59 replies to this topic

[kellygreen]

Rockminer, on 15 August 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

Thanks for posting. You make good points. My problem with it, from the begining, is that the technology is not avaliable to everyone.

1. Why not just make a decision and live with it? The guy at the bottom of the field that gets penalized doesn't get video review.( they just make a decision )

2. Not going to take the time to do research, but i'm guessing that someone has been penalized or exonerated outside of a major due to video? ( while in contention or not )

3. Seems like kind of a cop out to me. It's like the R/O is saying, I saw a leaf move but i want to make sure, let's look at the video to be sure. What if the video shows no leaf move? Or what if the angle is such that we can't see if the leaf moves or not? No penalty? Or does he penalize anyway because he saw the leaf move?

Again, I have no problem with video review as long as it's consistent for everyone. And for the record, i'm not odsessed with this subject. I figured more members would be on my side of this and post but it looks like i'm on a pretty small island.

I agree with you on the call ins.

1. The guy at the bottom of the field isn't playing for hundreds of thousands of dollars, history, hardware, and exemptions that are potentially worth millions of dollars.  It is MUCH more critical to get things RIGHT at the top of the field, especially when a penalty that may change the tournament outcome is being considered.

2. Yes.

3. Then it becomes a matter of judgement on the part of a rules official.   Consulting video is no different than baseball umpires appealing a call to another member of the crew who had a better visual angle on the play....or the entire umpiring crew conferring on a difficult play to talk about what everyone saw before making any final rulings.

The bottomline is that the official is trying to get the call RIGHT...and stands to potentially benefit the player in question as much as it stands to potentially penalize him.  As long as it is a process initiated by rules officials...and stays BETWEEN rules officials...I have no problems with them using video.

Because its the same in team sports.  Not everything that goes on during play is captured by TV cameras, but it doesn't make sense not to take advantage of video when it captures plays that are close calls and might change the outcome of the game.

By leaving it between rules officials, you make the process as consistent and equitable as possible between contestants, while doing everything reasonably possible to see that the event is officiated CORRECTLY.

[Rockminer]

^^^^^Kellygreen

I appreciate you posting. You make good points, many that i agree with. I realize that my way of thinking ,on this, is warped due to the fact that very few agree with me. I dont' have a problem with getting it right, just seems like the majority should have the ability of such technology, instead of the minority.

[kellygreen]

Rockminer, on 16 August 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

^^^^^Kellygreen

I appreciate you posting. You make good points, many that i agree with. I realize that my way of thinking ,on this, is warped due to the fact that very few agree with me. I dont' have a problem with getting it right, just seems like the majority should have the ability of such technology, instead of the minority.

In a perfect world I would agree with you.

But, unless you've had the opportunity to see a PGA (or other professional) golf tournament in person, I'm afraid you are underestimating the MASSIVE technological and logistical obstacles that have to be overcome to televise a tournament.   A championship golf course may cover hundreds of acres of land.  Yet you need to position cameras, microphones and antennas in ways that won't compromise play....and find some way to POWER them so that you do not disturbe the air of quiet that such competitive golf demands.

So I understand your point...and agree with it in the abstract...without some sort of minaturization breakthough in the technology necessary to broadcast a tournament, it is just not practical to make available to the entire field to the same degree.

[DieHard519]

What if a player who isn't really being televised (not in contention at that point or are not a big name) makes an infraction that would cost two strokes and it is overlooked/missed by a rules official....then he goes on to make an eagle on the same hole?  Would that not technically be a 4 shot swing (in his round)? Then say that puts the player into contention and he goes on to win because from there on he didn't make any infractions....how would that be fair?  

I say if they're going to use video analysis on the top players in contention, then they should use it for every player in the field. Otherwise it's unfair for the leaders.

[souledge]

That same player also duffs his next tee shot somewhere, and the 1 person following him is unable to help him find it. He takes a re-tee. Works out in the end.

[Pepperturbo]

kellygreen, on 16 August 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

In a perfect world I would agree with you.

But, unless you've had the opportunity to see a PGA (or other professional) golf tournament in person, I'm afraid you are underestimating the MASSIVE technological and logistical obstacles that have to be overcome to televise a tournament.   A championship golf course may cover hundreds of acres of land.  Yet you need to position cameras, microphones and antennas in ways that won't compromise play....and find some way to POWER them so that you do not disturbe the air of quiet that such competitive golf demands.

So I understand your point...and agree with it in the abstract...without some sort of minaturization breakthough in the technology necessary to broadcast a tournament, it is just not practical to make available to the entire field to the same degree.

Kelly - I've had multiple opportunities to see first hand, including pro-ams.  What you're suggesting regarding cameras, is only partially true regarding stationary camera placement.  True, stationary placement is partially influenced by course design; but also producer desire.  Ground mics are near greens where stationary cameras are located.  As for antenna's, that mode is almost old technology, since portable satellite feeds came into use.  At many events now-a-days, where distance is a concern, camera's are being mounted on segways; as seen at the recent British Open.  The other more common mode is on the shoulders of walking camera men, as well as men with body tripod mounted cameras.  Each of those cameras are directed where to go arbitrarily by a producer in a trailer off the course.

IMO - there is no reason they can't have a portable camera following each tee group.  That way, the field is protected.  Tournament fact is, USGA rules are suppose to be applied to all competitors equally.  That's factually not the case.  Portable cameras are directed to cover leaders from different angles, and run from hole to hole to cover those possibly making a move.  Stationary camera's give green or directed views, in-conjunction with the blimp, presuming its onsite.

As for your earlier point about those playing for millions are priority vs. golfers at the back of the pack... that's so wrong.  Again, USGA rules are applied to all golfers in the field, not just those on the front page of the leader board.  Plus, everybody is in the money that makes the cut, so all should be treated equally.

Edited by Pepperturbo, 16 August 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[CheckJV]

I'm sick of video being used the wrong way.  Here is the way things should be...

1) A penalty can only be called by the Player, Playing Competitor, Caddy for either, or by a Rules Official assigned to the group.
2) Video can only be used to clarify a called penalty (see No 1).
3) Nobody sitting in a video truck, at home, on-site patron, or even a rules official watching video should be able to call a penalty.
4) Video clarification should be limited to a time period of 1 hole after the last hole played or 20 minutes if the potential penalty occurred on the last hole.
5) If the penalty can't be resolved within the time period above, no penalty, done, last word.

[kellygreen]

Pepperturbo, on 16 August 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Kelly - I've had multiple opportunities to see first hand, including pro-ams.  What you're suggesting regarding cameras, is only partially true regarding stationary camera placement.  True, stationary placement is partially influenced by course design; but also producer desire.  Ground mics are near greens where stationary cameras are located.  As for antenna's, that mode is almost old technology, since portable satellite feeds came into use.  At many events now-a-days, where distance is a concern, camera's are being mounted on segways; as seen at the recent British Open.  The other more common mode is on the shoulders of walking camera men, as well as men with body tripod mounted cameras.  Each of those cameras are directed where to go arbitrarily by a producer in a trailer off the course.

IMO - there is no reason they can't have a portable camera following each tee group.  That way, the field is protected.  Tournament fact is, USGA rules are suppose to be applied to all competitors equally.  That's factually not the case.  Portable cameras are directed to cover leaders from different angles, and run from hole to hole to cover those possibly making a move.  Stationary camera's give green or directed views, in-conjunction with the blimp, presuming its onsite.

As for your earlier point about those playing for millions are priority vs. golfers at the back of the pack... that's so wrong.  Again, USGA rules are applied to all golfers in the field, not just those on the front page of the leader board.  Plus, everybody is in the money that makes the cut, so all should be treated equally.

In a perfect world, yes.

I just don't think we live there yet.

[rustyputterguy]

kellygreen, on 16 August 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

1. The guy at the bottom of the field isn't playing for hundreds of thousands of dollars, history, hardware, and exemptions that are potentially worth millions of dollars.  It is MUCH more critical to get things RIGHT at the top of the field, especially when a penalty that may change the tournament outcome is being considered.

Critical to who?
Those guys at the bottom of the field may be battling to make cuts, may be battling to make the playoffs, and battling just to make a living. It's probably not any less critical, to them, that things are called correctly for them or the people they're battling against.
Even if you ignore them, TV coverage isn't exactly equal across the leaderboard.

Look at the final results of the PGA Championship. How many shots did you see of David Lynn on the final day when it was the most critical to get things right at the top of the leaderboard? Justin Rose? Blake Adams? Jamie Donaldson? Peter Hanson? Stricker? Those are all guys who finished in the top 10.

In the US Open how much TV time did Webb get before the final holes?

I see both sides of the arguement, and don't have a strong opinion either way, but it does seem a bit unbalanced.

[Pepperturbo]

kellygreen, on 16 August 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 16 August 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Kelly - I've had multiple opportunities to see first hand, including pro-ams.  What you're suggesting regarding cameras, is only partially true regarding stationary camera placement.  True, stationary placement is partially influenced by course design; but also producer desire.  Ground mics are near greens where stationary cameras are located.  As for antenna's, that mode is almost old technology, since portable satellite feeds came into use.  At many events now-a-days, where distance is a concern, camera's are being mounted on segways; as seen at the recent British Open.  The other more common mode is on the shoulders of walking camera men, as well as men with body tripod mounted cameras.  Each of those cameras are directed where to go arbitrarily by a producer in a trailer off the course.

IMO - there is no reason they can't have a portable camera following each tee group.  That way, the field is protected.  Tournament fact is, USGA rules are suppose to be applied to all competitors equally.  That's factually not the case.  Portable cameras are directed to cover leaders from different angles, and run from hole to hole to cover those possibly making a move.  Stationary camera's give green or directed views, in-conjunction with the blimp, presuming its onsite.

As for your earlier point about those playing for millions are priority vs. golfers at the back of the pack... that's so wrong.  Again, USGA rules are applied to all golfers in the field, not just those on the front page of the leader board.  Plus, everybody is in the money that makes the cut, so all should be treated equally.

In a perfect world, yes.

I just don't think we live there yet.

Why do you say that?   Every bit of the technology I mentioned exists, and is currently used during most PGA, Champion and LPGA events.   The decision where and when, and why not are subjective.  But, the "why not" might have something to do with many tour players that want to stay out of the lime light, don't like cameras on them.  Camera usage should cover the field and only used to verify.  I think we agree on the couch potatoes and doofuses that need a moment of "I made that call".

[nbg352]

CheckJV, on 16 August 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

I'm sick of video being used the wrong way.  Here is the way things should be...

1) A penalty can only be called by the Player, Playing Competitor, Caddy for either, or by a Rules Official assigned to the group.
2) Video can only be used to clarify a called penalty (see No 1).
3) Nobody sitting in a video truck, at home, on-site patron, or even a rules official watching video should be able to call a penalty.
4) Video clarification should be limited to a time period of 1 hole after the last hole played or 20 minutes if the potential penalty occurred on the last hole.
5) If the penalty can't be resolved within the time period above, no penalty, done, last word.

I think your way is the right way! No-one who is not on the same hole as the player involved should be able to call a penalty.

[dalehead]

Once evidence of a rules infraction is brought to the attention of tournament officials it has to be reviewed and the appropriate penalty applied. They can't just say "yes he broke a rule, but we're going to let it go." What about the guy who finishes 1 stroke back if the 2 shot penalty is not applied?

Yes not all players are on video, but that's the breaks of the game. Otherwise it would be like a burglar being caught on a surveillance video. Should he be let go because other burglaries were committed by guys who got away with it because they were not video taped?

[Bob57]

It gives the TV watching golfer a feeling of power.  They can ruin a world class players game.  Especially since most couldn't match that players score if they played 9 holes.  All in the spirit of maintaining the game ha ha..

I can only remember two Korean female golfers that tried to get away with something and not call it on themselves.  They might have played each others balls.  I believe one of their caddies turned them in..

[Rockminer]

I think "unbalanced" is the best word used, so far, to describe my feelings on this subject. a few more thoughts;

Some say " it's on video so we have to penalize". Not sure i agree with this. We see the opposite of this in most professional sports with video review. Some examples;

1. NFL. WE see infractions that are clear as day that are " not reviewable".
2. MLB. Same here. Trapped balls, plays at bases etc. "not reviewable".

Again i don't obsess over this just though it would be fun to discuss.

To me, video review, in it's present state in golf , is like saying the following;

MLB. We are only going to use video review for the Yankees, and any team who is leading a division on the day we are covering games. WE feel like these are the only teams who have a chance to win a world series. The rest of the teams will be judged on officials only.

NFL, Same thing, Patriots and division leaders.

I think if these were truly the rules, the MLB and NFL forums would be going nuts.

I would just like to see it the same for everyone ( or at least the majority ) in terms of golf. Either use it for most if not all, or don't use it at all.

Edited by Rockminer, 17 August 2012 - 07:27 AM.

[Vindog]

So let me ask some of you this...

did the penalty happen or not?

[Rockminer]

Vindog, on 17 August 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

So let me ask some of you this...

did the penalty happen or not?

Yes it did. But that's not my point. ( I accidentally hit post after one line and edited above, so you may not have seen it)

What about a trapped ball in an MLB game that is called an out? That is clear as day on video but nothing happens. The umpire made a call and the game goes on.

In the carl penalty, as i understand it, the R/O saw the leaf move. IMO the penalty should have been enforced regardless of what the video shows. I know this is a what if, but, What if the video showed no leaf move? Would he not have been given the penalty?

For the record, i don't think that not using video will encourage people to cheat. I don't think anyone on the planet besides Sergio knew he touched that ball with his 3 wood in the fairway. Honesty still reigns as far as i'm concerned. I just think that replay should invole covering everyone ,as best they can, or no one.

[kellygreen]

Pepperturbo, on 16 August 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

Why do you say that?   Every bit of the technology I mentioned exists, and is currently used during most PGA, Champion and LPGA events.   The decision where and when, and why not are subjective.  But, the "why not" might have something to do with many tour players that want to stay out of the lime light, don't like cameras on them.  Camera usage should cover the field and only used to verify.  I think we agree on the couch potatoes and doofuses that need a moment of "I made that call".

Why?  One word....COST.

The networks are not in the business of officiating tour events.  They are in the business of making money by attracting viewers and selling advertising.  The typical viewer is not the kind of fan who hangs out around here discussing the merits of using video to officiate.  They simply want to see their favorite players and those in contention to win the tournament.  

It is simply not cost-effective for them to provide the necessary cameras and supporting infrastructure to follow every shot of every player around every hole on the course.  Because there would be little return on their investment for most of that expense.

So the issue becomes how to make the most FAIR and equitable use of (for the forseeable future) the existing uneven coverage.

...and I've offered my opinion as to what I think is the best way to do it.

If it were cost-effective...or the networks weren't worried about making a profit...I see the point of your argument for true equity.  I just don't see that occurring.

[kellygreen]

Rockminer, on 17 August 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

I think "unbalanced" is the best word used, so far, to describe my feelings on this subject. a few more thoughts;

Some say " it's on video so we have to penalize". Not sure i agree with this. We see the opposite of this in most professional sports with video review. Some examples;

1. NFL. WE see infractions that are clear as day that are " not reviewable".
2. MLB. Same here. Trapped balls, plays at bases etc. "not reviewable".

Again i don't obsess over this just though it would be fun to discuss.

To me, video review, in it's present state in golf , is like saying the following;

MLB. We are only going to use video review for the Yankees, and any team who is leading a division on the day we are covering games. WE feel like these are the only teams who have a chance to win a world series. The rest of the teams will be judged on officials only.

NFL, Same thing, Patriots and division leaders.

I think if these were truly the rules, the MLB and NFL forums would be going nuts.

I would just like to see it the same for everyone ( or at least the majority ) in terms of golf. Either use it for most if not all, or don't use it at all.

Not a good analogy.

The NFL came to its current rules, because the review of instant replay became so frequent, and resulted so often in "inconclusive" rulings, that it was starting to negatively impact the flow of the game....and the viewing enjoyment of the audience.   So their rules are seeking to find a balance between accuracy, stayign within alloted programming times...and viewability.

There has always been a consensus in baseball that certain calls are not questionable.  Because---once you start questioning them---you are so far out onto a slippery slope that you'd never be able to stop short of eventually questioning them all.   Balls-and-strikes are SO sacrosanct in baseball, that arguing them with a home plate umpire will get you quickly ejected from the game.  Especially if you leave the dugout/bench to do it.

Applying the same to any sort of video ruling of "bang-bang" (judgment call) plays also makes sense. Start reviewing one of them...and you eventually have to start reviewing all of them.  At which point, why even have human umpires???

In a perfect world...you are right.  But the problem is that we don't LIVE in that perfect world.  Golf is a very difficult and very expensive sport to televise, and (for any forseeable future) it is NOT going to be cost-effective to networks to pay to have cameras following every player in the field around the course.

So the question becomes how to best deal with the reality of uneven coverage...in a sport where the players themselves are primarily responsible for applying and enforcing the rules.  Do you ignore all of that footage...even to the point of doing nothing if a blatant act of cheating gets recorded?  Or do you try to make the best-and-fairest use of the material in a way that MINIMIZES any inequities...yet helps to preserve the integrity of the competition and the game itself?

That is the real issue here.

[mj92]

For those of you who don't watch the European Tour, Peter Hanson was leading a tournament a couple of years ago until they showed a slowmo of the chip shot and they ruled that he double hit it. Anyone else, and they wouldn't of picked it up. He went on to win in a play off, but it could've been very different.

Edited by mj92, 18 August 2012 - 02:17 AM.

[kellygreen]

mj92, on 18 August 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

<p>For those of you who don't watch the European Tour, Peter Hanson was leading a tournament a couple of years ago until they showed a slowmo of the chip shot and they ruled that he double hit it. Anyone else, and they wouldn't of picked it up. He went on to win in a play off, but it could've been very different.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/s6WjwMj7AEI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>

Hanson should have called that penalty on himself.  You can't convince me that he didn't feel that. The ball practically rolls UNDER the belly of that wedge.  Even if he didn't realize that it was a double-hit, he should have had the integrity to admit that something about that impact didn't feel right, and consulted a rules official.

Are you arguing that rules official should have just ignored such a clear rules violation?

[dalehead]

If you believe video should not be used to identify or clarify rules violations, then you will have to  be willing to overlook obvious infractions and not impose a penalty. Are you willing to live with that?

For example, say the winner of a future USOpen wins by a shot. But video of his final round play shows a 2 shot infraction that was not detected  by anyone on the scene. Would you be OK with that
.

I doubt it. If you think this thread has been contentious, wait for the uproar over that.

What is needed is not to ban the use of video replays or require that every shot of every player be videoed for four rounds, it is that the rules of golf need to be simplified. As an example, the moving of a leaf in a hazard should not result in a penalty as it did for Carl Petterson. The recent change of the rule on the ball moving on the green because of wind was a step in the right direction.

[walkergolfs]

I agree wholeheartedly. Golf was brought up on honesty and being responsible for your own score. Although i dont agree that only some groupings get cameras. Ive never been to a tournament where there wasnt a camera on every hole, but like in baseball why even have rules officials if their call will just be overturned by the camera? I dont even agree with it in football, although it severely helps there because of the mob of athletes obscuring the officials view.

[Sean2]

I don't agree with viewer call-ins. (I also have no idea where these jackwagons find the phone numbers).

Secondly, not all players are covered the same, which begs the question, should video be used at all since it isn't applied equally?

Third, if you are going to use video, why not use electron microscopes as well and review at the subatomic level, just to make sure everything is on the up and up?

[rustyputterguy]

I don't mind them using video to make sure a called penalty is correct, but I think penalties should be called by players and on course rules officials, period. No call-ins, no telecasters, not even rules officials watching on TV. I'm sure I'm being naive, but I hate to think players are out there actively cheating. They should police themselves. Sure they might miss a call now and then, but golf is not a game of perfect.

[Pepperturbo]

kellygreen, on 17 August 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 16 August 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

Why do you say that?   Every bit of the technology I mentioned exists, and is currently used during most PGA, Champion and LPGA events.   The decision where and when, and why not are subjective.  But, the "why not" might have something to do with many tour players that want to stay out of the lime light, don't like cameras on them.  Camera usage should cover the field and only used to verify.  I think we agree on the couch potatoes and doofuses that need a moment of "I made that call".

Why?  One word....COST.

The networks are not in the business of officiating tour events.  They are in the business of making money by attracting viewers and selling advertising.  The typical viewer is not the kind of fan who hangs out around here discussing the merits of using video to officiate.  They simply want to see their favorite players and those in contention to win the tournament.  

It is simply not cost-effective for them to provide the necessary cameras and supporting infrastructure to follow every shot of every player around every hole on the course.  Because there would be little return on their investment for most of that expense.

So the issue becomes how to make the most FAIR and equitable use of (for the forseeable future) the existing uneven coverage.

...and I've offered my opinion as to what I think is the best way to do it.

If it were cost-effective...or the networks weren't worried about making a profit...I see the point of your argument for true equity.  I just don't see that occurring.

I appreciate your fiscal perspective, and agree, they do not officiate events.  However, they dictate when, where and why cameras are used, even pace of play to accommodate TV scheduling.  The idea that a few more cameras would derogatorily affect their margin, especially when they spend thousands on one segway says you're reaching.  I've been running a sizable P&L since the mid-seventies.  Cost of equipment is absorbed into overall operating expenses, and offset by advertising revenue   To suggest five, even ten cameras are suppose to provide return on investment is NOT how P&L works.  Besides, operating costs for organizations like TGC or a Network gets moved around out of P&L convenience, so is profit for that matter.  You're attempting to sell an idea when it doesn't hold fiscal water.

If one my VP's said "x" cost is tied into profit margins, that would call into question his understanding of fiscal departmental budgeting.  Balanced exposure across the field has nothing to do with affordability.

[Rockminer]

kellygreen, on 17 August 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

Rockminer, on 17 August 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

I think "unbalanced" is the best word used, so far, to describe my feelings on this subject. a few more thoughts;

Some say " it's on video so we have to penalize". Not sure i agree with this. We see the opposite of this in most professional sports with video review. Some examples;

1. NFL. WE see infractions that are clear as day that are " not reviewable".
2. MLB. Same here. Trapped balls, plays at bases etc. "not reviewable".

Again i don't obsess over this just though it would be fun to discuss.

To me, video review, in it's present state in golf , is like saying the following;

MLB. We are only going to use video review for the Yankees, and any team who is leading a division on the day we are covering games. WE feel like these are the only teams who have a chance to win a world series. The rest of the teams will be judged on officials only.

NFL, Same thing, Patriots and division leaders.

I think if these were truly the rules, the MLB and NFL forums would be going nuts.

I would just like to see it the same for everyone ( or at least the majority ) in terms of golf. Either use it for most if not all, or don't use it at all.

Not a good analogy.

The NFL came to its current rules, because the review of instant replay became so frequent, and resulted so often in "inconclusive" rulings, that it was starting to negatively impact the flow of the game....and the viewing enjoyment of the audience.   So their rules are seeking to find a balance between accuracy, stayign within alloted programming times...and viewability.

There has always been a consensus in baseball that certain calls are not questionable.  Because---once you start questioning them---you are so far out onto a slippery slope that you'd never be able to stop short of eventually questioning them all.   Balls-and-strikes are SO sacrosanct in baseball, that arguing them with a home plate umpire will get you quickly ejected from the game.  Especially if you leave the dugout/bench to do it.

Applying the same to any sort of video ruling of "bang-bang" (judgment call) plays also makes sense. Start reviewing one of them...and you eventually have to start reviewing all of them.  At which point, why even have human umpires???

In a perfect world...you are right.  But the problem is that we don't LIVE in that perfect world.  Golf is a very difficult and very expensive sport to televise, and (for any forseeable future) it is NOT going to be cost-effective to networks to pay to have cameras following every player in the field around the course.

So the question becomes how to best deal with the reality of uneven coverage...in a sport where the players themselves are primarily responsible for applying and enforcing the rules.  Do you ignore all of that footage...even to the point of doing nothing if a blatant act of cheating gets recorded?  Or do you try to make the best-and-fairest use of the material in a way that MINIMIZES any inequities...yet helps to preserve the integrity of the competition and the game itself?

That is the real issue here.

My analogy was intended to be about replay, being used for some and not all. I thought it was pretty good. To each his own.

What about the blatant act of cheating that doesn't get recorded? If we are saying that slow motion video is needed to enforce or overturn the honest and integrity driven golfer, and the R/O looking on,  then what's happening when cameras aren't around? If we are saying people are blatantly cheating then that's a whole other can of worms.

[Rockminer]

Sean2, on 18 August 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

I don't agree with viewer call-ins. (I also have no idea where these jackwagons find the phone numbers).

Secondly, not all players are covered the same, which begs the question, should video be used at all since it isn't applied equally?

Third, if you are going to use video, why not use electron microscopes as well and review at the subatomic level, just to make sure everything is on the up and up?

I agree with everything in your post.

[kellygreen]

Pepperturbo, on 19 August 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

I appreciate your fiscal perspective, and agree, they do not officiate events.  However, they dictate when, where and why cameras are used, even pace of play to accommodate TV scheduling.  The idea that a few more cameras would derogatorily affect their margin, especially when they spend thousands on one segway says you're reaching.  I've been running a sizable P&L since the mid-seventies.  Cost of equipment is absorbed into overall operating expenses, and offset by advertising revenue   To suggest five, even ten cameras are suppose to provide return on investment is NOT how P&L works.  Besides, operating costs for organizations like TGC or a Network gets moved around out of P&L convenience, so is profit for that matter.  You're attempting to sell an idea when it doesn't hold fiscal water.

If one my VP's said "x" cost is tied into profit margins, that would call into question his understanding of fiscal departmental budgeting.  Balanced exposure across the field has nothing to do with affordability.

I'm not saying that it can't be done.

I'm saying that the networks themselves aren't going to pay for it.  It would need to be paid for either by the Tour itself or by advertisers.

[kellygreen]

Rockminer, on 19 August 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

My analogy was intended to be about replay, being used for some and not all. I thought it was pretty good. To each his own.

What about the blatant act of cheating that doesn't get recorded? If we are saying that slow motion video is needed to enforce or overturn the honest and integrity driven golfer, and the R/O looking on,  then what's happening when cameras aren't around? If we are saying people are blatantly cheating then that's a whole other can of worms.

As long as you are arguing this point in the abstract...and I'm arguing from the point of view of the practical and pragmatic....we will never come to any consensus.

In the purely abstract...(as I mentioned earlier)...you are correct.  Playing conditions should be the same for everyone.

But the reality of the situation is that recording everything that goes on in a golf tournament is NOT as simple a matter as doing so for a sporting event that takes place in a much smaller area...and puts less of a premium on quiet, and not disturbing the players.

So the issue becomes---at a practical level---how do you deal (most fairly) with the asymmetric coverage.  Do you accept it, and justify it that you are protecting the field at the top where the temptation to cheat or to "fail to detect" rules violations are the greatest?

Or do you simply not use the video at all...and accept that there will be occaisions where one simply has to "accept" that rules violations that were caught on video go undetected, and affect the outcome of tournaments.

Which problem are you most willing to deal with?

[Rockminer]

kellygreen, on 20 August 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

Rockminer, on 19 August 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

My analogy was intended to be about replay, being used for some and not all. I thought it was pretty good. To each his own.

What about the blatant act of cheating that doesn't get recorded? If we are saying that slow motion video is needed to enforce or overturn the honest and integrity driven golfer, and the R/O looking on,  then what's happening when cameras aren't around? If we are saying people are blatantly cheating then that's a whole other can of worms.

As long as you are arguing this point in the abstract...and I'm arguing from the point of view of the practical and pragmatic....we will never come to any consensus.

In the purely abstract...(as I mentioned earlier)...you are correct.  Playing conditions should be the same for everyone.

But the reality of the situation is that recording everything that goes on in a golf tournament is NOT as simple a matter as doing so for a sporting event that takes place in a much smaller area...and puts less of a premium on quiet, and not disturbing the players.

So the issue becomes---at a practical level---how do you deal (most fairly) with the asymmetric coverage. 1. Do you accept it, and justify it that you are protecting the field at the top where the temptation to cheat or to "fail to detect" rules violations are the greatest?

2.Or do you simply not use the video at all...and accept that there will be occaisions where one simply has to "accept" that rules violations that were caught on video go undetected, and affect the outcome of tournaments.

Which problem are you most willing to deal with?

1. What about a player who " fails to detect" when video is not around, to put himself into the top of the field? If we are going to say that players cheat, and the video is there to " protect" the field, then we need to video everyone to make it fair, no?

2. If i agree with your premise that it isn't cost effective for the network to cover everyone equally, then i say don't use video at all. The top of the field is only the top of the field at the ending portion of the tournament. It's very rare that a player is followed by a netwrok from begining to end. I would say that the outcome of a tournament is just as important on the first day without video, as it is on the last, with it.

My oppinion has been, and will always be, to make it as fair as possible for everyone. I just don't see it happening right now. Not that it can't be changed one way or the other in the future. For the record, i see it moving towards video for everyone, more than not using it at all. This is a game of integrity, but they are playing for millions of dollars as well.