Originally Posted by bplewis24
You either missed the point or ignored it. "Nothing" absolutely can and most likely would mean "no infraction" by a reasonable person. You're narrowly defining "I see nothing" in the only way you want to define it so as to make it appear Tiger is either blind or lying about what he witnessed in the interview.
And, yes, I seriously think that many people (including rules officials) were in doubt as to what it showed until they saw repeated viewings, zoomed in and blown up. The first time I saw it was when mvmac or somebody posted a video that I watched on my 22" monitor and I thought the ball oscillated without necessarily moving. It wasn't until I watched the Golf Channel's blow-up, high def feed on my 50" TV that I could clearly tell the ball moved. I'm sure there are some folks who spotted it right away on the first replay, but plenty of people didn't.
No. With respect, I think you're missing the point. "No infraction" could mean "oscillation". But to qualify as "oscillation" there's a 2 stage test. (First) Does the ball move? (Second) Does it move back again? In other words, all balls that oscillate (incurring no penalty) must first move. But not all balls that move (incurring penalty) oscillate. There is simply no way that any purely logical person can simultaneously entertain both Iacas' benefit of the doubt that maybe Tiger couldn't see any ball movement from his PoV and the idea that he thought he saw oscillation rather than movement out of position. Those excuses are incompatible, and it doesn't make sense to interpret "nothing" as oscillation.
Besides, I think it's a stretch to interpret "I see nothing" as "I see an oscillation, which is an allowable exception to the rule about movement which incurs no penalty."
Originally Posted by iacas
birly, you've got your mind made up and that's fine. It's a different PoV and the angle could be quite different to where it simply looked like rotation IMO. You said nothing that convinces me otherwise. You can't. You don't have a camera anywhere near Tiger's eyes or know what he was looking at. You're just guessing based on what you think. Your ball has probably moved unbeknownst to you. Everyone's probably has, even if it was like Padraig's a few years ago.
I'm not answering your hypothetical because there's simply no way of knowing what he saw or knew.
Erik - I respect your wish to avoid making a judgement on Tiger's guilt or innocence. Although I think it's curious that you and others do not seem willing to even entertain the possibility that he was in the wrong.
On the other hand, there's a question here about Chamblee's commentary, and whether he was justified in what he wrote. Obviously, he's been largely slated on this thread. All I'm saying here is that Chamblee made a judgement based on what was clearly evident from the video, coupled with an assumption that what was clearly visible on the video was probably visible to Tiger. That's an utterly mundane presumption that people work off every day. If you didn't, you'd never have the nerve to drive in traffic - or use a pedestrian crossing.
But even if I wouldn't want to hang Tiger out to dry on the basis of what we've seen, I think that Chamblee's analysis and conclusions are reasonable and I've put forward my reasons as to why. It's not incompatible to maintain that Tiger hasn't been proven a cheat (at least from the point of view of bringing sanctions into play), whilst also acknowledging that Chamblee had reasonable grounds for what he wrote. Would you agree or disagree with that?
Originally Posted by mvmac
Well said. If you have to zoom in on the ball, play it a couple times to confirm, then "in person" it's not exactly obvious the ball moved.
Exactly, you can't assume to know exactly where he was looking. I think if Tiger clearly saw his ball move (in any situation) he would call the penalty on himself.
As I said before, my problem is as much with Woods apparent reluctance to accept that the video evidence - zoomed in and played a couple of times - showed that his ball had moved.
Originally Posted by Fourputt
Birly, you are letting your obvious and clear dislike for Tiger filter what you are seeing. I just watched that video several times, and the the fact that the ball twitched was clear, but that it "moved" as defined by the rules was most definitely not clear, even with the luxury of slow motion and repeated viewing. You need to give it up. All you do is make yourself look as petty as Chamblee by making unfounded and clearly biased accusations.
See, here's my problem with this line of argument. I put forward a bunch of factual and logical arguments - and your defence of Tiger is that I'm just speaking out of bias. You're comparing me to Chamblee - who according to this thread has a whole history of trying to make trolling arguments about Woods. That's hardly a fair comparison - I doubt whether I've ever posted commentary about Tiger prior to this thread. I think I was fairly neutral in my opinions on Tiger prior to this - although by my own admission I think less well of his character now.
As regards the video, if you can see the ball "twitched", and you understand the rule, then you only have to ask yourself whether it "twitched" back. Even if you're not sure - it's clear that the rules officials were - so none of your obfuscation is relevant.