|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
BMW INTERNATIONAL OPENJune 26, 2015Andy McFeeEICHENRIED, GERMANY Q. The long discussion with Martin Kaymer on the 18th, what was the problem? ANDY McFEE: The problem was an evident I den shall question about whether his ball was in the lateral water hazard. And when they found the ball in the lateral water hazard, you have the fact of where it now is. But when that happens, you have to go to the point where you last crossed the margin of the hazard, and the television picture showed a ball hitting the tree, and ricochetting, and the question was, did it, after that ricochet, cross the far margin of the hazard or not. Now, we know that it crossed the margin at the tee end of the hazard but very uncertain as to whether it's crossed at the other side of it. Now, the referee involved, Mark Litton, went over and was examining the evidence. The first thing is where is the ball and once that was found, then he's getting conflicting evidence from the commentators on the ground and the marshals who said, we saw this. And then we are hearing from what people are seeing on television in the office, and it was a real 50/50. So at that point, Mark asked if ‑‑ he took the earpiece out of his radio so that Martin could hear me, and he asked, could we play two balls under the 3‑3 procedure. And I said no to that, because I don't believe that television evidence can be used in that manner. Television evidence is useful, but it's just one tool that we have available, and it has to be used in a time lie manner. At the end of the day, I didn't get to see the pictures until after it was all concluded, but I had the feeling when I was listening to it on the radio, we probably let that go on. I think we should have probably shut that down a little quicker than we did. But once you get to the point where you can't be 100 per cent certain or as close to certain as you can be that the ball has crossed the far margin, when it's such a big advantage to a player, a player can't take the benefit of that. He has to take the worst of it. And we have a long history of players on the Tour doing that. And in that location, funny enough, one of the SKY commentary team, Tony Johnstone, had exactly that debate years ago on this golf course. And that was it, really, was just coming to that conclusion, and it was a difficult one. And now that I've seen the pictures, yeah, the right decision was made, because you cannot be certain the ball has crossed the line. I've been down to have another look at the exact spot to see‑‑ funny enough the ball was still there, so I knew exactly where the ball was. It doesn't look feasible that the ball could have crossed the red line at this end. So I think Martin was absolutely right to go back to the point where he knows. Q. Maybe Martin didn't see already the pictures but he said he really wasn't satisfied with that decision. Can you understand that? ANDY McFEE: Oh, sure. The decision has gone against him. It's a big difference. But Martin plays again very, very fairly, so he will understand when he sees those pictures. You cannot take the benefit when there is serious doubt that you have actually crossed the line. You can't guess. When you know that the ball has crossed it at one point, just further back, and you're taking a huge guess as to whether it's crossed at the other point, that's the point where you have to say, television or not, you can't drop at that point. Q. Was anyone on the ground that actually was adamant, different to what the referee was saying? ANDY McFEE: No, you have two lots of opinion. You have got what's coming over perfect the television pictures and you have got one or two of the SKY commentary team who thought otherwise. But I don't think he was adamant‑‑ but then, even once we had seen the picture, then that kind of conflicts with anything that anyone says. Sometimes you have somebody that says, oh, I definitely saw this, and somebody else says, hang on, no, I definitely saw this, and you have don't have any weight of there evidence at all. And that by itself, really should have been enough to say, you can't be certain the ball has crossed here and has such a big advantage, you'll have to go back. Q. In such a situation, the ruling goes against a player? ANDY McFEE: It's one of these ones where you've got to v, when you're talking about a weight of evidence, you talk about benefit of doubt to the player or benefit of doubt to the field, is the way I put it, because obviously he's competing against everybody else there and not everybody has the benefit of television, which is why I think we probably should have shut that one down a little earlier than we did. But yeah, it does go against him there: He cannot be certain, therefore, he cannot get the benefit of going up to that spot. Q. Do you know off the top of your head what that rule is? ANDY McFEE: It's 26‑1, ball in a water hazard, and it's 26‑1c because it's a lateral water hazard and he has to drop the ball‑‑ one of his options is to drop within two clubs of where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard. And what we are debating is: Where is that point; where is the point where it last crossed that margin. We know for certain it's gone in the hazard at the tee end of the hazard. But we can't be certain that it's hit the tree and come out on the far end, and then gone back in again. That's conjecture and that's real guesswork. Q. Can I test your knowledge again, you mentioned Tony Johnstone. Is there a more recent example with a similar ruling? ANDY McFEE: Yes, and I gave it. It was on the 18th green at Doral in the World Golf Championships last year, and it was Sergio. He hit a second shot, and if you know the 18th at Doral, the water cuts in front of the green. And his ball pitched almost right on the line. The question is, did he carry, because it's a red line, or did he not. And we had some cameramen who said, well, I think it carried. And we had some spectators in the grandstand that wraps around and said, no, we had a clear view of it and it didn't carry. So that one we had 50/50. That one I was able to go straight to the TV director. I didn't see the pictures myself but they came back within seconds and said, well, we see the shot, but we don't see whether it's hit the line or not. So what you're seeing is the cameraman's view. So I said, well, look, you have your view and you have got the spectator view. There's no weight of evidence here. Because you're going to be dropping up here and have a putt, you can't take the benefit of that, so you have to go back, which he went back about 90 yards. That's the most recent one. But I can guarantee that sort of thing happens pretty much every week. FastScripts Transcript by ASAP Sports |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
About ASAP Sports •
FastScripts Archive •
Recent Interviews •
Captioning •
Upcoming Events •
Contact Us
FastScripts | Events Covered | Our Clients | Other Services | ASAP in the News | Site Map | Job Opportunities | Links |
|
ASAP Sports, Inc. | T: 1.212 385 0297
|