Ben Coley's analysis of the third round of the Open Championship

No love lost

Penalty-gate. Grass-gate. Bryson-gate. I'm not sure what we're calling it, but Friday night's drama was still a big part of the narrative as Saturday's third round developed.

On the course, Bryson DeChambeau was met with a mixture of vociferous support and generally light-hearted remarks relating to lawnmowers (I wonder if he knows about the British Lawnmower Museum down the road?) and what have you. By no means had the crowd turned against him. If anything, it felt like the opposite was true and that he'd gained support somehow.

In the altogether less real online world, the reaction was as you'd expect: extreme in all directions. Some clearly felt that DeChambeau was not only right to have been penalised for his rules infraction, but that he had straightforwardly cheated. Others were all but calling for heads to roll at the R&A, insisting that the chief referee simply doesn't like DeChambeau and that he had been singled out.

Somewhere in between is where most of DeChambeau's fellow players landed, as one by one they spoke to the media afterwards. Max Homa was among the most thoughtful in saying that he didn't agree with the decision while conceding that he didn't have all of the information required to make it. Xander Schauffele felt his Ryder Cup teammate had been treated harshly. He was far from alone in that.

Enter Rory McIlroy, who stopped short of calling DeChambeau a cheat... but only just. McIlroy said he was sitting with other players (who were not named) when the incident occurred, and that there were raised eyebrows. He made clear that he felt DeChambeau had broken the rules and that while there's an argument others not on television can get away with similar behaviour, that is no reason not to enforce them.

"As soon as he made the step into the ball, we all sort of looked at each other and were like, that didn't seem right," said McIlroy. "When I heard that he was called in by the rules official it was pretty obvious why.

"I think there's no doubt that he improved the line of his backswing. Whether it was careless or whether it was intentional, I don't think it matters. Hopefully it was careless. I think the two-shot penalty was justified."

Asked what he felt about DeChambeau's lengthy back and forth followed by hitting balls until well after dark, McIlroy was scathing. "Look, I won't be up here to pretend to defend Bryson. I am not particularly fond of him. I think a lot of it's performative. I think a lot of it's for attention.

"To hold the tournament hostage like that and have all of us waiting on him to depart, I didn't feel like it was a great look."

And as for that question of intent? "I'm not in his mind, but it didn't look good."

We await their next meeting in the final group with interest.

Myth-busting

Full disclosure: I am with McIlroy in not being one of Bryson's biggest fans, to put it bluntly. I too feel he's performative (surely, this is beyond debate) and that the worst part about the whole episode was his response. Players, staff, volunteers and the media were all made to wait because he failed to do what most would have and accept the ruling, even if he wasn't happy about it.

Watching the video again (and again), his actions were at the very least clumsy and foolish and left him vulnerable. That's on him and it's why I feel little to no sympathy. If you don't want to be penalised for breaking a rule, leave no doubt that you have not broken a rule. That was and is possible and the same should apply to anyone found guilty of this offence.

Now, with that dealt with, it feels necessary to clear a few things up.

Intent

Bryson not intending to break any rules is not what he was penalised for. It has no bearing on his culpability. Rules can be broken with no intent whatsoever. The R&A went further than they probably should've by stressing that there was no intent. They, like everyone else, have no way of knowing whether that's true or not. Their job is to apply the rules and explain how they reached their conclusion.

Lining up the shot

Some have asked how DeChambeau could possibly line up the shot (a short, hack wedge) without treading on the grass behind the ball. The answer to that is he is not entitled to. Players ordinarily line up shots from behind as part of their pre-shot process, but that is not a given right. It should be seen more as a perk of being in play. When you're out of position, you might not be able to do it. That was the case here.

Someone called it in!

No, they didn't. As of 2017, the process whereby viewers phone in to report infractions and that being acted upon is no longer allowed by the R&A. Instead, they have rules officials whose job is to watch the TV coverage and act where necessary. On Saturday, the R&A confirmed that they had identified the infraction very quickly. They waited until the moment DeChambeau finished his round, so as not to influence his play, before challenging him.

Moving on up

To conclude this sorry episode, there is one argument in DeChambeau's defence which carries particular merit, and it relates both to how these rules have been applied in the past, and how they are applied in the future.

Last month, Joaquin Niemann was given a code of conduct penalty at the US Open, where he threw a club more than 50 yards and his team were involved in some unsavoury scenes during the ensuing debate. Video footage reportedly exists but has not been released, making it very difficult for those on the outside to assess the merits of the penalty.

However, most would agree that if poor behaviour like this is going to be clamped down upon going forward, that's a good thing. This has to be the outcome. It cannot be that Niemann was scapegoated for something others get away with. Whenever there's a policy shift, there has to be a first victim (though victim is clearly not the right word). If that was Niemann and others follow, then it's to the benefit of the sport.

Some would argue that Jon Rahm, who received a warning but not a penalty under the same policy for throwing a club on Friday at the Open, was not held to the same standard. But here's where we need to stop trying to make all similar things precisely equal. Rahm's club travelled a few yards and endangered nobody. Niemann's travelled more than 50 and potentially could have.

The same principle must apply here. When next someone does as Bryson did in an Open or comparable event, they must be penalised by the R&A (who, let's remember, have no jurisdiction over DP World Tour or PGA Tour events). But by the same token, spectators must avoid falling into the trap of equating all movement of all grass with DeChambeau stomping all over tall fescue directly behind his ball.

It seems naive and almost absurd to suggest it, but if we can be grown-ups about both these incidents, the game will be fairer and better for officials being left to do their best to assess moments of controversy. Players should not to be able to improve their lies through indelicate stomping. They should be punished for throwing clubs 50 yards and more and arguing with officials. Neither should need saying.

The quiet place

By all accounts the atmosphere at the Open has been fantastic all week. Yes, for balance, there are bozos who shout stupid things here as well. Not nearly as many as you'll have found in New York last month, but not none, either. However, the general vibe is one of celebration and support and with Birkdale's dunes helping fans to see plenty of action, it's been a fabulous Open on that front.

Still, whereas we're used to the noise increasing as the day develops, here the rhythm of the third round appeared to have the opposite effect as, one by one, the big names and most popular players all faltered. Chief among them was of course the local hero, Tommy Fleetwood, but Jon Rahm, Scottie Scheffler, Cameron Young and Robert MacIntyre all failed to get involved at the very top of a leaderboard featuring plenty of unfamiliar names.

This is part of golf's charm and particularly that of the Open, the idea that everything has to be earned on unforgiving links turf. But there's no denying that after four American champions and one from Australian since the void year of 2020, what the home fans needed was something to shout about. However many years of hurt it is now in the football, come next summer it'll be 35 without an English winner of the Open unless something special happens in the final round.

We know almost certainly that it'll be 28 years without a Scottish winner after MacIntyre continued his stagnation since a bright start and there's no sign of anyone capable enough from Wales, so once more it's over to Rory McIlroy to ride to the rescue. McIlroy and St Andrews has always been a match made in heaven. Perhaps this will be one more defeat for the home contingent before the best player in the history of UK and Irish golf captures his second Claret Jug at the Old Course next summer.

For now, though, a week that began with the promise of a historic Sunday has become all too familiar.