Rahm: Incorrectly Replacing Ball?

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, TropicalSandTrap said:

It just seems funny that Chamblee believes in such high standards of accountability, but when he's wrong everyone says let it go. Chamblee devotes his day to calling rahm a rules breaker, but when it turns out rahm did not violate any rules the Chamblee defenders all say let it go, no big deal, Chamblee didn't realize he was wrong. 

Yeah, you know me, the Chamblee Defender!

You haven't been around for long, so you don't know how goofy that statement is…

Sorry, I know I said I was done, but that just cracked me up!

[FinTurma]

I think Chamblee had a good point. Rahm marked it on the side and replaced it in front of his marker. Rahm just got lucky that he accidentally placed the ball back in pretty much the exact same location. 

 

 

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, David in FL said:

Did Brandel Chamblee stop by one night and pee on your prize rose bush? 

 

No, but the bastard stole my hair!

[RandallT]

Since my post earlier was so definitively written (I said the two ball positions were EXACTLY the same, with all caps even), I just wanted to clarify how unsure I really am about it. While it was the result I came up with at that time, I think I was wrong to 1) claim certainty and 2) not repeat the results to verify it.

Here's how I did it, just so others can grasp the uncertainty involved. I do think now there was some movement as I've done it again quickly to double-check.

1. I started with the before pic. Cut out just the portion with the ball.    
2. Did the same for the after pic (after).                                             
3. Resized them so that they are the same proportions. This is the key step where you can get any result you want (within reason).
4. Compared with a grid or eyeball the pics side-by-side.

What I see now is that there was about a half ball movement (perhaps less). But you can get all sorts of results, and I think it all gets back to how you resize it to make the zooms the same. I can get results anywhere from the balls are at the same position (likely not true) to where they could be an inch or more off. 

Bottom line: I'm no expert in this, so don't let my earlier post sway you that Brandel was wrong or anything- certainly margins involved here.

Funny thing was, I set out to prove Brandel's point, that the ball moved quite a bit. Now when I set out to verify that it didn't move, I can't get that either. Just shows the variability involved. Or that I stink at this kind of thing.

Anyway, sorry to all for putting something out there with more definite words than the analysis justified. Hopefully you (like me) only believe half the crap you read anyway and decide for yourself. In the video, it sure looks like it can't be in the same spot as it started, and that's likely true.

Ok, my mea culpa is done. 

 

[Rulesman]

RandallT

I still think the key is the direction the club head was pointing when the 2nd mark was placed and then replaced.  

What do your video comparisons show?

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

I still think the key is the direction the club head was pointing when the 2nd mark was placed and then replaced.

Are you saying that he possibly angled differently so that the ball would end up in the proper place?

[Rulesman]

No. I was suggesting that either the misalignment caused the ball to be in the wrong place or he realised the was a misalignment and compensated by replacing the marker where he did.

But I should have phrased it differently. I was really asking if anyone had checked the alignment.

 

[RandallT]

1 hour ago, Rulesman said:

RandallT

I still think the key is the direction the club head was pointing when the 2nd mark was placed and then replaced.  

What do your video comparisons show?

That was how I "justified" in my head how he might've done it so that the ball ended up where he started. He might've pointed the club to take into account whatever spacial relationship he wanted to create. But...

When I reviewed the video again this morning and read his statements that have shown up in the press, I think:

1. He appears to align the putter in the exact same orientation for moving the mark. You can see him check the reference point, but it's impossible to know if he "corrected" that in his head. Would seem far-fetched that he added in his own little compensation. Visually the putter looks pointed right at the camera in both (see below).
2. In a statement, it seemed to me that he thought he put the ball back against the marker the same way he picked it up. I saw no reference to any sort of compensation that he was consciously or unconsciously making such that putting the ball back differently would end up cancelling out the way he pulled it.

So I think he botched it, and was a tad lucky it wasn't visually much worse than it was such that it was obvious the ball was in a different spot. Even with a camera on him, I don't see it as being a huge change in position that is blatantly obvious to the naked eye.

At this point, the rules experts (such as yourself) would have to duke out the meaning of the words of the rule and its applicability to this slight mistake. I find it interesting and educational to see how that all goes, and I don't mind commentators "stirring the pot."

 

[Golfingdad]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

It is. He's a commentator that's supposed to be controversial.

 

15 hours ago, TropicalSandTrap said:

Ok, so I guess we disagree what his job is.

Was perusing r/golf on reddit a bit ago and an old story about Tiger popped up for some odd reason (his infamous drop at the 13 Masters). Regardless of that, somebody had a good comment that I think sums up Chamblee pretty well.  Somebody stated that:

Quote

Chamblee is the worst announcer in the history of the game. Really wish he would just retire and admit he sucks at golf and his job.

And he responded with:

Quote

To be fair, he isn't really an announcer (though is on rare occasion does on course announcing), he's a professional pot-stirrer. He's the Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann or Skip Bayless of his world. I dislike him but let's be honest, golf analysts would be pretty boring if everyone just agreed with each other and gave reasonable/level-headed takes.

I think that is spot-on.  His job is to get us (and keep us) talking about golf and seeing as how we're still talking about this nearly a week later - while many of us agree that it's a complete non-issue - it appears he is doing that job well.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I think that is spot-on.  His job is to get us (and keep us) talking about golf and seeing as how we're still talking about this nearly a week later - while many of us agree that it's a complete non-issue - it appears he is doing that job well.

John C. Dvorak used to troll Mac users back in the 90s. People would constantly complain about him, and I just said "so stop clicking on his articles. That's his entire schtick."

Same deal here.

[Fourputt]

16 hours ago, iacas said:

 

No. It's his job to be kinda controversial. To stir the pot.

 

He's stirring the pot. That's it. You're still talking about it. He did his job.

However..... sometimes he goes after a pot that doesn't really need any stirring.  Or he continues to stir after the pot is empty.  What Rahm did was a bit off, but once it was determined that he ultimately seemed to get the ball in the right place, Chamblee probably should have just let it rest.

[TropicalSandTrap]

13 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

However..... sometimes he goes after a pot that doesn't really need any stirring.  Or he continues to stir after the pot is empty.  What Rahm did was a bit off, but once it was determined that he ultimately seemed to get the ball in the right place, Chamblee probably should have just let it rest.

Exactly. There was no pot to be stirred. The rules official addressed the issue at the appropriate time and made a decision, one that was ultimately correct. Yet this guy devoted his day to incorrectly complaining about it. 

I don't watch the golf channel to watch pot stirrig or contrived controversies or fake news. I watch it to see players hit shots, see what they are hitting from where, see how they get out of trouble, see amazing shots, see what how they handle themselves under pressure. If I want fake news drama I will just go to Facebook and read political posts. 

[Golfingdad]

17 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

However..... sometimes he goes after a pot that doesn't really need any stirring.  Or he continues to stir after the pot is empty.  What Rahm did was a bit off, but once it was determined that he ultimately seemed to get the ball in the right place, Chamblee probably should have just let it rest.

 

1 minute ago, TropicalSandTrap said:

Exactly. There was no pot to be stirred. The rules official addressed the issue at the appropriate time and made a decision, one that was ultimately correct. Yet this guy devoted his day to incorrectly complaining about it.

I agree with you both on this.  I still don't understand why it upsets you though because I also agree with you on this:

2 minutes ago, TropicalSandTrap said:

I don't watch the golf channel to watch pot stirrig or contrived controversies or fake news. I watch it to see players hit shots, see what they are hitting from where, see how they get out of trouble, see amazing shots, see what how they handle themselves under pressure.

When you turn on the golf channel and it's Chamblee ranting about something stupid, all you have to do is roll your eyes, call him whatever derogatory name strikes you at the moment, and then change the channel or turn off the tv.  Check the TV guide and come back later when actual golf is scheduled.

[DaveP043]

21 minutes ago, TropicalSandTrap said:

I don't watch the golf channel to watch pot stirrig or contrived controversies or fake news. I watch it to see players hit shots, see what they are hitting from where, see how they get out of trouble, see amazing shots, see what how they handle themselves under pressure. If I want fake news drama I will just go to Facebook and read political posts. 

You and I and probably most of TST members didn't like the "pot-stirring", but if Chamblee got more people to watch the Golf Channel, and for a longer time, if he had more eyeballs watching the adverts on the Golf Channel, he did his job well.  As an old guy, I remember that Howard Cosell was hated by many, and many of those who hated him watched Monday Night Football specifically because they hated him.  He didn't care if they liked him or hated him, as long as they watched him.

As @Golfingdad says, if you don't like what you see on the TV, change the channel.  

(Edit) I read earlier in this string some talk about Chamblee deserving "punishment".  He'll get punished when people STOP watching him, he'll be looking for a job then.  

Edited July 13, 2017 by DaveP043

[iacas]

34 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

However..... sometimes he goes after a pot that doesn't really need any stirring.  Or he continues to stir after the pot is empty.  What Rahm did was a bit off, but once it was determined that he ultimately seemed to get the ball in the right place, Chamblee probably should have just let it rest.

Didn't he? Has he talked about it after Sunday?

10 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

You and I and probably most of TST members didn't like the "pot-stirring", but if Chamblee got more people to watch the Golf Channel, and for a longer time, if he had more eyeballs watching the adverts on the Golf Channel, he did his job well.  As an old guy, I remember that Howard Cosell was hated by many, and many of those who hated him watched Monday Night Football specifically because they hated him.  He didn't care if they liked him or hated him, as long as they watched him.

As @Golfingdad says, if you don't like what you see on the TV, change the channel.  

Yup.

[TropicalSandTrap]

Does brandel Chamblee stirring the pot really increase golf channel viewership?  I find that hard to believe. People who watch the golf channel are not watching to see if Chamblee is fabricating controversies. If anything he is a turn off. 

Just doesn't seem like golf viewership is dependent on creating controversies that don't exist. Most people who watch golf channel are golfers interested in golf, not some made up controversy over marking a ball. 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, TropicalSandTrap said:

Does brandel Chamblee stirring the pot really increase golf channel viewership?

Yes.

You're just prolonging this discussion. You've talked about it 10x more than Brandel has at this point, and several days after Brandel uttered his last word about it.

[DaveP043]

13 minutes ago, TropicalSandTrap said:

Does brandel Chamblee stirring the pot really increase golf channel viewership?  I find that hard to believe. People who watch the golf channel are not watching to see if Chamblee is fabricating controversies. If anything he is a turn off. 

Just doesn't seem like golf viewership is dependent on creating controversies that don't exist. Most people who watch golf channel are golfers interested in golf, not some made up controversy over marking a ball. 

I think people who understand viewership would tell you that every discussion like this, every time Golf Channel is mentioned in a forum or chat room, has the potential to bring new eyes.  In effect, you and I are advertising for Golf Channel right now.  Someone who has never watched Brandel will be tuning in to find out what all the fuss is about.  In fact, Brandel might be sending you a thank-you note in the very near future!