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

[LeoLeo99]

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.

 

Referee mistakes happen all the time in other sports. There was a huge handball penalty called yesterday in the Euro Soccer Championship game on the wrong team. The issue isn't that the golf rules are bad; the issue is this mentality that "getting it right" supersedes the spirit of competition.

 

Kev wrote: 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.

 

No other sport has this mentality. Strikes are called balls and balls are called strikes in every baseball game. it's part of the game. The human element. There are lots of rules violations in other sports that are chalked up to "rub of the green". Why is golf so sanctimonious about their rule book?

[DaveLeeNC]

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/

 

That is what I thought at first. But now I think that is the track left by ball as it came to rest. You cannot see most of the track at address as the club is in the way. And (to my eyes) there is 'the end of the track' there are address.

 

dave

[LeoLeo99]

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...

 

That track in the sand is from the ball.

[KevCarter]

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.

 

Referee mistakes happen all the time in other sports. There was a huge handball penalty called yesterday in the Euro Soccer Championship game on the wrong team. The issue isn't that the golf rules are bad; the issue is this mentality that "getting it right" supersedes the spirit of competition.

 

Kev wrote: 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.

 

No other sport has this mentality. Strikes are called balls and balls are called strikes in every baseball game. it's part of the game. The human element. There are lots of rules violations in other sports that are chalked up to "rub of the green". Why is golf so sanctimonious about their rule book?

 

You are right, golf is different. Thank God.

[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...

 

That track in the sand is from the ball.

 

True, just edited to point it out. Could be people are just watching The slo-mo which was shown only after 18th tee shots.

[DaveLeeNC]

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.

 

Referee mistakes happen all the time in other sports. There was a huge handball penalty called yesterday in the Euro Soccer Championship game on the wrong team. The issue isn't that the golf rules are bad; the issue is this mentality that "getting it right" supersedes the spirit of competition.

 

Kev wrote: 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.

 

No other sport has this mentality. Strikes are called balls and balls are called strikes in every baseball game. it's part of the game. The human element. There are lots of rules violations in other sports that are chalked up to "rub of the green". Why is golf so sanctimonious about their rule book?

 

IMHO, the fact that golf (at the highest level) is primarily self-officiated makes it very different. Most sports at the highest level have, inevitable, a ton of judgment as part of the 'call process' and an 'official' is involved in every action. It would not be reasonable to allow a competitor that kind of latitude on his/her own behalf.

 

dave

[LeoLeo99]

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.

 

Referee mistakes happen all the time in other sports. There was a huge handball penalty called yesterday in the Euro Soccer Championship game on the wrong team. The issue isn't that the golf rules are bad; the issue is this mentality that "getting it right" supersedes the spirit of competition.

 

Kev wrote: 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.

 

No other sport has this mentality. Strikes are called balls and balls are called strikes in every baseball game. it's part of the game. The human element. There are lots of rules violations in other sports that are chalked up to "rub of the green". Why is golf so sanctimonious about their rule book?

 

IMHO, the fact that golf (at the highest level) is primarily self-officiated makes it very different. Most sports at the highest level have, inevitable, a ton of judgment as part of the 'call process' and an 'official' is involved in every action. It would not be reasonable to allow a competitor that kind of latitude on his/her own behalf.

 

dave

 

 

And in every other sport, players might be tempted to gain an advantage by bending a rule if the referee was not watching. Regarding golf, yes, rules are rules. But when no advantage is gained and it takes high technology to even see the infraction, it's enforcing rules for the sake of enforcing rules and not to maintain the integrity of the competition. No harm, no foul. Certainly not well after the fact.

[HitEmTrue]

 

And in every other sport, players might be tempted to gain an advantage by bending a rule if the referee was not watching. Regarding golf, yes, rules are rules. But when no advantage is gained and it takes high technology to even see the infraction, it's enforcing rules for the sake of enforcing rules and not to maintain the integrity of the competition. No harm, no foul. Certainly not well after the fact.

 

Thankfully the rules don't have language about advantage gained, or "no harm no foul". It is simply against the rules to ground the club in a hazard.

 

Nonetheless, following the rule does put you at a disadvantage (as it should. You are In hazard). Safely hovering the club higher makes it more difficult. She didn't play it safe.

[DaveLeeNC]

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.

 

Referee mistakes happen all the time in other sports. There was a huge handball penalty called yesterday in the Euro Soccer Championship game on the wrong team. The issue isn't that the golf rules are bad; the issue is this mentality that "getting it right" supersedes the spirit of competition.

 

Kev wrote: 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.

 

No other sport has this mentality. Strikes are called balls and balls are called strikes in every baseball game. it's part of the game. The human element. There are lots of rules violations in other sports that are chalked up to "rub of the green". Why is golf so sanctimonious about their rule book?

 

IMHO, the fact that golf (at the highest level) is primarily self-officiated makes it very different. Most sports at the highest level have, inevitable, a ton of judgment as part of the 'call process' and an 'official' is involved in every action. It would not be reasonable to allow a competitor that kind of latitude on his/her own behalf.

 

dave

 

 

And in every other sport, players might be tempted to gain an advantage by bending a rule if the referee was not watching. Regarding golf, yes, rules are rules. But when no advantage is gained and it takes high technology to even see the infraction, it's enforcing rules for the sake of enforcing rules and not to maintain the integrity of the competition. No harm, no foul. Certainly not well after the fact.

 

And who is to make the "no harm" judgment. That is the whole point that I was trying to make. Without an official on the scene real-time to make the call you are asking the competitors to make a judgment that they currently do not have to make. And the rules are built to (as much as is reasonable) avoid that.

 

dave

[Sawgrass]

I didn't watch the broadcast, but one can generally (always?) feel the club brush the sand. Did the player acknowledge the touch?

[2bGood]

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.

 

Referee mistakes happen all the time in other sports. There was a huge handball penalty called yesterday in the Euro Soccer Championship game on the wrong team. The issue isn't that the golf rules are bad; the issue is this mentality that "getting it right" supersedes the spirit of competition.

 

Kev wrote: 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.

 

No other sport has this mentality. Strikes are called balls and balls are called strikes in every baseball game. it's part of the game. The human element. There are lots of rules violations in other sports that are chalked up to "rub of the green". Why is golf so sanctimonious about their rule book?

 

IMHO, the fact that golf (at the highest level) is primarily self-officiated makes it very different. Most sports at the highest level have, inevitable, a ton of judgment as part of the 'call process' and an 'official' is involved in every action. It would not be reasonable to allow a competitor that kind of latitude on his/her own behalf.

 

dave

 

 

And in every other sport, players might be tempted to gain an advantage by bending a rule if the referee was not watching. Regarding golf, yes, rules are rules. But when no advantage is gained and it takes high technology to even see the infraction, it's enforcing rules for the sake of enforcing rules and not to maintain the integrity of the competition. No harm, no foul. Certainly not well after the fact.

 

And who is to make the "no harm" judgment. That is the whole point that I was trying to make. Without an official on the scene real-time to make the call you are asking the competitors to make a judgment that they currently do not have to make. And the rules are built to (as much as is reasonable) avoid that.

 

dave

 

Golf requires no official on the scene other than the players themselves.

 

I do suggest the R & A and USGA nip this in the bud. The infraction we saw in the women's US open would not have been able to be seen with a regular camera angle of her shot, it took ultra high definition slow motion video, zoomed to show the ball about 20" wide on my tv. Technology will continue to advance in the next 10-20 years - it will be ridiculous what we might see on the coverage. Camera's in the balls or clubs might be coming,digital scanning of the entire course showing the movement of every blade of grass etc.. What was called yesterday we did have the technology on broadcasts to see 5 years ago, what we will be able to see 5 years from now on the broadcast will likely cause even more minute infractions to not go un-noticed.

 

Things could get (more) silly in the future.

[2bGood]

I didn't watch the broadcast, but one can generally (always?) feel the club brush the sand. Did the player acknowledge the touch?

 

No she did acknowledge the touch and no way should could feel it. It looked like one or two grains of sand sat a little higher than the rest and she touched them. Without zoomed slow motion there would have been no way to catch it.

[DaveLeeNC]

I didn't watch the broadcast, but one can generally (always?) feel the club brush the sand. Did the player acknowledge the touch?

 

SG, that is interesting. I recall a few years ago while practicing in the bunker noticing the occasional 'track line' that I was totally unaware of. I had to change my habits as I would guess that I was doing this sometimes on the course as well.

 

This one actually happened at address rather than on the backswing. And as noted elsewhere it was quite subtle.

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

I didn't watch the broadcast, but one can generally (always?) feel the club brush the sand. Did the player acknowledge the touch?

 

SG, that is interesting. I recall a few years ago while practicing in the bunker noticing the occasional 'track line' that I was totally unaware of. I had to change my habits as I would guess that I was doing this sometimes on the course as well.

 

This one actually happened at address rather than on the backswing. And as noted elsewhere it was quite subtle.

 

dave

 

This brings something else to mind here. Some would say that this violation "gave no advantage". However when I learned that I had to create more space between the ball and my club at address, I found that this made bunker shots (particularly fairway bunker shots with longer clubs) meaningfully more difficult.

 

No advantage?

 

dave

[2bGood]

I didn't watch the broadcast, but one can generally (always?) feel the club brush the sand. Did the player acknowledge the touch?

 

SG, that is interesting. I recall a few years ago while practicing in the bunker noticing the occasional 'track line' that I was totally unaware of. I had to change my habits as I would guess that I was doing this sometimes on the course as well.

 

This one actually happened at address rather than on the backswing. And as noted elsewhere it was quite subtle.

 

dave

 

This brings something else to mind here. Some would say that this violation "gave no advantage". However when I learned that I had to create more space between the ball and my club at address, I found that this made bunker shots (particularly fairway bunker shots with longer clubs) meaningfully more difficult.

 

No advantage?

 

dave

 

I agree, I hover way over the ground on sand shots as I don't trust my self to hold the club 1/4 above the ground and not touch.

[ray9898]

Even though the 'no advantage' excuse is being used by many it isn't part of the rule. However, not being able to ground your club in a bunker is a disadvantage. If you are so close you brush the sand you have negated that effect and do have an advantage. Simply, if there is a violation it should be called.

[Hawkeye77]

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/

 

Obviously the track the ball left. Not her backswing.

 

Edit : Looks like I made a point made several times already in three different threads like all the other points and rants. Oh well.

[lchang]

.... 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.

 

Well, I'm proposing that there'd be no outcry at all. Because:

a) the rule would have already been changed to say something like "[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."

​

and b) I don't think you would be on here adamantly saying that Nordqvist didn't deserve to win (if she had birdied 18, for example) after the video had come to light. Am I wrong? With that rule change, if DJ had won by one shot, you'd be on here ticked off about lack of the integrity of the competition? (Or DJ's lack of integrity? Or Nordqvist's?)

 

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.

 

I think this is beside the point. *I* am certainly not making an argument that leads down the slippery slope of having to "throw away the rule book". (Am I?!) Trying to discuss if a change as proposed would be good, bad, hard-to-implement, or ...?

 

I think it would change things back to the way golf had been played and officiated for centuries up until a few years ago. Depending on honesty of golfers relying on their own senses. I'm not proposing to put the notion of "advantage" into the rules. But instead am asking if anyone can think of a case where an honest competitor gains an advantage (i.e., as a consequence of the change, he/she would "unfairly"--in the view of our collective common sense--win a competition). Because this honest golfer doesn't notice a microscopic infraction (catchable only with advanced camera work), we as fans, the other golfers as competitors--we'd feel cheated--that the competition was conducted unfairly? (Or am I missing the point--these rules are to protect the field from dishonest golfers?! Golf is different--thank god!--so we can depend on honesty of competitors, right?)

 

I haven't seen anyone put forth such a clear example yet. The closest might be that: if Nordqvist knew that zoom lenses were everywhere, she'd get into the habit of hovering higher in the bunker. And so she'd lose the advantage of living bunker life so close to the edge. I guess that qualifies. Sort of. Kind of. A little bit.

[Sawgrass]

There's no "advantage" in making a whif. But it still costs you a stroke.

[SHIVAN]

Put two USGA/PGA Tour rules officials with each group on Saturday and Sunday. Those two will be watching each shot, like a hawk. They make the final calls. Period.

[LeoLeo99]

There's no "advantage" in making a whif. But it still costs you a stroke.

 

It was a practice swing.

[DaveLeeNC]

There's no "advantage" in making a whif. But it still costs you a stroke.

 

It was a practice swing.

 

Not under the current RoG.

 

dave

[Stuart_G]

There's no "advantage" in making a whif. But it still costs you a stroke.

 

Sorry Sawgrass, I'd expect better :-)

 

That's because it is a real stroke. It's not a penalty or even a breech of any rule - so advantage or not has nothing to do with it.

[rsj1360]

The use of super slo-mo, super Hi-def cameras to detect "infractions" is just plain stupid. In fact any replay reviews by officials in all sports anywhere is stupid. Make the call on the field of play (or rink or court or whatever) using normal human senses and move on with the game.

 

Technology should not be the deciding factor in games.

[lchang]

I've always thought of this board as the one with all the smart, thoughtful people on it. Which is why I was hoping for a thoughtful response to my "proposal". Is it just too hypothetical and therefore not worth the thought exercise? (Doesn't this board love thought exercises?!)

[rsj1360]

 

Golf requires no official on the scene other than the players themselves.

 

I do suggest the R & A and USGA nip this in the bud. The infraction we saw in the women's US open would not have been able to be seen with a regular camera angle of her shot, it took ultra high definition slow motion video, zoomed to show the ball about 20" wide on my tv. Technology will continue to advance in the next 10-20 years - it will be ridiculous what we might see on the coverage. Camera's in the balls or clubs might be coming,digital scanning of the entire course showing the movement of every blade of grass etc.. What was called yesterday we did have the technology on broadcasts to see 5 years ago, what we will be able to see 5 years from now on the broadcast will likely cause even more minute infractions to not go un-noticed.

 

Things could get (more) silly in the future.

We can envision a time when the player hovers the club at address and then starts the back swing. The super cameras of the future will be able to detect the air turbulence obviously caused by this motion. The air turbulence will cause minute, invisible to the naked eye, particles of dust to be lifted of the top of the sand. The back of the club and the air turbulence would obviously then push these minute particles out of the way during the back swing. Obviously creating an advantage for the player. Penalty.

[Sawgrass]

There's no "advantage" in making a whif. But it still costs you a stroke.

 

Sorry Sawgrass, I'd expect better :-)

 

That's because it is a real stroke. It's not a penalty or even a breech of any rule - so advantage or not has nothing to do with it.

 

I'm pointing out that "advantage" is not a concept easily applied. (Unless of course we're taking about a "serious breach".)

[Stuart_G]

There's no "advantage" in making a whif. But it still costs you a stroke.

 

Sorry Sawgrass, I'd expect better :-)

 

That's because it is a real stroke. It's not a penalty or even a breech of any rule - so advantage or not has nothing to do with it.

 

I'm pointing out that "advantage" is not a concept easily applied. (Unless of course we're taking about a "serious breach".)

I

 

It's easier when you discuss it in terms of potential advantage an act may allow or give instead of actual advantage for a specific incident.

[Shipwreck]

I could have sworn that golf was about honesty and integrity. The only sport where a player can call a penalty on themselves. If you need technology to determine integrity, then the spirit of the game is lost.

 

If I call a penalty on myself for what I think happens, assess said penalty and sign a scorecard, will they go back and look at it to determine if it happened? Or will they take my word for it? If it, in fact, didn't happen, will I be penalized for signing an incorrect scorecard?

 

Technology in golf should only aide in improving the game by either helping with instruction, or by allowing people to view it on their TV or other device. It should not be used to determine penalties. Because, as many have stated, only the leaders are under this microscope.

[KyGolf]

The camera was not on the ball to catch an infraction. The shot was to record the strike from the sand. The fact that they did record an infraction was coincidental. The rule is you cannot touch the sand. The sand was touched. Once this fact became evident they could not ignore it.