happened to give him a great lie from a spot where his ball was buried in the rough.
Well, it was shortly after that that the official from the USGA (Jeff Hall) came up to him to let him know they are reviewing the putt from hole 5. I think (according to my pro) the USGA was offended how Dustin Johnson took advantage of a technicality and used their rules to give him a great lie. I think they thought to themselves that if he is going to do that and get relief due to a technicality then we are going to see if we can use a technicality against him.
Now, on it surface it seems absurd. However, after thinking about it, the notion that he moved the ball was equally absurd. So, what would motivate the USGA officials to create a problem where it was BEYOND OBVIOUS that he did nothing to move the ball on that putt? Especially when the walking official at the time already made a ruling. Then it was pretty much right after Dustin Johnson got that line of sight relief. I think it is entirely possible that the USGA became a bit irate that Johnson was awarded that based on tecnicality.
BTW, after Johnson got that relief, the TV tower was STILL IN HIS LINE SIGHT. He, of course, all of a sudden had a great lie in the short grass and he hit the ball right over the tower.
I don't like the line of sight rulings. Unless the tower moved there after DJ hit his shot then it is the rub of the green. Besides, DJ hit his shot right over top of the tower. But I doubt that the USGA is getting pay back.
I did not really think they would try to get pay back, but I have met these officials. Trust me, they are filled with pride and arrogant. I have actually heard them talking about making rulings to "even things out" if they feel a golfer has bent the rules in their favor.The pro at my club gave me an interesting theory and thinking about what he said, I think he might be right. I believe it was hole 10, where Dustin Johnson got relief cause of a TV tower in his "line of sight" to the green. Well, he was allowed to get a two club length relief. Just so happened to give him a great lie from a spot where his ball was buried in the rough.
Well, it was shortly after that that the official from the USGA (Jeff Hall) came up to him to let him know they are reviewing the putt from hole 5. I think (according to my pro) the USGA was offended how Dustin Johnson took advantage of a technicality and used their rules to give him a great lie. I think they thought to themselves that if he is going to do that and get relief due to a technicality then we are going to see if we can use a technicality against him.
Now, on it surface it seems absurd. However, after thinking about it, the notion that he moved the ball was equally absurd. So, what would motivate the USGA officials to create a problem where it was BEYOND OBVIOUS that he did nothing to move the ball on that putt? Especially when the walking official at the time already made a ruling. Then it was pretty much right after Dustin Johnson got that line of sight relief. I think it is entirely possible that the USGA became a bit irate that Johnson was awarded that based on tecnicality.
BTW, after Johnson got that relief, the TV tower was STILL IN HIS LINE SIGHT. He, of course, all of a sudden had a great lie in the short grass and he hit the ball right over the tower.
I don't like the line of sight rulings. Unless the tower moved there after DJ hit his shot then it is the rub of the green. Besides, DJ hit his shot right over top of the tower. But I doubt that the USGA is getting pay back.
They could never admit it obviously in public. Yes, the moving of the ball for Johnson to me was a bit ridiculous. The tower was still in his line sight after they moved the ball and he hit it right over the tower.
Not saying the USGA did do it, but it would not shock me if they did. I know they would have been GREATLY offended by Johnson using the line of sight technicality in that situation. It was only a very short time after Johnson did that, that the USGA approached him. Cannot dismiss the timing.
Oh I agree with the rule, however in that particular instance, Dustin Johnson clearly used it to get himself a better lie. He used it in that case as a technicality. I mean he went from virtually NO LIE deep in the rough to a lie that was perfect.I did not really think they would try to get pay back, but I have met these officials. Trust me, they are filled with pride and arrogant. I have actually heard them talking about making rulings to "even things out" if they feel a golfer has bent the rules in their favor.The pro at my club gave me an interesting theory and thinking about what he said, I think he might be right. I believe it was hole 10, where Dustin Johnson got relief cause of a TV tower in his "line of sight" to the green. Well, he was allowed to get a two club length relief. Just so happened to give him a great lie from a spot where his ball was buried in the rough.
Well, it was shortly after that that the official from the USGA (Jeff Hall) came up to him to let him know they are reviewing the putt from hole 5. I think (according to my pro) the USGA was offended how Dustin Johnson took advantage of a technicality and used their rules to give him a great lie. I think they thought to themselves that if he is going to do that and get relief due to a technicality then we are going to see if we can use a technicality against him.
Now, on it surface it seems absurd. However, after thinking about it, the notion that he moved the ball was equally absurd. So, what would motivate the USGA officials to create a problem where it was BEYOND OBVIOUS that he did nothing to move the ball on that putt? Especially when the walking official at the time already made a ruling. Then it was pretty much right after Dustin Johnson got that line of sight relief. I think it is entirely possible that the USGA became a bit irate that Johnson was awarded that based on tecnicality.
BTW, after Johnson got that relief, the TV tower was STILL IN HIS LINE SIGHT. He, of course, all of a sudden had a great lie in the short grass and he hit the ball right over the tower.
I don't like the line of sight rulings. Unless the tower moved there after DJ hit his shot then it is the rub of the green. Besides, DJ hit his shot right over top of the tower. But I doubt that the USGA is getting pay back.
They could never admit it obviously in public. Yes, the moving of the ball for Johnson to me was a bit ridiculous. The tower was still in his line sight after they moved the ball and he hit it right over the tower.
Not saying the USGA did do it, but it would not shock me if they did. I know they would have been GREATLY offended by Johnson using the line of sight technicality in that situation. It was only a very short time after Johnson did that, that the USGA approached him. Cannot dismiss the timing.
As much as I don't like the line of sight rule it is hardly a technicality. It is a rule that all the players play by and has been used several times. I remember when Els won one of his first s the same thing happened. In his case it greatly improved his shot.
If are going to have this rule I think it should say, two club lengths within the rough no closer to the hole. But to say that using the rules in a game that is dominated by playing within the rules seems not to make sense.
Oh I agree with the rule, however in that particular instance, Dustin Johnson clearly used it to get himself a better lie. He used it in that case as a technicality. I mean he went from virtually NO LIE deep in the rough to a lie that was perfect.I did not really think they would try to get pay back, but I have met these officials. Trust me, they are filled with pride and arrogant. I have actually heard them talking about making rulings to "even things out" if they feel a golfer has bent the rules in their favor.The pro at my club gave me an interesting theory and thinking about what he said, I think he might be right. I believe it was hole 10, where Dustin Johnson got relief cause of a TV tower in his "line of sight" to the green. Well, he was allowed to get a two club length relief. Just so happened to give him a great lie from a spot where his ball was buried in the rough.
Well, it was shortly after that that the official from the USGA (Jeff Hall) came up to him to let him know they are reviewing the putt from hole 5. I think (according to my pro) the USGA was offended how Dustin Johnson took advantage of a technicality and used their rules to give him a great lie. I think they thought to themselves that if he is going to do that and get relief due to a technicality then we are going to see if we can use a technicality against him.
Now, on it surface it seems absurd. However, after thinking about it, the notion that he moved the ball was equally absurd. So, what would motivate the USGA officials to create a problem where it was BEYOND OBVIOUS that he did nothing to move the ball on that putt? Especially when the walking official at the time already made a ruling. Then it was pretty much right after Dustin Johnson got that line of sight relief. I think it is entirely possible that the USGA became a bit irate that Johnson was awarded that based on tecnicality.
BTW, after Johnson got that relief, the TV tower was STILL IN HIS LINE SIGHT. He, of course, all of a sudden had a great lie in the short grass and he hit the ball right over the tower.
I don't like the line of sight rulings. Unless the tower moved there after DJ hit his shot then it is the rub of the green. Besides, DJ hit his shot right over top of the tower. But I doubt that the USGA is getting pay back.
They could never admit it obviously in public. Yes, the moving of the ball for Johnson to me was a bit ridiculous. The tower was still in his line sight after they moved the ball and he hit it right over the tower.
Not saying the USGA did do it, but it would not shock me if they did. I know they would have been GREATLY offended by Johnson using the line of sight technicality in that situation. It was only a very short time after Johnson did that, that the USGA approached him. Cannot dismiss the timing.
As much as I don't like the line of sight rule it is hardly a technicality. It is a rule that all the players play by and has been used several times. I remember when Els won one of his first s the same thing happened. In his case it greatly improved his shot.
If are going to have this rule I think it should say, two club lengths within the rough no closer to the hole. But to say that using the rules in a game that is dominated by playing within the rules seems not to make sense.
Like I said, after the move the tower was still in the line of sight. He went over the tower. And yes I agree within the rough. Of course that could lead to other problems.
I think someone should still be fired. It has set a dubious precedent.USGA frequently looks asinine enforcing nonsense rules. Anyone who plays golf regularly knows that the ball sometimes moves with nothing touching it. Usually the ball is being supported by blades of grass, and the grass just folds gradually underneath the ball, causing the movement.
If this ruling had affected the outcome of the Open, there would be a revolt by golf fans around the world, and someone would have been fired. They dodged a bullet.
