5. According to a USGA and R&A rule change effective Jan. 1, 2014, a golfer who unwittingly moves his ball during competition may not be penalized if that movement could not reasonably have been detected without the use of “enhanced technology.” Do you agree with the change? What, if any, other issues would you like the USGA/R&A to address on video technology?
BAMBERGER: It's a good rule. If the player truly cannot see a ball's movement, he shouldn't be held responsible for it. As a practical matter, I cannot imagine this coming into play more than a couple times a year, if that. Most of the time, the player is watching his ball like a hawk. That golf ball is your meal ticket. You want to know what it’s doing at all times.
VAN SICKLE: Let's go ahead and call this The Tiger Rule. How many other instances, ever, would this rule even come into play? It's a rarity, and we may never see it invoked. If that's the case, the rule seems unnecessary.
RITTER: I'm fine with the rule change. Never made sense to penalize players for violations they can't even see. Next up: eliminate penalties from TV viewer call-ins.
GODICH: Shouldn't the objective be to get it right? This is going to open a can of worms, because viewers are still going to be treated to the enhanced technology, so they can decide for themselves if a penalty should have been called.
WALKER: Yes, I like the change, especially since the qualifier “enhanced” means that the USGA/R&A are not likely to ban viewers from calling in rules violations. In other words, yes, you can call in violations that are clearly visible on television, but not violations that are only apparent in close-up, slow-motion replays (like Tiger at the BMW). Makes sense to me.
PASSOV: It may open up a bigger can of worms than intended, but I agree with the change. In my view, the USGA should have taken things another step or two further -- and banned ever allowing video technology to impact the final result of a golf tournament via a penalty. That said, they didn't go that far ... and now we'll likely witness more awkward judgment calls where the player is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If this rule would have exonerated Tiger, it still wouldn't have altered the outcry. Should Tiger have done the gentlemanly thing and just admitted that if there were a speck of doubt, a penalty is warranted, or do the competitive thing and simply quote Sergeant Schultz ("I know nothing, I see nothing!")? Tiger should have never been confronted with this. If we're going to trust golfers to be honest and police themselves, seemingly a fundamental tenet of competitive golf, then let them do it and forget about video technology playing any role in determining the outcome of a tournament.
SENS: Given the painstaking scrutiny that video allows, it makes sense to cut the players that amount of slack. Next up: the precise location of where you drop, line of entry into a hazard, etc.
6. Henrik Stenson and Ian Poulter are slated to begin their own radio shows on SiriusXM next year. Which of these two will you tune in for? What other player or figure in golf would you like to see for this gig?
BAMBERGER: They're both droll, insightful, fun, but Stenson seems almost odd, in the best sense of the word, and I think he'll do especially well. I like his press conferences, and I imagine I'll like his show. I talked the other day to Scott Greenstein, the Sirius president. He was rattling off names from yesteryear -- Al Besselink, Don Cherry, Miller Barber -- and he clearly loves the lore of the game. I imagine over time Sirius will become a place where you can get your Bruce fix AND your golf fix in a meaningful way on your drive into work.
SENS: Stenson. He seems smarter and more idiosyncratic. The Poulter check-out-my-bling persona would tire pretty quickly, I think.
RITTER: I'm equally excited for both, and if I'm creating a new show and need a host, my first phone call is going to Peter Aliss. Second is Johnny Miller.
WALKER: Best of luck to both guys, who each bring a much-needed spark of life to pro golf, but I fear they will do as well at talk radio as Howard Stern would do on the PGA Tour. David Feherty is the only guy in golf who could pull something like this off.
PASSOV: I'll go with Poults. He's got the Charles Barkley thing going: he can border on the outrageous/ridiculous, but he's always entertaining and because he's played the game exceptionally well at the highest level, is worthy of respect, no matter how much you roll your eyes. For an extra listen, I'll take a daily hour of Miguel Angel Jimenez, talking fast cars, stretching drills, fine wines and cigars, cured hams and perhaps some golf.
VAN SICKLE: Since I'm not keen on paying to listen to the radio, I won't be tuning in for either one of them. Poulter seems more prolific, talking-wise, based on his Twitter feed, but I like Stenson's off-kilter sense of humor. I hope they're both entertaining. Let me know, will you?
The PGA Tour Confidential debate continues Monday on our new weekly show hosted by Jessica Marksbury. Tweet her your questions @Jess_Marksbury.