"If you couldn't see it with your naked eye, how much did it really compromise the other 155-some players in the field?"

Jaime Diaz fles an exclusive Q&A posted with Mike Davis at GolfDigest.com and the USGA Executive Director wants to make clear that the latest HD video-related Decision added to the rules of golf was in no way Tiger related, and continues the USGA position of unwillingness to say whether the situation at the BMW Championship was applicable.

I'm still having trouble seeing how this is the progressive moment some have suggested as a solution to the HD situations:

Please explain how the new rule might have effected what occurred with Tiger at BMW?

In Tiger's case, what a rules committee would ultimately have to do is say, "OK, did Tiger see that with his naked eye. Was it possible or probable?" Sometimes you may just need to take all the evidence involved. We do that all the time in championships.

Let's say Tiger's thing wasn't televised, and all we had was a spectator saying they thought Tiger's ball moved. And we learn about that, what we would do is get to Tiger before he returned his scorecard, and ask him "Can we talk about what happened on the hole where you removed a pine needle and a spectator said your ball moved?"  And we would ask him, "Did your ball move?" If he said, "Absolutely not, it didn't move," it would be OK, case closed.

But if Tiger said, "Well I don't think it moved," then we would ask, "Tell us about the pine needle, could it have caused the ball to move?" Again, you use all the evidence you have, because we've got to somehow make a ruling here. And in a case like this, if it's one person against another person, usually the player is going to win on that.

But perhaps in a case where something wasn't televised, and 12 people are saying the ball moved, but the player said, "I don't think it moved," there would be too much weight saying the ball moved and the ruling would go against the player.

So 12 people in person would have a better view than an HD camera?  Generally not, which then means viral video will threaten to taint the player's image.

But the bottom line on the new rule is that if the ball somehow moved minutely and it was picked up on camera, and the player plays the shot, we're not going to say, "Well the ball moved and it should have been a one-stroke penalty, and you didn't replace it, so now it's a two stroke penalty." And furthermore, if it goes all the way in and the player signs the scorecard, not only is he or she not going to be penalized, but they are not going to be disqualified. We just feel the rules never contemplated that, and it's the right thing for the game. If you couldn't see it with your naked eye, how much did it really compromise the other 155-some players in the field?

That last question is a fascinating one in that I'm pretty sure Craig Stadler putting a towel down to save his pants did not compromise the field, nor did Robert diVicenzo's incorrect scorecoard or any other host of famous rules situations.

I'd be curious what the rules aficionados out there think of this last rhetorical question by Davis?

Comments

[chicago pt]

your spot on about Davis's comment Geoff, its very troublesome

[johnnnycz]

Whatever the results of this new rule one thing is for sure: Going forward, players are going to be EXTRA careful when doing their "gardening" around their ball.

Some winter practice playing pick-up-sticks w/ the family is in order methinks.

[No Longer Used to be Former Stack & Tilt Convert]

If the rules got down to the level of "intent" or "impact on on the rest of the field" it would become a can of worms.

[Amen Coroner]

Great point NL. Intent and impact based decisions on rules is now on the slippery slope test. Me thinks the naked eye is now open for interpretation in the golf rule book versus indisputable HD video evidence. Can a player with less than 20/20 vision declare he didn't see it move cause his contacts were foggy at 6:30 am on the Monterrey Peninsula??? Biology and HD technology be damned in Far Hills!

[Amen Coroner]

Only in golf can we be this painfully arrogant and careless. I can't wait for the first pampered tv pro golfer to say 'it moved on TV in the trailer but I didn't see it with my lasik eyes so I guess it didn't move and the tree fell silently'.

[DC]

Oh no. We're on a "slippery slope." The end of the world is coming.

Congratulations to all of you for finally joining the 21st centry. Every other professional sport in the world has "slippery slope" characteristics to it, but they are getting along just fine. In fact, they're doing better than golf.

"Slippery slope" is such a weak argument in favor of a position. Unless golf is really not a sport.

[KLG]

But you could see it with the "naked eye." Which is why Tiger stopped his gardening. He then "misinterpreted" the movement as oscillation. Video evidence of something he had already seen showed him to have been wrong in his interpretation. Therefore, according to the rules, add 2 strokes. One for causing the ball to move and one for not replacing it. This is not difficult. Each and every one of us has done the same thing, usually in the absence of a video camera. In a casual game when no money is on the line, so what? Chalk it up to practice gardening for when the rules are being followed. Davis seems to be siding with that point of view, which is held by 99+% of all golfers, most of whom seem to roll the ball everywhere, all the time. But when you are playing for keeps or a $2 nassau by the Rules of Golf, add one stroke and do your best to replace the ball. This is not difficult. This is not a slippery slope; rather this is solid ground.

[Media driven]

How about asking, "How did you react to Glen Nager's attempt to oust you from the job?" Davis must've agreed to an interview that wouldn't touch on that. Wonder if he'll ever acknowledge/respond?

[DTF]

Be prepared for even slower play.... Given all the crazy stuff that's taken place this year going forward I can see most (if not all) players calling in an official for ever single rules related situation. Unless it's a starightforward re-tee from the exact same spot on the teeing grounds, call an official....just not worth the risk otherwise.

[BrianS]

How about a change in the rules so that loose impediments may be removed from the vicinity of the ball as long as the ball is not inside of hazard. If, in the course of removing loose impediments, the ball moves or oscillates even in the slightest degree, then the penalty should apply.....

[Mark]

Is this just a little more clarification on the old desecion? I thought that the old HD desecion was ment for the Paddy situation, ball move only a minor amount and that minor amount could only be seen on a zoomed in HD image at super replay. So in his case, no penalty. But Tigers ball, I could see it move on normal HD replay speed with no enhancement, to me a penalty on the first movement , but the second movement would fall in the HD rule no penalty. To me, Tiger stoped moving the sticks because he saw his ball start to move, the video shows he tried twice to move a stick and stopped moving the stick when he saw the ball "oclolate" so he saw it with his naked eye.

My big question is why this new rule? This new rule will only matter for 500 golfers a year that play on TV. I don't think any of us are playing a roud of golf and filming it in a go pro. Or in my case, when I officiate, I don't bring a go pro with me to zoom in on golfers across the way. So again, usga makes rules for running the us open and not my $2 Nassau

[Geoff]

Mark,
You are right that this is for 500 at most, maybe even fewer. And to Johnny's point, maybe Davis's vagueness is actually a brilliant way of making the statement or reminder to players: just be careful around your ball! Some of the guys get a little lazy, especially in the more rustic areas of play, and one would hope that the attention this has gotten and comments suggesting 12 gallery members could prove convincing to a committee will serve a purpose.

[Shady Golf]

Del,
Most of the players already call over and wait for officials for even the simplest of rules situations (if there is such a thing). Most won't even hit a provisional ball even when an official has signaled that the ball may be OB.

[AK47]

What advantage did Tiger gain? None ... And while we're at it, let's give Roberto at least a sleeve of a green jacket because that's the saddest, most ridiculous chain of events in the history of sports. The whole world knew what he shot.

[Joe Duffer]

KLG makes good arguments but misses how both he and Davis are correct: The player, TW, could not see or detect that the ball moved DOWNWARD, as recorded in HD from a low angle, in the case of BMW 2013. To TW's eyes. LASIK enhanced, the ball moved somehow without changing position LATERALLY in any direction, so he concluded oscillation.

[George Blunt]

Aren't we also witnessing another unstated moment of bifurcation of the rules? To Mark's point, how many of us play under the watchful eye of HD TV?
George

[Amen Coroner]

This is such sillyness.

From now on either the ball moved (penalty under the current rules) or the ball didn't move (no penalty) or the ball moved but since you didn't see or can say you didn't see it move then I guess it didn't move (no penalty). Unless there's a minyan plus 2 to say so!

[Joe Duffer]

Couple of additional observations:

TW's eyes were only an arms length from the golf ball when he saw it oscillate /move. That is very close, actually.

Jaime Diaz here gives me more reason to cement my opinion of him that he doesn't always "get it right." In pertinent part, "...and 12 people are saying the ball moved, but the player said, "I don't think it moved," there would be too much weight saying the ball moved and the ruling would go against the player." I assume that the 12 would be spectators, since it is rare to find even one official that observed any of the events in person. So these approximately 12 spectators HAVE NO AUTHORITY at a golf tournament. They only have the ability to alert tournament officials to a possible rules infraction. But Jaime speculates that they could become a golf ruling body.

[Amen Coroner]

They as in Far Hills are now making a mockery of their org structure and the rules.

[Joe Duffer]

George Blunt : ain't no bifurcation going on here. This ruling change would have taken the HD video OUT of TW's situation at BMW 2013 since TW would have been deemed unable to detect the movement that the HD video detected. So the ruling would still apply equally at a muni or at highly HD videoed BMW tourney..

[dbh]

Joe Duffer, those are Davis' words you quoted, not Diaz'.

[Paul]

Someone is at last injecting some common sense into this debate.

A couple of weeks ago I watched a well known PGA tour player take a free drop. As the ball rolled on the two occasions he dropped it he placed it where he thought the ball had contacted the turf. He was out by at least two inches.

Some of us would consider this to be a hanging offense and others might view it to be inconsequential and perfectly acceptable.

Of course others might reserve their opinion on such transgressions based on who the transgressor might or might not be. Who said golf was a game of integrity.

[elf]

The rules of golf weren't meant for half dimple movements (or hd in general). Look through the rule book, oscillation, as close as possible etc all imperfect measures, allowing for some small movement. Basically this ruling means you at home playing golf, who aren't being watched by cameras, are being judged in the same manner as the pros.

[Dave M]

When we use any technology other than the naked eye, are we not bifurcating the rules?

[Paul]

Hi Geoff, you've really hit the nail on the head, and I am amazed that more writers, and more importantly the players who will be affected by this, have not seen the folly of the argument against using video evidence. Invoking this decision is just going to make things worse, as every time a player is "exonerated" when the tape shows a rules infraction in fact occured, the reaction is going to be along the lines of "Well, he won, but.....what about that deal that happened......" And it is going to be exponentially worse for folks like Woods, who for better or worse we can all agree is polarizing among fans. I hate to think of the backlash he is going to get if he ever is the beneficiary of this decision. I mean, Mark O'Meara's incident in France still follows him around, and that one was handled by the book ie. the competition had closed so the results stood, no special rule or decision had to be invoked to deal with the issue. Yet some people still view him as having cheated.

I wonder sometimes where Tiger's head is at. The simplest thing for him to have done, both at the BMW and at Augusta, would be to look at the tape, admit his mistake(s) and accept the penalty(ies). Like so many tournament players have done before him. How many examples do we have of players calling penalties on themselves just because they had some doubt in their mind about whether a ball moved, for example. Seems that was always the spirit of the game, if in doubt accept the penalty to protect the field. I can't understand how or when this shift happened in the thinking; personally, if I have broken a rule (even unknowingly) I want to know.

Not to get off on a tangent about Tiger (I am a fan, but scratch my head at his stubborness on this), but imagine the world of good he would have done himself had he accepted those penalties in a gentlemanly manner. That would have done more for him than any PR-scripted image polishing I can imagine.

Good piece - will watch this with interest going forward, but I fear this will be a case of "Be careful what you wish for".

[Seitz]

"They only have the ability to alert tournament officials to a possible rules infraction. But Jaime speculates that they could become a golf ruling body."

No, they become witnesses. In a trial, the judge is the ruling body. Those spectators are just providing evidence, not passing judgment.

I really don't understand the consternation around this statement. He's saying that if a bunch of people are pretty sure a ball moved viewing from their own naked eyes, the likelihood that the golfer could not have seen it move with the naked eye is almost zero. On the other hand, if the only evidence we have that a ball moved is HD video in super slo-mo, and even that gets debated over, then it's much more believable that player did not see it move with the naked eye. It seems fairly straightforward to me.

[OPGolfer]

Quite a few years ago at the Masters, Tiger straddled his line of putt to avoid stepping on another player's line, just to clean up and get out of the way. At that time the exception to Rule 16-1e did not exist. No penalty was called, even though Rules people knew of the incident. The next year the exception was added.

This year at the Masters, the infamous drop because Tiger needed two more yards. There was no DQ. (USGA Past President Fred Ridley's decision)

After the BMW situation this year, Decision 18/4 is added.

Maybe the USGA does need a new business plan with a COO, who has a strong spine, heading the organization.

[The Big K]

WWJD? - What Would (Robert Tyre) Jones Do?

[OPGolfer]

Big K,
He called a penalty on himself. No additional eyeballs present.

[Marky Mark]

Many people seem to be forgetting that Tiger saw the HD on a large screen TV in the scoring area at the BMW and still claimed that his ball had only oscillates.

That confirms that in the end, it wasn't a problem with his eyes, but a problem with his head and his heart.

[digger]

Geoff, are we to take it that off-hand references to Augusta's past are not suitable commenting material? I can't believe "exclude black people" is a liftable comment - what was offensive about it, OTHER THAN IT BEING TRUE? And if you lift this comment, kindly block me from accessing this blog further. Thanks, digger.

[Golden Bell]

This decision is a disaster; it creates a gray area where there is only black and white. Start the list of those unpenalized after failing to replace a ball seen by others (television viewers and in-person spectators), and thus considered as cavalier with the rules as Woods.

[OPGolfer]

Carl Peterson,
Now I get it!

[Carl Peterson]

I knew the risk. I just didn't think that "Violate the Rules of Amateur Status [repeatedly]" had the same 'punch.'

[MI_guy]

Some of you need your eyes tested so that you can read.

AmenCorner & GoldenBell,The decision doesn't care if you have 20-10 vision or are blind, if it the movement can be seen with the naked eye you are penalized. Not did the player see it, but does the committee think it could be seen without technology.

OPGolfer, I know you won't believe it but the USGA and R&A said that the decision was written and approved before Tiger's incident happened. Knowing how slowly organizations move on things like this I'd be very surprised if that wasn't true.

[Jonesy]

WWJD?

Well, not allow Tiger to play in the National Invitational Tournament of course

[Andrew Steves]

Perfect Pressure Putt Trainer - Smart Putt Out Training Aid with Parabolic Curved Design - Golf Training Hole Aid for Putting Green - Outdoor and Indoor Putting Return Golf Trainer for Putting Mat

Check it out at :
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Puttout&rh=p_78%3AB088GRL45D