New Decisions

[AAA]

http://golfweek.com/news/2013/nov/19...era-ball-move/

[AAA]

http://www.usga.org/news/2013/Novemb...les-Announced/

[nokids]

Would the new 18/4 rule have saved Tiger a 2 shot penalty when he moved the twigs and tv cameras showed that the ball moved?

[AAA]

Would the new 18/4 rule have saved Tiger a 2 shot penalty when he moved the twigs and tv cameras showed that the ball moved?

Almost certainly yes.

[GarthM]

Or it will bring into question even more the integrity of the player who says their ball did not move, when clearly it did, albeit only visible through the use of technology. Personally, my immediate response upon seeing the footage of this incident was that as soon as the ball moved, he immediately withdrew his hand, a reaction perhaps to having caused the ball to move, a sort of "oh shoot" reflex reaction. Anyway, not trying to thread-jack, but this may cause discussions of another nature down the road.

[AAA]

... albeit only visible through the use of technology.

If it was only visible through the use of technology then it didn't move.

When determining whether or not his ball at rest has moved, a player
must make that judgment based on all the information readily available to
him at the time, so that he can determine whether the ball must be replaced
under Rule 18-2b or another applicable Rule. When the player’s ball has
left its original position and come to rest in another place by an amount
that was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, a player’s
determination that the ball has not moved will be deemed to be conclusive,
even if that determination is later shown to be incorrect through the use of
sophisticated technology.

[jimmyc]

odd rule but it has to be done. Not all players are videoed as much as the marquee players. So they are in essence at a disadvantage. Its a hard sport to use video on as the game is played over such a large venue.

[jvincent]

If it was only visible through the use of technology then it didn't move.

When determining whether or not his ball at rest has moved, a player
must make that judgment based on all the information readily available to
him at the time, so that he can determine whether the ball must be replaced
under Rule 18-2b or another applicable Rule. When the player’s ball has
left its original position and come to rest in another place by an amount
that was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, a player’s
determination that the ball has not moved will be deemed to be conclusive,
even if that determination is later shown to be incorrect through the use of
sophisticated technology.

So in Tiger's case, he can just claim his eye sight is bad and thus he was not able to see it move.

What really needs to happen is for somebody to get caught with video having their ball move but claiming it didn't using this rule. Then, another player can simply say the same thing, pointing to the other player as an example.

Stupid decision IMHO. If they really wanted to make a stand they should have said no video will be used in interpreting the rules.

[BC MIST]

As posted on another website:

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/N...ST%282%29.ashx

[nokids]

Stupid decision IMHO. If they really wanted to make a stand they should have said no video will be used in interpreting the rules.

And no more "call-in" rules violations

[AAA]

So in Tiger's case, he can just claim his eye sight is bad and thus he was not able to see it move.

What really needs to happen is for somebody to get caught with video having their ball move but claiming it didn't using this rule. Then, another player can simply say the same thing, pointing to the other player as an example.

Stupid decision IMHO. If they really wanted to make a stand they should have said no video will be used in interpreting the rules.

No the part that was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, is a decision which would be made by the committee, not the player.

[jvincent]

Who's naked eye?

A cheater, like Tiger, can just swear on a stack of bibles that he did not see it move and it's his word, such as it is, against everyone else.

As I read the new decision, his opinion will win.

[gbower]

Time for GoPro to get involved and set all players up and they'll have to look at their video before signing their scorecards.

[HoganWoods]

Who's naked eye?

A cheater, like Tiger, can just swear on a stack of bibles that he did not see it move and it's his word, such as it is, against everyone else.

As I read the new decision, his opinion will win.

Thats how it's always been. If you want video replay fine, but every player must be taped in HD...their entire rounds.

[AAA]

Who's naked eye?

As I read the new decision, his opinion will win.

The committee will decide, having viewed the footage, if it was reasonable or not. They won't even need to speak to the player.

But what about the Harrington case?

[BC MIST]

If they really wanted to make a stand they should have said no video will be used in interpreting the rules.

From the joint statement: " ... If a player has breached a Rule, but this is not discovered until a later time, whether through video evidence or otherwise, such evidence must be considered so that the correct ruling can be applied and the player’s score can be recorded accurately. In their ongoing review of the use of video and other enhanced technology, the USGA and The R&A will continue to be guided by the view that, regardless of the timing or the type of evidence used, the integrity of the game is best served by getting the ruling right."

In golf, it is essential to get rulings right, before the scorecard is signed or before the competition is closed. The rules state that before a ruling is made, information from ALL available sources, including video, may be used. Someone is going to finish higher or win, even though it is undeserving, if we eliminate video from this mix, and Tiger moving his ball is just one example. The ball moved, he did not replace it, add two strokes. By not allowing a video review of this incident, Tiger wins, hypothetically. That people would be OK with this, is disturbing.

Considering that some major team sports, football, hockey and baseball (next season) use video review to get it right, eliminating video review in golf, would be a huge step backwards. Yes, it is unfair that some golfers are more highly scrutinized than others, but since when was golf deemed fair?

[Big Johnny69]

But I don't see how its fair to the rest of the field if Joe Shmoe out in the first group of the day, with no cameras around has a situation like Tiger's, where in this case the only "available information" is the naked eye. The player said it oscilated, so that's the end of it. But as seen in Tiger's case, with the aid of video review you can determine the ball actually moved. With no video, Joe Schmoe goes on to win by a stroke...but you are ok with this?

And comparing the use of video review in football, baseball, hockey and the like to golf isn't an accurate comparison. In those sports all of the active participants are/can be reviewed at the same time, unlike golf where those not in the running or out in an early group don't get the same camera time as the marquee and leaders.

[jvincent]

In typical Rules fashion, they have made their lives more complicated by the wording of the new decision trying to address some perceived fairness issue.

When the player’s ball has left its original position and come to rest in another place by an amount that was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, a player’s determination that the ball has not moved will be deemed to be conclusive, even if that determination is later shown to be incorrect through the use of sophisticated technology.

They've introduced now the interpretation of what is or isn't "discernable to the naked eye" of whomever might have been able to see it.

As I said before, I can make the claim that due to poor eyesight, I did not see it move. What's reasonable in this case? Was it dark? Was there too much glare so I was squinting? Were there rain drops on my glasses? Did I forget my glasses? And so on.

They didn't need to do anything here. If the committee, through whatever means at its disposal, deemed the ball to have moved, then the player is assessed a penalty. Tough noogies if some guys are on the camera more than others.

[BC MIST]

But I don't see how its fair to the rest of the field if Joe Shmoe out in the first group of the day, with no cameras around has a situation like Tiger's, where in this case the only "available information" is the naked eye. The player said it oscilated, so that's the end of it. But as seen in Tiger's case, with the aid of video review you can determine the ball actually moved. With no video, Joe Schmoe goes on to win by a stroke...but you are ok with this?

If Joe said that his ball did not move and there is no video evidence to the contrary, the ball did not move, even if it did. If Tiger said that his ball did not move but video showed that it did, it obviously did. This makes sense because any rulings would be based on the available evidence. What I disagree with is not giving Tiger a penalty just because there was no video coverage of Joe.

If one wants everything in golf to be fair, then maybe Rule 13-1 is the place to start, not the new Decision, 18/4.

[Big Johnny69]

I just don't see how its fair and protecting the rest of the field if Joe is not assessed a penalty for his ball moving because he has bad eyes and no video coverage, but any marquee player can get nailed for anything because of constantly being on video so even Armchair referees can scrutinize them. To me its playing by two different set of rules depending on where you stand in a tournament or your market value.

I've said it before, not that I am condoning cheating, but PGA events should be internally "policed". Every other sport on the planet is self patrolled with their own officials. If they need to hire/get more ROs/refs and more cameramen, then that's what they need.

[nokids]

Even with instant replay, the NFL gets it WRONG half the time. The only sport that uses technology and gets it right is tennis. And since golf won't be putting lasers all over the course with gps in the golf ball, I say let the players and rules officials decide rules infractions the way it's always been.

What's that? Replay shows someone moved their ball in the bushes and nobody saw it? Replay shows a guy's ball moved on the putting green a couple centimeters after he addressed it? A blade of grass was brushed in a hazard and the person in question goes on the win the tournament by one stroke? Sure it's a tough break for the field, but get over it!

I love watching soccer. Ref gives a ruling, good or bad, life goes on. None of this replay b.s. to get it "right".

[orangeTANG]

i think they should have simply taken all video review out. Here's my reasoning....

Golf is supposed to be an honest mans sport. You are to call your own penalties, and your FC is supposed to help protect the field. This is what we all do when on the course. This is how amateurs play, this is how professionals play. This is how people on the Web.com tour play in most cases. This is how the people not followed by camera crews play on the PGA tour.

Now if you look at Tigers situation, Tiger didn't call a penalty on himself, his FC was not there to call a penalty on him. Let the game continue based off of these 2 things, and let Tiger take the heat by the media after the round when he is questioned on the video that they produced. If the players start to realize they will be called out by the media on violations like this, they will start to smarten up. Nobody wants to be called a cheater.

its the only true way you can create a level playing field for all competitors.

[Big Johnny69]

Even with instant replay, the NFL gets it WRONG half the time. The only sport that uses technology and gets it right is tennis. And since golf won't be putting lasers all over the course with gps in the golf ball, I say let the players and rules officials decide rules infractions the way it's always been.

What's that? Replay shows someone moved their ball in the bushes and nobody saw it? Replay shows a guy's ball moved on the putting green a couple centimeters after he addressed it? A blade of grass was brushed in a hazard and the person in question goes on the win the tournament by one stroke? Sure it's a tough break for the field, but get over it!

I love watching soccer. Ref gives a ruling, good or bad, life goes on. None of this replay b.s. to get it "right".

i think they should have simply taken all video review out. Here's my reasoning....

Golf is supposed to be an honest mans sport. You are to call your own penalties, and your FC is supposed to help protect the field. This is what we all do when on the course. This is how amateurs play, this is how professionals play. This is how people on the Web.com tour play in most cases. This is how the people not followed by camera crews play on the PGA tour.

Now if you look at Tigers situation, Tiger didn't call a penalty on himself, his FC was not there to call a penalty on him. Let the game continue based off of these 2 things, and let Tiger take the heat by the media after the round when he is questioned on the video that they produced. If the players start to realize they will be called out by the media on violations like this, they will start to smarten up. Nobody wants to be called a cheater.

its the only true way you can create a level playing field for all competitors.

Here, here!!!

[Big Johnny69]

Even with instant replay, the NFL gets it WRONG half the time. The only sport that uses technology and gets it right is tennis. And since golf won't be putting lasers all over the course with gps in the golf ball, I say let the players and rules officials decide rules infractions the way it's always been.

What's that? Replay shows someone moved their ball in the bushes and nobody saw it? Replay shows a guy's ball moved on the putting green a couple centimeters after he addressed it? A blade of grass was brushed in a hazard and the person in question goes on the win the tournament by one stroke? Sure it's a tough break for the field, but get over it!

I love watching soccer. Ref gives a ruling, good or bad, life goes on. None of this replay b.s. to get it "right".

i think they should have simply taken all video review out. Here's my reasoning....

Golf is supposed to be an honest mans sport. You are to call your own penalties, and your FC is supposed to help protect the field. This is what we all do when on the course. This is how amateurs play, this is how professionals play. This is how people on the Web.com tour play in most cases. This is how the people not followed by camera crews play on the PGA tour.

Now if you look at Tigers situation, Tiger didn't call a penalty on himself, his FC was not there to call a penalty on him. Let the game continue based off of these 2 things, and let Tiger take the heat by the media after the round when he is questioned on the video that they produced. If the players start to realize they will be called out by the media on violations like this, they will start to smarten up. Nobody wants to be called a cheater.

its the only true way you can create a level playing field for all competitors.

Here, here!!!

[sharkshooter]

In football and baseball, only certain plays are reviewed. The do not review for penalties in football - of course, if they did, there would never be a play that was not called back by a penalty. In baseball, they do not (if I recall correctly) review umpire calls such as balls/strikes or safe/out on the basepaths. The reviews are dictated by the play (e.g. scoring plays in football and home run or not in baseball) rather than whether or not there was a TV camera closeup watching.

In golf, it is not the play which decides when video technology is used, it is TV coverage. Being obviously skewed by television coverage of certain players (leaders and stars), is patently unfair, and makes a mockery of the game.

[sliceleft]

The comparison to official reviews, or video evidence, in other sports does not hold up, because reality itself is different. In golf, the score is based on what actually happened regardless of what the player thought or reported; the player is responsible for knowing the rules and acting accordingly. In any other sport, the officials decide what happened, and it is their decision, rather than what actually happened, that becomes reality for the players (strike/ball, fair/foul, catch/drop, offside/onside etc.). Since officials usually decide quickly and correctly, this difference is not apparent, but it is crucial because it determines who is responsible for determining reality. Because they are not responsible, it's not only OK for players to cheat in any other sport, it's expected -- holding at the line of scrimmage, "framing" an outside pitch, hooking with the stick, diving. There is no shame in trying to hoodwink the officials and creating a better reality; the decision to cheat is based only on the risk/reward if you are caught or if you get away with it. If golf were to try to "get it right" by having officials on all holes spontaneously making calls, the players' responsibility to make calls on themselves would cease, and cheating would be just as acceptable in golf as in hockey -- the officials can't see everything. That would be bad both because golfers pride themselves on the game's honour system and because tour pro golf would be a different game than lower levels where omnipresent officials would be too costly.
Yes, call-ins from TV viewers are an irritant and a disproportionate burden on the top golfers. On the other hand, it is fundamental that a golf score be based on what actually happened. The new decisions are an attempt to balance the two standards, and I think they are better than either banning evidence or having rules officials take over the calls.

[LobWedge]

Here, here!!!

Here, here!!!

The posts so nice, you liked them twice!

[Big Johnny69]

Apparently so! Hahaha!

[BC MIST]

I say let the players and rules officials decide rules infractions the way it's always been.

I used to think that is was only OLD people who were set in their ways.

....the USGA and The R&A will continue to be guided by the view that, regardless of the timing or the type of evidence used, the integrity of the game is best served by getting the ruling right."

While I am obviously in the minority here, I will continue to believe that the "integrity of the game is best served by" playing by the Rules of Golf, and the Rules of Golf permit the collection of evidence from all sources, which significantly increases the probability of "getting it right," which some feel is wrong.

[BC MIST]

The comparison to official reviews, or video evidence, in other sports does not hold up, because reality itself is different. In golf, the score is based on what actually happened regardless of what the player thought or reported; the player is responsible for knowing the rules and acting accordingly. In any other sport, the officials decide what happened, and it is their decision, rather than what actually happened, that becomes reality for the players (strike/ball, fair/foul, catch/drop, offside/onside etc.). Since officials usually decide quickly and correctly, this difference is not apparent, but it is crucial because it determines who is responsible for determining reality. Because they are not responsible, it's not only OK for players to cheat in any other sport, it's expected -- holding at the line of scrimmage, "framing" an outside pitch, hooking with the stick, diving. There is no shame in trying to hoodwink the officials and creating a better reality; the decision to cheat is based only on the risk/reward if you are caught or if you get away with it. If golf were to try to "get it right" by having officials on all holes spontaneously making calls, the players' responsibility to make calls on themselves would cease, and cheating would be just as acceptable in golf as in hockey -- the officials can't see everything. That would be bad both because golfers pride themselves on the game's honour system and because tour pro golf would be a different game than lower levels where omnipresent officials would be too costly.
Yes, call-ins from TV viewers are an irritant and a disproportionate burden on the top golfers. On the other hand, it is fundamental that a golf score be based on what actually happened. The new decisions are an attempt to balance the two standards, and I think they are better than either banning evidence or having rules officials take over the calls.