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

[Sawgrass]

I feel compelled to say that "sand" is different than any smaller associated "particles." Just like rocks are different than sand.

 

I don't need a microscope to see a grain of sand. And it is fairly solid, not prone to breaking down into smaller particles or "dust."

 

I'll also venture to say that if cameras become more sophisticated so as to create absurdity in defining what is moved, the RBs will deal with it as they have already begun with the recent decision on a ball's movement. For now, things are just fine. No worries.

I don't agree with the premise that "sand" can be well defined. We've all seen bunkers (or beaches) where the sand is basically small pebbles and others where the sand is very fine grained and powdery.

 

Nevertheless it has to be "well defined," at least by a ref, when the "stones in bunkers" local Rule is employed. I've never, ever had a problem doing so, and I've never ever had a player object.

 

This is such a non-issue.

[SHIVAN]

I don't need a microscope to see a grain of sand. And it is fairly solid, not prone to breaking down into smaller particles or "dust."

 

While being wrong about the rules interpretation, the grain size of silica/sand can vary widely. While I now feel that it would not be an infraction, I assure you that as cameras progress, you will begin to see sand particulate become airborne on the backswing -- especially with how close the pros takeaway.

[Stuart_G]

Well, in the geological world, sand is fairly well defined. Specifcally particles with a diameter of about 1/16th of a mm to about 2mm. Whether the RB choose to hold to that defn or not is a completely different question.

[SHIVAN]

Well, in the geological world, sand is fairly well defined. Specifcally particles with a diameter of about 1/16th of a mm to about 2mm. Whether the RB choose to hold to that defn or not is a completely different question.

 

Ok, then if it gets that sketchy, and they say 1/16th to 2mm is the definition, then what they are going to see in 5k++ resolution will be something other than sand being moved back from the ball. We've got some internal video of disturbed air, and rigid bodies, and particle movements -- but you can see very similar on youtube vids that are open source. If the sand is 1/16th, and they start to see something smaller they will have to clarify the rule -- I think.

 

Which takes us full circle to Anna, and her perception of the infraction. Did she feel it?

[Shilgy]

Well, in the geological world, sand is fairly well defined. Specifcally particles with a diameter of about 1/16th of a mm to about 2mm. Whether the RB choose to hold to that defn or not is a completely different question.

 

Ok, then if it gets that sketchy, and they say 1/16th to 2mm is the definition, then what they are going to see in 5k++ resolution will be something other than sand being moved back from the ball. We've got some internal video of disturbed air, and rigid bodies, and particle movements -- but you can see very similar on youtube vids that are open source. If the sand is 1/16th, and they start to see something smaller they will have to clarify the rule -- I think.

 

Which takes us full circle to Anna, and her perception of the infraction. Did she feel it?

You do not have to feel it. Just need to touch the ground in the hazard before the stroke. Shivan, if touching the tops of blades of grass in the hazard is not a penalty why would touching bits of sand floating in the air? Now we would be back to the DJ ruling and trying to determine what is "most likely" to have caused these small particles to be airborne. Yikes!

[lchang]

I feel compelled to say that "sand" is different than any smaller associated "particles." Just like rocks are different than sand.

 

I don't need a microscope to see a grain of sand. And it is fairly solid, not prone to breaking down into smaller particles or "dust."

 

I'll also venture to say that if cameras become more sophisticated so as to create absurdity in defining what is moved, the RBs will deal with it as they have already begun with the recent decision on a ball's movement. For now, things are just fine. No worries.

 

Sawgrass, I consider you one of the venerable experts on this board (no way I'm alone on that). So I wonder when you say: "For now, things are just fine." Would you go further and say things would be worse if the general "human senses only" clause were added to the rules (similar to Decision 18/4, but generalized)? Or better? Both? Neither? (Those are all the options, right?)

[SHIVAN]

Shivan, if touching the tops of blades of grass in the hazard is not a penalty why would touching bits of sand floating in the air?

 

Well, in THAT example growing items are exempted, right? However, if it had been a grass clipping on top of the growing grass you brushed you'd be in trouble?

 

I'm just getting down the rabbit hole again with Stuart's defn, because it then raises another question. If the sand is minimum 1/16th, per geologic definition, and now they are able to pick up smaller than that being disturbed and struck, it becomes something other than sand, and most likely to be considered loose impediments in the bunker vs sand. Right? I mean that's the eventual rabbit hole being dug as we're able to freeze frame and count sub-pixel widths, etc.

[Shilgy]

Shivan, if touching the tops of blades of grass in the hazard is not a penalty why would touching bits of sand floating in the air?

 

Well, in THAT example growing items are exempted, right? However, if it had been a grass clipping on top of the growing grass you brushed you'd be in trouble?

yes but you are not saying you brushed(touched) the sand in your hypothetical scenario. To be the same the mighty force of your backswing would have to create a vacuum that sucks up the clipping and then you strike it, still on the way back no less.

[SHIVAN]

Shivan, if touching the tops of blades of grass in the hazard is not a penalty why would touching bits of sand floating in the air?

 

Well, in THAT example growing items are exempted, right? However, if it had been a grass clipping on top of the growing grass you brushed you'd be in trouble?

yes but you are not saying you brushed(touched) the sand in your hypothetical scenario. To be the same the mighty force of your backswing would have to create a vacuum that sucks up the clipping and then you strike it, still on the way back no less.

 

http://www.golf.com/ap-news/pettersson-docked-2-shots-1st-hole

 

Yes, since it could be construed that what is now visible in ultra high def 5k+ resolution is not "sand" or soil, it must be a loose impediment. There will clearly be motion in the frame, and it will not be as large as the definition of "sand".

[Shilgy]

Shivan, if touching the tops of blades of grass in the hazard is not a penalty why would touching bits of sand floating in the air?

 

Well, in THAT example growing items are exempted, right? However, if it had been a grass clipping on top of the growing grass you brushed you'd be in trouble?

yes but you are not saying you brushed(touched) the sand in your hypothetical scenario. To be the same the mighty force of your backswing would have to create a vacuum that sucks up the clipping and then you strike it, still on the way back no less.

 

http://www.golf.com/...-shots-1st-hole

 

Yes, since it could be construed that what is now visible in ultra high def 5k+ resolution is not "sand" or soil, it must be a loose impediment. There will clearly be motion in the frame, and it will not be as large as the definition of "sand".

Incomplete story for this conversation imo. Did he move the leaf by touching it or make it move with the breeze of his club head as you have been saying?

 

For the rules experts. The link Shivan attached was for the 2012 PGA at Kiawah. So a couple rules modification since. Would the rule on this be similar to the DJ ball on the green ruling at this years US Open? I am asking if a player started his backswing in a hazard and a loose impediment moved, in this case a leaf, does it fall on the player to prove he did not cause the movement? One of those situations where the video should prove he caused it by actually touching it imo.

[HighSpeedScene]

You guys want this to be the NBA where it's not steps unless it is called, or the NFL where it's not holding unless it's called, or the NHL where it's not slashing unless the arm goes up.

 

I've never gotten a cogent answer on this question: in golf, which violations should we ignore and which should we penalize?

 

Penalize them ALL with every shot reviewed in high def, or cut out the half measures, where only some shots are reviewed. You can not continue to only review some shots and call it good.

 

Nobody says it's good. Not one single person.

 

So we should ignore violations?

 

I think that depends...do we want to be fair to the players? Or fair to the game?

 

I think the answer for most will be to honor the game. But it means players won't be treated equally in the same contest.

 

And they never have been - leaders and top guys have always had more people to find wayward shots, people to move really large loose impediments, etc. Hell, established guys get preferred times.

 

It's always been - besides, I'm pretty sure the guys near the lead wouldn't trade that for being under less scrutiny. Pretty good deal to me considering the $$$ at stake.

[TheGeekGolfer]

Video replay causing a rules infraction to be called is NOT the problem. Most (all?) players would not argue if the replay shows them committing an infraction, I actually think most would agree with the penalty (if applicable).

 

What IS the problem? The timing of the decision and relaying that information to the player(s).

 

The USGA (PGA Tour & R&A?) needs to setup rules regarding use of video replay. Employ a rules umpire that is trained to review all shots during the broadcast. If you employed a couple of lower-paid editors to cut out the 'fluff', the official would be able to review all shots probably at least 3-4 times at slo-mo. If HE / SHE sees something or if an on-course official calls in and asks for a shot to be reviewed (before completion of the next hole or before teeing off on next hole for final day of tournament and player within 5 shots of the lead). Then, they are to notify on-course officials to hold up that offending player / group and they have 5 minutes to resolve / apply any penalties. On-course officials would be equipped with tablets / laptops to review any questionable situations with player(s) as necessary. Another option would be to setup review 'stations' at a dozen or so locations on course to review situations to prevent having to 'go back to the booth' to review video. The decision of the booth official in consultation with on-course official stands and can NOT be reversed after the round or later on during the round. Any decision or rule needs to be communicated to ALL parties at the same time (like the horn is used for weather delays?). If the decision effects the final group or any player within x (5?) shots of the lead, said decision must be communicated before approach shot is played into the green by ANY player in that group.

 

I'm not saying this is the complete answer, but a set of guideline (something like this) needs to be drawn up by the rules gurus (USGA, R&A, PGA Tour, European Tour) SOONER rather than later.

[Sawgrass]

I feel compelled to say that "sand" is different than any smaller associated "particles." Just like rocks are different than sand.

 

I don't need a microscope to see a grain of sand. And it is fairly solid, not prone to breaking down into smaller particles or "dust."

 

I'll also venture to say that if cameras become more sophisticated so as to create absurdity in defining what is moved, the RBs will deal with it as they have already begun with the recent decision on a ball's movement. For now, things are just fine. No worries.

 

Sawgrass, I consider you one of the venerable experts on this board (no way I'm alone on that). So I wonder when you say: "For now, things are just fine." Would you go further and say things would be worse if the general "human senses only" clause were added to the rules (similar to Decision 18/4, but generalized)? Or better? Both? Neither? (Those are all the options, right?)

 

I sincerely thank you for the complement. Really.

 

IMO, we don't need a Rule change to exclude high-def video evidence of having moved a loose impediment or sand. I think that helps and in no way hurts.

 

However, I'd like to see a similar Decision to the one excluding video evidence of a ball having moved be explicitly applied to a ball being replaced after having been lifted. I think that's in effect how we operate now anyway, and having it included in the subject Decision or being put in one of its own Decisions seems helpful to me.

 

I haven't thought through other possible applications that I might "like" but there certainly may be more. As a guiding principle, I don't think players should be required to do things that they pretty much can't do simply using their bodies. I do think that a player is sufficiently in control of whether he/she hits bunker sand on his/her backswing though, so I'm fine with it been seen on high-def video.

[HighSpeedScene]

You guys want this to be the NBA where it's not steps unless it is called, or the NFL where it's not holding unless it's called, or the NHL where it's not slashing unless the arm goes up.

 

I've never gotten a cogent answer on this question: in golf, which violations should we ignore and which should we penalize?

 

You have gotten a few versions of the answer, but her is mine again for the record:

 

Golf violations should be ignored if they can not be perceived using normal human senses.

 

I get the sentiment, but drawing the line is the hard part. What if it's heard but not seen? An FC hears the club and sand interact, but can't be sure that's what the sound was. Verified by video review, club touched the sand. Player argues he didn't hear it, how could the FC have heard it? Now we have to argue about what constitutes perception (hearing but not seeing) and the bounds of normal human senses?

[jslane57]

I'm fine with the use of cameras and such for those who are on film. They're doing well in the event and should realize that the camera is on them. Be extra careful. But I will add this: If the camera is on them, it should be used for good if the opportunity arises. For example, if a player looses their ball in the edge of the tall grass over a hill and the camera picks it up, someone from the tower or wherever should be able to help them find their ball if they're clearly looking in the wrong place. Some would say that wouldn't be fair, but there is nothing fair about being ultra scrutinized either.

[HighSpeedScene]

I'm fine with the use of cameras and such for those who are on film. They're doing well in the event and should realize that the camera is on them. Be extra careful. But I will add this: If the camera is on them, it should be used for good if the opportunity arises. For example, if a player looses their ball in the edge of the tall grass over a hill and the camera picks it up, someone from the tower or wherever should be able to help them find their ball if they're clearly looking in the wrong place. Some would say that wouldn't be fair, but there is nothing fair about being ultra scrutinized either.

 

Already happens - on course guys help with searches with assistance from the tower fairly often.

[jslane57]

I'm fine with the use of cameras and such for those who are on film. They're doing well in the event and should realize that the camera is on them. Be extra careful. But I will add this: If the camera is on them, it should be used for good if the opportunity arises. For example, if a player looses their ball in the edge of the tall grass over a hill and the camera picks it up, someone from the tower or wherever should be able to help them find their ball if they're clearly looking in the wrong place. Some would say that wouldn't be fair, but there is nothing fair about being ultra scrutinized either.

 

Already happens - on course guys help with searches with assistance from the tower fairly often.

Excellent! I didn't realize that happened often. A player who's ball is found via camera is not complaining I'm sure. If they get rid of cameras for rules, they should probably not help in searches either. Goes both ways IMO.

[raynorfan1]

Realizing that this is probably not a popular perspective on a rules forum, I actually do think that it's time for elite level golf to have referees who have an element of impartial objectivity about the circumstance.

 

If the equivalent of the LPGA situation happens in the NBA or Stanley Cup Finals, no ref is blowing the whistle. In a regular season game on a Tuesday night? Maybe they do. I think the combination of golf's absolutism about the rules and high fidelity video replay will make a farce of the sport - we might as well admit that there's a human element and appoint an impartial human.

[Sean2]

I wonder if Dolores Murphy, LPGA president, is following this thread.

[Shilgy]

Video replay causing a rules infraction to be called is NOT the problem. Most (all?) players would not argue if the replay shows them committing an infraction, I actually think most would agree with the penalty (if applicable).

 

What IS the problem? The timing of the decision and relaying that information to the player(s).

 

The USGA (PGA Tour & R&A?) needs to setup rules regarding use of video replay. Employ a rules umpire that is trained to review all shots during the broadcast. If you employed a couple of lower-paid editors to cut out the 'fluff', the official would be able to review all shots probably at least 3-4 times at slo-mo. If HE / SHE sees something or if an on-course official calls in and asks for a shot to be reviewed (before completion of the next hole or before teeing off on next hole for final day of tournament and player within 5 shots of the lead). Then, they are to notify on-course officials to hold up that offending player / group and they have 5 minutes to resolve / apply any penalties. On-course officials would be equipped with tablets / laptops to review any questionable situations with player(s) as necessary. Another option would be to setup review 'stations' at a dozen or so locations on course to review situations to prevent having to 'go back to the booth' to review video. The decision of the booth official in consultation with on-course official stands and can NOT be reversed after the round or later on during the round. Any decision or rule needs to be communicated to ALL parties at the same time (like the horn is used for weather delays?). If the decision effects the final group or any player within x (5?) shots of the lead, said decision must be communicated before approach shot is played into the green by ANY player in that group.

 

I'm not saying this is the complete answer, but a set of guideline (something like this) needs to be drawn up by the rules gurus (USGA, R&A, PGA Tour, European Tour) SOONER rather than later.

Which feed do these both officials use? My understanding is the Nordqvist ruling was based on a staffer seeing it from a camera rolling but not the one showing what the viewer saw on TV.

[TheGeekGolfer]

Video replay causing a rules infraction to be called is NOT the problem. Most (all?) players would not argue if the replay shows them committing an infraction, I actually think most would agree with the penalty (if applicable).

 

What IS the problem? The timing of the decision and relaying that information to the player(s).

 

The USGA (PGA Tour & R&A?) needs to setup rules regarding use of video replay. Employ a rules umpire that is trained to review all shots during the broadcast. If you employed a couple of lower-paid editors to cut out the 'fluff', the official would be able to review all shots probably at least 3-4 times at slo-mo. If HE / SHE sees something or if an on-course official calls in and asks for a shot to be reviewed (before completion of the next hole or before teeing off on next hole for final day of tournament and player within 5 shots of the lead). Then, they are to notify on-course officials to hold up that offending player / group and they have 5 minutes to resolve / apply any penalties. On-course officials would be equipped with tablets / laptops to review any questionable situations with player(s) as necessary. Another option would be to setup review 'stations' at a dozen or so locations on course to review situations to prevent having to 'go back to the booth' to review video. The decision of the booth official in consultation with on-course official stands and can NOT be reversed after the round or later on during the round. Any decision or rule needs to be communicated to ALL parties at the same time (like the horn is used for weather delays?). If the decision effects the final group or any player within x (5?) shots of the lead, said decision must be communicated before approach shot is played into the green by ANY player in that group.

 

I'm not saying this is the complete answer, but a set of guideline (something like this) needs to be drawn up by the rules gurus (USGA, R&A, PGA Tour, European Tour) SOONER rather than later.

Which feed do these both officials use? My understanding is the Nordqvist ruling was based on a staffer seeing it from a camera rolling but not the one showing what the viewer saw on TV.

I realize there are more 'angles' and feeds than what is viewed on TV. The same is true for NBA / NFL and other professional events with replays. The replay official in the booth would have access to all video and replay angles that are available from whomever is broadcasting said event.

[Shilgy]

Video replay causing a rules infraction to be called is NOT the problem. Most (all?) players would not argue if the replay shows them committing an infraction, I actually think most would agree with the penalty (if applicable).

 

What IS the problem? The timing of the decision and relaying that information to the player(s).

 

The USGA (PGA Tour & R&A?) needs to setup rules regarding use of video replay. Employ a rules umpire that is trained to review all shots during the broadcast. If you employed a couple of lower-paid editors to cut out the 'fluff', the official would be able to review all shots probably at least 3-4 times at slo-mo. If HE / SHE sees something or if an on-course official calls in and asks for a shot to be reviewed (before completion of the next hole or before teeing off on next hole for final day of tournament and player within 5 shots of the lead). Then, they are to notify on-course officials to hold up that offending player / group and they have 5 minutes to resolve / apply any penalties. On-course officials would be equipped with tablets / laptops to review any questionable situations with player(s) as necessary. Another option would be to setup review 'stations' at a dozen or so locations on course to review situations to prevent having to 'go back to the booth' to review video. The decision of the booth official in consultation with on-course official stands and can NOT be reversed after the round or later on during the round. Any decision or rule needs to be communicated to ALL parties at the same time (like the horn is used for weather delays?). If the decision effects the final group or any player within x (5?) shots of the lead, said decision must be communicated before approach shot is played into the green by ANY player in that group.

 

I'm not saying this is the complete answer, but a set of guideline (something like this) needs to be drawn up by the rules gurus (USGA, R&A, PGA Tour, European Tour) SOONER rather than later.

Which feed do these both officials use? My understanding is the Nordqvist ruling was based on a staffer seeing it from a camera rolling but not the one showing what the viewer saw on TV.

I realize there are more 'angles' and feeds than what is viewed on TV. The same is true for NBA / NFL and other professional events with replays. The replay official in the booth would have access to all video and replay angles that are available from whomever is broadcasting said event.

I am not disagreeing with you but one official cannot do all that and I have no idea how many it would take. The typical lpga event has cameras on the last 6 holes or so plus a few roving cameras. One guy cannot catch everything on 8 or more cameras. The men's tour that is likely quite a few more. This women's Open case was a rarity I think. A staffer sees something on an alternate feed AND slows it down AND zooms it to where it can be seen. I do like the idea of a both official but the field of play is so large it would be difficult, and very costly.

[Stuart_G]

Yes, since it could be construed that what is now visible in ultra high def 5k+ resolution is not "sand" or soil, it must be a loose impediment.

 

No, it certainly does not mean that. Read the full defn of "Loose Impediments" in the rules.

 

Also to better understand, it might help to look up "impediment" in the dictionary, :D

 

Although I say that mostly in jest, you are clearly way too focused on the "loose" part of the name and have lost track of the fact that it also needs to be a potential impediment to play.

[SHIVAN]

Yes, since it could be construed that what is now visible in ultra high def 5k+ resolution is not "sand" or soil, it must be a loose impediment.

 

No, it certainly does not mean that. Read the full defn of "Loose Impediments" in the rules.

 

Also to better understand, it might help to look up "impediment" in the dictionary, :D

 

Although I say that mostly in jest, you are clearly way too focused on the "loose" part of the name and have lost track of the fact that it also needs to be a potential impediment to play.

Loose impediments" are natural objects, including:

• stones, leaves, twigs, branches and the like,
  
• dung, and
  
• worms, insects and the like, and the casts and heaps made by them,
  

provided they are not:

• fixed or growing,
  
• solidly embedded, or
  
• adhering to the ball.
  

Sand and loose soil are loose impediments on the putting green, but not elsewhere.

 

Snow and natural ice, other than frost, are either casual water or loose impediments, at the option of the player.

 

Dew and frost are not loose impediments.

 

 

 

Getting pedantic to follow the logic....are the items the USGA will see moving on the screen food wrappers? Beer cans? Plastic necklace beads? Styrofoam? Or are they more likely natural objects "and the like"? Like maybe a 51% chance they were natural objects, other than sand, that we see moving....clearly in frame? Would it be more likely, than not, that they were natural objects, other than sand, or less likely? Sand doesn't readily move, according to this thread, on the backswing. We did not witness any man-made, non-natural objects in the hazard. We see on this super-hyper zoom 5k+ res screen, items moving on Player A's backswing. More or less likely....51%....yada yada....

 

It's the USGA, afterall.....

[QEight]

How to unsubscribe from a thread???

[deadsolid...shank]

Realizing that this is probably not a popular perspective on a rules forum, I actually do think that it's time for elite level golf to have referees who have an element of impartial objectivity about the circumstance.

 

If the equivalent of the LPGA situation happens in the NBA or Stanley Cup Finals, no ref is blowing the whistle. In a regular season game on a Tuesday night? Maybe they do. I think the combination of golf's absolutism about the rules and high fidelity video replay will make a farce of the sport - we might as well admit that there's a human element and appoint an impartial human.

 

I think that very, very wrong. If it's a foul on opening day, it's a foul in the last game of a championship series. That's brings way too much (more) subjectivity into the game (where there's already enough). Kind of like umpires having their own strike zone. No, the rules set what the zone is, it's not open to interpretation.

 

Just like for Anna, it was a violation. Doesn't matter when it happens, it has to be called and enforced. Increased scrutiny is the price a player pays for being in contention down the stretch.

[Augster]

To make this stuff go away, all the tourney owners (AN, USGA, R&A, PGA) have to do is tell the directors and producers of television broadcasts is that extreme zooming is not going to be allowed. Have it written into their TV contracts that any shots with an extreme zoom that makes it on TV will void the contract and/or enact a penalty large enough to make doing it hurt.

 

They don't really "need" those shots. They just zoom in that far because they can and they know they may catch an infraction.

 

I guarantee if Augusta National went to CBS and said, "We don't want any of the controversy extreme zooming can cause. There won't be any extreme zoomed shots at the Masters." That CBS would comply or AN would find another broadcast partner in less than an hour.

[HitEmTrue]

They don't really "need" those shots. They just zoom in that far because they can and they know they may catch an infraction.

 

I bet they show them because folks like to see zoomed-in, slow-motion, shots of impact. I'm one of those folks.

[HighSpeedScene]

To make this stuff go away, all the tourney owners (AN, USGA, R&A, PGA) have to do is tell the directors and producers of television broadcasts is that extreme zooming is not going to be allowed. Have it written into their TV contracts that any shots with an extreme zoom that makes it on TV will void the contract and/or enact a penalty large enough to make doing it hurt.

 

They don't really "need" those shots. They just zoom in that far because they can and they know they may catch an infraction.

 

I guarantee if Augusta National went to CBS and said, "We don't want any of the controversy extreme zooming can cause. There won't be any extreme zoomed shots at the Masters." That CBS would comply or AN would find another broadcast partner in less than an hour.

 

Totally agree. And that's how it should be handled - not by a wholesale rules change that fundamentally alters the game

[Cancun]

I can't believe what I'vew read... I don't mean anyparticular post (or is it nanoparticular post? ;) ), but the thread! I would be laughing if it wasn't so sad

 

 

The Rule (and the Definition) are just fine. A player breached a Rule during a sporting event and she was penalized accordingly. Move on!