Not One Word Here About This Weekend's Camera Use

[Brian Marion]

Unless I missed it, I'm shocked not one word has been said here about the use of the camera and super zoom lens used to identify Jerry Kelly's ball on Saturday.....

[JESII]

What happened?

[JMEvensky]

What happened?

Short version--Jerry Kelly couldn't find his ball,a ball was noticed in a tree,JK couldn't positively ID it with binoculars,a cameraman was able to enlarge a shot of it,JK noticed a green cheater line and declared it his,Dillard Pruitt and Slugger White(?) accepted his ID,JK took unplayable rather than lost ball.

And trust me--this really is the short version.

[JESII]

So technology saved him a shot?

Or are we questioning whether or not this is enough evidence to prove it's his ball?

[Alex Miller]

If technology can cost pros so many shots when viewers notice rules infractions, I think this is the other side of that coin. I like it, and I think a green line is probably enough to identify his ball, and if your playing competitors agree I say end of discussion.

[JMEvensky]

So technology saved him a shot?

Or are we questioning whether or not this is enough evidence to prove it's his ball?

Yes,he was walking back to the tee if the cameraman hadn't intervened.

Just from what I've seen/read,the cheater line was kind of hard to spot.But,JK said he could see it and the officials eventually agreed.

[JESII]

I think it makes sense...not too many ways to lose a ball at PGA National with a few thousand people around if it doesn't go in the water...

[Mark Smolens]

From what I could see, the tree looked fairly readily scalable (sp?). Wondering why they didn't call Camilo V to spiderman right up there and retrieve the ball. . . there were several others up there so JK could have paid him in used golf balls.

It was a very nice bogey for Mr. Kelly after getting the favorable ruling (others have reported that the green line that Kelly uses to mark his ball was not visible in the photo).

[Phil_the_Author]

What has not been commented on is the part of the rule where it requires the PLAYER to identify his ball. It doesn't matter who else says that they couldn't see the line or even if someone said they stood there and saw the ball go elsewhere. If JK says that he sees his mark on the ball and then identifies it in fact the debate is over.

The real question here is what if there were no cameramen for Joe Schmoe first person to tee off that morning? I believe the mistake was in allowing an artificial device to aid in the decision-making process. No camera with long lens would mean that JK would have been in the same position as Joe Schmoe. Find a way to identify it or start walking back to the tee...

[JESII]

It cuts both ways regarding who the cameras are on...Joe Schmoe rarely gets DQ'd because a guy on his sofa calls in if the ball moves a millimeter when he's addressing it.

[Carl Nichols]

Apparently the whole thing took so long that the group immediately behind JK played through.  [Seems odd that he wouldn't be limited to five minutes, but perhaps that rule didn't apply.]  And Sabbatini, who was in the group behind the group that played through, apparently complained to officials about the holdup before he knew what was happening. 

[Brian Marion]

I have to admit, I was really surprised no one brought it up on the board, after all the intense discussion over the Harrington issue.

Personally, I don't think the tour should take calls from fans and I don't think JK should have been entitled to an unplayable because of a 300mm lens. What if the cameraman had only had a 7-200 and JK couldn't see the ball. Back he would have gone........

So the entire process depends on an outside agency determining the outcome of a professional sporting event? Really....

[Kevin_Reilly]

Seems odd that he wouldn't be limited to five minutes, but perhaps that rule didn't apply.

Decision 27/5.5 
Original Ball Found Within Five-Minute Search Period Not Identified Until After Period Has Elapsed
Q. A player plays a second shot, searches for his ball for just over four minutes and then starts to walk back down the fairway to play another ball under Rule 27-1. A ball is then found within the five-minute search period, but as the player is now a considerable distance away, he is unable to identify the ball as his before the search period has elapsed. What is the ruling?

A. As a ball was found within five minutes of beginning search, the player is allowed enough time to reach the area in order to identify it. If the player identifies the ball as his, it is not a "lost ball" even though the identification takes place after the five-minute search period has elapsed.

[Alex Miller]

Seems odd that he wouldn't be limited to five minutes, but perhaps that rule didn't apply.

Decision 27/5.5 
Original Ball Found Within Five-Minute Search Period Not Identified Until After Period Has Elapsed
Q. A player plays a second shot, searches for his ball for just over four minutes and then starts to walk back down the fairway to play another ball under Rule 27-1. A ball is then found within the five-minute search period, but as the player is now a considerable distance away, he is unable to identify the ball as his before the search period has elapsed. What is the ruling?

A. As a ball was found within five minutes of beginning search, the player is allowed enough time to reach the area in order to identify it. If the player identifies the ball as his, it is not a "lost ball" even though the identification takes place after the five-minute search period has elapsed.

I didn't know about how much time had elapsed before, but from my reading of this rule it seems he was in the area and not able to identify immediately. The ball was spotted in the five minutes, but he was also in the area of the ball, so an exception should probably have not been made for him.

[JMEvensky]

Alex Miller--how long do the rules allow for identification?For what was JK given an exception?

There were 2 PGA Tour officials standing right there.Do you figure that their "reading of this rule" is less knowledgeable than yours?

[Alex Miller]

Alex Miller--how long do the rules allow for identification?For what was JK given an exception?

There were 2 PGA Tour officials standing right there.Do you figure that their "reading of this rule" is less knowledgeable than yours?

No, I never meant to come off as saying I had it right and they had it wrong. I haven't seen the event so I'm just trying to figure it out from what's written here. From Kevin's quote, which is fairly ambiguous about how long a player has to identify the ball once they are in the area, I got that the exception to the 5 minute rule has to do with being close to the position of the ball once it is found and nothing else. If there is another exception in the rules then that changes things, but I don't think the exception in the quote applies to Mr. Kelly. If I am wrong please explain why instead of insinuating that I am not able to read the rules, which are printed for the use of all and not just tour officials.

[JMEvensky]

I'll apologize for my Mucci-like response.I should have answered less haughtily.

I inferred,apparently incorrectly,that you believed  A) some kind of exception had been made for JK,and B) that somehow the Rules Officials had erred.They don't often misinterpret things--especially when there are 2 of them standing there.

[Alex Miller]

JMEvensky,

No problem, the same could be said for my response. Anyway, I was looking at the ruling within Mr. Reilly's quote. I presume there is another rule providing an exception, but if not perhaps the wrong ruling was made. I know that rulings can take longer when consulting with officials and making sure everything is on the up and up, so perhaps that played a part, but if that quoted rule is the rule that they cited for Jerry Kelly's predicament, I just don't think the ruling that occurred is in there. Just my take.

So you weren't completely wrong in your inference, but I too am giving the officials the benefit of the doubt...for now.

[Pete_Pittock]

The incident was briefly mentioned in the John Vander Borght thread.
1. "A" ball was found within the five minute time limit. Beyond that there is no time limit to identify that ball to determine th it is "the" ball, but it should be done without undue delay. When a rules official shows up to assist, any futher issue with time is moot. There have been numerous cases where a long time was taken in providing a ruling (Sorenstam at US Womens' OPen at Pumpkin Ridge, Woods at WGC-Firestone).
2. The player can use any available technology and receive assistance from outside agencies (photographer's, spectators, binoculars, etc. They can use video taken of the shot, ball etc. apparently without limit. You do not have to have physical possession of the ball to identify it.
3. Jerry Kelly uses a green marker to mark all of his golf balls. I believe he marks different parts of "Srixon" to differentiate between his golf balls. He said he was able to to identify his ball by the dimple pattern unique to Srixon, plus some general markings on Srixon balls.
He was also able to say that the ball was marked with a green marker in places where he routinely marks the ball. I did not see a "cheater line".
4. Two veteran rules officials were at the scene, I believe Slugger White initially later joined by Dillard Pruitt. Their job was to determine if the ball was identified as belonging to Jerry Kelly listenting to players involved and any other winesses. Jerry Kelly was supposd to mark his ball so that it could be identified. He did so. He then explained to the officials why he was able to identify his ball.
5.  You can look at the final decision from two perspectives: a)if is his ball until proven otherwise, or b) it is not his ball until proven.
In either case, I didn't see any conclusive evidence that it was not his ball, Kelly smade a cogent argument and tie goes to the player.
6. As this thread shows, many rules of golf decisions have ardent supporters in both camps. As was pointed out earlier in the thread,
slow motion and high resolution photography can affect a decision in equally opposite directions, vis a vis Kelly anf Harrington.

[Alex Miller]

Thanks for the explanation to all aspects of the ruling, Pete.

My specific issue was with the time he had to identify his ball, but I also suspected the clock gets turned off when a rules official is there. Consider me fully satisfied and supportive of the ruling that took place!

[Pete_Pittock]

Alex,
Any penalty in identifying the ball would come under Undue Delay or Failure to Identify rules. Once an official arrives ther really is no time limit. The Sorentsam and Woods incidents I mentioned both took 15 minutes+, and we had JB's last Saturday

[Tony_Muldoon]

You can see the image here

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/golf/commentary-despite-a-ball-into-a-tree-resilient-1300463.html

Not 100% thats the same image they were looking at, on a small LCD in the Open air but it can't have been that different.