New Decision - Ball Movement on Camera

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by joekelly

I play a course where mobile phones are forbidden and i like the effect. But now with this new rule some players will claim a protected 'right' to use the phone for weather info. I don't like this.

Originally Posted by iacas

Why? If they can abide now without claiming that they need to text or use the phone capabilities, they should be fine in the future too.

Some places will never allow them under any circumstances. Merion comes to mind. Hell, they don't even allow rangefinders.

As far as rule 18-4 is concerned, of course, it will become known as the "Tiger Rule" and, IMO, it will work against Tiger in the long run. He is under so much scrutiny that it is almost impossible to believe that what happened at the BMW won't happen again and his integrity will be questioned ad infinitum if he doesn't call it on himself.

I seriously question whether he would call a doubtful penalty on himself because of this decision - or to satisfy the negative media.  That would be as stupid now as it was before.  However, the next time his ball twitches, he probably will bring in a rules official just to help keep him in the clear and out of the discussion for naysayers who have their minds made up against him just because he is Tiger.

[phan52]

Quote:

Quote:

As far as rule 18-4 is concerned, of course, it will become known as the "Tiger Rule" and, IMO, it will work against Tiger in the long run. He is under so much scrutiny that it is almost impossible to believe that what happened at the BMW won't happen again and his integrity will be questioned ad infinitum if he doesn't call it on himself.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I seriously question whether he would call a doubtful penalty on himself because of this decision - or to satisfy the negative media.  That would be as stupid now as it was before. However, the next time his ball twitches, he probably will bring in a rules official just to help keep him in the clear and out of the discussion for naysayers who have their minds made up against him just because he is Tiger.

Are you suggesting that the ruling at the BMW was "doubtful" or "stupid"? It turns out that the "smart" thing to do would have been to call a violation, especially because "he is Tiger". That was my point.

And I am tired of pointing out that I am not a Tiger "naysayer". I am pointing out that he is under more scrutiny than everybody else and should consider that when he makes decisions. He knew something happened to the ball at the BMW, otherwise he would have continued to remove the twig. That was the genesis of the problem, not the fact that somebody caught it on camera.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Quote:

Quote:

As far as rule 18-4 is concerned, of course, it will become known as the "Tiger Rule" and, IMO, it will work against Tiger in the long run. He is under so much scrutiny that it is almost impossible to believe that what happened at the BMW won't happen again and his integrity will be questioned ad infinitum if he doesn't call it on himself.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I seriously question whether he would call a doubtful penalty on himself because of this decision - or to satisfy the negative media.  That would be as stupid now as it was before. However, the next time his ball twitches, he probably will bring in a rules official just to help keep him in the clear and out of the discussion for naysayers who have their minds made up against him just because he is Tiger.

Are you suggesting that the ruling at the BMW was "doubtful" or "stupid"? It turns out that the "smart" thing to do would have been to call a violation, especially because "he is Tiger". That was my point.

You and I disagree on this.  Of course he knew something happened, but that doesn't mean that he knew the ball moved .  All it means is that he saw it twitch.  He quit as soon as he saw that, assumed that it just oscillated, and played his shot.  He was in deep shadow after walking in bright sun, so his vision may well have been less than perfect.  The ball moved about a millimeter, and mostly straight down, which would have been difficult to see from above, which was his point of view.  The camera was some distance away and at a very different angle from Tiger's view.  My feeling is that if that incident had occurred after this decision was in place, he would not have been penalized at all.

You think that you are being objective, yet you start out under the impression that Tiger knew the ball moved and tried to cheat - you don't even consider that anything else could have occurred.  I start out with no opinion at all and base my reaction on the facts that are presented.

[birlyshirly]

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.

Quote:

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.

[iacas]

As far as rule 18-4 is concerned, of course, it will become known as the "Tiger Rule" and, IMO, it will work against Tiger in the long run. He is under so much scrutiny that it is almost impossible to believe that what happened at the BMW won't happen again and his integrity will be questioned ad infinitum if he doesn't call it on himself.

It has happened once, ever, that we know of. I think the odds of probability go the other direction - that incident was likely the fluke, not the first of a series of "returning to the mean."

You think that you are being objective, yet you start out under the impression that Tiger knew the ball moved and tried to cheat - you don't even consider that anything else could have occurred.  I start out with no opinion at all and base my reaction on the facts that are presented.

Bingo.

Edit: I was going to respond to bs, but I'll leave that for others. Particularly the juicy part.

[phan52]

You and I disagree on this.  Of course he knew something happened, but that doesn't mean that he knew the ball moved.  All it means is that he saw it twitch.  He quit as soon as he saw that, assumed that it just oscillated, and played his shot.  He was in deep shadow after walking in bright sun, so his vision may well have been less than perfect.  The ball moved about a millimeter, and mostly straight down, which would have been difficult to see from above, which was his point of view.  The camera was some distance away and at a very different angle from Tiger's view.  My feeling is that if that incident had occurred after this decision was in place, he would not have been penalized at all.

You think that you are being objective, yet you start out under the impression that Tiger knew the ball moved and tried to cheat - you don't even consider that anything else could have occurred.  I start out with no opinion at all and base my reaction on the facts that are presented.

That is exactly what I am doing, while you just assume that I am pre-disposed. I had no opinion about it at all until he got the ruling and  reacted poorly by abusing the rules official. We disagree about what happened. Should I just assume that you are pre-disposed as well? Is that how this works?

And BTW, you don't "know" that when he stopped that all it means is that he just saw it twitch, so don't state it as such. You can make that assumption, but that is all it is. It could very well mean that he knew the ball moved.

[Golfingdad]

You and I disagree on this.  Of course he knew something happened, but that doesn't mean that he knew the ball moved.  All it means is that he saw it twitch.  He quit as soon as he saw that, assumed that it just oscillated, and played his shot.  He was in deep shadow after walking in bright sun, so his vision may well have been less than perfect.  The ball moved about a millimeter, and mostly straight down, which would have been difficult to see from above, which was his point of view.  The camera was some distance away and at a very different angle from Tiger's view.  My feeling is that if that incident had occurred after this decision was in place, he would not have been penalized at all.

You think that you are being objective, yet you start out under the impression that Tiger knew the ball moved and tried to cheat - you don't even consider that anything else could have occurred.  I start out with no opinion at all and base my reaction on the facts that are presented.

Bingo.  That is it right there, phan.  That is exactly why you don't get the benefit of being viewed as "unbiased" or "fair" or "not a Tiger hater" in these discussions ... because you have opinions like this.  There is nothing terribly wrong with having that opinion, but you can't also sit back and pretend like you're coming from a fair position with it.

And I added the qualifier "terribly" because there actually is something wrong with it.  You can't really come across as very objective if part of the basis for your opinion is thinking that you have the ability to read minds.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You think that you are being objective, yet you start out under the impression that Tiger knew the ball moved and tried to cheat - you don't even consider that anything else could have occurred. I start out with no opinion at all and base my reaction on the facts that are presented.

Originally Posted by iacas

Bingo.

So, Fourputt's conclusion of what happened is the only objective way to assess what happened. And anybody who has a contrary opinion is, of course, not being objective and is pre-disposed because, I have to assume, they hate Tiger. That's how this works?

And I added the qualifier "terribly" because there actually is something wrong with it. You can't really come across as very objective if part of the basis for your opinion is thinking that you have the ability to read minds.

But everybody else knows what his intent was, right? Because you all can read minds? I guess I"ll have to work on that.

Either that or you believe that your assumption is the only objective way to see it. That's what I am seeing here.

[iacas]

So, Fourputt's conclusion of what happened is the only objective way to assess what happened.

No. I said "bingo" regarding his comments about you and your posts.

Why would Tiger call a RO over and take a penalty when he doesn't see the ball move? Are you suggesting that over the next few years any time there's a chance his ball might move, he should just take a penalty? Because if you read what you're saying, without the pre-conceived notion that he SAW his ball move and IGNORED it, that's exactly what you're saying.

[Golfingdad]

So, Fourputt's conclusion of what happened is the only objective way to assess what happened. And anybody who has a contrary opinion is, of course, not being objective and is pre-disposed because, I have to assume, they hate Tiger. That's how this works?

No. I said "bingo" regarding his comments about you and your posts.

Ugh.  I'm reminded of Daniel Stern, cows, and VCR's again ...

[newtogolf]

That is exactly what I am doing, while you just assume that I am pre-disposed. I had no opinion about it at all until he got the ruling and  reacted poorly by abusing the rules official. We disagree about what happened. Should I just assume that you are pre-disposed as well? Is that how this works?

And BTW, you don't "know" that when he stopped that all it means is that he just saw it twitch, so don't state it as such. You can make that assumption, but that is all it is. It could very well mean that he knew the ball moved.

Is there the slightest possibility that the ball rotated in place but it's actual position never changed?  I believe there is and actually believe that's what happened.  The ball rotated a few dimples but when he returned the branch to its original position it appeared to the naked eye that the ball was back in the original place.  His lie or shot certainly was not improved.  Without high definition video and reference lines no one would have ever seen any resultant movement which is why Tiger believed it oscillated.

When Harrington was DQ'ed during the Abu Dhabi HSBC Championship was he trying to cheat too in your opinion or did he honestly believe that he replaced the ball in the proper place?

As for being unbiased towards Tiger I'd have to challenge you on that since in almost every post you've written about him, you've been pretty critical of him.

[Ernest Jones]

Ugh.  I'm reminded of Daniel Stern, cows, and VCR's again ...

How do you do the clock again?

This thread is starting to feel like that movie "Groundhog Day" except that the movie "Groundhog Day" didn't suck. Seriously, can we leave the "Tiger is a cheatin' bastard" line of conversation in the other threads?

[phan52]

No. I said "bingo" regarding his comments about you and your posts.

Why would Tiger call a RO over and take a penalty when he doesn't see the ball move? Are you suggesting that over the next few years any time there's a chance his ball might move, he should just take a penalty? Because if you read what you're saying, without the pre-conceived notion that he SAW his ball move and IGNORED it, that's exactly what you're saying.

Fact: The ball moved.

It is my OPINION that he knew the ball moved, but I didn't come to that conclusion until his poor reaction toward Slugger White. My OPINION is that he realized he was caught and he panicked. He doth protest too much. That is not a pre-disposed opinion, it was based on all the factors that occurred. We disagree, so be it. It doesn't make you necessarily right, or make you a Tiger lover, or vice versa.

And I am not suggesting that he take penalties when it isn't warranted. I am suggesting that, if something is questionable, he needs to address it right away, whether calling over a RO or just self-imposing a penalty. It is a unique problem for Tiger, and probably unfair, but it is what it is.

[Golfingdad]

How do you do the clock again?

That's it ... you're dead!!!!!!!!

[phan52]

Is there the slightest possibility that the ball rotated in place but it's actual position never changed?  I believe there is and actually believe that's what happened.  The ball rotated a few dimples but when he returned the branch to its original position it appeared to the naked eye that the ball was back in the original place.  His lie or shot certainly was not improved.  Without high definition video and reference lines no one would have ever seen any resultant movement which is why Tiger believed it oscillated.

How do you know that? You never saw it with your "naked eye". All you have seen is the video. In the high-def video the ball moved. Or you are now assailing the integrity of Slugger White. Does he have a "Tiger" agenda as well?

As for being unbiased towards Tiger I'd have to challenge you on that since in almost every post you've written about him, you've been pretty critical of him.

In this regard, yes, I am. But I am a Tiger fan and I believe that he is the best thing to happen to the game since Arnold Palmer. Which is why I believe he should be more careful, and not so... "cavalier".

[newtogolf]

How do you know that? You never saw it with your "naked eye". All you have seen is the video. In the high-def video the ball moved. Or you are now assailing the integrity of Slugger White. Does he have a "Tiger" agenda as well?

In this regard, yes, I am. But I am a Tiger fan and I believe that he is the best thing to happen to the game since Arnold Palmer. Which is why I believe he should be more careful, and not so... "cavalier".

I saw the replay in normal speed without reference lines and I couldn't tell if the ball moved.

It wasn't until I saw the version in slow motion with reference lines to indicate where the logo was before and after and even at that there's no certainty that the balls actual position changed or if the ball just rotated in place.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

How do you know that? You never saw it with your "naked eye". All you have seen is the video. In the high-def video the ball moved. Or you are now assailing the integrity of Slugger White. Does he have a "Tiger" agenda as well?

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I saw the replay in normal speed without reference lines and I couldn't tell if the ball moved.

It wasn't until I saw the version in slow motion with reference lines to indicate where the logo was before and after and even at that there's no certainty that the balls actual position changed or if the ball just rotated in place.

Seriously, that is not seeing the ball with your "naked eye". The only people who can make that claim are Tiger and maybe his caddie.

[Ernest Jones]

Seriously, that is not seeing the ball with your "naked eye". The only people who can make that claim are Tiger and maybe his caddie.

He was naked at the time.