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

KyGolf · July 14, 2016

I mean, two things: 1. You're just wrong on that - that decision just clarifies what it means to be resting in another place. It does NOT allow for disregarding an infraction 2. I specifically added "across the board" due to the ruling about a committee being allowed to apply a penalty stroke instead of a dq that Augusta famously abused.

Sure you are talking about changing rules and I am talking about chaining the interpretation of rules through a decision. I think it is semantics. As now a ball can move, but no infraction occurs because the decision have redefined what 'moving' is.

A decision could be added to the rules to say something like this when it comes to touching a hazard: The Definition of "Moved Touched" - when player comes into contact with hazard - does not contemplate movements touching of the ball hazard that is only discernible through the use of high definition television or any other form of sophisticated technology

So sure the rules have not been changed, but the governing body has taken steps to ignore video when enforcing the rules.

The point is that there is still a question mark as to whether the breach could have been seen if someone was in position to see it. It is still subjective as to whether it could be seen by someone who happened to be looking. Is your standard of what could or could not have been seen a referee with eagle eye vision or maybe a guy who is a little bit nearsighted. Are you willing to have a referee assigned to each player to watch everything they do on each shot? I'm sure that would go over big with the tours.

2bGood · July 14, 2016

I mean, two things: 1. You're just wrong on that - that decision just clarifies what it means to be resting in another place. It does NOT allow for disregarding an infraction 2. I specifically added "across the board" due to the ruling about a committee being allowed to apply a penalty stroke instead of a dq that Augusta famously abused.

Sure you are talking about changing rules and I am talking about chaining the interpretation of rules through a decision. I think it is semantics. As now a ball can move, but no infraction occurs because the decision have redefined what 'moving' is.

A decision could be added to the rules to say something like this when it comes to touching a hazard:The Definition of "Moved Touched" - when player comes into contact with hazard - does not contemplate movements touching of the ball hazard that is only discernible through the use of high definition television or any other form of sophisticated technology

So sure the rules have not been changed, but the governing body has taken steps to ignore video when enforcing the rules.

The point is that there is still a question mark as to whether the breach could have been seen if someone was in position to see it. It is still subjective as to whether it could be seen by someone who happened to be looking. Is your standard of what could or could not have been seen a referee with eagle eye vision or maybe a guy who is a little bit nearsighted. Are you willing to have a referee assigned to each player to watch everything they do on each shot? I'm sure that would go over big with the tours.

I keep going back to 18/4. What I have written in red above is just a light edit of decision already in the rules of golf. Yes there is a question mark in what I suggest. But I would argue that there is a question mark created with decision 18/4 (and lots of rules and decisions in golf)

Shilgy · July 14, 2016

I mean, two things: 1. You're just wrong on that - that decision just clarifies what it means to be resting in another place. It does NOT allow for disregarding an infraction 2. I specifically added "across the board" due to the ruling about a committee being allowed to apply a penalty stroke instead of a dq that Augusta famously abused.

Sure you are talking about changing rules and I am talking about chaining the interpretation of rules through a decision. I think it is semantics. As now a ball can move, but no infraction occurs because the decision have redefined what 'moving' is.

A decision could be added to the rules to say something like this when it comes to touching a hazard:The Definition of "Moved Touched" - when player comes into contact with hazard - does not contemplate movements touching of the ball hazard that is only discernible through the use of high definition television or any other form of sophisticated technology

So sure the rules have not been changed, but the governing body has taken steps to ignore video when enforcing the rules.

The point is that there is still a question mark as to whether the breach could have been seen if someone was in position to see it. It is still subjective as to whether it could be seen by someone who happened to be looking. Is your standard of what could or could not have been seen a referee with eagle eye vision or maybe a guy who is a little bit nearsighted. Are you willing to have a referee assigned to each player to watch everything they do on each shot? I'm sure that would go over big with the tours.

I keep going back to 18/4. What I have written in red above is just a light edit of decision already in the rules of golf. Yes there is a question mark in what I suggest. But I would argue that there is a question mark created with decision 18/4 (and lots of rules and decisions in golf)

Oops, did not mean to delete. 2b you keep referring to 18-4 which is there ball being moved but 13-4 is relevant here. And KY asked a good question. Your say your new wording would cover this by stating if only discernable with high def it does not matter. KY want to know how that works with one sharp eyed ref and one near sighted one. As the rules are now the ref must act on any infraction seen by him or reported to him. How is that possibly an issue?

KyGolf · July 14, 2016

I mean, two things: 1. You're just wrong on that - that decision just clarifies what it means to be resting in another place. It does NOT allow for disregarding an infraction 2. I specifically added "across the board" due to the ruling about a committee being allowed to apply a penalty stroke instead of a dq that Augusta famously abused.

Sure you are talking about changing rules and I am talking about chaining the interpretation of rules through a decision. I think it is semantics. As now a ball can move, but no infraction occurs because the decision have redefined what 'moving' is.

A decision could be added to the rules to say something like this when it comes to touching a hazard:The Definition of "Moved Touched" - when player comes into contact with hazard - does not contemplate movements touching of the ball hazard that is only discernible through the use of high definition television or any other form of sophisticated technology

So sure the rules have not been changed, but the governing body has taken steps to ignore video when enforcing the rules.

The point is that there is still a question mark as to whether the breach could have been seen if someone was in position to see it. It is still subjective as to whether it could be seen by someone who happened to be looking. Is your standard of what could or could not have been seen a referee with eagle eye vision or maybe a guy who is a little bit nearsighted. Are you willing to have a referee assigned to each player to watch everything they do on each shot? I'm sure that would go over big with the tours.

I keep going back to 18/4. What I have written in red above is just a light edit of decision already in the rules of golf. Yes there is a question mark in what I suggest. But I would argue that there is a question mark created with decision 18/4 (and lots of rules and decisions in golf)

Not really apples to apples. 18/4 deals with a ball that is known to have moved and whether it has returned to its original position or moved by an amount that is not visible to the naked eye but can be seen by high def. More of a measurement situation than the question of whether the sand was touched or not.

2bGood · July 14, 2016

I mean, two things: 1. You're just wrong on that - that decision just clarifies what it means to be resting in another place. It does NOT allow for disregarding an infraction 2. I specifically added "across the board" due to the ruling about a committee being allowed to apply a penalty stroke instead of a dq that Augusta famously abused.

Sure you are talking about changing rules and I am talking about chaining the interpretation of rules through a decision. I think it is semantics. As now a ball can move, but no infraction occurs because the decision have redefined what 'moving' is.

A decision could be added to the rules to say something like this when it comes to touching a hazard:The Definition of "Moved Touched" - when player comes into contact with hazard - does not contemplate movements touching of the ball hazard that is only discernible through the use of high definition television or any other form of sophisticated technology

So sure the rules have not been changed, but the governing body has taken steps to ignore video when enforcing the rules.

The point is that there is still a question mark as to whether the breach could have been seen if someone was in position to see it. It is still subjective as to whether it could be seen by someone who happened to be looking. Is your standard of what could or could not have been seen a referee with eagle eye vision or maybe a guy who is a little bit nearsighted. Are you willing to have a referee assigned to each player to watch everything they do on each shot? I'm sure that would go over big with the tours.

I keep going back to 18/4. What I have written in red above is just a light edit of decision already in the rules of golf. Yes there is a question mark in what I suggest. But I would argue that there is a question mark created with decision 18/4 (and lots of rules and decisions in golf)
Oops, did not mean to delete. 2b you keep referring to 18-4 which is there ball being moved but 13-4 is relevant here. And KY asked a good question. Your say your new wording would cover this by stating if only discernable with high def it does not matter. KY want to know how that works with one sharp eyed ref and one near sighted one. As the rules are now the ref must act on any infraction seen by him or reported to him. How is that possibly an issue?

I keep bringing up 18/4 as I see what is already in place with 18/4 very much parallel to what I would suggest.

So I answer your question with a question: Where is the cut off with 18/4 between sharp eye'd ref and one that is not?

At the end of the day if the governing body says we should ignore ball movement that can not been seen with the naked eye, why can't they say we should ignore a touching of the hazard that can not be seen with naked eye?

2bGood · July 14, 2016

I mean, two things: 1. You're just wrong on that - that decision just clarifies what it means to be resting in another place. It does NOT allow for disregarding an infraction 2. I specifically added "across the board" due to the ruling about a committee being allowed to apply a penalty stroke instead of a dq that Augusta famously abused.

Sure you are talking about changing rules and I am talking about chaining the interpretation of rules through a decision. I think it is semantics. As now a ball can move, but no infraction occurs because the decision have redefined what 'moving' is.

A decision could be added to the rules to say something like this when it comes to touching a hazard:The Definition of "Moved Touched" - when player comes into contact with hazard - does not contemplate movements touching of the ball hazard that is only discernible through the use of high definition television or any other form of sophisticated technology

So sure the rules have not been changed, but the governing body has taken steps to ignore video when enforcing the rules.

The point is that there is still a question mark as to whether the breach could have been seen if someone was in position to see it. It is still subjective as to whether it could be seen by someone who happened to be looking. Is your standard of what could or could not have been seen a referee with eagle eye vision or maybe a guy who is a little bit nearsighted. Are you willing to have a referee assigned to each player to watch everything they do on each shot? I'm sure that would go over big with the tours.

I keep going back to 18/4. What I have written in red above is just a light edit of decision already in the rules of golf. Yes there is a question mark in what I suggest. But I would argue that there is a question mark created with decision 18/4 (and lots of rules and decisions in golf)

Not really apples to apples. 18/4 deals with a ball that is known to have moved and whether it has returned to its original position or moved by an amount that is not visible to the naked eye but can be seen by high def. More of a measurement situation than the question of whether the sand was touched or not.

If you read rule 18-2 either the ball moved or it did not correct? If it moved you can be penalized (depending on when/why/how) and the rule does says "the ball can move a little bit, just not allot." Except the decision redefines what "move" means to not include movement of a very slight nature. The decision effectively says that the ball can move "tiny amount" but the movement should be ignored.

So how is it different to redefine that touching of a very slight nature for the purposes of the rules will not be considered a "touch"?

PS: I do not only think it is possible that governing bodies will add a decision of the nature I am describing, I actually think it is inventible that they will. Lets check back in 10 years. If I am wrong I will buy the beers.

KyGolf · July 14, 2016

The ball can move if it does not come to rest in a different position. It is subjective. Whether or not the hazard was touched is not.

Every time I see your avatar I feel like I am arguing with Ted Knight.

2bGood · July 14, 2016

The ball can move if it does not come to rest in a different position. It is subjective. Whether or not the hazard was touched is not.

Actually with correct recording equipment it is not subjective if a ball moved to a different position. You can measure with great precision just how much it moved and where it moved to. They banned using certain technology to determine if the ball moved in fairness to the players.

Yes it is not subjective if you touch the hazard, but like the ball moving to a new position it is imperceptible at times without enhanced technology. Already the technology is such that there is no way human senses can detect these infractions, the tech will only get better.

As I say it is only a matter of time...

Shilgy · July 14, 2016

I keep bring up 18/4 as I see what is already in place with 18/4 very much parallel to what I would suggest.

So I answer your question with a question: Where is the cut off with 18/4 between sharp eye'd ref and one that is not?

At the end of the day if the governing body says we should ignore ball movement that can not been seen with the naked eye, why can't they say we should ignore a touching of the hazard that can not be seen with naked eye?

? DJ was penalized because of video. So it was not ignored. It was not seen live but was determined to have moved. As KY golfer mentioned how do you determine what could have been seen if it was not? Not seen no violation or minute movement no violation?

2bGood · July 14, 2016

I keep bring up 18/4 as I see what is already in place with 18/4 very much parallel to what I would suggest.

So I answer your question with a question: Where is the cut off with 18/4 between sharp eye'd ref and one that is not?

At the end of the day if the governing body says we should ignore ball movement that can not been seen with the naked eye, why can't they say we should ignore a touching of the hazard that can not be seen with naked eye?
? DJ was penalized because of video. So it was not ignored. It was not seen live but was determined to have moved. As KY golfer mentioned how do you determine what could have been seen if it was not? Not seen no violation or minute movement no violation?

Ask the R & A and/or the USGA as it is their rule not mine - I am just quoting it. 18/4 does draw a gray line as you have mentioned. Here is an article that supports what you are getting at : http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1864929-have-the-usga-and-ra-made-things-worse-with-decision-184

I don't think 18/4 was a bad decision to add, but I can say how it does muddy the waters in some ways.

To DJ:

As I read the rule and decisions 18/4. Recording the infraction is not an issue, it just that the infraction has to be so slight that it can only been seem with zoomed and/or slowed down etc.. But DJ's call was not slight at all, and it was seen by multiple people when it happen. His ruling was not about whether the ball moved, or how much it moved, but about wether DJ caused it to move.

The reality is that a change in not allowing high def/slowed down video to aid in calling rules infractions will not effect all but golfing elite. I think it is worth the muddy waters to expand 18/4 to provide a better TV program. - Selfish I know, but I don't like events decided after the fact by some guy in a video booth.

Shilgy · July 14, 2016

If you read rule 18-2 either the ball moved or it did not correct? If it moved you can be penalized (depending on when/why/how) and the rule does says "the ball can move a little bit, just not allot." Except the decision redefines what "move" means to not include movement of a very slight nature. The decision effectively says that the ball can move "tiny amount" but the movement should be ignored.

So how is it different to redefine that touching of a very slight nature for the purposes of the rules will not be considered a "touch"?

PS: I do not only think it is possible that governing bodies will add a decision of the nature I am describing, I actually think it is inventible that they will. Lets check back in 10 years. If I am wrong I will buy the beers.

Man I keep looking. Can you point me to this decision and or rule "the ball can move a little bit without being a penalty? Please also point me to the rule or decision that says something about HD video not being admissable if naked eye could not have seen it?

2bGood · July 14, 2016

If you read rule 18-2 either the ball moved or it did not correct? If it moved you can be penalized (depending on when/why/how) and the rule does says "the ball can move a little bit, just not allot." Except the decision redefines what "move" means to not include movement of a very slight nature. The decision effectively says that the ball can move "tiny amount" but the movement should be ignored.

So how is it different to redefine that touching of a very slight nature for the purposes of the rules will not be considered a "touch"?

PS: I do not only think it is possible that governing bodies will add a decision of the nature I am describing, I actually think it is inventible that they will. Lets check back in 10 years. If I am wrong I will buy the beers.
Man I keep looking. Can you point me to this decision and or rule "the ball can move a little bit without being a penalty? Please also point me to the rule or decision that says something about HD video not being admissable if naked eye could not have seen it?

Here you go: http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-4

18/4

Television Evidence Shows Ball at Rest Changed Position But by Amount Not Reasonably Discernible to Naked Eye

Q.A player addresses his ball. He observes a slight motion of the ball but believes that it has only oscillated and has not left its original position. He therefore plays the ball as it lies. Later, the Committee becomes aware from television evidence that the ball had in fact left its position and come to rest in another place, although that change of position was such that it was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time of the incident. What is the ruling?

A.The ball is deemed not to have moved and therefore there is no penalty under Rule 18-2. The Definition of "Moved" - when a ball "leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place" - does not contemplate movements of the ball that are only discernible through the use of high definition television or any other form of sophisticated technology.

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 18-2 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.

On the other hand, if the Committee determines, based on all of the evidence it has available, that the ball changed its position by an amount that was reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, the ball is deemed to have moved. As the player did not replace the ball, he incurs a penalty under the applicable Rule and Rule 20-7c for playing from a wrong place.

LeoLeo99 · July 14, 2016

If you read rule 18-2 either the ball moved or it did not correct? If it moved you can be penalized (depending on when/why/how) and the rule does says "the ball can move a little bit, just not allot." Except the decision redefines what "move" means to not include movement of a very slight nature. The decision effectively says that the ball can move "tiny amount" but the movement should be ignored.

So how is it different to redefine that touching of a very slight nature for the purposes of the rules will not be considered a "touch"?

PS: I do not only think it is possible that governing bodies will add a decision of the nature I am describing, I actually think it is inventible that they will. Lets check back in 10 years. If I am wrong I will buy the beers.
Man I keep looking. Can you point me to this decision and or rule "the ball can move a little bit without being a penalty? Please also point me to the rule or decision that says something about HD video not being admissable if naked eye could not have seen it?

Seems like common sense. If the ball moved an imperceptible distance to the naked eye then in didn't move in the sense of the rule. Maybe it moved a micron but no one can see that. Golf is played on imperfect surfaces. I can't say the ball didn't move. All I can say is that I did not observe or perceive the ball to move. And that's good enough.

2bGood · July 14, 2016

If you read rule 18-2 either the ball moved or it did not correct? If it moved you can be penalized (depending on when/why/how) and the rule does says "the ball can move a little bit, just not allot." Except the decision redefines what "move" means to not include movement of a very slight nature. The decision effectively says that the ball can move "tiny amount" but the movement should be ignored.

So how is it different to redefine that touching of a very slight nature for the purposes of the rules will not be considered a "touch"?

PS: I do not only think it is possible that governing bodies will add a decision of the nature I am describing, I actually think it is inventible that they will. Lets check back in 10 years. If I am wrong I will buy the beers.
Man I keep looking. Can you point me to this decision and or rule "the ball can move a little bit without being a penalty? Please also point me to the rule or decision that says something about HD video not being admissable if naked eye could not have seen it?

Seems like common sense. If the ball moved an imperceptible distance to the naked eye then in didn't move in the sense of the rule. Maybe it moved a micron but no one can see that. Golf is played on imperfect surfaces. I can't say the ball didn't move. All I can say is that I did not observe or perceive the ball to move. And that's good enough.

And is it such a jump to say that if you touch a hazard in an imperceptible way, you did not touch it in the sense of the rule?

Shilgy · July 14, 2016

If you read rule 18-2 either the ball moved or it did not correct? If it moved you can be penalized (depending on when/why/how) and the rule does says "the ball can move a little bit, just not allot." Except the decision redefines what "move" means to not include movement of a very slight nature. The decision effectively says that the ball can move "tiny amount" but the movement should be ignored.

So how is it different to redefine that touching of a very slight nature for the purposes of the rules will not be considered a "touch"?

PS: I do not only think it is possible that governing bodies will add a decision of the nature I am describing, I actually think it is inventible that they will. Lets check back in 10 years. If I am wrong I will buy the beers.
Man I keep looking. Can you point me to this decision and or rule "the ball can move a little bit without being a penalty? Please also point me to the rule or decision that says something about HD video not being admissable if naked eye could not have seen it?

Here you go: http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-4

18/4

Television Evidence Shows Ball at Rest Changed Position But by Amount Not Reasonably Discernible to Naked Eye

Q.A player addresses his ball. He observes a slight motion of the ball but believes that it has only oscillated and has not left its original position. He therefore plays the ball as it lies. Later, the Committee becomes aware from television evidence that the ball had in fact left its position and come to rest in another place, although that change of position was such that it was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time of the incident. What is the ruling?

A.The ball is deemed not to have moved and therefore there is no penalty under Rule 18-2. The Definition of "Moved" - when a ball "leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place" - does not contemplate movements of the ball that are only discernible through the use of high definition television or any other form of sophisticated technology.

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 18-2 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.

On the other hand, if the Committee determines, based on all of the evidence it has available, that the ball changed its position by an amount that was reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, the ball is deemed to have moved. As the player did not replace the ball, he incurs a penalty under the applicable Rule and Rule 20-7c for playing from a wrong place.

Thanks for that, the Android app I have for 2016 does not have all of the decisions. Makes it worthless imo.

My understanding of your last paragraph was that previously the player would have been dq'd for an incorrect scorecard but not any longer. Misconception on my part I guess.

It is a slippery slope imo. In the case of a ball moving I find it difficult to imagine a ball that has been determined to change positions, not just oscillate, and not be visible to the naked eye 4-5 feet away at most. The bunker, imo, is still different. The player materially improved their lie.

2bGood · July 15, 2016

If you read rule 18-2 either the ball moved or it did not correct? If it moved you can be penalized (depending on when/why/how) and the rule does says "the ball can move a little bit, just not allot." Except the decision redefines what "move" means to not include movement of a very slight nature. The decision effectively says that the ball can move "tiny amount" but the movement should be ignored.

So how is it different to redefine that touching of a very slight nature for the purposes of the rules will not be considered a "touch"?

PS: I do not only think it is possible that governing bodies will add a decision of the nature I am describing, I actually think it is inventible that they will. Lets check back in 10 years. If I am wrong I will buy the beers.
Man I keep looking. Can you point me to this decision and or rule "the ball can move a little bit without being a penalty? Please also point me to the rule or decision that says something about HD video not being admissable if naked eye could not have seen it?

Here you go: http://www.usga.org/...cision-18,d18-4

18/4

Television Evidence Shows Ball at Rest Changed Position But by Amount Not Reasonably Discernible to Naked Eye

Q.A player addresses his ball. He observes a slight motion of the ball but believes that it has only oscillated and has not left its original position. He therefore plays the ball as it lies. Later, the Committee becomes aware from television evidence that the ball had in fact left its position and come to rest in another place, although that change of position was such that it was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time of the incident. What is the ruling?

A.The ball is deemed not to have moved and therefore there is no penalty under Rule 18-2. The Definition of "Moved" - when a ball "leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place" - does not contemplate movements of the ball that are only discernible through the use of high definition television or any other form of sophisticated technology.

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 18-2 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.

On the other hand, if the Committee determines, based on all of the evidence it has available, that the ball changed its position by an amount that was reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, the ball is deemed to have moved. As the player did not replace the ball, he incurs a penalty under the applicable Rule and Rule 20-7c for playing from a wrong place.
Thanks for that, the Android app I have for 2016 does not have all of the decisions. Makes it worthless imo.
My understanding of your last paragraph was that previously the player would have been dq'd for an incorrect scorecard but not any longer. Misconception on my part I guess.
It is a slippery slope imo. In the case of a ball moving I find it difficult to imagine a ball that has been determined to change positions, not just oscillate, and not be visible to the naked eye 4-5 feet away at most. The bunker, imo, is still different. The player materially improved their lie.

I still don't see a difference between having your ball move imperceptibly closer to the hole or imperceptibly grounding your club.

As for the "difficult to imagine a ball that has been determined to change positions, not just oscillate, and not be visible to the naked" It happened several times, thus the need for the decision (google it). When you are able to magnify things by 10000% and slow them down by 100000% you can see allot of extra stuff.

As for the slippery slope - decision 18/4 started the slide and that is why I say it is inventible it will be expanded. I guarantee the USGA is talking about right now after how the US open's ended.

lchang · July 15, 2016

The ball can move if it does not come to rest in a different position. It is subjective. Whether or not the hazard was touched is not.

Every time I see your avatar I feel like I am arguing with Ted Knight.

And I find myself continuously agreeing with Judge Smails (and liking his posts). Which feels .... weird. I'd be more comfortable supporting Ty Webb. :cheesy:

lchang · July 15, 2016

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

Are we really at the point that we must degrade the television viewers experience so that the rules can be better managed?????? Really?????

dave

ps. I enjoy seeing the slow motion, detailed stuff and it never occurred to me to be 'watching for a rules violation'. I just like seeing details that are otherwise 'unseeable'.

Missing the point, well, at least my point. I wouldn't love that either, but the only way it will happen is that way - no way the ruling bodies make any rule(s) that allow for disregarding a breach across the board dependent on the method of discovery.
Nor should they. So what would possibly happen? A player is caught cheating on video only. Not just breaking a rule but intentional cheating. Unseen by fellow competitors, referee or spectators. Is that breech OK to call? Or is someone going to arbitrarily going to decide what video is allowed.
All our nothing imo, if a breech is reported it must be acted upon.

If the cheating is caught on video and the video shows a movement that is deemed discernible to the naked eye, then you use it. Not arbitrary. Just like 18/4.

2bGood · July 15, 2016

The ball can move if it does not come to rest in a different position. It is subjective. Whether or not the hazard was touched is not.

Every time I see your avatar I feel like I am arguing with Ted Knight.

And I find myself continuously agreeing with Judge Smails (and liking his posts). Which feels .... weird. I'd be more comfortable supporting Ty Webb. :cheesy:

That picture gets me in trouble around here. A few of the young(er) think it is me as they have not seen Caddyshack, and I think in general even if you have you the photo and forms a negative impression.

Can't change it now as I a have used it for 6 or 7 years

KyGolf · July 15, 2016

But the hat looks good on you though.

2bGood · July 15, 2016

But the hat looks good on you though.

I ran into one of our junior golfers in the pro shop yesterday wearing a very ugly hat and carrying a bowl of soup. I could not help myself....

He didn't get it, but everyone else did.

Timanator · July 15, 2016

As an IT guy, we go down the process of perfecting things in just about every thing. But we are not talking robots here, these are human beings that are never going to be perfect. So we can either go high tech, ie, get a drone and follow everyone around. Or do we use common sense and apply human rules like golf was meant to be.

My opinion is that Anna did not felt anything touch, ground or anything move. But neither did all the people around her. So I'm ok with a no call, because we are humans, and this isnt big blue playing.

So with the technology improving, will this lead to spectators using their own HD equipment to spot questionable rule violations? And if we accept the use of technology for replay, are we ok with extended delay of play for verification like NFL or NBA.

KyGolf · July 15, 2016

Nobody is using high tech "to spot rules violations". They are using it to give viewers an enhanced experience. The side effect of this is sometimes rules breaches get revealed.

LeoLeo99 · July 15, 2016

Nobody is using high tech "to spot rules violations". They are using it to give viewers an enhanced experience. The side effect of this is sometimes rules breaches get revealed.

The counter argument is that it's not a rules breach if it takes super-human ability to perceive it.

Cancun · July 15, 2016

D 18/4 is being misunderstood here. In D 18/4 there is no doubt that the ball physically moved. The player noticed that at naked eye.

That Decision is about what happens next. After noticing that the ball physically moved, the player had to make a judgement call to determine if the ball “moved” in terms of the Rules of Golf, which would require the ball to end up at rest in a different place than where it was before. His actions after that moment are guided by his judgment call.

D 18/4 tells us that the player’s judgment call lead him to play the ball as if it had not moved (as if it had merely oscillated) AND that it was reasonable for him to judge that the ball was on the same spot, since it would take hi-tech video to notice the slight change in position.

If the ball moved so little, it’s hard to say that the player (more likely than not) caused the ball to move. Being so, the ball is deemed to have not moved, so there is no penalty for what he did after that judgment call. Otherwise, he would have been penalized with 2 strokes for playing from the wrong place.

In Anna’s situation, after breaching Rule 13-4, there was nothing that she could have done differently… she touched a few grains, but that is a breach regardless of the fact that it was noticed thanks to the hi-tech video. The penalty is correctly imposed. Her actions after the penalty had nothing to do with a reasonable judgment call.

I hope this helps clarfying D 18/4 a little bit. Have a good day!

SHIVAN · July 15, 2016

Nobody is using high tech "to spot rules violations". They are using it to give viewers an enhanced experience. The side effect of this is sometimes rules breaches get revealed.

Is the use of technology treating players equitably? If the answer is "No", it needs to be changed.

HighSpeedScene · July 15, 2016

Nobody is using high tech "to spot rules violations". They are using it to give viewers an enhanced experience. The side effect of this is sometimes rules breaches get revealed.

Is the use of technology treating players equitably? If the answer is "No", it needs to be changed.

Haven't seen any compelling evidence that anyone is being treated inequitably. The argument that not every shot is videoed is a non starter for me - it's like saying the police can't give me a ticket for speeding until every single person is either not speeding or is given a ticket.

Does every player play the exact same course? No. Conditions change, the number of spectators change creating different lies in the rough, the greens slow down or speed up throughout the day. And, yes, some shots are scrutinized and others are not. Sometimes, there are enough people to move a really large loose impediments. My gallery would have forced me to play a hell of a lot differently than tigers gallery did in the desert years ago.

It's not by definition unfair or inequitable. What is not in dispute is whether an infraction occurred in specific situations, which mandates penalties. You can't ignore them.

HitEmTrue · July 15, 2016

Nobody is using high tech "to spot rules violations". They are using it to give viewers an enhanced experience. The side effect of this is sometimes rules breaches get revealed.

Is the use of technology treating players equitably? If the answer is "No", it needs to be changed.

Haven't seen any compelling evidence that anyone is being treated inequitably. The argument that not every shot is videoed is a non starter for me - it's like saying the police can't give me a ticket for speeding until every single person is either not speeding or is given a ticket.

Does every player play the exact same course? No. Conditions change, the number of spectators change creating different lies in the rough, the greens slow down or speed up throughout the day. And, yes, some shots are scrutinized and others are not. Sometimes, there are enough people to move a really large loose impediments. My gallery would have forced me to play a hell of a lot differently than tigers gallery did in the desert years ago.

It's not by definition unfair or inequitable. What is not in dispute is whether an infraction occurred in specific situations, which mandates penalties. You can't ignore them.

It's also easier for the poor guys with no spectators or cameras to lose a golf ball. Spectators probably help someone locate a ball more often than a rules kerfuffle involving a camera.

SHIVAN · July 15, 2016

Haven't seen any compelling evidence that anyone is being treated inequitably.

It's not by definition unfair or inequitable.

Might be worthwhile to review the definition of both unfair and inequitable, since their definition has been invoked.

If technology is being used to set out infractions as the sole means of their detection on one player, player A, and no technology is being used at all to analyze another player, Player B, at all -- Player A is under scrutiny that Player B never faces. "Compelling" applies subjectivity, to what is really an objective measurement of even application of potential enforcement.

I keep coming back to if no rules official sees it on the ground level, nor caddies, nor FC's, nor gallery members, and the player is unable to call it on themselves because they didn't see it, or feel it (not lying or cheating), and yet it gets picked up on FLIR in the new CBS cameras, how is that even in the spirit of the rules or the game?

Cancun · July 15, 2016

Hello Shivan

You want every player to have the same conditions, and that sounds fine, but that is impossible. The weather changes, there are more divots as players pass by, there is more gallery following some players, the grass grows as the hours go by… you name it.

The Rules of golf involve a penalty for touching the ground of a hazard when the player’s ball is in that hazard. If a player breaches a Rule, there’s a penalty, regardless of the breach being filmed or not, regardless of the fact that someone witness it for one player and not for another one. What if it's not video? what if a spectator reports a breach? Should that spectator remain in that spot to detect a player possibly breaching the same Rule right there in order to impose the penalty incurred for the one he saw?

There are some things that are valid for every single player on the field during a competition, and I know you like that concept:

The referees will act on any breach of the Rules that they observe or that is reported to them. (Definition of referee)
The penalty for every know breach will be imposed if the breach is known in time to do that. Rule 34 deals with details on when it would be too late to impose certain penalties and which… (Rule 34)
A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted. Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified. (Rule 33-7).
A breach is a breach if it happens, not if it’s noticed by some specific agencies or by some certain methods.
All players will play with the same Rules. They accept those Rules when they sign for the tournament.

That’s it… a referee knew about a possible breach, he acted on that information, found evidence, the situation was known in time to apply the penalty and they could not have waived that penalty. ANY player in that particular situation would have received the exact same ruling, and that is equity in golf.

One example about this: You’re speeding and a police car pulls you over, showing you the speed radar in XX miles an hour, which is above the limit. You tell the judge that you disagree, since some other driver might drive I that area even faster, but the police car is not always there and, even if they are, they don’t radar every single car, so it’s not fair. Try it and let us know how that goes!

Edit: I see that HighSpeed use the same speeding example... just faster LOL :busted_cop: