New Decision - Ball Movement on Camera

[birlyshirly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

I'm sorry - but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I've already said golf is a game of trust. I'd say the same of relationships. Both work better if you extend sufficient trust to people to do the right thing without constant surveillance. That clearly doesn't mean that everyone acts honestly all the time. People get burned every single day, and it doesn't stop them wanting to keep trusting. And if golfers are no more honest than lovers, it doesn't necessarily follow, as you suggest, that a chaperone is required to accompany every competitive golfer.

My point is you either have trust and honesty or you don't.  If you don't, then take necessary measures to ensure that EVERYONE follows every rule.  The use of high definition video in the past wasn't applied fairly nor did it resolve the underlying issues you seem to have with golfers, or maybe, just Tiger.

And I would say that it should be obvious from everyday life that trust can exist without proof of honesty. It's called the benefit of the doubt - and it lets you get on with things, like sports and relationships and enjoying the rest of your life without constantly worrying about the possibility of being cheated. Does it have limits? Of course.

But golf would lose some of its character if it was played under high-security conditions. Just because you or I don't think the gains would be worth the pains isn't proof that nobody is cheating, or that it isn't widespread.

And so what?

I don't have underlying issues with golfers generally [though I know that it's pointless here to deny having a deep seated and unhealthy issue with Tiger, so I won't attempt to go there]. I could hardly care less. My golf is more important to me than anyone else's game. I remember a road race I ran, where I happened to be running a very similar pace to one other runner. We did several laps of a park - and on the last lap, they took a wrong turning, a short cut and finished a couple of minutes ahead of me.  Did that bother me? Not in the slightest. It may have been an honest mistake. And if not, as my teachers used to say - "they're only cheating themselves". I ran my race and got my time.

I just don't happen to see the wisdom in trying to maintain a belief unsupported by evidence that, in a society where people duck paying their taxes and cheat on their spouses, no-one cheats at golf.

[turtleback]

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".

You hide it really really well.

LOL! And I'm the one with pre-disposed opinions.

The presumption that you are a Tiger detractor and interpret everything in the worst way towards him is not a pre-disposed opinion, it is an opinion based on lots of lots of posts by you that all point in exactly the same direction.

It most certainly is. It automatically poisons the well in anything I may offer in debate about Tiger Woods. Now, I can't say anything about Tiger without you already inserting the caveat that I "hate" him, and that is the farthest thing from the truth. I have the utmost respect for Tiger Woods and his standing the game and, in this instance, I am disappointed in how he has handled this situation. I expect more of him.

If poisoning of the well has occurred it is because you have poisoned it with your unremitting criticism and negativity towards Tiger.  You've put it out there and now you own it, no matter what protestations you now make.

[phan52]

You hide it really really well. The presumption that you are a Tiger detractor and interpret everything in the worst way towards him is not a pre-disposed opinion, it is an opinion based on lots of lots of posts by you that all point in exactly the same direction. If poisoning of the well has occurred it is because you have poisoned it with your unremitting criticism and negativity towards Tiger.  You've put it out there and now you own it, no matter what protestations you now make.

You are a Tiger apologist and believe that what Tiger did and the way he behaved toward the RO at the BMW is OK. I don't. But I am sure this is considered off topic so I suggest you move on.

[iacas]

But I am sure this is considered off topic so I suggest you move on.

Yep. You're right about that.

---

Any of the other rules warrant discussion? I'm glad compasses are allowed. Sometimes you can know the predominant wind for the day, but get turned around, and a compass is all you need. Many watches have a compass on them (I have a Casio solely for the purpose of helping to map out golf courses, for example).

[Fourputt]

Any of the other rules warrant discussion? I'm glad compasses are allowed. Sometimes you can know the predominant wind for the day, but get turned around, and a compass is all you need. Many watches have a compass on them (I have a Casio solely for the purpose of helping to map out golf courses, for example).

It shouldn't be long now before golf GPS add a compass.  My E-Trex hiking GPS has one, so it can't be that hard to implement.

[boogielicious]

I guess compasses could help, but the "toss grass in the air" method works fine for me, as does looking at the flag and the tree tops.  I'm not sure why I would need to know where magnetic north is.  I want to know the wind direction in relation to my target line.

The "provisional" mosey up the fairway rule is interesting to me as well.  I have hit many provisional balls, as should be noted by my HC!  But other than a quick run to the left or right to see the ball sail into the woods, I have never thought of going down 50 yards to take a better look.

[iacas]

I guess compasses could help, but the "toss grass in the air" method works fine for me, as does looking at the flag and the tree tops.  I'm not sure why I would need to know where magnetic north is.  I want to know the wind direction in relation to my target line.

There are plenty of holes where this gives you bad information. Wind funnels between treelines, for example. The sixth at Whispering Woods for example - a par three, and the wind almost always feels into you, but it's almost always left to right.

Throwing grass is almost useless unless you're on a mostly treeless golf course. The tops of trees works, but really only if you can actually determine the direction from that.

Most PGA Tour books have a compass printed on each page.

All of the above based on my experience playing and caddying.

[mvmac]

Throwing grass is almost useless unless you're on a mostly treeless golf course. The tops of trees works, but really only if you can actually determine the direction from that.

Sounds like a potential thread title

I got into the habit of looking at the tops of the trees rather than throwing grass in the air when I was growing up.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Throwing grass is almost useless unless you're on a mostly treeless golf course. The tops of trees works, but really only if you can actually determine the direction from that.

Sounds like a potential thread title

I got into the habit of looking at the tops of the trees rather than throwing grass in the air when I was growing up.

Since most of my golf was played in Colorado, I'm a grass thrower.  Most courses outside of the mountains have what I call "strategic trees", but rarely so many that they can play tricks with the wind.

[MEfree]

Questions to be asked are:

1)  How much did the ball move?

2)  What was the player doing when the ball moved?

3)  What angle is the movement compared to the player's viewing angle?

4)  How is the lighting on the ball?

5)  What sort of camera was used and how close is it?

6)  What is the viewing angle of the camera?

Then the analysis:  If the ball moved enough to be noticeable to the naked eye, was the real time player's view at such an angle that he should have seen it?  Does the player have a clear view of the ball, or is it partially obscured by leaves or other debris?  Was the movement only apparent from the camera angle?  Was the light poor enough that his eyes may not have adjusted from bright sunlight?

Lots of questions to ask and lots of variables to consider, and in the end it is the facts gathered by such an investigation which will ultimately determine the outcome.  A lot of investigative work and a minimal amount of actual judgement involved.

How broad is the new decision?  Does it only cover cases where the player watched what he thought/claimed was an oscillation but later was shown by video to be movement, or does it go beyond that?

i.e. Suppose two players hit the ball into the trees close to each other.  A's ball is found right away but not B's.  While everyone is looking B's ball, A inadvertently steps on a long branch on the ground that moves his ball 6 inches.  The movement would have been clear to the naked eye, but nobody was actually looking at A's ball (including A).  A does not realize his ball has moved and ends up playing it from the new location.  Before completion of the round, A (& the rules officials) are told by the TV people that he had inadvertently moved his ball and failed to replace it.  What is the ruling?

To me, it seems like the new decision does not address this type of situation but other posts seem to imply that video will no longer be used to issue penalties for moving balls.

Getting closer to the new decision, what if the player is looking at the ball but claims that it never moved and never oscillated (instead of claiming that he thought it oscillated but returned to the original position)?  Does the new decision still apply?

[MS256]

Since most of my golf was played in Colorado, I'm a grass thrower.  Most courses outside of the mountains have what I call "strategic trees", but rarely so many that they can play tricks with the wind.

I've never tried it but I can't see where a compass would help very often around here. It's a pretty rare day when the wind is coming from a consistent direction throughout the course. Countless times we've played a hole against the wind and played the adjoining hole going 180 degrees opposite also against the wind. We played a round a few weeks ago and when we were almost done one of the guys said "Hell, the wind has been against us on every hole." Of course it really wasn't but it seemed that way.

Can't say that I'm a grass thrower (although I've done it occasionally). Too much chance the wind at the ground is just swirling back from what it's doing above the trees. That gets even more tricky when the tree lined fairway has really tall trees. Then we have to figure out at just what height the wind is going to change and if the ball will even get that high. I look at the flag a lot and look at the trees a lot, but mostly I just feel the wind on my face to at least know what it's doing where I am. We do have some tee boxes that are almost completely blocked from any wind even if it's strong over the hill.

In short I hate wind!!

[Rulesman]

How broad is the new decision?  Does it only cover cases where the player watched what he thought/claimed was an oscillation but later was shown by video to be movement, or does it go beyond that?

i.e. Suppose two players hit the ball into the trees close to each other.  A's ball is found right away but not B's.  While everyone is looking B's ball, A inadvertently steps on a long branch on the ground that moves his ball 6 inches.  The movement would have been clear to the naked eye, but nobody was actually looking at A's ball (including A).  A does not realize his ball has moved and ends up playing it from the new location.  Before completion of the round, A (& the rules officials) are told by the TV people that he had inadvertently moved his ball and failed to replace it.  What is the ruling?

To me, it seems like the new decision does not address this type of situation but other posts seem to imply that video will no longer be used to issue penalties for moving balls.

Getting closer to the new decision, what if the player is looking at the ball but claims that it never moved and never oscillated (instead of claiming that he thought it oscillated but returned to the original position)?  Does the new decision still apply?

When the player’s ball has left its original position and come to rest in another place by an amount that was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time,

As the movement would have been reasonably discernible the decision does not apply. The decision does not require that the player had to be looking at the ball, only that if someone had been looking at it, they could have seen the movement.

[boogielicious]

There are plenty of holes where this gives you bad information. Wind funnels between treelines, for example. The sixth at Whispering Woods for example - a par three, and the wind almost always feels into you, but it's almost always left to right.

Throwing grass is almost useless unless you're on a mostly treeless golf course. The tops of trees works, but really only if you can actually determine the direction from that.

Most PGA Tour books have a compass printed on each page.

All of the above based on my experience playing and caddying.

I see your point and have played holes like that.

[birlyshirly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

How broad is the new decision?  Does it only cover cases where the player watched what he thought/claimed was an oscillation but later was shown by video to be movement, or does it go beyond that?

i.e. Suppose two players hit the ball into the trees close to each other.  A's ball is found right away but not B's.  While everyone is looking B's ball, A inadvertently steps on a long branch on the ground that moves his ball 6 inches.  The movement would have been clear to the naked eye, but nobody was actually looking at A's ball (including A).  A does not realize his ball has moved and ends up playing it from the new location.  Before completion of the round, A (& the rules officials) are told by the TV people that he had inadvertently moved his ball and failed to replace it.  What is the ruling?

To me, it seems like the new decision does not address this type of situation but other posts seem to imply that video will no longer be used to issue penalties for moving balls.

Getting closer to the new decision, what if the player is looking at the ball but claims that it never moved and never oscillated (instead of claiming that he thought it oscillated but returned to the original position)?  Does the new decision still apply?

When the player’s ball has left its original position and come to rest in another place by an amount that was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time,

As the movement would have been reasonably discernible the decision does not apply. The decision does not require that the player had to be looking at the ball, only that if someone had been looking at it, they could have seen the movement.

I'm not sure that's correct. Sadly, I can't find the full text of the new decision online again to check. However, I read it a few days ago and as best as I can recall, the location of the player, what they were doing, and where they were looking at the relevant time are all relevant considerations. None of that would be applicable if the test were as simple as "if someone had been looking at it, they could have seen the movement."

[Asheville]

This Decision was not created for the casual player or for the serious competitor. It is a Decision solely for the Committee to use.

[Rulesman]

I'm not sure that's correct. Sadly, I can't find the full text of the new decision online again to check. However, I read it a few days ago and as best as I can recall, the location of the player, what they were doing, and where they were looking at the relevant time are all relevant considerations. None of that would be applicable if the test were as simple as "if someone had been looking at it, they could have seen the movement."

The decision says

He observes a slight motion of the ball but believes that it has only oscillated and has not left its original position

When the player’s ball has left its original position and come to rest in another place by an amount
that was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time , a player’s determination that the ball has not moved will be deemed to be conclusive ,
even if that determination is later shown to be incorrect through the use of sophisticated technology

How can he determine anything if he didn't observe it?

Which is why it goes on to say

These principles also apply in a situation in which the player made no determination whether or not his ball at rest moved (e.g., because he
had walked away from his ball after addressing it, was not looking at his ball , or otherwise did not observe any motion of the ball or have any reason to
believe that his ball might have moved ).

http://www.usga.org/uploadedFiles/USGAHome/rules/Amendments_2012-2013_Decisions_on_the_Rules_of_Golf.pdf

[birlyshirly]

Thanks for that Rulesman, esp the link.

Do you still think that a player, having no reason to think that his ball might have moved, is still subject to penalty strokes if an arbitrary observer looking in the right place would have seen the ball move?

To me, it's poorly worded at best. How can you apply the principle that "the Player's determination is final" to a situation where "the player made no determination"?

Fourputt made the assumption that "visible to the naked eye" means the eye of the player in question, and in situ - not an arbitrary observer. The first part of the decision doesn't give much explicit support to that interpretation - but you could argue that it's common sense, and consistent with trying to make sense of the last para you quoted.

[Asheville]

Remember, this Decision only has a function in an environment in which "sophisticated technology" is employed. Only two disparate groups have an interest here ... The Committee and the couch potato committee.