Masters 2017 thread

Just watched the 'did it move' clip for the first time and I don't know what the debate is about, I zoomed in on the zoomed in and while its a bit pixley it definitely moves about a foot to the left and more than that its not even the same ball

When the clip starts it shows a TM ball and when it cuts off its clearly a yellow Max-fli with 'Bubba's Baw' written on it!

C'mon people
 
HomerJSimpson said:
Laughed!!!. I nearly started. As LP says (and for the second time I'm concurring with him) it couldn't be seen in real time and even the footage isn't 100% and they would try and be 100% certain as the Masters brand is sacrosanct and any rules debate is going to harm that. They couldn't be certain and so couldn't impose a penalty. Simple
Click to expand...

Whats all this about being seen in real time? Countless judgments in golf tournaments have been given from video footage its common practise.Its quite simple the organisers wanted a golf match and thats what they got.When the incident happened I rewound it on Sky and watched it 5 or 6 times,the camera doesent move its fixed and if you find a point above the ball the ball drops from it its very clear with the naked eye.Garcia's the Masters champ for sure but for me who lives life and plays golf by its rules Garcia's wins tainted.The correct way would have been to call a penalty on Garcia and Rosey would have been champ.
 
shivas irons said:
Whats all this about being seen in real time? Countless judgments in golf tournaments have been given from video footage its common practise.Its quite simple the organisers wanted a golf match and thats what they got.When the incident happened I rewound it on Sky and watched it 5 or 6 times,the camera doesent move its fixed and if you find a point above the ball the ball drops from it its very clear with the naked eye.Garcia's the Masters champ for sure but for me who lives life and plays golf by its rules Garcia's wins tainted.The correct way would have been to call a penalty on Garcia and Rosey would have been champ.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Video footage is used to review incidents yes, but you have to be objective. You simply cannot penalise someone for something that happened, a possible moving ball in this instance, if the movement was so small that it would have been impossible to see without the use of video.

I'm going to wager that, if you had video of every shot every player took, that there will be countless occasions when a ball moved a tiny fraction when being addressed. The player concerned won't have been able to see it, but it will have moved. It has no doubt happened to everyone who ever played golf, you included.
 
shivas irons said:
.Garcia's the Masters champ for sure but for me who lives life and plays golf by its rules Garcia's wins tainted.The correct way would have been to call a penalty on Garcia and Rosey would have been champ.
Click to expand...

his win is tainted? what a idiot. one thing you missed was the camera used was not a fixed camera. according to an American broadcaster it was shoulder mounted. so your theory or using a fixed point for reference is discredited

some people need to step back and take a hard look at themselves. is it a wonder why most People dont take up golf? we're talking about a ball possibly moving a millimetre and yet people think 'because its the rules " then a person's monumental achievement it tainted.

golf needs to do away with the blazer brigade mentality and get shome fresh blood and new ideas
 
Last edited:
HawkeyeMS said:
You're missing the point. Video footage is used to review incidents yes, but you have to be objective. You simply cannot penalise someone for something that happened, a possible moving ball in this instance, if the movement was so small that it would have been impossible to see without the use of video.

I'm going to wager that, if you had video of every shot every player took, that there will be countless occasions when a ball moved a tiny fraction when being addressed. The player concerned won't have been able to see it, but it will have moved. It has no doubt happened to everyone who ever played golf, you included.
Click to expand...

Its on video that the ball clearly moved and as has happened before its admissible to call a penalty on a player through video footage.Garcia was lucky as the judgment could easily have gone the other way and thrown his Masters win.What on earth was he doing risking picking up pine needles whilst in contention for a major?.Rule 18-2 states if a player causes his ball to move, he incurs a one-stroke penalty and must return the ball to its original position. If the player fails to return the ball to its original position, as would have been the case with Garcia, Garcia would have incured a two-stroke penalty thus handing the tournament to Rose.They clearly didnt want that for their Masters.Further to this PGA tour players are saying on twitter & facebook that his ball clearly moves and rules are rules.I wouldnt have had my hands anywhere near my golf ball if I had been Garcia at that stage of the Masters,he was very very fortunate.
 
hovis said:
his win is tainted? what a idiot. one thing you missed was the camera used was not a fixed camera. according to an American broadcaster it was shoulder mounted. so your theory or using a fixed point for reference is discredited

some people need to step back and take a hard look at themselves. is it a wonder why most People dont take up golf? we're talking about a ball possibly moving a millimetre and yet people think 'because its the rules " then a person's monumental achievement it tainted.

golf needs to do away with the blazer brigade mentality and get shome fresh blood and new ideas
Click to expand...

If you dont like the way our game has been played since the 1700's go and take your chav attitude and take up something more suitable.
 
shivas irons said:
Its on video that the ball clearly moved and as has happened before its admissible to call a penalty on a player through video footage.Garcia was lucky as the judgment could easily have gone the other way and thrown his Masters win.What on earth was he doing risking picking up pine needles whilst in contention for a major?.Rule 18-2 states if a player causes his ball to move, he incurs a one-stroke penalty and must return the ball to its original position. If the player fails to return the ball to its original position, as would have been the case with Garcia, Garcia would have incured a two-stroke penalty thus handing the tournament to Rose.They clearly didnt want that for their Masters.Further to this PGA tour players are saying on twitter & facebook that his ball clearly moves and rules are rules.I wouldnt have had my hands anywhere near my golf ball if I had been Garcia at that stage of the Masters,he was very very fortunate.
Click to expand...

Check the rules

I believe it's 18/1 maybe

If any movement of the ball is only be able to be seen with the use of slow mo zoomed vision and would be impossible to see with the naked eye then it's deemed not to be a penalty

That video is inconclusive because multiple people have said that it's the pinestraw moving not the ball - that creates enough doubt and there is no other video footage to show any conclusive ball movement

I'm not sure why you are desperate for a rule break
 
shivas irons said:
If you dont like the way our game has been played since the 1700's go and take your chav attitude and take up something more suitable.
Click to expand...

don't worry. your 1700's attitude will soon be extinct. clubs are changing and your a dieing breed

hows it a chav attitude? the foundation of your argument is the ball had moved using a fixed point. even a simpleton knows how hard it is to keep a camera still and that is compounded significantly when its on zoom. so you have no argument. not to mention the team of people that are more qualified than yourself that examined all of the footage and made the decision. get over it and stop being such a jobs worth.
 
Last edited:
OK....let's go with your belief that the ball moved and it should have been a penalty. Garcia is still blameless though as the referee's decision is final so as far as I'm concerned he still won it fair and square. And I've not seen any comments from Rose complaining about it, not that I would expect to though as he is too classy for that sort of thing.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Check the rules

I believe it's 18/1 maybe

If any movement of the ball is only be able to be seen with the use of slow mo zoomed vision and would be impossible to see with the naked eye then it's deemed not to be a penalty

That video is inconclusive because multiple people have said that it's the pinestraw moving not the ball - that creates enough doubt and there is no other video footage to show any conclusive ball movement

I'm not sure why you are desperate for a rule break
Click to expand...

spot on phil. perhaps he had a £100 on Justin
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Check the rules

I believe it's 18/1 maybe

If any movement of the ball is only be able to be seen with the use of slow mo zoomed vision and would be impossible to see with the naked eye then it's deemed not to be a penalty

That video is inconclusive because multiple people have said that it's the pinestraw moving not the ball - that creates enough doubt and there is no other video footage to show any conclusive ball movement

I'm not sure why you are desperate for a rule break
Click to expand...
I was just going to say that. Would anyone here really want Sergio punished for it? Even if it moved half a millimetre he didn't gain an advantage did he? This whole debate is getting pretty tiresome.
 
Pinestraw moved not the ball, brilliant.
I remember watching the replay when Sky announced there had a potential rules break, I was thinking, blimey the ball moved there and Sergio is a lucky fella indeed. I'm not really fussed about should he/should he not have been penalised, the ball moved end of, the logo moves down and if you watch the top of the ball it moves lower than the pinestraw behind it.
 
Beezerk said:
Pinestraw moved not the ball, brilliant.
I remember watching the replay when Sky announced there had a potential rules break, I was thinking, blimey the ball moved there and Sergio is a lucky fella indeed. I'm not really fussed about should he/should he not have been penalised, the ball moved end of, the logo moves down and if you watch the top of the ball it moves lower than the pinestraw behind it.
Click to expand...

if it was that simple why didn't they call a penalty?. remember a ball is allowed to isolate. is it possible the the camera moved? is it possible that as pine straw is interconnected the pine straw was in fact lifted? all yes imo
 
How can you call yourself or be called by another on a rule break if the player or ref didn't see the ball move - even when watching closely.

If video evidence can be used to determine whether or not a ball moved due to player action, then it only makes sense for a tolerance to be applied - because we get into the realms of fractions of millimeters - and that is plain stupid - and makes the game look very very stupid. And do we really want to get into the world of tolerances?
 
And for those of us who are obviously unable to actually find and read up the rules decisions themselves:

Decision 18/4 (Television Evidence Shows a Ball at Rest Changed Positions But by Amount Not Reasonably Discernably to Naked Eye)

Q.
A player addresses his ball. He observes a slight motion of the ball but believes that it has only oscillated and has not left its original position. He therefore plays the ball as it lies. Later, the Committee becomes aware from television evidence that the ball had in fact left its position and come to rest in another place, although that change of position was such that it was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time of the incident. What is the ruling?


A.
The ball is deemed not to have moved and therefore there is no penalty under Rule 18-2. The Definition of “Moved” – when a ball “leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place” – does not contemplate movements of the ball that are only discernible through the use of high definition television or any other form of sophisticated technology.
When determining whether or not his ball at rest has moved, a player must make that judgment based on all the information readily available to him at the time, so that he can determine whether the ball must be replaced under Rule 18-2 or another applicable Rule. When the player’s ball has left its original position and come to rest in another place by an amount that was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, a player’s determination that the ball has not moved will be deemed to be conclusive, even if that determination is later shown to be incorrect through the use of sophisticated technology.
On the other hand, if the Committee determines, based on all of the evidence it has available, that the ball changed its position by an amount that was reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, the ball is deemed to have moved. As the player did not replace the ball, he incurs a penalty under the applicable Rule and Rule 20-7c for playing from a wrong place.

These principles apply to any review of technological evidence by the Committee, whether before the player makes his next stroke or any time thereafter. These principles also apply in a situation in which the player made no determination whether or not his ball at rest moved (e.g. because he had walked away from his ball after addressing it, was not looking at his ball, or otherwise did not observe any motion of the ball or have any reason to believe that his ball might have moved).

Before determining whether his ball has moved, it is advisable for the player to obtain information from nearby witnesses to the incident and to seek guidance from a referee if one is immediately available. (Revised)
Click to expand...
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
How can you call yourself or be called by another on a rule break if the player or ref didn't see the ball move - even when watching closely.

If video evidence can be used to determine whether or not a ball moved due to player action, then it only makes sense for a tolerance to be applied - because we get into the realms of fractions of millimeters - and that is plain stupid - and makes the game look very very stupid. And do we really want to get into the world of tolerances?
Click to expand...

good post but you're using waaaaaay too much common sense. most people forget that the rules official was stood right next him watching like a hawk
 
drive4show said:
OK....let's go with your belief that the ball moved and it should have been a penalty. Garcia is still blameless though as the referee's decision is final so as far as I'm concerned he still won it fair and square. And I've not seen any comments from Rose complaining about it, not that I would expect to though as he is too classy for that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Besides in a 'flexible' and non-firm/fix environment such as pine straw, it is quite possible that even if the ball did move, it was coincidental as the movement was simply the ball continuing to settle (especially as the ball movement was minuscule) at the same time as Sergio moved a piece of straw - and that in fact the movement was nothing at all to do with the piece of straw Sergio moved, quite possible.
 
Thank you Capella, you've nailed it there! Can we all move on now please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
The Masters 2022
20 21 22
Replies
430
Views
40K
evemccc
E
Top