Golf
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
http://www.wusa9.com/sports/article/254290/25/Could-Tiger-Woods-Be-Disqualified-From-The-Masters
http://aol.sportingnews.com/sport/story/2013-04-13/tiger-woods-disqualified-masters-illegal-drop-incorrect-scorecard-pga-rules
http://aol.sportingnews.com/sport/story/2013-04-13/tiger-woods-disqualified-masters-illegal-drop-incorrect-scorecard-pga-rules
Show More
Apr 13, 2013 -- 6:44PM, 1st time poster wrote:woods was openly bragging about he still had a clear head and used the rules to repeat the same shot with the same club, power touch etc,inferring other players wouldnt have had the nouse to do the same,unfortunatly he was to clever for his own good,and probably the easiest DQ ever in the pro game
Too....
Yes, except it wasn't.
There are too many working class people making comments here..stick to football!
all i will say is that at any club i've played at, or any people i've played with, in such a situation the overwhelming majority of players would dq themself.
Mex i doubt anyone would dq themselves in his position.
At the end of the day the rules committee have decided it is a 2 shot penalty and play on. Woods is simply playing by the rules.
At the end of the day the rules committee have decided it is a 2 shot penalty and play on. Woods is simply playing by the rules.
just like racing , golfs a richmans pastime kept alive by working class people, 
haventaclue - very articulate post, thank you, I think that says it all in a nutshell
and mexicano - very much in agreement with you
as for the guy on the golf channel, I think he was not very bright and was very muddled in his arguments and was missing the quintessential points which are on the previous page and put extremely well by Haventaclue
what is now going to be interesting is the BACKLASH
I think there will be a considerable one from retired players - what's Jack Nicklaus got to say on this for instance - and from his fellow pros.
and mexicano - very much in agreement with you
as for the guy on the golf channel, I think he was not very bright and was very muddled in his arguments and was missing the quintessential points which are on the previous page and put extremely well by Haventaclue
what is now going to be interesting is the BACKLASH
I think there will be a considerable one from retired players - what's Jack Nicklaus got to say on this for instance - and from his fellow pros.
Even Goldfinger had the grace to accept disqualification when he lost on a technicality to James Bond.
if he wins it will be spun into great comback after unlucky shot causes a 2 shot penalty which he overcame like a true champion...
haventaclue, you have it dead right imo. Clearly he should have done the decent thing and gone home today. (But are his actions in the past one of someone who usually does the decent thing? Make your own judgements.)
it seems Tiger escapes disqualification because the committee reviewed it and thought the drop was all right and were only later alerted to it not being all right due to Tiger's comments during a TV interview.
So because they fcuked up, somehow Tiger escapes DQ and only penalized two shots.
Seems like very muddled thinking and putting the cart before the horse as the committee are assuming culpability which is clearly the player's.
It is Tiger who dropped in the wrong place and who thus signed for a wrong score.
So because they fcuked up, somehow Tiger escapes DQ and only penalized two shots.
Seems like very muddled thinking and putting the cart before the horse as the committee are assuming culpability which is clearly the player's.
It is Tiger who dropped in the wrong place and who thus signed for a wrong score.
the rule is ridiculous, are you supposed to try and drop it in your own divit hole?
a lot of other rules are seriously abused by the pros, it amazes me they haven't found a way to tighten up a few of them
a lot of other rules are seriously abused by the pros, it amazes me they haven't found a way to tighten up a few of them
it's not a ridiculous rule at all.
it was framed to try and stop people taking the kind of liberty that woods tried to take.
perhaps they should frame a rule in order to allow him to drop the ball wherever he fancies?
it was framed to try and stop people taking the kind of liberty that woods tried to take.
perhaps they should frame a rule in order to allow him to drop the ball wherever he fancies?
it's a total grey area then, trying to find a spot that you shouldn't even be able to remember. Where he dropped it was close enough for me
all this is a silly discussion anyway, the referees have looked at it and made a decision, can't argue with that
all this is a silly discussion anyway, the referees have looked at it and made a decision, can't argue with that
It seems that some are arguing for a technicality that results in DQ and railing against the use of a different technicality that results in a 2 shot deduction.
Quite a curious situation.
Quite a curious situation.
it's not a technicality that should have seen woods disqualified.
it was his failure to proceed correctly with any of the three options he had in the situation he was in.the fact is the way he proceeded merited a two shot penalty.
a further fact is that if he dosen't apply the two shot penalty and signs for the original score he is disqualified.
a rule was brought in last year that enables players who have unknowingly done something in the act of executing a shot, that later comes to light because it was picked up on tv [ something like a double hit, wrongly grounding your club, or the ball moving] to apply the two shot penalty and stay in the comp even though the card has been signrd.
this rule is not applicable here because evey action taken by woods was by design, nothing unseen or accidental took place. the fact is he got confused about how to proceed under the rule he was playing to, and actually "invented" a sort of hybrid rule.
he decided to play under penalty of stroke and distance, but didn't follow that rule to the letter,instead he used half of that rule, and half of the "line of entry rule".
the tournament committe have bent over backwards to envoke the new rule in a shabby fudge to keep him in, in sharp contrast i might add to the way they applied the rule to it's draconian worst in order to penalise the chinese kid one shot.
it may seem harsh to some, but that is the way the game is played all over the world, as golfers we are responsible to get it right, if we don't we accept the consequences.
to the bloobi would just just say that there is no anti woods agenda here, and at that level of the game it's not a grey area. these players and caddies know the exact yardage on any shot, and can go back and find the actual divot, thus being in a position to be able to drop within inches of the original shot.
i would suggest the fact that woods then wanted to put another two yards on the shot in order to get the perfect yardage suggests that he thought he was using the rule to his advantage, but he got it wrong.
so did the rules committee.
anyway; off down the golf club now.
i wonder what will be the main topic of discussion over our early morning coffee and brandy
?
it was his failure to proceed correctly with any of the three options he had in the situation he was in.the fact is the way he proceeded merited a two shot penalty.
a further fact is that if he dosen't apply the two shot penalty and signs for the original score he is disqualified.
a rule was brought in last year that enables players who have unknowingly done something in the act of executing a shot, that later comes to light because it was picked up on tv [ something like a double hit, wrongly grounding your club, or the ball moving] to apply the two shot penalty and stay in the comp even though the card has been signrd.
this rule is not applicable here because evey action taken by woods was by design, nothing unseen or accidental took place. the fact is he got confused about how to proceed under the rule he was playing to, and actually "invented" a sort of hybrid rule.
he decided to play under penalty of stroke and distance, but didn't follow that rule to the letter,instead he used half of that rule, and half of the "line of entry rule".
the tournament committe have bent over backwards to envoke the new rule in a shabby fudge to keep him in, in sharp contrast i might add to the way they applied the rule to it's draconian worst in order to penalise the chinese kid one shot.
it may seem harsh to some, but that is the way the game is played all over the world, as golfers we are responsible to get it right, if we don't we accept the consequences.
to the bloobi would just just say that there is no anti woods agenda here, and at that level of the game it's not a grey area. these players and caddies know the exact yardage on any shot, and can go back and find the actual divot, thus being in a position to be able to drop within inches of the original shot.
i would suggest the fact that woods then wanted to put another two yards on the shot in order to get the perfect yardage suggests that he thought he was using the rule to his advantage, but he got it wrong.
so did the rules committee.
anyway; off down the golf club now.
i wonder what will be the main topic of discussion over our early morning coffee and brandy
?
mexicano - you are spot on, and very well put, too, imo
If Woods wasn't already ostracised by the majority of the pro's then this will be the final nail. I cant imagine many of them has remotest sympathy and would want him still in the tournament. But then again, he doesn't give a f**k anyway....
I wonder what the 'suits and tweeds' up in the R&A think about the application of this now infamous rule?
I wonder what the 'suits and tweeds' up in the R&A think about the application of this now infamous rule?
Hey Kitten - just a quick word of thanks to you for kicking off this thread so early yesterday and
before the information was widely broadcast elsewhere.
Had my biggest bet so far this year on Woods before the off. Spotted this thread yesterday at 8am
before I headed out for 18 holes - and but for it alerting me to the danger of Woods being disqualified
I'd have been looking at a much worse position to trade out of my bet by the time I got home.
Personally I can't believe that Tiger wasn't DQ'ed and there's still an outside chance that he will come
back to haunt me today ;-) but was able to trade out while in possession of the facts/risks thanks to
this thread - so only myself to blame if he overturns his "come from behind" on Day4 Hoodoo.
So thanks again and keep up the good work!
before the information was widely broadcast elsewhere.
Had my biggest bet so far this year on Woods before the off. Spotted this thread yesterday at 8am
before I headed out for 18 holes - and but for it alerting me to the danger of Woods being disqualified
I'd have been looking at a much worse position to trade out of my bet by the time I got home.
Personally I can't believe that Tiger wasn't DQ'ed and there's still an outside chance that he will come
back to haunt me today ;-) but was able to trade out while in possession of the facts/risks thanks to
this thread - so only myself to blame if he overturns his "come from behind" on Day4 Hoodoo.
So thanks again and keep up the good work!
Several nails struck on head there by mexicamo
Bloob is right that the refs have looked at it and made a decision, but I think that decision is pretty obviously wrong, and if I’m right and the wrongness is obvious, then you have to ask why … and I think the answer to that has to be because they just didn’t want to DQ Tiger full stop, and they have cobbled together an excuse for not DQing him.
Tiger had three options out on the course.
Drop in drop zone.
Drop as far back as he liked in line with the flag and the last point at which the ball crossed the margin of the hazard.
Drop as near as possible to the point from which he played the original shot.
And the bloob is right, I think, in saying that the rule around that last option needs to be tightened. If you actually drop as near as possible to the point where you hit the last shot, then you would be trying to drop it in your divot, and that would be ridiculous.
Anyway, when they sat down to carry out the first review, and they saw where Tiger went to take his drop, they would have assumed they were looking at a player who was taking the third option. Now if he had, for example, gone back 30 yards in order to give himself a fuller swing, then clearly that would be a breach, or if his original lie had been dramatically downhill and he had gone back 5 yards to get a flatter spot, then clearly that would also be a breach, but he didn’t do either of those things (and in reality if he had tried to do either of those things, I don’t think there would have been anything to review because either the match referee or his caddy would have stepped in and stopped him).
So what the review committee thought they were looking at was a player who was trying to drop as near as possible to the original spot without dropping it in the divot. And they decided that what he had done was ok.
Well you could argue that, you could argue that 2 yards was too far (although it looked less than 2 yards on my tv, and they would have been looking at tv too). But they decided it was ok. So he’s a yard/two yards back from the spot. So what ? He’s disadvantaging himself if anything.
But then Tiger gives a tv interview where it’s clear that he hadn’t been a player trying to drop it as near as possible to where he’d played it from. He had instead been a player who had got the rule mixed up and was deliberately dropping the ball a couple of yards back because he thought he had the option to do that and because he thought it would be to his advantage to do that. That makes it a different ball game. That makes it, no ifs or buts, a two-shot penalty.
So now we have a player who has signed for a wrong score, and that has to be a DQ, unless he can be let off under the rule which they brought in after the Harrington incident. That rule makes a general statement that the committee can waive a DQ in exceptional cases. Is there anything exceptional about this case ? No, there isn’t. It’s a case of a player making an honest mistake (no question of trying to cheat) but clearly breaking a rule. It happens all the time.
That rule also states, more specifically, that the committee can waive the DQ if they are satisfied that the player ‘could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules’. The rule Tiger breached isn’t even an obscure one, and he is probably the best player ever to have swung a club. It isn’t unreasonable to expect him to know this rule.
I think they should have DQ’d him, and when they didn’t, I think he should have helped them out by taking the weekend off.
Bloob is right that the refs have looked at it and made a decision, but I think that decision is pretty obviously wrong, and if I’m right and the wrongness is obvious, then you have to ask why … and I think the answer to that has to be because they just didn’t want to DQ Tiger full stop, and they have cobbled together an excuse for not DQing him.
Tiger had three options out on the course.
Drop in drop zone.
Drop as far back as he liked in line with the flag and the last point at which the ball crossed the margin of the hazard.
Drop as near as possible to the point from which he played the original shot.
And the bloob is right, I think, in saying that the rule around that last option needs to be tightened. If you actually drop as near as possible to the point where you hit the last shot, then you would be trying to drop it in your divot, and that would be ridiculous.
Anyway, when they sat down to carry out the first review, and they saw where Tiger went to take his drop, they would have assumed they were looking at a player who was taking the third option. Now if he had, for example, gone back 30 yards in order to give himself a fuller swing, then clearly that would be a breach, or if his original lie had been dramatically downhill and he had gone back 5 yards to get a flatter spot, then clearly that would also be a breach, but he didn’t do either of those things (and in reality if he had tried to do either of those things, I don’t think there would have been anything to review because either the match referee or his caddy would have stepped in and stopped him).
So what the review committee thought they were looking at was a player who was trying to drop as near as possible to the original spot without dropping it in the divot. And they decided that what he had done was ok.
Well you could argue that, you could argue that 2 yards was too far (although it looked less than 2 yards on my tv, and they would have been looking at tv too). But they decided it was ok. So he’s a yard/two yards back from the spot. So what ? He’s disadvantaging himself if anything.
But then Tiger gives a tv interview where it’s clear that he hadn’t been a player trying to drop it as near as possible to where he’d played it from. He had instead been a player who had got the rule mixed up and was deliberately dropping the ball a couple of yards back because he thought he had the option to do that and because he thought it would be to his advantage to do that. That makes it a different ball game. That makes it, no ifs or buts, a two-shot penalty.
So now we have a player who has signed for a wrong score, and that has to be a DQ, unless he can be let off under the rule which they brought in after the Harrington incident. That rule makes a general statement that the committee can waive a DQ in exceptional cases. Is there anything exceptional about this case ? No, there isn’t. It’s a case of a player making an honest mistake (no question of trying to cheat) but clearly breaking a rule. It happens all the time.
That rule also states, more specifically, that the committee can waive the DQ if they are satisfied that the player ‘could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules’. The rule Tiger breached isn’t even an obscure one, and he is probably the best player ever to have swung a club. It isn’t unreasonable to expect him to know this rule.
I think they should have DQ’d him, and when they didn’t, I think he should have helped them out by taking the weekend off.
Spot on Haventaclue
IMO this is what should of happened
Woods should of asked for a ruling before he dropped, there is an official on every hole as simple "Is it ok for me to do this" would of stopped any of this happening. Most golfers would of done this to be safe, me included.
Anyhow he chose not to and IMO he dropped the ball to his advantage ie 2 yards further back to prevent hitting the flag on the full again. Sorry but in my book that is a no no.
So therefore should be 2 shot penalty when he finished the hole, but Tiger marked for a 6 and signed his score card at end of round.
This 33-7 rule is a bit of a fudge in this situ and IMO Wood's should of DSQ himself after the committee did not.....
But that did not happen and we all move on, if he wins will he be remembered as the pro who won the masters by default?
IMO this is what should of happened
Woods should of asked for a ruling before he dropped, there is an official on every hole as simple "Is it ok for me to do this" would of stopped any of this happening. Most golfers would of done this to be safe, me included.
Anyhow he chose not to and IMO he dropped the ball to his advantage ie 2 yards further back to prevent hitting the flag on the full again. Sorry but in my book that is a no no.
So therefore should be 2 shot penalty when he finished the hole, but Tiger marked for a 6 and signed his score card at end of round.
This 33-7 rule is a bit of a fudge in this situ and IMO Wood's should of DSQ himself after the committee did not.....
But that did not happen and we all move on, if he wins will he be remembered as the pro who won the masters by default?
listening to 5-live
the masters committee member who came up with the ruling is very good drinking buddies with tiger
they were trying to find rules to help the situation
said at no time was DQ even brought up
every little helps
the masters committee member who came up with the ruling is very good drinking buddies with tiger
they were trying to find rules to help the situation
said at no time was DQ even brought up
every little helps
I think Tigers mindset was , "I got screwed by the flagstick , OK these things happen , will replay the shot from within 2 clublengths (standard psychological penalty thinking )" . It looked like a yard behind his divot , cant see he got any advantage and any rule he broke is very fine print .
If I were Tiger I would have no problem with winning the event now , and history would record he won despite suffering 4 pretty unfair penalty shots ( in the realm of actual play ) .
The pros play with different rules to the rest of us , if I were a tour pro I would ask for a ruling every time there was ANY issue , to heck with holding up my fellow competitors or the TV or anything else . When the overall situation , because everyone is doing it , descends to the level of farce , then some sensible application of "no advantage , no undue disadvantage " rules would come about . Until then , every pro should just act dumb / unaware of exact ruling , query every situation , and thumb their noses at everyone .
Its up to those in charge to simplify the rules so that any normal sensible human being knows the parameters . Strange situations will always pop up , but will be few and far between if the initial premise is justice . A lot of the current rules are aimed at cheaters , rather than most of us who just want a level playing field . And a speedy resolution of issues for those who just want to get on with the game .
If I were Tiger I would have no problem with winning the event now , and history would record he won despite suffering 4 pretty unfair penalty shots ( in the realm of actual play ) .
The pros play with different rules to the rest of us , if I were a tour pro I would ask for a ruling every time there was ANY issue , to heck with holding up my fellow competitors or the TV or anything else . When the overall situation , because everyone is doing it , descends to the level of farce , then some sensible application of "no advantage , no undue disadvantage " rules would come about . Until then , every pro should just act dumb / unaware of exact ruling , query every situation , and thumb their noses at everyone .
Its up to those in charge to simplify the rules so that any normal sensible human being knows the parameters . Strange situations will always pop up , but will be few and far between if the initial premise is justice . A lot of the current rules are aimed at cheaters , rather than most of us who just want a level playing field . And a speedy resolution of issues for those who just want to get on with the game .
How can you say the rule he broke is "fine print" ??
It say you can drop it as close to the original position as possible, not closer to the hole.
Dropping it two yards behind the original position on purpose is a clear violation of the rule.
It say you can drop it as close to the original position as possible, not closer to the hole.
Dropping it two yards behind the original position on purpose is a clear violation of the rule.
Don't mean to be rude, Kelly, but you're talking garbage.
The rule that he broke is in very bold print.
Your comment about him not gaining advantage is rubbish. He admitted that he wanted that extra 2 yards, to help him execute the shot in a better fashion. That is gaining an advantage, mentally if nothing else.
None of the penalty shots were unfair. I agree that he was very unlucky to hit the pin, but we all know that he has had plenty of good luck in the past. That's the rub.
Should have been disqualified.
Haven't had a bet on him at all, so I'm not talking from the pocket, unless he goes on to win the thing. I hope that he doesn't.
The rule that he broke is in very bold print.
Your comment about him not gaining advantage is rubbish. He admitted that he wanted that extra 2 yards, to help him execute the shot in a better fashion. That is gaining an advantage, mentally if nothing else.
None of the penalty shots were unfair. I agree that he was very unlucky to hit the pin, but we all know that he has had plenty of good luck in the past. That's the rub.
Should have been disqualified.
Haven't had a bet on him at all, so I'm not talking from the pocket, unless he goes on to win the thing. I hope that he doesn't.
As with all things in this world, it's not the governing bodies that rule, it's the corporates.
The sad thing is that those on the committee will of course expire but the game will go on. The game will pay the price in the long run for their capitulation in the face of corporate pressure. They (the committee) won't care - their job is done, their objective achieved.
Shameful.
The sad thing is that those on the committee will of course expire but the game will go on. The game will pay the price in the long run for their capitulation in the face of corporate pressure. They (the committee) won't care - their job is done, their objective achieved.
Shameful.
There is something very fishy about their statement and decision.
They say at no time was DQ considered, but if not why are they citing Rule whateveritis that allows the player not to be DQ'd?
Cant be both ways, they can and have decided Rule whateveritis is relevant but thats relating to DQ, so they did discuss DQ.
Still stinks, he's in cos he's Tiger, I doubt any other player there would not have been DQ'd.
Whether its corporate, Masters foggies, or media, they made the wrong decision and gives out the wrong message.
They say at no time was DQ considered, but if not why are they citing Rule whateveritis that allows the player not to be DQ'd?
Cant be both ways, they can and have decided Rule whateveritis is relevant but thats relating to DQ, so they did discuss DQ.
Still stinks, he's in cos he's Tiger, I doubt any other player there would not have been DQ'd.
Whether its corporate, Masters foggies, or media, they made the wrong decision and gives out the wrong message.
woods was openly bragging about he still had a clear head and used the rules to repeat the same shot with the same club, power touch etc,inferring other players wouldnt have had the nouse to do the same,unfortunatly he was to clever for his own good,and probably the easiest DQ ever in the pro game
Isn't this deliberately cheating? He deliberately dropped the ball further back so he could play the same shot - in effect his first shot was a practice shot as he knew where the ball would land as he didn't need to adjust his shot as he would have had to do if dropped from the right spot.
This is the second time in a year where he has done something similar and to say he isn't aware of the rules is no defence at all. I haven't really had much of an opinion on Woods but I hope he wins so his career is forever tainted as to my mind it's blatant cheating and favouritism. Would anybody (woods included) be complaining if he had been dq'd?
Isn't this deliberately cheating? He deliberately dropped the ball further back so he could play the same shot - in effect his first shot was a practice shot as he knew where the ball would land as he didn't need to adjust his shot as he would have had to do if dropped from the right spot.
This is the second time in a year where he has done something similar and to say he isn't aware of the rules is no defence at all. I haven't really had much of an opinion on Woods but I hope he wins so his career is forever tainted as to my mind it's blatant cheating and favouritism. Would anybody (woods included) be complaining if he had been dq'd?
Glad it has been of use to a few of you. He was 3.85 when I posted this thread originally.
He broke a rule , but wasn't cheating on purpose.
He just got a little confused in the heath of the moment.
Had his first approach just been to short going directly into the water, his drop would have been fine according to the rule.
He just got a little confused in the heath of the moment.
Had his first approach just been to short going directly into the water, his drop would have been fine according to the rule.
I don't think there's any question of cheating by Woods. He thought he had the option to drop it back, but he was mistaken. It was arguably a bit boastful to go on tv and explain how two yards mattered to him, but he would hardly be so open about what he'd done if he thought there was anything dodgy about it.
no one is accusing woods of cheating
it's how Augusta committee have applied the ruling---not a level playing field--fails the smell test
it's how Augusta committee have applied the ruling---not a level playing field--fails the smell test
The bit i find confusing is why when they viewed the footage did they say it was ok initially?
Either it was 'near enough' to the original spot or it wasn't.
Either it was 'near enough' to the original spot or it wasn't.
mexicano
it's not a technicality that should have seen woods disqualified.
When I say technicality, I am talking about the committee's application of the rules. Some people have a problem with the way that they have applied those rules, resulting in the 2 shot penalty rather than disqualification.
It is a fudge. IMO though, it would be a travesty to have any competitor disqualified for such petty nonsense and it'd reflect badly on the sport, in the same way that docking the Chinese kid a shot for slow play reflects badly on the sport.
I think the correct decision has been made in terms of common sense. Golf should grow up a bit and use proportionate punishments. If this Woods decision sparks that way of thinking, then it's not all bad.
Hand on heart, would you really want any player disqualified for something as trivial as this? Surely a 2-shot penalty is a just enough punishment. It's not as if he's marked himself down a round of 59 and tried to pass it off as kosher. In reality, the ball hitting the pin and going into the drink has cost him 3 shots -- Tiger is a victim of bad luck in that regard!
it's not a technicality that should have seen woods disqualified.
When I say technicality, I am talking about the committee's application of the rules. Some people have a problem with the way that they have applied those rules, resulting in the 2 shot penalty rather than disqualification.
It is a fudge. IMO though, it would be a travesty to have any competitor disqualified for such petty nonsense and it'd reflect badly on the sport, in the same way that docking the Chinese kid a shot for slow play reflects badly on the sport.
I think the correct decision has been made in terms of common sense. Golf should grow up a bit and use proportionate punishments. If this Woods decision sparks that way of thinking, then it's not all bad.
Hand on heart, would you really want any player disqualified for something as trivial as this? Surely a 2-shot penalty is a just enough punishment. It's not as if he's marked himself down a round of 59 and tried to pass it off as kosher. In reality, the ball hitting the pin and going into the drink has cost him 3 shots -- Tiger is a victim of bad luck in that regard!
Might Whites
Think they are suggesting they viewed it and thought ''its there or thereabouts'' so they let it go (probably with the weight that its Tiger in the back of their mind and best not kick up too much of a stink).
With him then admiting he took an extra two yards, this put them in a hole and it was now a definite penalty.
Do we actually know as fact that it was reviewed whilst he was still playing and before his interview?? Anyone? I wouldnt be suprised if this was made up in order to help the process of letting him back in.
I hope he goes on to win it because it will be the most tarnished and cringworthy victory in the history of the game and the masters commitee will get what they deserve for bottling this.
Think they are suggesting they viewed it and thought ''its there or thereabouts'' so they let it go (probably with the weight that its Tiger in the back of their mind and best not kick up too much of a stink).
With him then admiting he took an extra two yards, this put them in a hole and it was now a definite penalty.
Do we actually know as fact that it was reviewed whilst he was still playing and before his interview?? Anyone? I wouldnt be suprised if this was made up in order to help the process of letting him back in.
I hope he goes on to win it because it will be the most tarnished and cringworthy victory in the history of the game and the masters commitee will get what they deserve for bottling this.
that's why I can't understand 2 stroke penalty
if it was first judged --drop was within reasonable distance
if it was first judged --drop was within reasonable distance
the dza..........can i ask if you play the game mate?
I cant disagree that Tiger was a victim of bad luck and in no way did he try cheating, think he just got confused which is understandable in that situation.
The rules of golf and its self regulation by players are what set it apart from other sports and they should be upheld no matter how unlucky or unfortunate a circumstance. He signed for a wrong score after being ignorant to a particular rule. Its as clear a dsq as you are likelly to see. Totally fudged this to keep Tiger in it. Utterly disgracefull.
I cant disagree that Tiger was a victim of bad luck and in no way did he try cheating, think he just got confused which is understandable in that situation.
The rules of golf and its self regulation by players are what set it apart from other sports and they should be upheld no matter how unlucky or unfortunate a circumstance. He signed for a wrong score after being ignorant to a particular rule. Its as clear a dsq as you are likelly to see. Totally fudged this to keep Tiger in it. Utterly disgracefull.
Think his admition he purposely took two yards back, changed the thoughts on 'reasonable distance'.
the important thing to remember is.................the masters rules committee reviewed the drop whilst he was still playing 18 and they were satisfied he had dropped it in the correct place OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE IMPOSED 2 SHOT PENALTY AT END OF ROUND.
However.....after listening to his interview they realised there was a mistake with his drop ( I think he just got the rules muddled up, but thats not the
issue !! )and they then imposed 2 shot penalty rather than DQ as it was their fault they didn't add penalty to his round. Although Tiger made the mistake, they told him there was no problem with the drop, therefore he signed for his score.
Cheating no, ignorant yes, I would like to think they would have done that with other players as well BUT WHO KNOWS ????
Its not the 1st time Masters rules committee have gone against rules of golf. Back in 2009 McIlroy left his ball in bunker after his 1st attempt and then smoothed his footprints. This isnt allowed ( as most golfers know but that rule has now been changed anyway ) but they decided it wasn't in the 'spirit of the game' to DQ him so they didn't even penalise him.
However.....after listening to his interview they realised there was a mistake with his drop ( I think he just got the rules muddled up, but thats not the
issue !! )and they then imposed 2 shot penalty rather than DQ as it was their fault they didn't add penalty to his round. Although Tiger made the mistake, they told him there was no problem with the drop, therefore he signed for his score.
Cheating no, ignorant yes, I would like to think they would have done that with other players as well BUT WHO KNOWS ????
Its not the 1st time Masters rules committee have gone against rules of golf. Back in 2009 McIlroy left his ball in bunker after his 1st attempt and then smoothed his footprints. This isnt allowed ( as most golfers know but that rule has now been changed anyway ) but they decided it wasn't in the 'spirit of the game' to DQ him so they didn't even penalise him.
Ok he's not cheating - why did the former world No 1 for nearly a decade, 1 of the best to ever pick up a club and 'student of the game' deliberately drop the ball 2 yds from where he was supposed to? I presume he is aware not to drop it 2 yds nearer the hole?
WHAT DONE IS DONE.......ANY DEBATING IS POINTLESS......MOVE ON.
The debate is interesting and I don't think it's pointless.
Can I clarify something for flipem (although I'm open to correction myself on this). I don't think anyone has said that the committee reviewed it and then told Tiger before he signed it that his score was ok. I don't think Tiger even knew there was a review.
It isn't up to the committee to get a player's scorecard completed properly. It's up to the player. Sometimes they can spot an infringement and help him out by getting to him before he signs, and sometimes a tv viewer will phone in and trigger them to review an incident (which I think is what happened in this case), but that's not a part of the process, that's just the player getting lucky. The player has responsibility for what he signs for, nobody else.
Incidentally, I agree with what the dza says above. I don't think people should be getting disqualified for something like this which is clearly an honest mistake, and they're getting a good kicking anyway with a 2-shot penalty. However, the rules as they are don't permit what they've done in this case.
Can I clarify something for flipem (although I'm open to correction myself on this). I don't think anyone has said that the committee reviewed it and then told Tiger before he signed it that his score was ok. I don't think Tiger even knew there was a review.
It isn't up to the committee to get a player's scorecard completed properly. It's up to the player. Sometimes they can spot an infringement and help him out by getting to him before he signs, and sometimes a tv viewer will phone in and trigger them to review an incident (which I think is what happened in this case), but that's not a part of the process, that's just the player getting lucky. The player has responsibility for what he signs for, nobody else.
Incidentally, I agree with what the dza says above. I don't think people should be getting disqualified for something like this which is clearly an honest mistake, and they're getting a good kicking anyway with a 2-shot penalty. However, the rules as they are don't permit what they've done in this case.
Apr 14, 2013 -- 1:05PM, flipem wrote:
the important thing to remember is.................the masters rules committee reviewed the drop whilst he was still playing 18 and they were satisfied he had dropped it in the correct place OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE IMPOSED 2 SHOT PENALTY AT END OF ROUND.However.....after listening to his interview they realised there was a mistake with his drop ( I think he just got the rules muddled up, but thats not the issue !! )and they then imposed 2 shot penalty rather than DQ as it was their fault they didn't add penalty to his round. Although Tiger made the mistake, they told him there was no problem with the drop, therefore he signed for his score.Cheating no, ignorant yes, I would like to think they would have done that with other players as well BUT WHO KNOWS ???? Its not the 1st time Masters rules committee have gone against rules of golf. Back in 2009 McIlroy left his ball in bunker after his 1st attempt and then smoothed his footprints. This isnt allowed ( as most golfers know but that rule has now been changed anyway ) but they decided it wasn't in the 'spirit of the game' to DQ him so they didn't even penalise him.
A golf rules committe doesn't have the authority to ignore the rules - they decided that Rory wasn't testing the surface. If they had decided that Tiger's drop was ok as being in the general area of his previous shot that would have been ok as well. But what they did yesterday was say that Woods broke a rule (out of ignorance) signed an incorrect card and allowed him to continue under penalty. There is no rule that allows them to do that.
You cannot change the rules, neither the player nor the committee.
If the rule is bad or wrong then it may get changed at some future R&A/USGA rule review.
But while it is a rule of golf, its a rule, no exceptions, no matter who the player is or who the committee are.
The Masters have shown that they are prepared to ignore the rules of golf in favour of whatever they wish to do in their tournament.
As such the Masters should no longer be considered a major if they arent adhering to the rules of golf.
If the rule is bad or wrong then it may get changed at some future R&A/USGA rule review.
But while it is a rule of golf, its a rule, no exceptions, no matter who the player is or who the committee are.
The Masters have shown that they are prepared to ignore the rules of golf in favour of whatever they wish to do in their tournament.
As such the Masters should no longer be considered a major if they arent adhering to the rules of golf.
if i could be allowed to broaden this a little.
it seems to me that this is typical of the attitude of the peolpe who run the masters.
they do what they want to, they invite who they like, they give exemptions to who they like, they see themselves as something apart or superior to the general game of golf.
i'm pretty sure that this decision would not have been reached in any tournament run by the r&a ,usga,pga, or european tour.
somebody ought to bring these people kicking and screaming into the real world, and make them understand that as far as regulation goes there is a higher authority than the men in green blazers.
it seems to me that this is typical of the attitude of the peolpe who run the masters.
they do what they want to, they invite who they like, they give exemptions to who they like, they see themselves as something apart or superior to the general game of golf.
i'm pretty sure that this decision would not have been reached in any tournament run by the r&a ,usga,pga, or european tour.
somebody ought to bring these people kicking and screaming into the real world, and make them understand that as far as regulation goes there is a higher authority than the men in green blazers.
I wonder if this thread will still be going masters 2013
The sheer logic of what happened stands out.
If committee saw nothing wrong at the time -why a two shot penalty later ?
The bogus penalty is the cowardly substitute for the rule-directed DQ.
Now we have two books - Rules of Golf and Rules of Golf (TW edition)
If committee saw nothing wrong at the time -why a two shot penalty later ?
The bogus penalty is the cowardly substitute for the rule-directed DQ.
Now we have two books - Rules of Golf and Rules of Golf (TW edition)
ffs get with the programe when ,and if they loked they were satisfied alah mclory bunker show that he,d dropped it clse enough,then tiger goes on tv telling the whole world he,d dropped it strategicaly 2v yds away to gain an advantage,then they had to act because it wasnt a random drop close to his previous divot
If it was a viewer who raised the alert in this case -are we to assume that
If it was a viewer who raised the alert in this case -are we to assume that
Jimmy -- no, I don't play golf at all, I am just a casual observer here. I like seeing the best play at anything. So where I come from on all of this is that I think the rule-makers should bend over backwards to keep any competitor in the tournament, unless the cheating is just something ridiculous.
I fully respect the opinions of Mex, yourself and others who think he should be DQ'd, that's just my take on it...an outsider looking in, as it were.
I fully respect the opinions of Mex, yourself and others who think he should be DQ'd, that's just my take on it...an outsider looking in, as it were.
A very interesting thread ...I have to agree with much of what Mex has stated...The bottom line is.... if Woods happens to win the 2013 Masters then this tournament will be tainted for ever.Lets just hope we get a winner from someone who played by the rules...As for Tiger he should have done the right thing and DQ himself...He didn't and weather he likes it or not will now have that black cloud above his head...
dza
i understand the point about keeping the best players playing, but the thing is in golf all men are equals, and i don't think the mob at augusta would have been as benevolent to every player that's there this weekend.
i'm also of the opinion that no player would have got away without a dq in any other tournament in the world.
i know we all dislike the phrase "rules is rules" but the fact is . they are. and they've all we've got.
this is a sporting contest that#s goverened by a set of rules.
if they want to "make it up as they go along in order to keep a big name in the limelight, we might as well drop the sporting pretext, and become part of the entertainment industry.
i understand the point about keeping the best players playing, but the thing is in golf all men are equals, and i don't think the mob at augusta would have been as benevolent to every player that's there this weekend.
i'm also of the opinion that no player would have got away without a dq in any other tournament in the world.
i know we all dislike the phrase "rules is rules" but the fact is . they are. and they've all we've got.
this is a sporting contest that#s goverened by a set of rules.
if they want to "make it up as they go along in order to keep a big name in the limelight, we might as well drop the sporting pretext, and become part of the entertainment industry.
Haventaclue
14 Apr 13 13:49
Joined:
26 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 70 | Blogger: Haventaclue's blog
The debate is interesting and I don't think it's pointless.
Can I clarify something for flipem (although I'm open to correction myself on this). I don't think anyone has said that the committee reviewed it and then told Tiger before he signed it that his score was ok. I don't think Tiger even knew there was a review.
It isn't up to the committee to get a player's scorecard completed properly. It's up to the player. Sometimes they can spot an infringement and help him out by getting to him before he signs, and sometimes a tv viewer will phone in and trigger them to review an incident (which I think is what happened in this case), but that's not a part of the process, that's just the player getting lucky. The player has responsibility for what he signs for, nobody else.
Incidentally, I agree with what the dza says above. I don't think people should be getting disqualified for something like this which is clearly an honest mistake, and they're getting a good kicking anyway with a 2-shot penalty. However, the rules as they are don't permit what they've done in this case.
haventaclue
The reason I said they reviewed it was that at the press conference yesterday shown on BBC the Master rules chairman ( cant remember his name sorry ) said that they reviewed the drop whilst he was playing the 18th and decided it was correct, therefore didnt feel the need to tell Tiger before he signed his card and only realised there was a problem after he had signed and he had said he dropped it 2 clubs back.
I think its an interesting debate but there will be Tiger haters who think he was wrong, the committee were wrong, tigers a cheats etc etc........and tiger lovers who believe it was the right decision.
My own view is that he didn't try and cheat. I believe he got the rules muddled up and took it back on the line of what he thought the correct line was.
I cant believe a player would deliberately cheat and even if you think he did, why would he then say something during the interview ??? Honest mistake imo and correct thing to do is to let him carry on. To have not given a penalty would have been wrong also imo
My own view is that he didn't try and cheat. I believe he got the rules muddled up and took it back on the line of what he thought the correct line was.
I cant believe a player would deliberately cheat and even if you think he did, why would he then say something during the interview ??? Honest mistake imo and correct thing to do is to let him carry on. To have not given a penalty would have been wrong also imo
Honesty don't come into it. An "honest mistake" is still contrary to the rules of golf.
flip
you've got it dead right.
he didn't try and cheat.
but he broke the rules.
the penalty for his breaches are disqualification.
it really is a simple as that.
you've got it dead right.
he didn't try and cheat.
but he broke the rules.
the penalty for his breaches are disqualification.
it really is a simple as that.
I ask again - why did he knowingly drop in the wrong place?
he dropped the ball in the wrong place because he applied a procedure that was relevant for a differn't rule to the one he was proceeding under.
So in certain circumstances (other than obvious hazards) a golfer can knowingly drop the ball in a more advantageous position and without consulting rules/ref/other players? I'm sure golfers up and down the country will be applying this to their rounds safe in the knowledge that they are no longer cheating!
it's a frequent occurance that golfers get free drops and put it in a more advantageous position, whilst adhering to the rules of gold.
do you have a problem understanding that you can inadvertantly break the rules?
do you have a problem understanding that you can inadvertantly break the rules?
Not for the club golfer no but for someone like woods (esp as he was done a few months back for similar) then it is a bit of a problem yes - either way he aint going to win now and with hindsight i bet he wishes he had of walked.
Apr 14, 2013 -- 5:29PM, Vubiant wrote:
If it was a viewer who raised the alert in this case -are we to assume that
Apparently a viewer did phone in immediately after the drop. The supreme irony is that if they hadn't, the committee wouldn't have privately reviewed the drop and their contrived, confused and erroneous reasoning for not disqualifying Tiger would not have been possible.
All that place prize money gone to him. He should donate it to charity.
haventaclue - many thanks for two more very articulate posts above
you and Mexicano are spot on in your analysis and explanation
he should have been DQd and given that he wasn't, he should have walked
you and Mexicano are spot on in your analysis and explanation
he should have been DQd and given that he wasn't, he should have walked
I know that the rules of golf can never be as black and white as they are for a sport like tennis or snooker,but surely the whole can of worms that is the dropped ball in golf is about as grey as it gets.Where the player is required to drop a ball "as near as possible" to where the original ball was played from is a rule that is broken routinely if the player doesnt make every effort to drop the ball right into that nasty divot he made the first time.
Lets face it,everyone tries to avoid the divot,including the pros,by manipulating the drop just a little bit,thereby avoiding a disadvantageous lie.
Surely anybody who ever does this(even if you intended to avoid the divot but still ended up in it) should disqualify themselves in the "true spirit of the game".
Lets face it,everyone tries to avoid the divot,including the pros,by manipulating the drop just a little bit,thereby avoiding a disadvantageous lie.
Surely anybody who ever does this(even if you intended to avoid the divot but still ended up in it) should disqualify themselves in the "true spirit of the game".
What a ridiculous post.
Of course they are not expected to drop the ball into a divot. They are expected to drop it as near as possible to where they originally played from.
The point that you are missing, firstimevisor, is that Tiger openly admitted that he deliberately DID NOT drop as near as possible.
Of course they are not expected to drop the ball into a divot. They are expected to drop it as near as possible to where they originally played from.
The point that you are missing, firstimevisor, is that Tiger openly admitted that he deliberately DID NOT drop as near as possible.
divots (for the pros) are in front of the ball, so if it went in the divot it would be nearer the hole than the first shot and a re-drop would be mandatory.
A terrific thread with,in the main,really well thought out points of view and respect for others views. I have really enjoyed reading the thread over the weekend. My view for whats it worth is this ruling to allow Tiger Woods to remain in the tournament will not do the game of golf any good in the long term . Golf is a game where players of all ability from Pro's to high handicapers respect the rules of the game and abide by them even calling fouls on themselves. Tiger Woods slipped up on Friday and clearly as per the rules of the game should have been DQ. What also disturbs me is the the modern day best player in the world did not DQ himself. This does not provide good example and Woods has gone down in my estimation as a result. I think the bulk of the field would have DQ themselves in that situation.
i'm with you on this sentry and that is the overwhelming consensus amongst everyone I've spoken to EXCEPT, interestingly, the teaching pro at my course out here in Asia and the tour pro he was tuning up this afternoon.
but then I think they are closing ranks!
but then I think they are closing ranks!
Not a good episode for Tiger Woods at all, his standing as someone you could possibly look up to in life had already been shot to pieces & now his standing as a golfer has also been shot down in flames.
it's a diff story USA TV
calling him a hero for being only a few shots back after penalty
calling him a hero for being only a few shots back after penalty
Apr 15, 2013 -- 7:25PM, xmoneyx wrote:
it's a diff story USA TV calling him a hero for being only a few shots back after penalty
well obv given what he does for ratings they don't want the gravy train derailed
Well the Yanks have to close ranks with Tiger , he was the only one of theirs who did not fold .
In this case though , my sympathy is with Tiger . Cost him 4 shots largely because his approach was on the money and hit the flagstick , never mind the psychological minus and the hassle with rules officials / media questions / slurs .
Tiger was a victim in the circumstances , not the role he plays best , but fair is fair , and golf is supposed to be a "fair" game .
In this case though , my sympathy is with Tiger . Cost him 4 shots largely because his approach was on the money and hit the flagstick , never mind the psychological minus and the hassle with rules officials / media questions / slurs .
Tiger was a victim in the circumstances , not the role he plays best , but fair is fair , and golf is supposed to be a "fair" game .
i've heard everything now. victim of circumstances?
not at all. he was unlucky the way events turned out after he hit his shot into 15, but after that he acted outwith the rules of the game on TWO occasions, and according to the rules should have been disqualified.
only a shabby fudge by the masters committee kept him in, and quite frankly if he had any respect for the dignity of the game he should have walked.
. victim of circumstances?not at all. he was unlucky the way events turned out after he hit his shot into 15, but after that he acted outwith the rules of the game on TWO occasions, and according to the rules should have been disqualified.
only a shabby fudge by the masters committee kept him in, and quite frankly if he had any respect for the dignity of the game he should have walked.
The overall concept of the rules of golf is that they supposedly are designed to be fair .
If Tiger gained any advantage from his drop on the 15th , I am a monkeys uncle . Dont forget he just suffered stroke and distance from hitting the flagstick , dont think I have ever seen that before .
So to be fair , which the current rules are obviously not given that nearly everybody accepts Tiger broke the "rules" , Tiger has to have our sympathy , not that he needs it , he is tough enough to put this behind him and draw from it .
Its the rules and their application which are under scrutiny in this incident , and reflect badly on them rather than Tiger . The fact that the rules are so complicated and sometimes devoid of common sense and natural justice is a lifetime complaint of mine . This is just another example , where anyone with a bit of common sense would say " OK tough , stroke and distance , replay , not nearer the hole ,and points of entry etc are of no consequence in the general scheme of things " .
If officialdom and TV and people around the world are going to sit on judgement on every shot anybody plays anywhere on the course , the players are going to react by sending for an official if they sneeze while addressing the ball and have to clarify it with everybody in case someone says his sneeze affected the ball position . That is a reductio ad absurdum , but sometimes you have to apply dumb propositions to get people to see sense . In the situation that now pertains on the pro golf circuit , I know if I were playing on it I would be bringing out a seat with me , knowing I was going to insist on a ruling every time there was even a 1 % chance I might get penalised even though I thought I knew the rules .
The rules of golf booklet which sits in front of my computer screen has 208 pages in it , most of it fairly small print . Very few people know all the rules , particularly for the unforeseen circumstances . And dont forget , very few golfers have the luxury of being able to send for a ruling in their normal day to day play .
If you want to visit a situation where a player has benefitted from a fairly obvious malpractice and not done the right thing , suggest you dial into Sir Nicks match against Graham Marsh at Wentworth many years back . That was a real ugly scar on the spirit of the game of golf .
If Tiger gained any advantage from his drop on the 15th , I am a monkeys uncle . Dont forget he just suffered stroke and distance from hitting the flagstick , dont think I have ever seen that before .
So to be fair , which the current rules are obviously not given that nearly everybody accepts Tiger broke the "rules" , Tiger has to have our sympathy , not that he needs it , he is tough enough to put this behind him and draw from it .
Its the rules and their application which are under scrutiny in this incident , and reflect badly on them rather than Tiger . The fact that the rules are so complicated and sometimes devoid of common sense and natural justice is a lifetime complaint of mine . This is just another example , where anyone with a bit of common sense would say " OK tough , stroke and distance , replay , not nearer the hole ,and points of entry etc are of no consequence in the general scheme of things " .
If officialdom and TV and people around the world are going to sit on judgement on every shot anybody plays anywhere on the course , the players are going to react by sending for an official if they sneeze while addressing the ball and have to clarify it with everybody in case someone says his sneeze affected the ball position . That is a reductio ad absurdum , but sometimes you have to apply dumb propositions to get people to see sense . In the situation that now pertains on the pro golf circuit , I know if I were playing on it I would be bringing out a seat with me , knowing I was going to insist on a ruling every time there was even a 1 % chance I might get penalised even though I thought I knew the rules .
The rules of golf booklet which sits in front of my computer screen has 208 pages in it , most of it fairly small print . Very few people know all the rules , particularly for the unforeseen circumstances . And dont forget , very few golfers have the luxury of being able to send for a ruling in their normal day to day play .
If you want to visit a situation where a player has benefitted from a fairly obvious malpractice and not done the right thing , suggest you dial into Sir Nicks match against Graham Marsh at Wentworth many years back . That was a real ugly scar on the spirit of the game of golf .
You must be a monkey's uncle then, Kelly.
Of course he gained an advantage. He dropped the ball 2 yards back, thinking that he could hit a better shot, What is that if it's not gaining an advantage ?
And don't say a monkey's auntie.
Of course he gained an advantage. He dropped the ball 2 yards back, thinking that he could hit a better shot, What is that if it's not gaining an advantage ?
And don't say a monkey's auntie.
It was Tiger himself who first mentioned the two yards and how he had done that deliberately to help him rectify the small error he made with the first shot, so yes, he sought to gain an adavantage, and as far as he's concerned he got an advantage.
I agree with Kelly though that the rules aren't fair. Tiger made an honest mistake and gained a very small (imo) advantage. A two-shot penalty was plenty stiff enough. Why go around disqualifying people who have made honest mistakes when you can mete out a more than adequate punishment by adding a shot or two ?
But that's for the future. For now, he should have been DQ'd, and when he wasn't, I think he should have walked.
I agree with Kelly though that the rules aren't fair. Tiger made an honest mistake and gained a very small (imo) advantage. A two-shot penalty was plenty stiff enough. Why go around disqualifying people who have made honest mistakes when you can mete out a more than adequate punishment by adding a shot or two ?
But that's for the future. For now, he should have been DQ'd, and when he wasn't, I think he should have walked.
hav
with you there one hundred mph.
but to kelly i will say that it wasn't ignorance of the rules that caused woods to make his first mistake. it was confusion as to what he was doing. this was compounded by the additional rule re the scorecard.
all the rules of golf were drafted for very good reason, and the vast majority of the time they work perfectly well. sometimes their is "collatteral damage" wher people who are not trying to cheat can find themselves disqualified because of a genuine mistake, but such cases ar few and far between.
if you want to start talking about a less rigid approach, and a degree of understanding, then the door is open to interpretation and a lack of consistency.
but as far as this situation is concerned hav's last sentence hits the nail on the head imo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's for the future. For now, he should have been DQ'd, and when he wasn't, I think he should have walked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
with you there one hundred mph.
but to kelly i will say that it wasn't ignorance of the rules that caused woods to make his first mistake. it was confusion as to what he was doing. this was compounded by the additional rule re the scorecard.
all the rules of golf were drafted for very good reason, and the vast majority of the time they work perfectly well. sometimes their is "collatteral damage" wher people who are not trying to cheat can find themselves disqualified because of a genuine mistake, but such cases ar few and far between.
if you want to start talking about a less rigid approach, and a degree of understanding, then the door is open to interpretation and a lack of consistency.
but as far as this situation is concerned hav's last sentence hits the nail on the head imo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's for the future. For now, he should have been DQ'd, and when he wasn't, I think he should have walked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Maggot , if dropping the ball a yard behind your original divot mark is gaining advantage , I am a monkeys auntie . Tiger obviously wanted to replicate his original shot , minus a yard , so added a yard . He still had to hit the shot , it was not as if he could recalibrate the club/ shot like a computer game scenario . That he hit an inch perfect shot pin high , 3 feet away is a tribute to his accuracy , but I have NEVER ever seen anyone able to hit exactly the same shot with the same degree of spin etc 2 shots in a row from 87 yards , so it was 2 different shots . The mind application to the procedure can be debated .
Tiger got mixed up between the line of entry and the difference in the rules for differing definitions of water hazards . In Tigers minds eye he crossed the hazard exactly in line with the flagstick ( which he hit ) , the ball finished in the hazard , albeit via a circuitous route which he would not have actually seen . Tiger was dropping back in line with the hole/ flagstick , with no limit on where the ball was dropped as long as it was in line with the original shot , and not nearer the hole . He could have walked back to the tee to replay the shot if it fulfilled the "line criteria .
That he was breaking a rule is not in doubt , it is the rule and the subsequent penalty( ies) and the non application of common sense I have issue with . Tigers main error was that he didnt ask for a rules official , he just wanted to get on with the game .
Glad that Adam and Angel finished 4 shots ahead of Tiger , if they had only been 1 ahead the scenario in retrospect might have detracted from Adams triumph .
Tiger got mixed up between the line of entry and the difference in the rules for differing definitions of water hazards . In Tigers minds eye he crossed the hazard exactly in line with the flagstick ( which he hit ) , the ball finished in the hazard , albeit via a circuitous route which he would not have actually seen . Tiger was dropping back in line with the hole/ flagstick , with no limit on where the ball was dropped as long as it was in line with the original shot , and not nearer the hole . He could have walked back to the tee to replay the shot if it fulfilled the "line criteria .
That he was breaking a rule is not in doubt , it is the rule and the subsequent penalty( ies) and the non application of common sense I have issue with . Tigers main error was that he didnt ask for a rules official , he just wanted to get on with the game .
Glad that Adam and Angel finished 4 shots ahead of Tiger , if they had only been 1 ahead the scenario in retrospect might have detracted from Adams triumph .
kelly
you're wrong on a very important point.
he looked at the droppin zone. discounted that.
he looked at his line of entry option , discarded that.
he then elected to proceed under the penalty of stroke and distance. but [and here's the nub]. he proceeded not in accordance with that rule, but in accordance with the point of entry rule.
in his mind he was not dropping in line with the point of entry.
he got it wrong by applying one rules procedure, to a totally differn't rule.
for some reason he got it into his head that if he applied the stroke and distance penalty he could go back as far as he liked. which we all know is not the case.
you're wrong on a very important point.
he looked at the droppin zone. discounted that.
he looked at his line of entry option , discarded that.
he then elected to proceed under the penalty of stroke and distance. but [and here's the nub]. he proceeded not in accordance with that rule, but in accordance with the point of entry rule.
in his mind he was not dropping in line with the point of entry.
he got it wrong by applying one rules procedure, to a totally differn't rule.
for some reason he got it into his head that if he applied the stroke and distance penalty he could go back as far as he liked. which we all know is not the case.
Whatever about the thinking process which Tiger went through on the 15th , and the subsequent "investigation" , the fact that emerged at the end of the day , whether you call it a fudge or not , the "committee" reached a common sense decision . No one wants to see the world no 1 kicked out of a Major on a technicality . The 2 shot penalty for playing from the wrong spot is correct and a 2 shot penalty a meet punishment , fits the "crime" .
Mind you if you compare Tigers offence with other sports , its not as if he kicked anyone up in the air or indulged in eye gouging or a spear tackle . He did the equivalent of taking a throw in from the wrong spot .
That people label him a cheat and want him to walk out of a tournament amazes me . Can you see Wayne Rooney walking off because he was guilty of taking a free kick from the wrong spot when the refs back was turned ? Pro golf is a busines based around a sporting pastime , the general public lose interest very quickly if they see injustice or inconsequential rules dreamed up by those in charge . And with the already bad publicity associated with penalising a 14 year old kid for slow play already in the headlines , golf did not need another contentious decision , throwing out the best golfer in the world and diminishing interest in the event . Betfair certainly did not want Tiger out , they know the figures .
The pros play under different rules to most of us , fair enough . I think they may reach the stage where they reserve the right to interpret the rules to the advantage initially of the players ( who are after all trying to earn a living --some at the bottom of that food chain on various tours do not get it easy financially -- ) , and then to the advantage of the tour in general , and sponsors who largely pay for the operation . Where that leaves us all would be problematic , but if we amateurs had simpler rules it should help to speed up play , which is the bane of most golf clubs these days . When I started playing golf , anything over 3 and a half hours for a round was considered out of order . The courses arent that much longer nowadays , and the older guys have buggies , but now its a 5 hour job .
Mind you if you compare Tigers offence with other sports , its not as if he kicked anyone up in the air or indulged in eye gouging or a spear tackle . He did the equivalent of taking a throw in from the wrong spot .
That people label him a cheat and want him to walk out of a tournament amazes me . Can you see Wayne Rooney walking off because he was guilty of taking a free kick from the wrong spot when the refs back was turned ? Pro golf is a busines based around a sporting pastime , the general public lose interest very quickly if they see injustice or inconsequential rules dreamed up by those in charge . And with the already bad publicity associated with penalising a 14 year old kid for slow play already in the headlines , golf did not need another contentious decision , throwing out the best golfer in the world and diminishing interest in the event . Betfair certainly did not want Tiger out , they know the figures .
The pros play under different rules to most of us , fair enough . I think they may reach the stage where they reserve the right to interpret the rules to the advantage initially of the players ( who are after all trying to earn a living --some at the bottom of that food chain on various tours do not get it easy financially -- ) , and then to the advantage of the tour in general , and sponsors who largely pay for the operation . Where that leaves us all would be problematic , but if we amateurs had simpler rules it should help to speed up play , which is the bane of most golf clubs these days . When I started playing golf , anything over 3 and a half hours for a round was considered out of order . The courses arent that much longer nowadays , and the older guys have buggies , but now its a 5 hour job .
kelly
one persons common sense decision, is another person saying that the committe failed to follow the rulus.
they were very keen to enforce them to the draconian limit regarding the chinese kid, but bent over backwards to find a rule that was "sort of"applicable in this situation and wrongly applied it in order to keep woods in.
this was a sporting contest, and as such has to be run in accordance with the rules.
if you think they are wrong and require amendment that is a totally differnt debate.
but yes, it was a shabby fudge, and did the game no credit.
one persons common sense decision, is another person saying that the committe failed to follow the rulus.
they were very keen to enforce them to the draconian limit regarding the chinese kid, but bent over backwards to find a rule that was "sort of"applicable in this situation and wrongly applied it in order to keep woods in.
this was a sporting contest, and as such has to be run in accordance with the rules.
if you think they are wrong and require amendment that is a totally differnt debate.
but yes, it was a shabby fudge, and did the game no credit.
Agree Mexicano apropos the rules , needed bending in Tigers case , which they did . Sensible enough in the overall circumstances in my book .
But the draconian enforcement involving the Chinese 14 year old left a bad taste in a lot of mouths , even the players were tweeting to that effect . We all see the slow players , one of my countrymen isn't the fastest out there , but he does it with a smile so he gets a bye ball most times . But when Tiger sits on a chair for 30 minutes in the middle of his round and it takes 6 hours to play a round , 10 second over runs are irrelevant in the general scheme of a days play .
I know he was warned , and his english is a heck of a lot better than most of us in mandarin , but assimilating the information and reacting when the world is watching , and playing brilliantly in between , surely he deserved Nelsons blind eye , none of his fellow players were complaining .
But the draconian enforcement involving the Chinese 14 year old left a bad taste in a lot of mouths , even the players were tweeting to that effect . We all see the slow players , one of my countrymen isn't the fastest out there , but he does it with a smile so he gets a bye ball most times . But when Tiger sits on a chair for 30 minutes in the middle of his round and it takes 6 hours to play a round , 10 second over runs are irrelevant in the general scheme of a days play .
I know he was warned , and his english is a heck of a lot better than most of us in mandarin , but assimilating the information and reacting when the world is watching , and playing brilliantly in between , surely he deserved Nelsons blind eye , none of his fellow players were complaining .
Not a shred of doubt in my mind if that ball never hits the pin and spins back Tiger would have won that tournament.
agreed Rhino, i was sitting pretty with a massive green on woods, my face lit up when the ball was on approach, was thinking certain birdy then heard it hitting pin then groans from the gallery. i was gutted it took the wind right out of his sails
My opinion is that ball would have gone out the back and possibly into the water.
Ah, the good auld days... 
It might be a different scenario in Match Play (should he need a drop against a European player for instance)
Mighty Whites 2008 • December 5, 2018 6:23 PM GMT
eight ball an article from 2013
Woods has won five times this year but arguably more striking than that statistic are the four separate occasions in which his actions have attracted scrutiny. The latest arrived on Friday at the BMW Championship in Chicago, where Woods was retrospectively punished two shots after TV evidence showed his ball moved as Woods attended to some nearby foliage, well off the 1st green. The PGA Tour, intriguingly, was not slow to publicise footage of the incident. Make no mistake, the ball move was blatant. Woods's brief pause after touching a pine cone was also noticeable.
Even after witnessing that tape, Woods refused to accept the ball had moved. Which makes this case a clear exception to golfing normality. Rather, he insisted it had oscillated, as would be within the rules.
To be fair to the waiting media, when they were eventually permitted a chance to question Woods over the affair – a day later – he was handed a decent grilling. All too often, questions posed towards golfers involve the loft of their five iron or spin-rate of bunker shots.
But still, Woods was unrepentant. He said: "The one at Augusta after going through it on Saturday morning, yeah, I did take the wrong drop. But yesterday I didn't feel like I did anything, and as I said, I described it in there and I said: 'I moved the pine cone right behind my ball.'
"I feel like the ball oscillated, and I just left it. Evidently it wasn't enough."
The point was repeated, and repeated. No mea culpa, quite the opposite.
The Augusta incident to which Woods refers saw him again punished two shots for taking an incorrect drop after his ball found a water hazard. Woods's arrogance, in publicly pointing out that he could control a shot to the tune of two yards second time round, played a part in his undoing.
In what was an embarrassing episode for the Masters, those running the tournament accepted the blame for not bringing the matter to Woods's attention immediately after the completion of his second round. Again, TV was key here but the issue of how infractions come to light should not detract from the bigger issue of why they have taken place at all.
It was debatable whether or not Woods should have been allowed to continue in that major. Many believed he should simply have withdrawn. The suspicion that his importance – not least to television companies – in the context of the event rendered either scenario impossible was hard to ignore.
There's more. Woods's year had started with the ignominy of a missed cut in a European Tour event in Abu Dhabi after he wrongly took a "free" drop in round two and, therefore, incurred a two-stroke sanction. Woods had the consolation of a $3m (£1.9m) appearance fee when departing the United Arab Emirates but the feeling resonated that he should have queried himself to a heavier degree before taking free relief from a sanded area through the green. As should his playing partner, Martin Kaymer, who okayed the drop.
A quadruple spell of controversy is completed with a glance back to the Players Championship in May. Woods gained unwanted attention, if not incurring a penalty, on account of a drop taken after his shot found water from the 14th tee at Sawgrass.
Placed in isolation, any of the above would afford Woods negative attention. Together, they form an unfortunate sub-plot to a year which has otherwise been categorised by the 37-year-old's inability to end his major drought despite routine brilliance elsewhere.
There are those who remain quick to denigrate both the game of golf and Woods himself at any available opportunity. Golf is treated as a chummy closed shop by its' critics and Woods's public profile will never recover from the misdemeanours which wrecked both his marriage and place in American sporting hearts. Yet even through that, his integrity when at his place of work was never subject to question.
Woods famously insisted he didn't "get to play by different rules" in 2010 in relation to his personal life. In the context of his golfing life, it is safe to say 2013 has now been overshadowed by a clutch of instances in which the finest player of a golfing generation should have known better.
eight ball • December 6, 2018 2:56 AM GMT
Fair enough MW. Seems like lot's of ammunition perhaps I could have said compared to certain well known violations from 2 particular past Majors Winners.
I still can't deviate from my original reply to fullback about the incident at the Hero, and after much discussion and reviewing by the Rules committee they rightly gave the decision of No penalty.
fullback • December 7, 2018 8:33 AM GMT
Eight ball, you need tablets. M.W. didn't make that litany of cheating up and that's only for one year.
He's a CHEAT now, always was and forever will be. End of story.
There are two well known pearls of wisdom that describe your attitude to the 'spitter'
"There are none so blind as those who don't wish to see" .....and "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still"
Have a nice day.
It might be a different scenario in Match Play (should he need a drop against a European player for instance)
Mighty Whites 2008 • December 5, 2018 6:23 PM GMT
eight ball an article from 2013
Woods has won five times this year but arguably more striking than that statistic are the four separate occasions in which his actions have attracted scrutiny. The latest arrived on Friday at the BMW Championship in Chicago, where Woods was retrospectively punished two shots after TV evidence showed his ball moved as Woods attended to some nearby foliage, well off the 1st green. The PGA Tour, intriguingly, was not slow to publicise footage of the incident. Make no mistake, the ball move was blatant. Woods's brief pause after touching a pine cone was also noticeable.
Even after witnessing that tape, Woods refused to accept the ball had moved. Which makes this case a clear exception to golfing normality. Rather, he insisted it had oscillated, as would be within the rules.
To be fair to the waiting media, when they were eventually permitted a chance to question Woods over the affair – a day later – he was handed a decent grilling. All too often, questions posed towards golfers involve the loft of their five iron or spin-rate of bunker shots.
But still, Woods was unrepentant. He said: "The one at Augusta after going through it on Saturday morning, yeah, I did take the wrong drop. But yesterday I didn't feel like I did anything, and as I said, I described it in there and I said: 'I moved the pine cone right behind my ball.'
"I feel like the ball oscillated, and I just left it. Evidently it wasn't enough."
The point was repeated, and repeated. No mea culpa, quite the opposite.
The Augusta incident to which Woods refers saw him again punished two shots for taking an incorrect drop after his ball found a water hazard. Woods's arrogance, in publicly pointing out that he could control a shot to the tune of two yards second time round, played a part in his undoing.
In what was an embarrassing episode for the Masters, those running the tournament accepted the blame for not bringing the matter to Woods's attention immediately after the completion of his second round. Again, TV was key here but the issue of how infractions come to light should not detract from the bigger issue of why they have taken place at all.
It was debatable whether or not Woods should have been allowed to continue in that major. Many believed he should simply have withdrawn. The suspicion that his importance – not least to television companies – in the context of the event rendered either scenario impossible was hard to ignore.
There's more. Woods's year had started with the ignominy of a missed cut in a European Tour event in Abu Dhabi after he wrongly took a "free" drop in round two and, therefore, incurred a two-stroke sanction. Woods had the consolation of a $3m (£1.9m) appearance fee when departing the United Arab Emirates but the feeling resonated that he should have queried himself to a heavier degree before taking free relief from a sanded area through the green. As should his playing partner, Martin Kaymer, who okayed the drop.
A quadruple spell of controversy is completed with a glance back to the Players Championship in May. Woods gained unwanted attention, if not incurring a penalty, on account of a drop taken after his shot found water from the 14th tee at Sawgrass.
Placed in isolation, any of the above would afford Woods negative attention. Together, they form an unfortunate sub-plot to a year which has otherwise been categorised by the 37-year-old's inability to end his major drought despite routine brilliance elsewhere.
There are those who remain quick to denigrate both the game of golf and Woods himself at any available opportunity. Golf is treated as a chummy closed shop by its' critics and Woods's public profile will never recover from the misdemeanours which wrecked both his marriage and place in American sporting hearts. Yet even through that, his integrity when at his place of work was never subject to question.
Woods famously insisted he didn't "get to play by different rules" in 2010 in relation to his personal life. In the context of his golfing life, it is safe to say 2013 has now been overshadowed by a clutch of instances in which the finest player of a golfing generation should have known better.
eight ball • December 6, 2018 2:56 AM GMT
Fair enough MW. Seems like lot's of ammunition perhaps I could have said compared to certain well known violations from 2 particular past Majors Winners.
I still can't deviate from my original reply to fullback about the incident at the Hero, and after much discussion and reviewing by the Rules committee they rightly gave the decision of No penalty.
fullback • December 7, 2018 8:33 AM GMT
Eight ball, you need tablets. M.W. didn't make that litany of cheating up and that's only for one year.
He's a CHEAT now, always was and forever will be. End of story.
There are two well known pearls of wisdom that describe your attitude to the 'spitter'
"There are none so blind as those who don't wish to see" .....and "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still"
Have a nice day.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539