USGA and R&A Will Limit Video Replay and Allow Reasonable Judgment in New Rule

Finally, the moment all real golf fans who don’t have the USGA and R&A on speed dial have been waiting for has arrived. In a new rule that will go into effect immediately, both governing bodies have decided that it is time to limit the use of video evidence.

The announcement came on Tuesday and it is a welcome one.

Under the new Decision 34-3/10, the rules committee will now be able to address two situations and limit the use of video to overrule a penalty.

Situation one deals with what happened to Anna Nordqvist during the 2016 U.S. Women’s Open when she unknowingly brushed the sand with her club. The initial decision was brought to light after cameras were zoomed in so that the infraction could be seen and Nordqvist was handed a two-shot penalty.

The new decision says that if the infraction cannot be reasonably seen with the naked eye, the player will not be assessed a penalty even if the zoomed in HD replay shows otherwise.

This rule may have also been used during the 2016 U.S. Open when Dustin Johnson’s ball moved on the green and he, his playing partner Lee Westwood, and the rules official walking with Johnson’s group all agreed that he did not cause the ball to move. Johnson was assessed a penalty later in the final round after officials had reviewed the video. While it’s unclear if the new rule would have absolved Johnson of the penalty, at least it leaves the door open.

Situation two deals with reasonable judgment, which was a part of the rules changes that were announced on March 1st. This decision states that if a player does “all that can be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make an accurate estimation or measurement,” and is later shown to be wrong, they will not be penalized.

What happened to Lexi Thompson during the LPGA’s first major may not be covered under this rule considering the clarity of her incorrect placement of the ball after marking it.

This is a step in the right direction for the two governing bodies. Limiting the use of HD video, especially when zoomed in to extremes that would normally not be seen by someone standing five to 10 feet away, is a good thing.

"“This important first step provides officials with tools that can have a direct and positive impact on the game,” said USGA executive director Mike Davis. “We recognize there is more work to be done. Advancements in video technology are enhancing the viewing experience for fans, but can also significantly affect the competition. We need to balance those advances with what is fair for all players when applying the rules.”"

Of course, there has yet to be any mention of how this will be handled during viewer call-ins, but hopefully officials will use reasonable judgement when enforcing ridiculous penalties that cannot be seen by the naked eye and aren’t intentional.

You can view the full decision on the next page.

It is appropriate for a Committee to use video evidence in resolving questions of fact when applying the Rules (see Decision 34-3/9). Such evidence may lead to the conclusion that a player breached the Rules or to the conclusion that there was no breach. Video evidence may also help players and the Committee in determining other factual questions such as the location of a player’s ball when it has not been found or where a ball last crossed the margin of a water hazard.

However, video evidence can sometimes present complications because of its potential to reveal factual information that was not known and could not reasonably have been known to players and others on the course. Golf is a game of integrity in which the Rules are applied primarily by the players themselves. Players are expected to be honest in all aspects of their play, including in trying to follow the procedures required under the Rules, in calling penalties on themselves and in raising questions with other players or with the Committee when they are unsure whether they might have breached the Rules.

Video technology, especially the use of methods such as high resolution or close-up camera shots that can be replayed in slow motion, has the potential to undermine this essential characteristic of the game by identifying the existence of facts that could not reasonably be identified in any other way. Such evidence should not be used to hold players to a higher standard than human beings can reasonably be expected to meet. For this reason, there are two situations in which the use of video evidence is limited:

1. When Video Evidence Reveals Things that Could Not Reasonably be Seen with the Naked Eye. The use of video technology can make it possible to identify things that could not reasonably be seen with the naked eye. Examples of this include:

– When a player unknowingly touches a few grains of sand in a backswing with a club in making a stroke from a bunker.

– When a player is unaware that the club struck the ball more than once in the course of making a single stroke.
In such situations, if the Committee concludes that such facts could not reasonably have been seen with the naked eye and the player was not otherwise aware of a potential breach of the Rules, the player will be deemed not to have breached the Rules, even when video technology shows otherwise. See also Decision 18/4. In applying this “naked eye” standard, the issue is whether the facts could have been seen by the player or someone else close by who was looking at the situation, not whether the player or anyone else actually saw it happen.

2. When a Player has Made a Reasonable Judgment. Players are often required to determine a spot, point, position, line, area, distance or other location on the course to use in applying the Rules. Examples of this include:

– Estimating where a ball last crossed the margin of a water hazard (see Decision 26-1/17).

– Estimating or measuring where to drop or place a ball when taking relief, such as by reference to the nearest point of relief, to a line from the hole through a point or to the spot from which the previous stroke was made.

[via Golf Channel]