Originally Posted by iacas
The camera was at an entirely different angle than Tiger's POV. It was also zoomed in to occupy half of the TV screen, while a golf ball occupies significantly smaller in your field of vision unless it's a few inches from your nose.
I don't know what he saw, but it's perfectly reasonable to take him at his word that he didn't see "movement" (per the rules' definition of "move").
That's beside the point. My argument was about Tiger's reaction to being shown the video.
However, to address your different points, I don't find that line of argument credible in the slightest. I've watched that video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueXaH1wfawA full screen on an 11" laptop screen. The movement is obvious - but the ball isn't blown up, it's about 3/4 inch diameter so actually less than half actual size.
Moving a stick beside his ball, Tiger had the best seat in the house to see any movement. He would have been no further from the real ball than I am from my laptop screen.
The ball doesn't translate (as defined in mechanical terms http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/translate?s=t) it rotates. There is therefore no PoV from which the movement would not have been visible. There's even a swoosh mark on the top of the ball that, from Woods PoV, would have shown the movement particularly well.
It's perfectly reasonable, based on that video, to infer that the movement of the ball was clearly visible to Woods at the time.
This discussion, including Chamblee's comments, aren't criminal proceedings. There's no requirement to prove anything beyond all reasonable doubt. There's no sanction hanging over Woods. He won't lose a cent of prizemoney over the debate. A simple balance of probabilities is fine. The movement that is clearly visible on video was probably seen by Woods. I haven't seen any credible argument to overturn the probability that Woods saw it and didn't call it.
Hypothetically speaking - if you accepted that he did see the ball move, would that make him a cheat in your eyes?
Originally Posted by Jakester23
I saw the video of the ball without lines and didn't see the ball move. I thought it wiggled until I saw the slow motion video with the lines then you can see it did move. What Erik said above is well put. I've been in deep rough and grounded my club and thought the ball moved. I stopped bent down and looked at it and couldn't tell what happened. I understand Tiger was bent down and had a better view in that situation but its reasonable to think that he didn't see such a small amount of movement.
See video link above. 5 - 7 seconds in. No slow motion. No reference lines. Clear and unambiguous movement. No wiggling or oscillation. Tell me if you can't see it.
Originally Posted by MS256
I'm not really sure where my focus would be when removing a stick from beside the ball in the woods. Probably should know because I've spent as much time in the woods as anybody.
If my focus was on the stick and only had the ball in peripheral vision I would say the chances are good that it could move and only appear to have oscillated.
I've more than likely done the same thing Tiger did and never knew it.
Seriously? If you know that you're subject to a 1 shot penalty if your ball moves, and you're not focussed on whether your ball moves as you remove a loose impediment from beside the ball, then you're guilty of wilful blindness. Now don't take this personally, because if you're playing for giggles with your pals then worse things happen. But if you're playing competitively, never mind professionally, I'd call that a reckless disregard for the rules. Which is close enough to deliberate cheating as makes no difference.
Actually, I would bet that the next time you're in a similar situation, you'll notice just how closely you're focussed on the ball. It's instinctive.