Rule Change on Video Evidence Should be Welcomed

Post by Sports Writer Derek Clements

EVERY right-minded person with an interest in the game of golf will have welcomed the news that the R&A and United States Golf Association (USGA) have announced moves to curtail the use of retrospective video and television evidence to review the actions of players.

It all came to a head at the recent ANA Inspiration, during which Lexi Thompson suffered a four-shot penalty after a television viewer told the LPGA that the American was guilty of replacing her golf ball in the wrong place on a green during the third round of the season's first women's major.

The USGA and R&A have now announced Decision 34-3/10, which contains two standards aimed at protecting players from being penalised for infractions that "could not reasonably have been seen with the naked eye."

The decision, which comes into effect immediately, does not eliminate video evidence, but it has been designed to eliminate the sort of fuss that involved Thomspon. She was three ahead of the field and on the 12th hole during the final round when she was approached by a rules official, who informed her that she had been given a four-shot penalty for incorrectly marking her ball the previous day after having been reported by a TV viewer.

On the face of it, this decision is something that should be celebrated. It will effectively allow tournament committees to turn a blind eye to hard-to-detect infractions, even in the face of video evidence. Nobody has ever suggested that Thompson cheated or deliberately broke the rules. Future decisions in cases such as Thompson’s will boil down to the difference between what cameras can detect and what the human eye can reasonably be expected to see, and whether a tournament committee believes that a player deserves the benefit of the doubt. In other words, if you have show something umpteen times in super-slow motion in order to highlight an infraction then there is no infraction.

You may recall that Anna Nordqvist found herself at the centre of a storm at the US Women's Open last year when she was given a two-stroke penalty after grazing the sand during her backswing in a fairway bunker. It happened during a three-hole playoff and it cost Nordqvist the title. There was much gnashing of teeth afterwards by people who felt it was unfair that she had been caught out on video and had not intended to graze the sand.

There is something about this that troubles me. When Anna Nordqvist learnt how to play golf, it was drilled into her head that she could not ground her club in a bunker and that she could not brush the sand during her backswing. It is not rocket science. Nordqvist broke the rules, plain and simple. And I'm sorry, but claiming that she did so inadvertently is no defence.

There has been a mixed reaction to the announcement by the R&A and USGA, but Nordqvist welcomed it. "I am happy with the USGA and R&A Rules Decision regarding infractions that cannot be reasonably seen with the naked eye. After my experience last year at the U.S. Women's Open at Cordevalle, I know firsthand the impact that the advancements in technology can have on potential rulings. As I said following the round I made a mistake, and I take full responsibility for it. I am happy that going forward this will no longer be an issue."

The most troubling aspect about what happened to Thompson is the time difference between her "offence" and the TV viewer's call to the LPGA Tour. That call was made after Thompson began her final round. Call me an old cynic if you like, but I would suggest that the TV viewer made his call at the time he did for maximum effect.  Common sense has to prevail. Surely there is no need for any special rules to be introduced.

"As technology has continued to improve, it has enhanced the viewing experience for fans but it has also raised the possibility of uncomfortable scenarios where the TV cameras see something but maybe the naked eye cannot," said Thomas Pagel, senior director for Rules of Golf and Amateur Status for the USGA,. "Addressing that issue immediately is good for the game."Pagel emphasized that the decision did not result from any single incident or set of incidents but rather from the governing bodies’ ongoing effort to keep the Rules apace with modern times.