New Decision - Ball Movement on Camera

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Yes, but weather apps report information that was obtained via measuring. It's a pretty fine line.

Your phone/equipment is not doing the measuring. No fine line to me.

So someone else's phone can do the measuring, that person can report the measurement to you, and that's ok?

See what I'm saying?

Edit: Oh, I see MeFree cited the decision on this - wind speed and direction from an app are allowed anyway, so this is a moot point.

[iacas]

Yes, but weather apps report information that was obtained via measuring. It's a pretty fine line.

Yeah, we had a big discussion about this whole thing years ago.

I'm not sure what side I chose at the time, but I think it was the "it's not actually measuring" side because someone (IIRC) tried to rebut me by saying that there are apps which measure microphone noise to estimate wind speed.

Compasses phones can actually "measure" directly, but now they're legal, so…

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I see some potential discussions here;

Decision 14-3/18 - does that include information on wind and direction?  At what point do they just allow smart phones to be used for GPS?

Decision 18/4 - does this decision address the issue with Tiger in Chicago or is it more directed at the problem Harrington had when the ball moved forward then back (but not fully) on the green and he was DQ'd?

14-3/18 Weather apps do not measure or gauge anything. They simply report information. The prohibition is on measuring ot gauging.

Yes, but weather apps report information that was obtained via measuring. It's a pretty fine line.

They don't report what it happening in real time where yo are standing.  They are necessarily generalized as far as any specific spot, unless you are standing right next to the anemometer which you app is reporting from.  Most such weather reports have a delay built in, making them pretty useless for shot decisions.

[Rulesman]

The decision is not a change, simply a clarification.

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

[luu5]

The decision is not a change, simply a clarification.

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

The apps should be added there to remove doubt. And also the compass removed from right (different decision).

[Dave2512]

Yes, but weather apps report information that was obtained via measuring. It's a pretty fine line.

Some of the golf courses here have weather systems that are part of the alert network. At my home course if you use something like weatherbug what you get comes from the course because it's the nearest system. There is a sizeable anemometer right next to the 7th tee at my former home course.

[pogle]

The one that makes sense to me is that compasses are no longer prohibited.

I can't see any reference to compasses.  Which of the changed decisions mentions this?

[iacas]

I can't see any reference to compasses.  Which of the changed decisions mentions this?

First posted here: http://thesandtrap.com/t/71130/new-decision-ball-movement-on-camera#post_920763

---

Also here's a USGA graphic:

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

The one that makes sense to me is that compasses are no longer prohibited.

I can't see any reference to compasses.  Which of the changed decisions mentions this?

It will be in decision 14-3/4.

[Rulesman]

I can't see any reference to compasses.  Which of the changed decisions mentions this?

14-3/4 Use of Compass During Round
Q. A player uses a compass during a stipulated round to help determine the
direction of the wind or the direction of the grain in the greens. Is the player
in breach of Rule 14-3?
A. No. A compass only provides directional information and does not gauge
or measure variable conditions or assist the player in his play. (Revised)

[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.

[iacas]

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.

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.

[tristanhilton85]

I like the new decision on ball movement… sometimes it's just not clear or you can't see it move so it prevents situations like that from coming back to bite the player in the ass.

[newtogolf]

I like the new decision on ball movement… sometimes it's just not clear or you can't see it move so it prevents situations like that from coming back to bite the player in the ass.

I agree, it also addresses the issue of the more popular players being under tighter scrutiny than others for such rules violations.

[birlyshirly]

I like the principle that if high-res video is necessary to detect an infringement, then there should be no retrospective penalty based on video evidence.

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 .

[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.[quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/71130/new-decision-ball-movement-on-camera/18#post_921010"]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 .  [/quote]

[Wally]

I like it.  I think it's the fairest way to go, and it puts the weight of honesty back on the player. I think I know what its popular name will be.  It will be called the "Tiger Woods Rule", even though he isn't the only player who has been affected by it.  The next thing that will be said is that it never would have been changed if it hadn't happened to him.   However it came about, it's a good decision.

I agree. Players didn't have the technology way back in the day watching to see if their ball moved. That's how the game should be, a reliability on the golfer to make the right call. Not some dude at home replaying the 'event' in slow motion.

[phan52]

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.