2016 U.S. Women's Open

[ppl4golf]

Bethany won??

Congrats Bethany!

[golfgirlrobin]

You can argue the communication all you want, (to my mind they both get told at the same time, regardless of who is hitting what number shot), but I'm sick of hearing how penalties shouldn't count, that intent should matter, and how the rules of golf result in unfair results and the tournament is ruined because a rule was enforced.

 

You can't make all these rules subjective or an argument ensues every single time that one is enforced. How is it fair to the field to allow one player to talk herself out of a penalty? No one would ever admit that it affected their lie, or the result; play would come to a stop each and every time or they'd save the discussions for after the round and nobody in the field would ever know whether the leaderboard was correct (what they did to DJ and the exact situation everyone here got furious about.)

 

Not touching the sand is the most basic of rules. It's one of the first you learn. It's the player's responsibility to read the lie and set up appropriately. I was rooting hard for AN, I follow her on social media and like her very much, but she picked the wrong time to make a mistake. Nobody did it to her, it was all under her control.

[hankmoody]

I'm surprised there's so much support for the rule. I know it's the rule and it always has been, but maybe it's time for the USGA to review the rule book and add an element of intent into some of the rules like this. If the USGA is serious about growing the game and attracting new generations of golfers, devotion to rules which can have no bearing on the play at hand but change the outcome doesn't seem (to me) to be smart. Is the reason for the rule to make sure not a grain of sand moves? No, it's to prevent players from testing their lie etc. It could be written in a way to preserve whatever integrity they feel they need while avoiding inadvertent disasters.

 

And the head of the USGA calling B Lang Bethany? Total clown show. And from the new woman president of the USGA. On national TV.

 

 

Edit: the post above me presents the contrary view. I am asking the USGA consider how this plays to a 10 year old they are trying to attract to the game.

[bcflyguy1]

Live look at your next president of the USGA. Three cheers for your Open Champion Bethany Lang!!!

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

I'm surprised there's so much support for the rule. I know it's the rule and it always has been, but maybe it's time for the USGA to review the rule book and add an element of intent into some of the rules like this. If the USGA is serious about growing the game and attracting new generations of golfers, devotion to rules which can have no bearing on the play at hand but change the outcome doesn't seem (to me) to be smart. Is the reason for the rule to make sure not a grain of sand moves? No, it's to prevent players from testing their lie etc. It could be written in a way to preserve whatever integrity they feel they need while avoiding inadvertent disasters.

 

And the head of the USGA calling B Lang Bethany? Total clown show. And from the new woman president of the USGA. On national TV.

 

 

Edit: the post above me presents the contrary view. I am asking the USGA consider how this plays to a 10 year old they are trying to attract to the game.

 

My 10 year olds never had any trouble understanding they don't touch the sand in a bunker.

 

These resorts to "intent" which will never be part of that rule for obvious reasons known for decades, are just excuses for not studying and understanding the basis of the rules.

 

 

[crazy8golfer]

Shame on the USGA. Can we put an end to call in penalties yet?

 

Great to see all the "mean girls" lined up to congratulate her.

 

I noticed that also. All the mean girls were there waiting.

Please explain, why are you calling them mean girls ?

[Chief Illiniwek]

I'm surprised there's so much support for the rule. I know it's the rule and it always has been, but maybe it's time for the USGA to review the rule book and add an element of intent into some of the rules like this. If the USGA is serious about growing the game and attracting new generations of golfers, devotion to rules which can have no bearing on the play at hand but change the outcome doesn't seem (to me) to be smart. Is the reason for the rule to make sure not a grain of sand moves? No, it's to prevent players from testing their lie etc. It could be written in a way to preserve whatever integrity they feel they need while avoiding inadvertent disasters.

 

And the head of the USGA calling B Lang Bethany? Total clown show. And from the new woman president of the USGA. On national TV.

 

 

Edit: the post above me presents the contrary view. I am asking the USGA consider how this plays to a 10 year old they are trying to attract to the game.

 

You seriously want to put lots of gray area into the rule. Can you even imagine the arguments that would ensue after every grounding? Intent or no? One clump of sand or two? Did it change the lie at all? Etc etc... I understand it can be frustrating to have a situation like this decide a big tourney but adding tons of gray area to the rule would be disastrous!

[Justmuckit]

Rules are rules. Sucks that Anna literally made a grain of sand move, but technically it's a penalty.

 

I have two issues with this specific situation - not the rule itself. It took entirely too long to tell Anna and Bethany (good grief) and then when they did tell them, they gave Lang a huge advantage by telling her before her shot but after Anna's. Brittany said in an interview that this information changed her approach to the shot.

 

The bigger issue is the use of technology. There's no way Anna knew that she made a grain of sand move, and it took a 4k HD Super Zoom to see it. If pro golf wants to use this technology Thursday-Sunday and with every group, fine - but to use it here and there is ridiculously unfair, IMO.

[JaNelson38]

To be clear, the corruption of this tournament occurred when the USGA official made Anna aware of the penalty AFTER she hit her third shot. And before "Bethany" hit her third shot.

 

Exactly it was unfair and gave Lang a huge advantage over Anna.

 

It wasn't match play. It's an aggregate playoff. Two COMPLETELY different things.

 

What is your point ?? Lang was told before a potentially dangerous shot, and this took all the pressure of it. Anna didn't even get the chance to try the miracle shot as she surely would have if she had know. It was unfair and wrong.

 

It's an aggregate playoff. The score at the time of the ruling is irrelevant.

 

Now, if this were sudden death, the timing of telling the players is very relevant.

[hankmoody]

Not trying to be contrarian, but according to statistics and the USGA, there are not enough 10 years olds like yours to keep the game growing. Look, Anna knew the rule as well, heck, she handled it with grace and dignity. To me the question is two fold--want this happening in your marque events; and are traditions and rules like this (not exclusively this but like this) making golf seem out of touch. Understand there are differing views. That's what makes it a good topic.

HM

[preiter20]

I'm surprised there's so much support for the rule. I know it's the rule and it always has been, but maybe it's time for the USGA to review the rule book and add an element of intent into some of the rules like this. If the USGA is serious about growing the game and attracting new generations of golfers, devotion to rules which can have no bearing on the play at hand but change the outcome doesn't seem (to me) to be smart. Is the reason for the rule to make sure not a grain of sand moves? No, it's to prevent players from testing their lie etc. It could be written in a way to preserve whatever integrity they feel they need while avoiding inadvertent disasters.

 

And the head of the USGA calling B Lang Bethany? Total clown show. And from the new woman president of the USGA. On national TV.

 

 

Edit: the post above me presents the contrary view. I am asking the USGA consider how this plays to a 10 year old they are trying to attract to the game.

 

Intent should never be a consideration in a rules infraction. Did the 10 or so grains of sand that moved give Anna an advantage? Who knows? If she set her club down behind the ball and dragged the club back low in the backswing, I would definitely say yes, she gained an advantage. Regardless, a rule was broken, period. Hazard rules are a form of punishment for hitting in to the hazard. You lose some of your 'rights'. The way the USGA handled the communication of the infraction to the players materially impacted the decision on the third shot of Bethany (sorry, I had to). The information from the USGA should have been withheld after Brittany's third shot, after both players played their third. Better yet, play should have been halted the minute there was a question about a possible rules violation, IMO. I seriously doubt I will ever support the USGA financially again.

[DaveLeeNC]

I'm surprised there's so much support for the rule. I know it's the rule and it always has been, but maybe it's time for the USGA to review the rule book and add an element of intent into some of the rules like this. If the USGA is serious about growing the game and attracting new generations of golfers, devotion to rules which can have no bearing on the play at hand but change the outcome doesn't seem (to me) to be smart. Is the reason for the rule to make sure not a grain of sand moves? No, it's to prevent players from testing their lie etc. It could be written in a way to preserve whatever integrity they feel they need while avoiding inadvertent disasters.

 

And the head of the USGA calling B Lang Bethany? Total clown show. And from the new woman president of the USGA. On national TV.

 

 

Edit: the post above me presents the contrary view. I am asking the USGA consider how this plays to a 10 year old they are trying to attract to the game.

 

You seriously want to put lots of gray area into the rule. Can you even imagine the arguments that would ensue after every grounding? Intent or no? One clump of sand or two? Did it change the lie at all? Etc etc... I understand it can be frustrating to have a situation like this decide a big tourney but adding tons of gray area to the rule would be disastrous!

 

I agree. I can just see the equivalent in tennis. Umpire calls a footfault. Player says "I didn't intend to, and I didn't gain an advantage that mattered".

 

This is not unique to golf.

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

To be clear, the corruption of this tournament occurred when the USGA official made Anna aware of the penalty AFTER she hit her third shot. And before "Bethany" hit her third shot.

 

Exactly it was unfair and gave Lang a huge advantage over Anna.

 

It wasn't match play. It's an aggregate playoff. Two COMPLETELY different things.

 

What is your point ?? Lang was told before a potentially dangerous shot, and this took all the pressure of it. Anna didn't even get the chance to try the miracle shot as she surely would have if she had know. It was unfair and wrong.

 

It's an aggregate playoff. The score at the time of the ruling is irrelevant.

 

Now, if this were sudden death, the timing of telling the players is very relevant.

 

At the time of the ruling it was sudden death (tied on the 18th hole - first player to win a hole wins in all circumstances).

 

dave

[xxio]

Just to plug a thought.

 

What if it was a player trying to make the cut or a player's score that would move the cut line or make changes in money results.

 

Every violation is important, whether or not it gets caught on TV.

 

Timing. What should have been done? We can complain but what is the better alternative?

 

Really terrible for Anna.

[Christen_The_Sloop]

You (who question the timing of communicating the ruling to the players) realize you are asking the USGA to think. And, in wine country.

[hankmoody]

I'm surprised there's so much support for the rule. I know it's the rule and it always has been, but maybe it's time for the USGA to review the rule book and add an element of intent into some of the rules like this. If the USGA is serious about growing the game and attracting new generations of golfers, devotion to rules which can have no bearing on the play at hand but change the outcome doesn't seem (to me) to be smart. Is the reason for the rule to make sure not a grain of sand moves? No, it's to prevent players from testing their lie etc. It could be written in a way to preserve whatever integrity they feel they need while avoiding inadvertent disasters.

 

And the head of the USGA calling B Lang Bethany? Total clown show. And from the new woman president of the USGA. On national TV.

 

 

Edit: the post above me presents the contrary view. I am asking the USGA consider how this plays to a 10 year old they are trying to attract to the game.

 

You seriously want to put lots of gray area into the rule. Can you even imagine the arguments that would ensue after every grounding? Intent or no? One clump of sand or two? Did it change the lie at all? Etc etc... I understand it can be frustrating to have a situation like this decide a big tourney but adding tons of gray area to the rule would be disastrous!

 

One more from me and then I have to bounce. The way I look at it is that golf is a game of personal integrity. We rely on players to police their own actions all the time. Take away a hi def camera--which did not exist for the majority of the history of the game and the majority of matches played overall all even now, and that grey area exists. It's on the player as I understand it, or a rules official to make a lot of determinations. The game polices itself in a sense.

[golfgirlrobin]

The better question is why do the men get a full 18 hole playoff and the women get this crappy 3-hole version?

 

It's clearly not equitable. Would ratings suck and would it be expensive? Yes to both but it's still not right. How does the whole "it's our national championship and deserves 18 holes" not apply to the women's championship?

 

Give players the full 18 and maybe the tournament doesn't get decided by a penalty.

[Justmuckit]

You (who question the timing of communicating the ruling to the players) realize you are asking the USGA to think. And, in wine country.

 

It would appear that if Diana Murphy was to quit drinking, the cumulative hangover might kill her.

[jkumpire]

I personally hate the fact that to call this penalty you have at least two cameras on the player, one for her and one for the result of your shot. No rules official is going to see it unless they are lying in the bunker, a massive problem with all sports that use replay on calls.

 

However, rules are rules, and you can't have a gray area like some are asking for. You either get rid of the rule or enforce it, and the USGA did the best it could to send out the penalty to the players after they saw it. Things have improved!

 

On another rules subject, when is the last time in a major championship you saw the final group put on the clock?

 

An Aside; the way both players involved with these issues handled themselves is a testament to the class and honor professional players carry themselves, something any 10 year old should see, and do not see enough.

[Hawkeye77]

Not trying to be contrarian, but according to statistics and the USGA, there are not enough 10 years olds like yours to keep the game growing. Look, Anna knew the rule as well, heck, she handled it with grace and dignity. To me the question is two fold--want this happening in your marque events; and are traditions and rules like this (not exclusively this but like this) making golf seem out of touch. Understand there are differing views. That's what makes it a good topic.

HM

 

Calling an obvious penalty is not out of touch.

 

As for my kids, one of them has actively grown the game by helping little kids learn over the years, and both of them will grow the game by setting a good example for others when it comes to understanding the rules.

 

Overreaction, histrionics, etc. tend to do the opposite.

[vjswing]

The better question is why do the men get a full 18 hole playoff and the women get this crappy 3-hole version?

 

It's clearly not equitable. Would ratings suck and would it be expensive? Yes to both but it's still not right. How does the whole "it's our national championship and deserves 18 holes" not apply to the women's championship?

 

Give players the full 18 and maybe the tournament doesn't get decided by a penalty.

 

I honestly like the 3 or 4 hole aggregate, and believe that all of the men's majors should be decided in this fashion. Clearly, the PGA of America and R&A made this choice years ago. Augusta National still believes in sudden-death, which is a lousy way to determine the outcome of the Masters.

[JaNelson38]

The better question is why do the men get a full 18 hole playoff and the women get this crappy 3-hole version?

 

It's clearly not equitable. Would ratings suck and would it be expensive? Yes to both but it's still not right. How does the whole "it's our national championship and deserves 18 holes" not apply to the women's championship?

 

Give players the full 18 and maybe the tournament doesn't get decided by a penalty.

 

Don't put yourself in that position by driving your tee shot into a bunker.

 

In the end, that was the mistake...not anything the USGA did.

[Edaw68]

Shame on the USGA. Can we put an end to call in penalties yet?

 

Great to see all the "mean girls" lined up to congratulate her.

 

I noticed that also. All the mean girls were there waiting.

Please explain, why are you calling them mean girls ?

From a golf digest article a couple months ago, undercover LPGA pro. The author refers to a clique on the ladies tour as the mean girls. It's widely speculated to consist of some or all of the ladies in that group.

[PZero]

Shame on the USGA. Can we put an end to call in penalties yet?

 

Great to see all the "mean girls" lined up to congratulate her.

 

I noticed that also. All the mean girls were there waiting.

Please explain, why are you calling them mean girls ?

 

The Under Cover Tour Pro in Golf Digest did.

[farmer]

Anna handled the situation as gracefully and with as much class as anyone could ever show. As counterpoint, Deena Murphy handled her part as clumsily as is possible. Did she not actually watch any part of the telecast? Edit, I thought Dana called Brittany Stephanie at least once.

[widow-maker]

By rule, it was a penalty. It's a simple rule the way it's written. You can't touch the sand. Adding intent to a rule is a bad idea because it will become unenforceable. You should always opt for a black and white rendition on a rule rather than an interpretation of intent or what you thought might have happened.. That's why I didn't like the ruling on Dustin Johnson. 51% is a ridiculous standard to set. You either caused it to move or you didn't.

 

Now, the use of slow motion high def cameras for only certain shots in a tournament is getting a bit out of hand. There's no way that penalty is called in any normal situation because nobody could see it, or tell in real time with the naked eye. That means that camera induced penalties are being subjectively enforced. There's not a single one of us that would have called that on ourselves or another player because we wouldn't have known and we couldn't have seen it. Which means that one player can get called for it while another player gets away with it, solely depending on whether the camera was on you and the shot was important enough to merit scrutiny

 

I have no problem with the timing of the penalty, as long as they didn't know the penalty was certain before Anna hit her 3rd shot. If that moment truly happened in between their shots, then that's just the "rub of the green" so to say.

[tbowles411]

Shame on the USGA. Can we put an end to call in penalties yet?

 

Great to see all the "mean girls" lined up to congratulate her.

 

I noticed that also. All the mean girls were there waiting.

Please explain, why are you calling them mean girls ?

 

The Under Cover Tour Pro in Golf Digest did.

Well the Mean Girls have to welcome her to the Major Championship Club, whether they like it or not. :)

[VOX]

When Augusta implemented sudden death the rationale was that unlike the Open, the US Open, and the PGA, the Masters wasn't a Championship of anything. Given how significant it has become, it probably deserves a real play-off.

[PZero]

Hopefully Lang's parking spot for the next US Open reads "Reserved for Bethany Lang".

[golfgirlrobin]

The better question is why do the men get a full 18 hole playoff and the women get this crappy 3-hole version?

 

It's clearly not equitable. Would ratings suck and would it be expensive? Yes to both but it's still not right. How does the whole "it's our national championship and deserves 18 holes" not apply to the women's championship?

 

Give players the full 18 and maybe the tournament doesn't get decided by a penalty.

 

I honestly like the 3 or 4 hole aggregate, and believe that all of the men's majors should be decided in this fashion. Clearly, the PGA of America and R&A made this choice years ago. Augusta National still believes in sudden-death, which is a lousy way to determine the outcome of the Masters.

 

I actually agree with you, I like it better, too. But the question is how do they justify the difference between the men's and women's championships? My guess is with a lot of hemming and hawing.