2013 Masters

[Mac]

Starting to see weaknesses in his game where he used to be head and shoulders above everyone else...green speed came to mind immediately today. In years past, especially at this course and at US Opens, it seemed like everyone else was banging it all over the green, but he figured out the speed in 1-2 holes. Today, it took him 8-9 holes, and he never really did get it fully. Those are adjustments he used to make early in the front 9 so he could use the last 12 holes to put tournaments away. I don't know, people can say "he's back", but I don't think he will ever have the aura of invincibility he once had.

I think part of it was the rain yesterday. He didn't really make any adjustments until what hole 10? That rain really slowed up the greens.

 

[cincibuck]

No, I understand the rule. Tiger's ball crossed the hazard multiple times. He had to drop at a spot nearest where he hit his shot or in a line where the ball last crossed and the hole, no closest to the pin. Tiger obviously didn't drop on the line where it crossed the third time and he admits he didn't drop nearest where he hit his third shot. He proceeded under the rule allowing him to take a drop in line with where it initially crossed....which was wrong.[/QUOTE]

That isn't correct. He proceeded under the rule where he was to drop the ball nearest where he played the previous shot. He dropped in a very close vicinity but after his interview was deemed to have given himself an advantage. That is all. He cdould have hot from the circled drop area had he chosen to, but didn't like the grain in the area. He could have also taken a straight line behind the hazard where his ball had enetered, but that a bad angle. His last option was to drop form the "nearest point" from where he took his previous shot. He dropped 2 yards away which was apparently too far. Had he dropped on his divot, no problem. Who wants tod rop on their divot? What is considered too far and worthy of a penalty? It's ambiguous.

Had he dropped on his divot and the ball rolled 25 yards down the fairway, he plays from there as well. His only error was to state afterwards he dropped slightly behind the original shot to make it more manageable.

That's the problem with the rule...it states "nearest possible drop". What is nearest? It needs to be cleaned up.

In such a case, isn't the player allowed to ask for a ruling to be made -on the spot- before continuing to play?

If he does this he eliminates the problem, eliminates the shock of waking up the next morning to find out he's gained two shots overnight.

As well staffed as the majors are, I can't believe it would have taken more than a couple of minutes to get a decision made.

As I listen to the discussion, Tiger said he moved back two yards to, "avoid wet and grainy areas," in short, he improved his lie by moving back two yards. I can think of lots of places on any course where two yards in any one direction can make one hell of a difference.

 

[Mac]

Yes you can ask for a ruling

 

[AKAK]

As I listen to the discussion, Tiger said he moved back two yards to, "avoid wet and grainy areas," in short, he improved his lie by moving back two yards. I can think of lots of places on any course where two yards in any one direction can make one hell of a difference.

Well, yeah, but he interpreted the rule in such a way, incorrectly as its been well documented, that it doesn't make a difference. (Well, whether its for another yard or 2 of distance, lie, whatever doesn't matter) I mean, if you're using the straight line from the hazard rule, you'd do the same thing, so, I mean, the point is, you're right, but, he was interpreting the rule the other way.

And of course, you're right, it "can make one hell of a difference" and that's why he got the two stroke penalty.

Really the only issue here is that he signed his card incorrectly - he was properly penalized for the incorrect drop, in the end - the committee had reviewed the tape and found nothing to be amiss, OR, they would have spoken to him BEFORE he signed his card, he would have adjusted it at that point and he'd have been in the same place he is now. So, long story short, given the committee had reviewd the tape and found no violation its possible that an on course ruling would have been the same, and still would have been until Tiger made his comments follwing the round. The issue here, is oddly, his intent in dropping the ball further from the original shot that he should have, not so much that he did it, due to the ambiguity of "nearest".

 

[cincibuck]

...Tiger made his comments following the round. The issue here, is oddly, his intent in dropping the ball further from the original shot that he should have, not so much that he did it, due to the ambiguity of "nearest".

But as I read his comments, he had good reason to move back two yards. The ground where he should have dropped was wet and muddy, there were divots and he didn't like the grain of the cut. He didn't say it, but he also didn't like the distance, too much of a chance of going past the green - which he probably would have done if the ball hadn't hit the stick.

Accusing him of signing a false scorecard would have seemed a bit of a reach considering the way/time the 2 stroke decision was made.

 

[Mac]

But as I read his comments, he had good reason to move back two yards. The ground where he should have dropped was wet and muddy, there were divots and he didn't like the grain of the cut. He didn't say it, but he also didn't like the distance, too much of a chance of going past the green - which he probably would have done if the ball hadn't hit the stick.

Accusing him of signing a false scorecard would have seemed a bit of a reach considering the way/time the 2 stroke decision was made.

I think you're combining the drop 2yrds back and the drop area. The drop area was wet, muddy, and the grain of the cut was bad.

Where he actually dropped (2yrds behind his original shot) was good. There weren't many divots around area. He took it 2yrds back after judging how far his original ball went.

I apologize if I misread your post

 

[LitlBuck]

I think part of it was the rain yesterday. He didn't really make any adjustments until what hole 10? That rain really slowed up the greens.

In past years, Tiger could make adjustments very fast regardless of the weather. Other guys on the course were making the adjustments to the greens but it took Tiger almost 10 holes. Of all of the majors, that is the one that he stands the best chance of winning.

Sort of surprised, that it has taken Adam Scott this long to win a major. When he first hit tour, he was an extremely good hitter of the ball long and straight. Maybe it was his putting that held him back and now that he has a belly putter he can putt better. However, that is only going to last for a couple more years.

Cabrera is about the only old-timer who started out strong and finished strong. It seems like every year one of the old-timers as a pretty good front nine only to falter on the back nine. I do not think that course is suited for the older guys

 

[buckiprof]

The issue here, is oddly, his intent in dropping the ball further from the original shot that he should have, not so much that he did it, due to the ambiguity of "nearest".

That IS and has been the issue. To me, he is now not only a Cheetah off the course but a Cheetah on the course too.

By his own admission, Cheetah moved back two yards to gain an advantage. That is, at best, unknowingly cheating, at worst, knowingly cheating. There have been numerous instances in the history of the PGA where individuals have given themselves a penalty when no one else saw the penalty. These individuals who gave themselves penalties understood that golf is a game predicated on honesty and integrity. They had a respect for the game that I have not seen from Eldrick in all of the years he has been a pro. (Continual bad manners/profanity is really the only necessary exhibit.)

The questions I would have for Eldrick are: (1) Did you know at the time by dropping back two yards further that you were violating the rules? (If yes then a DQ is obvious.) Assuming his answer is no, then I would ask (2) As you know, in the 1925 U.S Open Bobby Jones gave himself a 1-stroke penalty for his ball moving after he addressed it in the rough. No one else saw it, only Bobby Jones. That penalty cost Bobby Jones the outright title as he lost a 36 hole playoff. If Bobby Jones, the founder of this wonderful event called the Masters, were in your position right now, what do you think he would do? Do you think he would continue playing or would he withdraw?

There are others that could be cited who penalized themselves when no one else saw it, but Bobby Jones' case is a major event and he IS synonymous with the Masters. Another good one was a Greater Hartford Open during the 1990's. Greg Norman disqualified himself for using a nonconforming golf ball. The ball was fine, but the side stamp had not yet been approved. This gave Norman no advantage whatsoever, but Norman did the only thing he knew to do...disqualify himself. That is the honesty and integrity that golf is built on and that is what Eldrick should also strive for....not giving yourself an advantage by dropping back two yards further.

And for those who clamor that Tiger is good for ratings, that may be true to a degree. But if that is the case, these "I want to watch Tiger" fans might have missed one of the greatest shots in history last year when Bubba won and also might have missed as great an ending to a Masters as what we saw yesterday. The shot making done by Cabrera and Scott at then end was astonishing to say the least.

 

[AKAK]

That IS and has been the issue. To me, he is now not only a Cheetah off the course but a Cheetah on the course too.

By his own admission, Cheetah moved back two yards to gain an advantage. That is, at best, unknowingly cheating, at worst, knowingly cheating. There have been numerous instances in the history of the PGA where individuals have given themselves a penalty when no one else saw the penalty. These individuals who gave themselves penalties understood that golf is a game predicated on honesty and integrity. They had a respect for the game that I have not seen from Eldrick in all of the years he has been a pro. (Continual bad manners/profanity is really the only necessary exhibit.)

The questions I would have for Eldrick are: (1) Did you know at the time by dropping back two yards further that you were violating the rules? (If yes then a DQ is obvious.) Assuming his answer is no, then I would ask (2) As you know, in the 1925 U.S Open Bobby Jones gave himself a 1-stroke penalty for his ball moving after he addressed it in the rough. No one else saw it, only Bobby Jones. That penalty cost Bobby Jones the outright title as he lost a 36 hole playoff. If Bobby Jones, the founder of this wonderful event called the Masters, were in your position right now, what do you think he would do? Do you think he would continue playing or would he withdraw?

Nope, wrong questions.

#1 should be, Did you know at the time that dropping back (or any other direction) any distance with the INTENT to gain an advantage over the previous spot of play would be in violation of the rules?

This is important. Because, the problem with as near to the previous spot is that its not a specific distance. And, the act of dropping the ball 2 yards (or whatever) isn't the issue. That might be the nearest spot (as much as anything else is) and as such, they initially reviewed the evidence and found "ta da!" no violation. The PROBLEM is that he did so to improve, in his own view, his position, as reflected in his comments. So, the problem was not the distance, but that he intended to do so.

So, really, the answer to that question is "no" - because basically, if you do think he thought it was a violation, since this is based on his intent to improve his position, not the actual act of where he placed it, then why, if he was intending to "get away with it" would he describe his reasoning for doing it the way he did? All he would have had to do is keep his mouth shut, and nothing would have happened.

Now.... even having said all that, the penalty for doing that is what? Two Strokes? Oh, that's right, that's what he got.

This in itself is not a DQ'able act. It's the signing of the incorrect scorecard.

So, that's left to the rules committee, who, as we have said, reviewed the tape of the incident before Woods was done with his round and came to the conclusion that there was no infraction. Its only after Woods said that he chose the spot further back because he felt it to be advantageous that they decided that it was a rules violation. And the same rules comittee decided not to DQ him precisely because they were aware of what happened and elected not to discuss it with him prior to him signing his card.

I'm not sure what the relevance of all these "when no one was looking" arguments are... at all. This is 2013. This is Tiger Woods. Even if he's 15 shots behind, there are multiple cameras on his every move. He probably had the largest gallery on the course. He's the most interesting player on the tour, in the biggest event in golf (or top 3, whatever) and the most liked AND hated guy out there. "when no one was looking" isn't even remotely an option for him, so, now you have to have me believe that he's brazen enough to cheat on purpose, then explain that he was cheating afterwards, and think he's gonna get away with it?

The simple fact (ok, liklihood) is, he confused the hazard relief rule with the replaying his shot rule while he was weighing his options to play that shot. (And to be honest, had he called an official over to him and said "Can I play this shot from here" instead of "Can I play this shot from here, these 2 extra yards back help me out quite a bit" I'm not sure the on course official would have taken issue)

So in the end, I don't have a problem with ignorance of the rule being a reason to DQ him. That's fine.

But, the difference between this case, and say Bobby Jones and his ball moving on address is, Jones knew he had broken the rule at that moment, I don't think there's any conclusive evidence that Woods did too.

 

[VBSJ]

Thinking of Adam Scott's win in The Masters, who do you think will win the anchor (belly) putter debate?

I think in the U.S., golf equipment manufacturers have too much power and the PGA Tour won't ban them (they already said they won't, to an extent). Great Britain probably will.

I can't even use those darn things (belly putters or long putters).

 

[Mac]

Can't stand to use them. Takes some crazy good control to putt well with them IMO

 

[billmac91]

Nope, wrong questions.

#1 should be, Did you know at the time that dropping back (or any other direction) any distance with the INTENT to gain an advantage over the previous spot of play would be in violation of the rules?

This is important. Because, the problem with as near to the previous spot is that its not a specific distance. And, the act of dropping the ball 2 yards (or whatever) isn't the issue. That might be the nearest spot (as much as anything else is) and as such, they initially reviewed the evidence and found "ta da!" no violation. The PROBLEM is that he did so to improve, in his own view, his position, as reflected in his comments. So, the problem was not the distance, but that he intended to do so.

So, really, the answer to that question is "no" - because basically, if you do think he thought it was a violation, since this is based on his intent to improve his position, not the actual act of where he placed it, then why, if he was intending to "get away with it" would he describe his reasoning for doing it the way he did? All he would have had to do is keep his mouth shut, and nothing would have happened.

Now.... even having said all that, the penalty for doing that is what? Two Strokes? Oh, that's right, that's what he got.

This in itself is not a DQ'able act. It's the signing of the incorrect scorecard.

So, that's left to the rules committee, who, as we have said, reviewed the tape of the incident before Woods was done with his round and came to the conclusion that there was no infraction. Its only after Woods said that he chose the spot further back because he felt it to be advantageous that they decided that it was a rules violation. And the same rules comittee decided not to DQ him precisely because they were aware of what happened and elected not to discuss it with him prior to him signing his card.

I'm not sure what the relevance of all these "when no one was looking" arguments are... at all. This is 2013. This is Tiger Woods. Even if he's 15 shots behind, there are multiple cameras on his every move. He probably had the largest gallery on the course. He's the most interesting player on the tour, in the biggest event in golf (or top 3, whatever) and the most liked AND hated guy out there. "when no one was looking" isn't even remotely an option for him, so, now you have to have me believe that he's brazen enough to cheat on purpose, then explain that he was cheating afterwards, and think he's gonna get away with it?

The simple fact (ok, liklihood) is, he confused the hazard relief rule with the replaying his shot rule while he was weighing his options to play that shot. (And to be honest, had he called an official over to him and said "Can I play this shot from here" instead of "Can I play this shot from here, these 2 extra yards back help me out quite a bit" I'm not sure the on course official would have taken issue)

So in the end, I don't have a problem with ignorance of the rule being a reason to DQ him. That's fine.

But, the difference between this case, and say Bobby Jones and his ball moving on address is, Jones knew he had broken the rule at that moment, I don't think there's any conclusive evidence that Woods did too.

All of this.

It's ridiculous to propose he should have been DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard, when in fact, he did not.

The Masters Committee, for the 17,000th time, reviewed the drop within minutes of Tiger taking it and viewed it as a legal drop and no penalty. Once Tiger opened his mouth (obviously unaware of breaking any rules or he would not have so openly discussed how he broke a rule) he opened himself up for the penalty.

Instead of DQ'ing for an incorrect scorecard, they added 2 strokes to it, and put into effect the new rule from 2012 declaring he was still eligible to play.

At the end of the day, these are the facts as I see them:

-Tiger was in the wrong for trying to improve his drop location and deserved a penalty.
-The rule itself is very ambiguous and should be re-written to avoid any confusion on "nearest possible drop location".
-The Masters Committee got this ruling correct in assessing a 2 stroke penalty, but not DQ'ing him.

Anyone saying he intentionally cheated or should have withdrawn have missed the boat, IMO. The fact that it was ruled a legal shot in the first place confirms AKAK's assertion that a Rules Official would have likely green-lighted Tiger's drop location to begin with.

Not that anyone really follows golf with a die-hard passion, but it will be funny to watch guys in the future avoid answering questions about how or why they played a certain shot after incurring a penalty.

 

[billmac91]

In past years, Tiger could make adjustments very fast regardless of the weather. Other guys on the course were making the adjustments to the greens but it took Tiger almost 10 holes. Of all of the majors, that is the one that he stands the best chance of winning.

Sort of surprised, that it has taken Adam Scott this long to win a major. When he first hit tour, he was an extremely good hitter of the ball long and straight. Maybe it was his putting that held him back and now that he has a belly putter he can putt better. However, that is only going to last for a couple more years.

Cabrera is about the only old-timer who started out strong and finished strong. It seems like every year one of the old-timers as a pretty good front nine only to falter on the back nine. I do not think that course is suited for the older guys

Adam Scott is still a horrendous putter. If he could've made anything on Friday or Saturday, he would have won the tournament by 6-7 shots.

I think there is a misconception about his putting because he holed 18 and then the putt to win on #10. Those were huge putts, but the honest truth is he was missing everything outside of 6 feet the entire tournament. He's an amazing ball striker with a Sergio Garcia-like short game. Similar to Sergio, if they ever get the putter going for a few days consecutively, look-out because they're going to go low. They just don't typically hole enough putts over the course of 4 days to win majors.

I give him credit for the putts he made at #18 and #10 though. He'll just never be a consistent Majors winner until he dramatically improves his short game.

 

[matt_thatsme]

All of this.

It's ridiculous to propose he should have been DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard, when in fact, he did not.

The Masters Committee, for the 17,000th time, reviewed the drop within minutes of Tiger taking it and viewed it as a legal drop and no penalty. Once Tiger opened his mouth (obviously unaware of breaking any rules or he would not have so openly discussed how he broke a rule) he opened himself up for the penalty.

Instead of DQ'ing for an incorrect scorecard, they added 2 strokes to it, and put into effect the new rule from 2012 declaring he was still eligible to play.

At the end of the day, these are the facts as I see them:

-Tiger was in the wrong for trying to improve his drop location and deserved a penalty.
-The rule itself is very ambiguous and should be re-written to avoid any confusion on "nearest possible drop location".
-The Masters Committee got this ruling correct in assessing a 2 stroke penalty, but not DQ'ing him.

Anyone saying he intentionally cheated or should have withdrawn have missed the boat, IMO. The fact that it was ruled a legal shot in the first place confirms AKAK's assertion that a Rules Official would have likely green-lighted Tiger's drop location to begin with.

Not that anyone really follows golf with a die-hard passion, but it will be funny to watch guys in the future avoid answering questions about how or why they played a certain shot after incurring a penalty.

With regard to your facts:

1. Correct. Tiger cheated. He either a) did it intentionally or b)proceeded under the wrong rule/ wrong interpretation of the rule. His later comments indicate that he interpreted the rule wrong. He should have received a 2 stroke penalty at that time, because...

2. Ambiguous or not, dropping 2-4 yards away from the spot you can definitively identify as your previous shot does not qualify under any definition of nearest.

3. The committee never got anything right. They should have given him a two stroke penalty before he signed his scorecard. When Tiger acknowledged that he applied the rule incorrectly / applied the incorrect rule, the committee should have stepped in and said "sorry Tiger, even if you didn't intend to cheat at the time, you applied the wrong rule and the USGA previously ruled that ignorance of a rule is not sufficient to waive a DQ. You acknowledge in your post that Tiger must have been ignorant of the rule, because he wouldn't have talked about it if he intentionally cheated. Again, ignorance cannot waive a DQ. The USGA and R & A have been very clear about this. The Committee has zero discretion as to that matter.

Tiger's only saving grace was the Committee's failure to assess the two shot penalty initially. If they told him "Tiger, you are good to go", and nothing else happened, then I could see not DQing him. However, once new evidence came to light, namely Tiger's admission of guilt, the Committee had sufficient grounds to amend their ruling. Some people say that Tiger should have been able to amend his scorecard since it was the Committee's mistake in not applying the penalty. I don't buy that. When it was obvious that he cheated, he was coming before the Committee with unclean hands and was in no position to argue equity.

Tiger got a benefit of the doubt that no other golfer outside of Phil or Rory would get...then he put his foot in his mouth. It is rare that a pro golfer intentionally cheats. However, if he signs an incorrect scorecard and then admits to applying the wrong rule, he must be DQed. If, on the other hand a golfer doesn't, for example, see his ball move and then some asshole calls in after the round and reports it, the HD rule kicks in because that is ignorance of fact. There is a HUGE distinction between ignorance of fact and ignorance of law/rules. Tiger was the latter.

 

[cincibuck]

I go back to what I heard Tiger say, he didn't like the grain and mud in the drop zone - tough shit - don't fly the green or get a weird bounce into the creek. He said he moved two yards back and dropped because the ground conditions were better. He clearly took advantage of the situation.

Next time:
a) call for an official and get the interpretation if you're unsure.

b) understand that in all golf rules, the intent, if not the wording, is to make the situation as near as possible to the original situation, i.e. drop the ball from where you played the disputed shot.