2013 Masters

[Jake]

After 5-6 hours of rehashing, chatting, and incessant bullshit over Tigergate, finally we get to CBS' live coverage of the event. So what are we getting? More rehashing, chatter and incessant bullshit over Tigergate.

As an OSU alum I want Jack to keep the record. But I started rooting against Tiger long ago because of the fans and the media. He's been fantastic, but the cock slobbering is over the top.

 

[billmac91]

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.

 

[Jake]

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.

The columnists suggesting he should DQ himself are being ridiculous, just looking for attention. The officials made their ruling, Tiger accepted it and went on about his business.

 

[VBSJ]

After 5-6 hours of rehashing, chatting, and incessant bull[Mark May] over Tigergate, finally we get to CBS' live coverage of the event. So what are we getting? More rehashing, chatter and incessant bull[Mark May] over Tigergate.

I kinda like Bob Costas calling out CBS (not Jim Nantz specifically) on Friday in regards to ignoring race and other issues at Augusta.

But if they would mention that, I'm going to assume that Augusta would sign with another network and/or try to get the commentator fired (i.e. like Gary McCord). So it's kinda a double-edged sword (I don't think Costas would mention it on NBC, BTW).

Costas didn't mention Human Rights in China during the 2008 Olympics.

 

[Mac]

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

Don't hit shots into the hazard. Problem solved

 

[VBSJ]

Don't hit shots into the hazard. Problem solved

Stop breaking the law, a-hole (Liar Liar). Sorry, that's what I just thought of.

And Tim Clark had a heck of a round.

 

[cincibuck]

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 wouldn't mind as much if, as others have/will point out, tiger wasn't such an asshole.

What really chaps my ass is the failure of tiger media inc. to point out the vast gap between the two in terms of 2, 3, top 5/10 finishes in major tournaments.

 

[VBSJ]

What really chaps my ass is the failure of tiger media inc. to point out the vast gap between the two in terms of 2, 3, top 5/10 finishes in major finishes.

I think about the fact that Jack was using garden tools to swing, in comparison to what the players have today.

But Tiger will break it eventually, because he has maybe 40 more chances or so to get five.

Only way he doesn't break it is if he goes full-on David Duval.

 

[Mac]

Here's another question...

Why was there a rules official glued to Guan (the 14yr old who was assessed a slow play penalty), and Tiger had no one near him?

 

[VBSJ]

Here's another question...

Why was there a rules official glued to Guan (the 14yr old who was assessed a slow play penalty), and Tiger had no one near him?

Guan's an amateur and might be powerless (to an extent) against the rules official or the Tour. Tiger can get people fired? That's a guess.

Golf Channel (last night) was speculating that maybe they're trying to help the game grow in China? I don't know about that one (by calling a penalty on a kid?).

 

[billmac91]

Here's another question...

Why was there a rules official glued to Guan (the 14yr old who was assessed a slow play penalty), and Tiger had no one near him?

Because Guan's group fell out of position. They glue an official to you until you're back on the asses of the group in front of you. Tiger's group was in position so no need for an official timing their swings.

They only break the shot clock out when you're out of position.

 

[Mac]

Because Guan's group fell out of position. They glue an official to you until you're back on the asses of the group in front of you. Tiger's group was in position so no need for an official timing their swings.

They only break the shot clock out when you're out of position.

No my point is, if they were that anal about Guan who was barely slower than the average round yesterday, how do you not catch a rule broken right away? (Talking about the officials/rule guys)

 

[billmac91]

No my point is, if they were that anal about Guan who was barely slower than the average round yesterday, how do you not catch a rule broken right away? (Talking about the officials/rule guys)

Because no one knows Tiger broke the rule until he opens his mouth about moving back 2 yards to help the distance on his wedge.

They looked at it immediately because some guy called from his couch the moment it happened. The rules officials deemed he was "near" enough. That ruling was overturned when Tiger commented he dropped his ball 2 yards behind his divot because of what happened the shot prior.

Had Tiger not said anything, he was ruled "close enough" and no penalty. That's why the rule needs to be changed. What constitutes "near enough"?

 

[matt_thatsme]

Because no one knows Tiger broke the rule until he opens his mouth about moving back 2 yards to help the distance on his wedge.

They looked at it immediately because some guy called from his couch the moment it happened. The rules officials deemed he was "near" enough. That ruling was overturned when Tiger commented he dropped his ball 2 yards behind his divot because of what happened the shot prior.

Had Tiger not said anything, he was ruled "close enough" and no penalty. That's why the rule needs to be changed. What constitutes "near enough"?

We will agree to disagree. I don't see how under any definition what Tiger did was "nearest", whether he admitted it or not. When there is a divot showing where you just hit, dropping two yards away is in no way, shape or form "nearest".

 

[billmac91]

We will agree to disagree. I don't see how under any definition what Tiger did was "nearest", whether he admitted it or not. When there is a divot showing where you just hit, dropping two yards away is in no way, shape or form "nearest".

So it's 6 inches, maybe a foot, within a club length? I agree Tiger deserved a penalty, but if he was close enough to not be given a penalty until he opened his mouth, there is way too much grey area.