Using HD video evidence

[turtleback]

The Anna Nordquist situation occurred only because the committee was able, under the Rules & Decisions, to consider evidence that was only discernible using not only HD video, but ENHANCED HD video.  Had the issue been whether a ball moved, rather than was the sand touched, then Decision 18/4 would have required the Committee to, in effect, ignore the evidence, since it provides that if the only evidence was only discernible through HD video (let alone enhanced HD)  the penalty is NOT assessed.

So I open for discussion the proposition that the Rules and Decisions should be tweaked in some way to make the use or non use of HD video, when it is the only way of discerning what happened, allowable or not allowable in making a ruling.   Should the R & D be consistent in their approach to allowing HD video evidence across the whole rulebook, or is there some intrinsic reason why HD evidence should only be ignored in the very narrow instance of whether a ball moved? 

 

[Asmanning95]

8 minutes ago, turtleback said:

The Anna Nordquist situation occurred only because the committee was able, under the Rules & Decisions, to consider evidence that was only discernible using not only HD video, but ENHANCED HD video.  Had the issue been whether a ball moved, rather than was the sand touched, then Decision 18/4 would have required the Committee to, in effect, ignore the evidence, since it provides that if the only evidence was only discernible through HD video (let alone enhanced HD)  the penalty is NOT assessed.

So I open for discussion the proposition that the Rules and Decisions should be tweaked in some way to make the use or non use of HD video, when it is the only way of discerning what happened, allowable or not allowable in making a ruling.   Should the R & D be consistent in their approach to allowing HD video evidence across the whole rulebook, or is there some intrinsic reason why HD evidence should only be ignored in the very narrow instance of whether a ball moved? 

 

It's a tough one. As you say the committee would have to ignore evidence. Not sure that's the right way to go. That being said I'm not a fan of people at home and broadcasters highlighting these issues to officials. I remember the Jason Day thread last week and since a rules official was present, his seemingly blatant breaking of the rules in many peoples eyes, wasn't punishable.

[imsys0042]

I think if you have to go to HD video to find something happened, then unintentionally it becomes a witch hunt.   I believe the 18/4 should be expanded to other areas.   If it's that hard to find, then I doubt it has any bearing on the outcome of the shot.   I realize that in this case that it clearly did happen, and under the rules the penalty properly assessed.  However I find it hard to believe balls don't oscillate or perhaps move slightly in the rough from footwork or club-work and it materially changes anything.   At some point you cannot zoom in closer and closer to ding people.

By establishing a thresh-hold you actually eliminate a case where players are finishing a round and someone uses enhanced HD video to find something so everyone walks off the last hole and the players find out that the winner is not the winner.

I don't feel this is allowing cheating.   If something happens that is notice-able then it should be called out.   But when you have to go to such lengths (remember the story was that three reviews in HD didn't show it), then there has to be a thresh-hold that says "It did not affect the shot or outcome"

[Asheville]

Once seen, it cannot be unseen. TV is a fact of life, without TV golf would be as popular as hopscotch. D18-4 gives the Committee guidance for other similar events, not just ball at rest moved.

[Rulesman]

10 minutes ago, Asheville said:

 D18-4 gives the Committee guidance for other similar events, not just ball at rest moved.

Are you sure?

[imsys0042]

Even if it's seen, I think that below a certain threshold it's immaterial.  I like 18/4 for that reason.   If it's so small then it is immaterial.   And if it's that small then I think it helps to remove the judgment call aspect out of it.   If you have to zoom in so much, then like the DJ incident at the Open, then you see the split between people who think he caused it to move or not. 

Here is the text from the USGA:

The Definition of "Moved" - when a ball "leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place" - does not contemplate movements of the ball that are only discernible through the use of high definition television or any other form of sophisticated technology.

When determining whether or not his ball at rest has moved, a player must make that judgment based on all the information readily available to him at the time, so that he can determine whether the ball must be replaced under Rule 18-2 or another applicable Rule. 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.

I read that as that it's too small to take into account.  There are public relations nightmares for players and tournament providers any way that you slice it, but I believe that 18/4 should cover situations like sand in a bunker or other areas where something so slight does not change the outcome.

Edited to add the next paragraph, and to say that the USGA then possibly un-dos that anyway because they say that the committee can overrule that based on all available evidence, yet the way it is worded I don't know if they are trying to let HD back in, or just consider testimony from other people who were there.

Edited July 12, 2016 by imsys0042

[Asheville]

7 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

Are you sure?

I think so. Don't we use other Decisions in that way?

[imsys0042]

3 minutes ago, Asheville said:

I think so. Don't we use other Decisions in that way?

I don't think so.   Much like a court of law when you try and tie in a previous case/decision, it's up to a judge to determine whether that is valid and whether a law is restricted/expanded by such prior case being cited.   The decision here is strictly for ball at rest moved, but people might want to cite it to restrict HD video for other cases.  But the USGA would have to either amend a rule, or post a different decision attached to the rule for touching sand in a bunker.  Logically yes, but under the rules, no.

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

The Anna Nordquist situation occurred only because the committee was able, under the Rules & Decisions, to consider evidence that was only discernible using not only HD video, but ENHANCED HD video.  Had the issue been whether a ball moved, rather than was the sand touched, then Decision 18/4 would have required the Committee to, in effect, ignore the evidence, since it provides that if the only evidence was only discernible through HD video (let alone enhanced HD)  the penalty is NOT assessed.

So I open for discussion the proposition that the Rules and Decisions should be tweaked in some way to make the use or non use of HD video, when it is the only way of discerning what happened, allowable or not allowable in making a ruling.   Should the R & D be consistent in their approach to allowing HD video evidence across the whole rulebook, or is there some intrinsic reason why HD evidence should only be ignored in the very narrow instance of whether a ball moved?

I agree they are the same essential circumstance of a rule violation noticeable only through the technology, but receiving different treatment under the R &D.

I could see a scenario where a player searched for a buried ball in a bunker and re-created their lie but failed to replace a small pebble they hadn't noticed and there is no local rule allowing removal of such stones. Would they be open to penalty if the difference was spotted through HD video closeups? I can think of other scenarios under the rules where this sort of thing could happen. 

A broader acknowledgement of the issue would seem reasonable unless they are unhappy with the 18/4 decision. I agree that consistency with the issue is what's desirable here.

The difficulty seems to come in where the line is drawn. Do you ignore all closeups, or only HD ones? Or would you only reference video evidence that shows the full height of the player at address?

[Club Rat]

I'm not a fan of video review in any sports.

It's certainly not an equal assessment in golf due to not every player has a camera focused on them at all times.

Let the players and officials call or determine any breach or acknowledgement of occurrences when they play as they have for many years.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

The Anna Nordqvist situation occurred only because the committee was able, under the Rules & Decisions, to consider evidence that was only discernible using not only HD video, but ENHANCED HD video.

To be clear (and a bit pedantic, yes), it wasn't "enhanced" HD video. The shot you saw, played back without secondary magnification and at real speed, shows sand being moved/touched by the clubhead. I say "secondary" magnification because the camera was zoomed in (just optics), the same way you can zoom in SD video.

Anyway… that point of "enhanced" or not is irrelevant (hence pedantic) because of the language in 18/4, which basically says "to the naked eye".

I would support - and would like to believe - the USGA will add a new decision titled something like this: 

1-4/0.5* - Television Evidence Shows Rules Infraction Not Reasonably Discernible to Naked Eye

* 1-2/0.5 is, of course, already taken, but it may apply to rule 1-2 more so than 1-4.

I could see them then using the same type of language as in 18/4 to support this type of thing.

This would still allow them to use video evidence (i.e. for example, when Michelle Wie grounded her club in a hazard many years ago, but nobody called her on it and she denied doing so or said she was "balancing" or something). That is clearly evident without the use of HD or magnification, but it's still "evidence" that's admissible to get the situation right.

Almost nobody would want a situation where a player clearly violates a rule but, because it was captured on a video feed, it's inadmissible and the player goes on to win or make the cut or just go unpenalized when clearly he or she should be penalized.

Spoiler

1 hour ago, Asheville said:

Once seen, it cannot be unseen. TV is a fact of life, without TV golf would be as popular as hopscotch. D18-4 gives the Committee guidance for other similar events, not just ball at rest moved.

It does not, from what was said at my last rules seminar. It applies to "Ball at Rest Moved" only.

And again…

5 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

It's certainly not an equal assessment in golf due to not every player has a camera focused on them at all times.

Video review can help players too. No, it's not fair, but neither is the disparate size of the crowds, the weather conditions, the playing partners, and all manner of other things. You'd willingly discard evidence? That's a far worse situation.

5 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

Let the players and officials call or determine any breach or acknowledgement of occurrences when they play as they have for many years.

They've been using video for decades. I don't know when the first video review occurred, but we had a video review in the 90s in a high school match that the news happened to be covering (it was the end of a tournament). The review of the video then helped get the right ruling, just as it has in every other instance you can name.

Players don't catch everything. As a Rules Official, we're taught to collect all available evidence. Weigh it. And then rule. That includes cell phone footage if it exists, spectator testimony, player testimony, physical evidence… whatever.

And other sport is using more and more video. That's the way the world is going. Can golf hold out more since players aren't actively trying to get away with everything they can? Yes. But they can't hold out - and you certainly can't just ignore clear evidence just because it was recorded as video.

---

But yes, as I said above, I'd apply the "to the naked eye" type of situation to all. If Anna had soled her club enough to have caused a little indentation behind her ball, whether that was caught on HD video or not, it would be "discernible to the naked eye" and thus still a penalty.

[bkuehn1952]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

... I'd apply the "to the naked eye" type of situation to all. If Anna had soled her club enough to have caused a little indentation behind her ball, whether that was caught on HD video or not, it would be "discernible to the naked eye" and thus still a penalty.

Totally agree with the "naked eye" test being the standard.

[Club Rat]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, it's not fair

Then what's next? Having players wear body cams?

Golf has been played for many years without use of video to make determinations or decisions and it has been fine without video.

Right or wrong, the game will go on and there will be more incidents captured which leads to more media up-roaring's.

Yes the times are changing, good or bad will be determined by future golf generations.

[Asmanning95]

30 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

I'm not a fan of video review in any sports.

Do you not find getting the correct outcome to be massively important, and feel that sports, especially major, worldwide, multi-million dollar sports should avail of these reviews when available. I think they work very well with the TMO in rugby and the use of Hawkeye is tennis. Of course some systems need to be reviewed such as the new system used for rugby which seems to have affected the flow of the game which isn't good either. I find the NFL system works reasonably well too

[Club Rat]

3 minutes ago, Asmanning95 said:

getting the correct outcome

Why takeaway the human element of sports. Sure one official may or may not visible see an occurrence and judgments affect the outcome, right or wrong.

 

[natureboy]

38 minutes ago, iacas said:

But yes, as I said above, I'd apply the "to the naked eye" type of situation to all. If Anna had soled her club enough to have caused a little indentation behind her ball, whether that was caught on HD video or not, it would be "discernible to the naked eye" and thus still a penalty.

Not sure, but are you saying that under your interpretation of 'naked eye' you would still have penalized Nordqvist because the actions discernable on the zoomed video would have left 'naked eye' indentation as evidence that had you been there to examine it and before the swing eliminated it would have justified the penalty?

Or are you just using a hypothetical where if the action of the club had been enough to make an obvious indentation noticeable at a zoom equivalent to a normal viewing distance then the penalty would apply?

27 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

Totally agree with the "naked eye" test being the standard.

I'm not positive he is saying the same thing we might be per above.

Edited July 12, 2016 by natureboy

[Asmanning95]

5 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

Why takeaway the human element of sports. Sure one official may or may not visible see an occurrence and judgments affect the outcome, right or wrong.

 

While i agree with this after the event, and that there is no real point arguing with an officials view and whether it was right or wrong, I do believe that if the technology available allows for the correct conclusion to be reached, it should absolutely be used.

[imsys0042]

Decision 18/4 says that if the ball moved but it can only be detected by HD video aka enhanced optics, then it is deemed to not be moved.   I'd love for the USGA to clarify whether they mean that the movement is insignificant enough to warrant a penalty, notably due to the difficulty to determine such an event even with zoomed/enhanced picture.

I think the "deemed not to moved" is significant because it implies no penalty.   A clear wording and explanation to this effect is needed to convey that.   Sorry USGA, but if you are going to penalize DJ for "more likely than not" then cutting off the level of scrutiny at a certain point because the movement (or other event) is so insignificant is probably the best thing.  If there was a similar decision for this, then I can see this going down differently.   

IIRC, the cameraman informed someone that a rules breach might have occurred.  Anna did not notice this happening.  Upon review I believe three attempts at normal magnification occurred and they did not show anything, it was zooming in that caught it.   I think they shouldn't have zoomed in.   To me, naked eye is what you see on TV or what people see in person, at whatever resolution is being used.   Unfortunately that leaves the case of someone else zooming in and posting it for the world to see, but again the wording of the decision "deemed not to move" due to HD optics basically says that the movement or event was so insignificant that under the rules it's not an event.

Naked eye really isn't the best term because it implies you need to be present and close to the golfer and with TV that doesn't have to be the case.