New Decision - Ball Movement on Camera

[iacas]

Fact: The ball moved.

Not even remotely a fact: he saw the ball move, recognized it as movement, and tried to get away with it.

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.

Yes you are. If he doesn't see the ball move, why would he call an RO over? Why would he call a penalty on himself?

And seriously, stop with the "I don't hate Tiger" crap. Nobody believes you.

[phan52]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

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.

Originally Posted by iacas

Yes you are. If he doesn't see the ball move, why would he call an RO over? Why would he call a penalty on himself?

What don't you understand? Why must I repeat myself? I said "if something is questionable". I can tell you for a fact that, personally, I have always assumed that the ball moved when it is questionable, and I don't have thousands of eyes on me. For Tiger, it would be the prudent thing to do.

As far as calling over a RO...when he had the ball in his hand at Augusta, do you think it would have been wise to call over a RO?

Quote:

And seriously, stop with the "I don't hate Tiger" crap. Nobody believes you.

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

[newtogolf]

What don't you understand? Why must I repeat myself? I said "if something is questionable". I can tell you for a fact that, personally, I have always assumed that the ball moved when it is questionable, and I don't have thousands of eyes on me. For Tiger, it would be the prudent thing to do.

As far as calling over a RO...when he had the ball in his hand at Augusta, do you think it would have been wise to call over a RO?

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

Still waiting on your opinion when Harrington was DQ'ed during the Abu Dhabi HSBC Championship.  Was Harrington trying to cheat (as you suggest Tiger was) or do you believe he felt he replaced the ball in the proper place?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

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.

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.

No, it still requires them to rule on what they find in a factual and unbiased investigation.  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.

[phan52]

Still waiting on your opinion when Harrington was DQ'ed during the Abu Dhabi HSBC Championship.  Was Harrington trying to cheat (as you suggest Tiger was) or do you believe he felt he replaced the ball in the proper place?

I am not aware of the circumstances so I have no opinion nor do I understand the relevence.

[iacas]

What don't you understand? Why must I repeat myself? I said "if something is questionable". I can tell you for a fact that, personally, I have always assumed that the ball moved when it is questionable, and I don't have thousands of eyes on me. For Tiger, it would be the prudent thing to do.

You don't need to repeat yourself. It's weird that you keep doing it.

You said if the situation occurs again Tiger should call a penalty on himself. So far as Tiger was concerned, the ball didn't move, hence your statement says that Tiger should call a penalty on himself in the future when he doesn't think he deserves it (because his ball didn't move).

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

I've come to that conclusion based on your many, many, many posts on the topic. It's anything but pre-disposed.

[phan52]

I've come to that conclusion based on your many, many, many posts on the topic. It's anything but pre-disposed.

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.

[iacas]

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.

I did you the favor of removing this post and replying to you via PM. It's a favor because it makes you look stupid. But you said you wanted it to remain, so there you go.

I don't have any idea how anyone feels about Tiger before they post. Your hundreds of posts indicate that you don't like the guy. They do so far more convincingly than your random "I like Tiger!" add-ons, which always seem to come when people point out what's obvious to them: that you don't like Tiger Woods.

Now, whether you like or dislike Tiger is not the topic here, and further posts on this will be deleted (a secondary reason why your post was deleted - it's not on the topic of "ball movement on camera" and the new Decisions).

[phan52]

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 …

This rule is going to be known as the "Tiger Rule", for obvious reasons. But it isn't going to stop people from seeing potential violations and commenting on them going forward. Tiger may end up needing a personal RO following him around due to the added scrutiny, as if he didn't have enough already.

[mvmac]

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.

Disagree, Tiger isn't a cheater (on the golf course) so we don't have any reason to question his integrity.  He didn't think the ball moved, without high speed camera it wasn't very clear that the ball changed positions.

You said if the situation occurs again Tiger should call a penalty on himself. So far as Tiger was concerned, the ball didn't move, hence your statement says that Tiger should call a penalty on himself in the future when he doesn't think he deserves it (because his ball didn't move).

Maybe he should also have someone check to make sure he doesn't tee the ball up in front of the tee markers

This rule is going to be known as the "Tiger Rule", for obvious reasons. But it isn't going to stop people from seeing potential violations and commenting on them going forward. Tiger may end up needing a personal RO following him around due to the added scrutiny, as if he didn't have enough already.

Well nothing is going to stop people from seeing rules violations and calling in, golfers are kinda crazy.

[birlyshirly]

No, it still requires them to rule on what they find in a factual and unbiased investigation.  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.

Surely we don't need to discuss whether officials should make rulings in a fact-led and unbiased way.

I'd be happy enough with your list of issues to be determined. The only point where I think I disagree is with your assertion that "a lot of investigative work" but "a minimal amount of actual judgement" would be involved.

I think that the majority of the points you've raised will not have clear, factual, incontrovertible answers, instead I think that most will require the exercise of reasonable to considerable judgement. That means anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen potentially contentious points to be resolved before a player is penalised.

I think the end result will be that it's going to be much more difficult to determine that a player saw their ball move than to prove simply that it moved. But again, maybe that's a good thing.

I broadly agree with your post - so I'm curious what it was in my post that made you start yours with "no". What did you disagree with?

[Phil McGleno]

No-The end result is exactly where we were ten years ago before H D cameras came onto the scene. This wasnt a problem then was it?[quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/71130/new-decision-ball-movement-on-camera/54#post_921339"] I think the end result will be that it's going to be much more difficult to determine that a player saw their ball move than to prove simply that it moved. But again, maybe that's a good thing. [/quote]

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

No, it still requires them to rule on what they find in a factual and unbiased investigation.  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.

Surely we don't need to discuss whether officials should make rulings in a fact-led and unbiased way.

I'd be happy enough with your list of issues to be determined. The only point where I think I disagree is with your assertion that "a lot of investigative work" but "a minimal amount of actual judgement" would be involved.

I think that the majority of the points you've raised will not have clear, factual, incontrovertible answers, instead I think that most will require the exercise of reasonable to considerable judgement. That means anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen potentially contentious points to be resolved before a player is penalised.

I think the end result will be that it's going to be much more difficult to determine that a player saw their ball move than to prove simply that it moved. But again, maybe that's a good thing.

I broadly agree with your post - so I'm curious what it was in my post that made you start yours with "no". What did you disagree with?

It was your comment that this decision puts officials in a more difficult position.  I don't see it as being any more difficult than it has ever been.  It can be a difficult job under any circumstances.  The rules official rarely gets the opportunity to interact with the players on a positive note.  I know, because I've been there.  I'm either informing a player that he has incurred a penalty he was unaware of, or I'm explaining his options after he has hit into a water hazard or otherwise incurred a penalty - in either case he isn't very happy.  The only good interaction is when I'm explaining relief options from an obstruction or abnormal ground when no penalty is involved.

In any case, we make a ruling based on all of the facts we can collect.  That includes player testimony, observations from fellow competitors, observed conditions... whatever information is available.  None of that will change, except that one of the resources is video evidence.  Sometimes the situation is cut and dried.  Other times the information is not enough for absolute certainty.  Many times we simply have to take the players word on what happened because nobody else saw anything.

[birlyshirly]

No-The end result is exactly where we were ten years ago before H D cameras came onto the scene. This wasnt a problem then was it?

I didn't say anything about how this changes life in 2014 relative to 2004.  My point is about how this change will impact golf between this year and next.

Anyway, how can you judge whether there was a problem in 2004 or not? Maybe players NEVER moved their ball without calling a penalty, or maybe cheating was endemic but hidden because the video technology of the day couldn't provide the evidence. I don't think it's possible for anyone, even you, to know for certain what was happening in the bushes and long grass. Golf is not necessarily a game of honesty, it's a game of trust.

I still think that there will be much hoo-haa the next time HD cameras show a ball moving on the national news but officials rule no penalty on grounds of lack of certainty that the movement was actually visible to the player.

It was your comment that this decision puts officials in a more difficult position.  I don't see it as being any more difficult than it has ever been.  It can be a difficult job under any circumstances.  The rules official rarely gets the opportunity to interact with the players on a positive note.  I know, because I've been there.  I'm either informing a player that he has incurred a penalty he was unaware of, or I'm explaining his options after he has hit into a water hazard or otherwise incurred a penalty - in either case he isn't very happy.  The only good interaction is when I'm explaining relief options from an obstruction or abnormal ground when no penalty is involved.

In any case, we make a ruling based on all of the facts we can collect.  That includes player testimony, observations from fellow competitors, observed conditions... whatever information is available.  None of that will change, except that one of the resources is video evidence.  Sometimes the situation is cut and dried.  Other times the information is not enough for absolute certainty.  Many times we simply have to take the players word on what happened because nobody else saw anything.

Fair enough. I think it's much easier to independently identify that a ball is moving than it is to determine that a player saw the ball move, but I'm not a rules official, so maybe in the big scheme of things there are still much harder rulings to make. Maybe "difficult position" was the wrong way to express it. I do think that, comparing 2013 to 2014, it will be easier for officials to decide NOT to impose a penalty for a ball that moves. Whether or not those decisions attract adverse comment, such that officials then feel that Decision 18/4 has put them in a more difficult position, remains to be seen. As I said initially, I am absolutely on board with the general principle that what counts should be what's normally visible in real time.

[newtogolf]

I didn't say anything about how this changes life in 2014 relative to 2004.  My point is about how this change will impact golf between this year and next.

Anyway, how can you judge whether there was a problem in 2004 or not? Maybe players NEVER moved their ball without calling a penalty, or maybe cheating was endemic but hidden because the video technology of the day couldn't provide the evidence. I don't think it's possible for anyone, even you, to know for certain what was happening in the bushes and long grass. Golf is not necessarily a game of honesty, it's a game of trust.

I still think that there will be much hoo-haa the next time HD cameras show a ball moving on the national news but officials rule no penalty on grounds of lack of certainty that the movement was actually visible to the player.

Fair enough. I think it's much easier to independently identify that a ball is moving than it is to determine that a player saw the ball move, but I'm not a rules official, so maybe in the big scheme of things there are still much harder rulings to make. Maybe "difficult position" was the wrong way to express it. I do think that, comparing 2013 to 2014, it will be easier for officials to decide NOT to impose a penalty for a ball that moves. Whether or not those decisions attract adverse comment, such that officials then feel that Decision 18/4 has put them in a more difficult position, remains to be seen. As I said initially, I am absolutely on board with the general principle that what counts should be what's normally visible in real time.

Do you require HD video cameras to follow your wife / gf / significant other around or do you trust them to be honest and do the right thing?

Golf is a gentleman's game, it's based on honesty, integrity and trust.  If you don't believe that's the case then a rules official should be assigned to every golfer to follow them around and watch their every move, as HD cameras pointed at only the leaders or most popular golfers wouldn't catch all the cheaters.

[MS256]

Looks to me like they simply nipped in the bud how ridiculous it could possibly become with video technology.

I could see it headed to a point where a ball "moves" vertically a very small fraction of a dimple and a player is penalized, because it in fact did move, even though nobody in the world would have been able to detect it with the naked eye. At least with the rule change an element of common sense can be used.

[birlyshirly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

I didn't say anything about how this changes life in 2014 relative to 2004.  My point is about how this change will impact golf between this year and next.

Anyway, how can you judge whether there was a problem in 2004 or not? Maybe players NEVER moved their ball without calling a penalty, or maybe cheating was endemic but hidden because the video technology of the day couldn't provide the evidence. I don't think it's possible for anyone, even you, to know for certain what was happening in the bushes and long grass. Golf is not necessarily a game of honesty, it's a game of trust.

I still think that there will be much hoo-haa the next time HD cameras show a ball moving on the national news but officials rule no penalty on grounds of lack of certainty that the movement was actually visible to the player.

Fair enough. I think it's much easier to independently identify that a ball is moving than it is to determine that a player saw the ball move, but I'm not a rules official, so maybe in the big scheme of things there are still much harder rulings to make. Maybe "difficult position" was the wrong way to express it. I do think that, comparing 2013 to 2014, it will be easier for officials to decide NOT to impose a penalty for a ball that moves. Whether or not those decisions attract adverse comment, such that officials then feel that Decision 18/4 has put them in a more difficult position, remains to be seen. As I said initially, I am absolutely on board with the general principle that what counts should be what's normally visible in real time.

Do you require HD video cameras to follow your wife / gf / significant other around or do you trust them to be honest and do the right thing?

Golf is a gentleman's game, it's based on honesty, integrity and trust.  If you don't believe that's the case then a rules official should be assigned to every golfer to follow them around and watch their every move, as HD cameras pointed at only the leaders or most popular golfers wouldn't catch all the cheaters.

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.

[newtogolf]

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.