Anudder week anudder PGA Tour rules question

[Schulzmc]

If you have all those positions exactly right, then it does look like the drop was closer to the hole. But if the pin is just a little closer to the right side of the green, and the drop just a little to the left around that bend in the creek, then it would not be closer to the pin. And it can be tough to tell on TV, with cameras using zoomed lenses, etc., exactly the position and angles. I'm with others here - no way is there a rule allowing a drop closer to the hole.

 

[nsxguy]

I gotta stop watching these tournaments.

Earlier in this final round as Rahm was chipping from pretty thick rough he grounded his club behind the ball and I could've sworn it moved the ball. Not much of course but it didn't oscillate back.

Just now, on 16, same thing and he chips it IN. That ball moved when he first grounded his club. I re-watched it 3 times in super slo mo (but saw it in normal speed the 1st time)

Looking at the interpretations for Rule 9 it must be seen by the naked eye and this was sure the usual TV closeup. Hard to believe he didn't see it from 6 feet above.

Oh well.

[nsxguy]

Wow. 10 minutes later and they're looking at it.

[nsxguy]

LOL And NOW they're talking about seeing it with the "naked eye",,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Sawgrass]

9.2a/1 says in part that for a ball to be considered “moved” the movement must be enough that it CAN be seen by the naked eye — not that it WAS seen. (Closing ones eyes when addressing a ball is no get out of jail free card.)

If it’s later determined by the Committee that the ball moved a sufficient amount that it could have been seen by the naked eye, even if this determination is done via video, the player is in trouble if the determination is made in time.

 

 

 

.

[sui generis]

R20.2c. Applying “Naked Eye” Standard When Using Video Evidence

When the Committee is deciding questions of fact in making a ruling, the use of video evidence is limited by the “naked eye” standard: If the facts shown on the video could not reasonably have been seen with the naked eye, that video evidence will be disregarded even if it indicates a breach of the Rules.

[nsxguy]

And no, I didn't call it in. LOL

[LeoLeo99]

Rahm's composure was exemplary for a young adult. He's a very likable golfer. Glad it all worked out for him. Of course, we don't know his composure if the penalty would have cost him the tournament. I'm going to believe he would still be a man of honor.

[rogolf]

Personally, I don't think that movement would have been visible by the naked eye and that he should not have been penalized. It certainly establishes a standard for future incidents.

[nsxguy]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but if the ball merely "oscillates", i.e. if that ball had rotated right back to the original position, there's no penalty, correct ?

[KyGolf]

That is correct.

[rogolf]

Correct. Oscillation is not moving. But moving must be such that it is visible to the naked eye, not on instant replay or slow play video. Imo, the ball moved but was not discernible by the naked eye.

[Newby]

What was the official decision?

[nsxguy]

2 stroke penalty.

Wonder if it would've been enforced if he'd only won by 1. Hmmmmm,,,,,,,,Not sure exactly how you determined it wasn't visible to the naked eye but you're a referee and I certainly am not.

That said, I did see it live and in real time. Didn't need slow mo or replay. But again, that was a close up, not from a height of about 6 feet.

[davep043]

I think its easy to accept the penalty wince it didn't change the results of the tournament. If it had cost him the win, I imagine that he'd have argued his side much more vehemently. I agree that the ball moved, but not very much, maybe by about font height of the Taylormade. To me, its enough that it qualifies as "visible to the naked eye", but I can definitely understand why it wasn't noticed by Rahm in real time.

[DavePelz4]

What they didn't share on the Rahm situation was how this came to the forefront. Who saw it take place, how was Slugger White/RO's alerted and was it true that it wasn't until the 18th tee when they realized there could have been a penalty. It crossed my mind that someone from CBS's broadcast saw it and alerted the officials but technically isn't that the same as a viewer call in?

[nsxguy]

As I mentioned in my first post on this subject I believe he did the same thing earlier in the round. Again, close up and in real time. Don't think there was any slo-mo replay of it though and of course it wasn't noticed. In that first case I was 100% sure.

Don't recall seeing this same thing with other players during the round but yesterday Rahm seemed to be pretty careless pushing down the deep grass behind the ball with his club. It didn't cost him,,,,,,, this time. I suspect he'll be a little more careful going forward.

[nsxguy]

Not sure about the status of whoever first noticed it but I think it was earlier than the 18th tee. I believe it was either as they were teeing off on 17 or possible while they were getting ready for their 2nd shot into 17 when the TV guys first mentioned the incident.

[davep043]

If I remember right, when the PGA Tour announced that they would no longer accept viewer call-ins about rules violations, they also said they were going to have tour personnel reviewing the video feeds.

[Sawgrass]

As I recall, call-ins from people who are not present at the course are officially ignored, but spectators or others who are present at the course can force an inquiry.

[DavePelz4]

That was my understanding as well, the Tour was monitoring the live feed. But...wouldn't they immediately alert Slugger White if there was a "potential" violation and they immediately let the player know? Fortunately it didn't make a difference but it could have changed how Rahm played the last hole if he knew of the potential infraction.

[davep043]

I don't doubt you at all, just relaying what I'm reading. I just did a search, and the announcement in December 2017 talked only about the Tours assigning one or more officials to monitor the video for potential rules issues. It also suggests that only the official broadcast video feed will be used, not video taken by by spectators on cameras or cell phones.https://golf.com/news/tournament-officials-will-no-longer-consider-rules-violations-phoned-in-by-tv-viewers-according-to-new-rule-beginning-jan-1-2/

[sui generis]

Amanda (and who ever it was who told her to start yapping about the 9.4) better get a good bollocking for jumping the gun on the Committee's inquiry. That should never have happened.

[DavePelz4]

Why shouldn't she have brought it up especially considering it was mentioned and shown multiple times in the broadcast?

[nsxguy]

Here we go again.

I believe it's Werenski this time.

Blocks his drive into the righthand penalty area. He and his caddie go out and determine where it last crossed. They pick the spot. PA line appears to be about 3 inches wide.

The player drops from the knee and the ball hits right on the red line of the PA. No part of it hits outside the red PA line. Ball, of course, bounces into the PA.

He picks it up and drops again. Same thing. Ball only hits the red line, not outside (away from the PA) of it. Bounces in again.

TV cuts to other action. When we get back his ball has (presumably) been placed ON the redline but likely the very edge of the ball was outside of the red line - most of the ball was ON it.

They never called over an official, possibly because he had just splashed away and reasonable chance to win.

I guess my question is, isn't the red line part OF the PA and doesn't he have to drop outside of the PA ?

EDITED TO ADD

Good grief.

 

The edge of a penalty area should be defined by stakes, lines or physical features:

Stakes: When defined by stakes, the edge of the penalty area is defined by the line between the outside points of the stakes at ground level, and the stakes are inside the penalty area.Lines: When defined by a painted line on the ground, the edge of the penalty area is the outside edge of the line, and the line itself is in the penalty area.

[Newby]

yes

[rogolf]

Why don't you start a new thread on each of these instead of bunching them all in one thread?

[nsxguy]

I guess I wasn't sure each of them would be "worthy" of their own thread,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[rogolf]

Can't tell till you try! And we could do with more Rules threads.

[QEight]

Just watched the replay of the 4th round and could not believe my eyes. This was (again) on 16th hole. They measured 2+1 club lengths sideways and I guess were not happy about the rough. So it seemed caddie suggested dropping on the red line so that after two drops they could place (which would of course be incorrect), as the rough was lighter (it seemed) near the line. They showed two drops, but cut off after that. There were no RO around. After some time they showed the actual hit and the ball was very close, if not on top of the line.

Very bizarre.