Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[bandrz]

Shotlink probably thinks Oswald acted alone

[bscinstnct]

Exactly. That's why it's extraordinary for JD to do just that. He doesn't say, "I think Kang took a bad drop" or "That was a very iffy drop"

 

Point blank,

 

"Kang cheated"

 

There are two possible conclusions you could draw from that.

 

i) "Kang Cheated"; or

ii) "Dahmen's an (extraordinary (your word, not mine!)) Idiot"

 

You've chosen (i), but (ii) is equally valid.

 

WRT Shotlink evidence:

 

I think the Shotlink lines are always straight, never curved. So using them to prove where the ball went in the air doesn't really work. Go look at Bubba Watson's Shotlink from any tournament.

 

Straight, straight, straight.

 

Also, tropics said in post #278 that shotlink shows where the ball lands - I think it shows where the ball ended up after bounces and rolls, otherwise the next shot might start about 60 yards from where the previous one landed.

 

This becomes more challenging to be precise when it ends up in the middle of the lake. Nobody's going out there, but it doesn't matter.

 

I did not draw any conclusion. I don't know if Kang cheated. I pointed out how extraordinary it was for JD to make such a direct statement. Don't recall every seeing that before. Did Watson accuse Player in such a manner?

 

Hey, you gonna eat some hot dogs tomorrow? ; ) Love that book.

 

[Jay ZG]

https://golfweek.com/2018/07/02/pga-tour-witness-describes-what-led-to-cheating-accusation-by-golf-joel-dahmen/

 

It would appear that Mr. Kang is full of doo doo.

[Fairways_and_Greens]

Im looking at it this way.. You could take a jruy to the scene of the crime.. place Joel where he hit his shot from..and place a player where Kang hit from.. Have that player hit 10 shots at that left of the green.. 5 draws and 5 fades at random into the hazard... have Joel call the shape and if it crosses or not from his position.. have the blimp filming ..can he name the shape and yes or no on crossing the line more than twice ? doubt it Witness discredited

 

I think this is the best example of a straw man argument I've ever seen on a message board.

[15th Club]

Exactly. That's why it's extraordinary for JD to do just that. He doesn't say, "I think Kang took a bad drop" or "That was a very iffy drop"

 

Point blank,

 

"Kang cheated"

 

There are two possible conclusions you could draw from that.

 

i) "Kang Cheated"; or

ii) "Dahmen's an (extraordinary (your word, not mine!)) Idiot"

 

You've chosen (i), but (ii) is equally valid.

 

WRT Shotlink evidence:

 

I think the Shotlink lines are always straight, never curved. So using them to prove where the ball went in the air doesn't really work. Go look at Bubba Watson's Shotlink from any tournament.

 

Straight, straight, straight.

 

Also, tropics said in post #278 that shotlink shows where the ball lands - I think it shows where the ball ended up after bounces and rolls, otherwise the next shot might start about 60 yards from where the previous one landed.

 

This becomes more challenging to be precise when it ends up in the middle of the lake. Nobody's going out there, but it doesn't matter.

 

For my part, I wasn't relying on any "Shotlink evidence." I was referring to an eyewitness who happened to be a Shotlink volunteer. He was standing near where the ball came to rest, in the hazard. And he saw the shot, and the place where Kang struck the shot. And he felt that there was no doubt whatsoever that the ball's flight was over the hazard the entire time (from when it entered the hazard). And another, unrelated witness on the opposite end of the shot (Kang's end) suggested the same thing.

[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."

 

heres the quote im refering to ..of course i paraphrased , but heres the actual quote... he says it was 200 yards from where shotlink says it is... doesnt say it ddint cross and should be 200 back ..says it never came close to where he dropped... somebody isnt really good with facts or eye sight

 

You’re having a tough time grasping this. Yes the ball came to rest in the hazard up by the green. The issue is where The ball crosses the hazard marker, in the opinion of ShotLink man, that was about 200 yards back.

 

It’s where it crosses. Not where it ends up.

 

 

 

You’re dragging up a post from 4 hours ago ?

 

What I’m havin trouble with is how some of you know it didn’t cross farther up ?

 

And to add to that suppose it didn’t cross where he said it did. Where to drop ? You can’t say for certain where it crossed. So what you guys are saying is that a guess farther back is ok. But a guess farther up is cheating ? Get out-a here! Not sure is not sure.

[johndagolfer]

Im looking at it this way.. You could take a jruy to the scene of the crime.. place Joel where he hit his shot from..and place a player where Kang hit from.. Have that player hit 10 shots at that left of the green.. 5 draws and 5 fades at random into the hazard... have Joel call the shape and if it crosses or not from his position.. have the blimp filming ..can he name the shape and yes or no on crossing the line more than twice ? doubt it Witness discredited

You are (intentionally?) missing half of the point here. If your argument is that Joel can't say for certain whether or not it crossed the line standing to the right of Kang, with a BETTER view of the hazard line LEFT of the green, then how in the world can Kang say for certain that it did cross near the green?

Lets run with the premise that neither guy from 200 plus yards back is able see exactly what happened beyond a reasonable doubt, but at the same time they both strongly believe that they know exactly what happened. In Kang's case, in his own mind, he is absolutely certain his ball crossed the hazard. In Dahmen's case, he is absolutely sure it didn't. Does Kang have some kind of obligation to trust Dahmen's ruling? I would think not, particularly in the heat of competition. Especially if a rules official also sides with Kang, even if just by default. Let's say that retrospectively there is video evidence that Dahmen is correct and Kang is wrong. Would Kang be considered a cheater? I would personally say no, although he would still certainly be in the wrong and would deserve whatever ruling or punishment came his way. I would not consider Kang to be a cheater unless he actively knew that he was taking a bad drop and did so to gain an unfair advantage. I think it's a stretch to call someone a cheater for taking a bad drop, unless you are absolutely sure that the guy is intentionally and purposefully flaunting the rules. I realize you would almost never be able to read a guys mind in that manner, and so I think the cheater label should be used in very rare circumstances for repeat offenders and the like. The interesting situation would be if somehow there is evidence proving Kang in the right and and Dahmen in the wrong. I would love to see the reaction to that but it seems like this whole situation will remain a mystery.

I bolded the point at which I think the case for Kang falls apart. Kang wanted to be right, no doubt. It was in his interest in a very, very big way to be right. Being right on this issue got him into the British Open, did it not? But the witness statements are that on the scene, Kang stated that he was "95% certain" that his ball curved and did not enter the hazard until it was near the green (which is a bit of an odd claim, given where he played from; because his essential claim was that he hit a rather wide swinging hook, which would have been hard to see and calculate visually). So Kang was not "100% certain", yet he argued on his own behalf and clung to the notion that unless anybody could prove him wrong, he'd get the drop that he wanted.

 

Another way to look at this, is that 100% is an absolute certainty. There is no room for interpretation. From 200+ yards out can anyone say, without a doubt, that something occurred? This is why the rules allow for best judgement in cases like these. It is very possible that two players saw in their minds two exactly different things. Look how many innocent people are in jail because an eye witness was 100% certain that something was true, only to be proven incorrect through DNA testing.

 

Because there is no definite proof that Kang was incorrect, and it is his call, I am willing to give him the doubt that he made the correct drop.

[Birdie Mac]

Any classic Japanese film buffs on this forum? This thread reads like a golf version of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon: four versions of the same event by four different witnesses.

 

Dahmen made his case, lost the ruling, and signed the scorecard. At that point he should have sucked it up and moved on. You win some, you lose some. If he truly believed Kang cheated, he could have waited for karma to catch up with him. Looks low class to sign a scorecard verifying the score is correct, then saying, "Yeah, he cheated."

[johndagolfer]

Any classic Japanese film buffs on this forum? This thread reads like a golf version of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon: four versions of the same event by four different witnesses.

 

Dahmen made his case, lost the ruling, and signed the scorecard. At that point he should have sucked it up and moved on. You win some, you lose some. If he truly believed Kang cheated, he could have waited for karma to catch up with him. Looks low class to sign a scorecard verifying the score is correct, then saying, "Yeah, he cheated."

 

This is what gets me. So many people who were not there are calling Kang a cheater now. Even if it is, somehow, proven that he took an incorrect drop there is still now way of proving whether it was an honest mistake or if he was truly intending to cheat. The only person who does is Kang himself and he has made his position clear.

[JohnnyCashForever]

Any classic Japanese film buffs on this forum? This thread reads like a golf version of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon

 

Or like the Ultraman episode where he battles the Lobsterhands monster.

[MK7Golf21]

Im going to side with Kang just because of the hat dahmen wore on Sat

[OffTheDole]

Any classic Japanese film buffs on this forum? This thread reads like a golf version of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon: four versions of the same event by four different witnesses.

 

Love the Rashomon reference!

[ray9898]

 

 

Another way to look at this, is that 100% is an absolute certainty. There is no room for interpretation. From 200+ yards out can anyone say, without a doubt, that something occurred? This is why the rules allow for best judgement in cases like these. It is very possible that two players saw in their minds two exactly different things. Look how many innocent people are in jail because an eye witness was 100% certain that something was true, only to be proven incorrect through DNA testing.

 

Because there is no definite proof that Kang was incorrect, and it is his call, I am willing to give him the doubt that he made the correct drop.

 

LOL....so why even try to enforce the rules? Say 5 people see a ball fly straight across the hazard and not make it out on the other side. The player claims he carried the hazard and it bounced back in.

 

Is everyone else in the wrong by pointing that out?

[tiderider]

if kang doubles the hole instead of parring it, tiger finishes T3 instead of T4, right? ... how many wgr pts is that?

 

first ye yang, now kang ... tiger better watch the koreans ...

[jonsnow]

https://golfweek.com...lf-joel-dahmen/

 

It would appear that Mr. Kang is full of doo doo.

 

I would appear Mr. Klock has joined #metoo...

[johndagolfer]

Another way to look at this, is that 100% is an absolute certainty. There is no room for interpretation. From 200+ yards out can anyone say, without a doubt, that something occurred? This is why the rules allow for best judgement in cases like these. It is very possible that two players saw in their minds two exactly different things. Look how many innocent people are in jail because an eye witness was 100% certain that something was true, only to be proven incorrect through DNA testing.

 

Because there is no definite proof that Kang was incorrect, and it is his call, I am willing to give him the doubt that he made the correct drop.

 

LOL....so why even try to enforce the rules? Say 5 people see a ball fly straight across the hazard and not make it out on the other side. The player claims he carried the hazard and it bounced back in.

 

Is everyone else in the wrong by pointing that out?

 

I would say the rules were enforced. I believe the rules state the person hitting the ball has final say. The rules official would not have made the ruling he/she did without it being written in the rules that way. Again, 5 witnesses say he is wrong, there have been some that say he is correct. Perception is irrelevant as evidence in this case because that is not how the rule is written.

[lchang]

If I were in Kang's situation--i.e., I am 95% certain it crossed near the green, and my playing partner is 95% certain it crossed 200 yards farther back--I'd drop way back. It would be impossible for me to be 100% certain if my playing partner and his caddie (and apparently other witnesses) were so certain of what they saw. By definition, there's plenty of doubt in this situation. I'd consider it literally impossible to be 100% certain given other witness testimony.

 

So, I take the conservative drop with a clear conscience and eliminate any chance of being called a cheater. That's worth it to me. My golf career will be fine, even if in the short term it means I miss the British Open.

 

Wouldn't all (most?) of you who are defending Kang agree with this?

 

PS: if the player lies to the rules official--and the rules official subsequently signs off on it, the player could still have cheated. This logic of "Rules official signed off--therefore: no cheating" is flawed.

[johndagolfer]

If I were in Kang's situation--i.e., I am 95% certain it crossed near the green, and my playing partner is 95% certain it crossed 200 yards farther back--I'd drop way back. It would be impossible for me to be 100% certain if my playing partner and his caddie (and apparently other witnesses) were so certain of what they saw. By definition, there's plenty of doubt in this situation. I'd consider it literally impossible to be 100% certain given other witness testimony.

 

So, I take the conservative drop with a clear conscience and eliminate any chance of being called a cheater. That's worth it to me. My golf career will be fine, even if in the short term it means I miss the British Open.

 

Wouldn't all (most?) of you who are defending Kang agree with this?

 

PS: if the player lies to the rules official--and the rules official subsequently signs off on it, the player could still have cheated. This logic of "Rules official signed off--therefore: no cheating" is flawed.

 

I'm fine with everything you said, except the last part. Who is it for anyone to say that Kang was cheating. The only person who knows his intent was Kang himself. Calling him a cheat is saying that you can read his mind.

[lchang]

If I were in Kang's situation--i.e., I am 95% certain it crossed near the green, and my playing partner is 95% certain it crossed 200 yards farther back--I'd drop way back. It would be impossible for me to be 100% certain if my playing partner and his caddie (and apparently other witnesses) were so certain of what they saw. By definition, there's plenty of doubt in this situation. I'd consider it literally impossible to be 100% certain given other witness testimony.

 

So, I take the conservative drop with a clear conscience and eliminate any chance of being called a cheater. That's worth it to me. My golf career will be fine, even if in the short term it means I miss the British Open.

 

Wouldn't all (most?) of you who are defending Kang agree with this?

 

PS: if the player lies to the rules official--and the rules official subsequently signs off on it, the player could still have cheated. This logic of "Rules official signed off--therefore: no cheating" is flawed.

 

I'm fine with everything you said, except the last part. Who is it for anyone to say that Kang was cheating. The only person who knows his intent was Kang himself. Calling a cheat is saying that you can read his mind.

 

I'm NOT saying Kang cheated (not saying he didn't either). I'm saying it's possible for a player to lie to a Rules official. The Rules official signs off on a ruling. In such a case, the player still cheated. Thus my sentence: 'This logic of "Rules official signed off--therefore: no cheating" is flawed.' Make sense?

 

[ Rules official signing off on a ruling --> no cheating occurred ] is incorrect. That's what I'm saying.

[johndagolfer]

If I were in Kang's situation--i.e., I am 95% certain it crossed near the green, and my playing partner is 95% certain it crossed 200 yards farther back--I'd drop way back. It would be impossible for me to be 100% certain if my playing partner and his caddie (and apparently other witnesses) were so certain of what they saw. By definition, there's plenty of doubt in this situation. I'd consider it literally impossible to be 100% certain given other witness testimony.

 

So, I take the conservative drop with a clear conscience and eliminate any chance of being called a cheater. That's worth it to me. My golf career will be fine, even if in the short term it means I miss the British Open.

 

Wouldn't all (most?) of you who are defending Kang agree with this?

 

PS: if the player lies to the rules official--and the rules official subsequently signs off on it, the player could still have cheated. This logic of "Rules official signed off--therefore: no cheating" is flawed.

 

I'm fine with everything you said, except the last part. Who is it for anyone to say that Kang was cheating. The only person who knows his intent was Kang himself. Calling a cheat is saying that you can read his mind.

 

I'm NOT saying Kang cheated (not saying he didn't either). I'm saying it's possible for a player to lie to a Rules official. The Rules official signs off on a ruling. In such a case, the player still cheated. Thus my sentence: 'This logic of "Rules official signed off--therefore: no cheating" is flawed.' Make sense?

 

[ Rules official signing off on a ruling --> no cheating occurred ] is incorrect. That's what I'm saying.

 

That makes sense. The way you phrased it left some room for interpretation. The tough thing, though, is the proving that someone was truly lying and not just mistaken.

 

Because we cannot prove Kang was lying, by the letter of the rules of golf, the way this situation was handled, was in concordance with the rules.

[new2g0lf]

JD can

If I were in Kang's situation--i.e., I am 95% certain it crossed near the green, and my playing partner is 95% certain it crossed 200 yards farther back--I'd drop way back. It would be impossible for me to be 100% certain if my playing partner and his caddie (and apparently other witnesses) were so certain of what they saw. By definition, there's plenty of doubt in this situation. I'd consider it literally impossible to be 100% certain given other witness testimony.

 

So, I take the conservative drop with a clear conscience and eliminate any chance of being called a cheater. That's worth it to me. My golf career will be fine, even if in the short term it means I miss the British Open.

 

Wouldn't all (most?) of you who are defending Kang agree with this?

 

PS: if the player lies to the rules official--and the rules official subsequently signs off on it, the player could still have cheated. This logic of "Rules official signed off--therefore: no cheating" is flawed.

 

This is a great point, I'd defer to my playing partner if I was not 100% certain and he claimed he was. The question is why is JD so vested in this to the point he'd blast Kang on Twitter.

[jallen0119]

Another way to look at this, is that 100% is an absolute certainty. There is no room for interpretation. From 200+ yards out can anyone say, without a doubt, that something occurred? This is why the rules allow for best judgement in cases like these. It is very possible that two players saw in their minds two exactly different things. Look how many innocent people are in jail because an eye witness was 100% certain that something was true, only to be proven incorrect through DNA testing.

 

Because there is no definite proof that Kang was incorrect, and it is his call, I am willing to give him the doubt that he made the correct drop.

 

LOL....so why even try to enforce the rules? Say 5 people see a ball fly straight across the hazard and not make it out on the other side. The player claims he carried the hazard and it bounced back in.

 

Is everyone else in the wrong by pointing that out?

 

I would say the rules were enforced. I believe the rules state the person hitting the ball has final say. The rules official would not have made the ruling he/she did without it being written in the rules that way. Again, 5 witnesses say he is wrong, there have been some that say he is correct. Perception is irrelevant as evidence in this case because that is not how the rule is written.

 

That is not entirely true. Video evidence could be used and show that the player's "final say" is incorrect. It happened with DJ at the 2016 US Open.

[johndagolfer]

Another way to look at this, is that 100% is an absolute certainty. There is no room for interpretation. From 200+ yards out can anyone say, without a doubt, that something occurred? This is why the rules allow for best judgement in cases like these. It is very possible that two players saw in their minds two exactly different things. Look how many innocent people are in jail because an eye witness was 100% certain that something was true, only to be proven incorrect through DNA testing.

 

Because there is no definite proof that Kang was incorrect, and it is his call, I am willing to give him the doubt that he made the correct drop.

 

LOL....so why even try to enforce the rules? Say 5 people see a ball fly straight across the hazard and not make it out on the other side. The player claims he carried the hazard and it bounced back in.

 

Is everyone else in the wrong by pointing that out?

 

I would say the rules were enforced. I believe the rules state the person hitting the ball has final say. The rules official would not have made the ruling he/she did without it being written in the rules that way. Again, 5 witnesses say he is wrong, there have been some that say he is correct. Perception is irrelevant as evidence in this case because that is not how the rule is written.

 

That is not entirely true. Video evidence could be used and show that the player's "final say" is incorrect. It happened with DJ at the 2016 US Open.

 

Totally agree, but in this case there is no video evidence. At least, none that has been released. Until that happens the final say does lie with the player. In this case Kang

[jallen0119]

If I were in Kang's situation--i.e., I am 95% certain it crossed near the green, and my playing partner is 95% certain it crossed 200 yards farther back--I'd drop way back. It would be impossible for me to be 100% certain if my playing partner and his caddie (and apparently other witnesses) were so certain of what they saw. By definition, there's plenty of doubt in this situation. I'd consider it literally impossible to be 100% certain given other witness testimony.

 

So, I take the conservative drop with a clear conscience and eliminate any chance of being called a cheater. That's worth it to me. My golf career will be fine, even if in the short term it means I miss the British Open.

 

Wouldn't all (most?) of you who are defending Kang agree with this?

 

PS: if the player lies to the rules official--and the rules official subsequently signs off on it, the player could still have cheated. This logic of "Rules official signed off--therefore: no cheating" is flawed.

 

I'm fine with everything you said, except the last part. Who is it for anyone to say that Kang was cheating. The only person who knows his intent was Kang himself. Calling him a cheat is saying that you can read his mind.

 

If the rules official asks are you sure and your first response is 95% and then it changes to 100%, that is very suspect. The honorable thing to do would have been to say you are not 100% sure and play from where the ball was certain to have last crossed the hazard.

 

What gave Kang that extra 5% he needed to take his drop? Serious question.

[johndagolfer]

If I were in Kang's situation--i.e., I am 95% certain it crossed near the green, and my playing partner is 95% certain it crossed 200 yards farther back--I'd drop way back. It would be impossible for me to be 100% certain if my playing partner and his caddie (and apparently other witnesses) were so certain of what they saw. By definition, there's plenty of doubt in this situation. I'd consider it literally impossible to be 100% certain given other witness testimony.

 

So, I take the conservative drop with a clear conscience and eliminate any chance of being called a cheater. That's worth it to me. My golf career will be fine, even if in the short term it means I miss the British Open.

 

Wouldn't all (most?) of you who are defending Kang agree with this?

 

PS: if the player lies to the rules official--and the rules official subsequently signs off on it, the player could still have cheated. This logic of "Rules official signed off--therefore: no cheating" is flawed.

 

I'm fine with everything you said, except the last part. Who is it for anyone to say that Kang was cheating. The only person who knows his intent was Kang himself. Calling him a cheat is saying that you can read his mind.

 

If the rules official asks are you sure and your first response is 95% and then it changes to 100%, that is very suspect. The honorable thing to do would have been to say you are not 100% sure and play from where the ball was certain to have last crossed the hazard.

 

What gave Kang that extra 5% he needed to take his drop? Serious question.

 

Can anyone be 100% sure even when seeing something with your own eyes? There could be any number of reasons why he said 95%. Maybe he believed that it's impossible to be 100% sure about a call like this and threw a number that meant he was sure without saying 100%? When judgment comes into play for any decision being 100% doesn't seem realistic.

[HitEmTrue]

Linked from Geoff Shackelford's

There is a guy on twitter that says someone cheated. Then there is a guy on Facebook that says he was there and he saw it. Imminently reliable sources, especially when you put that information up against the fact that a quasi-proceeding took place, where a Rules Official gathered the facts, reviewed the situation and made a determination.

 

I can live with the idea that the Rules Official made a mistake, as long as we treat all the other players on Tour that have done the same thing over the years....and they are Legion..the same way. Pillory them all. All except one of them I suppose.

 

And there is a guy on golfweek comments saying he was there, and that the marshal was wrong, and that the official was right.

 

So who knows.

 

?

 

I don't think that I understand your comment.

 

There is a story now posted at Golfweek, which I linked to through Geoff Shackelford's website, which details that a Shotlink volunteer on the 10th hole at TPC Potomac and an additional non-party witness both indicated that Kang's line of flight only crossed the hazard once, at the spot that others have described some 200 yards back.

 

Sorry, it was on reddit...quoted and linked in post #232 (and #288) above.

[jallen0119]

If I were in Kang's situation--i.e., I am 95% certain it crossed near the green, and my playing partner is 95% certain it crossed 200 yards farther back--I'd drop way back. It would be impossible for me to be 100% certain if my playing partner and his caddie (and apparently other witnesses) were so certain of what they saw. By definition, there's plenty of doubt in this situation. I'd consider it literally impossible to be 100% certain given other witness testimony.

 

So, I take the conservative drop with a clear conscience and eliminate any chance of being called a cheater. That's worth it to me. My golf career will be fine, even if in the short term it means I miss the British Open.

 

Wouldn't all (most?) of you who are defending Kang agree with this?

 

PS: if the player lies to the rules official--and the rules official subsequently signs off on it, the player could still have cheated. This logic of "Rules official signed off--therefore: no cheating" is flawed.

 

I'm fine with everything you said, except the last part. Who is it for anyone to say that Kang was cheating. The only person who knows his intent was Kang himself. Calling him a cheat is saying that you can read his mind.

 

If the rules official asks are you sure and your first response is 95% and then it changes to 100%, that is very suspect. The honorable thing to do would have been to say you are not 100% sure and play from where the ball was certain to have last crossed the hazard.

 

What gave Kang that extra 5% he needed to take his drop? Serious question.

 

Can anyone be 100% sure even when seeing something with your own eyes? There could be any number of reasons why he said 95%. Maybe he believed that it's impossible to be 100% sure about a call like this and threw a number that meant he was sure without saying 100%? When judgment comes into play for any decision being 100% doesn't seem realistic.

 

If I'm not absolutely certain, I take the spot where I know the ball last crossed the hazard. That's just me. I'm not going to lose my integrity to take advantage of the wording of a rule.

[Ignatius Reilly]

 

Can anyone be 100% sure even when seeing something with your own eyes? There could be any number of reasons why he said 95%. Maybe he believed that it's impossible to be 100% sure about a call like this and threw a number that meant he was sure without saying 100%? When judgment comes into play for any decision being 100% doesn't seem realistic.

 

Agreed, and its a point I've tried to make before. People are reading too much into those numbers.

 

I really think the convo (with allowances for ESL that I think are very real, but haven't gotten much traction):

 

RO: You think the ball crossed up here?

SK: Yes

RO: Are you sure?

SK: Yes, I'm sure.

RO: How sure?

SK: Very sure.

RO: You must be absolutely sure.

SK: I'm absolutely sure.....

 

Changed his story or clarified when asked?

[Imhappyinthe80s]

Snitch

[bscinstnct]

Why would JD lie? What is the motivation?

 

This is the absolute worst thing he could accuse a fellow golfer of. He accused Kang to his face, argued with the official for 25 minutes, and then went public without any hesitation.

 

He did so without knowing that several others who saw it would publicly back him, not anonymously but with their names attached.

 

JD is not well known yet he holds up a televised event for over half an hour without being sure?

 

Unfortunately for Kang, there are witnesses who have no reason to lie who back JD.

 

Any witnesses to back Kang?

 

Maybe JD was wrong. Maybe he is lying.

 

But, given how this played out, I have no issue with him going *nucular* on this.