Fox and the USGA - Changes Coming Due to Coverage of Rules Event?

[iacas]

Just now, tdiii said:

The ruling was not right.  That's very important.  The ruling was incorrect as it was not more likely than not Dustin's actions that caused the ball to move. 

DJ's actions more likely than not caused the ball to move.

You disagree. Cool. It's not a matter of fact.

[mchepp]

1 hour ago, Coronagolfman said:

This whole fiasco is just more of the same mess the PGA Tour and the USGA have gotten themselves into by allowing HD video review of certain situations after the event takes place to be considered as means to call penalties or even disqualify a player (remember the issue that started it all where Craig Stadler used a towel at Torrey to "build a stance" under a tree and thus was disqualified after the round was over?)  Unless you want to set up a "war room" at the tournament site that reviews every shot of every player it really means that only tournament leaders will be under such scrutiny - I suppose they could have an LCD sign behind each green letting a player know if his score for the hole was under video review and then make the call on the spot (like they do on hockey goals).

I think what you are describing here is similar to instant replay in football, which frankly, works. In golf we don't need to stop the game in order to decide if there was a penalty we can assess it a few holes later or even after the round. Principles are similar though.

It really depends on your personality I think. Take soccer, many people say that instant replay will ruin the game. Which is fine, the game can be played without it, has been for years, but next time your team gets an offsides called that wasn't really an offsides you just need to deal and move on. If you instead want it to be fair and the call to be right, then you will need to accept the delay to review it.

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, mchepp said:

I think what you are describing here is similar to instant replay in football, which frankly, works. In golf we don't need to stop the game in order to decide if there was a penalty we can assess it a few holes later or even after the round. Principles are similar though.

It really depends on your personality I think. Take soccer, many people say that instant replay will ruin the game. Which is fine, the game can be played without it, has been for years, but next time your team gets an offsides called that wasn't really an offsides you just need to deal and move on. If you instead want it to be fair and the call to be right, then you will need to accept the delay to review it.

I disagree, during an NFL, MLB, NHL or soccer game, all players competing in that game are under the same scrutiny.  The players in a game with instant replay all play with the same number of cameras covering them.  In golf, that's not the case, players with early tee times or out of contention are not under the same scrutiny as contenders and more popular players.  

When every golfer has the same number of cameras on them then instant replay will be fair, until then, those less famous or not on the leader board have an advantage.

[mchepp]

10 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I disagree, during an NFL, MLB, NHL or soccer game, all players competing in that game are under the same scrutiny.  The players in a game with instant replay all play with the same number of cameras covering them.  In golf, that's not the case, players with early tee times or out of contention are not under the same scrutiny as contenders and more popular players.  

When every golfer has the same number of cameras on them then instant replay will be fair, until then, those less famous or not on the leader board have an advantage.

I see your point but disagree. I disagree because as much as the video could cause a penalty it could also just as easily exonerate said golfer as well. If a players ball had moved and a playing companion said it was because of this player, but the player said it was the wind, the video could confirm the players position. 

Just like in the NFL, the video review could help or hurt. The concept of review is to do one thing, get it right. Isn't that what we all want no matter when you play?

[Lastpick]

2 minutes ago, mchepp said:

I see your point but disagree. I disagree because as much as the video could cause a penalty it could also just as easily exonerate said golfer as well. If a players ball had moved and a playing companion said it was because of this player, but the player said it was the wind, the video could confirm the players position. 

Just like in the NFL, the video review could help or hurt. The concept of review is to do one thing, get it right. Isn't that what we all want no matter when you play?

I would say that we want it right..., and we want it right...., right now.  

I would also admit that I was unaware of the rule change that went into effect this year.  I will also venture a guess that less than 1% of the people on the Sand Trap knew the rule.  The ruling made on green #5 should have stood.  This event pointed out an opportunity for future improvement.  The USGA is sometimes eat up with the dumb ass trying to appear as Godly when it comes to golf.  Golf needs to be entertaining when on the tele, and for this particular tournament, the USGA was a huge distraction.  Fox did nothing wrong in running with the biggest story of the final round.

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

When every golfer has the same number of cameras on them then instant replay will be fair, until then, those less famous or not on the leader board have an advantage.

Nobody has ever said golf is fair. Should we mandate that gallery sizes are the same for each player, too? After all, it's unfair - both positively and negatively - that some players have larger galleries than others. They can help find more golf balls or deflect them back toward play, and they can also make more noise and take more photos at inopportune times.

As @mchepp said, cameras could just as easily save a player strokes.

[newtogolf]

8 minutes ago, mchepp said:

I see your point but disagree. I disagree because as much as the video could cause a penalty it could also just as easily exonerate said golfer as well. If a players ball had moved and a playing companion said it was because of this player, but the player said it was the wind, the video could confirm the players position. 

Just like in the NFL, the video review could help or hurt. The concept of review is to do one thing, get it right. Isn't that what we all want no matter when you play?

I get the rules can hurt or help and therefore video replay has the same potential but it doesn't change that professional golfers are not all competing under the same scrutiny of the rules.   

Player A might only have a camera at the tee box and green following him where as Player B has one or more camera crews following their every shot which means there is the potential for rules infractions to be enforced differently depending on their popularity and position on the leader board.  

For example, Player A grounds his club in the rough and the ball moves slightly but he doesn't notice it and because the camera crew isn't there to record it, the infraction goes unreported.  Same situation for Player B and everyone watching at home sees the ball move and people start calling in to report it or the television announcers bring it to the rule committees attention.  

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I get the rules can hurt or help and therefore video replay has the same potential but it doesn't change that professional golfers are not all competing under the same scrutiny of the rules.

Nor are they competing under the same weather conditions, or gallery conditions, or several other things.

The best you can do is use all available evidence to get the rules as right as possible.

9 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Player A might only have a camera at the tee box and green following him where as Player B has one or more camera crews following their every shot which means there is the potential for rules infractions to be enforced differently depending on their popularity and position on the leader board.

Did you see my response above?

9 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

For example, Player A grounds his club in the rough and the ball moves slightly but he doesn't notice it and because the camera crew isn't there to record it, the infraction goes unreported.  Same situation for Player B and everyone watching at home sees the ball move and people start calling in to report it or the television announcers bring it to the rule committees attention.  

For example, Player A gets to play in light breezes and warm weather. He has a large gallery, and they find a few balls and stop a few others from bouncing farther into the trees.

Player B plays after the wind kicks up and it starts raining. His already small gallery is put off by the weather and goes home. He hits several balls that find the deeper trees and even loses a ball on a hole because nobody was around to see where it went.

Golf is not fair.

The best they can do is to try to be as "right" as possible.

[Hardspoon]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

Nor are they competing under the same weather conditions, or gallery conditions, or several other things.

For example, Player A gets to play in light breezes and warm weather. He has a large gallery, and they find a few balls and stop a few others from bouncing farther into the trees.

Player B plays after the wind kicks up and it starts raining. His already small gallery is put off by the weather and goes home. He hits several balls that find the deeper trees and even loses a ball on a hole because nobody was around to see where it went.

Golf is not fair.

The difference is that weather and galleries are not controllable.  You could, on the other hand, have a rule that camera footage cannot be used unless it's equitable...or, have rules dictating that camera coverage is equal.

I'm not saying that's feasible (or desirable), but weather and camera coverage are NOT the same...one COULD be controlled, if desired.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

The difference is that weather and galleries are not controllable.  You could, on the other hand, have a rule that camera footage cannot be used unless it's equitable...or, have rules dictating that camera coverage is equal.

They aren't, but neither are where a camera man decides to point the camera at any given point in time, whether what it's pointing at is being recorded, whether the angle is right, etc.

6 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

I'm not saying that's feasible (or desirable), but weather and camera coverage are NOT the same...one COULD be controlled, if desired.

Not really, IMO.

And again, golf's not fair. Some players get more TV coverage. That can help or hurt. The aim of the rules should be to get the things the most RIGHT.

[Hardspoon]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

Not really, IMO.

It definitely could be - you just disallow all use of TV footage as it applies to rules violations.

Is that desirable?  I also say no....but it COULD be.    (yes, I'm being pedantic...it's been that kind of day)

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

And again, golf's not fair. Some players get more TV coverage. That can help or hurt. The aim of the rules should be to get the things the most RIGHT.

It sits weirdly with me, but overall, I agree.  It's one of those "lesser of the evils" things.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Hardspoon
stupid grammer

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

I disagree, during an NFL, MLB, NHL or soccer game, all players competing in that game are under the same scrutiny.  The players in a game with instant replay all play with the same number of cameras covering them.  In golf, that's not the case, players with early tee times or out of contention are not under the same scrutiny as contenders and more popular players.  

When every golfer has the same number of cameras on them then instant replay will be fair, until then, those less famous or not on the leader board have an advantage.

Totally agree.  If you go back to the thread about Tigers BMW penalty several years ago I made the exact same point :)

I get that, in theory, that could go both ways ... But in practicality, I don't think so.  Proof?  How many times have penalties been added to players scores because (at least in part) of video evidence?  Now how many times has it gone the other way?

Im saying the number currently stands at something at least in the high single digits versus zero.

 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Im saying the number currently stands at something at least in the high single digits versus zero.

Even if that were true, you're okay with not using all of the best available evidence and in getting the rules the MOST right?

Kind of OT for this thread, though. I'm sure there's another more relevant thread.

[Hardspoon]

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Totally agree.  If you go back to the thread about Tigers BMW penalty several years ago I made the exact same point :)

I get that, in theory, that could go both ways ... But in practicality, I don't think so.  Proof?  How many times have penalties been added to players scores because (at least in part) of video evidence?  Now how many times has it gone the other way?

Im saying the number currently stands at something at least in the high single digits versus zero.

Yeah, it's always seemed weird to me.

But what the heck do you do about it?  The only real way to fix it is to ban all use of TV coverage for rules violations, and that's a can of worms - you'll end up clearly seeing video that proves a violation, without a violation.

And there's no way to make TV cameras cover everyone equally - as @iacas said above, how do you make sure they don't miss anything?

 

[Golfingdad]

11 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Yeah, it's always seemed weird to me.

But what the heck do you do about it?  The only real way to fix it is to ban all use of TV coverage for rules violations, and that's a can of worms - you'll end up clearly seeing video that proves a violation, without a violation.

And there's no way to make TV cameras cover everyone equally - as @iacas said above, how do you make sure they don't miss anything?

 

Point taken.  However, I would remove the word "clearly" from that.  Pretty much all of these violations have reasonable people arguing both for and against a penalty.  Rarely is it clear, DJs issue included.  

 

[Hardspoon]

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Rarely is it clear, DJs issue included.  

Fair enough!

3 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Pretty much all of these violations have reasonable people arguing both for and against a penalty.

Emphasis mine...you obviously haven't been reading the other thread... 

[Golfingdad]

7 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Fair enough!

Emphasis mine...you obviously haven't been reading the other thread... 

Haha.  Now now. :)

I will say, though, that I thought of something that counters my point above.  I still can't think of any penalties reversed by the presence of tv, but there are advantages.  Notably, with potential lost balls.  It's happened a few times where the announcers in the booth have explained to Roger Maltbie or Feherty where the ball disappeared and he helps the player find it.  Notably, if I'm not mistaken, at the PGA at Kiawah when Rory hit his ball into that tree.

[Hardspoon]

Just now, Golfingdad said:

I will say, though, that I thought of something that counters my point above.  I still can't think of any penalties reversed by the presence of tv, but there are advantages.  Notably, with potential lost balls.  It's happened a few times where the announcers in the booth have explained to Roger Maltbie or Feherty where the ball disappeared and he helps the player find it.  Notably, if I'm not mistaken, at the PGA at Kiawah when Rory hit his ball into that tree.

True...and (maybe I'm remembering this wrong), wasn't there a Bubba Watson chip shot where the replay confirmed that it had only "oscillated" and not moved?

I'd actually be curious what the players think.  If you gave them the choice between having no TV coverage on them or the full "Tiger" treatment, which would they prefer?