The USGA have officially address the issue & A & R of viewers calling in penalties after having witnessed the fine by using a HD TV replay, at least with respect to an illegal movement of the golf ball. This is an issue that has driven fiery golf fans crazy for years and has wreaked havoc on a number of golf's biggest events.
Last week, in a joint statement published by the USGA and R & A as part of their bi-annual review of the rules of the game, it was explained that "decision 18/4 provides that where improved technological evidence (e.g. HDTV, digital recording or Visual media online, etc.) shows that a ball has left its position and come to rest on another locatiede ball shall not be deemed to have moved if that movement is not reasonably observable with the naked eye at the time was. "
This essentially means that if a slow motion HD television replay a player ball put by a quarter of an inch and the rules officials decide shows that the player can not have reasonable considering his or her golf ball moving with their naked eye, that the player is not a punishment for the violation of the rules will incur.
This is a change on line 18-2 ("Ball at Rest moved: by player, Partner, Caddie or equipment") of the rules of Golf and is essentially a step ahead of rule 33-7, which was implemented in April 2011 and apart from disqualification for a player that an incorrect scorecard following a round in which that player committed a rules violation that was later established through video evidence signed.
While it's always good to see the USGA and R & a working address new forms of technology that have a detrimental effect on the game of golf can, decision 18/4 actually seems to make an even larger grey area than before, and will more than likely also places many players and rules officials in difficult situations during the next few years.
Prior to decision 18/4 was the rule clear. As a HD TV replay showed that a violation of the rules had occurred, the player had no choice but to accept the punishment. It made no difference how the rules violation was identified (using the naked eye or by using a HD TV replay).
But now the waters have grown even modderiger around the use of instant replay to identify violations of the rules.
Rules officials are essentially being asked to read the minds of the players. Whereas previously a rules official would simply need to watch a HD television playback and decide whether or not a violation of the rules had occurred on the basis of what is often very clear evidence, was now must not only determine rules officials or a violation of the rules has taken place, but must also jump was in the minds of the players to decide whether or not that the offense rules, or should have seen with the naked eye.
How in the world is an official of the rules intended to do that?
Decision 18/4 also brings players in a very difficult situation as they are in the same boat as the rules officials were before this amendment of the rules of Golf. If a player turned out to be a HD TV replay which clearly showed that a violation of the rules had occurred, that player had no choice but to accept the punishment. But that is no longer the case. Players are now allowed to contest the violation of the rules based on them having regard to the not with their naked eye while on the golf course.
This allows players to put in a very awkward situation because golf is always a self-governing gentleman's game where players are been entrusted is Call penalties on themselves when deemed appropriate. So, decision 18/4 can cause many players to feel uncomfortable about not accepting a punishment because they don't happen to see the criminal action. It could raise questions in the minds of the player, such as:
I've seen the punishment should occur?The rest of the field will believe that I really don't see the criminal action?What will the media and the general public think if I don't accept the punishment on the basis of the given the not with my naked eye?This new amendment to the rules of Golf also has opportunities for the creation of a huge firestorm around simple rules violations. There are bound to be numerous cases of a player does not accept a penalty based on their ball move not seen with their naked eye, while the general public, the media and even their peers may disagree, thus reducing the chance of the term of the dreaded "cheat" being thrown around the game a bit more often.
There is also the potential for friction between players and rules officials — what happens when a player is adamant that he or she does not and could not have seen the violation of the rules occur with his or her naked eye while the official rules concludes that the player has or at least this offense occur with his or her naked eye must have seen?
Again, it's good to see golf's governing bodies try to adjust the rules of the game that new technological advances to address that violation of the spirit of competition. However, not all change is good, and decision 18/4 can actually made an even worse situation than had previously existed around penalties assessed by the use of HD television replays.