New Decision - Ball Movement on Camera

[birlyshirly]

Remember, this Decision only has a function in an environment in which "sophisticated technology" is employed.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you think it doesn't warrant discussion. Nobody is saying that this affects your next monthly medal.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by 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.

.

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you think it doesn't warrant discussion. Nobody is saying that this affects your next monthly medal.

I believe that what he is saying is that people can still see things on TV without the aid of slow motion HD technology, so things will still probably be looked at by a RO.

The rule goes on to state:

On the other hand, if the Committee determines, based on all of the

evidence it has available, that the ball changed its position by an amount that

was reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, the ball is deemed

to have moved. As the player did not replace the ball, he incurs a penalty

under the applicable Rule and Rule 20-7c for playing from a wrong place.

Which I take to mean that the "couch potato committee" is still in play, as long as the movement was not determined by "sophisticated technology".

[Rulesman]

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.

The Decision starts with the words

A player addresses his ball. He observes a slight motion of the ball.

However, if he didn't observe a slight motion but the committee become aware of a potential problem (ie TV shows the ball moved), then they will make a decision on whether the player could have seen the movement, whether he did or not .

If the player does not make a determination, then that principle cannot apply.The committee will make the decision.

[birlyshirly]

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

The Decision starts with the words

A player addresses his ball. He observes a slight motion of the ball.

However, if he didn't observe a slight motion but the committee become aware of a potential problem (ie TV shows the ball moved), then they will make a decision on whether the player could have seen the movement, whether he did or not.

If the player does not make a determination, then that principle cannot apply.The committee will make the decision.

So if the player is unsighted and makes no determination, the committee makes a decision based on what's objectively visible - and doesn't take into account the more subjective factors in fourputt's post such as (2), (3) and (6) and the player's view of the ball?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

The Decision starts with the words

A player addresses his ball. He observes a slight motion of the ball.

However, if he didn't observe a slight motion but the committee become aware of a potential problem (ie TV shows the ball moved), then they will make a decision on whether the player could have seen the movement, whether he did or not.

If the player does not make a determination, then that principle cannot apply.The committee will make the decision.

So if the player is unsighted and makes no determination, the committee makes a decision based on what's objectively visible - and doesn't take into account the more subjective factors in fourputt's post such as (2), (3) and (6) and the player's view of the ball?

How do you figure that?

2)  What was the player doing when the ball moved? Meaning was the player taking any action at the time which could have caused the ball to move?

3)  What angle is the movement compared to the player's viewing angle? Could the player have reasonably seen a small straight down movement when his viewpoint is directly above the ball?

6)  What is the viewing angle of the camera? Is the camera recording movement which is only visible at an angle from which the player could not reasonably view the action?

All the rule asks is could the player have reasonably have been expected to see the movement - if he had been looking, would it have been discernible to the naked eye?.  Any of those points I made could be significant factors in making a ruling.  It would be unreasonable to expect the player to see the ball from every angle at once.  You have to take into consideration the angles from both his point of view and from the camera's point of view.  This is still going to be a case where if doubt exists, it would be ruled against the player.  The rules can't allow a player to gain a potential advantage from a breach.

[birlyshirly]

How do you figure that?

Remember I thought your list was reasonable? I'm asking Rulesman whether he agrees.

[Irish-Ace]

The decision is not a change, simply a clarification.

See the text in the bottom two blue boxes. In particular the middle one.

But it is a change. Before, if your phone had a compass, it could not be used as a DMD (as you can see from the flow chart above). It now can be used from January on provided it does not have any other method of measurement or gauging.

[turtleback]

But it is a change. Before, if your phone had a compass, it could not be used as a DMD (as you can see from the flow chart above). It now can be used from January on provided it does not have any other method of measurement or gauging.

It is still probably illegal to use a smartphone as a DMD because they have the ability to sense orientation and therefore can be used to judge the slope on a green.  There are lots of "level" apps out there for droids and, I assume, iphones.  One benefit to the whole discussion is that I am learning lots about capabilities of my phone I never knew existed.  Before this discussion started months ago I didn't know that my phone had a compass not that by downloading an app it could be a level.

[Irish-Ace]

It is still probably illegal to use a smartphone as a DMD because they have the ability to sense orientation and therefore can be used to judge the slope on a green.  There are lots of "level" apps out there for droids and, I assume, iphones.  One benefit to the whole discussion is that I am learning lots about capabilities of my phone I never knew existed.  Before this discussion started months ago I didn't know that my phone had a compass not that by downloading an app it could be a level.

Yeah - I forgot about smartphones have an inclinometer. The iPhone definitely has one and has a leveling app that cannot be removed so I guess they are still illegal... along with most smartphones I'd imagine.

[turtleback]

Yeah - I forgot about smartphones have an inclinometer. The iPhone definitely has one and has a leveling app that cannot be removed so I guess they are still illegal... along with most smartphones I'd imagine.

Of course the notion of someone laying their phone down in multiple places on the green to read a putt is pretty laughable.

[birlyshirly]

Of course the notion of someone laying their phone down in multiple places on the green to read a putt is pretty laughable.

We trust golfers to play by the rules when they're out of sight. What's the principle for not trusting them to use ONLY approved apps on their phone?

[zoomaster]

Great rules  change. Our game is based on each player making the call based on what they see. Also, given that golf doesn't have umpires or referees, all who watch on the tube must then believe they should report what they think they saw. Tiger said the ball oscillate--not move. Way to go USGA

[iacas]

The new language was finalized well in advance of Tiger doing anything in Chicago, according to both the USGA and the R&A.;

I'm not sure that's been said yet, but it deserves to be.

[Rulesman]

The new language was finalized well in advance of Tiger doing anything in Chicago, according to both the USGA and the R&A.;

I'm not sure that's been said yet, but it deserves to be.

It hadn't been and it does.