Using HD video evidence

[Fourputt]

11 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I get the idea but see it more as an excuse rather than a reasonable explanation.  

Obviously the field cannot all play under the same weather conditions or course conditions but that's expected by those who play the sport.    

This mentality that since there are some variables completely outside of our control during a golf tournament so therefore we shouldn't have to worry about fairness in other areas where there can be control is flawed.  

There's no reason the USGA couldn't dictate the number of cameras to be used for rules violation review.  

Yes there is.  It's called money.  Adding dozens of cameras and operators to cover every swing for every player would be prohibitively expensive.  

The USGA isn't in the business of filming the game, its business as far as the its open championships is concerned is managing a tournament.  In the present, Fox has the business of doing the camera work, and if they add enough cameras to satisfy some of you, they couldn't afford to hold the competition.  And there is still no guarantee that something won't happen that sets off another thread like this.  As I mentioned earlier, even the sports with "official" replay review have a high percentage of "inconclusive" reviews, and they have more confined action and and a far smaller venue to cover.  

[newtogolf]

12 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Yes there is.  It's called money.  Adding dozens of cameras and operators to cover every swing for every player would be prohibitively expensive.  

The USGA isn't in the business of filming the game, its business as far as the its open championships is concerned is managing a tournament.  In the present, Fox has the business of doing the camera work, and if they add enough cameras to satisfy some of you, they couldn't afford to hold the competition.  And there is still no guarantee that something won't happen that sets off another thread like this.  As I mentioned earlier, even the sports with "official" replay review have a high percentage of "inconclusive" reviews, and they have more confined action and and a far smaller venue to cover.  

The USGA has over $250,000,000 in savings which is incredibly high for a non-profit, don't tell me they can't afford a few cameras and cameramen for the US Opens they sponsor.  Next excuse?

[Patch]

If the players at these contests were 100% educated on the rules, were honest, and played with the integrity that their game/sport promotes, there would be no need for cameras, HD or otherwise in the first place.  

[imsys0042]

4 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

The USGA has over $250,000,000 in savings which is incredibly high for a non-profit, don't tell me they can't afford a few cameras and cameramen for the US Opens they sponsor.  

Or conversely they adopt a similar decision like 18/4.  I know they were trying to do the right thing but pouring over a video and blowing up the picture reminds me of a witch hunt. I read 18/4 as "if you need HD optics to see something, it's not significant enough".  Do we really want someone pouring over replays like crazy looking to trap people?  I feel like that is where it could go.

also the USGA is about as non-profit as I am.  So instead of modifying a rule or decision I would say that they get extra people watching anyone within the lead closely then.  They can afford it.  Even without my $25 since they baked Shinnicock so bad they had to water the greens during the round (aka they just want a bitch of a course).  But that's OT. 

[Fourputt]

7 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

The USGA has over $250,000,000 in savings which is incredibly high for a non-profit, don't tell me they can't afford a few cameras and cameramen for the US Opens they sponsor.  Next excuse?

I already said all that needs to be said.  Cameras aren't their business.  That's all that needs to be said to a reasonable person.

2 minutes ago, Patch said:

If the players at these contests were 100% educated on the rules, were honest, and played with the integrity that their game/sport promotes, there would be no need for cameras, HD or otherwise in the first place.  

Add to that if they also had the sense to use some caution in delicate or risky situations.

[DrvFrShow]

Not this crap again.

Look I said it in the other thread and I'll say it here.

1. During our rounds of golf the crap like moving a couple of grains of sand like Nordqvist did wouldn't even get noticed. Nor would the penalty Wie took a couple of years ago when she clipped a couple of grains of sand during her backswing. They were both caught on HD replay. DJ's penalty was resolved on HD replay. This stuff does not come up during the course of our weekend or even our league rounds.

And I'm calling bullshit on "the players aware of the rules." It was quite windy during the playoff when Nordqvist's club touched the sand. She could have been recovering from a gust. There is a very good chance she didn't notice it. Why didn't she protest the ruling? Would it have done any good to protest? No. This is not hockey or basketball or football. Golf is not an emotional game. It is a mental game where emotions will absolutely punish you. 

2. We potentially lose balls in the tall cabbage, or have a ball hit a sprinkler head and ricochet off down a steep hill into thick junk where we'll never find it. We'll hit a provisional. Then we'll look for our original shot for a few minutes, give up and play our provisional. Sometimes our provisional goes awry, too. 

Pros aren't like that. The TV camera, through the use of HD follows that ball to where it ends up. Sometimes the fans find it. They get to play the shot with no S&D. They do hit the ball on occasion into the tall cabbage. If there were not TV cameras or fans it might be gone. They would have to play it like us. They don't. 

So if they get advantage #2, they get disadvantage #1. It balances out.

 

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

Or conversely they adopt a similar decision like 18/4.  I know they were trying to do the right thing but pouring over a video and blowing up the picture reminds me of a witch hunt. I read 18/4 as "if you need HD optics to see something, it's not significant enough".  Do we really want someone pouring over replays like crazy looking to trap people?  I feel like that is where it could go.

also the USGA is about as non-profit as I am.  So instead of modifying a rule or decision I would say that they get extra people watching anyone within the lead closely then.  They can afford it.  Even without my $25 since they baked Shinnicock so bad they had to water the greens during the round (aka they just want a bitch of a course).  But that's OT. 

I'd be happy with either solution, the point is to make it as fair as possible for all the golfers when it comes to the use of cameras for rules violation review.  

3 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I already said all that needs to be said.  Cameras aren't their business.  That's all that needs to be said to a reasonable person.

Lame response.  I'm pretty sure golf is their business and they make a lot of money at it.  They are the sponsors of the US Opens so if they are hurting that bad for cash (which they aren't) or don't want to be in the camera business they could rent cameras for the 8 days of the tournaments they sponsor.  

[Fourputt]

Just now, newtogolf said:

I'd be happy with either solution, the point is to make it as fair as possible for all the golfers when it comes to the use of cameras for rules violation review.  

Lame response.  I'm pretty sure golf is their business and they make a lot of money at it.  They are the sponsors of the US Opens so if they are hurting that bad for cash (which they aren't) or don't want to be in the camera business they could rent cameras for the 8 days of the tournaments they sponsor.  

You make it sound like anyone can be a successful videographer.  That's so far off base that it doesn't even require a response.  Most people don't even have a clue about how to take a decent still photograph.  If you actually come up with an idea that makes any kind of sense, let me know.  

[Martyn W]

53 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Pardon my ignorance, but how the heck do you touch the ground with your club without grounding your club?

A club is grounded when the ground supports the weight of the club, Nordqist's club was, by definition, not grounded. The 13-4 prohibition is against touching the ground/sand, which she did.

58 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

There's no reason the USGA couldn't dictate the number of cameras to be used for rules violation review.  

Are you serious? There were over 25,000 strokes made over the four days!!!!!!

[Ernest Jones]

13 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

A club is grounded when the ground supports the weight of the club, Nordqist's club was, by definition, not grounded. The 13-4 prohibition is against touching the ground/sand, which she did.

Thanks for explaining the distinction. I guess it's pretty difficult for anyone other that the player to say with 100% certainty that hrs club is grounded? 

[newtogolf]

31 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

You make it sound like anyone can be a successful videographer.  That's so far off base that it doesn't even require a response.  Most people don't even have a clue about how to take a decent still photograph.  If you actually come up with an idea that makes any kind of sense, let me know.  

They hire camera staff for the 8 days just like they hire contractors for other expertise they need to run the tournament.  They have $250M in the bank, they can afford it.  

[SG11118]

I like D18/4 in regards to ball movement.  Not sure I want to see it stretched beyond ball movement.  Anna broke the rules by touching the sand with her club.  It was seen by a HD camera.  I'm fine with that penalty since it was captured during normal filming of the event.  Not touching the sand was completely in her control.  Ball movement often seems out of the players control.

I guess you could put videocameras on every tee, every green, and in the fairway for every approach.  It is probably only 50 cameras to possibly capture all the shots for a tournament, along with a team of reviewers.  Seems at least a little silly though.  Maybe some day it will happen.

[iacas]

Some of these comments make no sense to me.

It's not remotely reasonable to attempt to ensure "fair" (identical) TV coverage any more than it is to attempt to ensure "fair" (identical) weather for all, or "fair" (identical) spectator numbers for all.

---

Worse still are the comments suggesting that if an infraction is not caught by a fellow competitor who is 50 yards away worrying about his own shot, but clearly caught on TV coverage and broadcast to millions, and commented upon by the commentators… that it shouldn't be a penalty because the player or his caddie or fellow competitor didn't call him on it, and the only evidence exists on a video recording…

[Hardspoon]

3 hours ago, newtogolf said:

They hire camera staff for the 8 days just like they hire contractors for other expertise they need to run the tournament.  They have $250M in the bank, they can afford it.  

I know we're all working off incomplete information, but my gut feeling is that it would be affordable for tournaments like the US Open, and too expensive for others.  That seems like a recipe for disaster.

If you're going to move towards "equalizing" coverage, I think the better way is to limit it (as others have mentioned here)...you'd have a rule that only certain cameras (maybe the handheld ones following each player and filming shots at a wide angle) can be used for rules violations.  However, you'd have to accept that there are going to be violations (like Nordqist's) that will be on film, not enforced, and will cause a big controversy.

I for one don't think this is a good idea.  I just keep coming back to the thought that these spirited discussions occur when there as an issue (like either of the US Opens), but any of the potential solutions would just create more problems.

39 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

I guess you could put videocameras on every tee, every green, and in the fairway for every approach.  It is probably only 50 cameras to possibly capture all the shots for a tournament, along with a team of reviewers.  Seems at least a little silly though.  Maybe some day it will happen.

You'd probably need about 150 cameras to have one on every player.  Something to keep in mind is that the "zoomed in" footage of the type used to capture the Nordqist violation can't be handheld...it has to be on a stationary platform.  That's extremely limiting.

 

EDIT: I always feel so negative in these threads.  I agree with the instinct to want to find a solution to these types of problems, but I every time a solution is presented, I think "well, that's totally worse than the way it is now".  Blech.

EDIT #2: I think I realized why.  In general, I don't think that any policy/procedure/law should be modified in response to a specific instance where it failed.  That applies to this situation as much as it does to Congress or the Supreme Court.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Some of these comments make no sense to me.

It's not remotely reasonable to attempt to ensure "fair" (identical) TV coverage any more than it is to attempt to ensure "fair" (identical) weather for all, or "fair" (identical) spectator numbers for all.

---

Worse still are the comments suggesting that if an infraction is not caught by a fellow competitor who is 50 yards away worrying about his own shot, but clearly caught on TV coverage and broadcast to millions, and commented upon by the commentators… that it shouldn't be a penalty because the player or his caddie or fellow competitor didn't call him on it, and the only evidence exists on a video recording…

That's ok because the "weather" argument makes equally little sense to me.  It suggests that because you can't control every minute detail then you might as wel not try to control any detail.

All outdoor sports have weather variations.  Football teams play games where wind helps one field goal kicker at the end of the game but not the other.  Baseball teams play games where the sun will hit the eyes of the batters during one half inning but not any others.  Sun and wind affect tennis players unequally as well.  But it's not like because of that they think it's ok to go out there with 3 umpires one half inning and then 6 the other.  Or turn on the Hawkeye system while one guy is serving but not the other.

Trying to make things more fair shouldn't be abandoned as an idea simply because things can't be made 100% (identical) fair.

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

That's ok because the "weather" argument makes equally little sense to me.  It suggests that because you can't control every minute detail then you might as wel not try to control any detail.

All outdoor sports have weather variations.  Football teams play games where wind helps one field goal kicker at the end of the game but not the other.  Baseball teams play games where the sun will hit the eyes of the batters during one half inning but not any others.  Sun and wind affect tennis players unequally as well.  But it's not like because of that they think it's ok to go out there with 3 umpires one half inning and then 6 the other.  Or turn on the Hawkeye system while one guy is serving but not the other.

Trying to make things more fair shouldn't be abandoned as an idea simply because things can't be made 100% (identical) fair.

Cool, but that's not really what I've said.

They do account for weather. They cancel or delay things. But that's the reasonable limit.

I think we're at the reasonable limit, or very close. Demanding, for example, that all players have their own dedicated camera or be filmed equally is not reasonable.

The best you can do, IMO, is to act on information. Not to punish when the act is not discernible to the naked eye, which is the actual topic here…

And TV cameras aren't a part of the competition in the way umpires are. Umpires, of course, are themselves not all equally the same and thus not "fair."

I also think this is veering from the actual topic.

[Pete]

I know none of you will agree but I'm still going to suggest it because I still believe the rules should change in their principle to better reflect reality:

Change the rule to forbid players from testing the sand but no penalty for accidentally touching it a little bit where it is obvious they have gained no information about the condition of the bunker.

So video evidence is then only really necessary when someone is looking to cheat. 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Pete

[newtogolf]

My understanding is that there are always at least two cameras on every hole, the tee box and putting green.  The most popular golfers and leading groups have cameras that walk with them and record everything they do.  If video from these cameras is available for rulings review then you do not have everyone playing under the same rules.  

We've been approaching this from the rules violation side but shouldn't the 100th ranked player in 15th place be entitled to the same technology benefits that the #1 player or tournament leader gets in terms of available video footage to help them find their ball?  The #1 player checks the video and they find the ball, no penalty, the 100th ranked player gets penalized for a lost ball because there weren't any cameras following him. 

Whether it's for the golfers benefit or detriment the variable number of cameras covering each golfer creates unfair playing advantages that unlike weather or course conditions could be controlled and fixed.