Using HD video evidence

[turtleback]

 

15 hours 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.  

Only if they have bionic eyes that can mentally replay the shot in super slo mo.

 

15 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

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

 

Advantage over what?  The way non-pros play in their regular play?  WHY should we even talk about advantage or disadvantage between these completely different situations.   

 

12 hours ago, SG11118 said:

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.

That would solve nothing.  

11 hours 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…

I agree.  I tried to distinguish this topic from the more general topic of video review.  HD was NOT needed for Tiger's Masters penalty NOR was it needed for the DK fiasco at Oakmont.  All they needed to see at Oakmont was that he grounded his club and he took practice swings right by the ball.  And the issue is not video review in general, which is what most of the posts seem to be about but the admissibility or non-admissibility of evidence that requires technology, i.e., not visible to the naked eye.

Very few of the comments seem to bear on the topic.  Maybe a poll to focus thing?

  

 

[Fourputt]

50 minutes ago, turtleback said:

 

Only if they have bionic eyes that can mentally replay the shot in super slo mo.

 

Advantage over what?  The way non-pros play in their regular play?  WHY should we even talk about advantage or disadvantage between these completely different situations.   

 

That would solve nothing.  

I agree.  I tried to distinguish this topic from the more general topic of video review.  HD was NOT needed for Tiger's Masters penalty NOR was it needed for the DK fiasco at Oakmont.  All they needed to see at Oakmont was that he grounded his club and he took practice swings right by the ball.  And the issue is not video review in general, which is what most of the posts seem to be about but the admissibility or non-admissibility of evidence that requires technology, i.e., not visible to the naked eye.

Very few of the comments seem to bear on the topic.  Maybe a poll to focus thing?

  

 

I've always felt that you were pretty well grounded on the rules and the principles, but this thread has changed my mind somewhat.  If you can't see an inherent difference, and potentially different outcomes between the nearly nonexistent potential for abuse of 18-2, and huge potential for the same in 13-2 and 13-4, then you and I are not only not on the same page, but we aren't even reading the same book.  You haven't replied to my earlier comment so I'll repeat it again.

I could easily knock off a lump or dislodge a pebble in my takeaway without being able to see it because I can't see through the clubhead, in clear violation of 13-2 or 13-4.  The potential for abuse is real and to me, quite obvious.  I not just talking about televised tournaments, because the rules must apply across the board.  If a player with few scruples learns that he can get away with such acts as long as he can't see what he's done, then he is going to try to do so.  Not all players are honor bound to the rule book, that's quite apparent from the way that some abuse the handicap system.  I don't want a rule that give them free rein.  

I can see it now, a club tournament with Player A in the bunker and Player B watching.  B sees A's club drag the sand and smooth off a little mound just behind the ball.  B calls him on it and A says "I didn't see, it so by the rules I did nothing wrong - as far as I'm concerned, it never happened."  Now B has to somehow prove intent, and we are headed down that proverbial slippery slope.

What I do want is for this rule to remain as it is, and for the pros to start taking a bit more care when they have a tricky or risky lie.  If that means that they spend some practice time playing shots with the club held farther off the ball, then maybe that just makes them better players.  The players need to take responsibility for their own actions, not hand it off to the TV crew.

[Asmanning95]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

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. 

That just opens up the avenue for people to claim they were "accidentally touching it a little" when they were testing the sand or just trying to gain any sort of advantage. That's what I like about the majority of golf's rules, there's no real ambiguity. You touched the sand or you didn't. Simple

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

I could easily knock off a lump or dislodge a pebble in my takeaway without being able to see it because I can't see through the clubhead, in clear violation of 13-2 or 13-4.  The potential for abuse is real and to me, quite obvious.  I not just talking about televised tournaments, because the rules must apply across the board.  If a player with few scruples learns that he can get away with such acts as long as he can't see what he's done, then he is going to try to do so.  Not all players are honor bound to the rule book, that's quite apparent from the way that some abuse the handicap system.  I don't want a rule that give them free rein.  

I can see it now, a club tournament with Player A in the bunker and Player B watching.  B sees A's club drag the sand and smooth off a little mound just behind the ball.  B calls him on it and A says "I didn't see, it so by the rules I did nothing wrong - as far as I'm concerned, it never happened."  Now B has to somehow prove intent, and we are headed down that proverbial slippery slope.

What I do want is for this rule to remain as it is, and for the pros to start taking a bit more care when they have a tricky or risky lie.  If that means that they spend some practice time playing shots with the club held farther off the ball, then maybe that just makes them better players.  The players need to take responsibility for their own actions, not hand it off to the TV crew.

No argument that Nordqvist was tempting fate with how close to the surface her club got, but as @DrvFrShow mentioned, she could have been a bit close to start then pushed by a gust and just missed saving it.

That said, I still disagree with your points about the video evidence discussion. Dislodging a pebble so that it is no longer in the swing path is both discernable to the naked eye as well as a 'clump' if it's more than a few grains of sand.

No one is saying the infraction always has to be visible to the player involved. That's only a point people are discussing as to why Nordqvist didn't call the penalty on herself. She legitimately could neither see it nor feel it.

If the video showing the full height of the player at address (as if you were standing near them) shows the infraction, then penalty. In your scenario the playing partner saw it with the naked eye so it's a legit penalty. If the guilty partner also denies feeling it, then the situation is no different than under the current rule with one person arguing it happened and the other saying it didn't.

In my limited experience pebbles and clumps are typically felt by the player through the club (unless you barely graze them - in which case they will not be substantially displaced) so most honorable players would call themselves on it. A few grains of sand not so much. Player B would be unlikely to play another round with Player A, and justifiably so IMO.

Edited July 13, 2016 by natureboy

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

I've always felt that you were pretty well grounded on the rules and the principles, but this thread has changed my mind somewhat.  If you can't see an inherent difference, and potentially different outcomes between the nearly nonexistent potential for abuse of 18-2, and huge potential for the same in 13-2 and 13-4, then you and I are not only not on the same page, but we aren't even reading the same book.  You haven't replied to my earlier comment so I'll repeat it again.

I could easily knock off a lump or dislodge a pebble in my takeaway without being able to see it because I can't see through the clubhead, in clear violation of 13-2 or 13-4.  The potential for abuse is real and to me, quite obvious.  I not just talking about televised tournaments, because the rules must apply across the board.  If a player with few scruples learns that he can get away with such acts as long as he can't see what he's done, then he is going to try to do so.  Not all players are honor bound to the rule book, that's quite apparent from the way that some abuse the handicap system.  I don't want a rule that give them free rein.  

I can see it now, a club tournament with Player A in the bunker and Player B watching.  B sees A's club drag the sand and smooth off a little mound just behind the ball.  B calls him on it and A says "I didn't see, it so by the rules I did nothing wrong - as far as I'm concerned, it never happened."  Now B has to somehow prove intent, and we are headed down that proverbial slippery slope.

What I do want is for this rule to remain as it is, and for the pros to start taking a bit more care when they have a tricky or risky lie.  If that means that they spend some practice time playing shots with the club held farther off the ball, then maybe that just makes them better players.  The players need to take responsibility for their own actions, not hand it off to the TV crew.

It is much easier to counter an argument when you re-frame it into something it never was in the first place.  How allowing or not allowing high resolution video evidence in making rulings gives free reign to weekend golfers to cheat is just too big a reach for me to get my head around.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.  Obviously a rule that governs the use of HD video recordings would only apply when there actually IS HD video recording.

I cannot even imagine WHAT you think I am advocating, after reading your screed.

[Fourputt]

21 minutes ago, turtleback said:

 

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.  Obviously a rule that governs the use of HD video recordings would only apply when there actually IS HD video recording.

I cannot even imagine WHAT you think I am advocating, after reading your screed.

No it wouldn't.  You are saying that you want to add the stipulation to the rule that if it isn't discernible to the player, then it's okay.  That just isn't how the rules should work in general.  They made one tiny exception for Rule 18-2 because there is no possible way that a ball moving such a tiny amount could possibly affect play.  That is a very specific and isolated situation.  It is worlds different from rearranging even a small amount of sand in a bunker.  

I'm really sorry that we can't meet on this point but my mind won't change as long as the rule remains unchanged, and if it changes, I'll be disappointed that USGA knuckled under to pressure rather than staying firm to the rules.

[Martyn W]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

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.

Define 'a little bit'

[DrvFrShow]

3 hours ago, turtleback said:

 

Advantage over what?  The way non-pros play in their regular play?  WHY should we even talk about advantage or disadvantage between these completely different situations.   

 

 

Then you have someone make sure to find my drive in the deep rough. I can't find it. But the numerous TV cameras saw exactly where their shot went. Not only that the fans saw exactly where theirs went. Different conditions. If they played in our daily conditions, they'd be hitting a provisional ball. When was the last time you saw a provisional hit on the tour even when a shot went into the woods? I didn't think so. They found the ball immediately. In the meantime you or I are hitting 4 somewhere on the fairway or in the shorter rough.

Sometimes we can't even find a drive in the second cut if the ball settled down. This means a trip back to the tee for a stroke and distance penalty. We're playing by the same rules they are.

To say this isn't an advantage for the tour is glossing over the situation. Are you advocating bifurcation of the rules because of TV?

[turtleback]

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

No it wouldn't.  You are saying that you want to add the stipulation to the rule that if it isn't discernible to the player, then it's okay.  That just isn't how the rules should work in general.  They made one tiny exception for Rule 18-2 because there is no possible way that a ball moving such a tiny amount could possibly affect play.  That is a very specific and isolated situation.  It is worlds different from rearranging even a small amount of sand in a bunker.  

I'm really sorry that we can't meet on this point but my mind won't change as long as the rule remains unchanged, and if it changes, I'll be disappointed that USGA knuckled under to pressure rather than staying firm to the rules.

Huh??  I never said any such thing.

[imsys0042]

Someone can correct me, but I believe the point of this thread is whether or not zooming in on HD video is really something that ruling bodies and tournament committees want to do.   If it is that minute, then under 18/4 deems the ball to not be moved, if it moved during play.   This thread is about whether or not other infractions are so tiny that they can also be deemed to not cause a penalty.

The fact that the player did not see it is immaterial.   In the Women's Open case the player did not see it, but someone else did and reported it.  Obviously there are instances where a player might not notice but someone else does.  The question however is "if you have to zoom a HD shot, should it incur a penalty?" or maybe more appropriately "should we be zooming in the first place?"   18/4 tells us that if it's only visible on such HD optics, then the former question's answer is "no".

Edited July 13, 2016 by imsys0042

[Hardspoon]

1 hour ago, imsys0042 said:

The question however is "if you have to zoom a HD shot, should it incur a penalty?" or maybe more appropriately "should we be zooming in the first place?"   18/4 tells us that if it's only visible on such HD optics, then the former question's answer is "no".

This is the point of the thread.

For those who advocate a distinction between "regular" footage and HD footage, I have a few questions:

- Do you also limit zoom lenses? The Norqist footage was NOT enhanced or enlarged; it was simple HD footage

- What is the basis for a distinction based on resolution? (that's all HD is). Again, the Nordqist penalty would have been visible in regular footage (that sand was quite a few pixels wide)

- How do you regulate camera distance? A zoomed camera from 200' is bad, but a regular zoom from 100' is OK?

[natureboy]

52 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

This is the point of the thread.

For those who advocate a distinction between "regular" footage and HD footage, I have a few questions:

- Do you also limit zoom lenses? The Norqist footage was NOT enhanced or enlarged; it was simple HD footage

- What is the basis for a distinction based on resolution? (that's all HD is). Again, the Nordqist penalty would have been visible in regular footage (that sand was quite a few pixels wide)

- How do you regulate camera distance? A zoomed camera from 200' is bad, but a regular zoom from 100' is OK?

It was only visible on the extreme close-up zoom where the size of the ball was like 50% of the screen or more.

At a normal zoom where the player filled the screen (as if you were standing at a reasonable distance) it wasn't visible. That's a pretty clear distinction though the sweet spot may lie somewhere closer in.

[rehmwa]

Meh.....at this point, if the pros want to win millions of dollars playing a rather fun game, I guess they can deal with the adversity of closeups and 2nd guessing....

[Hardspoon]

22 minutes ago, natureboy said:

It was only visible on the extreme close-up zoom where the size of the ball was like 50% of the screen or more.

At a normal zoom where the player filled the screen (as if you were standing at a reasonable distance) it wasn't visible. That's a pretty clear distinction though the sweet spot may lie somewhere closer in.

That's not a clear distinction. Camera zoom lenses are analog, not digital, and they are at varying distances from the action. What would you do, specify a certain field-of-view?

If a distinction is made, at some point there is a spot where the replay is allowed, but another .01mm of zoom makes it not allowed. You'd have to define that explicitly.

[natureboy]

11 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

That's not a clear distinction. Camera zoom lenses are analog, not digital, and they are at varying distances from the action. What would you do, specify a certain field-of-view?

If a distinction is made, at some point there is a spot where the replay is allowed, but another .01mm of zoom makes it not allowed. You'd have to define that explicitly.

I think no further zoomed than displaying the full height of the player is a pretty reasonable and repeatable standard. Or leave it to a more subjective 'discernable by the naked eye'

The shoulder height arm drop has similar lack of precision, yet there aren't RO's out there measuring arm angles with protractors. Do you think there should be?

Edited July 13, 2016 by natureboy

[Hardspoon]

10 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I think no further zoomed than displaying the full height of the player is a pretty reasonable and repeatable standard.

OK. For the record, I think this is ridiculous, but at least this suggestion could be codified and written as a rule. You'd also then need to specify a maximum resolution, of course. It's getting more ridiculous...

12 minutes ago, natureboy said:

The shoulder height arm drop has similar lack of precision, yet there aren't RO's out there measuring arm angles with protractors. Do you think there should be?

The rule is black-and-white: "shoulder height". Period. The discretion is then applied to determine if a specific drop fits that criteria. So, you need a black and white rule (your suggestion above, "field of view that depicts the player's full height" would qualify), then you apply discretion to determine if the camera view in question fits it.

I think when you get to the point of suggesting actual rule language (which I appreciate you taking a stab at), it is clear that this is simply impossible to legislate without eliminating all use of TV footage.

[imsys0042]

I would have quoted but I don't think I know enough about camera and video to answer intelligently the technical questions .  However I don't think we want to prohibit certain technologies.   

Instead if it's possible I'd prefer if they can compare against high def vs regular then that meets he same standard as 18/4 where if you cannot see unless it's high-def then its insignificant enough.   If that is not possible then I think you have to determine how slight the infraction is in HD since a lot is shot that way now.  That becomes more of a judgment call.  

18/4 seems to imply there is some way to determine in HD only and I prefer that standard.  It's not perfect but I think it's the best option. 

[Hardspoon]

3 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

18/4 seems to imply there is some way to determine in HD only and I prefer that standard.  It's not perfect but I think it's the best option. 

I think the off-hand mention of "high-definition television" in 18/4 is actually problematic. It's used as an example, not as the guiding principle. The main distinction of 18/4 is "naked eye" versus "anything else" (at least the way I read it).