Poll on HD evidence

[turtleback]

4 hours ago, Fourputt said:

 

I still contend that even a few grains of sand shifted one way or another can/could make a difference when playing from a fairway bunker.  

As could a slight movement of the ball.  But to no more or less of an extent, IMO, considering that we are talking about events that could not even be observed with the naked eye.  Are we now supposed to first decide whether a rules situation makes or doesn't make a difference on the subsequent shot to determine what the standard of evidence should be in making a ruling?  

I might be misreading it, but you sound an awful lot as if you have never really reconciled yourself to the provision in 18/4 saying to ignore certain evidence.  It is a position with which I am sympathetic and that is why I haven't voted in my own poll.  Ignoring ANY evidence goes against the grain.  I just do not think any case has been made for treating this particular type of video evidence differently depending on which rule is involved.  And I do not see how continuing that notion in 18/4 and extending it to all rulings is going to somehow instigate a spate of cheating.  

And yes the USGA makes rules for all situations, not just the pros.  But the rules they make still only apply when they are germane.  Few of us play in situations where there are TIOs, yet we have rules governing them.  And the fact that few of us will play under conditions where disallowing enhanced HD video for ruling purposes could occur, because there ISN'T any enhanced HD video, doesn't mean the rules should not address that for those cases where it IS germane.  

All of that said, I have my doubts as to how long it will take the USGA to get this right, whatever right is  They have already shown a dismal ability to understand technology and judge its effects on the rules in a sensible way in the GPS/rangefinder/smartphone debacles of a couple of years ago.

[sjduffers]

In my view, what's more important than the tiny detail seen or not seen by the naked eye or by enhanced technology is the timeliness of the decision and for that reason alone, I would ban all video review unless there is an official in the video truck reviewing things in near real-time.

Sure, the talking heads on the broadcast can refer to the replays of video and even to close-ups of the situation as much as they want, in particular to explain the rule(s) breached or at risk of being breached. But that should have no bearing on delaying the decision by the officials.

I think that any new information after the score for the hole has been recorded should be discarded, and that includes all viewers calling in, way after the fact (sometimes hours after the fact), causing a retroactive decision affecting the score of a player, his/her position in the event, causing the kind of uncertainty that plagued DJ last round at Oakmont or the kind of unfairness at the Women's US Open when Anna was notified after she hit her 3rd shot on the next hole and Brittany was notified of Anna's penalty before she hit hers.

Golf is the only sport when the score can be changed after the event is complete, and that's not right. And there are 18 separate events in a round of golf, in addition to the outcome at the end of the round.

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

It is a position with which I am sympathetic and that is why I haven't voted in my own poll.

FWIW, you may not know this, but on the new forum software, you can change your vote in polls. So vote now, and if you change your mind, change your vote later.

27 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

In my view, what's more important than the tiny detail seen or not seen by the naked eye or by enhanced technology is the timeliness of the decision and for that reason alone, I would ban all video review unless there is an official in the video truck reviewing things in near real-time.

Yeah, this will sound way worse than I'd say it to you in person, but that's a ridiculous stance to take IMO. You're going to willingly ignore infractions because a rules official watching a bank of perhaps 50 TV screens simultaneously didn't catch it in "near real time"? And don't forget that some video evidence is exculpatory.

This opinion makes no sense to me. A player commits a series of infractions, but because people didn't see it in "near real time" they get away with it?

Even when seen in "near real-time" at the USWO it took 7.5 minutes or so to get the ruling out to the players, and there were only two, on the same hole.

31 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

Golf is the only sport when the score can be changed after the event is complete, and that's not right. And there are 18 separate events in a round of golf, in addition to the outcome at the end of the round.

Your score doesn't directly impact the state of the game or the opponent(s), some of whom might even be done for the week or not yet have started play for the week, etc. You're not hitting their golf ball, they don't have to get one more batter out in that inning or cover an extra 15 yards of turf, or whatever.

---

Also, this thread is not about the use of video for review in general.

Please keep that in mind. Further posts on that will be considered off topic. The topic here is basically whether 18/4 should be expanded to cover other things.

[sjduffers]

20 hours ago, iacas said:

Also, this thread is not about the use of video for review in general.

Please keep that in mind. Further posts on that will be considered off topic. The topic here is basically whether 18/4 should be expanded to cover other things.

Please tell me where I can reply to this post then. Thanks.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

Please tell me where I can reply to this post then. Thanks.

We don't have a topic on it. Perhaps because the idea of not considering all video evidence simply because it's video evidence is so ridiculous…

[cutchemist42]

Dont know how to vote, as I view the whole HD thing unfairly. That grain of sand moving at USWO bugged me because its a rule infraction that only gets caught because two people are playing and more resources are available to watch every shot at micro levels.

Basically it bugs me because different portions of the same tournament were being scrutinised differently.