USGA, R&A Introduces Decision 34-3/10 (Lexi/Anna Blowback)

[iacas]

For the discussion of the upcoming announcement from the USGA/R&A in the wake of the Lexi Thompson rules breach and subsequent discovery and penalty.

[iacas]

34-3/10 introduces two standards.

Naked Eye standard - basically expands the previous naked eye standard. - That's fine.

Reasonable judgment standard - I'm fine with that too, but contend that Lexi's actions were not reasonable. The majority agree: 

It's 94% against her right now.

http://www.usga.org/rules-hub/decision-34-3-10--limitations-on-use-of-video-evidence.html

PDF: Download PDF.

In other words… This rule does a lot more to address the Anna Nordquist situation than the Lexi Thompson situation.

[iacas]

Noteworthy:

• Nothing about "video call-ins."
• Lexi would still have likely been penalized. The motion was evident with the naked eye (0.7"+ is clearly visible to Lexi in that situation), and her replacement wasn't reasonable.
• Anna Nordquist wouldn't have been penalized.
• They're going to continue to discuss the scorecard and call-ins, but the way Thomas Pagel talked about it… I wouldn't expect much of a change there. "Facts are facts" he basically said a few times.

[phillyk]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

Noteworthy:

• Nothing about "video call-ins."
• Lexi would still have likely been penalized. The motion was evident with the naked eye (0.7"+ is clearly visible to Lexi in that situation), and her replacement wasn't reasonable.
• Anna Nordquist wouldn't have been penalized.
• They're going to continue to discuss the scorecard and call-ins, but the way Thomas Pagel talked about it… I wouldn't expect much of a change there. "Facts are facts" he basically said a few times.

I heard that too.   I also think Lexi would still have been penalized. I liked what I heard from that phone call on TGC from Thomas.  He also talked about whether the governing bodies would be ready for the opposite to happen, where someone got away with something that was clearly visible and no one is able to call in or what have you.  People would be upset.  Facts are facts, but it has to be reasonable from the naked eye.

[RandallT]

 

GolfDigest's take, fwiw: http://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-and-randa-announce-immediate-rule-change-limiting-power-of-video-evidence

Quote

Conspicuously absent from Tuesday’s announcement was any alteration or elimination of two issues that players in particular have been vocal about: allowing viewer call-ins alleging rules infractions, and the rule that adds an additional two strokes for an incorrect scorecard for a penalty that was assessed after the scorecard was signed, which is why Thompson was assessed four strokes instead of just two. The USGA and R&A have assigned a working group from the professional tours and the PGA of America that will review those and other existing rules and possibly recommend changes.

“Everything about television call-ins is on the table, including should we take any at all,” Pagel said. “The Rules of Golf, and committees applying the Rules of Golf, currently treat all evidence as evidence, regardless of the source. Should it be broken down so that evidence can only come from someone on the golf course versus someone off the golf course? Should the committee be the only ones who reveal fact through television? These are all questions if we were to react quickly and make a decision here, I’m not sure we would be fully aware of the consequences those outcomes. We might create even greater controversy than we’ve seen today.

Seems to me that expectations were high that Lexi would be protected in the future, and there will be a great many disappointed by this limited announcement. Did the ruling bodies set themselves up as "appeasing" the mob a bit? 

I think they've taken the correct course for both of the things bolded above: continue to assess, no knee-jerk change needed. Let calmer heads prevail and think through potential consequences. The fact that Lexi messed up should not be an emergency that needs an immediate fix.

As I browse different reactions, I'm curious if some people are declaring victory against the call-ins? The conclusion below seems wildly off-base.

http://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/2017/04/25/rules-of-golf-video-reviews-lexi/

Quote

The R&A and USGA have installed a new addition to the Rules of Golf which will limit the use of video evidence in the game.

In other words, television viewers cannot call in violations.

Armchair referees have been a fixture in golf for some years, most recently when Lexi Thompson was hit with a four shot penalty while leading by two at the ANA Inspiration earlier this month.

Thompson, whose violation occurred during the third round, was penalised after the 12th hole on the final day, causing uproar in every corner of the golfing world.

 

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, RandallT said:

Seems to me that expectations were high that Lexi would be protected in the future, and there will be a great many disappointed by this limited announcement.

I agree, and was afraid of that.

9 minutes ago, RandallT said:

I think they've taken the correct course for both of the things bolded above: continue to assess, no knee-jerk change needed. Let calmer heads prevail and think through potential consequences. The fact that Lexi messed up should not be an emergency that needs an immediate fix.

Agree.

9 minutes ago, RandallT said:

As I browse different reactions, I'm curious if some people are declaring victory against the call-ins? The conclusion below seems wildly off-base.

http://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/2017/04/25/rules-of-golf-video-reviews-lexi/

They're 100% wrong.

[Aflighter]

A little bit too late for Lexi and Anna.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

A little bit too late for Lexi and Anna.

I don't think it would have affected Lexi at all.

Her replacement was not reasonable, and it would have been very obvious to the naked eye.

Anna, yes.

[DeadMan]

I was a little worried when I first read about the announcement. But this seems to make sense. I also don't think this would have changed anything with Lexi. Or at least I hope it doesn't, because it's pretty obvious that she didn't place her ball in the correct spot. I think the decision hints at that - it says marking your ball is more precise than other determinations.

I really hope players don't use this as an excuse to be cavalier with the rules in the future.

[rehmwa]

Some clarifications.  They didn't try to do too many things at once.  Done well.  There will be debates about the fuzzy term "reasonable" I suppose.  I would start that with the idea that reviews requiring closeups, for confirmations, should be discussed as unreasonable....

If a video replay requires a close up to such an extent that the video is fuzzy, or even if clear it had to be zoomed such that the view is closer than someone standing right there, ...... (ie, if the player or playing partners had been paying attention, they could have caught the issue with the naked eye).

in that case, Anna's situation - no penalty.  Lexi, you can see the offset, even from the 'normal' view, 2 strokes.  Tiger's? penalty still, that offset was in feet, not fractions of an inch.  What others?
 

Spoiler

 

OT - Glad it wasn't confounded with the other, more difficult items - maybe a good separate discussion later when that happens

Still to be determined is how the governing bodies will address viewer call-ins and post-round scorecard penalties. Representatives from all of the major tours have begun a “comprehensive review of broad video issues that arise in televised competitions.”

 

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by rehmwa

[mchepp]

I don't get why they are doing this. All the other major sports using replay all do so because things "cannot" be seen by the naked eye. So they are going to ignore the exact reason why other sports chose to use replay. All sports utilize replay to get the call right. All of these videos rulings were made "correctly" because of the use of video.

Feels like a weak attempt to fix something that didn't need fixing. 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, mchepp said:

I don't get why they are doing this. All the other major sports using replay all do so because things "cannot" be seen by the naked eye. So they are going to ignore the exact reason why other sports chose to use replay. All sports utilize replay to get the call right. All of these videos rulings were made "correctly" because of the use of video.

I'm fine with these, because if we reviewed everything with blown-up HD video in slow motion, we'd find infractions all over the place, particularly if we're really picky about the definition of "moved" or how exactly something needs to be replaced, whether a lie is improved because one blade of grass is tamped down when addressing the ball, etc.

I think the "naked eye" test is a fine standard. I had hoped it applied to more than just a ball at rest moved and now it can/does.

Yes, baseball uses video to see if a runner beat the tag… but they only get so many reviews, they're only instituted in certain circumstances, etc.

There has to be a practical limit to how much or how precise we can get. I think we're at that point now, or very close.

---

Columns like this drive me nuts:

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/19232927/usga-ra-go-far-enough-addressing-lexi-thompson-rule-fiasco

Sirak says:

"Now the tour has a chance to make its marketing mantra resonate in a very special way. The LPGA should unilaterally change three rules that are hated by both fans and players. Stop allowing TV viewers to email or call in penalties; stop assessing penalties a day after a round is played; stop punishing players for not recording a penalty they didn't know they had been assessed.

The LPGA can act unilaterally to change these rules. The pro tours, for example, play lift, clean and place as a local rule when the course is wet. The USGA never allows lift, clean and place at competitions like the U.S. Women's Open. It always plays the ball as it lies. The LPGA can make the rules change a condition of competition. However, the USGA could see such an action as a slight."

No, they can't unilaterally act to do those things. You can't make up whatever rule you want and just call it a "Local Rule" or a "Condition of Competition."

Ridiculous, and I expect much more of a guy who has been covering the game for decades. This Sirak crap illustrates how little people actually know about the Rules, how they're played, etc.

Lift, Clean, and Place is an approved Local Rule. So is the 18-2 Local Rule. And others.

You cannot change the rules he wrote about in the manner he suggested.

[cutchemist42]

So this removes the microscopic grains of sand rulings? As a newbie to golf, I really thought it was a silly rule in place at the time. It was the 1st time I realised how much variance a televised tourney could have in 1 weekend.

I was only upset about the Anna call, FWIW.

Edited April 25, 2017 by cutchemist42

[David in FL]

I'm a little surprised, pleasantly so, given the rumors that had been circulating.

Good job to the ruling bodies in not overreacting in the face of uninformed demands to do just that.

[shanksalot]

This changing the rule still does not cover what I see as the real problem. Only a few players on the weekend are under TV "surveillance" so how is it fair to the field that those come under the scope of call in from people off the golf course and the rest of the players get a free pass?? How can you penalize a player after the round is complete and play has started the next day? To me that is what needs to be changed or at least considered for change.

[rehmwa]

7 minutes ago, shanksalot said:

This changing the rule still does not cover what I see as the real problem. Only a few players on the weekend are under TV "surveillance" so how is it fair to the field that those come under the scope of call in from people off the golf course and the rest of the players get a free pass?? How can you penalize a player after the round is complete and play has started the next day? To me that is what needs to be changed or at least considered for change.

patience......quote from the article.  This one was about clarifying the ability of an issue to be fairly caught by the players to be considered for further review from other sources....

 

 

Still to be determined is how the governing bodies will address viewer call-ins and post-round scorecard penalties. Representatives from all of the major tours have begun a “comprehensive review of broad video issues that arise in televised competitions.”

[David in FL]

2 hours ago, shanksalot said:

This changing the rule still does not cover what I see as the real problem. Only a few players on the weekend are under TV "surveillance" so how is it fair to the field that those come under the scope of call in from people off the golf course and the rest of the players get a free pass??

If a player doesn't want the scrutiny that comes from more tv time, all they have to do is play poorly.  Failing that, simply follow the rules.

In either case, problem solved.

 

[saevel25]

Quote

Video technology, especially the use of methods such as high resolution or close-up camera shots that can be replayed in slow motion, has the potential to undermine this essential characteristic of the game by identifying the existence of facts that could not reasonably be identified in any other way.

I agree with this. I don't think it is reasonable to expect a golfer on the course to see a penalty at hand when it requires HD, or slow motion replay to do so. 

Quote

so long as the player does what can reasonably be expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination, the player’s reasonable judgment will be accepted even if later shown to be wrong by the use of video evidence.  

I agree with it. Though I do not think Lexi would still pass this standard when she replaced the ball at a clearly different spot. 

I think they found a good balance that expands on the current set of rules.