Minnesota Golfer - Fall 2016 - 10

RULES PRIMER
Open Question
A ruling at the U.S. Open created a firestorm for the USGA-but
should it have?
T
he 2016 U.S. Open at Oakmont Country
Club offered a Rules scenario involving
tournament winner Dustin
Johnson, but some wondered if a recent Rule
change was helpful.
On the fi fth green, Johnson's ball moved before
he addressed it, and he told a Rules offi cial,
who deemed Johnson did not cause the ball to
move. Upon further review by lead USGA offi
cials, Johnson was told on hole No. 12 that he
" might " be assessed a penalty-and after the
round, he was. Fortunately, it had no effect on
the outcome of the tournament, as Johnson
won by three shots.
In a rush to
judgement,
many
felt the USGA mishandled
the situation-fi
rst telling
Johnson he was
free and clear, then
clouding the issue
in the middle
of the fi nal round.
Several PGA Tour
players announced
their displeasure
on Twitter, which
was reported during
the broadcast
and infl amed viewer
response.
But in actuality, the USGA got the ruling
right and handled it as best they could, given
recent Rule changes that may have muddied the
situation. In 2012, the USGA and R&A tweaked
Rule 18-2b. Ball at Rest Moved (a Rule that
some offi cials considered clear and simple, and
not in need of clarifi cation). Following an incident
involving Pádraig Harrington's ball at rest
moving on the green, an exception was added to
say that " if it is known or virtually certain that
the player did not cause his ball to move, Rule
8
MINNESOTAGOLFER Fall 2016
18-2b does not apply. "
But work on the Rule was not done. Effective
in January 2016, the ruling bodies added a decision
(Decision 18-2/0.5. Weight of Evidence
Standard for Determining Whether Player
Caused His Ball to Move) and withdrew Rule
18-2b language altogether.
The changes for 2016 were made to clarify
2016 U.S. OPEN CHAMPION
Rule 18-2 Ball at Rest Moved, but after watching
what unfolded at Oakmont, the change
may have added more gray area to the ruling.
MGA rules tournament director Doug Hoffmann
doesn't agree: " I don't think it has caused
more 'gray area.' When the golf community
read and studied
the change from
2012, the overriding
concept was
that if the player
did not cause the
ball to move, then
there was no penalty.
So, Rules offi -
cials take it at face
value, and that is
what the referee
in Johnson's group
used when making
his ruling.
" Moving forDUSTIN
JOHNSON,
ward to this year, "
Hoffmann continues,
" the requirement of 'addressing' is removed,
but the application still remains the same. Decision
18-2/0.5 seems to indicate the question is
not whether the player caused the ball to move,
but did anything else cause the ball to move? If
not, then the player is penalized. "
Yet, upon video tape review, offi cials overruled
the referee's call. (Justin Thomas endured
a similar fate in the Tour Championship.) So,
are the rules makers now fi nished with Rule 182?
We'll see in 2020.
RULES QUIZ
6M >CG9D< C69F@9
MGA MEMBER
BARRY BERGQUIST OF
CLOQUET CC ASKS:
If your tee shot goes into
a hazard and you choose to
hit again from the teeing
area, can you tee up your
second ball, or do you have
to hit from the grass?
Find the answer on
page 26.
"
NOTED
AND
QUOTED
From the Twitter handle:
@GolfAssnProblem
" Stop giving
me divot repair
tools. I already
own a thousand
of them. They're
called tees. "
www.mngolf.org
+
"
http://www.mngolf.org
Minnesota Golfer - Fall 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Minnesota Golfer - Fall 2016
