Effective Immediately, Rules Change to Limit Video Review

[whr]

I disagree that we could tell the ball was in the wrong spot from 30 yards away, i.e. the camera view.

I agree that she clearly should have been able to see that the ball was not in the same post.

I disagree that there was no need to zoom in to see it.

I disagree that there was no need for slow mo.

 

Many on this forum were able to spot the misplacement from the normal camera view. However, the 2nd one is only one that matters really.

 

lol Hogwash....NO ONE spotted this. Stop lying. There wasn't one comment on the remark until AFTER she received the penalty walking to the 13th.

[Argonne69]

I'm still not convinced it's so clear. It's up to the committee to determine reasonable judgment and no one knows how they would adjudicate it. Without the zoomed in HD footage, NO ONE would have seen this and clearly it didn't pass the "naked eye" test as no one noticed it.

 

Huh? The person who reported it saw it unzoomed.

[Argonne69]

I disagree that we could tell the ball was in the wrong spot from 30 yards away, i.e. the camera view.

I agree that she clearly should have been able to see that the ball was not in the same post.

I disagree that there was no need to zoom in to see it.

I disagree that there was no need for slow mo.

 

Many on this forum were able to spot the misplacement from the normal camera view. However, the 2nd one is only one that matters really.

 

lol Hogwash....NO ONE spotted this. Stop lying. There wasn't one comment on the remark until AFTER she received the penalty walking to the 13th.

 

No one? The person who reported the infraction saw it. Are you suggesting that a penalty only be called if two or more people report it?

[whr]

 

If you are going to quote something from a decision, include all of the wording, not just the part that you think makes your case.

 

It goes on to say:

 

• The amount by which the location was wrong in relation to the type of determination made, recognizing that certain actions (such as replacing a marked ball on the putting green) can be taken with greater accuracy than other actions that may involve more inherent uncertainty (such as estimating where a ball last crossed the margin of a water hazard at a point well ahead of the player)

 

I think that text is the reason that this new decision would not have saved Lexi from a penalty.

 

lol - Talk about pot calling the kettle black. In case you didn't notice Sherlock, I linked the entire rule below my point. Carry on.

[whr]

I disagree that we could tell the ball was in the wrong spot from 30 yards away, i.e. the camera view.

I agree that she clearly should have been able to see that the ball was not in the same post.

I disagree that there was no need to zoom in to see it.

I disagree that there was no need for slow mo.

 

Many on this forum were able to spot the misplacement from the normal camera view. However, the 2nd one is only one that matters really.

 

lol Hogwash....NO ONE spotted this. Stop lying. There wasn't one comment on the remark until AFTER she received the penalty walking to the 13th.

 

No one? The person who reported the infraction saw it. Are you suggesting that a penalty only be called if two or more people report it?

 

 

Re-read highlighted portion. You claim that many on this forum were able to spot the misplacement from the normal camera angle. Really? Who? I must have missed those posts. Care to share them?

 

Calling BS, unless of course you're the one who emailed it in on Sunday.

[North Texas]

I'm still not convinced it's so clear. It's up to the committee to determine reasonable judgment and no one knows how they would adjudicate it. Without the zoomed in HD footage, NO ONE would have seen this and clearly it didn't pass the "naked eye" test as no one noticed it.

 

Huh? The person who reported it saw it unzoomed.

 

Are we sure this is a known fact?

[Argonne69]

I'm still not convinced it's so clear. It's up to the committee to determine reasonable judgment and no one knows how they would adjudicate it. Without the zoomed in HD footage, NO ONE would have seen this and clearly it didn't pass the "naked eye" test as no one noticed it.

 

Huh? The person who reported it saw it unzoomed.

 

Are we sure this is a known fact?

 

The original coverage of the incident was shown at normal speed, and from the regular camera angle. Not zoomed. Not slo-mo'd. Therefore, the only options are a) a viewer noticed it, and emailed the officials, or b) a fellow player or caddie witnessed it firsthand, withheld the information, and asked their buddy to email it in.

 

In either case the original detection involved no manipulation of the video feed.

 

What's your alternate theory?

[whr]

I'm still not convinced it's so clear. It's up to the committee to determine reasonable judgment and no one knows how they would adjudicate it. Without the zoomed in HD footage, NO ONE would have seen this and clearly it didn't pass the "naked eye" test as no one noticed it.

 

Huh? The person who reported it saw it unzoomed.

 

Are we sure this is a known fact?

 

The original coverage of the incident was shown at normal speed, and from the regular camera angle. Not zoomed. Not slo-mo'd. Therefore, the only options are a) a viewer noticed it, and emailed the officials, or b) a fellow player or caddie witnessed it firsthand, withheld the information, and asked their buddy to email it in.

 

In either case the original detection involved no manipulation of the video feed.

 

What's your alternate theory?

 

Or someone looking for it....

[Argonne69]

 

Re-read highlighted portion. You claim that many on this forum were able to spot the misplacement from the normal camera angle. Really? Who? I must have missed those posts. Care to share them?

 

Calling BS, unless of course you're the one who emailed it in on Sunday.

 

Numerous posters on this forum, including myself, claim that they can see the misplacement of the ball while looking at the normal speed, unzoomed video. The appearance of the marker/coin is the key tip-off.

 

If a viewer saw it, they were looking at the original feed. The Golf Channel did not show a zoomed and/or slo-mo'd feed on Saturday.

[Argonne69]

I'm still not convinced it's so clear. It's up to the committee to determine reasonable judgment and no one knows how they would adjudicate it. Without the zoomed in HD footage, NO ONE would have seen this and clearly it didn't pass the "naked eye" test as no one noticed it.

 

Huh? The person who reported it saw it unzoomed.

 

Are we sure this is a known fact?

 

The original coverage of the incident was shown at normal speed, and from the regular camera angle. Not zoomed. Not slo-mo'd. Therefore, the only options are a) a viewer noticed it, and emailed the officials, or b) a fellow player or caddie witnessed it firsthand, withheld the information, and asked their buddy to email it in.

 

In either case the original detection involved no manipulation of the video feed.

 

What's your alternate theory?

 

Or someone looking for it....

 

Sigh. So, go on. How did they know to look for it? Someone saw it originally, right? How? With their naked eyes, i.e. no zoomed video? From the original, unzoomed feed? Were they an employee of The Golf Channel, with access to the video, and they were bored and decided to start looking at the thousands of ball markings?

[Burt Chance]

I'm still not convinced it's so clear. It's up to the committee to determine reasonable judgment and no one knows how they would adjudicate it. Without the zoomed in HD footage, NO ONE would have seen this and clearly it didn't pass the "naked eye" test as no one noticed it.

 

Huh? The person who reported it saw it unzoomed.

 

Are we sure this is a known fact?

 

The original coverage of the incident was shown at normal speed, and from the regular camera angle. Not zoomed. Not slo-mo'd. Therefore, the only options are a) a viewer noticed it, and emailed the officials, or b) a fellow player or caddie witnessed it firsthand, withheld the information, and asked their buddy to email it in.

 

In either case the original detection involved no manipulation of the video feed.

 

What's your alternate theory?

 

You do know it's possible to zoom in to footage on your TV don't you? It's even easier if your are watching a stream on your computer.

[rangersgoalie]

Yup....nothing about this would have changed the Lexi penalty since he act was arguably intentional putting it far down the scale from something that should be done with great accuracy.

 

Still quite ambiguous .... Just because a mark is stated to require more accuracy than last crossed line in a hazard doesn't mean that the amount she moved it would be deemed a penalty under the new rule. Would they not try to determine this using real time non zoomed camera ? As in naked eye ? And if so how would one determine the distance ? Would be very hard to say. My bet is that it would come down to the conversation between player and official. And likely could be 50/50 at best.

 

 

Given that the ball should have been placed within 2 to 3 mm, and yet was placed 10 to 20 mm, she was off by a factor of 5 to 10. So, if someone is determining where a ball crossed a hazard, and it's reasonable to expect them to be within 1 to 2 yards, you feel that 5 to 20 yards is close enough?

 

 

and how did you measure that ? without zoom and slow-mo? thats my point... i dont think you can unless its some blatant form of cheating.. this was her hurrying to get out of teh other players way and not trying to step in their line...

 

Which is pretty much what Bob Toski claimed, and is still being called a cheater by many

[whr]

Re-read highlighted portion. You claim that many on this forum were able to spot the misplacement from the normal camera angle. Really? Who? I must have missed those posts. Care to share them?

 

Calling BS, unless of course you're the one who emailed it in on Sunday.

 

Numerous posters on this forum, including myself, claim that they can see the misplacement of the ball while looking at the normal speed, unzoomed video. The appearance of the marker/coin is the key tip-off.

 

If a viewer saw it, they were looking at the original feed. The Golf Channel did not show a zoomed and/or slo-mo'd feed on Saturday.

 

Re-read your own claim. Where's the proof of anyone noticed it on this forum until AFTER they had announced the penalty?

[North Butte]

In a rational world, players would eventually realize that fiddling endlessly with their stupid crutch mark while also trying not to step in anyone's line while also being scrutinized with a microscope for any imperfect procedure and also trying to keep some remotely acceptable pace of play...is all too much to ask. First thing they'd do is jettison the crutch line.

 

But we do not live in a rational world.

[Argonne69]

I'm still not convinced it's so clear. It's up to the committee to determine reasonable judgment and no one knows how they would adjudicate it. Without the zoomed in HD footage, NO ONE would have seen this and clearly it didn't pass the "naked eye" test as no one noticed it.

 

Huh? The person who reported it saw it unzoomed.

 

Are we sure this is a known fact?

 

The original coverage of the incident was shown at normal speed, and from the regular camera angle. Not zoomed. Not slo-mo'd. Therefore, the only options are a) a viewer noticed it, and emailed the officials, or b) a fellow player or caddie witnessed it firsthand, withheld the information, and asked their buddy to email it in.

 

In either case the original detection involved no manipulation of the video feed.

 

What's your alternate theory?

 

You do know it's possible to zoom in to footage on your TV don't you? It's even easier if your are watching a stream on your computer.

 

Why would you zoom if you didn't see something in the original unzoomed footage? Nobody has said the caller didn't possibly zoom. However, the original feed was at normal speed, and unzoomed. They had to have seen something to take action.

[whr]

I disagree that we could tell the ball was in the wrong spot from 30 yards away, i.e. the camera view.

I agree that she clearly should have been able to see that the ball was not in the same post.

I disagree that there was no need to zoom in to see it.

I disagree that there was no need for slow mo.

 

Many on this forum were able to spot the misplacement from the normal camera view. However, the 2nd one is only one that matters really.

 

lol Hogwash....NO ONE spotted this. Stop lying. There wasn't one comment on the remark until AFTER she received the penalty walking to the 13th.

 

No one? The person who reported the infraction saw it. Are you suggesting that a penalty only be called if two or more people report it?

 

I'm suggesting what Bob Harig said on ESPN, if a player, caddie, official or on-site spectator does not spot a violation, so be it. Move on. I know that pains many of you who are part of the couch potato rules club, however, I'd prefer it that way. Get rid of call ins and emails all together.

[Argonne69]

Re-read highlighted portion. You claim that many on this forum were able to spot the misplacement from the normal camera angle. Really? Who? I must have missed those posts. Care to share them?

 

Calling BS, unless of course you're the one who emailed it in on Sunday.

 

Numerous posters on this forum, including myself, claim that they can see the misplacement of the ball while looking at the normal speed, unzoomed video. The appearance of the marker/coin is the key tip-off.

 

If a viewer saw it, they were looking at the original feed. The Golf Channel did not show a zoomed and/or slo-mo'd feed on Saturday.

 

Re-read your own claim. Where's the proof of anyone noticed it on this forum until AFTER they had announced the penalty?

 

Huh? Nobody on this forum has claimed to have seen it on Saturday. However, someone did. That's how it got reported. What's your theory? A fellow competitor or a caddie?

[North Butte]

Why would you zoom if you didn't see something in the original unzoomed footage? Nobody has said the caller didn't possibly zoom. However, the original feed was at normal speed, and unzoomed. They had to have seen something to take action.

 

Maybe the guy (or woman) in question had a "thing" for Lexi and was zooming in and slo-mo'ing every second of the time she was on screen...you never know ;-)

[North Texas]

I'm still not convinced it's so clear. It's up to the committee to determine reasonable judgment and no one knows how they would adjudicate it. Without the zoomed in HD footage, NO ONE would have seen this and clearly it didn't pass the "naked eye" test as no one noticed it.

 

Huh? The person who reported it saw it unzoomed.

 

Are we sure this is a known fact?

 

The original coverage of the incident was shown at normal speed, and from the regular camera angle. Not zoomed. Not slo-mo'd. Therefore, the only options are a) a viewer noticed it, and emailed the officials, or b) a fellow player or caddie witnessed it firsthand, withheld the information, and asked their buddy to email it in.

 

In either case the original detection involved no manipulation of the video feed.

 

What's your alternate theory?

 

My theory has always been (b).

[Argonne69]

I'm suggesting what Bob Harig said on ESPN, if a player, caddie, official or on-site spectator does not spot a violation, so be it. Move on. I know that pains many of you who are part of the couch potato rules club, however, I'd prefer it that way. Get rid of call ins and emails all together.

 

OK, fine. Lobby to change the rule. Until then, reports from the peanut gallery are accepted, and acted upon.

 

Personally, I have no issues with the current system. More eyes keep the competition fair, especially given that there's no practical way to oversee 10,000+ shots every tournament.

[Argonne69]

Why would you zoom if you didn't see something in the original unzoomed footage? Nobody has said the caller didn't possibly zoom. However, the original feed was at normal speed, and unzoomed. They had to have seen something to take action.

 

Maybe the guy (or woman) in question had a "thing" for Lexi and was zooming in and slo-mo'ing every second of the time she was on screen...you never know ;-)

 

Rotflmao. OK, now we're getting somewhere.

[Sun Devil]

Funny why so many here are defending her actions regardless how the penalty was discovered. Do I agree that viewers should be able to "officiate" these events? NO. Do I believe we should use slo-mo, zoom, etc. to look at EVERY thing in golf? NO. Based on the non-enhanced video .... she improperly replaced her ball. PERIOD. She signed an incorrect scorecard. PERIOD.

 

As for those around her policing each other. I'm sure they do the best they can, but they're not going to be looking at EVERY single shot. They're concerned with THEIR next shot or putt.

 

Golf is about integrity. Self-policing. Based on this premise .... others around her would believe that she was following the rules.

 

Bottom line: she improperly replaced her ball and the rules are clear as to the penalty.

[Burt Chance]

Re-read highlighted portion. You claim that many on this forum were able to spot the misplacement from the normal camera angle. Really? Who? I must have missed those posts. Care to share them?

 

Calling BS, unless of course you're the one who emailed it in on Sunday.

 

Numerous posters on this forum, including myself, claim that they can see the misplacement of the ball while looking at the normal speed, unzoomed video. The appearance of the marker/coin is the key tip-off.

 

If a viewer saw it, they were looking at the original feed. The Golf Channel did not show a zoomed and/or slo-mo'd feed on Saturday.

 

Re-read your own claim. Where's the proof of anyone noticed it on this forum until AFTER they had announced the penalty?

 

Huh? Nobody on this forum has claimed to have seen it on Saturday. However, someone did. That's how it got reported. What's your theory? A fellow competitor or a caddie?

 

 

That's not completely out of the realm of possibility

[North Butte]

Maybe the guy (or woman) in question had a "thing" for Lexi and was zooming in and slo-mo'ing every second of the time she was on screen...you never know ;-)

 

Rotflmao. OK, now we're getting somewhere.

 

And don't even get me started on the stuff I've personally seen in zoomed slow-mo of Sergio over the years...

[Argonne69]

 

The original coverage of the incident was shown at normal speed, and from the regular camera angle. Not zoomed. Not slo-mo'd. Therefore, the only options are a) a viewer noticed it, and emailed the officials, or b) a fellow player or caddie witnessed it firsthand, withheld the information, and asked their buddy to email it in.

 

In either case the original detection involved no manipulation of the video feed.

 

What's your alternate theory?

 

My theory has always been (b).

 

OK, let's assume it was a caddie. Does it change the fact that it was a penalty? No. I agree that it would be rather ****** to not call it on the spot, and wait until the next day to report it to possibly gain another 2 strokes. If that's the case, that person will have to live with that one.

 

However, if call-ins weren't allowed, the caddie would have had to call the violation on the spot, and she would have still been penalized.

[Argonne69]

Maybe the guy (or woman) in question had a "thing" for Lexi and was zooming in and slo-mo'ing every second of the time she was on screen...you never know ;-)

 

Rotflmao. OK, now we're getting somewhere.

 

And don't even get me started on the stuff I've personally seen in zoomed slow-mo of Sergio over the years...

 

Lol. As long as it's not Craig Stadler, I'm good.

[heavy_hitter]

Re-read highlighted portion. You claim that many on this forum were able to spot the misplacement from the normal camera angle. Really? Who? I must have missed those posts. Care to share them?

 

Calling BS, unless of course you're the one who emailed it in on Sunday.

 

Numerous posters on this forum, including myself, claim that they can see the misplacement of the ball while looking at the normal speed, unzoomed video. The appearance of the marker/coin is the key tip-off.

 

If a viewer saw it, they were looking at the original feed. The Golf Channel did not show a zoomed and/or slo-mo'd feed on Saturday.

 

Only because you knew to look for it.

[Argonne69]

 

Numerous posters on this forum, including myself, claim that they can see the misplacement of the ball while looking at the normal speed, unzoomed video. The appearance of the marker/coin is the key tip-off.

 

If a viewer saw it, they were looking at the original feed. The Golf Channel did not show a zoomed and/or slo-mo'd feed on Saturday.

 

Only because you knew to look for it.

 

I don't disagree. However, the person who originally saw it, whether it was a caddie, player, official, couch potato, or Satan, saw it unadulterated.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Exactly. There is also an abundance of inconsistency with how precisely the ball should be marked and replaced on the green. In her case she missed her mark by less than a 1/2 ball width (as judged by slow motion zoom). But if she had to move her mark from someones line using the common techniques, then her placement would have likely been worse by way more than a 1/2 ball width... and God forbid she had to move it a couple of club heads where the precision of replacement could have been reduced by several ball widths. Just seems like hypocrisy in the rules to allow error of X in one case and X*Y in another case on the green.

 

Secondly, golf really needs to develop a policy that gives the player the benefit of doubt in cases where a "possible" minor infraction DID NOT likely impact the outcome of the next shot. In Lexi's case it did not for sure. The ruling bodies are making progress but have a long way to go.

 

Several people keep repeating that it is known for sure that her misplacement of the ball did not impact the next shot.

 

No, it is not a certainty. We do not know that there wasn't a spike mark on her line. Short putts are regularly missed, especially if the player is focusing on an imperfection on the putting line. - Not a certainty but a very high probability. Ball alternatively could have been moved to a line with a spike mark instead. - Again golfer should get the benefit of the doubt that they weren't doing something nefarious instead of looking for ways to penalize over minutia.

 

A half ball's width is huge when replacing a ball. That's more than sloppy. I disagree that moving and replacing a ball marker will result in a half ball margin of error. However, let's say for the sake of argument that she did that. Fine. She used the rules to her advantage, and we would very likely not be discussing the incident.- Were gong to have to disagree in part that "moving from line and replacing a marker" wouldn't have more error... aligning a club head to a tree or whatever 20 or 30 yards, walking away and then attempting to realign and move back to original position is subject to great error, especially if you have to move multiple club heads. You can easily miss by well over 1/2 ball width.

 

See comments in line above.

 

Also as Heavy Hitter pointed out, if she had picked up the ball, stepped away and then replaced the ball, no one would have noticed.

 

I just believe that golf needs to move away from penalizing over minutia and things that don't impact the outcome of the next shot. Classic example was Stadler laying down a towel to avoid soiling his knees. Lets give the player the benefit of the doubt. While I'm tough on the USGA, I think they acted quickly and took a step in the right direction. Whether it would have saved Lexi is certainly up to debate.

 

Personal experience a few years back. I drove a ball into the trees along the fairway and came to rest in twigs next to a tree. While moving a couple small sticks the ball moved. I'm not sure if it oscillated or moved because I was focused on a spider near my hand. I told my match play competitor what happened and he astutely asked, "did the shot get any easier?" to which I replied "no, I'm still behind the tree in the sticks and all I can do is punch out." He said, okay don't worry about it.

[Seamus_McDuff]

 

The original coverage of the incident was shown at normal speed, and from the regular camera angle. Not zoomed. Not slo-mo'd. Therefore, the only options are a) a viewer noticed it, and emailed the officials, or b) a fellow player or caddie witnessed it firsthand, withheld the information, and asked their buddy to email it in.

 

In either case the original detection involved no manipulation of the video feed.

 

What's your alternate theory?

 

My theory has always been (b).

 

OK, let's assume it was a caddie. Does it change the fact that it was a penalty? No. I agree that it would be rather ****** to not call it on the spot, and wait until the next day to report it to possibly gain another 2 strokes. If that's the case, that person will have to live with that one.

 

However, if call-ins weren't allowed, the caddie would have had to call the violation on the spot, and she would have still been penalized.

 

Yes, it's a penalty either way, but if reported on the spot it's only two shots.

 

From Cristie Kerr,

 

“A person could withhold the information until after a player signs her scorecard,” Kerr said. “What if it’s an agent, or a friend of a friend of the winner? I’m not saying that happened, not at all, but it could happen, where it’s somebody biased toward one of the players on the leaderboard.

 

“It’s another reason you would like to know who the viewer is. This is too big a story not to know who it is.”