Although it changed into pointed out regularly on Sunday, all of the occasions surrounding the "Rose Decision" weren't constantly repeated at some stage in every record. I need to ensure everyone is familiar with why Justin Rose's 2-shot penalty became rescinded Sunday... And why the precedent it set should paintings without problem inside the future.
You can read golf.Com's article approximately it at this link.
During the 0.33 round at THE PLAYERS, Justin Rose become getting ready to play a chip on the 18th inexperienced. As he addressed the ball he idea he saw it flow, so he backed off and requested Sergio, his gambling companion, to come back take a glance. There turned into a big video scoreboard through the green and both watched the replay -- which might had been a pretty big replay! -- and Sergio didn't think it moved. After a quick discussion they determined that it should have "oscillated" (wiggled backward and forward), which isn't always a contravention of the Rules.
I most effective heard this referred to at some stage in one of the discussions approximately what happened, but oscillation could provide an explanation for why Rose notion he noticed movement however Garcia didn't think it had moved. They did not call a guidelines decide because the ruling regarded pretty easy, however Rose says he could do so inside the destiny. (Once once more the Rules may additionally bring about slow play.)
After the spherical however before Rose signed his scorecard, officials went to several TV vehicles in order to determine whether the ball had moved or no longer. After ultimately magnifying the video 50 instances its everyday size -- Rose said it gave the impression of a Lego ball (the pixels forming the picture had been so massive they appeared like squares) -- officers determined that the ball definitely had moved some infinitesimal quantity and Rose acquired a two-stroke penalty. One stroke was for inflicting the ball to move, the opposite stroke become for now not replacing the ball.
Before Rose teed off Sunday, the on-site rules officials contacted the USGA and the R&A to see if the new Decision 18/4, aka "the HD Rule," could be applied. It was decided that Rose's situation was exactly what the new decision was created for, and Rose's penalty was rescinded.
Here's the logic behind the new rule and why the precedent it sets shouldn't cause any problems:
One of the things we claim to be most proud of in golf is how the players police themselves. However, there's a certain amount of logic at work here -- namely, the information players need in order to police themselves should be easily available to those players, so they can make an informed decision. Here's what Justin Rose did:
- He called on his playing partner to help him make a decision, because his partner's opinion would help "protect the field."
- They made use of what technology was available to them, which in this case was a large electronic display replaying the chip in question.
In the process of overruling their decision, the officials had to visit multiple TV trucks and enlarge the video to an extent far beyond what the technology is reasonably capable of -- the "Lego ball" that Rose referenced -- and I would argue that such an extreme use of the technology rendered the officials' decision inconclusive because an accurate representation of a golf ball should be round, not a "Lego ball." When the image of the ball has been distorted so badly by the technology, how can you be sure that any perceived movement of that distorted ball isn't a distortion as well?
That's why the new precedent everyone is worried about shouldn't be a problem at all. When the movement in question is so small that extreme measures are required to see it, the movement is not sufficient to impact the game. Had the movement been clearly visible, Justin and Sergio would have called the penalty themselves, Justin would have replaced the ball, added a stroke penalty, and all would have been fine. That's what our players do!
I would like to see the original Rule rewritten to say that, if the movement is so small that the players themselves can't determine clearly that the ball moved or that watching a simple undistorted video replay doesn't clearly show that the ball moved, the movement should be automatically deemed an oscillation and play should continue without penalty. That would speed up the game considerably without affecting the integrity of the game.
But the "HD Rule" is a good stopgap solution. At least we eliminate rulings based on "Lego balls."
0 comments