2013 Masters

[matt_thatsme]

One of the golf channel analysts nailed on the head.

His 1st shot, if it doesn't hit the flag stick, would have been long by a bit

So, he dropped a bit further back to have it end up closer to the hole. Regardless of what "Cheatah" said, he broke a rule. Tiger may have said he played under rule x, but you know what, if you break a rule, suffer the consequences. And he signed an incorrect scorecard. And that is deemed a DQ, whether intentional or not

Yep. If he doesn't DQ himself, I definitely don't want to hear his bull[Mark May] "spirit of the game" diatribe that he has so willingly voiced in regard to the belly putter debate.

 

[Mac]

Lots of controversy at Augusta, after only 2 days! Wow.

 

[billmac91]

Freddy Couples just said this "is the best ruling the PGA Tour has ever made". If it's good enough for Freddy, it's good enough for me.

I still think the rule should be considerably clearer. Maybe it needs to say, you have to drop the ball over your divot. It'd make the player more likely to take the point of entry line from the hazard, or risk his ball landing in his own divot. But to be clear, if you're going to say nearest spot to where you took original shot, you're talking about the divot. If you aren't going to drop over your divot, what is acceptable? 1 inch, 6 centimeters, a yard? It's clear as mud....

 

[cincibuck]

Even with a 2 stroke penalty he's only 3 back and the folks in front of him are a bunch of Palookas. Smart money still on Tiger.

Nicklaus could still take this field apart.

 

[matt_thatsme]

Freddy Couples just said this "is the best ruling the PGA Tour has ever made". If it's good enough for Freddy, it's good enough for me.

I still think the rule should be considerably clearer. Maybe it needs to say, you have to drop the ball over your divot. It'd make the player more likely to take the point of entry line from the hazard, or risk his ball landing in his own divot. But to be clear, if you're going to say nearest spot to where you took original shot, you're talking about the divot. If you aren't going to drop over your divot, what is acceptable? 1 inch, 6 centimeters, a yard? It's clear as mud....

How close he dropped the ball doesn't matter a bit. He acknowledges that he broke the rule:

"I went down to the drop area," he said. "That wasn't going to be a good spot, because obviously it's into the grain, it's really grainy there. And it was a little bit wet. So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards further back and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit. And that should land me short of the flag and not have it either hit the flag or skip over the back."

He proceeded under the wrong rule. The question is whether ignorance of the rule is a justification, which it is not.

 

[UpNorth_Buckeye]

Even with a 2 stroke penalty he's only 3 back and the folks in front of him are a bunch of Palookas. Smart money still on Tiger.

Nicklaus could still take this field apart.

He was 3 back. Now he's 5 back (Day is -6, Tiger's now -1).

 

[billmac91]

How close he dropped the ball doesn't matter a bit. He acknowledges that he broke the rule:

"I went down to the drop area," he said. "That wasn't going to be a good spot, because obviously it's into the grain, it's really grainy there. And it was a little bit wet. So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards further back and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit. And that should land me short of the flag and not have it either hit the flag or skip over the back."

He proceeded under the wrong rule. The question is whether ignorance of the rule is a justification, which it is not.

It matters a ton. If he drops over his divot he isn't penalized.

Should he have moved 2 yards closer or would that have been too far away? He dropped within a few yards of the original shot, so should that have been close enough?

How there is no actual distance given (such as a club length, or drop directly over your divot) is part of the reason this happened. The rule needs to clearer. I think that is why he didn't get DQ'd. I'm not sure you can DQ him when the rule says drop nearest the original shot. What does nearest mean?

 

[cincibuck]

He was 3 back. Now he's 5 back (Day is -6, Tiger's now -1).

Yeah, just realized that the leader board I was reading had not been updated. Still you see anyone in front of him who looks like he can hold a lead? I sure don't. e.g. Jason Day started off as a 49 to 1 long shot.

 

[LitlBuck]

Even with a 2 stroke penalty he's only 3 back and the folks in front of him are a bunch of Palookas. Smart money still on Tiger.

Nicklaus could still take this field apart.

I love Jack just as much as the next guy. In fact, I got to meet him after he won his second Masters in 1965. That being said he really did not have that much competition in the Masters because he could hit the ball further than anyone off of the tee and that gave him a distinct advantage. They have changed that course quite a bit over the years to take some of that long hitting advantage away.

 

[matt_thatsme]

It matters a ton. If he drops over his divot he isn't penalized.

Should he have moved 2 yards closer or would that have been too far away? He dropped within a few yards of the original shot, so should that have been close enough?

How there is no actual distance given (such as a club length, or drop directly over your divot) is part of the reason this happened. The rule needs to clearer. I think that is why he didn't get DQ'd. I'm not sure you can DQ him when the rule says drop nearest the original shot. What does nearest mean?

You are completely missing the point. There is no question here as to whether he violated the rule. Tiger isn't disputing that. He could have dropped 2-3 ft like he did or 30 feet back, it wouldn't matter. Both are violations. He thought that he could drop on a line no closer to the hole. He moved forward under tbe wrong rule. An innocent enough mistake, I guess, but the Rules and decisions clearly say that ignorance of a rule or applying the wrong rule can't be used as justification for waiving a DQ.

http://www.usga.org/news/2011/April/Rule-Revised-On-DQ-For-Incorrect-Card/

*****

THE R&A AND USGA REVISE DECISION REGARDING DISQUALIFICATION FOR INCORRECT SCORE CARD

By*The R&A and USGAApril*7, 2011The R&A and the USGA have announced a new interpretation of the rules that apply in limited circumstances not previously contemplated by the Rules of Golf where disqualifications have been caused by score card errors identified as the result of recent advances in video technologies.This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the Committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying Rule, but is not disqualified.In revising the decision, The R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognizing that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach.This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 is effective immediately.?For some time we have been concerned that, in certain limited circumstances, disproportionate disqualification penalties have been required by the Rules,? said Peter Dawson, chief executive of The R&A.* ?This carefully considered decision reflects our desire to ensure that the Rules of Golf remain fair and relevant in the changing environment in which the game is played today.? *?This is a logical and important step in our re-evaluation of the impact of high-definition video on the game,? said Mike Davis, executive director of the USGA. ?We collectively believe that this revised decision addresses many video-related issues never contemplated by the Rules of Golf.?

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

It matters a ton. If he drops over his divot he isn't penalized.

Should he have moved 2 yards closer or would that have been too far away? He dropped within a few yards of the original shot, so should that have been close enough?

How there is no actual distance given (such as a club length, or drop directly over your divot) is part of the reason this happened. The rule needs to clearer. I think that is why he didn't get DQ'd. I'm not sure you can DQ him when the rule says drop nearest the original shot. What does nearest mean?

I don't know what "nearest" means in this context. I know what it doesn't mean, though.

So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards further back and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit. And that should land me short of the flag and not have it either hit the flag or skip over the back.

 

[matt_thatsme]

Let me be clear in my position. The viewer that called in is a loser and needs to get a life. Still, Tiger broke the rule, knowingly or not, and should be punished. He obviously gained a competitive advantage by doing so. A DQ is the applicable penalty unless extraordinary circumstances exist. However, ignorance of the rules or applying the wrong rule isn't an extraordinary circumstance. Accordingly, applying the rules as written and intended, he must be DQed.

Anyone who honestly answers this question knows what must happen: Would someone like Henrik Stenson or DJ Trahan have been DQed for the same thing?

 

[VBSJ]

The viewer that called in is a loser and needs to get a life.

Yeah, people keep doing that crap. It's like long-distance trolling.

Remember Dustin Johnson getting nailed for grounding his club in the bunker? (viewers called in, in addition to other people telling on him).

 

[VBSJ]

Tim Clark is having a great round (thus far) this Saturday.

5-under thru 7 (3-under overall).

*And Masters Live needs to turn down their mikes a bit. You can almost hear golfers breath

 

[billmac91]

You are completely missing the point. There is no question here as to whether he violated the rule. Tiger isn't disputing that. He could have dropped 2-3 ft like he did or 30 feet back, it wouldn't matter. Both are violations. He thought that he could drop on a line no closer to the hole. He moved forward under tbe wrong rule. An innocent enough mistake, I guess, but the Rules and decisions clearly say that ignorance of a rule or applying the wrong rule can't be used as justification for waiving a DQ.
G
http://www.usga.org/news/2011/April/Rule-Revised-On-DQ-For-Incorrect-Card/

*****

THE R&A AND USGA REVISE DECISION REGARDING DISQUALIFICATION FOR INCORRECT SCORE CARD

By*The R&A and USGAApril*7, 2011The R&A and the USGA have announced a new interpretation of the rules that apply in limited circumstances not previously contemplated by the Rules of Golf where disqualifications have been caused by score card errors identified as the result of recent advances in video technologies.This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the Committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying Rule, but is not disqualified.In revising the decision, The R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognizing that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach.This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 is effective immediately.?For some time we have been concerned that, in certain limited circumstances, disproportionate disqualification penalties have been required by the Rules,? said Peter Dawson, chief executive of The R&A.* ?This carefully considered decision reflects our desire to ensure that the Rules of Golf remain fair and relevant in the changing environment in which the game is played today.? *?This is a logical and important step in our re-evaluation of the impact of high-definition video on the game,? said Mike Davis, executive director of the USGA. ?We collectively believe that this revised decision addresses many video-related issues never contemplated by the Rules of Golf.?

I think you're struggling with the actual rule. He had the option of playing from the nearest point of his original shot or taking it to the point of entry from the hazard and playing it as a direct line backwards.

Tiger played from the original spot and was to drop it at the "nearest" point. He dropped approximately 2 yards behind hi original position. The problem is with the wording "nearest" point. No one has been able to decipher what "nearest" point is. Is it 6 inches, 6 feet, a club length, directly over the divot?

The interesting thing is the committee ruled on the shot before Tiger even finished his round yesterday and deemed him close enough to his original spot...he was "near enough". It wasn't until his Tom Rinaldi interview that he basically hung himself talking about an advantage by moving back 2 yards. But if I'm Tiger I'm arguing I was close enough all day long. The rule isn't clear at all. It needs to specifically state drop over your divot or you h e a club-length. Near means close, and just how close is ambiguous. Not a good situation for the PGA so they ruled fairly IMO. They'll fix the wording as soon as the tournament is over....