"If you couldn't see it with your naked eye, how much did it really compromise the other 155-some players in the field?"

Jaime Diaz fles an exclusive Q&A posted with Mike Davis at GolfDigest.com and the USGA Executive Director wants to make clear that the latest HD video-related Decision added to the rules of golf was in no way Tiger related, and continues the USGA position of unwillingness to say whether the situation at the BMW Championship was applicable.

I'm still having trouble seeing how this is the progressive moment some have suggested as a solution to the HD situations:

Please explain how the new rule might have effected what occurred with Tiger at BMW?

In Tiger's case, what a rules committee would ultimately have to do is say, "OK, did Tiger see that with his naked eye. Was it possible or probable?" Sometimes you may just need to take all the evidence involved. We do that all the time in championships.

Let's say Tiger's thing wasn't televised, and all we had was a spectator saying they thought Tiger's ball moved. And we learn about that, what we would do is get to Tiger before he returned his scorecard, and ask him "Can we talk about what happened on the hole where you removed a pine needle and a spectator said your ball moved?"  And we would ask him, "Did your ball move?" If he said, "Absolutely not, it didn't move," it would be OK, case closed.

But if Tiger said, "Well I don't think it moved," then we would ask, "Tell us about the pine needle, could it have caused the ball to move?" Again, you use all the evidence you have, because we've got to somehow make a ruling here. And in a case like this, if it's one person against another person, usually the player is going to win on that.

But perhaps in a case where something wasn't televised, and 12 people are saying the ball moved, but the player said, "I don't think it moved," there would be too much weight saying the ball moved and the ruling would go against the player.

So 12 people in person would have a better view than an HD camera?  Generally not, which then means viral video will threaten to taint the player's image.

But the bottom line on the new rule is that if the ball somehow moved minutely and it was picked up on camera, and the player plays the shot, we're not going to say, "Well the ball moved and it should have been a one-stroke penalty, and you didn't replace it, so now it's a two stroke penalty." And furthermore, if it goes all the way in and the player signs the scorecard, not only is he or she not going to be penalized, but they are not going to be disqualified. We just feel the rules never contemplated that, and it's the right thing for the game. If you couldn't see it with your naked eye, how much did it really compromise the other 155-some players in the field?

That last question is a fascinating one in that I'm pretty sure Craig Stadler putting a towel down to save his pants did not compromise the field, nor did Robert diVicenzo's incorrect scorecoard or any other host of famous rules situations.

I'd be curious what the rules aficionados out there think of this last rhetorical question by Davis?