If super slo-mo and zoom lenses weren't allowed...

[lchang]

...would we miss any "substantive" violations? In other words, have any violations been discovered (or even confirmed?) via super slo-mo and/or zoom lenses that have given the perpetrator an advantage? Almost by definition, if it was undetectable by human senses, it can't have been any advantage to the player, right? (Tiger's illegal drop at the Masters may have given him an advantage, but that was more about a "confession" at the press conference, not a tiny movement detected by advanced cameras.)

 

So would the game be better for it? Or would it create the opposite problem: after the tourney, someone would notice Nordqvist's touching a grain of sand and declare her hypothetical win undeserved? If DJ had only won by a shot, would anyone have protested? Seems unlikely that more than 0.001% of the public would take that position. And probably 0% of fellow competitors. Do people agree?

 

PS: I don't think using the blimp's camera to see where a ball crossed a hazard would fall into this category.

[Nessism]

A very large portion of me thinks these TV based rulings are BS. Especially like we saw with Nordqvist where one freaking grain of sand moved and she gained no advantage. Something needs to be done to stop the madness. It's not like all competitors are being monitored equally anyway.

[sui generis]

...would we miss any "substantive" violations? In other words, have any violations been discovered (or even confirmed?) via super slo-mo and/or zoom lenses that have given the perpetrator an advantage? Almost by definition, if it was undetectable by human senses, it can't have been any advantage to the player, right? (Tiger's illegal drop at the Masters may have given him an advantage, but that was more about a "confession" at the press conference, not a tiny movement detected by advanced cameras.)

 

So would the game be better for it? Or would it create the opposite problem: after the tourney, someone would notice Nordqvist's touching a grain of sand and declare her hypothetical win undeserved? If DJ had only won by a shot, would anyone have protested? Seems unlikely that more than 0.001% of the public would take that position. And probably 0% of fellow competitors. Do people agree?

 

PS: I don't think using the blimp's camera to see where a ball crossed a hazard would fall into this category.

 

USGA NEWS

The R&A and USGA Revise Decision Regarding Disqualification for Incorrect Score Card

APRIL 06, 2011

By The R&A and USGA

The R&A and the USGA have announced a new interpretation of the rules that apply in limited circumstances not previously contemplated by the Rules of Golf where disqualifications have been caused by score card errors identified as the result of recent advances in video technologies.

 

This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the Committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying Rule, but is not disqualified.

 

In revising the decision, The R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognizing that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach.

 

This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 is effective immediately.

 

“For some time we have been concerned that, in certain limited circumstances, disproportionate disqualification penalties have been required by the Rules,” said Peter Dawson, chief executive of The R&A. “This carefully considered decision reflects our desire to ensure that the Rules of Golf remain fair and relevant in the changing environment in which the game is played today.”

 

“This is a logical and important step in our re-evaluation of the impact of high-definition video on the game,” said Mike Davis, executive director of the USGA. “We collectively believe that this revised decision addresses many video-related issues never contemplated by the Rules of Golf.”

 

The complete language of the revised decision follows.

 

 

 

33-7/4.5 Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified

 

Q. A competitor returns his score card. It later transpires that the score for one hole is lower than actually taken due to his failure to include a penalty stroke(s) which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered before the competition has closed.

 

Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7, in waiving or modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule 6-6d?

 

A. Generally, the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.

 

However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.

 

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would be justified in waiving the disqualification penalty:

 

A player makes a short chip from the greenside rough. At the time, he and his fellow-competitors have no reason to suspect that the player has double-hit his ball in breach of Rule 14-4. After the competitor has signed and returned his score card, a close-up, super-slow-motion video replay reveals that the competitor struck his ball twice during the course of the stroke. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the one-stroke penalty under Rule 14-4 to the player’s score at the hole in question.

 

 

After a competitor has signed and returned his score card, it becomes known, through the use of a high-definition video replay, that the player unknowingly touched a few grains of sand with his club at the top of his backswing on a wall of the bunker. The touching of the sand was so light that, at the time, it was reasonable for the player to have been unaware that he had breached Rule 13-4. It would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the two-stroke penalty to the player’s score at the hole in question.

 

 

A competitor moves his ball on the putting green with his finger in the act of removing his ball-marker. The competitor sees the ball move slightly forward but is certain that it has returned to the original spot, and he plays the ball as it lies. After the competitor signs and returns his score card, video footage is brought to the attention of the Committee that reveals that the ball did not precisely return to its original spot. When questioned by the Committee, the competitor cites the fact that the position of the logo on the ball appeared to be in exactly the same position as it was when he replaced the ball and this was the reason for him believing that the ball returned to the original spot. As it was reasonable in these circumstances for the player to have no doubt that the ball had returned to the original spot, and because the player could not himself have reasonably discovered otherwise prior to signing and returning his score card, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty. The two-stroke penalty under Rule 20-3a for playing from a wrong place would, however, be applied to the player’s score at the hole in question.

 

 

A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.

 

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:

 

As a player’s ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the player was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.

 

 

A player's ball lies in a water hazard. In making his backswing for the stroke, the player is aware that his club touched a branch in the hazard. Not realizing at the time that the branch was detached, the player did not include the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4 in his score for the hole. As the player could have reasonably determined the status of the branch prior to signing and returning his score card, the player should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4. (Revised)

[lchang]

...would we miss any "substantive" violations? In other words, have any violations been discovered (or even confirmed?) via super slo-mo and/or zoom lenses that have given the perpetrator an advantage? Almost by definition, if it was undetectable by human senses, it can't have been any advantage to the player, right? (Tiger's illegal drop at the Masters may have given him an advantage, but that was more about a "confession" at the press conference, not a tiny movement detected by advanced cameras.)

 

So would the game be better for it? Or would it create the opposite problem: after the tourney, someone would notice Nordqvist's touching a grain of sand and declare her hypothetical win undeserved? If DJ had only won by a shot, would anyone have protested? Seems unlikely that more than 0.001% of the public would take that position. And probably 0% of fellow competitors. Do people agree?

 

PS: I don't think using the blimp's camera to see where a ball crossed a hazard would fall into this category.

 

USGA NEWS

The R&A and USGA Revise Decision Regarding Disqualification for Incorrect Score Card

APRIL 06, 2011

By The R&A and USGA

The R&A and the USGA have announced a new interpretation of the rules that apply in limited circumstances not previously contemplated by the Rules of Golf where disqualifications have been caused by score card errors identified as the result of recent advances in video technologies.

 

This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the Committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying Rule, but is not disqualified.

 

In revising the decision, The R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognizing that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach.

 

This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 is effective immediately.

 

“For some time we have been concerned that, in certain limited circumstances, disproportionate disqualification penalties have been required by the Rules,” said Peter Dawson, chief executive of The R&A. “This carefully considered decision reflects our desire to ensure that the Rules of Golf remain fair and relevant in the changing environment in which the game is played today.”

 

“This is a logical and important step in our re-evaluation of the impact of high-definition video on the game,” said Mike Davis, executive director of the USGA. “We collectively believe that this revised decision addresses many video-related issues never contemplated by the Rules of Golf.”

 

The complete language of the revised decision follows.

 

 

 

33-7/4.5 Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified

 

Q. A competitor returns his score card. It later transpires that the score for one hole is lower than actually taken due to his failure to include a penalty stroke(s) which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered before the competition has closed.

 

Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7, in waiving or modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule 6-6d?

 

A. Generally, the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.

 

However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.

 

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would be justified in waiving the disqualification penalty:

 

A player makes a short chip from the greenside rough. At the time, he and his fellow-competitors have no reason to suspect that the player has double-hit his ball in breach of Rule 14-4. After the competitor has signed and returned his score card, a close-up, super-slow-motion video replay reveals that the competitor struck his ball twice during the course of the stroke. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the one-stroke penalty under Rule 14-4 to the player’s score at the hole in question.

 

 

After a competitor has signed and returned his score card, it becomes known, through the use of a high-definition video replay, that the player unknowingly touched a few grains of sand with his club at the top of his backswing on a wall of the bunker. The touching of the sand was so light that, at the time, it was reasonable for the player to have been unaware that he had breached Rule 13-4. It would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the two-stroke penalty to the player’s score at the hole in question.

 

 

A competitor moves his ball on the putting green with his finger in the act of removing his ball-marker. The competitor sees the ball move slightly forward but is certain that it has returned to the original spot, and he plays the ball as it lies. After the competitor signs and returns his score card, video footage is brought to the attention of the Committee that reveals that the ball did not precisely return to its original spot. When questioned by the Committee, the competitor cites the fact that the position of the logo on the ball appeared to be in exactly the same position as it was when he replaced the ball and this was the reason for him believing that the ball returned to the original spot. As it was reasonable in these circumstances for the player to have no doubt that the ball had returned to the original spot, and because the player could not himself have reasonably discovered otherwise prior to signing and returning his score card, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty. The two-stroke penalty under Rule 20-3a for playing from a wrong place would, however, be applied to the player’s score at the hole in question.

 

 

A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.

 

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:

 

As a player’s ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the player was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.

 

 

A player's ball lies in a water hazard. In making his backswing for the stroke, the player is aware that his club touched a branch in the hazard. Not realizing at the time that the branch was detached, the player did not include the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4 in his score for the hole. As the player could have reasonably determined the status of the branch prior to signing and returning his score card, the player should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4. (Revised)

 

So that deals with DQ, but not with the infraction itself. I'm just trying to think of a situation where an honest player gains an advantage for a violation that he and other humans with him could not detect without advanced cameras.

[KyGolf]

Chella Choi and the ballmark. Although the honest part may be in question.

[Sawgrass]

Decision 18/4 is of interest.

[lchang]

Decision 18/4 is of interest.

 

So could we use similar wording for infractions in general? Modifying some wording from that decision:

 

 

When determining

[an infraction has occurred]

, a player must make that judgment based on all the information readily available to him at the time.

... [if an infraction occurred]

that was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, a player's determination

...

will be deemed to be conclusive, even if that determination is later shown to be incorrect through the use of sophisticated technology.

[HitEmTrue]

Being penalized for causing the ball to move has nothing to do with gaining an advantage. You simply aren't allowed to cause the ball to move.

[Sawgrass]

Decision 18/4 is of interest.

 

So could we use similar wording for infractions in general? Modifying some wording from that decision:

 

 

When determining

[an infraction has occurred]

, a player must make that judgment based on all the information readily available to him at the time.

... [if an infraction occurred]

that was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, a player's determination

...

will be deemed to be conclusive, even if that determination is later shown to be incorrect through the use of sophisticated technology.

 

What other type of infraction are you thinking about?

[2bGood]

I for one think the video replay thing needs to be eliminated from golf. To me it feels against the spirit of the game, and it seems to very rarely improve the "product".

 

Sure we would see on TV that a player "got away" with the odd penalty, but only a fraction of the shots are filmed, and a fraction of those have a close up going, so the camera are only catching less than 1% penalties anyways.

[HighSpeedScene]

Since when is it a requirement that an advantage be gained in order for an infraction to be penalized?

 

Tail wags dog.

[jslane57]

The cameras are here to stay. As is instant replay in baseball. But it is only the players in the spotlight that need be hypersensitive. If you're in the last groups at the US Open, plan accordingly.

[2bGood]

The cameras are here to stay. As is instant replay in baseball. But it is only the players in the spotlight that need be hypersensitive. If you're in the last groups at the US Open, plan accordingly.

 

I think you may be wrong. Money talks, and instant replay is not good viewing in the golf world. Making it that penalties could only be called with the naked eye would effect .0000000000000000000000001% of golfers or less. It would be easy to make the change.

[lchang]

Decision 18/4 is of interest.

So could we use similar wording for infractions in general? Modifying some wording from that decision:

When determining

[an infraction has occurred]

, a player must make that judgment based on all the information readily available to him at the time.

... [if an infraction occurred]

that was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, a player's determination

...

will be deemed to be conclusive, even if that determination is later shown to be incorrect through the use of sophisticated technology.

What other type of infraction are you thinking about?

 

How about grounding a club in a hazard, for instance? ;-) :tongue:

[jslane57]

The cameras are here to stay. As is instant replay in baseball. But it is only the players in the spotlight that need be hypersensitive. If you're in the last groups at the US Open, plan accordingly.

 

I think you may be wrong. Money talks, and instant replay is not good viewing in the golf world. Making it that penalties could only be called with the naked eye would effect .0000000000000000000000001% of golfers or less. It would be easy to make the change.

I think viewers like instant replay. I do! Whose money is talking otherwise? I see your number, but somehow both the men's and women's US Open had problems. Today's infraction was worse IMO as it totally changed the spirit of the competition...but unlike DJ's ambiguity, the sand did move.

[2bGood]

The cameras are here to stay. As is instant replay in baseball. But it is only the players in the spotlight that need be hypersensitive. If you're in the last groups at the US Open, plan accordingly.

 

I think you may be wrong. Money talks, and instant replay is not good viewing in the golf world. Making it that penalties could only be called with the naked eye would effect .0000000000000000000000001% of golfers or less. It would be easy to make the change.

I think viewers like instant replay. I do! Whose money is talking otherwise? I see your number, but somehow both the men's and women's US Open had problems. Today's infraction was worse IMO as it totally changed the spirit of the competition...but unlike DJ's ambiguity, the sand did move.

 

Sorry I should have spoken more clearly - using instant reply for rulings is not good viewing. I would say the majority of fans were not happy with the effect it had in the US open's. If these ruling hurt viewership (and I believe they do/will) they will get rid of them.

[Badgergolfer2]

Rules is rules. It sucks for Nordquist and it sucked for DJ but rules is rules.

[Hawkeye77]

By all means, let's have an instant Twitter vote of the fans following an Instagram viewing of the video so we make sure the most popular result is achieved.

[Sawgrass]

 

 

How about grounding a club in a hazard, for instance? ;-) :tongue:

 

I certainly see your point.

 

I respect this "ball position Decision" in part because on a microscopic level you can never be precisely sure where a ball was. So restricting things to human senses makes perfect sense to me. On the other hand, whether you touched something or not is more "black and white" so I'm less concerned that technological help would be inappropriate.

 

In any case, the following segment from the Decision seems to me to broaden it a touch, but at the same time limit its applicability:

 

These principles also apply in a situation in which the player made no determination whether or not his ball at rest moved (e.g., because he had walked away from his ball after addressing it, was not looking at his ball, or otherwise did not observe any motion of the ball or have any reason to believe that his ball might have moved).

 

 

[KyGolf]

There is no instant replay rule in golf. The cameras are not there to catch rules violations, they are there to give the audience an up close and personal experience of the tournament. You see slow motion shots of the club impacting the ball many times during a broadcast, the problem was that this time it happened to catch a rules violation. Imagine the outcry if Ana had won by one stroke and it later came out that the Fox cameras had caught the touching of the sand and nothing was done about it.

[MrJones]

Imagine the outcry if Ana had won by one stroke and it later came out that the Fox cameras had caught the touching of the sand and nothing was done about it.

 

What about the person who would have come in 5th place if the cameras had been on a particular shot of the person who beat him/her?

 

The advantage of the cameras goes to the people not on camera. Either closely scrutinize every player in the field or none at all.

 

 

If I was a spectator and had seen a player violate the rules, could I inform the rules official and something be done about it?

[Stuart_G]

I respect this "ball position Decision" in part because on a microscopic level you can never be precisely sure where a ball was. So restricting things to human senses makes perfect sense to me. On the other hand, whether you touched something or not is more "black and white" so I'm less concerned that technological help would be inappropriate.

 

Sorry, but I doubt Heisenberg and quantum mechanics has anything to do with it :-)

 

Restricting to human senses makes sense because golf is a game that is intended to be played by humans with just their own senses to guide them in applying the rules. That principle is equally applicable to all aspects of the rules and not just whether the ball moved or not. 18/4 and the rule 33 decisions are certainly a step in the right direction toward that principle but so far only partial solutions (partial that is if one agrees with the basic principle). I suspect the limitations are more due to the changes being more reactionary than pro-active, but that's just a guess.

[KevCarter]

Golf imitates life in the good old USA. Blame everyone except the one who broke the rules... I saw the perfect example on Facebook this morning. If not noticed at the time it happened, the player should "get away with it."

 

Venture into the tour forum and it's a mob mentality. Crazy.

 

If a violation is noticed, it MUST be acted upon no matter how it is brought to the attention of the rules committee, otherwise we might as well throw away the rule book.

[QEight]

If I was a spectator and had seen a player violate the rules, could I inform the rules official and something be done about it?

 

Yes.

[MrJones]

If I was a spectator and had seen a player violate the rules, could I inform the rules official and something be done about it?

 

Yes.

 

I asked that question honestly not knowing the answer but assuming the opposite. Would I have to prove it or would they just take my word for it?

[Stuart_G]

Golf imitates life in the good old USA. Blame everyone except the one who broke the rules... I saw the perfect example on Facebook this morning. If not noticed at the time it happened, the player should "get away with it."

 

Venture into the tour forum and it's a mob mentality. Crazy.

 

If a violation is noticed, it MUST be acted upon no matter how it is brought to the attention of the rules committee, otherwise we might as well throw away the rule book.

 

Are you saying you think dec 18/4 and 33-7/4.5 should be removed/rewritten such that the player should be subject to the full consequences of a breech regardless of how or when that breech is detected?

 

As I see it, this thread is different in that it doesn't address what should have happened yesterday under the current state of the rules, but rather asks (IMO) a legitimate question concerning how the rules should be written and what should be a breech of the rules and what should not. In fact, the existence of those two decisions is a potentially precedence that could validate the same principals being applied in other aspects of the rules.

[QEight]

If I was a spectator and had seen a player violate the rules, could I inform the rules official and something be done about it?

 

Yes.

 

I asked that question honestly not knowing the answer but assuming the opposite. Would I have to prove it or would they just take my word for it?

 

I do not know how you would prove what you saw but you tell them what you saw. They will then ask the players etc what they saw/thought happened.

[Colin L]

Especially like we saw with Nordqvist where one freaking grain of sand moved and she gained no advantage.

 

Let's put this "one grain of sand" nonsense to bed. Take a look at this video and observe the track her club left in the sand from her backswing that would have been clear to anyone looking in with a naked eye.

 

http://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnetteam/2016/07/10/anna-nordqvist-touched-sand-bunker-club-lost-u-s-womens-open-55862/

[Stuart_G]

While I agree it was more than a single grain of sand, there seems to be some evidence to the contrary on exactly how easily detectable it might have originally been, specifically w/o help from the extreme close-up shot (which apparently wasn't part of the actual broadcast).

 

Bodenhamer said he and senior director of rules Thomas Pagel were at the 17th green when they were informed that Fox TV had called to ask if any rules issue was detected with Nordqvist hitting her shot from the bunker at the 17th. They called a USGA staffer monitoring the broadcast. That staffer relayed that he watched the original Fox video three times, but nothing was detectable. Still, Bodenhamer and Pagel drove to the compound a few minutes away to see for themselves. Once there, Bodenhamer said Fox’s close-up video was available, which clearly showed the violation.

 

that was from: http://www.golfchannel.com/news/randall-mell/grain-sand-muddies-us-womens-open-finish/

[QEight]

Especially like we saw with Nordqvist where one freaking grain of sand moved and she gained no advantage.

 

Let's put this "one grain of sand" nonsense to bed. Take a look at this video and observe the track her club left in the sand from her backswing that would have been clear to anyone looking in with a naked eye.

 

http://thegolfnewsne...ens-open-55862/

 

Not sure if you are serious...

 

The live TV from behind showed clearly the ball track, which is also visible in slo-mo.