Kenny Perry Cheating in the FBR Open Playoff

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by PA PLAYA

Okay, I will look at it again.

Listen to Faherty's voice from about 8 seconds through 11-12 seconds of the video. He hesitates and almost stutters - he knows exactly what he just saw happen.

You don't have to see what I see, but to me it's blatantly obvious that a rule was broken here.

[PA PLAYA]

You're correct, the ball is clearly more visible. It would be hard for me to say that he didn't improve his lie.

[straightshooter]

Here is strong evidence of Kenny Perry receiving illegal advice from a blonde during the same tournament:



And here is irrefutable proof that instead of actually playing the shot he was setting up for in the rough (as shown in the video in post #1), Kenny kicked the ball out of the rough when nobody was looking, and played it from the fairway instead.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by straightshooter

Here is strong evidence of Kenny Perry receiving illegal advice from a blonde during the same tournament:



And here is irrefutable proof that instead of actually playing the shot he was setting up for in the rough (as shown in the video in post #1), Kenny kicked the ball out of the rough when nobody was looking, and played it from the fairway instead.

No, that's strong evidence of a really pointless post. Actually, it's irrefutable.

[straightshooter]

Originally Posted by JimSomebody

(I saw a longer clip elsewhere on Youtube).

Can you post a link?

[JimSomebody]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

I'd love to see the longer video if you can happen to find it, Jim.

It includes the clip from the first post, and goes longer. But no new angle.


.

[stlcard_25]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Listen to Faherty's voice from about 8 seconds through 11-12 seconds of the video. He hesitates and almost stutters - he knows exactly what he just saw happen.

You don't have to see what I see, but to me it's blatantly obvious that a rule was broken here.

If Feherty had the same viewing angle we did, he could have made the same mistake everyone else did. I'm not saying he didn't potentially improve his lie, but just because the announcer said so, it doesn't make it true.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

That's true, but who's to say that the grass blocking the view of the ball wasn't a few inches behind it? It was a playoff and as such every single thing he does is going to be micro-analyzed so I don't believe that he would choose a moment such as that to improve his lie.

If you look at the very last frame you can see that the ball is sitting on a mild slope and that setting the club down anywhere behind the ball would move some grass and because of the slope, it would likely make the ball more visible from behind.

Also, he's entitled to ground his club behind the ball and if in so doing he causes some of that grass to "get out of his way", then that's what happens - there's nothing illegal about that. As long as the ball doesn't move I don't see any problem.

Like I said, if his fate rested solely on the evidence of that particular video, I couldn't send him up the river for what was shown there.



-JP

That's why I said it was inconclusive. What he did was fine as long as he didn't do it directly behind the ball.

[Wazmankg]

You simply can't tell conclusively from that camera angle where he is tamping down the grass in relation to the ball -

directly behind it = not ok
or
behind but a few inches short of the ball = perfectly ok

Either action could have conceivably improved our view of the ball from that camera angle.

Has KP given his explanation of what he did ?

[straightshooter]

The swing-path direction looks to be quite different from the viewing direction. I give him the benefit of the doubt, even with the more complete information from the longer video (Thanks JimS).

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

That's why I said it was inconclusive. What he did was fine as long as he didn't do it directly behind the ball.

But he did.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by straightshooter

The swing-path direction looks to be quite different from the viewing direction. I give him the benefit of the doubt, even with the more complete information from the longer video (Thanks JimS).

Look at the 4-8 second period of the new video, you can't see any ball. None. Then look starting from 1:38, there's a whoooooole lotta ball showing now.

Ten bucks says if this were John Daly there wouldn't be the same benefit of the doubt given.

[straightshooter]

\
.o
...\
.g..\


.c


\ = swingpath (explosion-bunker-shot-style setup and swing)
o = ball
g = grass area used to test the rough
c = camera

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

But he did.

Several here have stated that they couldn't be certain based on the camera angle. That's a pretty good textbook definition of inconclusive.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Listen to Faherty's voice from about 8 seconds through 11-12 seconds of the video. He hesitates and almost stutters - he knows exactly what he just saw happen.

You don't have to see what I see, but to me it's blatantly obvious that a rule was broken here.

Yes, I heard that hesitation and he was checking out what Perry was doing and yes he probably thought what you're thinking. But afterward, when the camera angle changes and shows the ball sitting in the grass, it's clear that all of the grass surrounds the ball and there is no evidence of any grass having been tamped down by Perry.

Later in the video, when he actually hits the shot, again it's clear that he hits mostly all grass before he contacts the ball.

And finally, look at the result of the shot. Feherty points out that he hit it "heavy" and the result of the shot proves it.

I don't know what you think you see but I personally don't see any evidence whatsoever of Perry having modified his lie at all. But even if I wanted to find something incriminating, at best, it's inconclusive but certainly not "blatantly obvious".

When Feherty paused, he was just taking a moment to make sure that he wasn't seeing what he thought (and I thought, initially) he was seeing and after watching Perry for a few seconds, he decided that there was nothing wrong and he went on talking as normal. Look at it this way, if Feherty thought Perry improved his lie, don't you think he would have said something? Maybe someone like Nantz would have let it slide (because Nantz is basically a shill for the PGA and as such no one out there can do any wrong), but do you honestly think that if Feherty really thought that Perry improved his lie that he would have let that go by without saying something about it?


-JP

[droogy33]

I have studied the video very closely, and I have read everyone's thoughts and, also being a photographer myself, I am bringing into this my own knowledge and experience.

Kenny Perry did not cheat. He did not violate any rule of golf. And, in my not-so-humble opinion, Mr. #s is lacking greatly in the application of logic. There is almost no way to tell, from that clip, that there is conclusive evidence. In a court of law that clip would be thrown out as insufficient evidence.

Now please allow me to explain a little something...something which JPsuff touches on earlier in this thread.

The first bit of evidence which needs to be considered is the distance between the camera lens and the ball. Judging on the video evidence, my guess is that the lens is likely a 1000 mm lens and, producing that image, has to be a least 30 yards away from the ball.

Anyone with an appreciable knowledge of photography knows that the depth of field in this video has been crunched or compressed, giving viewers an inaccurate perception of distances, especially micro distances like inches and feet.

Because of this, we can not positively ascertain that Kenny tamps the grass down immediately behind the ball, even though it would appear that way to most people.

JPsuff mentions another crucial bit of evidence much earlier in this thread. He observed that the ground behind the ball, and as it draws closer to the camera lens, is on sloped terrain. This terrain gradually slopes upward and becomes higher as it nears the camera lens.

When Kenny tamps the grass down, he tamps on terrain which is higher than the terrain at the ball. This explains why you are able to see the ball more clearly after Kenny tamps the grass down.

Another crucial bit of evidence lies in the position or location of Kenny's left foot as he tamps the grass down. You must watch very closely, but Kenny's left foot is in line with his tamping club and it's relative position to the ball does not change before another camera shot picks up a side-view of the proceedings.

In this side view we clearly see that Kenny's left foot is easily a foot-and-a-half, perhaps even two feet above the ball. This, along with all the other evidence, would again lead me to believe that Kenny Perry did not cheat. He didn't even come close.

As for David Feherty's hesitation, we have to remember that Feherty is viewing the same inconclusive TV angle we are seeing in this video, so using Feherty's hesitation is extremely weak and would not stand up in any court of decision.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by straightshooter

\
.o
...\
.g..\


.c


\ = swingpath (explosion-bunker-shot-style setup and swing)
o = ball
g = grass area used to test the rough
c = camera

And?

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

Yes, I heard that hesitation and he was checking out what Perry was doing and yes he probably thought what you're thinking. But afterward, when the camera angle changes and shows the ball sitting in the grass, it's clear that all of the grass surrounds the ball and there is no evidence of any grass having been tamped down by Perry.

Later in the video, when he actually hits the shot, again it's clear that he hits mostly all grass before he contacts the ball.

And finally, look at the result of the shot. Feherty points out that he hit it "heavy" and the result of the shot proves it.

I don't know what you think you see but I personally don't see any evidence whatsoever of Perry having modified his lie at all. But even if I wanted to find something incriminating, at best, it's inconclusive but certainly not "blatantly obvious".

When Feherty paused, he was just taking a moment to make sure that he wasn't seeing what he thought (and I thought, initially) he was seeing and after watching Perry for a few seconds, he decided that there was nothing wrong and he went on talking as normal. Look at it this way, if Feherty thought Perry improved his lie, don't you think he would have said something? Maybe someone like Nantz would have let it slide (because Nantz is basically a shill for the PGA and as such no one out there can do any wrong), but do you honestly think that if Feherty really thought that Perry improved his lie that he would have let that go by without saying something about it?


-JP

Dude, he chunked it, so it doesn't really matter how much he improved his lie. And even after he did improve his lie, half the ball was still under the line of the grass, so he would hit at least some grass anyway, unless he skulled it. But if you're honestly telling me you don't see a difference in his lie between the start of the video and after he did his little tap-tap-tap routine, we aren't watching the same video.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by droogy33

I have studied the video very closely, and I have read everyone's thoughts and, also being a photographer myself, I am bringing into this my own knowledge and experience.

Kenny Perry did not cheat. He did not violate any rule of golf. And, in my not-so-humble opinion, Mr. #s is lacking greatly in the application of logic. There is almost no way to tell, from that clip, that there is conclusive evidence. In a court of law that clip would be thrown out as insufficient evidence.

Ignoring the fact that evidence isn't thrown out of a court proceeding for lack of evidence, we'll stick to your expertise in photography.

Originally Posted by droogy33

Now please allow me to explain a little something...something which JPsuff touches on earlier in this thread.

The first bit of evidence which needs to be considered is the distance between the camera lens and the ball. Judging on the video evidence, my guess is that the lens is likely a 1000 mm lens and, producing that image, has to be a least 30 yards away from the ball.

Ok, so two guesses, which are worth nothing.

Originally Posted by droogy33

Anyone with an appreciable knowledge of photography knows that the depth of field in this video has been crunched or compressed, giving viewers an inaccurate perception of distances, especially micro distances like inches and feet.

Because of this, we can not positively ascertain that Kenny tamps the grass down immediately behind the ball, even though it would appear that way to most people.

It would appear that way to most people because that's what happened. It's plainly obvious to see unless you don't want to see it.

Originally Posted by droogy33

JPsuff mentions another crucial bit of evidence much earlier in this thread. He observed that the ground behind the ball, and as it draws closer to the camera lens, is on sloped terrain. This terrain gradually slopes upward and becomes higher as it nears the camera lens.

When Kenny tamps the grass down, he tamps on terrain which is higher than the terrain at the ball. This explains why you are able to see the ball more clearly after Kenny tamps the grass down.

Yes, and the camera is on some sort of elevated stand which is way up above even the level of Kenny's head. I won't bother looking up how tall he is, but it's safe to assume that since this camera is a good 10 feet above the ground if not more, this is entirely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by droogy33

Another crucial bit of evidence lies in the position or location of Kenny's left foot as he tamps the grass down. You must watch very closely, but Kenny's left foot is in line with his tamping club and it's relative position to the ball does not change before another camera shot picks up a side-view of the proceedings.

Wait, if we watch very closely we can see conclusively that his left foot is in line with the tamping club? That's pretty interesting, because according to you everything else in this video is inconclusive. I'm watching the second clip in HD (click the little thingy there), and there is NO WAY you can say that. And you might want to look a little more carefully, because first of all he takes a half-step back with his front foot as he takes the practice swing (the 14 second mark of video 2) and as it switches camera views, not only do we not see his feet, but he's walking away from the ball back toward the first camera.

In fact, at the 17 second mark, when his front foot first appears, that left foot coming down is his second step away from where he was taking his practice swing, and that looks no more than 12-15 inches behind the ball (look at the size of his foot for a distance reference), which would mean, as I said before, he directly side-on with the ball taking the practice swing and tapping the grass down directly behind the ball.

Originally Posted by droogy33

In this side view we clearly see that Kenny's left foot is easily a foot-and-a-half, perhaps even two feet above the ball.

Look at the 8 second mark of the first video. That's "easily a foot-and-a-half, perhaps even two feet above the ball"? Well, given the lens structure and the angle of the....

Nevermind. His feet perhaps 3 or 4 inches above the ball at most.

Originally Posted by droogy33

This, along with all the other evidence, would again lead me to believe that Kenny Perry did not cheat. He didn't even come close.

You came to this conclusion at first glance.

Originally Posted by droogy33

As for David Feherty's hesitation, we have to remember that Feherty is viewing the same inconclusive TV angle we are seeing in this video, so using Feherty's hesitation is extremely weak and would not stand up in any court of decision.

Have you asked David about this? First of all, "inconclusive" is a value judgment, and second of all, how do you know where Feherty is?

So, judging by the focal length of the lens and my expertise in making up things that sound official and important...

[deronsizemore]

Originally Posted by droogy33

I have studied the video very closely, and I have read everyone's thoughts and, also being a photographer myself, I am bringing into this my own knowledge and experience.

Kenny Perry did not cheat. He did not violate any rule of golf. And, in my not-so-humble opinion, Mr. #s is lacking greatly in the application of logic. There is almost no way to tell, from that clip, that there is conclusive evidence. In a court of law that clip would be thrown out as insufficient evidence.

Now please allow me to explain a little something...something which JPsuff touches on earlier in this thread.

The first bit of evidence which needs to be considered is the distance between the camera lens and the ball. Judging on the video evidence, my guess is that the lens is likely a 1000 mm lens and, producing that image, has to be a least 30 yards away from the ball.

Anyone with an appreciable knowledge of photography knows that the depth of field in this video has been crunched or compressed, giving viewers an inaccurate perception of distances, especially micro distances like inches and feet.

Because of this, we can not positively ascertain that Kenny tamps the grass down immediately behind the ball, even though it would appear that way to most people.

JPsuff mentions another crucial bit of evidence much earlier in this thread. He observed that the ground behind the ball, and as it draws closer to the camera lens, is on sloped terrain. This terrain gradually slopes upward and becomes higher as it nears the camera lens.

When Kenny tamps the grass down, he tamps on terrain which is higher than the terrain at the ball. This explains why you are able to see the ball more clearly after Kenny tamps the grass down.

Another crucial bit of evidence lies in the position or location of Kenny's left foot as he tamps the grass down. You must watch very closely, but Kenny's left foot is in line with his tamping club and it's relative position to the ball does not change before another camera shot picks up a side-view of the proceedings.

In this side view we clearly see that Kenny's left foot is easily a foot-and-a-half, perhaps even two feet above the ball. This, along with all the other evidence, would again lead me to believe that Kenny Perry did not cheat. He didn't even come close.

As for David Feherty's hesitation, we have to remember that Feherty is viewing the same inconclusive TV angle we are seeing in this video, so using Feherty's hesitation is extremely weak and would not stand up in any court of decision.

I agree.

If you look at the :16 second mark in the video when the camera angle is behind Perry, it looks like he's right next to the ball where he was just previously pressing the grass down (seemingly behind the ball). Right after second :16 in the video, the camera angle changes to the other side of the green and is zoomed in on the ball and you can see that Perry has not moved back at all between seconds 16 and 17 but when he starts to walk toward Hoffman for the ruling, he's clearly walks a couple feet behind the ball (where he was initially standing when he was patting the grass down).

If he had been even with the ball when he was patting the grass down with his club, he would have had to take a step back and then start walking over toward Charlie between seconds 16 and 17 and I just don't see him do that.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by deronsizemore

I agree.

If you look at the :16 second mark in the video when the camera angle is behind Perry, it looks like he's right next to the ball where he was just previously pressing the grass down (seemingly behind the ball). Right after second :16 in the video, the camera angle changes to the other side of the green and is zoomed in on the ball and you can see that Perry has not moved back at all between seconds 16 and 17 but when he starts to walk toward Hoffman for the ruling, he's clearly walks a couple feet behind the ball (where he was initially standing when he was patting the grass down).

If he had been even with the ball when he was patting the grass down with his club, he would have had to take a step back and then start walking over toward Charlie between seconds 16 and 17 and I just don't see him do that.

That's exactly what he does. Freeze it at 15/16 seconds and you'll see he's taking a step with his right foot toward his bag. At 17 seconds you see his left foot come into the picture, in the direction toward his bag, no more than one footstep behind the ball.

You can even see by looking at the fringe. Look at it in the first camera angle and then look at it after the 17-second mark to see which direction he's walking. He's walking more or less parallel to the edge of the fringe, which is directly back toward his bag.

And remember, I'm not saying conclusively he cheated per se, I'm saying he broke a rule.

[straightshooter]

\
.o
...\
.g..\


.c


\ = swingpath (explosion-bunker-shot-style setup and swing)
o = ball
g = grass area used to test the rough
c = camera

Originally Posted by mr3856a

And?

When testing the grass, Perry improved the camera's view of the ball. He did not improve his lie with that action, because his swing didn't come anywhere near the area of grass he manipulated.

[deronsizemore]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

That's exactly what he does. Freeze it at 15/16 seconds and you'll see he's taking a step with his right foot toward his bag. At 17 seconds you see his left foot come into the picture, in the direction toward his bag, no more than one footstep behind the ball.

You can even see by looking at the fringe. Look at it in the first camera angle and then look at it after the 17-second mark to see which direction he's walking. He's walking more or less parallel to the edge of the fringe, which is directly back toward his bag.

And remember, I'm not saying conclusively he cheated per se, I'm saying he broke a rule.

Sorry, I never see him take a step back to put himself a foot or more behind his ball as he walks over to his bag. As you said, he takes a step with his right foot toward his bag which isn't behind him but to the right of him and on the same line (you can tell this by looking at the shadows of both Perry and his caddie; had his caddie been behind him, his shadow wouldn't be even with Kenny). So, he walks directly to the right from where he was standing and soling the club behind the ball. Directly right a foot or more behind the ball which means he was pressing down grass a foot or more behind his ball and with the downhill slope toward the green in which he was standing, that's how more of the ball is revealed when he presses the grass down.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

And remember, I'm not saying conclusively he cheated per se, I'm saying he broke a rule.

This argument again - breaking a rule is cheating.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by straightshooter

\
.o
...\
.g..\


.c


\ = swingpath (explosion-bunker-shot-style setup and swing)
o = ball
g = grass area used to test the rough
c = camera



When testing the grass, Perry improved the camera's view of the ball. He did not improve his lie with that action, because his swing didn't come anywhere near the area of grass he manipulated.

While that can't be determined conclusively because of the camera angle it's certainly a possibility, which is why I say - inconclusive/play stands.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Diane

This argument again - breaking a rule is cheating.

Cheating requires intent. Do I really have to link you to Merriam-Webster again Diane ?

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by Diane

This argument again - breaking a rule is cheating.

Professional golfers break rules all the time. That's why they're assessed penalty strokes. Breaking a rule isn't always cheating.

[straightshooter]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

While that can't be determined conclusively because of the camera angle it's certainly a possibility, which is why I say - inconclusive/play stands.

I agree fully. I thought that a plausible alternative explanation might be helpful for those among us who can't seem to recognize an inconclusive situation for the non-event that it is.

[Johneli]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Listen to Faherty's voice from about 8 seconds through 11-12 seconds of the video. He hesitates and almost stutters - he knows exactly what he just saw happen.

You don't have to see what I see, but to me it's blatantly obvious that a rule was broken here.

It was Feherty's voice hitch (which I posted earlier in the thread) that REALLY made me believe that a rule was broken. I didn't (at first) want to believe my own eyes because I like Perry so much. But when I heard David's voice noticeably "hitch" when Perry addressed the ball I knew to believe my lyin eyes.

[Johneli]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

Professional golfers break rules all the time. That's why they're assessed penalty strokes. Breaking a rule isn't always cheating.

When you've played as much golf as Kenny Perry you KNOW better than to tamp grass behind your ball. You just KNOW it's a dangerous move! But he did it anyway. That would be considered "willful" in my book.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by straightshooter

\
.o
...\
.g..\


.c


\ = swingpath (explosion-bunker-shot-style setup and swing)
o = ball
g = grass area used to test the rough
c = camera



When testing the grass, Perry improved the camera's view of the ball. He did not improve his lie with that action, because his swing didn't come anywhere near the area of grass he manipulated.

Um, yes it did.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by deronsizemore

Sorry, I never see him take a step back to put himself a foot or more behind his ball as he walks over to his bag. As you said, he takes a step with his right foot toward his bag which isn't behind him but to the right of him and on the same line (you can tell this by looking at the shadows of both Perry and his caddie; had his caddie been behind him, his shadow wouldn't be even with Kenny). So, he walks directly to the right from where he was standing and soling the club behind the ball.

Noooooooo. You're correct in that they are on about the same line. Watch seconds 17-19, though - he doesn't walk in a straight line from where he was standing, he takes the step back with his right foot (second 16) away from the line he and his caddy are on and then walks in an arch towards his bag, around his ball.

Second 16, takes a step back and to the right, then changes direction to his left and angles over toward his bag.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by straightshooter

I agree fully. I thought that a plausible alternative explanation might be helpful for those among us who can't seem to recognize an inconclusive situation for the non-event that it is.

There are at least as many people in this thread who don't believe it was inconclusive at all and was a clear rules violation as those such as yourself who don't want to see what is plainly obvious. Please don't present your opinion as fact.

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

There are at least as many people in this thread who don't believe it was inconclusive at all and was a clear rules violation as those such as yourself who don't want to see what is plainly obvious. Please don't present your opinion as fact.

So only your opinion is to be considered fact?

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

So only your opinion is to be considered fact?

The only "fact" here is that Perry wasn't penalized and he wasn't questioned by those much closer to the scene and with better angles than we see from this video. The rest is pure speculation.

Hasn't the use of instant replay in sports shown us that sometimes the camera does lie? What we see from one angle is often completely different than what we see from another angle. I believe that is the case here.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

So only your opinion is to be considered fact?

Ya need to check yer readin' there, sparky.

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Ya need to check yer readin' there, sparky.

You're the one accusing people of stating their opinion is fact. Reread your opening post and then remove the beam from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter from someone else's.

[straightshooter]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

There are at least as many people in this thread who don't believe it was inconclusive at all and was a clear rules violation as those such as yourself who don't want to see what is plainly obvious.

I don't think that our positions on this issue are symmetrically opposed: Because falsely accusing someone of cheating is widely considered one of the lowest forms of human behavior, your position requires far more evidence than mine.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

Cheating requires intent. Do I really have to link you to Merriam-Webster again Diane ?

How can a pro athlete break a rule without intent? They have no excuse for not knowing and abiding by the rules of the sport they play.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

You're the one accusing people of stating their opinion is fact. Reread your opening post and then remove the beam from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter from someone else's.

Ya need to check yer readin' there, Sparky. In my opinion there is no question. That was true in the first post and I feel even more strongly so now.