Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[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.

 

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.

 

Well since he hit the ball he should have the best angle and view. Right ? So if he thinks it crossed. Who can dispute it ?

Some jackass on Twitter I guess. But he’s just suffering of butt hurt because he didn’t “ win” the argument. Any player who is at all a decent guy would have tapped out of that situation quick. Unless you are standing by the place where the ball splashed you really shouldn’t have an opinion. Why ? Because his angle couldn’t have been better than The player who hit it

[bladehunter]

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

 

Sure they do. It’s another one of those rules that can’t be followed. But modern tv golf shows the instability of the rule. You can’t possibly know if a ball hit on one side or the other Of a 2 inch red line 230 yards away without a blimp camera in regular play. So you guess. Same as it’s always been done. Joel shouldn’t have gotten so bent out of shape over something I’m aure he’s done 200 times in his career.

[ray9898]

If I am 20y right of my playing partner I can certainly tell if they hit a draw that starts over the fairway and hooks into the hazard well up by the green or if they just hit a dead pull left that never carried the hazard. It appears plenty of people on that hole saw exactly what happened.

[rafal]

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

 

Sure they do. It's another one of those rules that can't be followed. But modern tv golf shows the instability of the rule. You can't possibly know if a ball hit on one side or the other Of a 2 inch red line 230 yards away without a blimp camera in regular play. So you guess. Same as it's always been done. Joel shouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape over something I'm aure he's done 200 times in his career.

 

What do you think is your duty to protect the field? Do you think you have any responsibility in this regard or does anything go?

 

If a guy plays the wrong ball and you tell him that and he says, no, it's the right ball, do you just drop it? I mean, no rule can be followed if people with your views (millennials?) refuse to enforce it. Or as I see in your posts, they see those attempting to enforce rules the prime offenders?

[bladehunter]

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

 

Sure they do. It's another one of those rules that can't be followed. But modern tv golf shows the instability of the rule. You can't possibly know if a ball hit on one side or the other Of a 2 inch red line 230 yards away without a blimp camera in regular play. So you guess. Same as it's always been done. Joel shouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape over something I'm aure he's done 200 times in his career.

 

What do you think is your duty to protect the field? Do you think you have any responsibility in this regard or does anything go?

 

If a guy plays the wrong ball and you tell him that and he says, no, it's the right ball, do you just drop it? I mean, no rule can be followed if people with your views (millennials?) refuse to enforce it. Or as I see in your posts, they see those attempting to enforce rules the prime offenders?

 

 

38 ..so far from millennial...

 

My responsibility is same as anyone elses iF im certain....like i see someone take a practice swing in a bunker.. i see someone foot wedge a ball bak in bounds or drop a ball from his pocket.. But a 200 yard shot that shotlink says went up by the green ? How on earth can you testify to that one way or another... someone is lying.. Joel or shotlink

 

 

a video showing an obvious flaw in the ruling would certainly change my mind..BUT i dont have that and neither does Joel... I dotn see how anyone has the opinion that its a bad drop going on the only real evidence we have..and thats shotlink

[HitEmTrue]

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.

 

Shotlink isn’t tracking the flight of the ball. It is simply recording where the ball ends up. In this case that location was decided by the player and official.

 

At least that’s my understanding of how it works.

 

[iteachgolf]

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

 

Sure they do. It's another one of those rules that can't be followed. But modern tv golf shows the instability of the rule. You can't possibly know if a ball hit on one side or the other Of a 2 inch red line 230 yards away without a blimp camera in regular play. So you guess. Same as it's always been done. Joel shouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape over something I'm aure he's done 200 times in his career.

 

What do you think is your duty to protect the field? Do you think you have any responsibility in this regard or does anything go?

 

If a guy plays the wrong ball and you tell him that and he says, no, it's the right ball, do you just drop it? I mean, no rule can be followed if people with your views (millennials?) refuse to enforce it. Or as I see in your posts, they see those attempting to enforce rules the prime offenders?

 

 

38 ..so far from millennial...

 

My responsibility is same as anyone elses iF im certain....like i see someone take a practice swing in a bunker.. i see someone foot wedge a ball bak in bounds or drop a ball from his pocket.. But a 200 yard shot that shotlink says went up by the green ? How on earth can you testify to that one way or another... someone is lying.. Joel or shotlink

 

Shotlink is often way off when the ball goes in a hazard and the ball is dropped. They just shoot in a general area. Julian spun one off a green into the water at Memorial in line with flag and they showed it 30’ left and halfway across the water. Using shotlink’s description is not good evidence, they often screw up shots in play as well just not by as much.

 

Shotlink is volunteers shooting a rangefinder in the general area of where the ball ends up. It does t track a shot an is only as accurate as the old guy shooting the range finder.

[Drudersh]

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

 

Sure they do. It's another one of those rules that can't be followed. But modern tv golf shows the instability of the rule. You can't possibly know if a ball hit on one side or the other Of a 2 inch red line 230 yards away without a blimp camera in regular play. So you guess. Same as it's always been done. Joel shouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape over something I'm aure he's done 200 times in his career.

 

What do you think is your duty to protect the field? Do you think you have any responsibility in this regard or does anything go?

 

If a guy plays the wrong ball and you tell him that and he says, no, it's the right ball, do you just drop it? I mean, no rule can be followed if people with your views (millennials?) refuse to enforce it. Or as I see in your posts, they see those attempting to enforce rules the prime offenders?

 

 

38 ..so far from millennial...

 

My responsibility is same as anyone elses iF im certain....like i see someone take a practice swing in a bunker.. i see someone foot wedge a ball bak in bounds or drop a ball from his pocket.. But a 200 yard shot that shotlink says went up by the green ? How on earth can you testify to that one way or another... someone is lying.. Joel or shotlink

 

 

a video showing an obvious flaw in the ruling would certainly change my mind..BUT i dont have that and neither does Joel... I dotn see how anyone has the opinion that its a bad drop going on the only real evidence we have..and thats shotlink

 

*or Kang

[bladehunter]

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

[jonsnow]

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

 

Sure they do. It's another one of those rules that can't be followed. But modern tv golf shows the instability of the rule. You can't possibly know if a ball hit on one side or the other Of a 2 inch red line 230 yards away without a blimp camera in regular play. So you guess. Same as it's always been done. Joel shouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape over something I'm aure he's done 200 times in his career.

 

What do you think is your duty to protect the field? Do you think you have any responsibility in this regard or does anything go?

 

If a guy plays the wrong ball and you tell him that and he says, no, it's the right ball, do you just drop it? I mean, no rule can be followed if people with your views (millennials?) refuse to enforce it. Or as I see in your posts, they see those attempting to enforce rules the prime offenders?

 

Seems like every problem & controversy comes down to millennials & old white guys...

[bladehunter]

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

 

Sure they do. It's another one of those rules that can't be followed. But modern tv golf shows the instability of the rule. You can't possibly know if a ball hit on one side or the other Of a 2 inch red line 230 yards away without a blimp camera in regular play. So you guess. Same as it's always been done. Joel shouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape over something I'm aure he's done 200 times in his career.

 

What do you think is your duty to protect the field? Do you think you have any responsibility in this regard or does anything go?

 

If a guy plays the wrong ball and you tell him that and he says, no, it's the right ball, do you just drop it? I mean, no rule can be followed if people with your views (millennials?) refuse to enforce it. Or as I see in your posts, they see those attempting to enforce rules the prime offenders?

 

 

38 ..so far from millennial...

 

My responsibility is same as anyone elses iF im certain....like i see someone take a practice swing in a bunker.. i see someone foot wedge a ball bak in bounds or drop a ball from his pocket.. But a 200 yard shot that shotlink says went up by the green ? How on earth can you testify to that one way or another... someone is lying.. Joel or shotlink

 

Shotlink is often way off when the ball goes in a hazard and the ball is dropped. They just shoot in a general area. Julian spun one off a green into the water at Memorial in line with flag and they showed it 30' left and halfway across the water. Using shotlink's description is not good evidence, they often screw up shots in play as well just not by as much.

 

Shotlink is volunteers shooting a rangefinder in the general area of where the ball ends up. It does t track a shot an is only as accurate as the old guy shooting the range finder.

 

and i get that .. My comment was partly sarcastic because earlier in this thread the shotlink person himself was cited as a witness....I asked then why the shotlink tracker showed the ball one place and the guy running the shotlink saying it went much shorter and further left... I cant believe nobody else sees that discrepancy in the report...

 

I just think that when you yell cheater you really better have a way to prove it ... we dont have that here at all..not close

[Drudersh]

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?

[joey2aces]

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

 

Sure they do. It's another one of those rules that can't be followed. But modern tv golf shows the instability of the rule. You can't possibly know if a ball hit on one side or the other Of a 2 inch red line 230 yards away without a blimp camera in regular play. So you guess. Same as it's always been done. Joel shouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape over something I'm aure he's done 200 times in his career.

 

What do you think is your duty to protect the field? Do you think you have any responsibility in this regard or does anything go?

 

If a guy plays the wrong ball and you tell him that and he says, no, it's the right ball, do you just drop it? I mean, no rule can be followed if people with your views (millennials?) refuse to enforce it. Or as I see in your posts, they see those attempting to enforce rules the prime offenders?

 

Seems like every problem & controversy comes down to millennials & old white guys...

 

those are the only people we are pretty much allowed to blame anymore.

[Jarlaxle]

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.

As has been pointed out before, the shotlink gives a false impression of where the ball actually came to rest in the hazard. None of the individuals working the hole saw it as a draw that came out into play and then drew back into the hazard. They all claim it started on a more direct line to the hole and came up short, never crossing back into play. All of you guys who say it would be hard to see are ignoring the fact that all of these people say it wasn't close. Look at the hole again and that yellow line the one guy drew. If the shot had that shape, basically tracing down the left side of the fairway for 100 yards or so before dipping back into the hazard, they wouldn't be so clear that it wasn't close.

 

Lastly, I simply cannot believe more people seem to be chuffed that JD didn't sign the scorecard than that Kang appears to have taken a ~200 yard favorable drop, likely improving his score by at least one shot if not more. I get it that golf is a game of honor and I'm sure that if he had it do again, JD wouldn't sign the scorecard but I think you guys are getting this backwards. The #1 rule is don't cheat in the first place. As for Kang and his reputation, my instinct tells me he will get what he deserves on this.

[bladehunter]

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

 

Sure they do. It's another one of those rules that can't be followed. But modern tv golf shows the instability of the rule. You can't possibly know if a ball hit on one side or the other Of a 2 inch red line 230 yards away without a blimp camera in regular play. So you guess. Same as it's always been done. Joel shouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape over something I'm aure he's done 200 times in his career.

 

What do you think is your duty to protect the field? Do you think you have any responsibility in this regard or does anything go?

 

If a guy plays the wrong ball and you tell him that and he says, no, it's the right ball, do you just drop it? I mean, no rule can be followed if people with your views (millennials?) refuse to enforce it. Or as I see in your posts, they see those attempting to enforce rules the prime offenders?

 

Seems like every problem & controversy comes down to millennials & old white guys...

 

i frequently disagree with both... But the boomers.... man... I need to bite my tongue.

[bladehunter]

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?

 

no more so than you are ignoring the half i highlight...

 

if Joel doesnt pitch a hissy fit , then the official and Kang probably figure it out best they can with no video.. most shots are filmed when a guy is -9 .....so this doesnt happen to a guy in contention often. Sometimes you get a favorable ruling..sometimes you get screwed.. If nobody knows where it crossed or if .... and the official and the player make their best guess whats the issue ?

[NPVWhiz]

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.

 

How is that a tough ask? JD knew the statement he made was false the minute the Rules Official, the official person responsible for evaluating the situation and making an official decision, made the decision. He affirmed and acknowledged that decision when he signed the scorecard. When you sign a scorecard, in particular a tournament scorecard, you are attesting to the fact that you agree that the scorecard is correct.

 

Kang can prove the statement was false because there is always a penalty for cheating that is identified by a Rules Official or Committee, and in this case a Rules Official evaluated the situation and there was no penalty. And, to boot, his marker attested to the fact that there was no penalty and the score he returned was correct. Thus, no cheating, at least not in a forum outside of the twitterverse and its vast array of digital guillotines.

 

Had JD not signed the card, he might have had a leg to stand on. Kang would have a much tougher time quantifying the damages.

 

I'm amazed that the ShotLink guy was so eager to get his 15 minutes as well. The Tour couldn't be happy with him stoking the fire on that one. Nobody under the age of 30 seems to understand the old adage that the spouting whale gets harpooned.

[iteachgolf]

 

Sure they do. It's another one of those rules that can't be followed. But modern tv golf shows the instability of the rule. You can't possibly know if a ball hit on one side or the other Of a 2 inch red line 230 yards away without a blimp camera in regular play. So you guess. Same as it's always been done. Joel shouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape over something I'm aure he's done 200 times in his career.

 

What do you think is your duty to protect the field? Do you think you have any responsibility in this regard or does anything go?

 

If a guy plays the wrong ball and you tell him that and he says, no, it's the right ball, do you just drop it? I mean, no rule can be followed if people with your views (millennials?) refuse to enforce it. Or as I see in your posts, they see those attempting to enforce rules the prime offenders?

 

 

38 ..so far from millennial...

 

My responsibility is same as anyone elses iF im certain....like i see someone take a practice swing in a bunker.. i see someone foot wedge a ball bak in bounds or drop a ball from his pocket.. But a 200 yard shot that shotlink says went up by the green ? How on earth can you testify to that one way or another... someone is lying.. Joel or shotlink

 

Shotlink is often way off when the ball goes in a hazard and the ball is dropped. They just shoot in a general area. Julian spun one off a green into the water at Memorial in line with flag and they showed it 30' left and halfway across the water. Using shotlink's description is not good evidence, they often screw up shots in play as well just not by as much.

 

Shotlink is volunteers shooting a rangefinder in the general area of where the ball ends up. It does t track a shot an is only as accurate as the old guy shooting the range finder.

 

and i get that .. My comment was partly sarcastic because earlier in this thread the shotlink person himself was cited as a witness....I asked then why the shotlink tracker showed the ball one place and the guy running the shotlink saying it went much shorter and further left... I cant believe nobody else sees that discrepancy in the report...

 

I just think that when you yell cheater you really better have a way to prove it ... we dont have that here at all..not close

 

Shotlink shows the ball in the hazard. Nothing in shotlink shows that it crosses the hazard line.

[rawdog]

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

 

Sure they do. It's another one of those rules that can't be followed. But modern tv golf shows the instability of the rule. You can't possibly know if a ball hit on one side or the other Of a 2 inch red line 230 yards away without a blimp camera in regular play. So you guess. Same as it's always been done. Joel shouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape over something I'm aure he's done 200 times in his career.

 

What do you think is your duty to protect the field? Do you think you have any responsibility in this regard or does anything go?

 

If a guy plays the wrong ball and you tell him that and he says, no, it's the right ball, do you just drop it? I mean, no rule can be followed if people with your views (millennials?) refuse to enforce it. Or as I see in your posts, they see those attempting to enforce rules the prime offenders?

 

Seems like every problem & controversy comes down to millennials & old white guys...

 

i frequently disagree with both... But the boomers.... man... I need to bite my tongue.

 

Blade be like... "I'm Generation X. I'll be there for you... when the rain starts to pour..."

[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.

 

How is that a tough ask? JD knew the statement he made was false the minute the Rules Official, the official person responsible for evaluating the situation and making an official decision, made the decision. He affirmed and acknowledged that decision when signed the scorecard.

 

Kang can prove the statement was false because there is always a penalty for cheating that is identified by a Rules Official or Committee, and in this case a Rules Official evaluated the situation and there was no penalty. Thus, no cheating, at least not in a forum outside of the twitterverse and its vast array of digital guillotines.

 

Had JD not signed the card, he might have had a leg to stand on. Kang would have a much tougher time quantifying the damages.

 

I'm amazed that the ShotLink guy was so eager to get his 15 minutes as well. The Tour couldn't be happy with him stoking the fire on that one. Nobody under the age of 30 seems to understand the old adage that the spouting whale gets harpooned.

 

Rules official didn't see the shot. He consulted with Kang who told him he was "95%" sure the ball crossed near the green. When the rules official told him he needed to be 100% sure, Kang changed his story to 100%. The burden was on Kang to make the call, not the rules official.

 

Kang cannot PROVE anything, nor can Dahmen. Kang made a judgement call which Dahmen argued was incorrect.

[bladehunter]

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.

 

How is that a tough ask? JD knew the statement he made was false the minute the Rules Official, the official person responsible for evaluating the situation and making an official decision, made the decision. He affirmed and acknowledged that decision when signed the scorecard.

 

Kang can prove the statement was false because there is always a penalty for cheating that is identified by a Rules Official or Committee, and in this case a Rules Official evaluated the situation and there was no penalty. Thus, no cheating, at least not in a forum outside of the twitterverse and its vast array of digital guillotines.

 

Had JD not signed the card, he might have had a leg to stand on. Kang would have a much tougher time quantifying the damages.

 

I'm amazed that the ShotLink guy was so eager to get his 15 minutes as well. The Tour couldn't be happy with him stoking the fire on that one. Nobody under the age of 30 seems to understand the old adage that the spouting whale gets harpooned.

i

excellent points... Let alone my argument.. THE rules official signed off on it.....were really calling a guy a cheater with no video and a rules officials approval of the drop ?

[bladehunter]

teach-

 

yes ..but the shotlink guy claims it came " nowhere close to the green..it was way back "... yet shotlink has it nearly pin high... im just pointing out that the star witnesses are telling many stories

[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 was false and prove JD knew the statement was false.

 

Going to be a tough ask on both fronts.

 

How is that a tough ask? JD knew the statement he made was false the minute the Rules Official, the official person responsible for evaluating the situation and making an official decision, made the decision. He affirmed and acknowledged that decision when he signed the scorecard. When you sign a scorecard, in particular a tournament scorecard, you are attesting to the fact that you agree that the scorecard is correct.

 

Kang can prove the statement was false because there is always a penalty for cheating that is identified by a Rules Official or Committee, and in this case a Rules Official evaluated the situation and there was no penalty. And, to boot, his marker attested to the fact that there was no penalty and the score he returned was correct. Thus, no cheating, at least not in a forum outside of the twitterverse and its vast array of digital guillotines.

 

Had JD not signed the card, he might have had a leg to stand on. Kang would have a much tougher time quantifying the damages.

 

I'm amazed that the ShotLink guy was so eager to get his 15 minutes as well. The Tour couldn't be happy with him stoking the fire on that one. Nobody under the age of 30 seems to understand the old adage that the spouting whale gets harpooned.

 

What a great phrase! I'm writing this down: "digital guillotines"

[rawdog]

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.

 

How is that a tough ask? JD knew the statement he made was false the minute the Rules Official, the official person responsible for evaluating the situation and making an official decision, made the decision. He affirmed and acknowledged that decision when he signed the scorecard. When you sign a scorecard, in particular a tournament scorecard, you are attesting to the fact that you agree that the scorecard is correct.

 

Kang can prove the statement was false because there is always a penalty for cheating that is identified by a Rules Official or Committee, and in this case a Rules Official evaluated the situation and there was no penalty. And, to boot, his marker attested to the fact that there was no penalty and the score he returned was correct. Thus, no cheating, at least not in a forum outside of the twitterverse and its vast array of digital guillotines.

 

Had JD not signed the card, he might have had a leg to stand on. Kang would have a much tougher time quantifying the damages.

 

I'm amazed that the ShotLink guy was so eager to get his 15 minutes as well. The Tour couldn't be happy with him stoking the fire on that one. Nobody under the age of 30 seems to understand the old adage that the spouting whale gets harpooned.

 

What a great phrase! I'm writing this down: "digital guillotines"

 

Modern "court of public opinion." Nice.

[bladehunter]

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.

 

How is that a tough ask? JD knew the statement he made was false the minute the Rules Official, the official person responsible for evaluating the situation and making an official decision, made the decision. He affirmed and acknowledged that decision when signed the scorecard.

 

Kang can prove the statement was false because there is always a penalty for cheating that is identified by a Rules Official or Committee, and in this case a Rules Official evaluated the situation and there was no penalty. Thus, no cheating, at least not in a forum outside of the twitterverse and its vast array of digital guillotines.

 

Had JD not signed the card, he might have had a leg to stand on. Kang would have a much tougher time quantifying the damages.

 

I'm amazed that the ShotLink guy was so eager to get his 15 minutes as well. The Tour couldn't be happy with him stoking the fire on that one. Nobody under the age of 30 seems to understand the old adage that the spouting whale gets harpooned.

 

Rules official didn't see the shot. He consulted with Kang who told him he was "95%" sure the ball crossed near the green. When the rules official told him he needed to be 100% sure, Kang changed his story to 100%. The burden was on Kang to make the call, not the rules official.

 

Kang cannot PROVE anything, nor can Dahmen. Kang made a judgement call which Dahmen argued was incorrect.

 

 

so he should have cited the 5% of his sureness and dropped where ?

[iteachgolf]

teach-

 

yes ..but the shotlink guy claims it came " nowhere close to the green..it was way back "... yet shotlink has it nearly pin high... im just pointing out that the star witnesses are telling many stories

 

That’s not what he said. He said it landed 8-10’ inside the hazard and never crossed the hazard line. It wasn’t a draw. It was a shot hit left not hit far enough to cover the hazard on that line

[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.

 

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.

 

How is that a tough ask? JD knew the statement he made was false the minute the Rules Official, the official person responsible for evaluating the situation and making an official decision, made the decision. He affirmed and acknowledged that decision when he signed the scorecard. When you sign a scorecard, in particular a tournament scorecard, you are attesting to the fact that you agree that the scorecard is correct.

 

Kang can prove the statement was false because there is always a penalty for cheating that is identified by a Rules Official or Committee, and in this case a Rules Official evaluated the situation and there was no penalty. And, to boot, his marker attested to the fact that there was no penalty and the score he returned was correct. Thus, no cheating, at least not in a forum outside of the twitterverse and its vast array of digital guillotines.

 

Had JD not signed the card, he might have had a leg to stand on. Kang would have a much tougher time quantifying the damages.

 

I'm amazed that the ShotLink guy was so eager to get his 15 minutes as well. The Tour couldn't be happy with him stoking the fire on that one. Nobody under the age of 30 seems to understand the old adage that the spouting whale gets harpooned.

 

 

[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.

 

How is that a tough ask? JD knew the statement he made was false the minute the Rules Official, the official person responsible for evaluating the situation and making an official decision, made the decision. He affirmed and acknowledged that decision when signed the scorecard.

 

Kang can prove the statement was false because there is always a penalty for cheating that is identified by a Rules Official or Committee, and in this case a Rules Official evaluated the situation and there was no penalty. Thus, no cheating, at least not in a forum outside of the twitterverse and its vast array of digital guillotines.

 

Had JD not signed the card, he might have had a leg to stand on. Kang would have a much tougher time quantifying the damages.

 

I'm amazed that the ShotLink guy was so eager to get his 15 minutes as well. The Tour couldn't be happy with him stoking the fire on that one. Nobody under the age of 30 seems to understand the old adage that the spouting whale gets harpooned.

i

excellent points... Let alone my argument.. THE rules official signed off on it.....were really calling a guy a cheater with no video and a rules officials approval of the drop ?

 

The rules official who didn't see the shot signed off on it, based on Kang CHANGING his story.

 

Why is no one acknowledging that this is an essential element to the entire controversy? It's not the rules officials call, it's Kang's.

[NPVWhiz]

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.

 

Besides, you can't even call it cheating if you wanted to. Clearly this was a case of using the Rules to your advantage. If the Rules leave something up to your own judgment and evaluation, and you're just wanting to save a few strokes, what's wrong with using the Rules to your advantage?

 

This is what the best players in the game do, apparently. Tiger. Phil. Just using the rules to their advantage.

[Ferguson]

Re: TV Show Friends

 

I am probably one of the few (aside from a good portion of the monk population) who never watched a single episode of Friends.