Using HD video evidence

[imsys0042]

2 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

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).

That's a good point.   I would prefer that as well, but that's because my feeling is that an infraction that slight is not penalty worthy because it doesn't affect the shot.    That's how I read 18/4, and is prefer that hey expand that to other cases.   Unless they want to go another route.   I don't want golf to become people huddled in a room pouring over replays to assess penalties.  There are cheaters but most are honest.  

Naked eye within a stipulated reason seems to make sense to me  problem is that what is the naked eye looking at?  A TV replay shot in some resolution.   No reason we cannot try to determine a threshold where it's reasonable to stop squinting at the screen  

 

[Hardspoon]

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 9:54 AM, turtleback said:

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? 

So, in circling back to the original point of the thread, I'm convinced that the only practical solution with any real merit is to try to create additional decisions like 18/4 for other Rules.

I did a quick pass through the Rules and tried to identify places where you could potentially apply a similar decision.  I'm thinking that an 18/4-type Decision could reasonably be applied to:

• 13-2. Improving Lie, Area of Intended Stance or Swing, or Line of Play
• 13-4. Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions
• 14-4. Striking the Ball More Than Once
• 14-5. Playing Moving Ball
• 17-3. Ball Striking Flagstick or Attendant
• Rule 19 - Ball in Motion Deflected or Stopped
• 20-2. Dropping and Re-Dropping
• 20-3. Placing and Replacing
• 23-1. Relief (Loose Impediments)

There are actually not as many as I thought.  They pretty much fall into three categories: ball moving; player touching things; and ball touching things.  In my view, there are two potential differentiating factors in considering whether a Decision similar to 18/4 should be applied to each of these:

1. 18/4 deals with a ball moving, which (presumably) the player will have direct visual contact for.  Some others (contact with ground in a bunker, for example) may involve things concealed by the club.  I'm not sure how much this matters, but it's a distinction.
2. 18/4 deals with a ball that may have been moved by either the player, or by something else (wind, etc.).  Many of the other rules are cases where if something occurs, it was clearly the player's fault (13-4).

So...this isn't really an opinion on each of these...just throwing out some additional facts for discussion, and to bring the thread back on-topic (or kill it entirely - haha).

[iacas]

On July 13, 2016 at 7:55 AM, 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.

As others have said, please define "a little bit" and define "gained no information." By the very nature of touching the sand, they have gained the information of where the sand is relative to their club as they're standing there preparing to hit a shot which requires a lot of precision.

23 hours ago, newtogolf said:

My understanding is that there are always at least two cameras on every hole, the tee box and putting green.

Everywhere golf is played? Ridiculous. The USGA does not just make rules for the U.S. Open.

There aren't even that many cameras at Web.com events, or European Tour events, or other professional events, let alone various amateur tournaments, etc.

23 hours ago, newtogolf said:

If video from these cameras is available for rulings review then you do not have everyone playing under the same rules.

Yes, you do. They're not playing under the same circumstances but they're playing under the same exact Rules. The Rules of Golf, the Conditions of the Competition, etc.

23 hours ago, newtogolf said:

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?

Now you're veering too far off topic.

22 hours 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.  

Rick, you've completely misunderstood/misinterpreted what Rich is saying or suggesting with this thread.

If someone can see it with the naked eye, it'd still be a penalty. That the player himself didn't see it (or claims not to have seen it) is irrelevant. If nobody can see the ball move, but you can see it move with zoomed in HD, 18/4 says "no penalty." If you touch a few bits of sand and nobody could possibly see it even if they were watching… no problem.

A guy leaving a trail or moving pebbles out of the way would be visible to the naked eye.

15 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

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).

It's not really problematic in that sense, because of exactly what you said: it's the "naked eye" thing that's the key bit. You could zoom in on SD video and it'd still be disallowed if the ball movement is small enough. Etc.

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Rick, you've completely misunderstood/misinterpreted what Rich is saying or suggesting with this thread.

 

Thanks, Erik, for a minute there I was wondering if I was the one going crazy here. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

Thanks, Erik, for a minute there I was wondering if I was the one going crazy here. 

Hey, I know a thing or two about misunderstanding things which probably seem crystal clear to others this month… 

The poll thread is here: