Originally Posted by Phil McGleno
Do you think TIgers lie was changed-Let alone improved-By the half dimple of movement his ball saw? If "reasonably" means half a dimple of movement I think thats a fine place to put the line.
Originally Posted by birlyshirly
However, I don't like the specific implementation here requiring rules officials to second guess what would have been visible to the naked eye at the time. I think the debate on the BMW incident demonstrates the impossibility of proving what would have been visible from a particular player's POV. Having a situation where video clearly shows a ball dropping a small amount in a mostly vertical direction with a player directly overhead, IMO puts officials in an impossible position of having to judge what they think the player saw
I don't think the issue for the rule is whether the lie is changed, never mind improved. Nor do I think that anyone is going to judge the new rule explicitly in terms of the amount of movement.
I do still think that this puts rules officials in a difficult spot. Currently, they can advise based on what they see, or they can advise based on what the player tells them they saw - so far, so good. But this change seems to require them to rule on what they think the player saw. I think there's even provision for a player to escape penalty if their ball moves whilst the player is looking away.
It's hard to see how video evidence can be used if the decision is at all difficult. How many times could you watch a video and still determine that they player must have seen the movement in real time? Surely any more than 1 viewing and you have difficulty in justifying a decision against a player.
I think the end result of this will be to exclude rather a lot of video evidence from formal decision making. Responsibility will be back with the players. The sanction for a breach is much less likely to be penalty strokes, but perhaps at the expense of the player's reputation. Maybe on balance that's a good thing, and a clever way to go about it.