Golf
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
13 Apr 13
17:03
Joined:
Date Joined:
22 Jun 02
- THE RULES STATE he made an illegal drop, therefore a 2-shot penalty.
- THE RULES STATE he signed his scorecard incorrectly, which means a DQ.
- THE RULES STATE that ignorance of the rules is not a valid reason for waiving a DQ.
- DO THE RULES STATE that if the officials have reviewed something on TV and deemed it ok, then later changed their minds due to new information, that this is a valid reason to waive a DQ?
If yes then fine. If not then DQ. Sounds fairly simple to me?
- THE RULES STATE he signed his scorecard incorrectly, which means a DQ.
- THE RULES STATE that ignorance of the rules is not a valid reason for waiving a DQ.
- DO THE RULES STATE that if the officials have reviewed something on TV and deemed it ok, then later changed their minds due to new information, that this is a valid reason to waive a DQ?
If yes then fine. If not then DQ. Sounds fairly simple to me?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 47
|
By:
i think if he was consulted before he signed card its ok for him to stay, if it came to light after and then first ruling was he was in the wrong then DQ is applicable
|
|
By:
He wasnt consulted before signing the card. The officials say that they were made aware of the problem by a tv viewer before tiger played the 18th. They reviewed the footage and decided there was no case to answer. They subsequently reviewed it again after the round finished and changed their minds.
Tiger met with them this morning and it was decided that a 2 shot penalty was in order. |
|
By:
He says he was not consulted.
|
|
By:
I called them
|
|
By:
hmm well in that case it seems a bit more dodgy to me....
|
|
By:
If after the round it was reviewed and the committee said that there was no infringement and subsequently woods signed his card then it would be harsh to dq him. Infact he probably has a case for claiming their should be no penalty either.
Why they didn't pick up it i dont understand it is pretty straightforward. If Woods just signed for his round presuming he had done nothing wrong then he should have been DQ. The review for Tv is a non starter for me as it wasn't an unknown e.g. double hit, it was a rules infraction. |
|
By:
What it really hinges on is his admission that he moved the ball to gain an advantage.
If he had said nothing there would have been no problem. The whole thing is a bit of a fiasco and it's overshadowed the whole tournamnet. Pity. |
|
By:
again MW spot on
|
|
By:
I think it would be different IF Tiger had consulted an official and said "look, I may have broken the rules on 15, can you check for me"? And the official said no penalty and he signed his card under that assumption.
But that didn't happen, some viewer phoned in and they watched the footage and negated to consult Tiger. For me that's equivalent to nobody having phoned in the first place. Tiger signed his card thinking it was a correct score, it wasn't because he broke the rules to gain an advantage. DQ. |
|
By:
Woods states that he was only told they had reviewed it and deemed it ok when he met with them today.
i.e. they had a look yesterday but didn't tell him. So he did not sign it in the knowledge they had deemed no infringement. |
|
By:
If they didn't speak to him and he just signed i agree Knigh Rider is a DQ
The rules committee here have had a nightmare. Either they didn't know the rules or they reviewed it and wrongly thought it was ok. Subsequently they have bottled the big decision. |
|
By:
yep should be DQ if thats the case. bottled it
|
|
By:
Cant believe this is even being debated. However harsh it seems its a clear disqualification.
He should do the decent thing and walk. |
|
By:
had tiger not stated he took it back two yards then i doubt there would be a penalty at all
therefore its a dq isnt it i dont think he did much wrong to be honest, nothing we all havnt done, well perhaps within a clublength, but you dont want the ball falling into the divot , do you |
|
By:
Im not really sure on this Tv ruling but had the TV viewer not phoned in then it would have never been brought up as neither his playing partner nor anyone around 15 seem to have noticed nor did the tv or radio crews yesterday.
Whether this is what the rule covers im not sure. I presume Woods has taken what he thought was a line of sight drop forgetting in the confusion that his ball came back off the flag changing the line of sight drop. |
|
By:
I think TW thought he was entitled to go back as far as he liked and has in essence got the rules confused. That's not sufficient to avoid a DQ.....very lucky man but not surpised.
|
|
By:
Some players would drop it close to the divot knowing it would run forward twice and get to place it, I have always claimed that the ball is closer to the hole if it finishes in the divot because the divot should be ahead of where the ball was.
|
|
By:
MW2008 i still think that he must be disqualified
he deliberately gained an advantage by not complying with the rules it is immaterial whether he knew what he was doing or not-he broke the rules and signed for a wrong score |
|
By:
I agree sewter.
Technically it comes down to whether this Tv rule gives im a get out jail card. It is a mess and leaves a sour taste. |
|
By:
no mighty whites he didnt take line of sight as the ball span back at an angle and entered the hazard on a different
line, so he went back to replay the shot line of sight would have put him more or less in the crowd, and he didnt fancy the drop zone ( as reported) |
|
By:
I wonder whether he just forgot it had rebounded of the flag. His head must have been scrambled after what happened and he paced around a little.
I don't think he was deliberately breaking the rule to gain an advantage. If he had why would he have said what he did in the press conference. |
|
By:
he should have been dqd
wrecked tournament now - if he wins it will be tainted (i suspect he will struggle to play well now) and if someon else wins, their victory will be less that it would have been without all this. |
|
By:
If he had why would he have said what he did in the press conference.
Sounded like a deliberate attempt to plead ignorance of the rule to me as he knew he was in trouble. |
|
By:
Can't the rest of the professional tour do something about this then? You know, the (laughable) 'honour of the game' and all that stuff?
How about if they all threaten to walk out of the event ? |
|
By:
I think Monty should refuse to do any analysis for the rest of the tournament in protest.
|
|
By:
i think hes used to dropping it in the general area, and not to the millimeter
itll be interesting to see if somebody else takes half an hour to get it absolutely as close as possible and gets a penalty for slow play surely he isnt expected to play it from the edge of he divot hole, which would be a literal interpretation of the rule |
|
By:
That would be fine if he didn't say he deliberately went two yards back to get a better shot at it.
|
|
By:
Montys got form
|
|
By:
Monty can explain how he cheated and then focused on the rest of the event. Might be the first time he can make a useful contribution.
|
|
By:
thing is Donny he dropped it where he did so that he didn't risk hiting the flag again.
|
|
By:
dont be silly donny. He was a full 2 yards behind his divot. The way i always play this rule is to hold the ball directly above the divot, if it goes closer or lands in the divot then its a re-drop.
|
|
By:
that comment indicates he was incorrectly taking line of sight christy
|
|
By:
thats my point too, captain, dq or forget it
it would be nice if they stated what is acceptable under the as close as possible rule as i stated above i assumed one club length would be acceptable, but perhaps ive been cheeting too |
|
By:
Seems like a right royal fudge to me.
A 2 stroke penalty obviously implies a severe breach of the playing regs. So he's guilty. Is he guilty enough to be DQ? According to what is written I'd say so. Puts the Chinese kid's punishment in perspective. They fussed over Tiger for hours but pulled the trigger on the lad. |
|
By:
sorry MW cant have that "Monty" and "useful contribution" in the same sentence
|
|
By:
why would you re drop if it lands in the divot, thats not on !
|
|
By:
Donny the infringement of the rules is not even up for debate now. He broke the rules, 2 shot penalty.
The only question is whether his disqualification for signing an incorrect scorecard should be waived or not. The committee decided it should, apparently because of a viewer having phoned in. Ironically a guy who was trying to get Tiger in trouble has probably kept him in the tournament!  |
|
By:
Donny I don't know if you play golf, but a divot starts just in front of the ball. The entire divot will be closer to the hole than the ball was (unless you hit one extremely fat!).
|
|
By:
thats why i said on the edge of the divot
ball in water often indicates youve hit it fat, unless we all spin back like tiger ! |