Golf
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 1223 comments are related to the topic:
Woods could be disqualified!
Woods could be disqualified!
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 1,223
|
By:
dean what racism???
|
|
By:
The fact that there is no explicitly stated distance is largely irrelevent. If someone had intended to play from the same spot, but for whatever reason inadvertantly played from 2 yards away then that's a different kettle of fish (and perhaps a scenario where the lack of explicit distance could be a factor).
Tiger has deliberately (all be it unaware of the rule breach) dropped it in a place to improve his next shot. If there is no DQ here then the rule can be scrapped and they need to add 'go back as far as you want from the original position' |
|
By:
at least it's not a hillbilly station
 |
|
By:
I have a feeling their going to bottle it on this decision
 |
|
By:
* there
 |
|
By:
DQ tiger woods, not a chance in hell
|
|
By:
i dont have any money on tiger but love the guy so i'd say im pretty neutral - cant see how he will get let off. hes told the world that he took it 2 yards back so he could hit the same shot and it would be perfect. hes therefore gained an advantage going 2 yards back. its a rule break, signed a poor card. straight forward DQ.
|
|
By:
As if Tiger would ever get DQd from a major... engage brain people.
|
|
By:
DQ anyone else, no problem
|
|
By:
stake theyre
 |
|
By:
Im delighted with that all that scaremongering. Got a tasty 7.0 on Tiger
|
|
By:
What is the precedent for the rule "as close as possible to the original position?"
1mm, 1cm, 1m, 2m, 5m, 10m, 20m, 50m, 100m? |
|
By:
here he comes!
|
|
By:
You did not fancy the 8.2 Paul ?
|
|
By:
5.2 says hes fine..move on
|
|
By:
NoBetVictor say they will refund if he is out
|
|
By:
5.3
|
|
By:
if he was 14 he'd be gwoken up and thrown out of his hotel room..
|
|
By:
hes approaching the price i thought he would be when i woke up 4.4ish
|
|
By:
actually VC were offering refunds if Tiger or Rory won it, so no Tiger is prob a good position for them
|
|
By:
at last.....up for discussion after the break!
|
|
By:
I backed him pre tourny but only for 60 quid, not enough to bother laying off or get involved again. Just want him not dq'd!
|
|
By:
lol trust victor, wait till it looks like hes safe then announce that
|
|
By:
best ramping thread in the history of the golf forum imo
|
|
By:
*they're
|
|
By:
Once again the rules of golf are interfering with players attempts to do their best .
The young Chinese cub , who is despite his maturity only a 14 year old , is in the media eye , probably every golf fan in China was missing sleep in the thrill of the performance . And everybody was playing slowly , Tiger sat on a chair for 30 minutes in the middle of his round . I know rules are rules , but where does common sense not allow an overrule . Thats one of the issues I have with the rules of golf , sometimes they are not sensible , having been written largely over a century or more ago . Likewise Tigers situation , and we have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous , one end of the rules involves the youngest player in the history of the masters , and the other one involves possibly the best player who will ever have played the game . Tiger I assumed suffered because his shot struck the flagstick . I have always held the opinion that if a ball strikes the flagstick , the player should have the option of replaying the shot from as near as possible to the original lie , not nearer the hole . The logic behind my view is that the flagstick is purely a visual indicator of where the hole is and is not meant to interfere with play . In the old days of wooden flagsticks , Tigers ball would not have finished in the drink , technology though now decrees metal flagsticks which were not part of the game when most of the rules were written . Just another example of the rules needing a closer bit of scrutiny and the application of common sense .The rules re spectator interfernce also need to be revisited , can think of at least 2 occasions where spectators ( allegedly) interfered with a ball in play to the benefit of the player and to the detriment of an opponent / opponents . Sir Nick was one of those , and there was visual evidence in the form of TV covergae , watched it at the time . Plus ball in the soup saga . Plus more recent happenings . Back to Tiger , at the time I assumed he was under a penalty situation , so traditionally was allowed to replay from within a 2 club measurement from his original lie , which he did . Alternatively rules would allow him to go back as far as he wanted along the line of entry , but line of entry / crossing the hazard / finishing up in the hazard via flagstick interference involves Euclid and geometry and "gaining an advantage " , the latter seeming impossibly cruel in the circumstances . No interest myself whether or not Tiger gets scrubbed , but if he does , golf once again would seem to be treading the "disrepute" route , and would not be adding to anyones enjoyment of the masters , just leave a second bad taste in the mouth . |
|
By:
Even if he is not DQ he will withdraw .. he knows the score
|
|
By:
I was DQ'd from Victor Chandler for having the audacity to win a few quid, absolutely shocking bookmaker.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
love-radio newyork
on now Tee time with the pro will keep you updated |
|
By:
will keep you updated
Will you update us first, or bet first? |
|
By:
seriously is this a big issue? is it actually being reviewed or is it just pure speculation by some media outlets? just that some parts of the media arent even discussing it
|
|
By:
xmoneyx, is this online? and if, do you have link?
|
|
By:
Calm down "Calm down!" He will DQ his self so get your laying boots on ... money for old clog irons !
[ |
|
By:
drifting again
|
|
By:
Nothing about it on the Masters website, PGA or Golf Channel sites
It's as if it's only a story in the UK |
|
By:
yeah drifting to 6.6 hmmm
|
|
By:
and back under 6.0
|