Following the 96-minute weather delay at the U.S. Open this past Sunday afternoon, Oakmont Country Club looked miserable.
Glued to my TV, I felt like it was absolutely pouring rain at my house in the Southeast while J.J. Spaun put the finishing touches on his maiden major championship. In reality, it was not even raining within 50 miles of my house.
It's been several days now, but Sam Burns being denied relief on the 15th hole still weighs heavily on my brain. There is a lot of ignorance and validity to the various discussions that have been had on the situation, so let's first examine the facts.
Playing on an already soaked course and in continued rainfall, Burns' tee shot on the 503-yard par-4 found the right center of the fairway. Believing he was entitled to free relief for temporary water, he called over the rules official, who reviewed the situation and denied said relief.
Burns then requested a second opinion from a second official, who also determined that there was no free relief. Burns eventually played his shot, hooking it horribly, went on to make a double bogey, and eventually tied for 7th, five shots behind Spaun.
When asked about it afterward, he commented, "That’s ridiculous.”
First, it is called “temporary water,” NOT “casual water.” Second, let’s see what the definition is for Temporary Water in the current Rules of Golf: “A temporary accumulation of water on the surface of the ground (such as puddles from rain…).” So far, it seems like the criterion is met.
It goes on to say, “that … can be seen before or after the player takes a stance (without pressing down excessively with their feet).” I did not see what the rules official or Burns saw, as we did not get a close-up shot; however, I suspect water could have been seen at least briefly.
A video found its way around social media of someone with a gray shoe showing the area from overhead stomping around. So far, perhaps Burns has valid beef, if the video is credible.
Where Sam Burns hit from on 15, via @KylePorterNS.
— Underdog Golf (@UnderdogGolf) June 15, 2025
Did not get relief from casual water after asking two rules officials.pic.twitter.com/loCV0E5hAj
The definition goes on to say, “It is not enough for the ground to be merely wet, muddy or soft or for the water to be momentarily visible as the player steps on the ground; an accumulation of water must remain present either before or after the stance is taken.”
I suspect this last citation is why relief was denied. The video is a bit tough to really see what goes on truly but the person does excessively press the feet down and it does not, to me at least, give enough information whether or not water can be seen momentarily or not.
I suspect a few points are at play, especially given that two rules officials gave the same ruling.
Of note, players are within their rights to ask for a second opinion, and I have done this a handful of times myself in competition.
Most US Opens and PGA Championships have a rules official with each group.
Most U.S. Opens have a rules official with every single group, all of whom wear headsets or radios for various reasons.
It can also be used by an official to broadcast a request for a second opinion (usually the official from the group in front or behind), passing messages to the officials near other groups (“tell them not to hit yet!”), consistency with other officials in subjective decisions, and for other kinds of help.
It can also be used to share information from a central location or person indicating that a group is out of position, potential bad weather is approaching, or to give a heads up about potential rulings that have been discovered and could emerge as a round progresses.
On Sunday, I suspect that the central location or person, along with the on-course officials, began sharing and discussing the wet conditions and the increasing abundance of temporary water. I suspect that discussion eventually turned into whether or not play needed to be suspended for a second time. I suspect that there was a real concern not to “have a ruling on every shot,” with temporary water being the reason.
I suspect the central location or person took the information from the on-course officials and made a few decisions. I suspect all of the on-course officials were told to be less generous in giving temporary water relief to avoid constant rulings.
I suspect that a point of emphasis for the on-course officials regarding temporary water relief became that water must not be “momentary,” and that it must be “remain present either before or after the stance is taken,” really emphasizing the last part of the definition.
If all of this is correct, I can think of a few reasons that would explain it. First, to have 10 or so groups on the course on Sunday afternoon without a consistent bar for what is and is not temporary water is a recipe for disaster.
Second, if two rules officials gave the same ruling, someone gave a clear direction. Looking at a handful of other shots from the back nine on Sunday, Adam Scott’s approach on 11 and Spaun’s approach on 18, it seemed like there could have been relief granted from those, but none were given either.
Other notes are that the players could NOT have started playing lift, clean, and place, also known as preferred lies. One reason for this is that the USGA has NEVER in <125 years, including qualifiers, played preferred lies.
They could have, and possibly should have, at various times over the years, including the 2009 U.S. Open at Bethpage, the 2018 U.S. Women’s Open at Shoal Creek, and the 2021 U.S. Open Qualifier I played in Alabama, but elected not to. The other reason is that once you begin a round, you cannot change between “playing it down” and preferred lies.
In the end, the USGA had options that went hand in hand: Suspend play when the rain started again and let the course dry up some, but accept ending up with a finish on Monday morning. Since they did not suspend, the denial of relief to Burns is the unpopular but likely correct decision.