Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[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.

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....

 

I don't know JD but that's the only other option here, that is, that either Kang's a cheater.....or Dahmen actually IS a psycho.

[4thand11]

 

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?

 

From the pga statement:

 

"The official then took Kang back to where he hit his second shot, and Kang confirmed his original belief that his shot had indeed crossed the margin of the hazard. With no clear evidence to prove otherwise, it was determined by the official that Kang could proceed with his fourth shot as intended, following a penalty stroke and subsequent drop. "

 

Pretty obvious that the rules official didn't see the shot and relied primarily on Kang's word. Clearly Dahmen told the official it never crossed the hazard, and we now know of others who back Dahmen up (whether they were interviewed by the rules official, I don't know. Probably not.).

 

Official is in a tough spot, tough to call a player a liar when he is adamant about what he saw, and you didn't see the shot for yourself. Kang lied and got away with it, apparently.

 

I still believe Dahmen 100% though, you don't call someone a cheater on Twitter unless you KNOW. It doesn't sound like it was a close call.

[jonsnow]

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.

 

The test in libel is not if you believe what you said to be true, but that it is true. Meaning Kang would need to prove what was said was false. He's got a rules official who ruled his drop was correct & the fact that Dahmen signed his card on his side; Dahmen has a number of witnesses without the standing of a rules official who agree with him. That's why I said Dahmen would have been better served to leave out "Kang cheated" in his tweet. It opens him up to legal action if Kang decides to press it. I don't think he will but he would be starting from a stronger position than Dahmen if he did.

 

The reason I don't think Kang will pursue this is because I thought the drop looked fishy too. Dahmen could have gotten his point across & gotten it off his chest without the potential for this thing getting uglier than it already is.

[ClintDagger]

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.

The only experience I can attest to is playing at the college level where 99% of the time you play in threesomes. If Player A hit the shot and is in dispute over it with a Player B, and Player C can’t or won’t weigh in because they didn’t witness it or whatever reason, then the rules official will always go with the player that hit the shot. I’ve never seen a spectator asked to give their opinion. If it’s Player A’s account vs that of both Player B & Player C that’s when I’ve seen the player actually striking the shot overruled by an official.

 

Of course the above is a far cry from the tour so I don’t know if spectators or marshalls are ever interviewed or not.

 

I should add that these things were almost never settled on the course. The oncourse official would almost always hedge and ask for two balls to be played at each disputed drop point and then it would be decided in the tent.

[LifeAfterBogeys]

I did not read the full thread... however Dahmen should not have signed the scorecard. Signing it means you agree on the 5 made on the hole. It is now irrelevant whether Kang cheated or not. Signing the card supports and endorses the cheat. He should have had the balls to decline signing the card, Dahmen reputation is damaged now, best he apologize quickly and move on

[eagle1997]

Not pressing the issue looks bad for Kang.

 

Imagine for a moment that you are in his shoes. You’re 95% certain that your ball crossed the hazard, and yet your FC strenously questioned you at the time and is calling you a cheater on social media after the round.

 

If I am in the right, less than zero chance I let JD’s tweets go unchallenged.

 

SK’s “team” released that statement to the press. We’ll see if that’s the last thing we hear on this from him.

[Santiago Golf]

With all the money these guys are playing for, they should have a rules official with every group.

 

Thats alot of rules officals. For most majors there us ine per hole.

[mn44]

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?

 

You're missing the point. The card Dahmen signed was accurate because the rules official made the determination to drop by the green and Kang made a par based on that ruling. Dahmen signed the card based on that. That doesn't mean he didn't cheat to make that par.

[mn44]

I did not read the full thread... however Dahmen should not have signed the scorecard. Signing it means you agree on the 5 made on the hole. It is now irrelevant whether Kang cheated or not. Signing the card supports and endorses the cheat. He should have had the balls to decline signing the card, Dahmen reputation is damaged now, best he apologize quickly and move on

 

You have that backwards. Once the rules official determined kangs drop position and Kang made par from there, par became the correct score at that time. It's the same issue with Tiger at Augusta. He didn't get DQd for signing an incorrect scorecard because at the time of signing it the rules official had made the determination the # on the card he signed was the correct score. Afterwards he was assessed a penalty, but the scorecard he signed was still correct because that was the ruling at the time.

[Bingo1976]

If I have an issue with someone at work, then it gets escalated internally, and I would not sign-off on something that I believed to be wrong (in fact I can go to jail if I do as a licensed person). What I would not do is sign a document and then tell send out an internal email to the entire company telling them that the guy who's work I just approved is a cheat.

 

Perspective can work in funny ways (visually that is) - Kang may be a cheater, or he may have had a different view of the shot to those around him, but what is uncalled for is calling someone out on antisocial media without having the balls to back it up where it matters in the scorers tent.

[BB28403]

If I have an issue with someone at work, then it gets escalated internally, and I would not sign-off on something that I believed to be wrong (in fact I can go to jail if I do as a licensed person). What I would not do is sign a document and then tell send out an internal email to the entire company telling them that the guy who's work I just approved is a cheat.

 

Perspective can work in funny ways (visually that is) - Kang may be a cheater, or he may have had a different view of the shot to those around him, but what is uncalled for is calling someone out on antisocial media without having the balls to back it up where it matters in the scorers tent.

 

If you had to sign your time card to leave your job. You prob would to go home , even during an argument with management about a coworker.

[Bingo1976]

If I have an issue with someone at work, then it gets escalated internally, and I would not sign-off on something that I believed to be wrong (in fact I can go to jail if I do as a licensed person). What I would not do is sign a document and then tell send out an internal email to the entire company telling them that the guy who's work I just approved is a cheat.

 

Perspective can work in funny ways (visually that is) - Kang may be a cheater, or he may have had a different view of the shot to those around him, but what is uncalled for is calling someone out on antisocial media without having the balls to back it up where it matters in the scorers tent.

 

If you had to sign your time card to leave your job. You prob would to go home , even during an argument with management about a coworker.

 

Do they though? As long as your card is signed, who cares about the other guy. Explain why you are not signing it and let the competition committee figure it out. This was Saturday anyway, not like he had a flight to catch.

[iBanesto]

Who is Joel Dahmen? :lol:

[TheInfidel]

 

 

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....

 

Good find. :happy:

[Tiptx1122]

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.

Could be he just doesn't like cheaters. It shouldn't matter whether it impacted him personally or not. Cheaters deserve to be called out.

 

Exactly. Letting it go once makes it OK. Same reason sandbaggers and low lifes ruin so many games across the world. At some point they got away with it and there's no going back.

So Phil is a low life according to you.

[Bushwood Country Club]

Who is Joel Dahmen? :lol:

why does that even matter? He saw someone cheat and he called them on it...

[Mcnulty]

ggdroptips.com

Underrated post

[stevopagolf]

I thought Joel played with Tiger yesterday or was that sat?

 

No Tiger played with Blue Lagoon or something yesterday.

 

I think it might have been Crab Rangoon...

[new2g0lf]

I did not read the full thread... however Dahmen should not have signed the scorecard. Signing it means you agree on the 5 made on the hole. It is now irrelevant whether Kang cheated or not. Signing the card supports and endorses the cheat. He should have had the balls to decline signing the card, Dahmen reputation is damaged now, best he apologize quickly and move on

 

You have that backwards. Once the rules official determined kangs drop position and Kang made par from there, par became the correct score at that time. It's the same issue with Tiger at Augusta. He didn't get DQd for signing an incorrect scorecard because at the time of signing it the rules official had made the determination the # on the card he signed was the correct score. Afterwards he was assessed a penalty, but the scorecard he signed was still correct because that was the ruling at the time.

 

As we've seen in the past, what an on course official says can be changed after review. JD didn't have to sign the card, there was no penalty for not signing the card beyond time which he already wasted by supposedly arguing with the official where the drop should be. I'd feel a lot better about his Twitter accusations if he didn't sign the card, now he just seems like a jerk.

 

I am not familiar with Kang or JD, but if I were Kang and got called a cheater on Twitter by JD when I know 100% I hadn't cheated I'd react a lot more strongly than he did. I'd have already been pissed at JD for actively arguing where my ball should be placed as it would be obvious to anyone around he was calling me a cheater so the Twitter comment would really escalate things.

 

Anyone notice what happened at 18? Did they shake hands when the round was over? If I were JD, I wouldn't shake the hand of someone I know cheated.

[Stooch]

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

[Nykt1000]

Quote from reddit

 

sonic_stig

15 points17 hours ago

 

I was there at 10 yesterday and watched all of this happen. While I can respect what he thought he saw, he was wrong in my view, and my friend who was with me also. We both saw Kang’s ball land in bounds before bouncing into the hazard on the left. Perhaps aided by the fact it looked like Kang’s shot was a draw.

What we also didn’t understand was that there was a Marshall about five yards behind the final resting place of the initial ball, who found the ball in the hazard. It appeared he was never consulted on the situation despite having the best view, and he surely must have seen it. Why was that?

Maybe it is time to have some sort of video refereeing system in place, or more rules officials. It still took about 10 minutes for one to show up yesterday. The whole debacle took way too long to solve. The first time i can remember a group passing another one on course.

[HitEmTrue]

Klock keeps calling it “in bounds” and “out of bounds” and then says he is very familiar with the rules?

 

[MtlJeff]

If I have an issue with someone at work, then it gets escalated internally, and I would not sign-off on something that I believed to be wrong (in fact I can go to jail if I do as a licensed person). What I would not do is sign a document and then tell send out an internal email to the entire company telling them that the guy who's work I just approved is a cheat.

 

Perspective can work in funny ways (visually that is) - Kang may be a cheater, or he may have had a different view of the shot to those around him, but what is uncalled for is calling someone out on antisocial media without having the balls to back it up where it matters in the scorers tent.

 

Exactly. Were jumping on Kang like a true internet Lynch mob. There are 3 people (?) Adamant he took a bad drop, but even one of them admits that Kang himself was almost positive he took a good drop. Maybe it WAS a bad drop. But if you've ever played golf you know how tough it can be.

 

In a club championship a few years ago I got into a debate over the same type of thing. I ended up taking a drop 50 yards further back than I thought was right because one person in the group made a big stink. I knew he'd run into the clubhouse and call me a cheater...even though the other guys in the group legit couldn't say.

 

When you hit a ball 200yds+ or something it's tough to gauge entry points or where it crossed this or that

 

The rules officials interviewed people there and allowed the drop, Dahmen signed his card. He shouldn't have done that if he was going to go on twitter and call Kang a cheater. And you shouldn't call someone a cheater unless you're convinced they knew they were cheating

[new2g0lf]

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

 

The problem with Klock's statement is the Shotlink path doesn't support what he claims he saw, it actually supports Kang's claims. The article indicates JD and Kang were getting into it about the drop (I previously thought JD just argued with the rules official) so Kang is either a hardcore cheater or honestly believed what he said to drop where he did.

[Drudersh]

Quote from reddit

 

sonic_stig

15 points17 hours ago

 

I was there at 10 yesterday and watched all of this happen. While I can respect what he thought he saw, he was wrong in my view, and my friend who was with me also. We both saw Kang’s ball land in bounds before bouncing into the hazard on the left. Perhaps aided by the fact it looked like Kang’s shot was a draw.

What we also didn’t understand was that there was a Marshall about five yards behind the final resting place of the initial ball, who found the ball in the hazard. It appeared he was never consulted on the situation despite having the best view, and he surely must have seen it. Why was that?

Maybe it is time to have some sort of video refereeing system in place, or more rules officials. It still took about 10 minutes for one to show up yesterday. The whole debacle took way too long to solve. The first time i can remember a group passing another one on course.

 

In the same thread, another poster who was also on 10 says he saw the shot and never saw it bounce at all, and if it did bounce it was inside the hazard.

[bladehunter]

Who is Joel Dahmen? :lol:

why does that even matter? He saw someone cheat and he called them on it...

 

 

No. He THINKS he saw someone make a bad drop. There isn’t a person on this earth that knows if it was good or not. We don’t have video and we didn’t find the ball. He then called it cheating after throwing a tantrum i person and on Twitter.

[PuttLeftHitRight]

Quote from reddit

 

sonic_stig

15 points17 hours ago

 

I was there at 10 yesterday and watched all of this happen. While I can respect what he thought he saw, he was wrong in my view, and my friend who was with me also. We both saw Kang’s ball land in bounds before bouncing into the hazard on the left. Perhaps aided by the fact it looked like Kang’s shot was a draw.

What we also didn’t understand was that there was a Marshall about five yards behind the final resting place of the initial ball, who found the ball in the hazard. It appeared he was never consulted on the situation despite having the best view, and he surely must have seen it. Why was that?

Maybe it is time to have some sort of video refereeing system in place, or more rules officials. It still took about 10 minutes for one to show up yesterday. The whole debacle took way too long to solve. The first time i can remember a group passing another one on course.

 

I wonder if this person understand the difference between the red hazard line and the actual creek itself? Two different things.

[bladehunter]

Quote from reddit

 

sonic_stig

15 points17 hours ago

 

I was there at 10 yesterday and watched all of this happen. While I can respect what he thought he saw, he was wrong in my view, and my friend who was with me also. We both saw Kang’s ball land in bounds before bouncing into the hazard on the left. Perhaps aided by the fact it looked like Kang’s shot was a draw.

What we also didn’t understand was that there was a Marshall about five yards behind the final resting place of the initial ball, who found the ball in the hazard. It appeared he was never consulted on the situation despite having the best view, and he surely must have seen it. Why was that?

Maybe it is time to have some sort of video refereeing system in place, or more rules officials. It still took about 10 minutes for one to show up yesterday. The whole debacle took way too long to solve. The first time i can remember a group passing another one on course.

 

I wonder if this person understand the difference between the red hazard line and the actual creek itself? Two different things.

 

Sure. But from 200 plus yards away Joel couldn’t tell either. So how is he so sure ?

[Drudersh]

Who is Joel Dahmen? :lol:

why does that even matter? He saw someone cheat and he called them on it...

 

 

No. He THINKS he saw someone make a bad drop. There isn't a person on this earth that knows if it was good or not. We don't have video and we didn't find the ball. He then called it cheating after throwing a tantrum i person and on Twitter.

 

If this statement theoretically includes Kang, who wasn't 100% sure himself initially that the ball crossed the hazard line near the green, then Kang took a bad drop.

[fowlerscousin]

I always thought people take bad drops at every level of golf.