Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[WidespreadPanic]

On Twitter the guy who ran the shotlink (Michael Klock) said

 

"Kang sure did cheat. The ball never came close to where he dropped. He should have been 200yds back. Kang threw a fit and got his way."

 

 

[Pleasedwith3putts]

There’s a guy on FB who says he was running the Shotlink on the hole and that he, three marshals and JD all saw it the same way, but the official took Kang’s word.

 

Apparently Kang said that he was 95% sure of where it crossed until the official told him he needed to be 100% sure or drop farther back, and miraculously, he was then 100% sure.

 

I have no issue with him being called out on this. These drops where the player takes an extra 100+ yards happen all the time and they’re bs. I’d love for guys to be a little less sure they can do it without consequences.

 

Very interesting.

 

The official was in a no win situation. He did not see the shot and can only rely on testimonies of others. If Kang strenuously defends that it crossed, then without footage, I guess the officials are told to side with the player not marker.

 

Let's hope that with all this media attention, somebody at the event produces some footage so we get to know who was correct.

 

If it is true that Kang went from being 95% sure to 100% sure following the exchange with the official, both of them should be ashamed. The official for failing to rule against him immediately if he wasn't 100% and Kang for changing his story to suit.

[eagle1997]

There’s a guy on FB who says he was running the Shotlink on the hole and that he, three marshals and JD all saw it the same way, but the official took Kang’s word.

 

Apparently Kang said that he was 95% sure of where it crossed until the official told him he needed to be 100% sure or drop farther back, and miraculously, he was then 100% sure.

 

I have no issue with him being called out on this. These drops where the player takes an extra 100+ yards happen all the time and they’re bs. I’d love for guys to be a little less sure they can do it without consequences.

I saw that comment on FB too. Very interesting

 

got a link handy?

 

thanks in advance.

[OffTheDole]

Tiger's drop at THE PLAYERS in 2013 was mentioned earlier in the thread. I have posted this before but can't find it, so I'll offer up the short version:

 

I was standing inside the ropes down the fairway on hole 14 at TPC Sawgrass in 2013 when Tiger Woods teed off. I saw his ball splash in the water. From what I could see with my own eyes his drop was legitimate.

 

There have been other rules issues that have followed Tiger, but I was there and nobody in the immediate area seemed to have a problem with how it was handled.

[Ferguson]

 

Are they playing Duck, Duck, Rangoon?

 

 

The 5 D's of Duck, Duck Rangoon:

Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge

 

I love that movie. "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."

 

There's actually footage of the Kang/Dahmen incident on ESPN 8, "The Ocho."

 

 

From the "Collective Works of Patches O'Houlihan"

 

"Remember, dodgeball is a sport of violence, exclusion and degradation. So, when you're picking players in gym class, remember to pick the bigger, stronger kids for your team. That way you can gang up on the weaker ones, like Winston here."

[bladehunter]

Y'all are quick to jump on Dahmen for using strong language. I look at it another way; i dont think he would stick his neck on the line unless he felt very strongly about the situation. He is trying to protect the field which i can respect. Clearly he had a good view if he is going to argue about it for 20 minutes when it has no impact on his paycheck or status.

 

Cheaters need to be called out and held accountable.

 

trouble with that is , nobody believes him without video proof.. so in the end hes the a** with no proof..... you have to be smarter than that

[eagle1997]

 

 

 

 

Sung Kang's team issued the following statement on Monday to the PGA Tour's communications department:

 

"He is standing by the ruling that was made by PGA Tour Rules officials on Sunday and will have no further comment, other than he is looking forward to focusing on finishing out the season strong, and he is excited about the opportunity to play in The Open Championship again in a few weeks."

 

 

quote via https://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/dahmen-calls-out-playing-partner-kang-cheated/

[bladehunter]

On Twitter the guy who ran the shotlink (Michael Klock) said

 

"Kang sure did cheat. The ball never came close to where he dropped. He should have been 200yds back. Kang threw a fit and got his way."

 

 

and here we have some more info which sways my mind a bit.. still tough without video.... and ill add .. if the shotlink guy says it didnt come close to the green , why does the shotlink picture tracker say it did ??

[SkiSchoolPro]

from another thread on hazard drops:

Use you best judgment as to where the ball last crossed, the Rules thereafter will protect you:

 

 

 

 

 

26-1/17

 

 

Point Where Ball Last Crossed Margin of Lateral Water Hazard Determined and Ball Dropped and Played; Point Then Proves to Be Wrong Point

 

 

Q.In the circumstances described in Decision 26-1/16, where it becomes known that A's judgment of where his ball last crossed the margin of a lateral water hazard is incorrect, what is the ruling if A, having dropped a ball in the wrong place, plays it before his error is discovered?

 

A.A must continue play with the ball played from the wrong place, without penalty. Applying a penalty under Rule 26-1 for playing from the wrong place (see Rule 20-7) is not appropriate. Otherwise, a competitor would risk incurring a penalty every time he makes an honest judgment as to the point where his ball last crosses a water hazard margin and that judgment subsequently proves incorrect.

 

 

So if a player is 95% sure it crossed point A and 5% sure it crossed point B, can they still drop at point A or is there something that says if they are not 100% sure, then they have to go the stroke and distance route (or drop at the more conservative spot). My take is that if a player is 95% sure, then that is their judgement and they can go to point A. (Of course, how can you be 95% sure if everyone else around says it did not cross at point A?).

 

Edit to add this post below

 

Crappy drawing, best I could do.

 

Yellow stake becomes red stake. The dashed line is the ball flight. Ball lands at the "x," on land, and hops back into the water. There's a red line that goes from red stake to red stake, around the water, about two feet from the water line. From the tee could not tell which side of the red line the ball landed on before going back into the water.

 

Is dropping by the "x" an option?

 

 

I said "no" because we couldn't tell if the ball cleared the red line.

 

I think it might be "no" even if we could tell it cleared the red line.

 

If you are not sure that it crossed the red margin then you could drop on the flagline (ie the line from the hole, through the point where the ball last crossed the yellow margin, as far back as you wish.

 

However, what does the LR say about the Dropping Zone? Is it compulsory or optional. If optional, why not drop there as the ball is in the WH.

 

 

The Drop Zone is optional and was used.

I have to say, this is what I would have done when it was a close call regarding whether the ball bounced back to the LWH or never hit the safe territory on the other side and there was no Committee member to make the call. Even if the DZ was a harder shot, I wouldn't have wanted to have to make such a call and have that weigh on my mind. If there were no DZ I'd man-up and go the way I'd best estimated. But as it was, the DZ was an equitable choice.

[WidespreadPanic]

On Twitter the guy who ran the shotlink (Michael Klock) said

 

"Kang sure did cheat. The ball never came close to where he dropped. He should have been 200yds back. Kang threw a fit and got his way."

 

 

and here we have some more info which sways my mind a bit.. still tough without video.... and ill add .. if the shotlink guy says it didnt come close to the green , why does the shotlink picture tracker say it did ??

I was thinking the same thing. His work says one thing but he says another. The way I see it is that we will never know for sure if Kang was wrong, so we have to take his drop as legitimate.

[DON SVO]

and here we have some more info which sways my mind a bit.. still tough without video.... and ill add .. if the shotlink guy says it didnt come close to the green , why does the shotlink picture tracker say it did ??

 

Everyone says "draw", but what if Kang hit a mean pull-fade that never got all the way back? That would explain the ball hanging so far out into the hazard but getting pretty close to the green at landing.

[PuttLeftHitRight]

On Twitter the guy who ran the shotlink (Michael Klock) said

 

"Kang sure did cheat. The ball never came close to where he dropped. He should have been 200yds back. Kang threw a fit and got his way."

 

 

and here we have some more info which sways my mind a bit.. still tough without video.... and ill add .. if the shotlink guy says it didnt come close to the green , why does the shotlink picture tracker say it did ??

 

The guy weighing in was working the green. There's other people that handle tee shots and the approach.

[DavePelz4]

To be standing 200 yards away and able to differentiate the exact spot at where the ball crossed a specific point, with 100% certainty, is some amazing visual acuity.

[Frostfield]

This is a situation where it would be critical to know these individuals on a personal level as to which one to believe. I have friends that if they tell me something, I know its 100% accurate. Other buddies it can be 50-50 lol. Sad But True.

[bscinstnct]

On Twitter the guy who ran the shotlink (Michael Klock) said

 

"Kang sure did cheat. The ball never came close to where he dropped. He should have been 200yds back. Kang threw a fit and got his way."

 

This is heavy, Bud

 

[Pleasedwith3putts]

I'm guessing shotlink just puts up a rough representation when a ball finishes in a hazard. It's not like they are going swim out into a lake for instance to get the precise point the ball finished!

[eagle1997]

Everyone says "draw", but what if Kang hit a mean pull-fade that never got all the way back? That would explain the ball hanging so far out into the hazard but getting pretty close to the green at landing.

 

also possible.

 

"draw" is the shot shape that vindicates kang's drop, while also explaining JD's statement. doesn't mean it's true tho.

 

the pga tour statement says they interviewed players, caddies and marshalls.

 

i guess they never got to the shot link guy.

[Drudersh]

On Twitter the guy who ran the shotlink (Michael Klock) said

 

"Kang sure did cheat. The ball never came close to where he dropped. He should have been 200yds back. Kang threw a fit and got his way."

 

 

and here we have some more info which sways my mind a bit.. still tough without video.... and ill add .. if the shotlink guy says it didnt come close to the green , why does the shotlink picture tracker say it did ??

I was thinking the same thing. His work says one thing but he says another. The way I see it is that we will never know for sure if Kang was wrong, so we have to take his drop as legitimate.

 

I think he was saying that it never came close to crossing the hazard line where he dropped, and only crossed the hazard line about 200 yards back where he should have taken the drop.

 

 

[Ignatius Reilly]

There’s a guy on FB who says he was running the Shotlink on the hole and that he, three marshals and JD all saw it the same way, but the official took Kang’s word.

 

Apparently Kang said that he was 95% sure of where it crossed until the official told him he needed to be 100% sure or drop farther back, and miraculously, he was then 100% sure.

 

I have no issue with him being called out on this. These drops where the player takes an extra 100+ yards happen all the time and they’re bs. I’d love for guys to be a little less sure they can do it without consequences.

 

Imagine, for a moment, that you were a young pro and went over to Korea 6 years ago to play on their tour. A rules controversy erupts in their national open. You have a conversation with the RO that goes something like this:

 

그 위치에 대해 얼마나 확신하십니까??

 

나는 95 퍼센트 확신한다!

 

100 퍼센트 확실해야합니다!!!!

 

그럼 나는 100 % 확신합니다!!!!!

 

(my point is you may be reading too much into what could be an ESL issue).

[stickner]

Y'all are quick to jump on Dahmen for using strong language. I look at it another way; i dont think he would stick his neck on the line unless he felt very strongly about the situation. He is trying to protect the field which i can respect. Clearly he had a good view if he is going to argue about it for 20 minutes when it has no impact on his paycheck or status.

 

Cheaters need to be called out and held accountable.

 

The reason he's being jumped on is because there is an official whose job it is to make rulings and he made one in this case that favored the drop Kang took. Dahmen is welcome to disagree with it and say he disagrees with it.

 

I don't understand the logic of "well he said something forcefully so it must be true". Is that how it works? Whoever makes the boldest claim is likely right? I shudder thinking of a world where this is commonly accepted. I wonder if men feel the same way about say, sexual harrassment complaints.

 

If you are looking at the facts at hand, they suggest Kang is right. If only because the official sided with him.

Often times the louder someone yells the more right (they think) they are :)

 

BA

 

 

BA

 

 

 

 

BOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEYYYYYY!!

[PuttLeftHitRight]

There’s a guy on FB who says he was running the Shotlink on the hole and that he, three marshals and JD all saw it the same way, but the official took Kang’s word.

 

Apparently Kang said that he was 95% sure of where it crossed until the official told him he needed to be 100% sure or drop farther back, and miraculously, he was then 100% sure.

 

I have no issue with him being called out on this. These drops where the player takes an extra 100+ yards happen all the time and they’re bs. I’d love for guys to be a little less sure they can do it without consequences.

 

Imagine, for a moment, that you were a young pro and went over to Korea 6 years ago to play on their tour. A rules controversy erupts in their national open. You have a conversation with the RO that goes something like this:

 

그 위치에 대해 얼마나 확신하십니까??

 

나는 95 퍼센트 확신한다!

 

100 퍼센트 확실해야합니다!!!!

 

그럼 나는 100 % 확신합니다!!!!!

 

(my point is you may be reading too much into what could be an ESL issue).

 

This post makes no sense. The rules of golf regarding a drop on a hazard should not be impacted by language barrier between a player and an official.

[MtlJeff]

There’s a guy on FB who says he was running the Shotlink on the hole and that he, three marshals and JD all saw it the same way, but the official took Kang’s word.

 

Apparently Kang said that he was 95% sure of where it crossed until the official told him he needed to be 100% sure or drop farther back, and miraculously, he was then 100% sure.

 

I have no issue with him being called out on this. These drops where the player takes an extra 100+ yards happen all the time and they’re bs. I’d love for guys to be a little less sure they can do it without consequences.

 

Imagine, for a moment, that you were a young pro and went over to Korea 6 years ago to play on their tour. A rules controversy erupts in their national open. You have a conversation with the RO that goes something like this:

 

그 위치에 대해 얼마나 확신하십니까??

 

나는 95 퍼센트 확신한다!

 

100 퍼센트 확실해야합니다!!!!

 

그럼 나는 100 % 확신합니다!!!!!

 

(my point is you may be reading too much into what could be an ESL issue).

 

This post makes no sense. The rules of golf regarding a drop on a hazard should not be impacted by language barrier between a player and an official.

 

We also know Sung Kang speaks perfect English from the fact he's starred in 3 fast and the furious movies

[eagle1997]

if sung had just hit it like this, there would have been no question about where to drop.

 

 

^made par after that shot, too. :)

[Ignatius Reilly]

There’s a guy on FB who says he was running the Shotlink on the hole and that he, three marshals and JD all saw it the same way, but the official took Kang’s word.

 

Apparently Kang said that he was 95% sure of where it crossed until the official told him he needed to be 100% sure or drop farther back, and miraculously, he was then 100% sure.

 

I have no issue with him being called out on this. These drops where the player takes an extra 100+ yards happen all the time and they’re bs. I’d love for guys to be a little less sure they can do it without consequences.

 

Imagine, for a moment, that you were a young pro and went over to Korea 6 years ago to play on their tour. A rules controversy erupts in their national open. You have a conversation with the RO that goes something like this:

 

그 위치에 대해 얼마나 확신하십니까??

 

나는 95 퍼센트 확신한다!

 

100 퍼센트 확실해야합니다!!!!

 

그럼 나는 100 % 확신합니다!!!!!

 

(my point is you may be reading too much into what could be an ESL issue).

 

This post makes no sense. The rules of golf regarding a drop on a hazard should not be impacted by language barrier between a player and an official.

 

...sigh....

 

Of course they are. Everything can be impacted by a language barrier.

 

What would your response be in my hypothetical situation to that question:

 

그 위치에 대해 얼마나 확신하십니까??

 

Maybe it's just me, but I've never been "100%" sure of where to drop a ball some 250 yards away. We pretty much talk it over and come to an agreement that "about here, this looks right". Could be off be a yard, or 5.

 

If the test is a strict, literal, 100% we'd probably never be able to play.

[PuttLeftHitRight]

There’s a guy on FB who says he was running the Shotlink on the hole and that he, three marshals and JD all saw it the same way, but the official took Kang’s word.

 

Apparently Kang said that he was 95% sure of where it crossed until the official told him he needed to be 100% sure or drop farther back, and miraculously, he was then 100% sure.

 

I have no issue with him being called out on this. These drops where the player takes an extra 100+ yards happen all the time and they’re bs. I’d love for guys to be a little less sure they can do it without consequences.

 

Imagine, for a moment, that you were a young pro and went over to Korea 6 years ago to play on their tour. A rules controversy erupts in their national open. You have a conversation with the RO that goes something like this:

 

그 위치에 대해 얼마나 확신하십니까??

 

나는 95 퍼센트 확신한다!

 

100 퍼센트 확실해야합니다!!!!

 

그럼 나는 100 % 확신합니다!!!!!

 

(my point is you may be reading too much into what could be an ESL issue).

 

This post makes no sense. The rules of golf regarding a drop on a hazard should not be impacted by language barrier between a player and an official.

 

...sigh....

 

Of course they are. Everything can be impacted by a language barrier.

 

What would your response be in my hypothetical situation to that question:

 

그 위치에 대해 얼마나 확신하십니까??

 

Maybe it's just me, but I've never been "100%" sure of where to drop a ball some 250 yards away. We pretty much talk it over and come to an agreement that "about here, this looks right". Could be off be a yard, or 5.

 

If the test is a strict, literal, 100% we'd probably never be able to play.

 

You don't take drops when you are 95% sure. Dude sounds like a cheater if he actually said that to a rules official.

[Birdie Mac]

So Dahmen was bold enough to label Kang a cheat, but not bold enough to refuse to sign the scorecard? Is there anyone in this thread that would voluntarily sign a scorecard for someone you believed cheated?

 

Kudos to Kang's team for taking the high road and making a brief, nondescript response. No way would I have responded like that after having my integrity questioned. I have no problem with Dahmen or anyone else protecting the field, but I think he handled it poorly.

[ClintDagger]

There’s a guy on FB who says he was running the Shotlink on the hole and that he, three marshals and JD all saw it the same way, but the official took Kang’s word.

 

Apparently Kang said that he was 95% sure of where it crossed until the official told him he needed to be 100% sure or drop farther back, and miraculously, he was then 100% sure.

 

I have no issue with him being called out on this. These drops where the player takes an extra 100+ yards happen all the time and they’re bs. I’d love for guys to be a little less sure they can do it without consequences.

 

Imagine, for a moment, that you were a young pro and went over to Korea 6 years ago to play on their tour. A rules controversy erupts in their national open. You have a conversation with the RO that goes something like this:

 

그 위치에 대해 얼마나 확신하십니까??

 

나는 95 퍼센트 확신한다!

 

100 퍼센트 확실해야합니다!!!!

 

그럼 나는 100 % 확신합니다!!!!!

 

(my point is you may be reading too much into what could be an ESL issue).

 

This post makes no sense. The rules of golf regarding a drop on a hazard should not be impacted by language barrier between a player and an official.

 

...sigh....

 

Of course they are. Everything can be impacted by a language barrier.

 

What would your response be in my hypothetical situation to that question:

 

그 위치에 대해 얼마나 확신하십니까??

 

Maybe it's just me, but I've never been "100%" sure of where to drop a ball some 250 yards away. We pretty much talk it over and come to an agreement that "about here, this looks right". Could be off be a yard, or 5.

 

If the test is a strict, literal, 100% we'd probably never be able to play.

I think the 100% v. 95% stuff comes down to Kang saying he’s not sure, and JD saying he is sure. In that case the rules official might push for the drop to match what JD says he saw. Once Kang says he’s completely sure there is no other debate. The R.O. has no choice but to go with the player that hit the shot.

[Albatross85]

So Dahmen was bold enough to label Kang a cheat, but not bold enough to refuse to sign the scorecard? Is there anyone in this thread that would voluntarily sign a scorecard for someone you believed cheated?

 

Kudos to Kang's team for taking the high road and making a brief, nondescript response. No way would I have responded like that after having my integrity questioned. I have no problem with Dahmen or anyone else protecting the field, but I think he handled it poorly.

Dahmen said on twitter the rules official will sign if he doesnt and that he would just be delaying the tournament even further.

[Birdie Mac]

Granted the rules official would have signed, which would have been the better option if he truly believed he cheated. Signing it yourself, then grousing about it on Twitter is weak. It's easy to be bold on Twitter.

[Drudersh]

Granted the rules official would have signed, which would have been the better option if he truly believed he cheated. Signing it yourself, then grousing about it on Twitter is weak. It's easy to be bold on Twitter.

 

Given JD's description of events it sounds like he wasn't shy about voicing his opinion right then and there in front of Kang during the ruling.