Official U.S.Open prediction thread

[Pulled(PP)pork]

I thought it was too easy, birdies everywhere.....the members should be angry

<obligatory link>



Pulled out...

[ricepig]

I thought it was too easy, birdies everywhere.....the members should be angry

<obligatory link>



Pulled out...

True, hopefully when the Open returns in 2025 they will have improved the course.

[Pulled(PP)pork]

It could tolerate being "tricked up"


PP

[clutch]

I thought it was too easy, birdies everywhere.....the members should be angry

<obligatory link>



Pulled out...

Didn't read. Too short

[Pulled(PP)pork]

Didn't read. Too short

ADD is to realz!


PP

[ronmahony]

I had to leave early so udidn't see the "penalty" until late, what a joke. They talk about how honorable golf is, players calling penalties on themselves and so on. D.J. Called it on himself, told the rules official, the official said go ahead it's all good, that ought to be the end of it. That's like double jeopardy or something. Very unsportsmanlike to me. Anybody see Live at the Open last night? I thought Brandon Chablee or however you spell it was going to call those two rules officials idiots and kick their butts or something. Lol. He was pissed. Thought D.J. Handled it well, a whole lot better than I would have. I should have been a golfer, hot wife and a 1.8 million dollar check. I guess being able to drive it five hundred yards does come in handy.

[HognitiveDissonance]

Why would there be a penalty for a ball moving 'backwards' on a green, anyway?
The rule is stupid.
Another great example of 'overthinking' the situation.
Who cares if the ball moves 1/8 inch?
Call in a rules official and place the ball back in the original position.
If you really insist on penalizing the player, then simply have him play it from its new position. In theory the farther the ball from the cup the tougher the putt. Just have him play it from there.
If he ball rolls closer to the cup, then simply return it to the original position and no harm.
There are simply too many ways a ball can move on fast greens without the player striking it.

[GoHogs1091]

The question I have regarding yesterday involves Johnson's drop on Hole 10 for TIO (Temporary Immovable Obstruction) Line-of-Sight Relief.  The Rule says to go to the nearest point for relief.  Johnson took relief over to the left, which afforded him a better lie, and then he proceeded to hit it over the t.v. tower (TIO).  The fact that he proceeded to hit over the t.v. tower means that him dropping to the left actually did not give him actual line-of-sight relief, and that the nearest point for relief for dropping should have been to the right instead of to the left where he dropped.  If he had dropped to the right, he would have still been in the rough, but more than likely he would have not had to still hit it over the t.v. tower since he probably would have had actual line-of-sight relief by dropping to the right.

I personally don't mind that he got to drop for Line-of-Sight Relief because of a TIO, what I am wondering is if the drop should have been to the right of where his tee shot landed instead of to the left?  It may have been incorrect for him to drop to the left, and that he should have dropped to the right.

A person on another message board posted that it rubs him (the poster) the wrong way for someone to get Line-of-Sight Relief and then to hit over the TIO that caused the need for Line-of-Sight Relief to begin with.

Another poster posted that there are some Rules Officials that probably wouldn't have given Johnson Line-of-Sight Relief.

To me, it is correct that he got Line-of-Sight Relief, but the drop may have been done at the wrong spot.

[ricepig]

The question I have regarding yesterday involves Johnson's drop on Hole 10 for TIO (Temporary Immovable Obstruction) Line-of-Sight Relief.  The Rule says to go to the nearest point for relief.  Johnson took relief over to the left, which afforded him a better lie, and then he proceeded to hit it over the t.v. tower (TIO).  The fact that he proceeded to hit over the t.v. tower means that him dropping to the left actually did not give him actual line-of-sight relief, and that the nearest point for relief for dropping should have been to the right instead of to the left where he dropped.  If he had dropped to the right, he would have still been in the rough, but more than likely he would have not had to still hit it over the t.v. tower since he probably would have had actual line-of-sight relief by dropping to the right.

I personally don't mind that he got to drop for Line-of-Sight Relief because of a TIO, what I am wondering is if the drop should have been to the right of where his tee shot landed instead of to the left?  It may have been incorrect for him to drop to the left, and that he should have dropped to the right.

A person on another message board posted that it rubs him (the poster) the wrong way for someone to get Line-of-Sight Relief and then to hit over the TIO that caused the need for Line-of-Sight Relief to begin with.

Another poster posted that there are some Rules Officials that probably wouldn't have given Johnson Line-of-Sight Relief.

To me, it is correct that he got Line-of-Sight Relief, but the drop may have been done at the wrong spot.

Within the rules, you can't pick and choose which ones you like, it was a smart move on his part.

[Pulled(PP)pork]

The question I have regarding yesterday involves Johnson's drop on Hole 10 for TIO (Temporary Immovable Obstruction) Line-of-Sight Relief.  The Rule says to go to the nearest point for relief.  Johnson took relief over to the left, which afforded him a better lie, and then he proceeded to hit it over the t.v. tower (TIO).  The fact that he proceeded to hit over the t.v. tower means that him dropping to the left actually did not give him actual line-of-sight relief, and that the nearest point for relief for dropping should have been to the right instead of to the left where he dropped.  If he had dropped to the right, he would have still been in the rough, but more than likely he would have not had to still hit it over the t.v. tower since he probably would have had actual line-of-sight relief by dropping to the right.

I personally don't mind that he got to drop for Line-of-Sight Relief because of a TIO, what I am wondering is if the drop should have been to the right of where his tee shot landed instead of to the left?  It may have been incorrect for him to drop to the left, and that he should have dropped to the right.

A person on another message board posted that it rubs him (the poster) the wrong way for someone to get Line-of-Sight Relief and then to hit over the TIO that caused the need for Line-of-Sight Relief to begin with.

Another poster posted that there are some Rules Officials that probably wouldn't have given Johnson Line-of-Sight Relief.

To me, it is correct that he got Line-of-Sight Relief, but the drop may have been done at the wrong spot.

so, you belong to other boards and talk golf?  I'll pray for them


PP

[clutch]

The question I have regarding yesterday involves Johnson's drop on Hole 10 for TIO (Temporary Immovable Obstruction) Line-of-Sight Relief.  The Rule says to go to the nearest point for relief.  Johnson took relief over to the left, which afforded him a better lie, and then he proceeded to hit it over the t.v. tower (TIO).  The fact that he proceeded to hit over the t.v. tower means that him dropping to the left actually did not give him actual line-of-sight relief, and that the nearest point for relief for dropping should have been to the right instead of to the left where he dropped.  If he had dropped to the right, he would have still been in the rough, but more than likely he would have not had to still hit it over the t.v. tower since he probably would have had actual line-of-sight relief by dropping to the right.

I personally don't mind that he got to drop for Line-of-Sight Relief because of a TIO, what I am wondering is if the drop should have been to the right of where his tee shot landed instead of to the left?  It may have been incorrect for him to drop to the left, and that he should have dropped to the right.

A person on another message board posted that it rubs him (the poster) the wrong way for someone to get Line-of-Sight Relief and then to hit over the TIO that caused the need for Line-of-Sight Relief to begin with.

Another poster posted that there are some Rules Officials that probably wouldn't have given Johnson Line-of-Sight Relief.

To me, it is correct that he got Line-of-Sight Relief, but the drop may have been done at the wrong spot.

So many paragraphs just to say the same thing over and over and over again.

[GoHogs1091]

so, you belong to other boards and talk golf?  I'll pray for them


PP

I read other golf related boards, but I don't post on those other golf boards.

There is currently a 6 page thread over on Golfwrx about Johnson's drop on Hole 10.

One reason some may feel that some other Rules Officials may have not granted Johnson Line-of-Sight Relief is because there are 3 Exceptions to the Rule, and any one of the 3 Exceptions leads to why someone should not be granted Line-of-Sight Relief.  The #3 Exception is the following.

3. In the case of intervention, it would be clearly impracticable to expect the player to be able to strike the ball far enough towards the hole to reach the TIO.

The t.v. tower (TIO) was ever bit of a 100 yards in front of Johnson's ball (where his tee shot landed in the 3rd cut of rough).  According to the walking t.v. commentator (Scott McCarron), Johnson's lie was so bad that he was probably going to have to chop it back out into the fairway (chop it out about 25 to 50 yards).  Therefore, Johnson would have not struck the ball far enough towards the hole to reach the TIO, which means the situation would fall under the above #3 Exception, and Johnson should have not been granted Line-of-Sight Relief.

Something though does need to be done about the Line-of-Sight Relief aspect.  A few years ago, I believe it was at Firestone, Tiger Woods got a totally bogus granting of Line-of-Sight Relief (Woods should not have received the relief).  In 1994 at Oakmont, Ernie Els was incorrectly granted Line-of-Sight Relief.  The Rules Official that granted the relief to Els deemed that a crane was immovable, but the crane was indeed movable.

Jack Nicklaus had a Line-of-Sight Relief controversy in 1966.

http://www.golfspelledbackwards.com/2013/08/jack-nicklaus-own-rules-controversy-or.html

[ricepig]

There's a reason Scott McCarron was walking the course as a commentator, and not a player. DJ would have put it on the green either way, he's the man!

[GoHogs1091]

There's a reason Scott McCarron was walking the course as a commentator, and not a player. DJ would have put it on the green either way, he's the man!

McCarron knows what he is talking about.

He won a PGA Tour Champions event at Wakonda Club in Des Moines, Iowa close to 3 weeks ago.  That was a good win by McCarron.  Wakonda Club is a 1922 William Langford design, and there is more movement to the land at Wakonda Club than the movement of the land at Oakmont.

[HognitiveDissonance]

They had David Fay on the telecast explaining that even after receiving relief, DJ was under no obligation to hit his shot any particular way. In this case, he went straight over the tower.
Considering that, I do agree it's cheesy that he was able to get relief, only to proceed to hit directly over the so-called obstruction. That defeats the spirit of the rule. In order to gain relief, the purpose of the rule would say the relief shot creates a pathway 'around' the obstruction. That's the objective of the rule: in order to hit the shot, the player must not be hindered by an object that is not natural, which wouldn't be fair to the player.

We all remember the case of Tiger Woods using many fans in the gallery helping him pick up a boulder. Again, totally against the purpose of the rule: a 'movable' obstruction was intended to be something much smaller than a giant boulder.

People get too bogged down in the precise language of these complicated rules and forget why they were created in the first place. Common sense should prevail, everyone knows why these exceptions exist, but they lose sight of that while getting bogged down in the details.

[GoHogs1091]

They had David Fay on the telecast explaining that even after receiving relief, DJ was under no obligation to hit his shot any particular way. In this case, he went straight over the tower.
Considering that, I do agree it's cheesy that he was able to get relief, only to proceed to hit directly over the so-called obstruction. That defeats the spirit of the rule. In order to gain relief, the purpose of the rule would say the relief shot creates a pathway 'around' the obstruction. That's the objective of the rule: in order to hit the shot, the player must not be hindered by an object that is not natural, which wouldn't be fair to the player.

We all remember the case of Tiger Woods using many fans in the gallery helping him pick up a boulder. Again, totally against the purpose of the rule: a 'movable' obstruction was intended to be something much smaller than a giant boulder.

People get too bogged down in the precise language of these complicated rules and forget why they were created in the first place. Common sense should prevail, everyone knows why these exceptions exist, but they lose sight of that while getting bogged down in the details.

Tiger Woods has been the beneficiary of several perplexing favorable rulings.

The "boulder incident" out in Arizona was an embarrassment to the game of golf.

The one I mentioned, which I believe was at Firestone, he got relief because of a t.v. tower that was not in his line-of-sight.  The t.v. commentator was even miffed that they granted Woods relief.

One year at Firestone, Woods hit his approach shot way over the green at Hole 9, the ball ended up on the roof of the clubhouse, and the ball went into the clubhouse (a cook later found the ball).  Woods could not find the ball in the alloted time that is required to find a ball.  It should have been a lost ball penalty, 2 shot penalty.  Instead they allowed Woods to get a free drop, and they allowed the free drop using some local rule involving the clubhouse.  The problem though is that the ball was lost, and not found by Woods, and therefore, the goofy local rule should have not superceded the lost ball rule.

Remember last week, DeChambeau hit a tee shot on Hole 1 out-of-bounds.  He found his ball, which is a key aspect even in an out-of-bounds situation.

Also one year at The Open Championship, Woods got a drop because of some t.v. cables.  It was deemed the cables were immovable.  They were movable.  If they were immovable, then we should be able to go to the course years after that particular tournament and see that the cables are still in the exact spot on the course (which of course the cables are still not at that spot at that course).

[ricepig]

McCarron knows what he is talking about.

He won a PGA Tour Champions event at Wakonda Club in Des Moines, Iowa close to 3 weeks ago.  That was a good win by McCarron.  Wakonda Club is a 1922 William Langford design, and there is more movement to the land at Wakonda Club than the movement of the land at Oakmont.

He doesn't know how far DJ could have hit the ball, until he tried. He also said he didn't think he could advance it more that 60-70 yards, not the 25-50 you said, lol. Maybe McCarron with his injured wrists couldn't hit it but 25 yards, but DJ is very strong.

[GoHogs1091]

He doesn't know how far DJ could have hit the ball, until he tried. He also said he didn't think he could advance it more that 60-70 yards, not the 25-50 you said, lol. Maybe McCarron with his injured wrists couldn't hit it but 25 yards, but DJ is very strong.

Johnson was in the 3rd cut of rough, which was extremely knarly and deep.  Highly doubtful Johnson could have made it to the green let alone to the t.v. tower (TIO) from where his ball was in the 3rd cut of rough.

The Rules Governoring Bodies need to especially make sure the Line-of-Sight Relief aspect is being handled correctly by on course Rules Officials.  For the integrity of the game, can't have players using the Line-of-Sight aspect to get a better lie.

The fact that Johnson hit it directly over the t.v. tower (TIO) after he made the drop (which the drop just so happened improved his lie) shows that he really truly didn't get Line-of-Sight Relief, which is what he invoked to get the drop.  So that means either the drop occurred at the incorrect spot (the drop should have been to the right of where his tee shot landed instead of the drop being to the left of where his tee shot landed), or it means the t.v. tower (TIO) was far enough away that he shouldn't have got the relief to begin with considering the practicality of him getting the ball down to the t.v. tower from his horrible lie in the rough.

[HognitiveDissonance]

I recall once Ernie Els snap hooked a drive deep into the woods at the Masters(#11  ?)
The ball was not on the fringe, it was DEEP into the woods.
The club had done storm damage cleanup and had piled some tree limbs/debris in that area.
Els argued that the debris should have taken off the property and he was entitled to relief.
I believe one official denied his request, but he appealed. Eventually another official granted the relief.

I thought it was preposterous considering how deep in those woods Els had hit the ball.

The only constant is that players will try anything to get relief. In some sense, it doesn't hurt to ask. But that would bother my conscience, to even ask about something so dubious as that, or having a mob of fans lift a giant boulder. Deep down, I would know that's not the intent of the rules.

By the way, I like Ernie Els, not really picking on him.

[GolfNut57]

I recall once Ernie Els snap hooked a drive deep into the woods at the Masters(#11  ?)
The ball was not on the fringe, it was DEEP into the woods.
The club had done storm damage cleanup and had piled some tree limbs/debris in that area.
Els argued that the debris should have taken off the property and he was entitled to relief.
I believe one official denied his request, but he appealed. Eventually another official granted the relief.

I thought it was preposterous considering how deep in those woods Els had hit the ball.

The only constant is that players will try anything to get relief. In some sense, it doesn't hurt to ask. But that would bother my conscience, to even ask about something so dubious as that, or having a mob of fans lift a giant boulder. Deep down, I would know that's not the intent of the rules.

By the way, I like Ernie Els, not really picking on him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCvgMNnM3OA

[ricepig]

Johnson was in the 3rd cut of rough, which was extremely knarly and deep.  Highly doubtful Johnson could have made it to the green let alone to the t.v. tower (TIO) from where his ball was in the 3rd cut of rough.

The Rules Governoring Bodies need to especially make sure the Line-of-Sight Relief aspect is being handled correctly by on course Rules Officials.  For the integrity of the game, can't have players using the Line-of-Sight aspect to get a better lie.

The fact that Johnson hit it directly over the t.v. tower (TIO) after he made the drop (which the drop just so happened improved his lie) shows that he really truly didn't get Line-of-Sight Relief, which is what he invoked to get the drop.  So that means either the drop occurred at the incorrect spot (the drop should have been to the right of where his tee shot landed instead of the drop being to the left of where his tee shot landed), or it means the t.v. tower (TIO) was far enough away that he shouldn't have got the relief to begin with considering the practicality of him getting the ball down to the t.v. tower from his horrible lie in the rough.

He couldn't see the flag from the original lie. They moved over to where he could see the flag and dropped, again, all within the rules, so suck it that he won and over powered this Mickey Mouse course.

[Hawgndaaz]

He couldn't see the flag from the original lie. They moved over to where he could see the flag and dropped, again, all within the rules, so suck it that he won and over powered this Mickey Mouse course.

I was coming here to post this.

It blows my mind anyone would have a problem with a player using the rules to their advantage. DJ could have potentially lost this tourney because of a bogus ruling AGAINST him that was atrocious. The USGA just LOVES having their name be the topic of conversation though.

On that note: the divot rule has got to change. If a player hits it in the fairway (specifically off the tee) a divot should be considered ground under repair. This US Open was just like the last, where there's holes that the fairways all funnel down to the same area. Obviously those areas get peppered with divots throughout the day. No reason in hell a player should have to hit off someone else's divot. It is laughable.

Edit: I'm talking about in the fairway only.

[clutch]

Tiger Woods has been the beneficiary of several perplexing favorable rulings.

The "boulder incident" out in Arizona was an embarrassment to the game of golf.

The one I mentioned, which I believe was at Firestone, he got relief because of a t.v. tower that was not in his line-of-sight.  The t.v. commentator was even miffed that they granted Woods relief.

One year at Firestone, Woods hit his approach shot way over the green at Hole 9, the ball ended up on the roof of the clubhouse, and the ball went into the clubhouse (a cook later found the ball).  Woods could not find the ball in the alloted time that is required to find a ball.  It should have been a lost ball penalty, 2 shot penalty.  Instead they allowed Woods to get a free drop, and they allowed the free drop using some local rule involving the clubhouse.  The problem though is that the ball was lost, and not found by Woods, and therefore, the goofy local rule should have not superceded the lost ball rule.

Remember last week, DeChambeau hit a tee shot on Hole 1 out-of-bounds.  He found his ball, which is a key aspect even in an out-of-bounds situation.

Also one year at The Open Championship, Woods got a drop because of some t.v. cables.  It was deemed the cables were immovable.  They were movable.  If they were immovable, then we should be able to go to the course years after that particular tournament and see that the cables are still in the exact spot on the course (which of course the cables are still not at that spot at that course).

Having done a lot of work with TV crews, TV cables can be pretty immovable during a broadcast. I don't guess they are technically immovable since they aren't always there, but while a broadcast is going on they are a lot of the times. Playing them as immovable during the week of a tournament is the right call. If not, you stand the chance of messing up a whole broadcast over one shot that could have been avoided.

[Pulled(PP)pork]

Having done a lot of work with TV crews, TV cables can be pretty immovable during a broadcast. I don't guess they are technically immovable since they aren't always there, but while a broadcast is going on they are a lot of the times. Playing them as immovable during the week of a tournament is the right call. If not, you stand the chance of messing up a whole broadcast over one shot that could have been avoided.

i don't think you working in the porn industry qualifies as working with tv. crews. I could be wrong


PP

[GolfNut57]

i don't think you working in the porn industry qualifies as working with tv. crews. I could be wrong


PP

You're just mad because you never got to lay cable in the porn industry. 

[clutch]

i don't think you working in the porn industry qualifies as working with tv. crews. I could be wrong


PP

My mistake. I thought it did.

[EastexHawg]

In the past, the ball moving after address by the player was always a penalty.  The rule was re-written so that if it is obvious the player did not cause the ball to move...as in a 50 mph wind gust on an exposed green at the British Open...the penalty would not be enforced.  Even so, absent some outside force that apparently causes the ball to move the default is that the player did cause the movement and therefore is penalized.  There was no wind at the time Dustin addressed the ball.  What caused it to move, and what is the basis for believing something other than his actions caused the movement?

Does it suck that it cost him a stroke and could have cost him the tournament?  Yeah, but that's one of the rules of golf and it would be far from the first time it was ever invoked.

[jfan01]

In the past, the ball moving after address by the player was always a penalty.  The rule was re-written so that if it is obvious the player did not cause the ball to move...as in a 50 mph wind gust on an exposed green at the British Open...the penalty would not be enforced.  Even so, absent some outside force that apparently causes the ball to move the default is that the player did cause the movement and therefore is penalized.  There was no wind at the time Dustin addressed the ball.  What caused it to move, and what is the basis for believing something other than his actions caused the movement?

Does it suck that it cost him a stroke and could have cost him the tournament?  Yeah, but that's one of the rules of golf and it would be far from the first time it was ever invoked.

The only problem with your interpretations is that Dustin never actually addressed the ball.  He never grounded the club behind the ball.  The outside force was the green speed.  Everyone's favorite FaG poster has provided numerous videos documenting green speeds at Oakmont. 

The other big issue with the ruling is that there were a couple of other rulings in the same tournament that went the other way, where the player clearly grounded the club behind the ball before the ball moved.

[EastexHawg]

The only problem with your interpretations is that Dustin never actually addressed the ball.  He never grounded the club behind the ball.  The outside force was the green speed.  Everyone's favorite FaG poster has provided numerous videos documenting green speeds at Oakmont. 

The other big issue with the ruling is that there were a couple of other rulings in the same tournament that went the other way, where the player clearly grounded the club behind the ball before the ball moved.

He grounded the club at least once beside the ball, I think both before and after taking practice swings.  I don't believe the rule restricts addressing the ball to only grounding the club behind it.

[clutch]

In the past, the ball moving after address by the player was always a penalty.  The rule was re-written so that if it is obvious the player did not cause the ball to move...as in a 50 mph wind gust on an exposed green at the British Open...the penalty would not be enforced.  Even so, absent some outside force that apparently causes the ball to move the default is that the player did cause the movement and therefore is penalized.  There was no wind at the time Dustin addressed the ball.  What caused it to move, and what is the basis for believing something other than his actions caused the movement?

Does it suck that it cost him a stroke and could have cost him the tournament?  Yeah, but that's one of the rules of golf and it would be far from the first time it was ever invoked.

I didn't really have a problem with the penalty being called. What I didn't like is that they told him everything was fine, then came back to him 7 holes later and said well maybe we will give you a penalty. I thought that was tacky to do mid-round. If you are going to access the penalty, it should be on the spot. That way a player knows where he stands.

Another thing, if they are making greens so fast that balls are moving on their own, the rule does need some tweaking.

[jfan01]

He grounded the club at least once beside the ball, I think both before and after taking practice swings.  I don't believe the rule restricts addressing the ball to only grounding the club behind it.

Addressing the ball is when the club is grounded behind the ball, but you're right.  The rule does allow for penalty if it is deemed that a practice stroke beside the ball caused it to move.  That just isn't what the USGA rules officials were saying with their explanation of the penalty.  The guy that seemed to be driving the penalty kept talking about the timing of Dustin grounding the club behind the ball in relation to when the ball moved, saying they were almost instantaneous, whereas the other players that grounded their club behind the ball, the ball didn't move for a few seconds.  Dustin never grounded his club behind the ball.  And, it was a few seconds between when he grounded it next to the ball for his practice strokes to when the ball moved.  He got screwed with the ruling, and even worse with the way it was handled on the course.

[cosmodrum]

Absolutely, correct. 

And that is why he should not have been penalized.  That is why Nicklaus never grounded his putter so he could avoid that issue altogether..

and why people won't do it at the Open Championship b/c of wind

[EastexHawg]

Absolutely, correct. 

And that is why he should not have been penalized.  That is why Nicklaus never grounded his putter so he could avoid that issue altogether..

So if you place your putter on the ground beside the ball and (apparently) cause it to move there is no penalty?

[Jackrabbit Hog]

The one good thing that could come from this is reigning in the USGA and their 'preparation' of a course.  It's beyond stupid what they did to Pebble Beach, Merion, Chambers Bay and Oakmont.  It seems as if the current USGA took Sandy Tatum's directive to identify the best player as a burn everyone until only one is left standing type of approach and that sucks the enjoyment from the game.  The USGA needs to move toward the approach the R&A takes for the Open.

I disagree.  I don't think it's too much to ask for there to be one week a year where the pros sweat bullets and spit horseshoes because a course is too tough for them.  I think it's entertaining to watch the best players crash and burn just like we duffers do on a regular basis.  Yeah, it would get old and lose its entertainment value if other tournaments did it this way too, but for just one freakin' week a year, it's great. 

And if DJ didn't deserve a penalty for making the ball move, he deserved one for being a coke-head and for screwing other players wives.

So there.     

[JoeyCapital]

And if DJ didn't deserve a penalty for making the ball move, he deserved one for being a coke-head and for screwing other players wives.

Game, set, match

[GoHogs1091]

The one good thing that could come from this is reigning in the USGA and their 'preparation' of a course.  It's beyond stupid what they did to Pebble Beach, Merion, Chambers Bay and Oakmont.  It seems as if the current USGA took Sandy Tatum's directive to identify the best player as a burn everyone until only one is left standing type of approach and that sucks the enjoyment from the game.  The USGA needs to move toward the approach the R&A takes for the Open. 

The USGA didn't do anything wrong with the set-up at Merion (East Course).

Before the tournament in 2013, it rained at Merion just as much if not more than it did at Oakmont.  Even with the rain advantage for the PGA Tour Pros, they couldn't conquer Merion's East Course.  The Pros tried with their out-of-control golf equipment technology and their bomb-and-gouge mentality, but Merion's East Course basically said to the Pros "yall aren't good enough, and yall will have to get better with playing true strategic golf before you can even possibly conquer me."

[Jackrabbit Hog]

The USGA didn't do anything wrong with the set-up at Merion (East Course).

Before the tournament in 2013, it rained at Merion just as much if not more than it did at Oakmont.  Even with the rain advantage for the PGA Tour Pros, they couldn't conquer Merion's East Course.  The Pros tried with their out-of-control golf equipment technology and their bomb-and-gouge mentality, but Merion's East Course basically said to the Pros "yall aren't good enough, and yall will have to get better with playing true strategic golf before you can even possibly conquer me."

I'm not certain.........but I don't think golf courses can talk.

[GoHogs1091]

I'm not certain.........but I don't think golf courses can talk.

Nope, but it essentially told the PGA Tour Pros that their souped up golf equipment and their usual mentality of playing strategy (bomb-and-gouge) are not good enough when high-level strategic golf is required/demanded.

Some people feel the East Course at Merion is the best routing in the world.  The first three sentences of the "What to Expect" section of Bill Satterfield's review explains a lot about the East Course at Merion.

"Merion (East) is the best course per acre on the planet, period. The Hugh Wilson layout is impressive by virtually anyone's standards, but it is a masterpiece when you consider the course sits on less than 120 acres. Though restricted in available acreage, the course doesn't feel short and delivers one of the most challenging experiences in America."

http://www.golfcoursegurus.com/reviews/merion(east).php

[Pulled(PP)pork]

The USGA didn't do anything wrong with the set-up at Merion (East Course).

Before the tournament in 2013, it rained at Merion just as much if not more than it did at Oakmont.  Even with the rain advantage for the PGA Tour Pros, they couldn't conquer Merion's East Course.  The Pros tried with their out-of-control golf equipment technology and their bomb-and-gouge mentality, but Merion's East Course basically said to the Pros "yall aren't good enough, and yall will have to get better with playing true strategic golf before you can even possibly conquer me."

oh Jesus Christ!  You were spouting the same crap about Oakmont before the open....do you ever just shut up and admit you're wrong?


PP

[GoHogs1091]

oh Jesus Christ!  You were spouting the same crap about Oakmont before the open....do you ever just shut up and admit you're wrong?


PP

The PGA Tour Pros played their usual low-strategic, "bombs away" at Oakmont, which they are accustomed to doing, but Oakmont is not as good architecturally as the East Course at Merion.

Zero players finished under Par at Merion's East Course in 2013.  The longest the East Course at Merion was set at was for Round 1 (6,966 yards).  Here was the yardage for all 4 Rounds.

Round 1    6,966 yards
Round 2    6,901 yards
Round 3    6,933 yards
Round 4    6,869 yards

Dustin Johnson at the East Course at Merion in 2013    +17     71--77--75--74

[HognitiveDissonance]

Beside the ball (as DJ did) is not behind the ball and does not constitute addressing the ball as I recall.  Soleing the club behind the ball was the key to this as I recall.
Somewhere I think I still have one of those Golf My Way books by Jack Nicklaus where he talked about why he (Nicklaus) never grounded his club for precisely this reason. 
With all the rule changes, I may be out of date on this admittedly but since DJ did not sole his club behind the ball I can't see any rationale for penalizing him. 

Now soleing his club elsewhere.....(cue J'rabb with that one...) 

Yes, the current rule states beside the ball is under consideration for causing the ball to move. This probably wasn't the case in Nicklaus's day as only actions taken behind the ball were considered.

[HognitiveDissonance]

The PGA Tour Pros played their usual low-strategic, "bombs away" at Oakmont, which they are accustomed to doing, but Oakmont is not as good architecturally as the East Course at Merion.

Zero players finished under Par at Merion's East Course in 2013.  The longest the East Course at Merion was set at was for Round 1 (6,966 yards).  Here was the yardage for all 4 Rounds.

Round 1    6,966 yards
Round 2    6,901 yards
Round 3    6,933 yards
Round 4    6,869 yards

Dustin Johnson at the East Course at Merion in 2013    +17     71--77--75--74

Merion...Oakmont. It doesn't matter.
Much was made in 2013 how 'short little Merion' couldn't be conquered by the pros. Very misleading.
They're very good courses, no doubt, but in my mind given the time and money I can turn any course into a brutal test.
I can grow the rough super thick, pinch the fairways, super cut and roll the greens, etc.
I can go down to Rebsamen public golf course in Little Rock(it's over 7000 yards from the tips) and turn that into a tough test for PGA pros given the time and resources.

[ricepig]

The PGA Tour Pros played their usual low-strategic, "bombs away" at Oakmont, which they are accustomed to doing, but Oakmont is not as good architecturally as the East Course at Merion.

Zero players finished under Par at Merion's East Course in 2013.  The longest the East Course at Merion was set at was for Round 1 (6,966 yards).  Here was the yardage for all 4 Rounds.

Round 1    6,966 yards
Round 2    6,901 yards
Round 3    6,933 yards
Round 4    6,869 yards

Dustin Johnson at the East Course at Merion in 2013    +17     71--77--75--74

Everybody has a bad tournament, lol.

[ricepig]

Nope, but it essentially told the PGA Tour Pros that their souped up golf equipment and their usual mentality of playing strategy (bomb-and-gouge) are not good enough when high-level strategic golf is required/demanded.

Some people feel the East Course at Merion is the best routing in the world.  The first three sentences of the "What to Expect" section of Bill Satterfield's review explains a lot about the East Course at Merion.

"Merion (East) is the best course per acre on the planet, period. The Hugh Wilson layout is impressive by virtually anyone's standards, but it is a masterpiece when you consider the course sits on less than 120 acres. Though restricted in available acreage, the course doesn't feel short and delivers one of the most challenging experiences in America."

http://www.golfcoursegurus.com/reviews/merion(east).php

Some people feel Ridgepointe in Jonesboro has the best routing, see how easy that is?

www.ricepigisaguru.com.

[Hawgndaaz]

oh Jesus Christ!  You were spouting the same crap about Oakmont before the open....do you ever just shut up and admit you're AUTISTIC?


PP

fixt

[Jackrabbit Hog]

www.ricepigisaguru.com.

I clicked on your link and all I got was gay porn.     

[Hawg414]

fixt

you stay classy

[ricepig]

I clicked on your link and all I got was gay porn.     

Well, that would be your browser showing you the sites you frequent.......

[Jackrabbit Hog]

Well, that would be your browser showing you the sites you frequent.......

I was on GoHogs1091's computer when I typed that earlier this morning..

[ricepig]

I was on GoHogs1091's computer when I typed that earlier this morning..

Hmm.......maybe your duplicate account......I can see the UCA/Conque love, the    sick devotion to Perry.......but I don't see the Venables connection.....