Should TV viewers umpire?

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 14 Dec 2006 21:48:23
From: DD
Subject: Should TV viewers umpire?

Retief Goosen was penalized 2 strokes after a television viewers noticed
that he re-dropped:
"He finished the hole with a 9 but got a two-stroke penalty because thought
he had a re-drop. Calls from viewers prompted European Tour senior referee
Andy McFee to rule that Goosen should be penalized."

Question is, should the rules be enforced by a committee of television
viewers?

Date: 15 Dec 2006 00:56:40
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

"DD" <dendeedid@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:67mdnekhop0ikR_YnZ2dnUVZ_vmqnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> Retief Goosen was penalized 2 strokes after a television viewers noticed
> that he re-dropped:
> "He finished the hole with a 9 but got a two-stroke penalty because
> thought he had a re-drop. Calls from viewers prompted European Tour senior
> referee Andy McFee to rule that Goosen should be penalized."
>
> Question is, should the rules be enforced by a committee of television
> viewers?
>
>

No. A film is a representation of the facts, not the facts themselves.
Granted, some facts are more easily representable on film than others.
Nevertheless, a film is not the facts themselves.

A good example is the misconception that a club will bend this way and that
as a player swings it when in fact it is the result of a timing and movement
difference between the focal plane shutter and the object passing in front
of the camera. Many erroneous theories have been printed based on those
exact misconceptions. They are still used today to demonstrate whatever new
gimmick suits the illusion.

If you followed an earlier thread where I was called out for a video clip of
me striking a ball, you'll come to the conclusion that the best witness of
an event on a film is the actor himself.

I remember two instances where the player was questioned about a certain
event. One is Michelle Wie, the other is Tiger Woods. Michelle Wie was
penalized while Tiger Woods was believed on his word without penalty. The
difference is that Tiger Woods was simply asked what, exactly did he do
while Michelle Wie was compelled to recreate an event the next day from
which recreation she was penalized, not from the actual facts of the day
before. It is quite easy to believe that both players were followed closely
by as many cameras as were available so that can't be a reason for the
difference in results for those two events. The difference is that in one
case, we allowed a spectator to become an authority while in the other, we
did not.

In the NHL, there is a dedicated camera for each goal. When the referee
requests it, the film is made available to him. Nevertheless, he remains the
sole authority. Not so in golf with the current system, apparently. A viewer
could make himself heard and would then become a second authority on the
matter, perhaps even an overwhelming authority, greater than the marshalls
onsite. That's ridiculous. I think that the reason they function like that
is the marshalls realise that they don't have full control over all players
all the time so instead of trusting the players themselves, which they
should do to begin with, they prefer to delegate their authority to viewers
that certainly have no accurate representation of the facts available to
them. Video and sound, that's all they got. The marshalls onsite have that
already as well as whatever portable camera was brought by the spectators
onsite.

Whatever I might say, it makes for stupid TV. Yeah, the kind of TV that's
very popular these days.

Martin Levac

Date: 15 Dec 2006 06:17:46
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: OK. Listen up. Does anyone here play golf?

Michael Anselmo wrote:
> I'm taking an informal survey to see what percentage of people on this
> newsgroup play golf.
>
> How many times a week do you play?

Typically twice.

>
> How many times a week do you practice or hit balls?

Assuming no travel or guests then 4 times.

>
> Do you spend more time on golf or politics?

:-)

> Mike
>
> (flame retardant suit donned)

Date: 15 Dec 2006 04:01:57
From: Watson deMeneux
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

DD wrote:
> Retief Goosen was penalized 2 strokes after a television viewers noticed
> that he re-dropped:
> "He finished the hole with a 9 but got a two-stroke penalty because thought
> he had a re-drop. Calls from viewers prompted European Tour senior referee
> Andy McFee to rule that Goosen should be penalized."
>
> Question is, should the rules be enforced by a committee of television
> viewers?
>
>

This question comes up every time someone calls in about an infraction.
The official answer is that PGA officials cannot be with every player
for everyshot, watching every move so they rely on "all available"
sources of informaiton. That includes other players, bystanders, tv tape
and phone calls.

--
Watson deMeneux
-Say it out loud next time you're in a restaurant.

Date: 14 Dec 2006 20:53:38
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

"DD" <dendeedid@yahoo.com > writes:

> Retief Goosen was penalized 2 strokes after a television viewers noticed
> that he re-dropped:
> "He finished the hole with a 9 but got a two-stroke penalty because thought
> he had a re-drop. Calls from viewers prompted European Tour senior referee
> Andy McFee to rule that Goosen should be penalized."
>
> Question is, should the rules be enforced by a committee of television
> viewers?

No. That's why Andy McFee applied the Rules in this case.

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 15 Dec 2006 18:01:28
From: Watson deMeneux
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

DD wrote:

>
> Question is, should the rules be enforced by a committee of television
> viewers?
>
>
One more comment on this.
This question assumes "facts not in evidence" as they always say on the
lawyer shows. The rules were *not* enforced by a committee of television
viewers. The rules were enforced by a rules official, He just used
information from a viewer, along with information from the players, the
tv tapes and other sources to make a ruling.

--
Watson deMeneux
-Say it out loud next time you're in a restaurant.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 09:59:57
From: multi
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

I hate to comment on something so obvious, but nobody here seems to
realize that whoever called in probably saved Goosen from a DQ.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 09:36:34
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

Date: 15 Dec 2006 00:43:01
From: Bucky
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

Martin Levac wrote:
> Having a TV audience act as referee does not mean that we have a multitude
> of people looking at the event. Instead it means that we have a single video
> and sound source looked at by a multitude of persons.

Exactly. And that single video will be 50% Tiger Woods coverage. So
it's hardly a fair system.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 09:37:16
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com > wrote in message
news:1166172181.309150.165350@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> Martin Levac wrote:
> > Having a TV audience act as referee does not mean that we have a
multitude
> > of people looking at the event. Instead it means that we have a single
video
> > and sound source looked at by a multitude of persons.
>
> Exactly. And that single video will be 50% Tiger Woods coverage. So
> it's hardly a fair system.
>

LOL

Date: 15 Dec 2006 08:09:03
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

On 15 Dec 2006 00:43:01 -0800, "Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com > wrote:

>> Having a TV audience act as referee does not mean that we have a multitude
>> of people looking at the event. Instead it means that we have a single video
>> and sound source looked at by a multitude of persons.
>
>Exactly. And that single video will be 50% Tiger Woods coverage. So
>it's hardly a fair system.

Good point. But I suppose this applies to any "instant replay". There
are more cameras at prime time and more cameras aimed at the stars.
Sometimes it helps them, sometimes it hurts them. In golf, it is not
likely to help them though, as nobody's going to call in in time to
save someone a stroke.

On the other hand, a star is more likely to not lose his ball.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 02:58:45
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

Date: 14 Dec 2006 23:05:18
From: Bucky
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

DD wrote:
> Question is, should the rules be enforced by a committee of television
> viewers?

Isn't golf all about integrity and self-ruling? So no. Either put an
official with every group, or trust the players. None of this
viewers/reporters calling in stuff. They can be biased. Maybe a
viewer/reporter won't report something that their favorite player did.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 18:59:08
From: Anonymous
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

In article <67mdnekhop0ikR_YnZ2dnUVZ_vmqnZ2d@adelphia.com >
"DD" <dendeedid@yahoo.com > wrote:

Until we deem the players unfit to call their own infractions, NO.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 15:15:05
From: Ron P
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

"Anonymous" <nobody@4096.net > wrote in message
news:4848a8b260c791b77d431b839db3a656@4096.net...
> In article <67mdnekhop0ikR_YnZ2dnUVZ_vmqnZ2d@adelphia.com>
> "DD" <dendeedid@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Until we deem the players unfit to call their own infractions, NO.

I agree. Golf is the only sport that would even consider it and it is crazy.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 10:24:05
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

People who watch golf on television shouldn't be allowed leave the house
unsupervised, let alone vote on anything.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 21:12:36
From: skip_lunch
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

should be left to the players - the scrutiny of TV and all is just to
Orwellian for me
"DD" <dendeedid@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:67mdnekhop0ikR_YnZ2dnUVZ_vmqnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> Retief Goosen was penalized 2 strokes after a television viewers noticed
> that he re-dropped:
> "He finished the hole with a 9 but got a two-stroke penalty because
> thought he had a re-drop. Calls from viewers prompted European Tour senior
> referee Andy McFee to rule that Goosen should be penalized."
>
> Question is, should the rules be enforced by a committee of television
> viewers?
>
>

Date: 19 Dec 2006 09:42:22
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Should TV viewers umpire?

Watson deMeneux wrote:
> DD wrote:
> >
> > Question is, should the rules be enforced by a committee of television
> > viewers?
> >
> One more comment on this.
> This question assumes "facts not in evidence" as they always say on the
> lawyer shows. The rules were *not* enforced by a committee of television
> viewers. The rules were enforced by a rules official, He just used
> information from a viewer, along with information from the players, the
> tv tapes and other sources to make a ruling.

Yes this is true. And if one pays strict attention to all of this,
the
player is ALWAYS consulted before anyone makes a ruling. Predominately
they ask him what they did and why. If the player gets it right,
the rules officials tend to rule in their favor. The problem is when
there
is an obvious disconnect between what the player says and what might
be on a video recording somewhere.

My problem with the TV call in is much of what others have written.
1) Only the leaders and certain popular players get much video so they
are the only ones subject to this scrutiny. 2) There is an element of
honesty and honor in the traditions of the game and this seems to run
counter to all of that. 3) Far too often these "ruling" arrive long
after
a player is in a position to address the mistake, and potentially even
after they have submitted their cards. The Wie situation was just
beyond
the pale. Having her "recreate" the drop was absurd IMHO.