2013 Masters

[Jake]

Let me be clear in my position. The viewer that called in is a loser and needs to get a life.

Did they put a trace on that call?

 

[ysubuck]

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....

This was my thinking initially. How on Earth do you go back and change your ruling based on that interview? Unless you have a specific measurement stated within the rule how can the golfer be penalized based on an interview that is as ambiguous as the rule itself?

 

[billmac91]

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

Yeah...that's kind of the smoking gun. But the problem is he was likely trying to give himself an advantage but under the rules. Again the Masters committee gave him a pass by the time he finished his round yesterday. A caller called in before he even finished 15, the rules committee said the call in was wrong because he was "near" enough but then Tiger let the world into his thought process. So apparently 2 yards isn't "near" enough.

 

[ysubuck]

Yeah...that's Kim of the smoking gun. But the problem is he was likely trying to give himself an advantage but under the rules. Again, tr Masters committees gave him a pass by the time he finished his round yesterday. A caller called in before he even finished 15, the rules committee said the call in was wrong because he was "near" enough but then Tiger let the world into his thought process. So apparently 2 yards isn't "near" enough.

Right. But who the hell dictates what "near" is? The definition of near is probably something along the lines of a short distance away. This is just stupid, IMO.

 

[billmac91]

Right. But who the hell dictates what "near" is? The definition of near is probably something along the lines of a short distance away. This is just stupid, IMO.

He hung himself when he implied an advantage by moving back 2 yards. The intent of the rule, IMO, is to have the golfer drop directly over their previous shot. If the ball moves closer to the hole, you still play it. So many rules in golf dictate you can't move the ball closer to the hole. In this case it isn't applicable because he had already carried the hazard.

He was fine until he told Rinaldi he dropped just a few yards back because it helped control his wedge/distance and avoid hitting the stick again. But rule sucks because you shouldn't have to interpret it, it should just be black and white. To say, drop it at its nearest point implies some level of movement. Just say drop it over your divot or exactly where you took shot from. Ball is then in play.....situation fixed.

 

[UpNorth_Buckeye]

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.?

I'm confused, doesn't the rule put in place contradict what you said? If Tiger WAS unaware of it, then the rule would kick in and not DQ him. It appears the rule was applied properly. Now you can still believe Tiger should DQ himself, but it does look like the committee acted properly IMO.

Unless you mean that the rule should only be used for instances of High Definition use, which is debatable. It could be argued that it should be used for any use of television to identify a penalty.

 

[matt_thatsme]

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....

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.

 

[LitlBuck]

I am stupid. I have read this entire thread and articles over at CBS regarding this two-stroke penalty and I still do not understand what Tiger did wrong. Are you not allowed to drop a ball as far back as you want as long as you keep the same site line? Or did Tiger move the ball to the left or right and did not keep the same line? I also do not understand with all of the television announces that they have and the cameras why didn't an announcer catch this illegal drop? Which I still do not understand.

Regarding him being DQ for signing an incorrect scorecard I do not see how someone could call for that when he did not even realize he was signing an incorrect scorecard because he had not put down the two-stroke penalty.

Also, I highly doubt that Tiger knew that he was making an illegal drop because he would have not taken that chanceIMO

 

[matt_thatsme]

I'm confused, doesn't the rule put in place contradict what you said? If Tiger WAS unaware of it, then the rule would kick in and not DQ him. It appears the rule was applied properly. Now you can still believe Tiger should DQ himself, but it does look like the committee acted properly IMO.

Unless you mean that the rule should only be used for instances of High Definition use, which is debatable. It could be argued that it should be used for any use of television to identify a penalty.

Ignorance of fact and ignorance of the rule is the important distinction. This was an admitted mistake in applying the rule.

 

[LitlBuck]

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.

Nevermind now I understand but what is nearest. Dropping the ball in your d divot would seem to be another penalty on top of the stroke penalty because players cannot hit shots correctly from a divot

 

[matt_thatsme]

I am stupid. I have read this entire thread and articles over at CBS regarding this two-stroke penalty and I still do not understand what Tiger did wrong. Are you not allowed to drop a ball as far back as you want as long as you keep the same site line? Or did Tiger move the ball to the left or right and did not keep the same line? I also do not understand with all of the television announces that they have and the cameras why didn't an announcer catch this illegal drop? Which I still do not understand.

Regarding him being DQ for signing an incorrect scorecard I do not see how someone could call for that when he did not even realize he was signing an incorrect scorecard because he had not put down the two-stroke penalty.

Also, I highly doubt that Tiger knew that he was making an illegal drop because he would have not taken that chanceIMO

Many golfers have been DQed for unknowingly signing an incorrect scorecard. It has always been that way. The new 2 stroke HD rule was put into place to protect players from DQ when there is a mistake of fact. Tiger dropped in line with where it first entered, which was wrong. He applied the wrong rule.

Again, the rules are the rules. More so, the rules were enacted to protect the spirit of the game. Tiger, a self-proclaimed protector of the spirit of the game, e.g. his belly putter comments, knows he broke the rules. I don't necessarily think he knew when he dropped. I think he was frustrated from the result of the ricochet and wasn't thinking. However, he admitted afterward and should have been DQed.

 

[Jake]

I think Dennis Miller summed it up well on Twitter:

"To think the Masters has turned into the Warren Commission over a couch potato in his undies bitching about a foot and a half is hilarious."

 

[VBSJ]

I wonder if there are Ohio State fans that really do not want Tiger to break Jack's major record (since Jack went to OSU).

I'm an Ohio State alum and don't really mind either way.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

I wonder if there are Ohio State fans that really do not want Tiger to break Jack's major record (since Jack went to OSU).

I'm an Ohio State alum and don't really mind either way.

I'm an Ohio State fan and I don't want him to win because he's a shithead who gets special treatment.

Oddly enough....my idol is Michael Jordan, so what the fuck do I know?

 

[VBSJ]

Considering there are multiple sports columns (on the national sports sites) calling for Tiger to disqualify himself, just from a karma standpoint, he probably won't win anyways.

So it leads to my thinking about a lot of sports columnists, they are lacking writing ideas.