<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" version="2.0">
							<channel><title>New Posts For Thread: The rule they are quoting to Save the Tiger</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/golf/go/thread/view/94086/29872709/the-rule-they-are-quoting-to-save-the-tiger</link><description>33-7/4.5 Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty JustifiedQ. A competitor returns his score card. It later transpires that the score for one hole is lower than actually taken due to his</description><item><title>yes it is sorry, i was more talking about the rule in general but I realise now it's a bit OT</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/golf/go/thread/view/94086/29872709/the-rule-they-are-quoting-to-save-the-tiger?post_id=531368019#531368019</link><description>yes it is sorry, i was more talking about the rule in general but I realise now it's a bit OT</description><pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:44:27 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>It would be vague if he had TRIED to drop as close as possible to the original position.  But he didn't; in fact he admitted in an interview that he moved it back 2 yards to give himself an easier shot.  So the "how close is close" debate is irreleva</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/golf/go/thread/view/94086/29872709/the-rule-they-are-quoting-to-save-the-tiger?post_id=531367957#531367957</link><description>It would be vague if he had TRIED to drop as close as possible to the original position.  But he didn't; in fact he admitted in an interview that he moved it back 2 yards to give himself an easier shot.  So the "how close is close" debate is irreleva</description><pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:42:06 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>The rule tiger broke is a little bit vague isn't it.  People aren't going to try and drop it back in their original divot so I imagine all try to drop it close, but how close is close?</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/golf/go/thread/view/94086/29872709/the-rule-they-are-quoting-to-save-the-tiger?post_id=531367699#531367699</link><description>The rule tiger broke is a little bit vague isn't it.  People aren't going to try and drop it back in their original divot so I imagine all try to drop it close, but how close is close?</description><pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:34:07 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>i see they are now saying that he was told on friday that no action would be taken so he signed.</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/golf/go/thread/view/94086/29872709/the-rule-they-are-quoting-to-save-the-tiger?post_id=531367413#531367413</link><description>i see they are now saying that he was told on friday that no action would be taken so he signed.</description><pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:26:07 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>No i don't think so Mike.The Masters committee more than any other would play fair. very much doubt the old  farts there are easily swayed in their views.I remember a few years ago there was a scenario with McIlroy when he seemed to be testing the sa</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/golf/go/thread/view/94086/29872709/the-rule-they-are-quoting-to-save-the-tiger?post_id=531367323#531367323</link><description>No i don't think so Mike.The Masters committee more than any other would play fair. very much doubt the old  farts there are easily swayed in their views.I remember a few years ago there was a scenario with McIlroy when he seemed to be testing the sa</description><pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:23:22 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>That's the problem with subjective rules.  The rules of golf are normally quite watertight in terms of interpretation.  Even this rule about waiving a DQ specifies when it can/can't be applied.  They really seem to have pulled this decision out of th</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/golf/go/thread/view/94086/29872709/the-rule-they-are-quoting-to-save-the-tiger?post_id=531367257#531367257</link><description>That's the problem with subjective rules.  The rules of golf are normally quite watertight in terms of interpretation.  Even this rule about waiving a DQ specifies when it can/can't be applied.  They really seem to have pulled this decision out of th</description><pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:21:31 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>and the american commentators feel the same.  The majority are slating the rules committee and saying that any other player would have been punished.</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/golf/go/thread/view/94086/29872709/the-rule-they-are-quoting-to-save-the-tiger?post_id=531367137#531367137</link><description>and the american commentators feel the same.  The majority are slating the rules committee and saying that any other player would have been punished.</description><pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:17:56 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>totally mike-lfc</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/golf/go/thread/view/94086/29872709/the-rule-they-are-quoting-to-save-the-tiger?post_id=531366649#531366649</link><description>totally mike-lfc</description><pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:06:04 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>Are we all agreeing if it was any other player he would been DQ'd?</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/golf/go/thread/view/94086/29872709/the-rule-they-are-quoting-to-save-the-tiger?post_id=531366527#531366527</link><description>Are we all agreeing if it was any other player he would been DQ'd?</description><pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:03:33 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>Agreed Mex.  There is nothing the rules official could have told Tiger yesterday prior to signing his scorecard, that he didn't already know.  It would have been a nice bonus if they'd pointed out his infraction to him and saved him from DQ; but I do</title><link>https://community.betfair.com/golf/go/thread/view/94086/29872709/the-rule-they-are-quoting-to-save-the-tiger?post_id=531366377#531366377</link><description>Agreed Mex.  There is nothing the rules official could have told Tiger yesterday prior to signing his scorecard, that he didn't already know.  It would have been a nice bonus if they'd pointed out his infraction to him and saved him from DQ; but I do</description><pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 12:59:11 -0500</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
