Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[Jordan Speeth]

20 min and no rules official showed up? They had to let a group play through, lol

 

A rules official was there, JD said he spent the entire time arguing with him til he was "blue in the face".

 

Honestly, not a good look for JD. Why so petty? He wasn't in contention and Kang wasn't costing him any money. Call in a rules official and let them decide and move on.

 

It's about "protecting the field" for all players and has nothing to do with protecting their spot on the board or their prize money. That's why they are able to "self-police" in a lot of instances. They all have a vested interest in sticking to the rules.

[Krt22]

with all the cameras on the course, we don't have a footage? that's a shame.

 

Not really surprising IMO. Outside of Tiger's group there were holes where it didn't look like there were more than 25-30 fans on each hole.

 

Not sure how much footage is out there of the Dahmen/Kang pairing.

 

I don't know anything about tv coverage at these events, but they've got cameras set up on every hole and from multiple angles. I'd have to think they're always rolling and recording, regardless of where guys are in the standings.

 

Not 100% true from the one tour event I went to. They have certain holes where they have dedicated crew and some other holes they wont have a crew until the premier groups come through. Perhaps even less coverage for certain groups when Tiger is on the course getting wire to wire camera time.

[ALIF]

Thy use of whilst was much appreciated Sir!

[ALIF]

Thing is, now Kang is "that" guy. He could be blackballed, ostracized, etc by the other players. He will be uncomfortable for a long while.

[cubanstogie]

is Kang the guys who's caddie forgot an umbrella in an event last year and it starting pouring rain. I know it wan an asian player but cant remember.

[4thand11]

is Kang the guys who's caddie forgot an umbrella in an event last year and it starting pouring rain. I know it wan an asian player but cant remember.

Yep, same event ironically enough.

[MtlJeff]

Thing is, now Kang is "that" guy. He could be blackballed, ostracized, etc by the other players. He will be uncomfortable for a long while.

 

This is precisely why Kang should sue for libel or threaten to. You have a handful of people who might argue the drop was bad, but Dahmen signed the card and the rules official blessed it

 

The law doesn't work the same way twitter does. I don't think you can say I validated his score but I totally didn't mean to.

 

 

[Drudersh]

Thing is, now Kang is "that" guy. He could be blackballed, ostracized, etc by the other players. He will be uncomfortable for a long while.

 

This is precisely why Kang should sue for libel or threaten to. You have a handful of people who might argue the drop was bad, but Dahmen signed the card and the rules official blessed it

 

The law doesn't work the same way twitter does. I don't think you can say I validated his score but I totally didn't mean to.

 

For it to meet the legal definition of libel Kang would have to both prove the statement was false and prove JD knew the statement was false.

 

Going to be a tough ask on both fronts.

[Creedo77]

just a guess: from 25 yards away, the red line is what JD thought he saw. yellow line is what actually happened. from his angle, he believed that SK was cheating... but it may not have been accurate.

 

Great PIc...not exactly sure where the hazard line is, but your yellow line does depict a possible senario (where the ball started ~20 yards right of the green and ended ~20 yards left). My guess is that JD was 100% sure the ball did not cross and that it is 80% likely he is right.

 

The hazard line runs along the yellow line in the picture (I work at the course and worked the event)

 

So it did cross the hazard.

[MtlJeff]

Thing is, now Kang is "that" guy. He could be blackballed, ostracized, etc by the other players. He will be uncomfortable for a long while.

 

This is precisely why Kang should sue for libel or threaten to. You have a handful of people who might argue the drop was bad, but Dahmen signed the card and the rules official blessed it

 

The law doesn't work the same way twitter does. I don't think you can say I validated his score but I totally didn't mean to.

 

For it to meet the legal definition of libel Kang would have to both prove the statement is false and prove JD knew the statement was false.

 

Going to be a tough ask on both fronts.

 

Isn't it false? The tour discussed it for 20 minutes and blessed it and Dahmen signed a card verifying his score.

 

Dahmen would know he signed the card verifying it as he signed it prior to his Twitter comments

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be interested in hearing about what the case would look like. Because Dahmen put his name down to attest for the score. The law usually comes down to such technicalities yes?

[IcemanYVR]

It would hurt the Tour's image to admit Kang cheated, hence the cover up, sweep it under the rug treatment. Dissapointed in the Tour but definitely not surprised by it. They care about their profits and image, not real honesty.

 

If they have no proof otherwise, what can they really do but rely on the call made by the only person capable of making the call on the spot (ie the rules official). Last time I checked shot link guys and marshals are not rules officials

 

You are correct about proof, but the player in question (Kang) was ultimately left with the decision. And you don't need to be a rules official to see where a ball crosses the hazzard.

[bscinstnct]

Thing is, now Kang is "that" guy. He could be blackballed, ostracized, etc by the other players. He will be uncomfortable for a long while.

 

This is precisely why Kang should sue for libel or threaten to. You have a handful of people who might argue the drop was bad, but Dahmen signed the card and the rules official blessed it

 

The law doesn't work the same way twitter does. I don't think you can say I validated his score but I totally didn't mean to.

 

Prolly not good to sue and have a number of professionals and witnesses come and testify and call you a liar and a cheat.

[GrandStranded]

Ive seen this type of thing happen to influence outcomes. It’s actually pretty common and def unfair.

 

I think some sports have a narrative they like to follow. I watched at RBC as a relative unknown suddenly won and everyone else’s putting went to dust. I feel like some tournaments are 100 and real. While others .... the narrative happens.

 

Who knows, just sucks when first place is unattainable , so the players play for second place.

 

Sorry, just so we are clear - are you suggesting that some golf tournaments are rigged?

 

Waves hand - these are not the droids you seek

 

I can understand a difference in opinion in terms of where the ball went in. But to call someone a cheater on twitter, after you lost the dispute with the rules official, and after you signed the scorecard, is just a bad look. You can say, we disagreed on the drop, but calling someone a cheater is disrespectful.

 

I think Kang should sue his pale behind.

 

For what? Defamation?

Libel. He went on social media (Twitter) and called the guy a cheater. After he signed the card, attesting the score. b**** move, and it could cost Kang endorsement money in the future, and definitely hurts his reputation. I wonder if Dahmer would've been so bold id this happened Saturday when he was paired with Tiger (or with any other big name player) as opposed to Kang.

[MtlJeff]

Thing is, now Kang is "that" guy. He could be blackballed, ostracized, etc by the other players. He will be uncomfortable for a long while.

 

This is precisely why Kang should sue for libel or threaten to. You have a handful of people who might argue the drop was bad, but Dahmen signed the card and the rules official blessed it

 

The law doesn't work the same way twitter does. I don't think you can say I validated his score but I totally didn't mean to.

 

Prolly not good to sue and have a number of professionals and witnesses come and testify and call you a liar and a cheat.

 

How many people witnessed it? Sounds like a small number, and one of them then attested the score

 

So again just from Kang perspective, you should probably fight back a bit here

[IcemanYVR]

Thing is, now Kang is "that" guy. He could be blackballed, ostracized, etc by the other players. He will be uncomfortable for a long while.

 

This is precisely why Kang should sue for libel or threaten to. You have a handful of people who might argue the drop was bad, but Dahmen signed the card and the rules official blessed it

 

The law doesn't work the same way twitter does. I don't think you can say I validated his score but I totally didn't mean to.

 

Prolly not good to sue and have a number of professionals and witnesses come and testify and call you a liar and a cheat.

 

How many people witnessed it? Sounds like a small number, and one of them then attested the score

 

So again just from Kang perspective, you should probably fight back a bit here

 

Another exchange... Involving the three involved including the marshall standing right behind Kang when he hit the shot.

 

https://twitter.com/mklock7/status/1013954096276131845

[Drudersh]

Thing is, now Kang is "that" guy. He could be blackballed, ostracized, etc by the other players. He will be uncomfortable for a long while.

 

This is precisely why Kang should sue for libel or threaten to. You have a handful of people who might argue the drop was bad, but Dahmen signed the card and the rules official blessed it

 

The law doesn't work the same way twitter does. I don't think you can say I validated his score but I totally didn't mean to.

 

For it to meet the legal definition of libel Kang would have to both prove the statement is false and prove JD knew the statement was false.

 

Going to be a tough ask on both fronts.

 

Isn't it false? The tour discussed it for 20 minutes and blessed it and Dahmen signed a card verifying his score.

 

Dahmen would know he signed the card verifying it as he signed it prior to his Twitter comments

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be interested in hearing about what the case would look like. Because Dahmen put his name down to attest for the score. The law usually comes down to such technicalities yes?

 

Dahmen has been steadfast in his assertion that Kang took a bad drop, and admitted to signing the scorecard to prevent delaying an eventuality and wasting anyone else’s time.

 

His story hasn’t changed and it would be tough to argue any of his statements or behavior are consistent with someone who believed what he was saying to be untrue.

 

The nature of the rule allows Kang to make his own call, despite what Dahmen and others may or may not have seen.

 

Dahmen now has several eye witnesses corroborating his take, and argued for 25 minutes that Kang was in the wrong at the time of the incident. Would seem to be a tough suit to argue Dahmen is saying anything he doesn’t believe to be true, especially with eye witnesses backing his story.

[bscinstnct]

Thing is, now Kang is "that" guy. He could be blackballed, ostracized, etc by the other players. He will be uncomfortable for a long while.

 

This is precisely why Kang should sue for libel or threaten to. You have a handful of people who might argue the drop was bad, but Dahmen signed the card and the rules official blessed it

 

The law doesn't work the same way twitter does. I don't think you can say I validated his score but I totally didn't mean to.

 

Prolly not good to sue and have a number of professionals and witnesses come and testify and call you a liar and a cheat.

 

How many people witnessed it? Sounds like a small number, and one of them then attested the score

 

So again just from Kang perspective, you should probably fight back a bit here

 

Yes, well, he could start by issuing a statement himself as opposed to a reference to himself in the 3rd person

 

"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."

[Jordan Speeth]

I'm with Dahmen. NOBODY is that psycho to spend 20 minutes during your final round arguing, having to call BEN CRANE through, then call the guy a cheater on Twitter if there's even a little bit of doubt. That's like calling someone a child molester out there. He obviously had zero doubt and he was backed up by everyone who counted. Regardless of the PGA Tour's statement, Kang's going to be eating breakfast by himself for a loooong time.

[sui generis]

I'm with Dahmen. NOBODY is that psycho to spend 20 minutes during your final round arguing, having to call BEN CRANE through, then call the guy a cheater on Twitter if there's even a little bit of doubt. That's like calling someone a child molester out there. He obviously had zero doubt and he was backed up by everyone who counted. Regardless of the PGA Tour's statement, Kang's going to be eating breakfast by himself for a loooong time.

 

Backed up by everyone who didn't count is what you may have meant to say. :swoon:

[Bushwood Country Club]

Before criticizing JD, ask yourself “ who had the most motive to be untruthful?”

 

We have established Joel was not in contention, so why would he take such a strong stance? Only one logical response...

[new2g0lf]

JD shouldn't have signed the scorecard, doesn't matter if the official would have. If you're willing to argue the call for 20 minutes, then have the conviction to not sign the card you truly believe is incorrect.

[InTheHole]

I'm so sick of athletes "taking to Twitter" when things don't go their way. A rules official made a ruling. Don't like it, take it to the higher authority. It's fine to answer someone's question with what was happening, but to call someone a cheater is to imply that the rules official was wrong even if he was right. Sorry if you don't agree. But that's why we have rules officials. And according to commentary on the Golf Channel, the rules official asked others who were in the area who agreed with the claim as to where the ball crossed. If you don't like how the rules of golf work, don't play, and certainly don't make it your career.

[bladehunter]

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!

 

so shotlink is not accurate? or was that an attempted cover up?

[bscinstnct]

I'm so sick of athletes "taking to Twitter" when things don't go their way. A rules official made a ruling. Don't like it, take it to the higher authority. It's fine to answer someone's question with what was happening, but to call someone a cheater is to imply that the rules official was wrong even if he was right. Sorry if you don't agree. But that's why we have rules officials. And according to commentary on the Golf Channel, the rules official asked others who were in the area who agreed with the claim as to where the ball crossed. If you don't like how the rules of golf work, don't play, and certainly don't make it your career.

 

"the rules official asked others who were in the area who agreed with the claim as to where the ball crossed"

 

Who are the "others"?

 

 

 

Here is a witness who stated that kang cheated...

 

 

 

"Michael Klock was working ShotLink at the Quicken Loans National Sunday on the 10th green when Sung Kang’s second shot crossed the hazard line and triggered an accusation of “cheating” from playing partner Joel Dahmen.

 

Klock says he is certain Kang’s shot crossed the hazard line only once.

 

“Kang’s second shot was very far left and at no point ever came close to being inbounds from the initial point of entry 225 yards or so back,” Klock told Golfweek Monday"

 

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

[Bushwood Country Club]

#itwastherussians

[InTheHole]

I'm so sick of athletes "taking to Twitter" when things don't go their way. A rules official made a ruling. Don't like it, take it to the higher authority. It's fine to answer someone's question with what was happening, but to call someone a cheater is to imply that the rules official was wrong even if he was right. Sorry if you don't agree. But that's why we have rules officials. And according to commentary on the Golf Channel, the rules official asked others who were in the area who agreed with the claim as to where the ball crossed. If you don't like how the rules of golf work, don't play, and certainly don't make it your career.

 

"the rules official asked others who were in the area who agreed with the claim as to where the ball crossed"

 

Who are the "others"?

 

 

 

Here is a witness who stated that kang cheated...

 

 

 

"Michael Klock was working ShotLink at the Quicken Loans National Sunday on the 10th green when Sung Kang's second shot crossed the hazard line and triggered an accusation of "cheating" from playing partner Joel Dahmen.

 

Klock says he is certain Kang's shot crossed the hazard line only once.

 

"Kang's second shot was very far left and at no point ever came close to being inbounds from the initial point of entry 225 yards or so back," Klock told Golfweek Monday"

 

https://www.google.c...oel-dahmen/amp/

 

According to TGC, they were volunteers working the hole and spotting balls. I have no idea who they were and that's why people like us have a) no skin in the game and b) no right to disagree with the official ruling. If the PGA Tour comes out tomorrow and says it was wrong, then it was wrong. Until then, the official ruling is what happened, I don't care if the ball was really in orbit around Mars.

 

Look at it this way- if everyone said the ruling was wrong, why was the ruling made the way it was? There had to be a reason the official ruled the way he did. If 25 people are all telling you something different, why would the rules official make a different ruling? Unless you're suggesting that the official is also cheating? Or paid off? Let's start that rumor.... hmmmm... what's my Twotter password?

[Ignatius Reilly]

I'm with Dahmen. NOBODY is that psycho to spend 20 minutes during your final round arguing, having to call BEN CRANE through, then call the guy a cheater on Twitter if there's even a little bit of doubt. That's like calling someone a child molester out there. He obviously had zero doubt and he was backed up by everyone who counted. Regardless of the PGA Tour's statement, Kang's going to be eating breakfast by himself for a loooong time.

JD shouldn't have signed the scorecard, doesn't matter if the official would have. If you're willing to argue the call for 20 minutes, then have the conviction to not sign the card you truly believe is incorrect.

 

That remains a real problem for me.

 

If one of the pieces of evidence is a signed affidavit by Joel Dahmen saying "Kang is not the child molester", it becomes a real challenge to use Dahmen's testimony from Twitter saying he thinks Kang actually is the child molester.

 

I have no idea (and I don't care) if Kang cheated or not, but Dahmen is a nutter who's word cannot be trusted. That's about the only thing that's crystal clear at this point.

 

Maybe he actually IS that psycho. He's certainly adept at sucking and blowing at the same time....

[Bushwood Country Club]

 

 

From two people on the course who Kang’s shot and were clear in what they say. I will say it again - “who had the motivation to cheat?”.... Not JD....

[InTheHole]

 

 

From two people on the course who Kang’s shot and were clear in what they say. I will say it again - “who had the motivation to cheat?”.... Not JD....

 

Did those people make their views known to the players and the rules officials?

[eagle1997]

Another exchange... Involving the three involved including the marshall standing right behind Kang when he hit the shot.

 

https://twitter.com/mklock7/status/1013954096276131845

 

You’ve misrepresented this. Scroll up on those tweets. The Marshall was standing directly behind JD, not Kang.

 

One thing’s for certain: from JD’s pov, it certainly looked like the ball never crossed the hazard.

 

So many of these judgement call situations are in the hands of the player themselves.

 

We’ve got more than a few Rules Officials on WRX. Would love to hear their opinion on this.