Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[Ignatius Reilly]

Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. (Look it up.) There are two reliable sources of information (the players) and they simply disagree. The referee is the arbiter. That one player chose to run his yap on Twitter is a sad commentary on his level of judgement and maturity.

 

Yeah....the marshal who probably observed every shot hit on that hole all day is unreliable. Also, the very guy the tournament put in charge of tracking and plotting the results of each shot hit on that hole is also unreliable....when they all saw the same thing as the competitor.

 

HAHA....some of you are killing me! :rofl:

 

Back in 1984, a guy was convicted and destined for the gas chamber on the evidence of 5 (FIVE!!!!) eye witnesses.

 

But.... DNA evidence proved the guy was innocent and all 5 (FIVE!!!) eye witnesses were wrong.

 

Some of those guys were.... literally.... killing him :rofl:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

[irvnasty]

I wasn't there, and I don't know what happened.

 

But it is possible for Dahmen to be 100% certain, not necessarily where the ball crossed the hazard, but that the ball did not cross the hazard line at that spot, and that it must have crossed at a point farther back, perhaps much farther back.

 

Even if the ball is drawn or hooked, Dahmen is standing to the right of Kang. From his eyes, there is a straight line to the left of the green somewhere that the ball does not cross. He can't be sure where exactly the ball is at any point to the left of that line, but he can be sure that the ball was never in any place right of that line.

 

If Dahmen was standing in a place where the eventual drop was to the right of the (let's call it) "no-go plane" (also the nickname of the former Yugoslav Air Force), Dahmen knows that the drop is incorrect with 100% certainty.

 

There are an infinite number of points that Kang could drop and Dahmen could not protest with certainty. There are an infinite number of points that Kang could drop and Dahmen could, on the basis of what he saw, know to be wrong. Dahmen's eyes can't track the ball's flight, but they can construct a plane that the ball did not pass, starting from his eyes, and heading out to wherever the ball progressed farthest across his vision (whether the ball's landing point or the tangent on its curve).

 

If Dahmen saw the ball never cross a plane at or anywhere to the left of the drop point, he knows with certainty that it was a bad drop. What he cannot know is that Kang knows that same thing and is cheating.

[soap1984]

These arguments about eye witnesses are laughable. Let's try and make this simple; they are ALL eye witnesses, including Kang. This situation could not be more different from a situation where you know you didn't commit a crime, and witnesses say they saw you at the scene.

 

Kang hit a shot, everyone saw one thing and Kang saw another. The other three really don't have any interest in where the ball went other than to protect the field/integrity of the game; there is no prosecutor pressuring them to tell a story etc. They literally went out of their way to accuse Kang of cheating, that could be because there is a massive conspiracy to crucify Kang, or it could be because what happened was so obviously cheating that wasn't fair to everyone in the field.

Also keep in mind that even if it were similar to a criminal trial: eye witness accounts are often inaccurate when a period of years go by between the crime and trial and usually are affected by trauma. Neither exist in this case.

 

Some people in this thread make absolutely no sense. There was a guy I am earlier post saying he thinks Dehman has a personal vendetta against Kang and that's why he said he cheated. He then goes on to tell a story about how he hit a leaf in some nothing event and his playing competitor did the same and he called a penalty on himself and the other guy didn't and how he now hates the guy who didn't call the penalty...lol. I wonder if he realized that perhaps that exact reason is why Dehman hates Kang? This Kang situation is even worse since it wasn't even clear to me that the guy who posted should have called a penalty on himself and that his partner broke the rules.

[johndagolfer]

I wasn't there, and I don't know what happened.

 

But it is possible for Dahmen to be 100% certain, not necessarily where the ball crossed the hazard, but that the ball did not cross the hazard line at that spot, and that it must have crossed at a point farther back, perhaps much farther back.

 

Even if the ball is drawn or hooked, Dahmen is standing to the right of Kang. From his eyes, there is a straight line to the left of the green somewhere that the ball does not cross. He can't be sure where exactly the ball is at any point to the left of that line, but he can be sure that the ball was never in any place right of that line.

 

If Dahmen was standing in a place where the eventual drop was to the right of the (let's call it) "no-go plane" (also the nickname of the former Yugoslav Air Force), Dahmen knows that the drop is incorrect with 100% certainty.

 

There are an infinite number of points that Kang could drop and Dahmen could not protest with certainty. There are an infinite number of points that Kang could drop and Dahmen could, on the basis of what he saw, know to be wrong. Dahmen's eyes can't track the ball's flight, but they can construct a plane that the ball did not pass, starting from his eyes, and heading out to wherever the ball progressed farthest across his vision (whether the ball's landing point or the tangent on its curve).

 

If Dahmen saw the ball never cross a plane at or anywhere to the left of the drop point, he knows with certainty that it was a bad drop. What he cannot know is that Kang knows that same thing and is cheating.

 

Yes, but again, you're making the assumption that Dahmen's perception is infallible. He might believe in his mind that he is correct. Just like Kang might believe in mind that he is correct. Because there is no independent evidence proving either assumption to be true or false, by rule, it falls on the player who hit the ball to use his best judgement. To call him a cheater without anything more than that is irresponsible.

[johndagolfer]

These arguments about eye witnesses are laughable. Let's try and make this simple; they are ALL eye witnesses, including Kang. This situation could not be more different from a situation where you know you didn't commit a crime, and witnesses say they saw you at the scene.

 

Kang hit a shot, everyone saw one thing and Kang saw another. The other three really don't have any interest in where the ball went other than to protect the field/integrity of the game; there is no prosecutor pressuring them to tell a story etc. They literally went out of their way to accuse Kang of cheating, that could be because there is a massive conspiracy to crucify Kang, or it could be because what happened was so obviously cheating that wasn't fair to everyone in the field.

Also keep in mind that even if it were similar to a criminal trial: eye witness accounts are often inaccurate when a period of years go by between the crime and trial and usually are affected by trauma. Neither exist in this case.

 

Some people in this thread make absolutely no sense. There was a guy I am earlier post saying he thinks Dehman has a personal vendetta against Kang and that's why he said he cheated. He then goes on to tell a story about how he hit a leaf in some nothing event and his playing competitor did the same and he called a penalty on himself and the other guy didn't and how he now hates the guy who didn't call the penalty...lol. I wonder if he realized that perhaps that exact reason is why Dehman hates Kang? This Kang situation is even worse since it wasn't even clear to me that the guy who posted should have called a penalty on himself and that his partner broke the rules.

 

I don't think everyone is calling Dehman a liar. I think what most people object to his calling a fellow competitor a cheater after the fact and after the rules official and PGA closed the matter. As many many people stated Dehman may very well believe what he saw, just like Kang may very well believe he is correct. Because there is no "Hawkeye" for golf the rules official proceeded by the letter of the rules. It should of ended right there. Dehman could of tweeted that he strongly disagreed with the drop, but he is the one who blew this up.

[zenman4711]

Maybe JD and his buddy just have twitter diarrhea as evidenced by their tweet regarding Tiger and his majors?

[Hawkeye03]

Unless they were standing directly behind Kang the witnesses would not have a good perception of the ball flight. If you are standing off to the right of a player and they hit a draw they ball is moving away from you it could give the appearance that is over the hazard the entire time. Even standing on the green (shot link) looking down the hazard line and not the start line would give the same appearance. The only people who could truly know where it crosses where those directly on the start line of the shot.

[bscinstnct]

74!

 

 

No witnesses though, I demand proof....or the hotdogs should sue for libel

 

They was witnesses.

 

But Joey ate them.

[lchang]

Drop has approved by a rules official, so Kang did not cheat.

 

Case closed.

 

Nope. Again: IF a hypothetical player lies to a rules official, and the official subsequently makes a ruling, the hypothetical player cheated.

 

So, not case closed.

 

Not saying Kang lied, but IF he did, he cheated.

[drbonesvt]

These arguments about eye witnesses are laughable. Let's try and make this simple; they are ALL eye witnesses, including Kang. This situation could not be more different from a situation where you know you didn't commit a crime, and witnesses say they saw you at the scene.

 

Kang hit a shot, everyone saw one thing and Kang saw another. The other three really don't have any interest in where the ball went other than to protect the field/integrity of the game; there is no prosecutor pressuring them to tell a story etc. They literally went out of their way to accuse Kang of cheating, that could be because there is a massive conspiracy to crucify Kang, or it could be because what happened was so obviously cheating that wasn't fair to everyone in the field.

Also keep in mind that even if it were similar to a criminal trial: eye witness accounts are often inaccurate when a period of years go by between the crime and trial and usually are affected by trauma. Neither exist in this case.

 

Some people in this thread make absolutely no sense. There was a guy I am earlier post saying he thinks Dehman has a personal vendetta against Kang and that's why he said he cheated. He then goes on to tell a story about how he hit a leaf in some nothing event and his playing competitor did the same and he called a penalty on himself and the other guy didn't and how he now hates the guy who didn't call the penalty...lol. I wonder if he realized that perhaps that exact reason is why Dehman hates Kang? This Kang situation is even worse since it wasn't even clear to me that the guy who posted should have called a penalty on himself and that his partner broke the rules.

 

I don't think everyone is calling Dehman a liar. I think what most people object to his calling a fellow competitor a cheater after the fact and after the rules official and PGA closed the matter. As many many people stated Dehman may very well believe what he saw, just like Kang may very well believe he is correct. Because there is no "Hawkeye" for golf the rules official proceeded by the letter of the rules. It should of ended right there. Dehman could of tweeted that he strongly disagreed with the drop, but he is the one who blew this up.

 

And OJ is .......... innocent

[Sean2]

Unfortunately there is no satisfactory resolution to this. In Kang's mind he feels his drop was legitimate. In Dahmen's mind he feels Kang's drop wasn't.

 

In addition, eyewitness "testimony" can be unreliable.

[ray9898]

I think I've heard 'eyewitnesses accounts are unreliable' more in this thread than all others combined....and this is coming from a forum where a majority of the topics are based on what someone saw. We should have fewer discussions from this point forward since nothing anyone sees is credible.

[jallen0119]

I think I've heard 'eyewitnesses accounts are unreliable' more in this thread than all others combined....and this is coming from a forum where a majority of the topics are based on what someone saw. We should have fewer discussions from this point forward since nothing anyone sees is credible.

 

Exactly. What I have taken away from this thread is that the human eye is not good enough to determine where a golf ball crosses the hazard line, you cannot believe eye witness accounts, and unless you are standing directly behind a player, you cannot suggest their drop is wrong.

[carrier street]

Kang cheated. Guys cheat all of the time. Guys take drops like that every week. It's just that most players don't call their playing partner out like that. Fixing "ballmarks" on the greens is a another example. I don't believe for a second that there is that much damage when every player fixes their own ballpark when they get to the green. s***, it blows my mind to this day that no one freaked out about Nick Price's putting routine when he was in his prime. He used a big wide putter (first a Zebra and then something else) and would ground the putter in front of the ball before he hit the putt. You'll never be able to convince me that was for alignment. It was to press down any imperfections just in front of his ball.

[JL1]

Unless they were standing directly behind Kang the witnesses would not have a good perception of the ball flight. If you are standing off to the right of a player and they hit a draw they ball is moving away from you it could give the appearance that is over the hazard the entire time. Even standing on the green (shot link) looking down the hazard line and not the start line would give the same appearance. The only people who could truly know where it crosses where those directly on the start line of the shot.

 

 

Someone on the start line of the shot but also green high won't know because they are to the right of the green if the shot starts that far right. I would trust someone on the green on or near the hazard line before trusting this hypothetical person standing green high on "the start line" of the shot.

 

The 18th at my own club is a similarly designed hole, albeit a par 4. If I am all the way on the right side of the fairway I can't tell. I have been behind that green near the final pairings in some club events and it then becomes quite easy to see if a ball starts in, stays in, or comes back inside the hazard. It is also quite easy to see if a straight shot or fade is outside the hazard all the way.

 

I guess I trust the marshals and the shot link operator. Maybe the opposite player had walked over close enough to the line Kang was on so that he too could see?

[DFS PFD]

I think I've heard 'eyewitnesses accounts are unreliable' more in this thread than all others combined....and this is coming from a forum where a majority of the topics are based on what someone saw. We should have fewer discussions from this point forward since nothing anyone sees is credible.

 

Exactly. What I have taken away from this thread is that the human eye is not good enough to determine where a golf ball crosses the hazard line, you cannot believe eye witness accounts, and unless you are standing directly behind a player, you cannot suggest their drop is wrong.

Isn't the foundational issue here, that it is irrelevant where the player thinks the ball crossed into the hazard, in reality all that matters is where the ball physically did cross into the hazard?

[carrier street]

I think I've heard 'eyewitnesses accounts are unreliable' more in this thread than all others combined....and this is coming from a forum where a majority of the topics are based on what someone saw. We should have fewer discussions from this point forward since nothing anyone sees is credible.

 

Exactly. What I have taken away from this thread is that the human eye is not good enough to determine where a golf ball crosses the hazard line, you cannot believe eye witness accounts, and unless you are standing directly behind a player, you cannot suggest their drop is wrong.

 

But in order to not trust what multiple witnesses are saying they saw, you have to believe a single witness who was "95% sure".

[johndagolfer]

I think I've heard 'eyewitnesses accounts are unreliable' more in this thread than all others combined....and this is coming from a forum where a majority of the topics are based on what someone saw. We should have fewer discussions from this point forward since nothing anyone sees is credible.

 

Exactly. What I have taken away from this thread is that the human eye is not good enough to determine where a golf ball crosses the hazard line, you cannot believe eye witness accounts, and unless you are standing directly behind a player, you cannot suggest their drop is wrong.

Isn't the foundational issue here, that it is irrelevant where the player thinks the ball crossed into the hazard, in reality all that matters is where the ball physically did cross into the hazard?

 

No I think the foundational issue here is that, absent verifiable evidence, there is no way to say who is correct in this matter.

 

To dispute what is said above, no one is saying that eye witness accounts aren't reliable, they are simply saying that it's possible. As someone said earlier there have been convictions based on testimony where eye witnesses were 100% sure that something occurred, only later to be overturned. Basically that's what happened here. Numerous people saw the same event but perceived it differently and its very likely that they all believe what they saw was true. The only difference in this case there is no definitive evidence to prove who is correct.

[DJGainer]

I think I read all I needed to in Kang's response to the allegations. He didn't deny them, he said the official made a ruling and he is standing by it. If I had been accused the way he was I would have categorically denied the allegations rather than respond and redirect to the official. That, to me, speaks volumes.

[JD3]

Iirc there was an incident many years back btw Paula creamer and Annika sorenstam. Creamer called out sorenstam for being very generous in claiming her ball crossed the hazard much later in its flight than creamer saw it. Video seemed to support creamer. Afterwards sorenstam said she'd talk to creamer about it...creamer said something like no need to talk to me about it, she's the one who has to live with it. Lol classic comeback

[Bushwood Country Club]

Dahmen is coming off like a two faced baby.

 

The moment Dahmen signed Kangs card, the case was closed.

Dahmen validated that Kangs card was accurate with his own signature.

 

Whether or not Kang cheated is no longer the issue.

 

The issue is Dahmen was too chicken to stand up to Kang at the scorers table in person. So he signs the card, and goes on an immature twitter rant, all the while damaging Kangs image.

 

Dahmen looks weak. Kang could seek damages.

Kang could seek the Fountain of Youth and have a greater chance of success.... #iplayalawyerontv

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. (Look it up.) There are two reliable sources of information (the players) and they simply disagree. The referee is the arbiter. That one player chose to run his yap on Twitter is a sad commentary on his level of judgement and maturity.

 

Yeah....the marshal who probably observed every shot hit on that hole all day is unreliable. Also, the very guy the tournament put in charge of tracking and plotting the results of each shot hit on that hole is also unreliable....when they all saw the same thing as the competitor.

 

HAHA....some of you are killing me! :rofl:

 

Back in 1984, a guy was convicted and destined for the gas chamber on the evidence of 5 (FIVE!!!!) eye witnesses.

 

But.... DNA evidence proved the guy was innocent and all 5 (FIVE!!!) eye witnesses were wrong.

 

Some of those guys were.... literally.... killing him :rofl:

 

https://www.scientif...e-eyes-have-it/

 

The thing people forget is the judge who sentenced him to the gas chamber didn't want to do it; he felt he owed it to him.

[ALIF]

Unfortunately there is no satisfactory resolution to this. In Kang's mind he feels his drop was legitimate. In Dahmen's mind he feels Kang's drop wasn't.

 

In addition, eyewitness "testimony" can be unreliable.

 

"In Kang's mind he feels the drop was legitimate". Really? Maybe in Kang's mind he know's he got away with cheating his way into a bigger payday and an Open Championship birth.

[lchang]

Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. (Look it up.) There are two reliable sources of information (the players) and they simply disagree. The referee is the arbiter. That one player chose to run his yap on Twitter is a sad commentary on his level of judgement and maturity.

 

Yeah....the marshal who probably observed every shot hit on that hole all day is unreliable. Also, the very guy the tournament put in charge of tracking and plotting the results of each shot hit on that hole is also unreliable....when they all saw the same thing as the competitor.

 

HAHA....some of you are killing me! :rofl:

 

Back in 1984, a guy was convicted and destined for the gas chamber on the evidence of 5 (FIVE!!!!) eye witnesses.

 

But.... DNA evidence proved the guy was innocent and all 5 (FIVE!!!) eye witnesses were wrong.

 

Some of those guys were.... literally.... killing him :rofl:

 

https://www.scientif...e-eyes-have-it/

 

The thing people forget is the judge who sentenced him to the gas chamber didn't want to do it; he felt he owed it to him.

 

The Judge added, “I’ll give you asthma!!”

[iBanesto]

Drop has approved by a rules official, so Kang did not cheat.

 

Case closed.

 

Nope. Again: IF a hypothetical player lies to a rules official, and the official subsequently makes a ruling, the hypothetical player cheated.

 

So, not case closed.

 

Not saying Kang lied, but IF he did, he cheated.

 

Hypothetically I went to Pluto :superman:

 

Hypothetically I am dating Margot Robbie :taunt:

 

The subjectivity lies in both Dahmen and Kang's story.

 

No one can provide conclusive, objective evidence.

 

The rules official has made his decision, within the rules of golf.

 

The tournament is over. The players got paid. The media got their story.

 

Case closed.

[golfortennis]

Drop has approved by a rules official, so Kang did not cheat.

 

Case closed.

 

I love how people think golf is like other sports. "The ref didn't call it so it's not a foul."

 

You must be a disciple of Jerry Glanville's. "If ya ain't cheatin', ya ain't tryin',"

[lchang]

Drop has approved by a rules official, so Kang did not cheat.

 

Case closed.

 

Nope. Again: IF a hypothetical player lies to a rules official, and the official subsequently makes a ruling, the hypothetical player cheated.

 

So, not case closed.

 

Not saying Kang lied, but IF he did, he cheated.

 

Hypothetically I went to Pluto :superman:

 

Hypothetically I am dating Margot Robbie :taunt:

 

The subjectivity lies in both Dahmen and Kang's story.

 

No one can provide conclusive, objective evidence.

 

The rules official has made his decision, within the rules of golf.

 

The tournament is over. The players got paid. The media got their story.

 

Case closed.

 

Ok the case is "closed" in that no one's going to change anything or lose any money or fedex points, etc.

 

But why do you insist on KNOWING that Kang didn't cheat? It's weird that you're so certain and argue so strenuously.

 

He might have lied (and thus cheated) and gotten away with it. He might not have lied, saw it clearly, and did the right thing. You have no idea.

 

I just keep pointing out that your logic is wrong if you insist that: He didn't cheat simply because the rules official approved the drop. I can't tell if you understand and agree with that.

[InTheHole]

Drop has approved by a rules official, so Kang did not cheat.

 

Case closed.

 

Nope. Again: IF a hypothetical player lies to a rules official, and the official subsequently makes a ruling, the hypothetical player cheated.

 

So, not case closed.

 

Not saying Kang lied, but IF he did, he cheated.

 

Hypothetically I went to Pluto :superman:

 

Hypothetically I am dating Margot Robbie :taunt:

 

The subjectivity lies in both Dahmen and Kang's story.

 

No one can provide conclusive, objective evidence.

 

The rules official has made his decision, within the rules of golf.

 

The tournament is over. The players got paid. The media got their story.

 

Case closed.

 

Ok the case is "closed" in that no one's going to change anything or lose any money or fedex points, etc.

 

But why do you insist on KNOWING that Kang didn't cheat? It's weird that you're so certain and argue so strenuously.

 

He might have lied (and thus cheated) and gotten away with it. He might not have lied, saw it clearly, and did the right thing. You have no idea.

 

I just keep pointing out that your logic is wrong if you insist that: He didn't cheat simply because the rules official approved the drop. I can't tell if you understand and agree with that.

 

The same goes for anything in life, not just golf. Reality and the ruling body may differ. But all us mortals can go on is what the ruling body has decided. I'm sure the jails are full of innocent people, but until someone says otherwise, they're guilty to me!

 

Golf was uniquely stupid in allowing people, especially on social media, to contact them and point out things that caused decisions to change. Glad they put a stop to that. In this case, my feeling is everyone on the golf course had 25 minutes to change the rule official's mind and they either didn't, or couldn't. Case closed. Shotlink Boy needs to shut his mouth at this point.

[ClintDagger]

Case is closed but the analysis doesn’t have to end and that also doesn’t mean the case can’t be reopened. You can bet if footage emerged that proved Kang took a bad drop or worse yet if he confessed to a transgression something more could come of this. Not likely to happen, but you never know.

 

I think a lot of people rushed to defend Kang thinking JD was being overzealous and assumed that this would remain a “he said, he said”. Then a few other credible, non anonymous accounts came out and undeniably the narrative switched to Kang likely did something wrong here. Is it 100% certain he did something wrong and if so did he intentionally do it? That can’t be said for certain but if I were in Kang’s shoes I would have to question it myself even if at the time I thought it was right.

[Sean2]

Unfortunately there is no satisfactory resolution to this. In Kang's mind he feels his drop was legitimate. In Dahmen's mind he feels Kang's drop wasn't.

 

In addition, eyewitness "testimony" can be unreliable.

 

"In Kang's mind he feels the drop was legitimate". Really? Maybe in Kang's mind he know's he got away with cheating his way into a bigger payday and an Open Championship birth.

 

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt as, unlike you, I had no idea what was going through his mind.