2013 Masters

[BuckeyeNation27]

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.

he had a choice of the drop zone or where he took his shot from. he's allowed to not like the drop zone. he's not allowed to drop it 2 yards behind his original shot.

 

[Wingate1217]

This is the same guy (Woods) that knows the rules well enough to have gallery members help him move a moveable object (a boulder) out of his way in a waste area. I don't believe a minute that he didn't know the rule. Whether he did it intentionally or unintentionally he admitted he did it to gain an advantage.....the penalty was justified.....

 

[AKAK]

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.

See, here's my problem, I guess. (And to be fair, I would have accepted a DQ as well) But, you have a situation where the rules committee reviewed it and found no penalty on one hand, and then on the other decided that based on hi comments there was an infraction (which they enforced). Either way you have an asshole calling in, for whatever reason, which leads to this:

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.

Well, apparently, if going only be the video evidence and not Woods comments, it does qualify. And that's precisely why they didn't give him the penalty before he signed his card.

Now, I mostly agree with you that they didn't get that right, and it should have been done at that point, and this whole idiocy would have been avoided. And, perhaps its because they didn't get that right that they didn't DQ him. I have no idea.

The thing I can't reconcile here is that why, based on the video is in not obvious he cheated if indeed "dropping 2-4 yards away from the spot you can definitively identify as your previous shot does not qualify under any definition of nearest" is a true statement but then also its obvious once he commented on the play?

One apparently isn't. And in one of my previous posts I mention the fact that a few inches away might qualify as an advantage in the right curcumstances and he might drop it there on purpose as opposed to six inches on the other side of the original spot (for example) and if he does that, regardless of distance, that would seem to me to be a violation... regardless of grain of the cut or whatever, we're not in a situation where he went from the rough to the fairway (or from one cut to another) or fringe to green or apron to fringe... etc.

he had a choice of the drop zone or where he took his shot from. he's allowed to not like the drop zone. he's not allowed to drop it 2 yards behind his original shot.

how far then?

 

[VBSJ]

Looks like Tianlang Guan is going from The Masters to the Zurich in New Orleans.

They gave him an exemption.

 

[AKAK]

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.

33-7/4.5, ie the Harrington/HD/Loser at home on the couch was NOT applied in this case, btw.

 

[LitlBuck]

how far then?

that is still my question. If he went 20 yards back would he still have incurred a penalty… By the way the rules read I guess he would. He cannot even go back and tee it up again which is just ridiculous. Sometimes rules need to be reviewed and I think that there are plenty of rules in the game of golf that need to be reviewed. What else do the USGA and the guys over at St. Andrews do any way

 

[matt_thatsme]

33-7/4.5, ie the Harrington/HD/Loser at home on the couch was NOT applied in this case, btw.

I am not sure about that. 33-7 gives the committe discretion to waive a DQ. 33-7/4.5 provides the rationale for when a DQ can be waived. Did they use another rationale? If so, which rule? I didn't catch that.

 

[BB73]

Either way you have an asshole calling in

Ironically, I believe the "asshole calling in" is what saved Tiger.

Without the call-in causing the committee to review the play before Tiger signed his scorecard, Tiger would have broken the rule, signed his scorecard, and talked about how he placed the ball after the round. In that case, without the committee having decided ahead of time that it was not a 2-stroke penalty, I think they would have had to DQ him, since he would have signed an improper scorecard and admitted to breaking the rule.

They would not have been able to ignore the rule-breaking after his post-round interview. It was only the committee's saying that they had decided the play was OK before he signed his scorecard that gave them something to hang their hat on and apply rule 33-7 to allow him to keep playing. And the committee should be ashamed of the initial decision.

 

[AKAK]

I am not sure about that. 33-7 gives the committe discretion to waive a DQ. 33-7/4.5 provides the rationale for when a DQ can be waived. Did they use another rationale? If so, which rule? I didn't catch that.

My understanding is that they simply waived the DQ under the original language of 33-7.. so yeah, they just used their discretion that it was an exceptional case because they had reviewed it and found no infraction.

Essentially, the best way to put it is they used rule 33-7 (but not 4.5 at any time) to waive the DQ penalty - for the violation under Rule 26 (For which they imposed the 2 stroke penalty as well) which led to thevilation - under 6-6 (d?) and the incorrect scorecard. The 4.5 modification would only have been applied (and incorrectly had they done so, as you mention) had they received the call after the scorecard was signed, and [probably] Woods made his comments.

Which leads us to Bill's comments:

Ironically, I believe the "asshole calling in" is what saved Tiger.

Without the call-in causing the committee to review the play before Tiger signed his scorecard, Tiger would have broken the rule, signed his scorecard, and talked about how he placed the ball after the round. In that case, without the committee having decided ahead of time that it was not a 2-stroke penalty, I think they would have had to DQ him, since he would have signed an improper scorecard and admitted to breaking the rule.

They would not have been able to ignore the rule-breaking after his post-round interview. It was only the committee's saying that they had decided the play was OK before he signed his scorecard that gave them something to hang their hat on and apply rule 33-7 to allow him to keep playing. And the committee should be ashamed of the initial decision.

I think this is about right.

 

[cincibuck]

he had a choice of the drop zone or where he took his shot from. he's allowed to not like the drop zone. he's not allowed to drop it 2 yards behind his original shot.

Thought that's what I said: "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."

Kornheiser and Wilbon tried to promote that a) the shot that hit the stick was just about the perfect golf shot - gimme a break, it it doesn't hit the stick, if it hits those super fast greens, he's taking his next shot from South Carolina. b) if he isn't penalized he gains four strokes and we have a three way tie for first at the end. I never did understand new math. My old math tells me he possibly gets it down in one, probably in two, very possibly three and is still at least two back.

 

[Tonyank]

this still.... ADAM SCOTT WON!!!!! TIGER DIDNT!

 

[cincibuck]

this still.... ADAM SCOTT WON!!!!! TIGER DIDNT!

Amen. Thank God for small miracles.

 

[Roundabout]

should have just kept his mouth shut....

 

[AKAK]

What are we looking at here, that he was 6 inches back?

 

[Roundabout]

I'm not a photo expert, but sure looks like he was a few inches back and a few to one side. Nothing there would warrant a 2 shot penalty, and probably why the rules committee found no issue to start with.

I wonder how this will change post round interviews for golfers going forward.