Matt Kuchar was 100% right in that embedded ball argument

[the bishop]

> @davep043 said:

> What I see, the ball appears to bounce slightly toward the camera (forward and slightly right from the tee), then a second bounce slightly back towards the tee, and finally a little roll forward.. The lens foreshortens distances, so its nearly impossible to determine how far the first bounce was. Immelman's account roughly parallels what I see, and what I thought when I saw it as it happened live. I hadn't heard Immelman's account at that point. I believe they got it right, and the balled into a nearby pitchmark from a previous player.

 

The use of a telephoto lens definitely compresses depth of field. How many times have you seen a shot from behind a player going for a par 5 in two and they say the player has 260 hole and you look and think it only looks like 150 on TV? I don't believe it ended up in its own pitch mark based on what I see. And as I mentioned earlier there was another pitch mark visible at some point during the ruling process. I can't say for certain that was Kuchar's original pitch mark, but for those who say there wasn't another pitch mark in the area I disagree because I saw one. Kuchar was within his rights as a player to ask for the ruling and relief although I thought it got a little ridiculous. But you only need to convince one person so I don't blame him for trying. Sometimes it works. Who was the guy (Hoffman?) who got a favorable ruling in a bunker a few years ago because he successfully argued his foot was on the concrete bunker liner (only after he dug a stance halfway to China) so got a drop in the bunker to a more favorable lie.

[Birdie Mac]

> @cdnglf said:

> Heisenberg camera shows the ball simultaneously ended up in its own pitch mark and didn’t end up in its own pitch mark.

Like watching a golf version of Rashomon.

 

[chigolfer1]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @illum1na71 said:

> > > What's most ironic about this situation, if there were no cameras on them everyone would have given him the free lift, clean and place.

> >

> > Not a chance. Kuchar didn't even think this was his original pitchmark. And even if it WAS in the original pitchmark, he would have dropped, not placed.

>

>

> Watch the video. His opinion on that was caused by Trevor Immelmann running up proclaiming that it bounced forward and right a couple yards. Video clearly says it didn’t. Kuchar took Immelmanns word for it and concocted a story . Both were wrong.

 

Ha, ok, then this is interesting. Kuchar's argument was wrong but he actually should have gotten a free drop? I can buy that.

[BreakingPar]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > What I see, the ball appears to bounce slightly toward the camera (forward and slightly right from the tee), then a second bounce slightly back towards the tee, and finally a little roll forward.. The lens foreshortens distances, so its nearly impossible to determine how far the first bounce was. Immelman's account roughly parallels what I see, and what I thought when I saw it as it happened live. I hadn't heard Immelman's account at that point. I believe they got it right, and the balled into a nearby pitchmark from a previous player.

>

> Now that I'm watching it with that in mind, I can see how it may have bounced toward the right first...mostly toward the camera, but slightly to the left of the camera location since camera appears to be ahead of the ball location.

>

>

 

Stop it, you're making too much sense!

 

Ironically, even if it was embedded in its own pitchmark (let's play along, we're in an alternate universe where common sense is not so common), the title of this thread is 100% wrong since Douchar would have been 100% wrong in his argument that it was embedded in a "potential" secondary pitchmark. My head hurts.

[SurfDuffer]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @J13 said:

> > > I just dropped it on Youtube.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Ha! From what I can see, the ball takes a big hop, then a small one, then rolls back into a divot but not the one that might have been made by the 2nd hop since that divot would be farther back.

>

> How does anyone watch this and think it isn’t in its pitch mark ? Holy crap Batman. Let the hate run through you! Lol.

>

> I detest Kuchars cheap actions. But look at it objectively. Pretend it’s your ball. Something.

 

This!

[jmkenn0]

He hits a cut, correct? The camera was on the right hand side? Bounced right, seems pretty clear.

[57Seve]

Eddie Pepperell summed it up quite nicely:

@PepperellEddie

"It’s been quite a year for Matt Kuchar as he leads the PGA Tour in both money and shithousery."

[fanofseri]

He's been a flim flam man his entire career. At least his old man is no longer his caddie.

[Fade]

> @bladehunter said:

> But look at it objectively. Pretend it’s your ball..

Which is it?

[QuigleyDU]

I dunno, I watched to video a lot and it "could" have been in is pitch mark. It looks like to me it bounced straight backwards and moved forward. I still think it is crazy to argue for so long about it. Get a ruling and move on... Patrick Reed would have gotten the same ruling. haha.

[Shilgy]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > Ha! From what I can see, the ball takes a big hop, then a small one, then rolls back into a divot but not the one that might have been made by the 2nd hop since that divot would be farther back.

>

> The first hop is backward. Easier to see if looping it over and over between 6 sec and 8 sec mark so the distraction of the sky is gone.

>

> With that said, I don't see how anyone can watch that video and say that it certainly did, or did not, end up in the pitch mark.

>

>

>

 

If you go by the different shades of grass it sure appears to me it landed well left of the darker area and settled right on the edge of the darker and lighter area.

[jdl]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @HitEmTrue said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > Ha! From what I can see, the ball takes a big hop, then a small one, then rolls back into a divot but not the one that might have been made by the 2nd hop since that divot would be farther back.

> >

> > The first hop is backward. Easier to see if looping it over and over between 6 sec and 8 sec mark so the distraction of the sky is gone.

> >

> > With that said, I don't see how anyone can watch that video and say that it certainly did, or did not, end up in the pitch mark.

> >

> >

> >

>

> If you go by the different shades of grass it sure appears to me it landed well left of the darker area and settled right on the edge of the darker and lighter area.

 

Yep, that's what I saw the first time and every other time I watch it and can't figure out why people say it went backwards except maybe at the very end when it stopped rolling and obviously ended up in the other pitch mark.

[DrunkMonkey]

Most people are trying to make a judgment based on a camera view, where depth of field issues are causing perception problems. Immelman was there with the group and said he saw it bounce a certain way, without the handicap of watching it on video with depth of field issues.

[bladehunter]

> @Fade said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > But look at it objectively. Pretend it’s your ball..

> Which is it?

 

Either one. I finished it with “ something “. Indicating a choice. R.I.F.

[bladehunter]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @J13 said:

> > > I just dropped it on Youtube.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Ha! From what I can see, the ball takes a big hop, then a small one, then rolls back into a divot but not the one that might have been made by the 2nd hop since that divot would be farther back.

>

> How does anyone watch this and think it isn’t in its pitch mark ? Holy crap Batman. Let the hate run through you! Lol.

>

> I detest Kuchars cheap actions. But look at it objectively. Pretend it’s your ball. Something.

 

@fade

 

Here’s the whole quote. Not just your Version.