Using HD video evidence

[Club Rat]

9 minutes ago, Asmanning95 said:

it should absolutely be used.

And it has been used, therefore the 2016 US Open's will always be remembered as

"the players who were caught on camera being penalized and not from the abilities of either players who Won"

[Golfingdad]

28 minutes ago, Asmanning95 said:

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.

See, but I don't consider it a "correct" outcome when it's so unevenly applied.  How many bunker shots did Anna hit or Brittany Lang hit this weekend that weren't televised so closely?  What if Lang touched the sand on one of those earlier in the week and "got away with it" because it wasn't televised?  How could the outcome of this tournament be considered "correct" if we penalize one player because we see it, but not the other one?

Sure, missed calls happen all the time in the other sports too, but at least in the other sports there is some amount of fairness applied, or attempted, in the way technology is used.

In football, for example, if one teams headsets or intercom to the booth goes down, they require the other team to turn theirs off as well.

[iacas]

27 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

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

Huh?

27 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

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

How do you know? Video has been used for decades. Hell, Craig Stadler was penalized in the 80s because of video review.

I prefer a game that's played closer to the truth than just what people happen to see (or fail to see). You're excluding information. I'm not in favor of that, to a point (i.e. not penalizing a player for something they couldn't possibly have seen with the naked eye).

27 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

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

You want an uproar, John?

Player clearly cheats. Violates three rules, should be DQed or penalized multiple strokes. All caught on camera. Visible at :D quality through the bottom of a glass Coke bottle. Obvious to anyone who watches the footage, even if they barely understand golf.

But because it's on video, and the committee can't use the evidence (in your world), the player wins the tournament by one over the underdog local crowd favorite hero.

No, that won't cause an uproar at all…

14 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.

Because the human element fucks up all the time. Hell, they're considering making balls and strikes calls automated because it's more accurate.

12 minutes ago, natureboy said:

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?

The hypothetical. She did nothing (in reality) discernible to the naked eye.

Just now, Golfingdad said:

See, but I don't consider it a "correct" outcome when it's so unevenly applied.  How many bunker shots did Anna hit or Brittany Lang hit this weekend that weren't televised so closely?  What if Lang touched the sand on one of those earlier in the week and "got away with it" because it wasn't televised?  How could the outcome of this tournament be considered "correct" if we penalize one player because we see it, but not the other one?

So what's your solution? Everyone in the field plays each hole simultaneously, so they don't get different crowd sizes, different weather conditions, different wind, different times of day, different green firmnesses, different playing partners… anything?

There's a limit to how fair you can make anything, and golf is not terribly concerned with ensuring fairness.

Would you be in favor of letting a criminal off the hook for committing a crime simply because there may have been other similar crimes committed that weren't caught on cameras?

Because I can't possibly imagine that anyone would ever suggest that it would be better to ignore evidence when you happen to have it and when it can be applied (before the close of the tournament). That is just so preposterous to me, I don't even know where to begin.

---

The "to the naked eye" standard is, IMO, a good one.

The "don't use video at all" standard is, IMO, a horrible joke.

[JetFan1983]

I like the use of hardcore HD video to make the correct call. I think it holds everyone accountable. It's not a secret that people on tour cheat, so I think it would increase if video evidence was removed. 

If anything, I'd propose we take this a step further and have the rules committee people chilling in an air conditioned room where their sole job is to watch the broadcast and have total access to whatever the cameras are picking up. The moment an infraction is noticed, they can make the call in a timely manner, then contact the officials on the course to tell them to assess penalties. Players would not be allowed to appeal, kind of like in other sports where you could argue a call, but it wouldn't make a lick of difference. 

And that same "officials booth" would be where viewers directed their phone calls if they spotted something and the officials missed it. 

I'm more concerned with getting the ruling correct and doing so in as timely a fashion as possible. I don't think this is that hard to setup either. They set up all sorts of tents and temporary obstructions for these events, they can make one more little one for three or four people to hang out in and watch the broadcast.  

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, Asmanning95 said:

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

There are still human elements at play.  

I refereed football games, we could virtually call holding and blocking from behind on every play if we wanted to, the same is true for the NFL.  The NFL empowers with their referees certain liberties to call the game in the context that they see it, not under the microscope of HD video review.  Imagine if the NFL went back after every play was completed and reviewed every players actions to ensure there wasn't a penalty committed or if viewers from home could call in to report penalties that weren't called.  This is what some people expect from golf.  

I believe obvious rules violations that provide the player with an advantage should be reviewed.  I also believe that in the case of Anna and DJ the rules got in the way of a great tournament.  Neither DJ nor Anna gained any benefit or advantage from the penalties that were ruled against them and if not for HD cameras with extreme zoom capabilities would likely not have been penalized.    

[Club Rat]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Because the human element ****s up all the time.

Certainly, just like my **** up in the Newport Cup and I declared my mistake to Jamo. But the human element in golf is still the willingness of players to call the penalty on themselves.

Yes there are probably many occasions when players may have had an infraction with or without knowingly and some may disregard the rules (damn cheaters) but that's the nature of the beast.
 

It's not a perfect world and never will be. All I'm saying is Golf is better off without video officials.

[No Mulligans]

An oscillating ball can happen without being caused by the player.  Grounding a club is always caused by the player.  These are two very different things and consequently I think enhanced technology / HD / slow motion should be included as evidence when it comes to grounding the club.

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

An oscillating ball can happen without being caused by the player.  Grounding a club is always caused by the player.  These are two very different things and consequently I think enhanced technology / HD / slow motion should be included as evidence when it comes to grounding the club.

Do you consider what Anna did to be "grounding the club"?  

[No Mulligans]

Just now, newtogolf said:

Do you consider what Anna did to be "grounding the club"?  

Maybe grounding the club wasn't the correct term, I don't know.  But she definitely touched the ground with her club.  That is irrefutable and against the rules.  Easy call.

[Golfingdad]

15 minutes ago, JetFan1983 said:

I like the use of hardcore HD video to make the correct call. I think it holds everyone accountable. It's not a secret that people on tour cheat, so I think it would increase if video evidence was removed. 

If anything, I'd propose we take this a step further and have the rules committee people chilling in an air conditioned room where their sole job is to watch the broadcast and have total access to whatever the cameras are picking up. The moment an infraction is noticed, they can make the call in a timely manner, then contact the officials on the course to tell them to assess penalties. Players would not be allowed to appeal, kind of like in other sports where you could argue a call, but it wouldn't make a lick of difference. 

And that same "officials booth" would be where viewers directed their phone calls if they spotted something and the officials missed it. 

I'm more concerned with getting the ruling correct and doing so in as timely a fashion as possible. I don't think this is that hard to setup either. They set up all sorts of tents and temporary obstructions for these events, they can make one more little one for three or four people to hang out in and watch the broadcast.  

Interesting thoughts, I like it.  However, I have a couple of comments.  Mainly, I'd say let's remove your third paragraph completely.  Just leave that shit out altogether.

---

And regarding the cheating - I was unaware of that. Probably because it's never caught on TV, and that is probably because those who cheat are aware enough to know what would happen if they were caught on TV.  So they're only cheating when they are pretty darn sure they aren't getting caught.  Now, consider that the HD video to get the correct call is being done on the "innocents" who are in the hunt and whose balls are accidentally moving 1mm or who are grazing, literally, 3 grains of sand and are on camera while the cheaters are off in the woods gaining on them.  Isn't that even worse??  It magnifies the discrepancy.

Perhaps they need to add a couple of random roving cameras that will be there all day, even before the telecast, and will take close up video on all players (unbeknownest to them) at various points on the course.  (Sort of like random drug testing ;))

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Maybe grounding the club wasn't the correct term, I don't know.  But she definitely touched the ground with her club.  That is irrefutable and against the rules.  Easy call.

I wasn't actually debating this, just asking for clarification.  In ROG terms she did ground the club, but obviously the rule covers the gamut from a few grains of sand  that likely aren't discernible to the naked eye (like Anna did) to pressing down on the sand to give yourself better access to the bottom of the ball.  

[Rulesman]

This was nothing to do with grounding the club.

The rule that was breached was touching the ground.

13-4. Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions

Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or awater hazard) or that, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player must not:

b.

Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club

 

[newtogolf]

9 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

This was nothing to do with grounding the club.

The rule that was breached was touching the ground.

13-4. Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions

Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or awater hazard) or that, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player must not:

b.

Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club

 

Okay,but that's not how it's being reported, even by Golf Digest;   http://www.golfdigest.com/story/lang-and-nordqvist-in-the-midst-of-a-playoff-for-us-womens-open-title

Quote

In the second hole of a three-hole aggregate playoff between Lang and Anna Nordqvist, video replays detected Nordqvist grounding her club in a fairway bunker along the 17th hole at CordeValle Golf Club in San Martin, Calif. She was notified she was assessed a two-stroke penalty after hitting her 

 

[turtleback]

3 hours 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.

No that is not how decisions work.  

3 hours ago, Asheville said:

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

No, and despite some misunderstanding in the other thread, no one has suggested we should.

1 hour ago, Club Rat said:

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.

But golf has always wanted to have rulings made with as much of the facts as is knowable.  That is why evidence from spectators is used to help, e.g.,  determine where a ball crossed the margin of a hazard, or whether a ball was moved by an outside agency.  Evidence from ANYWHERE has always been admissible in a golf ruling.  Which is why 18/4 represented such a break from that principle.  There is now a class of evidence that is explicitly NOT to be taken into account when making a ruling.  But right now it is only disregarded on one specific type of ruling.  That seems like an unnecessary distinction to me.  And frankly I have yet to hear any remotely convincing argument as to why that distinction should a) exist in the first place, and b) now that we are seeing a different situation, continue. 

If we want consistency, and I personally do, then either that kind of evidence should be fair game for all purposes or it should be excluded for all purposes.  I personally lean towards the former.  I understand that there are issues with some players being on camera more than others and the perceived unfairness that can create.  But fairness is not a value in golf, equity is.  I can come up with scenario after scenario where fairness is violated.  But equity, treating like situations the same, is different.  And IMO it is equity that demands that HD video not be treated differently as evidence in some cases.

 

 

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

Okay,but that's not how it's being reported, even by Golf Digest;   http://www.golfdigest.com/story/lang-and-nordqvist-in-the-midst-of-a-playoff-for-us-womens-open-title

 

Shocking that a golf publication would use words wrong.  

At least everything else they say about the rules is sure to be right < /sarcasm >

[Fourputt]

4 hours 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 posted this in the Nordqvist thread, but I'll copy it here:

As far a 18/4 is concerned, I can visualize a situation in a bunker where the player grazes the sand on his back swing, improves his swing path, but is unable to observe it because the club is in his line of vision when it happens.  That could clearly give an advantage to a player, and would be quite contrary to the application of Rule 13-2.

As such, Decision 18/4 cannot apply in this case like it does to an invisible movement of the ball, something which cannot possibly give a player an advantage.  The situations are potentially too different from each other.

3 hours ago, Asheville said:

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

The situations have to be very similar, and I don't believe that these two are in that category.

[WUTiger]

1 hour ago, imsys0042 said:

  ... 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. ...

This tracks with the analysis of instant replay usage in NFL and NCAA football (gridiron) games. In football, analysis of video reviews shows the possibility of slow-motion "creating" a view of the play that's not discernible in real time. Sports announcers call these bang-bang plays. What may look like a fumble in slow-motion may not be accepted if, in real time, it shows the player's knee hit the ground right at the release of the football.

If you can't see a golf ball oscillating with the naked eye view, it's rough to call a penalty an hour later.

For futbol/soccer fans, the BBC reports the IFAB wants to use Video Referees during the 2017-18 season.

[Asmanning95]

53 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

There are still human elements at play.  

I refereed football games, we could virtually call holding and blocking from behind on every play if we wanted to, the same is true for the NFL.  The NFL empowers with their referees certain liberties to call the game in the context that they see it, not under the microscope of HD video review.  Imagine if the NFL went back after every play was completed and reviewed every players actions to ensure there wasn't a penalty committed or if viewers from home could call in to report penalties that weren't called.  This is what some people expect from golf.  

I believe obvious rules violations that provide the player with an advantage should be reviewed.  I also believe that in the case of Anna and DJ the rules got in the way of a great tournament.  Neither DJ nor Anna gained any benefit or advantage from the penalties that were ruled against them and if not for HD cameras with extreme zoom capabilities would likely not have been penalized.    

With the holding calls in football is it not accepted practice? In that sense the majority of sports have elements where players bend rules to gain advantages, I know it happens in golf but is it in my opinion far less accepted and as you say some people expect this from golf. I'm in agreement with what you say at the end.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

So what's your solution? Everyone in the field plays each hole simultaneously, so they don't get different crowd sizes, different weather conditions, different wind, different times of day, different green firmnesses, different playing partners… anything?

There's a limit to how fair you can make anything, and golf is not terribly concerned with ensuring fairness.

Would you be in favor of letting a criminal off the hook for committing a crime simply because there may have been other similar crimes committed that weren't caught on cameras?

I don't know what the answer is, but these are both ridiculous comparisons.

Number 1, just because we can't control weather and other variables, that shouldn't limit us from the discussion of controlling, or attempting to make more fair, things that are "man-made."

And, number 2 ... come on.  Criminals are not in a sports competition where fairness and an "even playing field" are inherent to their endeavors.  That comparison is just absurd.