New Rules for Video Call-Ins

[Ty_Webb]

So here is something that I read on another forum. It's a statement about the changes. There are a couple of things I think are interesting in here:

Quote

Video Review Rules for Televised Competitions

In April 2017, the USGA and The R&A established a video review working group that included representatives from the PGA TOUR, LPGA, PGA European Tour, Ladies European Tour and PGA of America. The working group’s comprehensive study of the use of video evidence in applying the Rules of Golf was completed in October 2017.

One of the outcomes of the study was an agreement on the new set of video protocols that are summarized in this document. All organizations that participated in the working group have agreed to use this approach to video review and recommend that it be used by other organizations that run televised golf competitions as well.

1. Overall Standard for Using Information from Any Credible Source

When facts need to be decided in applying the Rules of Golf, players, referees and the Committee in charge of the competition will continue to consider information from any credible source, including:

• Witnesses on the course, such as other players, caddies, referees, marshals and spectators, and
• Video of the competition that is produced by the broadcast partner.

Consideration of all available evidence remains an essential part of applying the Rules of Golf, because many things happen during play of a round that cannot be seen by the players or referees. (See Decision 34-3/9 of the Decisions on the Rules of Golf for more information on the responsibility of referees and committees in deciding questions of fact.)

2. Protocols for the Review of Video Evidence

Although details of the Committee video review procedures may vary by organization or by the nature of the competition, each organization represented on the working group agrees to use these video review protocols:

a. Active monitoring of the video broadcast

The Committee will assign one or more of its officials to monitor the video broadcast. This monitoring role will include both:

• A proactive review to identify and help resolve potential Rules issues as they arise, and
• A responsive review when needed, such as to help referees on the course who ask for information on a real-time basis and to help the Committee when it is assessing issues based on something that happened at an earlier time.

This video monitoring should result in prompt identification and resolution of almost all Rules issues that can be seen in a video broadcast. It should also help minimize the number of times an issue arises that has not been seen and needs to be addressed at a later time.

b. No monitoring or review of communications from TV viewers

The Committee does not need or want outside intervention by viewers who believe they may have seen a Rules violation on the video broadcast.

Specifically, the Committee will not assign personnel or establish a procedure or practice to facilitate, monitor, review or follow up on viewer inquiries (such as phone calls, emails or texts) that seek to raise possible Rules violations.

Reviewing these “viewer call ins,” no matter how well intentioned they are, will not be part of the process of applying the Rules because they:

• Should be unnecessary given the Committee’s active video monitoring,
• Can be distracting to the officials in charge (as almost all of the issues reported by those who call in turn out to involve a misunderstanding of the Rules or the facts), and
• Create an unhealthy perception of random, inconsistent and/or improperly motivated outside intervention in applying the Rules.

If later information does come to the committee’s attention, such as from the video broadcast being seen by a player or someone working for the competition or from a general public source (such as the media), that information will still be considered as with any other available information. The fact that a potential Rules issue may have been missed during the video monitoring does not mean that the Committee will ignore the information.

c. Limitations on use of video evidence

The Committee’s use of evidence from the video broadcast will continue to be limited in the two important ways addressed in Decision 34-3/10 (which was recently adopted by the USGA and The R&A):

• A player’s reasonable judgment in making certain types of fact determinations will be accepted even if, after the player has made a stroke, video evidence shows that the player’s judgment might have been wrong, and
• Video evidence that shows facts that could not reasonably have been seen with the “naked eye” will be disregarded.

In addition, video that is brought to the Committee from a source other than the broadcast partner will not be accepted as “evidence” unless the Committee is convinced of its reliability.

In particular, this means that video from an individual’s camera, smartphone or similar device will not be used.

This actually makes me feel better. They are simply not going to field calls from the general public about rules infractions. I imagine that 99% of these are going to be bogus calls anyway, so it's almost more of a personnel issue than anything else. They do say that they won't ignore info if they become aware of it. My reading here is if someone like a player or a rules official not working the tournament spots something and knows who to talk to, they will still be able to and that information will be used. 

Funnily enough given my stance on this, one of the things that does bother me about this is the idea of an official watching the telecast looking out for issues. That strikes me as assuming the players are trying to break the rules or trying to pick up on things to penalize people. I'd rather that the players know the rules and follow them and are generally trusted to do so. 

I'm still not a fan of the no penalty for an incorrect scorecard. Signing your card should be an announcement to the rest of the field that that is what you scored and that they can rely on that information. If you break that trust, be it intentionally or by mistake, there should be some repercussion. I can certainly see DQ being a little too draconian, but I don't think 2 strokes is unreasonable. 

[Golfingdad]

3 hours ago, GolfLug said:

To draw a parallel, IMO this move is equivalent of removing driving speed limits because law enforcement does not have a way to ticket every single offender.

It's like the guy who whines in traffic court as defense that the police officer picked on him and didn't ticket the other hundreds of drivers that passed in plain sight. That guy won - he doesn't have to even go to court anymore. 

Speed away. 

 

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

On first glance and with little consideration, that seems like a somewhat appropriate parallel.

A more appropriate parallel might be that there's a video camera that can issue tickets, but only if you're the only car in its frame otherwise it gets confused. That means only some of the cars going fast can get tickets, but it's still an accurate, correct ticket, as solo cars going the speed limit, or multiple cars going the speed limit, aren't ticketed. It gets us closer to the "truth" but is still not perfect (some cars speeding aren't caught), which seems preferable to me over just not putting up a camera at all and almost encouraging people to speed except for their own eroding self-discipline.

Come on guys, this doesn't apply at all.  You repeatedly discount others comparisons to other sports but at least they have something very important in common ... they are a competition where a basic requirement is that everybody plays by the same rules with the same officials (or in golf, as close to that as is reasonable).  There is no such requirement in everyday life amongst drivers and nobody being reasonable would suggest otherwise.  People trying to get to work each day are not vying with each other for a trophy or a bunch of money.

[GolfLug]

16 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Funnily enough given my stance on this, one of the things that does bother me about this is the idea of an official watching the telecast looking out for issues. That strikes me as assuming the players are trying to break the rules or trying to pick up on things to penalize people. I'd rather that the players know the rules and follow them and are generally trusted to do so. 

Hmm...I see it as officials looking out for players and informing them of a breach before they sign an incorrect scorecard to avoid additional damage. 

[GolfLug]

34 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

 

Come on guys, this doesn't apply at all.  You repeatedly discount others comparisons to other sports but at least they have something very important in common ... they are a competition where a basic requirement is that everybody plays by the same rules with the same officials (or in golf, as close to that as is reasonable).  There is no such requirement in everyday life amongst drivers and nobody being reasonable would suggest otherwise.  People trying to get to work each day are not vying with each other for a trophy or a bunch of money.

Drew, do you not feel the principle still applies? 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

This actually makes me feel better. They are simply not going to field calls from the general public about rules infractions. I imagine that 99% of these are going to be bogus calls anyway, so it's almost more of a personnel issue than anything else. They do say that they won't ignore info if they become aware of it. My reading here is if someone like a player or a rules official not working the tournament spots something and knows who to talk to, they will still be able to and that information will be used. 

I imagine that very, very few calls actually came in each week. Seriously, look on Twitter during a PGA Tour event, and almost nobody is talking about rules there, either. I imagine most weeks go by without a single person calling in.

And most of the callers-in have likely been fellow rules officials or people connected with the Tour.

So I don't have a HUGE problem with this part of the rules, if only because I think they might just be lying a little… "We won't take callers… but we never really have. We'll still keep listening if Rules Official Joe calls in, of course."

I don't like the idea that they'll completely avoid looking at video that isn't from one of their broadcast partners. But then they also say they'll still listen to spectator testimony… so long as it doesn't include video? Because a group of spectators are are all going to expertly modify video in the same way to get a player into trouble? Or…?

Anyway, best case, this provides cover to just change the language from "a caller said this…" to "our rules officials have spotted this…". But then again, I don't know why they've ever attributed it to a caller-in. In Lexi's case, why didn't they say "rules officials spotted this in a replay of yesterday's round…" and leave it at that? Especially if the "caller" in that case was a fellow rules official, as I've heard?

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

Funnily enough given my stance on this, one of the things that does bother me about this is the idea of an official watching the telecast looking out for issues. That strikes me as assuming the players are trying to break the rules or trying to pick up on things to penalize people. I'd rather that the players know the rules and follow them and are generally trusted to do so.

I think generally speaking players abide by the rules.

I think we can count the number of call-in rules infractions on surprisingly few fingers, even if we go all the way back to 1987. Hell, they stand out so much because they're so seldom occurring.

This frequency isn't because PGA Tour players really know the rules, but it's because it's pretty easy to know 98% of rules situations, and when they're not sure, they call over an official (which leads to slower play than if they just knew the Rules, but I digress…).

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

I'm still not a fan of the no penalty for an incorrect scorecard. Signing your card should be an announcement to the rest of the field that that is what you scored and that they can rely on that information. If you break that trust, be it intentionally or by mistake, there should be some repercussion. I can certainly see DQ being a little too draconian, but I don't think 2 strokes is unreasonable. 

I'm still with you there.

The removal of that penalty incentivizes people to be able to honestly say that they DO NOT know the Rules.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Come on guys, this doesn't apply at all.

Sure it does. This example had nothing to do with other sports and spoke only to the (IMO weak) argument about how it's "unfair" for some people who are on TV more than others.

Here's another example.

Two guys commit a robbery. One commits it at a bank where they've never installed cameras, or they were not working that day, and gets away with it. The other is caught on video and thus arrested.

Should the arrested criminal be set free simply because it's not "fair" that he was caught and someone else committing the same crime wasn't on TV?

This is the same type of argument people are using to justify the "unfairness" of some players being on TV more than others. We want our justice system to be REALLY "fair," don't we?

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

You repeatedly discount others comparisons to other sports but at least they have something very important in common ... they are a competition where a basic requirement is that everybody plays by the same rules with the same officials (or in golf, as close to that as is reasonable).

Golf isn't an "officiated" sport in the same sense as other sports.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

There is no such requirement in everyday life amongst drivers and nobody being reasonable would suggest otherwise.

I literally cannot wrap my head around the idea that some people, simply because the leaders and/or Tiger Woods are on camera more often, are willing to let a known infraction go just because of who saw it, on the off-chance that someone else not on camera might have done the same thing.

@DaveP043 said it above, I've said it before, etc.: would you rather conduct a tournament that's 98% accurate with a known breach unpunished, or would you rather apply the rules as best as you can, even if you suspect maybe someone wasn't penalized, but at least everyone who you know about was?

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

People trying to get to work each day are not vying with each other for a trophy or a bunch of money.

It still speaks to the idea of "if you can't make the conditions exactly the same for everyone, abolish the conditions and punish nobody, even if we know they're breaking the rules."

[Hardluckster]

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

Funnily enough given my stance on this, one of the things that does bother me about this is the idea of an official watching the telecast looking out for issues. That strikes me as assuming the players are trying to break the rules or trying to pick up on things to penalize people. I'd rather that the players know the rules and follow them and are generally trusted to do so. 

Phil basically said as much.  I think that there are no doubt tour players who take liberties.  Are there many? I would certainly hope not.

I witnessed an infraction during this year's Masters tournament (the week after the Lexi incident, if I remember correctly about the date).  While watching, I saw a pro mark his golf ball on the 15th green (during the first round, I think). When he replaced his ball, it was clear to me that he moved his ball at least half a ball width to the side. I asked my wife, who is not a golfer but was in the room reading at the time, to watch the video on DVR, without my making any comment on what she was going to watch.  She too saw the movement immediately. She asked me if that was acceptable.

 

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

I'm still not a fan of the no penalty for an incorrect scorecard. Signing your card should be an announcement to the rest of the field that that is what you scored and that they can rely on that information. If you break that trust, be it intentionally or by mistake, there should be some repercussion. I can certainly see DQ being a little too draconian, but I don't think 2 strokes is unreasonable. 

I personally have very little pity for Lexi.  Whether because of lack of concentration or for other reasons, she clearly moved her ball on the replacement. She should have known that her action was incorrect and that she deserved the penalty. Signing the scorecard without the penalty was another error over which she had complete control. She was due the extra scorecard penalty.

I'm of the opinion that rules are there to protect the Jimmy's and Jane's who are out there doing their best to play within the rules. Players who are too nonchalant, too aggressive in their play, or too dishonest to bother doing the same should not expect the rules to protect them from their actions, or lack thereof (as @DaveP043 so eloquently posted earlier in this thread.) That's my opinion, and its not likely to change regardless of what the ruling bodies decide.

I will, of course, abide by the rules.  Doesn't mean that I have to agree with them or with their reasoning.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Hardluckster

[Hardluckster]

Just now, iacas said:

I'm still with you there.

The removal of that penalty incentivizes people to be able to honestly say that they DO NOT know the Rules.

Honestly, or dishonestly.  This new local rule abolishing the extra scorecard penalty will be available to all tournaments, not just televised professional events.  We all most likely know golfers who will likely use this as a way of trying to avoid penalizing themselves, especially if the action only results in the initial penalty being exacted and no other additional penalty being attached.

[Ty_Webb]

9 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

Honestly, or dishonestly.  This new local rule abolishing the extra scorecard penalty will be available to all tournaments, not just televised professional events.  We all most likely know golfers who will likely use this as a way of trying to avoid penalizing themselves, especially if the action only results in the initial penalty being exacted and no other additional penalty being attached.

I would actually be okay with this adjustment so long as it was just for a case where a player could reasonably have been expected not to know about it. If a player writes down a 4 when he got a 5 because he hit it 5 times, he should still get an additional penalty. If it's for receiving a penalty that he could have reasonably been expected not to know about then go for it. I would classify reasonably expected as being determined by there being no attempt to hide it (for example, Tiger's drop or Stadler's towel). If a player did something surreptitiously or just lied about their score, then they should be penalized. Likewise, if they made the same breach after having been called out for the same in the past, then they should have known. Like if Stadler knelt on his towel again a month later, he should catch the extra penalty too. If Lexi mismarks her ball again, she should catch the extra penalty. 

I could even stretch to saying that they could be partially excused it so long as the adjustment to score was for a penalty and in that case, the total adjustment shouldn't be more than two strokes. So no 4 stroke additions like Lexi got, but two strokes if there was no penalty added. If it was a one penalty stroke that was missed, then it would be a two stroke total penalty for both. That would encourage people to know the rules because not knowing them will have still cost them two strokes. 

[Hardluckster]

Just now, Ty_Webb said:

I would actually be okay with this adjustment so long as it was just for a case where a player could reasonably have been expected not to know about it. If a player writes down a 4 when he got a 5 because he hit it 5 times, he should still get an additional penalty. If it's for receiving a penalty that he could have reasonably been expected not to know about then go for it. I would classify reasonably expected as being determined by there being no attempt to hide it (for example, Tiger's drop or Stadler's towel). If a player did something surreptitiously or just lied about their score, then they should be penalized. Likewise, if they made the same breach after having been called out for the same in the past, then they should have known. Like if Stadler knelt on his towel again a month later, he should catch the extra penalty too. If Lexi mismarks her ball again, she should catch the extra penalty. 

I could even stretch to saying that they could be partially excused it so long as the adjustment to score was for a penalty and in that case, the total adjustment shouldn't be more than two strokes. So no 4 stroke additions like Lexi got, but two strokes if there was no penalty added. If it was a one penalty stroke that was missed, then it would be a two stroke total penalty for both. That would encourage people to know the rules because not knowing them will have still cost them two strokes. 

I personally don't see anything wrong with the way the rule was written before this local rule.

I think your proposal brings in a judgment call requirement, and I think that promotes vagueness.  For that reason, I don't think I would be in favor.

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

I personally don't see anything wrong with the way the rule was written before this local rule.

I think your proposal brings in a judgment call requirement, and I think that promotes vagueness.  For that reason, I don't think I would be in favor.

I'm with you on that, and @Ty_Webb's solution adds complexity and judgment when there's no need for any. Tiger Woods, Lexi Thompson, etc. are responsible for knowing the rules.

Or were responsible, anyway…

[Hardluckster]

Just now, iacas said:

I'm with you on that, and @Ty_Webb's solution adds complexity and judgment when there's no need for any. Tiger Woods, Lexi Thompson, etc. are responsible for knowing the rules.

Or were responsible, anyway…

Yeah, to me that's the most troubling rule of the new proposals.

I would expect that rules officials watching video should be able to detect violations that viewers would have called in about. As evidenced by the incorrect ruling in the Tiger Masters violation, rules officials do not always make the correct calls even when video is available - but I'm ok with the rule so long as no known infraction is excused simply because it was on video.

The scorecard penalty, however, is more problematic to me.  We all were once all responsible for attesting to the validity of our scores.  That will not always be the case any more.  This ruling affects more than just the professional golf - it affects all local, regional, and national competitions that adopt this local rule.

[Ty_Webb]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'm with you on that, and @Ty_Webb's solution adds complexity and judgment when there's no need for any. Tiger Woods, Lexi Thompson, etc. are responsible for knowing the rules.

Or were responsible, anyway…

I don't disagree. I was trying to suggest a way that would have been less extreme (extreme being what they are changing it to).

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

The scorecard penalty, however, is more problematic to me.  We all were once all responsible for attesting to the validity of our scores.  That will not always be the case any more.  This ruling affects more than just the professional golf - it affects all local, regional, and national competitions that adopt this local rule.

It's only a Local Rule in 2018. It's being added permanently as one of the main rules in 2019.

[Hardluckster]

Just now, iacas said:

It's only a Local Rule in 2018. It's being added permanently as one of the main rules in 2019.

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of that.

That makes it even more troubling.  In 2019, it becomes standard operating procedure.

The rule does nothing but lessen the degree of accountability that is required of a player.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Hardluckster

[arab_joe]

20 hours ago, iacas said:

Disagree all you want. It is. This is a simple fact.

Lexi was penalized under two different rules.

This wasn't a case of breaching two rules concurrently and only applying the general penalty to one, or invoking the "no additional penalty" clause found in some Rules.

Until you can understand the fact that Lexi broke TWO rules, at separate times, you will not understand this.

Of course I understand that Lexi broke two rules in misplacing (or moving, or however you wish to describe it) one marker on one hole, once and signing her card as if she had not (or perhaps even thinking that she had not).  It is clear that under the rules of golf, it is deemed to be two actions.  However, my understanding of this thread is that it is for forum users to debate what they believe the rules "should" be.  I don't agree with the characterisation as two actions - as I alluded to before I believe that it is an unnecessary second layer of penalty for a single act. 

I'm clearly not alone in this, or else there would have been no "uproar" when Lexi was penalised like she was...

Edited December 21, 2017 by arab_joe

[iacas]

3 hours ago, arab_joe said:

It is clear that under the rules of golf, it is deemed to be two actions.

You were saying it was one act. It is not.

It's that simple.

3 hours ago, arab_joe said:

However, my understanding of this thread is that it is for forum users to debate what they believe the rules "should" be. I don't agree with the characterisation as two actions - as I alluded to before I believe that it is an unnecessary second layer of penalty for a single act.

It's not a single act! Disagree with what the rules "should" be all you want, it's not a single act. You've got to come up with a better reason than that, because your reasoning is dismissed as a simple matter of fact: it's not a single act. It's a breach of two very different rules.

3 hours ago, arab_joe said:

I'm clearly not alone in this, or else there would have been no "uproar" when Lexi was penalised like she was...

You're not alone, and that's sad, because we keep removing the honor, integrity, and responsibility to know and follow the rules from the game.

What's to stop a kid from writing down a 4 when he gets a 5 now because he "doesn't know" he's supposed to include a penalty stroke for dropping out of the stream? If he gets away with it, he's s(h)aved a stroked. If he gets caught, well, he just shoots the same score he actually shot. There's no punishment for not knowing the rules, and if he can say believably that he didn't know that was a penalty, there's no penalty for intentionally shaving that stroke.

Nobody can answer that question. All anyone has said is "well, you just have to trust people." But these rules changes literally incentivize players to NOT know the rules, because then at least they're honest when they say "I didn't know that was a penalty stroke."

[Groucho Valentine]

Interesting dichotomy going on in this discussion. Apparently golf is a deeply honorable game that is played by inherently dishonest people just waiting for any chance they get to lie cheat and steal.  (Since 2010) Only noble viewers and spectators, who have no accountability to anyone and are not officially involved the events in any way, can stop the golf from becoming a wretched hive of villainy! 

 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Interesting dichotomy going on in this discussion. Apparently golf is a deeply honorable game that is played by inherently dishonest people just waiting for any chance they get to lie cheat and steal.  (Since 2010) Only noble viewers and spectators, who have no accountability to anyone and are not officially involved the events in any way, can stop the golf from becoming a wretched hive of villainy! 

Yeah… except nobody's said anything like that.