|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
THE PLAYERS CHAMPIONSHIPMay 11, 2014Mark RussellPONTE VEDRA BEACH, FLORIDA LAURA NEAL: We would like to welcome Mark Russell, Tournament Director and Vice President of Rules and Competition. You've had a busy morning, Mark. Everyone has the statement, if you could just maybe go over what happened today in layman's terms and then we'll open it up for questions. MARK RUSSELL: Well, last night Justin Rose had a situation where his ball did move ever so slightly as he was hitting a chip shot behind the 18th green. We took him down and we looked at the footage and it was determined that his ball did move and he was assessed a two‑stroke penalty under Rule 18, the general penalty. It moved and he didn't replace it. This new decision, 18‑4, we started talking this last night and this morning how this new tool we have and what it took us to determine the ball did move and we came to the conclusion that we used some very sophisticated technology to determine that, it was the only way we could determine it, and we applied this new decision that it was not discernible to the naked eye to the player and we decided to rescind the penalty. LAURA NEAL: Take some questions. Q. Do you recall who or what happened to actually ignite the process? Were you guys in Rules sitting around watching it on TV again and somebody deciding that this might not be the best decision? MARK RUSSELL: Well, his reaction and we ‑‑ the way he reacted there, and he thought it might have moved. Then once we went and looked at it, we wanted to protect him, we didn't want him to get disqualified, so we got him before he signed his scorecard and looked at that. It wasn't really discernible to the naked ‑‑ it wasn't discernible ‑‑ you couldn't really tell from the original telecast, but when we used this sophisticated technology, we could tell the ball slightly moved. Q. But I mean after the fact who was the one that said that we need to look at this again? MARK RUSSELL: We all started talking about it. This has never been used before. It's only been in the book for five months, but it's a situation where it protects the player. We asked for this decision. We feel like that we did the right thing here. Q. Can you describe in this case what sophisticated technology was? HD, zoomed in? MARK RUSSELL: Zoomed in, yes. HD zoomed in. Q. That wasn't available on the other two monitors he had looked at? MARK RUSSELL: No. It wasn't. It was a shot from the tower. It wasn't really zoomed in on the ball in that situation, it was a shot from the tower. Q. This took overnight to come up with a decision, I mean, if this was today, and we're talking about tomorrow, I mean, are you worried about opening up ‑‑ MARK RUSSELL: Well, we have always, we have always gone down and looked at television to determine if a ball moved or whatever we could get from that. But we have never had this tool before that we could apply. We asked for this and we feel like that this first time this has ever been used and we feel like this is exactly why this decision's in there. Q. It could have been applied tomorrow. If you had come to this conclusion today for yesterday, you finish this tournament and then you are still discussing it the next day, do you go back and change the result? MARK RUSSELL: No, once the competition's closed, the competition will be closed. Q. In talking to one of the rules officials last night about this, I asked specifically the question that, did you need enhanced technology to determine the ball moved and the answer was no. So how is it that you're now falling back on the enhanced technology? MARK RUSSELL: I don't know, I mean it was myself and Steve Carmen, Steven Cox involved in that. And I don't know who told you that, but we did go down to television ‑‑ I mean, Justin was with us ‑‑ and we looked at one monitor and we went to another truck and looked at another one that was zoomed in. Listen, we have never ‑‑ this ‑‑ we never used this before. We have this decision and we feel like the right thing was done here. That's the reason this is in here. Q. Well maybe you can, can you better define what's discernible by the naked eye? MARK RUSSELL: Well, it was such a slight move that it was not discernible by the naked eye. He didn't know ‑‑ he knew something happened when he grounded his club and felt like he pressed the grass down and it came right back, everything went down and then the grass went down and the ball came back up. He knew something happened, he backed away from that, but it took something really zoomed in that was not seen on regular television to determine if the ball did indeed move. And it did. Q. So his reaction to this movement was not enough for the committee to consider that reasonably discernible to the naked eye, the the fact that he reacted? MARK RUSSELL: Well, no, I mean, it's nothing unusual to back off a ball. He thought something did happen there, but he really couldn't tell. That's when he brought Sergio over and they looked at it on the Jumbotron and said that, determined that the ball didn't move. Q. Last night you told me that, because Justin had reacted, he backed away, clearly he saw something, which is why this new rule wasn't put into effect. At what point did you change your mind on that? MARK RUSSELL: Well, once we really started talking about this and reading this, going deep into this new decision, which we asked for, by the way, we realized that we did use sophisticated technology, that's the only way we could really determine that. And then we determined that it was not discernible to the naked eye, that he could, that he could not have determined that. He said that. And he did realize the ball moved, once we used the technology that was available in the television compound. Q. Was the possibility of 18‑4 playing brought up at all during the original ‑‑ MARK RUSSELL: Yes, yes it was. Q. And was it dismissed at the time? MARK RUSSELL: At the time, yes. We have always been in the television compound, if the ball moves, the ball moves. But once we really started thinking about it, this is exactly the reason this decision was written. Q. Did Justin know before he teed off? MARK RUSSELL: Yes. Talked to Justin a couple hours ago. We got together with ‑‑ we consulted with the governing bodies of the game and we're all on the same page about this. This is a great tool for professional golf. Q. Specifically, who did you talk to, consult with? MARK RUSSELL: Grant Moi was here with the R & A, we had Thomas Pagel on the phone from the UnitedStates Golf Association. Q. (No Microphone.) MARK RUSSELL: Well, if he was ‑‑ there's no way he could determine that it moved. I mean, if he's playing golf out there and it happens and there's not high definition television and he goes to his partner or his, I'm sorry, his fellow competitor and they discuss it and they don't think the ball moved, the ball didn't move. Only way we could determine that was with very technical equipment, sophisticated equipment. Q. Two questions: What's the ‑‑ what goes into the judgment call on naked eye? MARK RUSSELL: Well, it's all a judgment call in that. Whether a ball moved, how far did it move, did it leave its position and come to rest in another place. Q. Secondly, is 18‑4, as 18‑4 was being developed all of last year, wasn't kind of the spirit of that rule was not meant for moments where a player could physically cause a ball to a move, such as at address, but things where the slight movement ‑‑ MARK RUSSELL: Well, exactly, where a ball would move and there's no way a player could know it. That's exactly right. A player addresses the ball, walks around in front of the green, he's chipping the ball, and when he's down in front of the green, the ball barely moves. He didn't know that. But technically he's under penalty. There's no way he could have known that. Q. I guess in that case though he's not exactly looking at the ball if he is gone to the front of the green, whereas, in this case, I mean, what showed last night was him stopping because he saw something? MARK RUSSELL: Yes. That's right. Q. Wouldn't that count as ‑‑ MARK RUSSELL: But the ball moves so, so slightly. He couldn't determine that with the naked eye. Q. Could he have proceed last night under that procedure of doubt or whatever that says? MARK RUSSELL: Not in this situation. We have too many, we have Rules Committee people available. Q. Two things: One, now will your policies and procedures change on how you handle these situations? MARK RUSSELL: No. Q. And then, secondly, do you feel Justin received an advantage or disadvantage by this call? MARK RUSSELL: No, I think he received exactly what he deserved under the rules. Q. You don't think being an hour earlier is an advantage? MARK RUSSELL: An hour earlier? Q. In the tee times. MARK RUSSELL: Well, I mean it's a situation we can't control. I don't know about, I don't know about it being an advantage, it's just basically the way it is. Q. What could Justin have done any differently?  Should he have called in the rules official in this situation? MARK RUSSELL: Well, yes, he could have done that. He could have called in a rules official, but I don't think he could have ‑‑ he didn't need to do anything any differently, really. Q. What if he had called in a rules official and gone through the entire discussion and it was deemed to play on, and then the zooming had come in, would that have changed anything, even before 18‑4? MARK RUSSELL: Well, if he would have called somebody in, once again, it's a judgment call. I mean, you got to tell me. Do you think the ball moved? And we would have looked at it, like we always did, but then if it's not discernible to the naked eye, that's when 18‑4 would apply. If we had to use sophisticated equipment to determine that. It's pretty complicated, really. But this isn't going to happen every day, believe me, but this is a good thing. Q. Do you expect the definition of sophisticated equipment to change over time as technology becomes more available? MARK RUSSELL: I guess it possibly could. Certainly has in the last 20 years. I guess it will continue to evolve. Q. So you'll have to change your definition of what's ‑‑ MARK RUSSELL: Well, I ain't gone that deep. Q. Everybody talked about the fact that Justin should have brought a rules official in yesterday, then he could have dropped the ball, gone through the process, and in that case he would have only gotten a one‑shot penalty versus two‑shot penalty, now you're suggesting in your last answer that he shouldn't have brought anybody in. MARK RUSSELL: No, I mean, he could have. I mean, say that again? I suggested what? Q. You seemed to suggest, if I ‑‑ MARK RUSSELL: He could have called a rules official, and you're right, it would have, he wouldn't have got penalized two in that situation. It would have just been one. Q. Or zero. MARK RUSSELL: Or zero. Q. I'm unclear, if you mentioned this before I came in, I apologize, how did this erupt, if that isn't an exaggeration, this morning, did this thing come to you or had people been looking at it? MARK RUSSELL: No, no, it was a discussion among the Committee. And then we involved the governing bodies of the game and we come, we came to this conclusion. Q. Instead of bringing in a rulings official could Justin have played a second ball as an option? To avoid playing it out both ways to avoid the two‑shot penalty? MARK RUSSELL: You know, I guess he could have, but we don't ‑‑ we're too readily available to do that. Q. Right. But that was an option he had, that he could have. Instead of getting ‑‑ he could have avoided or taken the two‑shot penalty out of the picture by covering that option. MARK RUSSELL: Yeah, that's right. Q. Was Justin contacted last night when this was first addressed or did you not contact him until this morning after? MARK RUSSELL: This morning. It was this afternoon. Q. After you had talked to the governing bodies? MARK RUSSELL: Well, we had about a 45‑minute discussion on this, when people arrived this morning we started talking about, some things had been written about it and we started talking about it and we went deep with it and we got that decision out and we decided, you know, this applies here. Q. But I'm just trying to get a little more detail here. Was he already on‑site when you called him in or did you call him? MARK RUSSELL: Yeah, he was on‑site, yes. He was on‑site. We called him to our office. Q. Along those lines, roughly what time was it when you guys ultimately made the decision this morning? Was it before noon? MARK RUSSELL: 10 o'clock. 11. Q. How far in advance did you tell Justin before his tee time? MARK RUSSELL: What time did we tell Justin? I wasn't looking at a watch. STEVEN COX: We called him at 11 o'clock. Q. Is the commissioner a part of the Committee? MARK RUSSELL: No. He was informed of what's going on, but, no, he's not on the Rules Committee. Q. Was there any concern or is there any concern with you now that you were obviously considering the situation using the technology yesterday that you didn't at that time go deep into the decision because obviously there was awareness that you were using technology? MARK RUSSELL: Well, I think the whole key there is ultimately we got it right. And that is the most important thing. That it's done right. And the right thing was done. Q. But could you have gone to the right decision sooner? MARK RUSSELL: Possibly. Q. Was 18‑4 crafted in response to the Tiger Woods incident at the BMW, where sophisticated technology was used to zoom in on his ball? MARK RUSSELL: No, no, I don't think that had any bearing on it. We have been talking about something about this for awhile. Just because of all of the technology we have. I mean, the way that the high definition and the way they zoom in on things and it's a totally different situation now. Q. If we're in a stage where, in super slo mo and enhanced technology we see something, but the penalty be waived, why even look at it? MARK RUSSELL: Well, if it's discernible to the player that it wasn't discernible to the naked eye, I mean, we determined that that's the only way we would have known, through sophisticated technology. I don't think this will apply very often, but in this case it was good. LAURA NEAL: Mark, thank you for your time. 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
|