# Tiger to be DQ'd?



## Stuey01 (Apr 13, 2013)

Twitter is alive with the sounds of people (ok, mainly Bob Estes) tweeting that Tiger took an incorrect drop on 15 and has signed for an incorrect scorecard.
The issue is that his drop was taken 2 yards behind his original position, admitted in his interview, this was not in line with where his ball entered the hazard last as it ricochet sideways off the flag. He had to drop as near as possible to the original position, or on a line between hazard entry and flag, i.e left rough.
This could be a major story today, whether he is DQ'd or not, thoughts?


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

Everyone will soon forget about a Chinese Kid getting a slow play penalty if this is true.......


----------



## Stuey01 (Apr 13, 2013)

It could be huge.  Bob Estes has a big mouth so I take most of his tweets with a grain of salt but there seems to be something in this one, he is sticking to his guns and has posted about it loads with lots of people agreeing with him.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

The people agreeing with him will be all the Tiger haters, however, if its true and has some substance, then its 1 rule for all and it will be interesting to see what, if anything, transpires because after-all, its Tiger not a 14 year old kid!


----------



## BTatHome (Apr 13, 2013)

So the question will be, what is "near as possible". Is 2 yards ok? Is 1 yard ok? Is 2 feet ok? Well none of them are "as near as possible", so the only solution would be everyone that drops not directly ontop of their last shot is penalised. 

Somehow I can't see that happening.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

BTatHome said:



			So the question will be, what is "near as possible". Is 2 yards ok? Is 1 yard ok? Is 2 feet ok? Well none of them are "as near as possible", so the only solution would be everyone that drops not directly ontop of their last shot is penalised. 

Somehow I can't see that happening.
		
Click to expand...

Surely as near as possible needs to be measured in inches rather than yards...? 
And "as near as possible" means that, not exactly on the same spot..


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

BTatHome said:



			So the question will be, what is "near as possible". Is 2 yards ok? Is 1 yard ok? Is 2 feet ok? Well none of them are "as near as possible", so the only solution would be everyone that drops not directly ontop of their last shot is penalised. 

Somehow I can't see that happening.
		
Click to expand...

The case in point here is though, in an interview afterwards, he said _"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"._

That is not adhering to rule 26-1.a. and as such is a penalty, it also wasn't a case of "nearest relief", he deliberately went back a further 2 yards!

This will be interesting.


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

not watched it since but at the time he dropped close enough I thought, slightly behind so no distance advantage gained and hit a belter. Can't see this going anywhere tbh or should I say I hope it doesnt, not a Tiger lover but would be something missing watching later if he did get dq


----------



## CMAC (Apr 13, 2013)

If this happens this will be the day the Masters dies!


----------



## bobmac (Apr 13, 2013)

Tiger must drop at the nearest point.
He didn't
He should be dq'd 
If he is not, he is bigger than the rules.


----------



## TheJezster (Apr 13, 2013)

DarthVega said:



			If this happens this will be the day the Masters dies!
		
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite I would think.  Even MORE people would turn it on to watch it, to see what happened.  It could end up being the most watched masters ever!  There will be plenty of media coverage and then they would get back to the golf with that rumbling in the background.  Next year it will be billed as "Tigers revenge" or something like that.

Cant comment on whether he will be disqualified or not, but if he does, he broke a rule, simple.  That would be the correct punishment for breaking said rule, so its a nothing story really, other than it's Tiger.  The masters would stand up to scrutiny for upholding the rules, even when its Tiger and would go to to be the most popular major on the calendar each year.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

TheJezster said:



			Quite the opposite I would think.  Even MORE people would turn it on to watch it, to see what happened.  It could end up being the most watched masters ever!  There will be plenty of media coverage and then they would get back to the golf with that rumbling in the background.  Next year it will be billed as "Tigers revenge" or something like that.

Cant comment on whether he will be disqualified or not, but if he does, he broke a rule, simple.  That would be the correct punishment for breaking said rule, so its a nothing story really, other than it's Tiger.  The masters would stand up to scrutiny for upholding the rules, even when its Tiger and would go to to be the most popular major on the calendar each year.
		
Click to expand...

We have a spin doctor


----------



## Nashy (Apr 13, 2013)

Where he played his 3rd from is on a down hill lye. I should imagine he has dropped further back and was expecting t to roll forwards. It's not nearer the hole and its inline I don't really see the problem, after the massive bad luck of the 3rd shot I suppose all the Tiger haters want to make him play it out of the divot for his 5th?


----------



## DCB (Apr 13, 2013)

It's a non-story. Nothing will happen now. The leaderboard was updated at the end of play on Friday and Saturdays tee times published.  If they were going to do anything it would have been done before now.


----------



## Jdb2005 (Apr 13, 2013)

DCB said:



			It's a non-story. Nothing will happen now. The leaderboard was updated at the end of play on Friday and Saturdays tee times published.  If they were going to do anything it would have been done before now.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed


----------



## CMAC (Apr 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Tiger must drop at the nearest point.
He didn't
He should be dq'd 
If he is not, he is bigger than the rules.
		
Click to expand...

Isn't there a rules official following? If they see a breach should they not 'referee' as a rules official and penalise the biggest player in the field on the spot, as they did with the slow play penalty on the smallest?


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

Nashy said:



			Where he played his 3rd from is on a down hill lye. I should imagine he has dropped further back and was expecting t to roll forwards. It's not nearer the hole and its inline I don't really see the problem, after the massive bad luck of the 3rd shot I suppose all the Tiger haters want to make him play it out of the divot for his 5th?
		
Click to expand...

You'd never drop and take a shot from your own divot as effectively you'd be closer to the pin and would pick up and drop again, unless you take divots behind the ball


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

Fish said:



			You'd never drop and take a shot from your own divot as effectively you'd be closer to the pin and would pick up and drop again, unless you take divots behind the ball 

Click to expand...

I take craters behind the ball 

will be interesting to see how this runs albeit with a positive outcome. I am 50/50 atm


----------



## tsped83 (Apr 13, 2013)

I think it's nonsense. This is when the rules if golf can be frustrating in my opinion. If they were going to do something, should have been there and then, not a day later. DQ'ing Tiger would ruin the tournament.


----------



## scratch (Apr 13, 2013)

Nashy said:



			Where he played his 3rd from is on a down hill lye. I should imagine he has dropped further back and was expecting t to roll forwards. It's not nearer the hole and its inline *I don't really see the problem*, after the massive bad luck of the 3rd shot I suppose all the Tiger haters want to make him play it out of the divot for his 5th?
		
Click to expand...

The problem is, he broke the rule (assuming that he didn't drop in the correct place). It's not about whether or not he gained any advantage, it's about not turning a blind eye to infringements.


----------



## Stuey01 (Apr 13, 2013)

DarthVega said:



			Isn't there a rules official following? If they see a breach should they not 'referee' as a rules official and penalise the biggest player in the field on the spot, as they did with the slow play penalty on the smallest?
		
Click to expand...

They are rules officials, not referees.
Not asking for a ruling does not absolve Tiger from breaking the rules. This is golf, not football.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he DQ's himself before play today.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

BTatHome said:



			So the question will be, what is "near as possible". Is 2 yards ok? Is 1 yard ok? Is 2 feet ok? Well none of them are "as near as possible", so the only solution would be everyone that drops not directly ontop of their last shot is penalised. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Rule 27-1 does not require the player to drop the ball directly on the spot from which the ball was last played.  It simply requires it to be _played_ from as near as possible to that place.  I expect that is in recognition of the obvious difficulty of finding the exact spot from which you played.  With the best will in the world, we are often liable to be a yard or more out in where we play from because of that difficulty and I reckon that "as near as possible" cannot be applied as exactly as many of the above posts suggest.

But what I don't understand is what on earth he meant by "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*".


----------



## scratch (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Rule 27-1 does not require the player to drop the ball directly on the spot from which the ball was last played.  It simply requires it to be _played_ from as near as possible to that place.  I expect that is in recognition of the obvious difficulty of finding the exact spot from which you played.
		
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be too much of a problem finding where he played his shot from. I understand he hit a wedge, I'd expect a divot weighing several kilos to have been removed


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Rule 27-1 does not require the player to drop the ball directly on the spot from which the ball was last played.  It simply requires it to be _played_ from as near as possible to that place.  I expect that is in recognition of the obvious difficulty of finding the exact spot from which you played.
		
Click to expand...

That's not the case, as he has stated himself in his interview, "I went back to where I played my last shot and THEN went back a further 2 yards"!


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

DarthVega said:



			If this happens this will be the day the Masters dies!
		
Click to expand...

Why?

Because someone who broke the Rules gets penalised?

He's admitted dropping 2 yards behind the "original" spot.
You simply can't do that.
You have to drop as close as possible if you're going to replay the shot.
In who'se World is 2 yards as close as possible?

And I'd be saying this if it was Phil, Lee, Luke or anyone else.

There's going to be some pretty close inspection of the footage.....


----------



## BTatHome (Apr 13, 2013)

True but I believe the nearest point should be where it strikes the course, in which case he can't say that went back another 2 yards ... if it rolls the 2 yards then ok, but he must attempt to drop from nearest to the original place. 

To be honest I hadn't realised what he said in his interview, having heard that I can't see how they can not DQ him.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			There's going to be some pretty close inspection of the footage.....
		
Click to expand...

Why, he's admitted what he did Ian, it was a deliberate act infringing on the rules.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

scratch said:



			Shouldn't be too much of a problem finding where he played his shot from. I understand he hit a wedge, I'd expect a divot weighing several kilos to have been removed  

Click to expand...

The problem is not finding _roughly_ where your shot was played from and the rule only requires our best effort to be as close as possible.  Try going back and deciding which of 10 divots close to where you played from is yours.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			The problem is not finding _roughly_ where your shot was played from and the rule only requires our best effort to be as close as possible.  Try going back and deciding which of 10 divots close to where you played from is yours. 

Click to expand...

Everyone is missing the point here, he admits to knowing where he took his last shot from because in his own interview he qualifys that by say "I went back a further 2 yards and then took that off the stroke", you simply cannot do that


----------



## Jdb2005 (Apr 13, 2013)

Also sure that even tho a it's a supposed rumour our news people would've highlighted it already if there was a slight chance of this happening


----------



## CMAC (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			Why?

Because someone who broke the Rules gets penalised?

...
		
Click to expand...

No, because the world,incl all the official and unofficial rules officials, must have watched a clear breach and did nothing about it until someone tweets about it. His interview admits it, still nothing. So now if they do DQ him what message does that send?


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

Fish said:



			Everyone is missing the point here, he admits to knowing where he took his last shot from because in his own interview he qualifys that by say "I went back a further 2 yards and then took that off the stroke", you simply cannot do that
		
Click to expand...

Not missing that point at all - just exploring the rule and puzzling over what he actually meant.


----------



## kid2 (Apr 13, 2013)

This might be all over twitter over some guys observation....But i think that people might be getting a little carried away yet....If it was as big as everyone is making it out to be then it would be all over this mornings papers and over the internet.......Im struggling to find anything on the subject at all.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

It's around  - I first saw it referred to this morning in a golf referee's forum - and it's  big enough not   to go away.  By the way,  it would  have happened too late for the morning papers to pick up, don't you think?


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

its only on blogs/social media at the mo and a couple of US sites

he does admit to 2 yards so will be v interesting what they do.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

kid2 said:



			This might be all over twitter over some guys observation....But i think that people might be getting a little carried away yet....If it was as big as everyone is making it out to be then it would be all over this mornings papers and over the internet.......Im struggling to find anything on the subject at all.
		
Click to expand...

Well GM are tweeting and asking the question now, so, were leading it as an exclusive


----------



## Jdb2005 (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			It's around  - I first saw it referred to this morning in a golf referee's forum - and it's  big enough not   to go away.  By the way,  it would  have happened too late for the morning papers to pick up, don't you think?
		
Click to expand...

As I stated its not on text or sky sports news or sky news. If there was a slight chance the biggest name in golf was or is about to be DQed it would've been stated by now.  In my opinion it won't happen


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

Jdb2005 said:



			As I stated its not on text or sky sports news or sky news. If there was a slight chance the biggest name in golf was or is about to be DQed it would've been stated by now.  In my opinion it won't happen
		
Click to expand...

How do you know there are not meetings and calls going on in the background as we speak, especially due to the time difference. Someone will run it very soon I think, they'll be just covering themselves first, dotting the I's and crossing the T's.


----------



## Backsticks (Apr 13, 2013)

Jdb2005 said:



			As I stated its not on text or sky sports news or sky news. If there was a slight chance the biggest name in golf was or is about to be DQed it would've been stated by now.  In my opinion it won't happen
		
Click to expand...

Masters officials to review the matter on Saturday morning. Thats still a few hours away over there.


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

good old golf, the rules are more complicated than the british tax system


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

Taken from the Golf writer of ESPN.


Tiger Woods got a bad break when his approach shot to the par-5 15th green bounced off the flag stick and into the water during Friday's second round.

He might also have taken a bad drop.

Masters officials are expected to review the situation Saturday morning, which could lead to disqualification if it is deemed Woods dropped the ball in the wrong spot.

Because Woods signed his scorecard for a 1-under 71 without adding the 1-stroke penalty, he would be disqualified because he put a six on his scorecard instead of a seven.

Woods had 87 yards to the hole for his third shot and saw his ball hit the flag stick and then roll back off the green and into the water.

Under Rule 26-1, Woods had three options at the yellow-staked (not lateral) hazard, which is a pond that fronts the green:

â€¢ He could have played from a designated drop area, which he chose not to do because he did not like the lie.

â€¢ He could have dropped the ball, keeping the point at which it last crossed the margin of the water between the hole and the spot on which the ball would be dropped. Since the ball entered the water well left of Woods' position from the fairway, it would seem he did not choose this option, which would have allowed him to drop on a straight line as far back as he wanted.

â€¢ Or he could return to the original spot from which he played, and drop "as nearly as possible'' from where he played the third shot.

This is the option Woods took, and in interviews afterwards, he said he dropped "two yards'' behind the original spot. Replays seemed to suggest he was closer than that, but the question is if that is considered "as nearly as possible'' to the original spot.

On a CBS-TV highlights show late Friday night, analyst David Feherty showed the replay and said he believed the drop was illegal.

Augusta National officials were not available for comment early Saturday morning, but golf's rules officials typically review any possible violations brought to their attention.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

G1BB0 said:



			good old golf, the rules are more complicated than the british tax system 

Click to expand...

There's nothing really complicated about 27-1, is there?

_At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played_

He either did or didn't play from as nearly as possible.  The "Committee" will decide.  Pretty simple really!


----------



## Snelly (Apr 13, 2013)

A different point but relating to Woods at the Masters - what does everyone think of the fact that after his 3 putt on 18, his reaction was to walk to the side of the green, have a good swill round in his mouth then launch a big gob of spit and phlegm onto the hallowed turf. 

As ever, utterly charmless. Fingers crossed he gets disqualified.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

CBS is all over this now so its not going away.

Big pressure on the committee. 

http://www.cbssports.com/golf/blog/...iger-woods-facing-disqualification-at-masters


----------



## Jdb2005 (Apr 13, 2013)

Fish said:



			How do you know there are not meetings and calls going on in the background as we speak, especially due to the time difference. Someone will run it very soon I think, they'll be just covering themselves first, dotting the I's and crossing the T's.
		
Click to expand...

Thats a fair point , but His round ended nearly 9 or 10 hours ago I just feel that sky would've mentioned this wether true or not. I personally don't want this to happen Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

Thanks for the quotation, Fish.   Just to correct one bit of it:

_Because Woods signed his scorecard for a 1-under 71 *without adding the 1-stroke penalty*, he would be disqualified because he put a six on his scorecard instead of a seven_.

It would be a 2 stroke penalty.


----------



## Jdb2005 (Apr 13, 2013)

Just got a mention on masters at breakfast


----------



## Crow (Apr 13, 2013)

Having plainly said what he did, ie dropped two yards further back, then I can't see any way forward other than DQ.

The rules oficials following would have seen him drop and it would have looked as though he'd dropped correctly as he didn't say to them "I'm going to drop two yards further back". They wouldn't know that he'd deliberately dropped two yards further back unitl he later said so in his interview.

I assume that the reason he did it was so that he wouldn't hit the flag with his second attempt.
To me it's a careless misunderstanding/oversight of the rules by Tiger in thinknig he could go back as far as he likes, unfortunate for the competition but has to be DQ. 

Don't we always say that the best golfers haven't necessarily got the best understanding of the rules!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 13, 2013)

Tough one this. If it was me trying to identify the exact spot on the fairway would be tricky; within 2 yards wouldn't be a bad estimate and I certainly wouldn't penalise a playing partner for such a drop... Unless there was an obvious marker near where the original shot was played. Not always easy to identify the correct divot... Of course when the ball goes in the water it might be prudent to mark where you've just played from but how many have the presence of mind to do that?

Real problem seems to be the interview. He found the original spot then went two yards further back basically to gain an advantage for his next shot, although probably more an oversight than deliberate cheating. Looks like a DQ. As others have said, it wouldn't surprise me if he calls it on himself when he wakes up and realises. A shame though and between this and the guan thing golf will be looking a wee bit silly.....


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

Crow said:



			.

To me it's a careless misunderstanding/oversight of the rules by Tiger in thinknig he could go back as far as he likes, unfortunate for the competition but has to be DQ. 

Don't we always say that the best golfers haven't necessarily got the best understanding of the rules!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed.  He was probably just getting confused with the option (26-1b) of going any distance back along the line from hole to where the ball entered the hazard.  I often wonder about caddies in this kind of situation: if I were a top golfer like Woods, I would make sure my caddie was pretty expert in the rules and expect him/her to keep me right.


----------



## Ethan (Apr 13, 2013)

I think that the penalty for Guan puts a greater focus on the question of applying rules evenly, but I can't see TW getting DQ'd. 

Also, I would be very surprised if both he and an experienced caddy like Joe La Cava would get the rule so wrong. 

Finally, it would be nice if we could discuss TW related matters like grown ups without people piling in and describing anyone with the negative view, in this case saying he should be DQ'd, as a hater.


----------



## FaldosJumper (Apr 13, 2013)

Coud well be DQ'd after watching it... I hope not as I have him on the nose with Paddy Power


----------



## JT77 (Apr 13, 2013)

I maybe wrong but if he has hit the ball into a hazard is one option not to replay the shot from as far back as you like in a straight line with the flag?


----------



## scratch (Apr 13, 2013)

Just a thought on this......

presumably they will have to act very quickly as it could affect tee times? Play is in 2 balls now so if he is dq'd they will have to alter the groupings? Or will a marker play in his place?


----------



## BTatHome (Apr 13, 2013)

JT77 said:



			I maybe wrong but if he has hit the ball into a hazard is one option not to replay the shot from as far back as you like in a straight line with the flag?
		
Click to expand...

Half correct.

The line is with the flag and the place it last crossed the line of the hazard.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

JT77 said:



			I maybe wrong but if he has hit the ball into a hazard is one option not to replay the shot from as far back as you like in a straight line with the flag?
		
Click to expand...

Yes.  But the straight line has to keep the place where the ball last crossed the margin in line with the hole.  In this case, the ball last crossed the margin when it rebounded from the flag which would have take him out to the left not to where he dropped.


----------



## North Mimms (Apr 13, 2013)

JT77 said:



			I maybe wrong but if he has hit the ball into a hazard is one option not to replay the shot from as far back as you like in a straight line with the flag?
		
Click to expand...

It's more a straight line 
Flag > point where ball crossed margin of hazard > back as far as he likes.

AFAIK, the ball entered off at an angle from his approach, so line extends off the side


----------



## PieMan (Apr 13, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			A shame though and between this and the guan thing golf will be looking a wee bit silly.....
		
Click to expand...

Why - because the rules have been upheld? I actually think golf would actually come out the better for it; shows no-one is bigger than the game. I think Woods for one would also agree with that. The Guan slow play ruling was unfortunate, but the young lad took it on the chin and accepted it.


----------



## JT77 (Apr 13, 2013)

Ah ok. I've not seen the incident just thought it must have popped back straight, if that's the case and he deliberately broke the rule then he has to be dq'd


----------



## scratch (Apr 13, 2013)

For those that haven't seen the incident, here is a link, it occurred about 3:30 into the clip. You can see his first divot mark quite clearly when he plays his 2nd shot.

http://www.masters.com/en_US/news/index.html


----------



## North Mimms (Apr 13, 2013)

PieMan said:



			Why - because the rules have been upheld? I actually think golf would actually come out the better for it; shows no-one is bigger than the game. I think Woods for one would also agree with that. The Guan slow play ruling was unfortunate, but the young lad took it on the chin and accepted it.
		
Click to expand...

I agree.

We all know that golf  is governed by a multitude of rules, and you have to be a pedant about them.

If it is shown that it doesn't matter if you are a 14 year old amateur or World number one, rule are rules, I think that;s a good thing.


----------



## North Mimms (Apr 13, 2013)

scratch said:



			For those that haven't seen the incident, here is a link, it occurred about 3:30 into the clip. You can see his first divot mark quite clearly when he plays his 2nd shot.

http://www.masters.com/en_US/news/index.html

Click to expand...

Which clip?
I'm just getting an index?


----------



## scratch (Apr 13, 2013)

North Mimms said:



			Which clip?
I'm just getting an index?
		
Click to expand...

Videos section, takes you direct to 2nd round highlights  :thup:


----------



## North Mimms (Apr 13, 2013)

Thanks. didn't look properly!


----------



## pbrown7582 (Apr 13, 2013)

DarthVega said:



			Isn't there a rules official following? If they see a breach should they not 'referee' as a rules official and penalise the biggest player in the field on the spot, as they did with the slow play penalty on the smallest?
		
Click to expand...

Exactly if there is a rules breech and the rules official has missed and TV trial proves a DQ is required there will be something hitting the fan this morning!


----------



## Snelly (Apr 13, 2013)

Ethan said:



			I think that the penalty for Guan puts a greater focus on the question of applying rules evenly, but I can't see TW getting DQ'd. 

Also, I would be very surprised if both he and an experienced caddy like Joe La Cava would get the rule so wrong. 

Finally, it would be nice if we could discuss TW related matters like grown ups without people piling in and describing anyone with the negative view, in this case saying he should be DQ'd, as a hater.
		
Click to expand...

I assume you are referring to me when you use the therapy speak term "hater".  To clarify, I am a grown up and I don't like to see the number one player in the world gob on the green. I don't hate him and resent the implication. 

At the moment , I don't hate anyone except slow players....


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 13, 2013)

PieMan said:



			Why - because the rules have been upheld? I actually think golf would actually come out the better for it; shows no-one is bigger than the game. I think Woods for one would also agree with that. The Guan slow play ruling was unfortunate, but the young lad took it on the chin and accepted it.
		
Click to expand...

I don't disagree but to the casual viewer it looks a tad silly, which was my point and is unfortunate. Golf fans have a different perspective and IMO it was right to penalise guan, who probably just doesn't know how to work he system like the other slowpokes do, and (sadly) tiger should be dq'd.


----------



## Holty (Apr 13, 2013)

Having seen the replay, he doesn't seem to be 2 yards back from his original divot (although admittedly not exactly on top of it).  I get the impression that if he hadn't have been loose with his interview response very few people would have thought twice about it.

I think that if they are going to DQ him, they may well have to go back and review a few other drops to check that they are applying the rule consistently first


----------



## Ethan (Apr 13, 2013)

The Masters Committee and rules officials like John Paramor will know instantly on seeing that video if TW has broken a rule and the penalty, if one applies, is not in dispute.

But I think any delay in dealing with it is more to do with balancing the accusation of partisanship if they are not going to DQ him and the damage to viewing figures, sponsors and general disappointment if they do DQ him, and he is an honorary member of the club as well.

The bigger issue for me is the issue of post round viewers raising possible violations. I think that after a card is signed and accepted, any subsequent DQ should only be possible if the rule broken is one which clearly gives the player an advantage of is a gross violation of the game (i.e. a deliberate cheat). 

Clearly neither of these apply in TW's case, so although I am not his biggest fan by any means, I really hope they do not DQ him.


----------



## duncan mackie (Apr 13, 2013)

Crow said:



			Having plainly said what he did, ie dropped two yards further back, then I can't see any way forward other than DQ.

The rules oficials following would have seen him drop and it would have looked as though he'd dropped correctly as he didn't say to them "I'm going to drop two yards further back". They wouldn't know that he'd deliberately dropped two yards further back unitl he later said so in his interview.

I assume that the reason he did it was so that he wouldn't hit the flag with his second attempt.
To me it's a careless misunderstanding/oversight of the rules by Tiger in thinknig he could go back as far as he likes, unfortunate for the competition but has to be DQ.
		
Click to expand...

good summary, having watched it the mental effort he must have brought to bear on playing the shot again as he did was simply stunning, and could easily have have stopped him giving the appropriate thought to the rules.

going forwards I can see 2 extremes to the outcome 

1. The ruling follows the line that despite what TW said he actually dropped the ball close to where he played the previous shot from.........

2. Tiger withdraws

The first could be a total disaster all round, the second would show Tiger in a competely new light to many.


----------



## Fader (Apr 13, 2013)

It's situations like this that IMO highlight massive issues with the rules of golf & its officials. 

Having watched it he does seem to be a yard further back from his original divot but it was "further back" not further forward so no distance advantage gained. So to DQ him would be the right thing to do according to the rule book but totally against common sense IMO. The reason being is he could have gained a distance advantage within the rules and gone and dropped a ball in the drop zone about 60 yards closer to the home and he'd be playing within the rules! Really where is the common sense in that! Take a 60 yard advantage your ok Mr Woods but go back a yard to far and your out of here pal!  

Then there's the issue with officiating, World No1 golfs biggest name of the modern era and his group would have had a top rules official on the course with them. Now we all no they can't intervene at time of incident which IMO needs changing as its quicker to say you can't do that! But after completing the 15th hole whilst waiting on 16th tee he could say sorry Mr Woods you took an incorrect drop and will be penalised accordingly. Woods would be annoyed but it would've been dealt with and done. Now what we get is nothing from the officials allow him to sign his card and trial by TV which isn't right. 

But fact remains if they want to be anal about the rules and to be fair they have to be then he has to be DQ sadly.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

Woods's predicament lies in what he said afterwards about what he intentionally did.  A ruling on whether there is a breach of 27-1 should consider the player's intent.  If I go back 160 yards to replay a shot and make my best effort to locate the place I played from would you say that I had failed to play from as nearly as possible to where I last played if I were unintentionally 2 yards out? Would you penalise me?  I hope not.  If I located what I thought was the place I had played from and then knowingly played from 2 yards away, would you penalise me?  I hope so.  By "knowingly", I just mean that I know I am playing 2 yards away from the spot, not that I am cheating.  It could be that I innocently think that it is ok to do that.

I've no doubt that Tiger will be asked his intention when he played from where he did and from what he has already said, it doesn't sound as if the answer is going to be good for him.


----------



## thecraw (Apr 13, 2013)

DarthVega said:



			If this happens this will be the day the Masters dies!
		
Click to expand...


Codswallop. Its the day that we know rules apply to all.


----------



## Crow (Apr 13, 2013)

Ethan said:



			The Masters Committee and rules officials like John Paramor will know instantly on seeing that video if TW has broken a rule and the penalty, if one applies, is not in dispute.

But I think any delay in dealing with it is more to do with balancing the accusation of partisanship if they are not going to DQ him and the damage to viewing figures, sponsors and general disappointment if they do DQ him, and he is an honorary member of the club as well.

The bigger issue for me is the issue of post round viewers raising possible violations. I think that after a card is signed and accepted, any subsequent DQ should only be possible if the rule broken is one which clearly gives the player an advantage of is a gross violation of the game (i.e. a deliberate cheat). 

Clearly neither of these apply in TW's case, so although I am not his biggest fan by any means, I really hope they do not DQ him.
		
Click to expand...

But he did gain an advantage as he was able to play the exact same shot knowing that if he hit it correctly it would land short of the pin rather than clattering it.

I'd sooner not see him DQ'd but he has admitted to an incorrect drop and signed an incorrect card, it's black and white to me.

On another point about how close his ball was to his previous divot (assuming that was his previous divot) though the replays show the ball was close, it might have rolled down the hill towards it after the drop, has anybody seen footage of the actual drop?


----------



## Backsticks (Apr 13, 2013)

Was there not a chage to tour rules a year or two ago about unintentional rules violations being noticed after the fact by TV or spectators ?
What was it ?


----------



## Slime (Apr 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Tiger must drop at the nearest point.
He didn't
He should be dq'd 
If he is not, he is bigger than the rules.
		
Click to expand...

What *bobmac* said.
Unfortunately for Woods, I don't think the drop would have been noticed had he not said what he said in his interview.
He's effectively admitted to not dropping 'at the nearest point' and must be DQ'd.
I hope the authorities have the guts to do the right thing as they did yesterday to the Chinese kid for slow play.
Woods and Donald waited for half an hour on the fourth tee .............. the fourth tee for goodness' sake.
I think they took 5hrs 40mins to get round, they are given 4hrs 20mins I believe. 
I'm glad action has been taken, it's just a shame that Crenshaw didn't have a little word with him after Guan had his first warning.
It's gonna get interesting, that's for sure.

*Slime*.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Apr 13, 2013)

Just looked at the video and it looks much less than 2 yards, in fact it looks less than 1 club length

We need to define the "as near as possible" bit of the rule

i didnt see the actual drop, Im sure that people would be asking questions if he had dropped it from the exact position and the ball had rolled forward, so it was played from a position closer to the hole.

In this instance the ball is not closer to the hole, it is very close to where the last shot was played, In my opinion its close enough although I recognise that my opinion may not tally with others.

I would say its close enough, he gained no advantage, nobody picked it up at the time and I have to say that I am not a fan of retrospective trial by television.

If he does get DQ the general non golfing TV watching millions are going to think that Golf is a little crazy


----------



## Backsticks (Apr 13, 2013)

PhilTheFragger said:



			We need to define the "as near as possible" bit of the rule
		
Click to expand...

Not really. That isnt at issue here since Tiger clearly states that he did identify a spot (whether that is accurate or not doesnt matter at this stage) and that he move two yards back from it. i.e. clearly not as near as possible.


----------



## bobmac (Apr 13, 2013)




----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



View attachment 5687

Click to expand...

First time I've had a look at this, other than the live coverage (I didn't notice at the time) if  there's no photo trickery there it's not even close!


----------



## Ethan (Apr 13, 2013)

Crow said:



			But he did gain an advantage as he was able to play the exact same shot knowing that if he hit it correctly it would land short of the pin rather than clattering it.

I'd sooner not see him DQ'd but he has admitted to an incorrect drop and signed an incorrect card, it's black and white to me.

On another point about how close his ball was to his previous divot (assuming that was his previous divot) though the replays show the ball was close, it might have rolled down the hill towards it after the drop, has anybody seen footage of the actual drop?
		
Click to expand...

In the rules, gaining an advantage means something explicit, such as a better lie or avoiding a hazard. It is not assumed that players can measure their shots to the exact yard.


----------



## duncan mackie (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			I've no doubt that Tiger will be asked his intention when he played from where he did and from what he has already said, it doesn't sound as if the answer is going to be good for him.
		
Click to expand...

here is where the scope for real problems lies - if TW decides to clarify what he said earlier as 'I went back to where I played it from with, as I stated previously, the intention of taking 2 yards off my shot the second time" and puts any confusion over the exact words he previously used down to just having walked off a very long (slow) stressfull round......he stays in without penalty and the world will be split between those who believe it's all fair and those scratching their heads!

maybe I'm in la la land, but I actually think the TW is bigger than this - we will see.


----------



## Backsticks (Apr 13, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			First time I've had a look at this, other than the live coverage (I didn't notice at the time) if  there's no photo trickery there it's not even close!
		
Click to expand...

Tiger was making no effort to be close to the spot. Clearly he thought he could go backas far as he wished.


----------



## BTatHome (Apr 13, 2013)

Backsticks said:



			Was there not a chage to tour rules a year or two ago about unintentional rules violations being noticed after the fact by TV or spectators ?
What was it ?
		
Click to expand...

That's true, the rule change was specifically to allow the officials to add the penalty to the players score, without incurring the DQ penalty.

This could be the get out clause the officials have this time.


----------



## Backsticks (Apr 13, 2013)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...fied-for-violations-caught-by-tv-viewers.html

The decision means players who arenâ€™t aware of a rule breach before signing their scorecard wonâ€™t automatically be removed from the competition, the groups said. Tournament officials now have the option to give the player a penalty for breaking the rule, but not disqualify them.


----------



## pbrown7582 (Apr 13, 2013)

Backsticks said:



			Was there not a chage to tour rules a year or two ago about unintentional rules violations being noticed after the fact by TV or spectators ?
What was it ?
		
Click to expand...


It was to do with intentional and unintentionally infringements, it was after padraig got d'qd for his ball oscillating an ion and being picked up on HD,  and camillio kicking a divot out of the way after a drop.
Both resulted in dq but now I think  padraig would be 2 shot pen as unintentional.


----------



## Backsticks (Apr 13, 2013)

pbrown7582 said:



			It was to do with intentional and unintentionally infringements, it was after padraig got d'qd for his ball oscillating an ion and being picked up on HD,  and camillio kicking a divot out of the way after a drop.
Both resulted in dq but now I think  padraig would be 2 shot pen as unintentional.
		
Click to expand...

So will Tiger not be a two shot addition rather dq now ?
His playing from the wrong spot was clearly unintentional (due to his mistake about the point where the ball last crossed the hazard - stupid from a pro golfer - but still a mistake. He was not trying to get away with a deliberate cheat for the sake of a couple of yards).


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

Can't believe anyone would want to see Tiger DQ from the Masters it would be boring without him and golf would be half the sport it is now!!!


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

Fader said:



			It's situations like this that IMO highlight massive issues with the rules of golf & its officials. 

Having watched it he does seem to be a yard further back from his original divot but i*t was "further back" not further forward so no distance advantage gained.* So to DQ him would be the right thing to do according to the rule book but totally against common sense IMO. *The reason being is he could have gained a distance advantage within the rules and gone and dropped a ball in the drop zone about 60 yards closer to the home* and he'd be playing within the rules! Really where is the common sense in that! Take a 60 yard advantage your ok Mr Woods but go back a yard to far and your out of here pal!  

Then there's the issue with officiating, World No1 golfs biggest name of the modern era and his group would have had a top rules official on the course with them. *Now we all no they can't intervene at time of incident ...... *

But fact remains if they want to be anal about the rules and to be fair they have to be then he has to be DQ sadly.
		
Click to expand...

Some misunderstandings there, Fader.  
Playing further back could well be advantageous - a better lie, a better angle, playing from the exact distance of your club, avoiding, as Crow points out, a repetition of the same shot.   

The fact that there were other options available is entirely irrelevant to getting the one you choose wrong. Presumably Woods did not take either of the others because they were less advantageous to him.

A referee is obliged to intervene at the time if an infringement occurs (See Definitions: _A â€œrefereeâ€™â€™ is one who is appointed by the Committee to decide questions of fact and apply the Rules. He must act on any breach of a Rule that he observes or is reported to him._


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

scratch said:



			Shouldn't be too much of a problem finding where he played his shot from. I understand he hit a wedge, I'd expect a divot weighing several kilos to have been removed  

Click to expand...

He found the spot and went two yards back, he admitted it.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

Backsticks said:



			So will Tiger not be a two shot addition rather dq now ?
His playing from the wrong spot was clearly unintentional (due to his mistake about the point where the ball last crossed the hazard - stupid from a pro golfer - but still a mistake. He was not trying to get away with a deliberate cheat for the sake of a couple of yards).
		
Click to expand...

He would not be disqualified for breaching 27-1 by not playing as nearly as possible to where he last played.  If the ruling is that he did breach the rule, he is penalised 2 strokes.  His problem is that he has submitted his card without the penalty and has therefore submitted a score at the hole less than he took.  He would be disqualified for that (Rule 6-6d)


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Some misunderstandings there, Fader.  
Playing further back could well be advantageous - a better lie, a better angle, playing from the exact distance of your club, avoiding, as Crow points out, a repetition of the same shot.   

The fact that there were other options available is entirely irrelevant to getting the one you choose wrong. Presumably Woods did not take either of the others because they were less advantageous to him.

A referee is obliged to intervene at the time if an infringement occurs (See Definitions: _A â€œrefereeâ€™â€™ is one who is appointed by the Committee to decide questions of fact and apply the Rules. He must act on any breach of a Rule that he observes or is reported to him._

Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on regarding advantage, he know the shot and knew 2 yards back would produce a better result so he gained an advantage


----------



## Neddy (Apr 13, 2013)

Valentino said:



			Absolutely spot on regarding advantage, he know the shot and knew 2 yards back would produce a better result so he gained an advantage
		
Click to expand...

Not sure i agree. The first one had so much backspin i think it could have been just as close had it not hit the flag.

Moving back was probably a psychological thing as much as anything else.

And it doesn't look anything like 2 yards on the pictures i've seen.


----------



## Backsticks (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			He would not be disqualified for breaching 27-1 by not playing as nearly as possible to where he last played.  If the ruling is that he did breach the rule, he is penalised 2 strokes.  His problem is that he has submitted his card without the penalty and has therefore submitted a score at the hole less than he took.  He would be disqualified for that (Rule 6-6d)
		
Click to expand...

Yes. He has breached the rule and signed the card. But not intentionally and the breach only came to light after the fact. Penalty to be applied retrospectively rather than dg as used to be is a tour rule, not a R&A rule.


----------



## bobmac (Apr 13, 2013)

Neddy said:



			And it doesn't look anything like 2 yards on the pictures i've seen.
		
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.
He got the rule wrong.
Signed for a wrong score
DQ

If Tiger doesn't DQ himself today I will be amazed but not surprised


----------



## Backsticks (Apr 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			I will be amazed but not surprised
		
Click to expand...


----------



## bobmac (Apr 13, 2013)

Backsticks said:





Click to expand...

I expect his management team will advise him to withdraw but Tiger will probably think he can get away with it


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

thecraw said:



			Codswallop. Its the day that we know rules apply to all.
		
Click to expand...

And so they should.



Backsticks said:



			Tiger was making no effort to be close to the spot. Clearly he thought he could go backas far as he wished.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely, why would he say he went back 2 yards further if he'd known he couldn't.



Backsticks said:



			So will Tiger not be a two shot addition rather dq now ?
His playing from the wrong spot was clearly unintentional (due to his mistake about the point where the ball last crossed the hazard - stupid from a pro golfer - but still a mistake. He was not trying to get away with a deliberate cheat for the sake of a couple of yards).
		
Click to expand...

He's signed for a wrong score, that's why DQ not for the drop itself.



DAVEYBOY said:



			Can't believe anyone would want to see Tiger DQ from the Masters it would be boring without him and golf would be half the sport it is now!!!
		
Click to expand...

Nonsense, rules are rules and have to be applied to everyone. It would apply to any other player. The masters will still produce an exciting finish withor without tiger, I'm sure we all enjoyed last year.


----------



## Backsticks (Apr 13, 2013)

Valentino said:



			He's signed for a wrong score, that's why DQ not for the drop itself.
		
Click to expand...

But no dq if the rules state that he should receive a 2 shot retrospective penalty and play. Right ?


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

Backsticks said:



			But no dq if the rules state that he should receive a 2 shot retrospective penalty and play. Right ?
		
Click to expand...

But they don't say that in the rules. He's signed for an incorrect score if they deem the drop illegal which they should do.

This is not a grey area IMO, 2 yards is not as close as possible to the original position.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

Backsticks said:



			Yes. He has breached the rule and signed the card. But not intentionally and the breach only came to light after the fact. Penalty to be applied retrospectively rather than dg as used to be is a tour rule, not a R&A rule.
		
Click to expand...

6-6d is clear - disqualification for returning a score at a hole less than what you took
33-41b is clear - a penalty cannot be imposed _after a competition has closed_ but the Masters has not closed
33-7 is clear - the Committee can waive disqualification _in exceptional individual cases _

I doubt very much if the circumstances of Tiger's breach (if its ruled to be a breach)  would be individually exceptional.  Ignorance of a rule or getting a rule wrong is hardly exceptional. Needing close-up television to show that the ball Harrington thought had just oscillated had actually moved a fraction is a different situation altogether.


----------



## duncan mackie (Apr 13, 2013)

Backsticks said:



			But no dq if the rules state that he should receive a 2 shot retrospective penalty and play. Right ?
		
Click to expand...

no-ones responded to your posts on this so I will

basically this change is irrelevant to the situation here

it was introduced to cover situations where the player had committed a breach that they couldn't have been aware of, and subsequently came to light (through video etc).  Note that it's all the way over at 'couldn't' not wouldn't; and there was a case last year where the player was still DQ'd because they could have asked for a review but didn't (after having spent time discussing things at the time ie they knew that something had happened but chose an interpretation that suited without checking factually).

TW's problem is that he intended to drop, and play, his ball 2 yards behind where he had played his previous shot from - the rules required him to drop it as near as possible to where he played his last shot from.

His breach has nothing to do with whether he was 'close enough', and he knew (and stated) his intentions.


----------



## Neddy (Apr 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Irrelevant.
He got the rule wrong.
Signed for a wrong score
DQ

If Tiger doesn't DQ himself today I will be amazed but not surprised
		
Click to expand...

That's a seperate issue. I was simply responding to Valentinos point that he gained an advantage. I don't feel he did.

In my mind that means DQing would be incredibly harsh and show a distinct lack of common sense.....but that's just me. 

There are lots of rules i will never understand  or even comprehend so maybe i am not qualified to comment.


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

anyone got a link to the interview?


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

Neddy said:



			That's a seperate issue. I was simply responding to Valentinos point that he gained an advantage. I don't feel he did.

In my mind that means DQing would be incredibly harsh.....but that's just me. 

There are lots of rules i will never understand  or even comprehend so maybe i am not qualified to comment.
		
Click to expand...

Only Tiger will know for sure if he did it to gain advantage however his interview suggested he deliberately took it two yards back to take 2 yards off the shot so that would suggest he did it it to gain advantage.


----------



## Fader (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Some misunderstandings there, Fader.  
Playing further back could well be advantageous - a better lie, a better angle, playing from the exact distance of your club, avoiding, as Crow points out, a repetition of the same shot.   

The fact that there were other options available is entirely irrelevant to getting the one you choose wrong. Presumably Woods did not take either of the others because they were less advantageous to him.

A referee is obliged to intervene at the time if an infringement occurs (See Definitions: _A â€œrefereeâ€™â€™ is one who is appointed by the Committee to decide questions of fact and apply the Rules. He must act on any breach of a Rule that he observes or is reported to him._

Click to expand...

I understand what your saying and how what I've said isn't right in the rules but that's my point and where I think they're wrong. You allowed to drop in the DZ 60 yards closer within the rules but a yard further back and your cheating! IMO totally ridiculous. 

Plus your point on the official if that's the case then it should've been addressed there and then


----------



## scratch (Apr 13, 2013)

Fader said:



			You allowed to drop in the DZ 60 yards closer within the rules but a yard further back and your cheating! IMO totally ridiculous.
		
Click to expand...

The issue is though....if 1 yard is ok, what about 2....or 5....or 10?  At what point do you draw the line? Whilst the rules are not necessarily the clearest or indeed most logical, they are there to make things fair for everyone.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 13, 2013)

For those with sky... Looks like they're going to analyse this "after the break". Sky sports 1


----------



## Neddy (Apr 13, 2013)

Did any pundit/viewer actually pick up on this at the time?

If not that speaks volumes IMO and this whole thing then becomes a classic case of common sense going right out of the window just so the rules can be applied to the letter.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 13, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			For those with sky... Looks like they're going to analyse this "after the break". Sky sports 1
		
Click to expand...

Their verdict is DQ. "Heartbreaking for the tournament"


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

fundy said:



			anyone got a link to the interview?
		
Click to expand...

His 3rd answer is key

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=88442


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

Having heard his interview seems pretty clear doesnt it. No interview and it looks looks ok, but the interview shows his thought process and that is contravening the rules. Hes drifted from 3/1 to 5/1 on the exchanges this morning, mainly on what just came out of the sky studio


----------



## JT77 (Apr 13, 2013)

Will be interesting to see what they say in the statement that will be released. 
Tiger also quoted as saying 'rules is rules' over the guan situ. 
I would love to see dq himself, I believe it will be a shame as he is playing some great stuff, but rules is rules


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

Fish said:



			His 3rd answer is key

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=88442

Click to expand...

Just saw it on sky fish, thanks


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

Just so people are aware its just gone 6.30am over there, dont expect we hear anything for a few hours


----------



## harpo_72 (Apr 13, 2013)

I think if he had said nothing about coming back 2 yards this whole thread may never have got any steam. The point is he actually tried to take advantage, the DZ at 60yards was too close for him to influence the ball in the way he wanted and his penalty shot with 2 yards extra was just right for him to put his "bread and butter" swing on it. 
So should he be DQ'd IMO, sadly yes had he said nothing about the 2 yards we all would have been oblivious to it all. I also don't see an argument that if he was dropping it on a slope and it rolled nearer the hole caused him to come back 2 yards, because after 3 drops you just place ...


----------



## Midnight (Apr 13, 2013)

I am a big Tiger fan and don't want to see him DQ, however if he has broke the rules , then he has to go , people can argue all they want about common sense approach or did he gain advantage, the issue is did he break a rule .  I don't know the in's and out's of the rules, I do know they are confusing  to me.

Can someone explain to me the role of the official who follows the group please . Are they there to only answer and give advice when asked ? Or can they chip in if they see a infringement has happened ?

Cheers

Midnight...


----------



## HiltonParker78 (Apr 13, 2013)

This link may help. My vote? Can't see anything other than dq.
http://www.sportinglife.com/golf/news/article/585/8635548/-


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

Neddy said:



			Did any pundit/viewer actually pick up on this at the time?

If not that speaks volumes IMO and this whole thing then becomes a classic case of common sense going right out of the window just so the rules can be applied to the letter.
		
Click to expand...

Why does it matter, rules are rules. Common sense has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

duncan mackie said:



			no-ones responded to your posts on this so I will
.
		
Click to expand...

Synchronisation again


----------



## Sweep (Apr 13, 2013)

I think he was genuinly confused with the two choices and thought he could go back on line as long as he was no closer to the hole. Under the pressure of playing in the Masters, I would have probably made the same mistake. He clearly intended to go back 2 yards and his strategy worked on the second shot. It is also such a shame, as they were two brilliant shots, the kind of shots we all watch the Masters for. Sadly, I think Tiger has to call this one on himself. Otherwise he risks becoming a VJ figure.


----------



## Fader (Apr 13, 2013)

Whatever happens now one thing is for sure whoever wins this now has to know their victory will be overshadowed by the slow play penalty ad Tigergate! 

Woods wins and all the sticklers will complain he cheated! He gets DQ'd and everyone  says if Tiger was still in the field it could have been a different outcome. 

Sounds like no one noticed this till Tiger gave post round interview and now the rule police are being anal for the sake of it. I get what the infraction is but don't agree with the way it's being applies when in the rules you can legally drop 60 yards closer but not a yard further back. Yes I know that then says so how far back etc but it really does just seen a case of being anal for the sake of it as no-one noticed it at the time. 

Perhaps I should say no more on this as my view doesn't sit within the ruling


----------



## Neddy (Apr 13, 2013)

Valentino said:



			Common sense has nothing to do with it.
		
Click to expand...

That pretty much says it all!

IMO, if it's a rule that not one rules official, former pro, tv commentator/pundit or fan noticed or believed had been broken until the player inadvertently says something in a TV interview after the event....then it makes a farce of the whole thing.

You call a foot fault on a tennis player after he has served. Not 12 hours after the match has finished.

BTW can someone clarify something for me....is it true that Jim Furyk dropped 15 yards behind his original position when he chunked his 3rd into the water at the same hole? And if so why is that allowed when Tiger's isn't.


----------



## LeeTurner (Apr 13, 2013)

Interesting to see the forum members at GolfWRX trying to put their own interpretation on the rules http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/825693-tiger-dqd/ :lol:


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

http://www1.skysports.com/golf/news...lified-for-incorrect-drop-during-second-round


----------



## Nashy (Apr 13, 2013)

I understand the fact that he has said he has gone back to where he played the last shot from and gone back 2 yards. What happens if where he has taken this shot from in inline with the point it crossed the hazard and the flag? That needs to be looked at because the 3rd shot might have been inline so this is the reason he went back.


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

Betting mkts drifted pretty strongly now, gone from 3/1 to 7/1


----------



## CMAC (Apr 13, 2013)

thecraw said:



			Codswallop. Its the day that we know rules apply to all.
		
Click to expand...

Poppycock! you never read the further explanation!


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

Neddy said:



			That pretty much says it all!

IMO, if it's a rule that not one rules official, former pro, tv commentator/pundit or fan noticed or believed had been broken until the player inadvertently says something in a TV interview after the event....then it makes a farce of the whole thing.

You call a foot fault on a tennis player after he has served. Not 12 hours after the match has finished.

BTW can someone clarify something for me....is it true that Jim Furyk dropped 15 yards behind his original position when he chunked his 3rd into the water at the same hole? And if so why is that allowed when Tiger's isn't.
		
Click to expand...

Because Jim went straight in
Tiger hit the flag and the ball LAST crossed the hazard to the left.


----------



## CMAC (Apr 13, 2013)

Neddy said:



			BTW can someone clarify something for me....is it true that Jim Furyk dropped 15 yards behind his original position when he chunked his 3rd into the water at the same hole? And if so why is that allowed when Tiger's isn't.
		
Click to expand...

his was straight back from where the ball last crossed the hazard, Tigers hit the flag and went in at a different angle than when it crossed the hazard.


----------



## North Mimms (Apr 13, 2013)

New nike advert released.

Tag line

"Just blew it"


----------



## Keyser Soze (Apr 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Tiger must drop at the nearest point.
He didn't
He should be dq'd 
If he is not, he is bigger than the rules.
		
Click to expand...

If it was the young chinese boy he'd have already had his marching orders. I agree, he should be punished.


----------



## Neddy (Apr 13, 2013)

Is not a massive failure of the rules officials to not have noticed this before he signed his card??

A 2 shot penalty at the time would have been much preferable to what is now happening surely?


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

Neddy said:



			Is not a massive failure of the rules officials to not have noticed this before he signed his card??

A 2 shot penalty at the time would have been much preferable to what is now happening surely?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but in fairness there cannot be a rules official on every game, there just isn't enough of them. It wouldn't be the first time someone was DQ'd because of what had been found afterwards, I don't like this trial by television personally where viewers call in for slight ball movements etc.

I do remember one event where Howard Clark spotted that Phil Price tee'd up in front of the markers and asked the TV guys to clarify, this allowed Price to replay the hole (I think) and apply the appropriate penalty rather than get a DQ so it can work both ways.


----------



## Dodger (Apr 13, 2013)

He is out.

There is no other outcome possible.


----------



## bluewolf (Apr 13, 2013)

Valentino said:



			I do remember one event where Howard Clark spotted that Phil Price tee'd up in front of the markers and asked the TV guys to clarify, this allowed Price to replay the hole (I think) and apply the appropriate penalty rather than get a DQ so it can work both ways.
		
Click to expand...

I think that was the Welsh Open and unfortunately Pricey had teed off on the next hole when they informed him, resulting in a 2 shot penalty (I think, and have not yet checked on the t'interweb). Clarkey was mortified as it was a bit of a throwaway comment when he made it.

It just goes to show that although the rules seem ridiculous sometimes, they are there for a purpose and attempt to be fair to everyone in the field....


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 13, 2013)

He has to be Disq. IMO
Interesting to see the fall out for a slow play penalty for the first time in 17 years going to a 14 year old Chinese citizen...hmmmm.

Tiger makes silly mistakes for a man of his golfing stature. I still think he lost the plot when he picked up the ball in the last Ryder Cup singles.


----------



## CMAC (Apr 13, 2013)

Rules should be interpreted and invoked at the time.......... (only caveat would be for blatant cheating)

Can you go back after video evidence to change a football result because its clearer now  

Maybe Henman actually won Wimbledon as footfaults were spotted on video after the matches finished


----------



## IM01 (Apr 13, 2013)

Is there not a new rule regarding "trial by TV" following other DQ's (Harrington maybe) were you just take the penalty.

 If not....he has to be DQ'd


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

IM01 said:



			Is there not a new rule regarding "trial by TV" following other DQ's (Harrington maybe) were you just take the penalty.

 If not....he has to be DQ'd
		
Click to expand...

I think that is the case but was sure it still had to be implemented before signing the card?


----------



## One Planer (Apr 13, 2013)

I think he'll be DQ'd. 

What's got my goat at the minute is the whole rules thing on tour, especially the yanks tour.

You have Tiger who, in all likelyhood will be DQ'd for an incorrect drop and subsequently signing for a wrong score. A 14 year old boy being docked a shot for slow play.................... Yet V.J Singh is allowed to go on his merry way after admitting using a banned substance.

Very poor show IMHO.


----------



## brendy (Apr 13, 2013)

I think the masters guys need to make a decision as the first guy off (bubba out with a marker) is due in 2 hours time.


----------



## CMAC (Apr 13, 2013)

Gareth said:



			I think he'll be DQ'd. 

What's got my goat at the minute is the whole rules thing on tour, especially the yanks tour.

You have Tiger who, in all likelyhood will be DQ'd for an incorrect drop and subsequently signing for a wrong score. A 14 year old boy being docked a shot for slow play.................... Yet V.J Singh is allowed to go on his merry way after admitting using a banned substance.

Very poor show IMHO.
		
Click to expand...

one's a one shot penalty and ones the end of his career............yes rules are rules but hard to compare the two


----------



## One Planer (Apr 13, 2013)

DarthVega said:



			one's a one shot penalty and ones the end of his career............yes rules are rules but hard to compare the two
		
Click to expand...

So why is V.J not suspended pending investigation? He has broken rules, serious rules, prior to the tournament.

He shouldn't even be in the Masters IMHO. 

I'm all for seeing the correct rules applied, in both Tiger and the young lads cases, that's part of the game. Not sure why V.J can admit breaking a rule yet continue to play on tour.

Apologies to the OP for side tracking the thread.


----------



## Birchy (Apr 13, 2013)

Signing for the wrong score results in DQ end of story. Fact is if tiger was in doubt he should of asked for a ruling, he did what he thought was right which wasnt. Doesnt matter whether it was ruled on at the time or not, he signed for the wrong score its pretty irrelevant how/when it happened.


----------



## Joff (Apr 13, 2013)

bluewolf said:



			I think that was the Welsh Open and unfortunately Pricey had teed off on the next hole when they informed him, resulting in a 2 shot penalty (I think, and have not yet checked on the t'interweb). Clarkey was mortified as it was a bit of a throwaway comment when he made it.

It just goes to show that although the rules seem ridiculous sometimes, they are there for a purpose and attempt to be fair to everyone in the field....
		
Click to expand...

Can I just amend this slightly. He didn't tee off at the next hole. I was on the 15th tee when it happened. Howard Clarke wasn't the one that pointed it out. There were 3 of us in line with Philip Price when he teed off. After he left the box, we commented we thought he was a foot in front of the markers as they face the fairway, not the green. Our voices were heard by the techno bods doing editing etc, they reviewed it by the overhead camera. Source: The marshall on the 15th. The techno bods might have sent the message to Howard. Check my question to Howard in this months Golf Monthly to Philip. (which was edited)


----------



## bluewolf (Apr 13, 2013)

Joff said:



			Can I just amend this slightly. He didn't tee off at the next hole. I was on the 15th tee when it happened. Howard Clarke wasn't the one that pointed it out. There were 3 of us in line with Philip Price when he teed off. After he left the box, we commented we thought he was a foot in front of the markers as they face the fairway, not the green. Our voices were heard by the techno bods doing editing etc, they reviewed it by the overhead camera. Source: The marshall on the 15th. The techno bods might have sent the message to Howard. Check my question to Howard in this months Golf Monthly to Philip. (which was edited)
		
Click to expand...

Happy to stand corrected mate.. Was just trying to recollect the incident as I watched it on TV at the time...


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

On all accounts it is being reviewed but could "take some time"


----------



## Heidi (Apr 13, 2013)

nah - he didnt do what he thought was right. he did what he thought would give him the best shot ie play exactly the same shot again, with the same club, so it would land 2 yards in front of the pin rather than hit the pin.

Its not like us mere mortals who couldnt hit the same spot twice in row - we dont have his skill

so instead of playing from the right spot and changing his club - he decided to drop in the wrong place and play the same shot

DQ

bye bye Tiger - see ya next year


----------



## jp5 (Apr 13, 2013)

I think golf would be worse for it but by the rules, just as they were applied to the 14 year old yesterday, Tiger's got to be DQ'd.


----------



## duncan mackie (Apr 13, 2013)

Neddy said:



			Is not a massive failure of the rules officials to not have noticed this before he signed his card??
		
Click to expand...

no it's not - if Tiger had asked a Rules Official to get involved it wouldn't have happened, but the Rules Official isn't going to get involved otherwise unless a breach of the Rules is obvious.

If Tiger had involved a Rules Official the conversation would go something like this (best practice on both sides):

T - what are my options, my ball last crossed the hazard x and I played my last shot from y?
RO - you have the following options a, b etc
T - so I can drop it as close as possible to y, not nearer the hole or.....
RO - yes
T - I will proceed under that option, can we agree where that was
RO - yes, and walks back to agree
T - I think I played from here - points to divot
RO - fine, or he can question it
T- how close is close enough
RO - as close as possible! Where there's nothing to be gained he would probably accept about a foot, but a hand span is a frequent rule of thumb (hand )

Note, most pros can drop a ball to strike a tee peg if they try!!!

If it rolls into the divot it would be a re-drop as it's gone forwards (for them!) otherwise it can roll up to 2 club lengths from the point it lands, not nearer the hole, and be OK.

If anyone is to blame it's the caddie, although in this situation Tiger should also have recognised he was stressed and involved an RO 'just in case'.


----------



## Joff (Apr 13, 2013)

bluewolf said:



			Happy to stand corrected mate.. Was just trying to recollect the incident as I watched it on TV at the time...

Click to expand...

We didn't know until the next day! It was towards the end of the day on the satur. day I think, we'd been on the 15th all day, we left soon after he teed off.(my two friends actually approached a rules marshall about it, who said he couldn't do anything, probably just trying to get rid of them) We read on twitter the next morning about it, spoke to the marshall we were friendly with and he said it was because of us as he was questioned on it but didn't see from his angle. Philip birdied the hole second time round fwiw, so a two shot penalty became only a 1 shot penalty.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

Watch the drop.  He might be ok.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sN-Q8eEajgQ


----------



## Neddy (Apr 13, 2013)

Had he not given that interview this wouldn't be an issue.

Which seems strange to me :smirk:


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Watch the drop.  He might be ok.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sN-Q8eEajgQ

Click to expand...

Does the action over ride the intention he declares from his interview? The only way he cant be DQ for me is if they decide he dropped it "close enough" which without the interview you'd struggle to argue against


----------



## JustOne (Apr 13, 2013)

fundy said:



			Does the action over ride the intention he declares from his interview?
		
Click to expand...

Could this be the end of interviews? :mmm:


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

JustOne said:



			Could this be the end of interviews? :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

Might make players more guarded thats for sure


----------



## Swingalot (Apr 13, 2013)

Absolutely no way he should get kicked out for that............


Because I have a bundle on him @ 7-1 !


----------



## scratch (Apr 13, 2013)

duncan mackie said:



			If anyone is to blame it's the caddie, although in this situation Tiger should also have recognised he was stressed and involved an RO 'just in case'.
		
Click to expand...

No I disagree, it is the player at fault, he ultimately has to accept responsibility.


----------



## Jungle (Apr 13, 2013)

Scrap that :mmm:


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Watch the drop.  He might be ok.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sN-Q8eEajgQ

Click to expand...

Why might he?


----------



## Yerman (Apr 13, 2013)

Jungle said:



			Scrap that :mmm:[

Ditto
		
Click to expand...


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 13, 2013)

Just back in and catching up with this but the first players are out in 15 minutes. Surely a decision needs to made before they tee off?

Also, he got a 2 shot penalty in Abu Dhabi for an incorrect drop. You'd think he be more careful


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

I suppose, technically, they have until the fi al putt drops tomorrow but, yes, the sooner the better.


----------



## Captainron (Apr 13, 2013)

I hope they DQ him. But he's Tiger so they won't.


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

Captainron said:



			I hope they DQ him. But he's Tiger so they won't.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I think you are right


----------



## LIG (Apr 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Tiger must drop at the nearest point.
He didn't
He should be dq'd 
If he is not, he is bigger than the rules.
		
Click to expand...

Agree - should be DQ'd. 
IMO every golfer that doesn't follow the rules isn't playing Golf, but something similar to Golf.


----------



## bluewolf (Apr 13, 2013)

Rumours of a 2 shot penalty being applied!!


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

Valentino said:



			Why might he?
		
Click to expand...

It is hard to tell from a video but it looks very much as if the ball was dropped a lot nearer that divot than the 2 yards talked of in his interview.  It may have been close enough - but I am just mentioning a possibility as we can't make a judgment on that alone.  Not that that is hindrance to making judgments  in a forum


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

why would anyone actually want him dq'd on here? As a fan of golf I feel a major competition is much the poorer if he isnt in it and contending.

No one kicked up last night after watching him drop and hit his shot, in fact a few commented on what a great recovery after the setback.

Once it was posted online this morning suddenly everyone is quick to jump on their rules is rules bandwagon.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

Word is a 2 shot penalty added retrospectively


----------



## Naybrains (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			Word is a 2 shot penalty added retrospectively
		
Click to expand...

Starts third round -1 now.
Unbelievable, they've found a technicality to keep him in the Masters.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

Dangerous precedent being set here.
Augusta have bottled it....


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

G1BB0 said:



			why would anyone actually want him dq'd on here? As a fan of golf I feel a major competition is much the poorer if he isnt in it and contending.

No one kicked up last night after watching him drop and hit his shot, in fact a few commented on what a great recovery after the setback.

Once it was posted online this morning suddenly everyone is quick to jump on their rules is rules bandwagon.
		
Click to expand...

This!

Haters lately have been walking on eggshells, what with TW being so close to dominating again. So any negative story surrounding the man is enough firepower for them to come out of the woodwork. I see many names here that are never in the ''positive'' threads of TW.
Says it all really.......:thup:


----------



## Hally51 (Apr 13, 2013)

If anything we have to see tiger play even better now to try and win, he has to find 2 strokes from somewhere, should be good watching I think.


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

Apparently been incriminated by what he said and not the TV coverage.


----------



## Naybrains (Apr 13, 2013)

Loads of Quotes from pro's & coaches flying around on twitter....

@shanelowrygolf: This is a joke. In my opinion anyone else would have been DQ'd. When you sign for the wrong score that's what's supposed to happen.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

G1BB0 said:



			why would anyone actually want him dq'd on here? As a fan of golf I feel a major competition is much the poorer if he isnt in it and contending.

No one kicked up last night after watching him drop and hit his shot, in fact a few commented on what a great recovery after the setback.

Once it was posted online this morning suddenly everyone is quick to jump on their rules is rules bandwagon.
		
Click to expand...

DQ should have been the only option.
Regardless of who it was.
If it had been Gmac or Luke or whoever else the same questions would have been asked.

From the TV footage, watched at the time, I doubt anyone in the World could have known about it.
If Tiger hadn't said that he moved back 2 yards this would never have happened.

A Rule has been broken - that has been confirmed as Tiger's got a 2 shot penalty for it.

Augusta have decided not to DQ.

Would anyone else have survived this?

Proof that Tiger is bigger than the Rules.


----------



## Heidi (Apr 13, 2013)

a 2 stroke penalty? which rule did they bend for that?


----------



## pokerjoke (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			Dangerous precedent being set here.
Augusta have bottled it....
		
Click to expand...


Got to agree.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Apr 13, 2013)

It's on the bbc. So must be right


----------



## bluewolf (Apr 13, 2013)

Heidi said:



			a 2 stroke penalty? which rule did they bend for that?
		
Click to expand...

I don't know but they're currently buying it dinner and arranging its taxi home.


----------



## bobmac (Apr 13, 2013)

triple_bogey said:



			I see many names here that are never in the ''positive'' threads of TW.
Says it all really.......:thup:
		
Click to expand...

Are people not allowed to dislike Tiger?


----------



## Naybrains (Apr 13, 2013)

Naybrains said:



			Loads of Quotes from pro's & coaches flying around on twitter....

@shanelowrygolf: This is a joke. In my opinion anyone else would have been DQ'd. When you sign for the wrong score that's what's supposed to happen.
		
Click to expand...

And another.....

"@plarrazabal: Looking at the desition they made with Tiger, can they take off Guans penalty shot out of his score card? Why not? Hehehe.. Golf is not fair"


----------



## jp5 (Apr 13, 2013)

Naybrains said:



			And another.....

"@plarrazabal: Looking at the desition they made with Tiger, can they take off Guans penalty shot out of his score card? Why not? Hehehe.. Golf is not fair"
		
Click to expand...

And GMac:

"2 shot penalty for TW for wrong drop. New rule applied for trial by tv. Instead of retrospective DQ, player receives a penalty. Decent rule."


----------



## jp5 (Apr 13, 2013)

Perhaps this is the rule that someone mentioned earlier in the thread that was added following a similar(ish) event last year?


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

That rule supposes that the player couldn't have known an infringement occurred - like Paddy and the moving ball, he didn't see it move.
This is completely different - he SHOULD have known he was dropping incorrectly.


----------



## Crow (Apr 13, 2013)

It isn't trial by TV though.

By Tiger's own description of the shot he played it was an infringement of the rules, irrelevant if it was knowingly or not.
Tiger signed for an incorrect score.
Tiger should be DQ'd.


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

Why wasn't Tiger DQ'd? he signed for an incorrect scorecard,you only incure stroke penalties during play, what the hecks happening with the PGA and the rules of golf?


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

shivas irons said:



			Why wasn't Tiger DQ'd? he signed for an incorrect scorecard,you only incure stroke penalties during play, what the hecks happening with the PGA and the rules of golf? 

Click to expand...

New rule of tournament golf introduced last year - very dubious that it applies here but your statement not fully true in pro tournaments since that rule was introduced


----------



## Crow (Apr 13, 2013)

The stink from this decision is going to linger for a long time.


----------



## Iaing (Apr 13, 2013)

shivas irons said:



			Why wasn't Tiger DQ'd? he signed for an incorrect scorecard,you only incure stroke penalties during play, what the hecks happening with the PGA and the rules of golf? 

Click to expand...

Money. :angry:


----------



## bobmac (Apr 13, 2013)

The new rule s nothing to do with what Tiger did.
He got the rule wrong.
There is no ambiguity.
Augusta should be ashamed :angry:


----------



## Swinger (Apr 13, 2013)

I just hope that this Chinese lad isn't on a go slow again today.


----------



## Fader (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm going to buck the trend of everyone that's appalled he wasn't DQ'd and come out and say in glad it was a retrospect penalty and not a DQ. Common sense for once prevailing over archaic and pointless rule as IMO what he did gained no advantage. 

Queue people saying I'm a tiger lover and have no respect or idea about the rules of golf. When in fact I'm not his biggest fan and know the rule he has supposedly breached. I simply don't agree with it and if it was anyone I'd feel the same.


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

Fader said:



			I'm going to buck the trend of everyone that's appalled he wasn't DQ'd and come out and say in glad it was a retrospect penalty and not a DQ. Common sense for once prevailing over archaic and pointless rule as IMO what he did gained no advantage. 

Queue people saying I'm a tiger lover and have no respect or idea about the rules of golf. When in fact I'm not his biggest fan and know the rule he has supposedly breached. I simply don't agree with it and if it was anyone I'd feel the same.
		
Click to expand...

I agree 100%

he gained sod all advantage and still had to hit the shot, if anything he was dealt a kick in the nutz by hitting the flag. There are certain aspects and attitudes in golf that really put me off it as a sport.


----------



## Heidi (Apr 13, 2013)

ah well
at least tigers lawyers have made their money today
they must have been working on that argument flat out since the first tweet was tweeted!


----------



## A1ex (Apr 13, 2013)

Of course it gained an advantage. If it didn't he would've played from the exact same position.

To the average hacker moving back a few yards makes little difference but Tiger works his chipping on inches. Two yards makes a big difference!


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

if he worked on inches he would have a tap in every time, even the pro's arent that accurate all the time.


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

fundy said:



			New rule of tournament golf introduced last year - very dubious that it applies here but your statement not fully true in pro tournaments since that rule was introduced
		
Click to expand...

So where does this ruling fit in then;
6-6
â€¢ d. Wrong Score for Hole
 The competitor is responsible for the correctness of the score recorded for each hole on his score card. If he returns a score for any hole lower than actually taken, he is disqualified. If he returns a score for any hole higher than actually taken, the score as returned stands

Tiger has signed he's score card for a lower score on a hole,he should have known the rules simple as that.
Its a DQ but its not a DQ cos its Tiger Woods.If he goes on to win which is possible that would ridiculous as theres plenty of guys in that field who play fairly......


----------



## A1ex (Apr 13, 2013)

G1BB0 said:



			if he worked on inches he would have a tap in every time, even the pro's arent that accurate all the time.
		
Click to expand...

Whether he gets it right everytime is irrelevent. His short game will be down to small margins, meaning 2 yards back makes a big difference.

If he didn't gain an advantage or seek to, why didn't he hit it from the same distance?


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

A1ex said:



			Of course it gained an advantage. If it didn't he would've played from the exact same position.

To the average hacker moving back a few yards makes little difference but Tiger works his chipping on inches. Two yards makes a big difference!
		
Click to expand...

Those two yards are huge,Tiger measured out from the water,added two yards knowing it was a perfect distance for the wedge he has in the bag.


----------



## Midnight (Apr 13, 2013)

Fader said:



			I'm going to buck the trend of everyone that's appalled he wasn't DQ'd and come out and say in glad it was a retrospect penalty and not a DQ. Common sense for once prevailing over archaic and pointless rule as IMO what he did gained no advantage. 

Queue people saying I'm a tiger lover and have no respect or idea about the rules of golf. When in fact I'm not his biggest fan and know the rule he has supposedly breached. I simply don't agree with it and if it was anyone I'd feel the same.
		
Click to expand...

I am a Tiger fan , yet he did break the rules, whether I agree with the rule or not makes no difference in my opinion , I did not want to see him DQ but believed that in lines with the rules this is what should of happened. 

Like you I think that common sense has prevailed , but the rules don't allow for that (Unless I have missed something ?)

I again believe that Augusta have bottled it on a very big decision and this could go on for ages.  I will be interested to hear what Tiger says about it all. 
I also will still be watching and cheering for him


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

Im not 100% certain but im sure its in the interpretation of decisions which relate to professional events. Will try and find the specifics


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

look I am no expert so will bow to the forums obvious expertise and experience in the matter. What I am saying is how by dropping in the vicinity albeit slightly further back from his original did he gain an advantage that warrants a dq? Sod playing with half you lot on here, the rule book would be out every 2 minutes


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

A point made by @Graeme_McDowell: Take the fact that it was Tiger out of the equation and it is a fair ruling.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

Fader said:



			I'm going to buck the trend of everyone that's appalled he wasn't DQ'd and come out and say in glad it was a retrospect penalty and not a DQ. Common sense for once prevailing over archaic and pointless rule as IMO what he did gained no advantage. 

Queue people saying I'm a tiger lover and have no respect or idea about the rules of golf. When in fact I'm not his biggest fan and know the rule he has supposedly breached. I simply don't agree with it and if it was anyone I'd feel the same.
		
Click to expand...

There's no "supposedly" about it.
He broke a rule - Augusta have admitted that by giving the penalty.


----------



## pokerjoke (Apr 13, 2013)

G1BB0 said:



			if he worked on inches he would have a tap in every time, even the pro's arent that accurate all the time.
		
Click to expand...

I do believe in his own words he gained an advantage.
He said moving it back 2 yards stopped him hitting the flag again.
Ok this is a sweeping statement,but pros really are that good.


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

thats the problem I think tb, cos its Tiger it takes on a whole different level


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

G1BB0 said:



			why would anyone actually want him dq'd on here? As a fan of golf I feel a major competition is much the poorer if he isnt in it and contending.

No one kicked up last night after watching him drop and hit his shot, in fact a few commented on what a great recovery after the setback.

Once it was posted online this morning suddenly everyone is quick to jump on their rules is rules bandwagon.
		
Click to expand...

Rule are rules mate, nothing with jumping on bandwagons at all, I said at the time his shot was fabulous to recover and I'm not a woods fan, I even commented that after his bogey on 18 that he was human after all. 



Imurg said:



			Dangerous precedent being set here.
Augusta have bottled it....
		
Click to expand...

Big time



Fader said:



			I'm going to buck the trend of everyone that's appalled he wasn't DQ'd and come out and say in glad it was a retrospect penalty and not a DQ. Common sense for once prevailing over archaic and pointless rule as IMO what he did gained no advantage. 

Queue people saying I'm a tiger lover and have no respect or idea about the rules of golf. When in fact I'm not his biggest fan and know the rule he has supposedly breached. I simply don't agree with it and if it was anyone I'd feel the same.
		
Click to expand...

Signing for a wrong score is not a stupid rule, dropping the ball in the wrong place is also not a stupid rule either. If he was gaining no advantage then we did he proceed to say in interview why he did it, of course he did it to gain advantage he just didn't realise that he was wrong to do so.

The Masters is better with him in for the weekend that's for sure but for me this Masters will be tainted for this weather Tiger wins or not.


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

question then. If he goes on to win despite the 2 stroke penalty does that mean he doesnt deserve it and no one will class it as a major win then?

(I dont think he will anyway and in fact probably would hope himself he doesnt now)


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2011/April/Rule-Change.aspx

as i say, not convinced that it should apply here but it does give them some latitude 



shivas irons said:



			So where does this ruling fit in then;
6-6
â€¢ d. Wrong Score for Hole
 The competitor is responsible for the correctness of the score recorded for each hole on his score card. If he returns a score for any hole lower than actually taken, he is disqualified. If he returns a score for any hole higher than actually taken, the score as returned stands

Tiger has signed he's score card for a lower score on a hole,he should have known the rules simple as that.
Its a DQ but its not a DQ cos its Tiger Woods.If he goes on to win which is possible that would ridiculous as theres plenty of guys in that field who play fairly......
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Fader (Apr 13, 2013)

If they work on inches then he'd have made sure the first shot landed an inch shorter. 

He could have gained a massive advantage by going forward 60 yards and using the drop zone but that's ok because the dumb rule allows a 60 yard gain but not allowing you 2 yards further back!


----------



## Oxfordcomma (Apr 13, 2013)

triple_bogey said:



			A point made by @Graeme_McDowell: Take the fact that it was Tiger out of the equation and it is a fair ruling.
		
Click to expand...

I would have thought that if we take the fact that it was Tiger out of the equation ... we get an instant DQ with no debate don't we?

Apparently this is the rule being used: http://t.co/ypNc1ARPyL but I can't see how they're stretching it to fit this scenario.


----------



## hovis (Apr 13, 2013)

he has to be DQ'd.  podraig was DQ'd for signing his bloody card wrong a few years back.  no question  ITS THE RULES


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

G1BB0 said:



			look I am no expert so will bow to the forums obvious expertise and experience in the matter. What I am saying is how by dropping in the vicinity albeit slightly further back from his original did he gain an advantage that warrants a dq? Sod playing with half you lot on here, the rule book would be out every 2 minutes 

Click to expand...

Rules are rules mate,where would golf be without them.......
I would have liked to see Tiger bag another major this weekend but after this i'm going with the field.


----------



## Fader (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			There's no "supposedly" about it.
He broke a rule - Augusta have admitted that by giving the penalty.
		
Click to expand...

And as I said I'm well aware of the rule but simply don't agree with it. A rule that allows him to go forwards 60 yards legally to a drop zone but not 2 yards further back is a joke. So as per my statement I don't agree with it.


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

hovis said:



			he has to be DQ'd.  podraig was DQ'd for signing his bloody card wrong a few years back.  no question  ITS THE RULES
		
Click to expand...

the new interpretation was brought in after the Harrington incident and it was stated that under the new rule Harrington wouldve been penalised 2 shots but not DQed

http://www.pga.com/rule-changed-spare-players-being-dqd-in-cases-trial-tv


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

hence why I bow to the foums expertise in these matters.

I still think asking for him to be dq'd is a tad pants though. Anyway 2 shot penalty it is so lets move on

Go Tiger :thup:


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

Oh well a flag stick has cost him up to 4 shots, if he doesn't win the eventual winner will have that flag stick to thank for the helping hand. If this is what it takes to beat Tiger then that's how it is... he will have another 3 shots this year.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

G1BB0 said:



			I agree 100%

he gained sod all advantage and still had to hit the shot, if anything he was dealt a kick in the nutz by hitting the flag. There are certain aspects and attitudes in golf that really put me off it as a sport.
		
Click to expand...

But he did gain an advantage by using his bread n' butter shot which he can put on a dinner plate by taking it 2 yards back, nothing about the lie, it was distance related decision made by him!

Augusta have embarrassed themselves with this, Tiger should withdraw.


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

fundy said:



http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2011/April/Rule-Change.aspx

as i say, not convinced that it should apply here but it does give them some latitude
		
Click to expand...

How on earth do you decide whether a player knew or not that he had incurred an infringement? Woods must have know that the two yards he added were to benefit him as it was the optimum distance he was looking for.
Tiger Woods has cheated and thinks he can get away with it because its him,how right he is......


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

Just imagine if he wins now, there will be a few smiles wiped off faces ha ha 

COME ON TIGER!!!


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

G1BB0 said:



			question then. If he goes on to win despite the 2 stroke penalty does that mean he doesnt deserve it and no one will class it as a major win then?

(I dont think he will anyway and in fact probably would hope himself he doesnt now)
		
Click to expand...

I don't think he would deserve it, it would be a great comeback but he shouldn't have been there to make the comeback. If Tiger has any kahunas he would DQ himself, he'll know deep down he got it wrong.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

If you replay the shot you have to replay the shot not move somewhere else and olay it from there.
Tiger didn't want to go to the drop zone as it was wet.
He could have dropped right on the edge of the water but didn't.
He chose to replay the shot but failed to do so....


----------



## pokerjoke (Apr 13, 2013)

It will be interesting now wether Tiger handles the situation well,knowing what he has done
will taint any victory.
It has caused a major debate on here,so im sure it will cause a major debate
around Augusta.


----------



## quinn (Apr 13, 2013)

G1BB0 said:



			hence why I bow to the foums expertise in these matters.

I still think asking for him to be dq'd is a tad pants though. Anyway 2 shot penalty it is so lets move on

Go Tiger :thup:
		
Click to expand...

a
Agreed.He's broke the rules and been given a two shot penalty.End of .wonder if everyone would be saying the same if it was mclroy .....doubt it


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

shivas irons said:



			How on earth do you decide whether a player knew or not that he had incurred an infringement? Woods must have know that the two yards he added were to benefit him as it was the optimum distance he was looking for.
		
Click to expand...

In this instance I agree, hence why I say not conviced it should apply

In the Harrington situation for example, he had no way of knowing his ball had moved but they showed it had clearly on tv, thats what the rule was really brought in for but the augusta committee are stretching it to apply here.

The statement being released basically says they thing the drop was OK but Tiger then opened his gob in the interview lol. Gl getting an interview with Woods straight after a round in future!


----------



## garyinderry (Apr 13, 2013)

there was only two options that are fair.

1) its decided that he dopped it close enough (no penalty)

or

2) DQ


he could say i dropped it as close as possible without putting it in the divot.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

Valentino said:



			I don't think he would deserve it, it would be a great comeback but he shouldn't have been there to make the comeback. If Tiger has any kahunas he would DQ himself, he'll know deep down he got it wrong.
		
Click to expand...


He doesn't need to know deep down Val, the Tournament Committee have told him he got it wrong, they just don't have the guts to enforce the correct penalty...
This is so wrong..
He x


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

Heres hoping TW blows up to a 75 in the 3rd as he doesent deserve he's place at The Masters this weekend........


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

he will be more elusive than Alex Ferguson on the beeb


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

The way I'm reading this new ruling is as follows... 

New rules state that 'if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d.'

Daily Mail

Now if Tiger didn't deliberately break the rule then he hasn't done anything wrong has he?

Can someone explain where I'm getting mixed up?


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

It's a shame this has happened like this, the masters is an awesome major and this proves certain players are bigger than the tournament. 

Poor show but the show must go on


----------



## bobmac (Apr 13, 2013)

fundy said:



			the new interpretation was brought in after the Harrington incident and it was stated that under the new rule Harrington wouldve been penalised 2 shots but not DQed

http://www.pga.com/rule-changed-spare-players-being-dqd-in-cases-trial-tv

Click to expand...

Harrington knew the rule but didn't know he broke it.
Tiger didn't know the rule.
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

Well if you read the official statement it appears the committee ruled on the drop whilst Tiger was still on the course. Subsequently he signed for the scorte. Only after that was it brought to their attention the interview he gave.

If and its a pretty big if this is true then I think the 2 shot penalty is correct and under the new rule they shouldnt DQ. 

Still think its a pretty big if they had ruled though


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

Not deliberately breaking the rules doesn't matter, ignorance is no excuse. Same with every sport.


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 13, 2013)

If he had any 'class' he would withdraw....


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

fundy said:



			Well if you read the official statement it appears the committee ruled on the drop whilst Tiger was still on the course. Subsequently he signed for the scorte. Only after that was it brought to their attention the interview he gave.

If and its a pretty big if this is true then I think the 2 shot penalty is correct and under the new rule they shouldnt DQ. 

Still think its a pretty big if they had ruled though
		
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/iaincartergolf/status/323080716466397185/photo/1


----------



## Bucket92 (Apr 13, 2013)

Didn't Jim Furyk do a similar thing slightly earlier in the day though?


----------



## PieMan (Apr 13, 2013)

pokerjoke said:



			Got to agree.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I also agree. If he wins now think of all the negativity that this decision will cause.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

MegaSteve said:



			If he had any 'class' he would withdraw....
		
Click to expand...

Why when the rules state if he didn't deliberately sign for the wrong score then he didn't do anything wrong and the 2 shot penalty is his punishment.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

The last sentence answers many questions


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

Come on people why on earth would he say what he said in the interview if he deliberately broke the rule? it was a accident and he has been punished within the rules.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

Hardly anyone ever deliberatly breaks a rule - that's cheating
Tiger didn't cheat, he broke a rule.

The ruling that has been made is based on whether the player could have known a breach had been made. The best example is Harrington and the moving ball described above. He couldn't have known that the ball moved so under this new rule the shots get added and the is no dq.
COULD Tiger have known he was dropping incorrectly..?
Absolutely
Tiger SHOULD have known he was dropping incorrectly. It's a fundamental rule of golf, he should have known so using this ruling is completely invalid.


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			The way I'm reading this new ruling is as follows... 

New rules state that 'if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d.'

Daily Mail

Now if Tiger didn't deliberately break the rule then he hasn't done anything wrong has he?

Can someone explain where I'm getting mixed up?
		
Click to expand...

Its just the fact mate that those two extra yards were an optimum distance for a wedge he had in he's bag,he would have known this I guarantee you, all they work on out there is distances that's what its all about.I'm looking at it from my perspective having caddied on the European Seniors Tour with these elite players,their brains are constantly computing distances with weight of swing all the time.Tiger took a full swing with that wedge,he knew....


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

As in the last sentence, if a decision was made prior to Tigers round finishing, why did the ruling and penalty not get announced until today!


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

I don't believe that Tiger in any way broke the rule on purpose... No way it's not the type of player he is.

So is everyone who is saying he should have been DQ now saying he purposely cheated?


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

Fish said:



			As in the last sentence, if a decision was made prior to Tigers round finishing, why did the ruling and penalty not get announced until today!
		
Click to expand...

They made what they saw as a non decision ie that his drop was fine, then overnight someone obviously complained about the interview. Then they reconvened this morning and then the penalty got announced


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

Tiger haters will cling on to anything, its hilarious :rofl:


----------



## LIG (Apr 13, 2013)

:rant:
The advantage gained - an example:  
Say you are playing your approach over some trees but catch the top-most branch and the ball goes into an unplayable lie. You then take a drop...but decide to give yourself some margin for error by dropping a couple of yards further back and a yard to the side. *That's a shot penalty* for playing from a wrong place! If you THEN don't add that penalty shot to your score BEFORE you return your card, *that's a DQ penalty*.  Simple, straightforward, clear and not ambiguous! 

Tiger said/*admitted* in his interview that he played from 2 yards further back AND tv pics show this was not where he should have dropped. Consequently he hasn't leg to stand on. *groan*

People make mistakes, even Pros - so Tiger should live with it! :rant:

Augusta have made liberal use of the leather wedge with this ruling! Shame on them!  Sadly, this is just the sort of thing that undermines the integrity and standing of the game as a whole!


----------



## Stuey01 (Apr 13, 2013)

Wow this thread blew up whilst I was on the course - shouldn't you lot be playing golf or something?!
I'm pleased he is still in it, if it is within the rules, as it's a better tournament with him in it.
Sounds like his new rule allowing them to retrospectively apply the correct penalty is a bit of common sense.
I thought it was funny how many people were saying this can't be a story because it's not on sky news, twitter is onto stories so much faster than traditional news outlets these days. Especially when you consider that there is a time difference and all the journo's at Augusta were probably out on a big jolly last night...


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

Are you saying Tiger Woods doesent know the basic rule that you must drop between where you last took your shot and the flag?


----------



## JustOne (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Oh well a flag stick has cost him up to 4 shots, if he doesn't win the eventual winner will have that flag stick to thank for the helping hand. If this is what it takes to beat Tiger then that's how it is...
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. Good post.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Tiger haters will cling on to anything, its hilarious :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

I'm not a "Tiger Hater" but I think it stinks, a rule is a rule whether its been broken intentionally or not and they cannot be massaged to suit anyone, they should be rigid!


----------



## wookie (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			Hardly anyone ever deliberatly breaks a rule - that's cheating
Tiger didn't cheat, he broke a rule.

The ruling that has been made is based on whether the player could have known a breach had been made. The best example is Harrington and the moving ball described above. He couldn't have known that the ball moved so under this new rule the shots get added and the is no dq.
COULD Tiger have known he was dropping incorrectly..?
Absolutely
Tiger SHOULD have known he was dropping incorrectly. It's a fundamental rule of golf, he should have known so using this ruling is completely invalid.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

shivas irons said:



			Are you saying Tiger Woods doesent know the basic rule that you must drop between where you last took your shot and the flag?
		
Click to expand...

Are you saying he knew he had broke the rule then admitted it in his interview? :rofl:

It was funny non of the commentators realised what he had done including Monty who has played in many majors.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

LIG said:



			:rant:
The advantage gained - an example:  
Say you are playing your approach over some trees but catch the top-most branch and the ball goes into an unplayable lie. You then take a drop...but decide to give yourself some margin for error by dropping a couple of yards further back and a yard to the side. *That's a shot penalty* for playing from a wrong place! If you THEN don't add that penalty shot to your score BEFORE you return your card, *that's a DQ penalty*.  Simple, straightforward, clear and not ambiguous! 

Tiger said/*admitted* in his interview that he played from 2 yards further back AND tv pics show this was not where he should have dropped. Consequently he hasn't leg to stand on. *groan*

People make mistakes, even Pros - so Tiger should live with it! :rant:

Augusta have made liberal use of the leather wedge with this ruling! Shame on them!  Sadly, this is just the sort of thing that undermines the integrity and standing of the game as a whole! 

Click to expand...

+1 for me


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 13, 2013)

shivas irons said:



			Are you saying Tiger Woods doesent know the basic rule that you must drop between where you last took your shot and the flag?
		
Click to expand...

Is that really the rule? I think you may need to re-read it.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Tiger haters will cling on to anything, its hilarious :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

You thought there were a lot of Tiger Haters.
If he doesn't withdraw you'll see a whole lot more.....
He wants to be the Greatest?
Here's his chance to get further up the ladder by withdrawing


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

God I would love it if he came back now!!!


----------



## Slime (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Can't believe anyone would want to see Tiger DQ from the Masters it would be boring without him and golf would be half the sport it is now!!!
		
Click to expand...

He broke a rule and should have been punished accordingly, just like anyone else would have been, by DQ.



G1BB0 said:



			hence why I bow to the foums expertise in these matters.

I still think asking for him to be dq'd is a tad pants though. Anyway 2 shot penalty it *wrongly* is so lets move on

Go *home* Tiger :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you  :rofl:.

*Slime*.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			You thought there were a lot of Tiger Haters.
If he doesn't withdraw you'll see a whole lot more.....
He wants to be the Greatest?
Here's his chance to get further up the ladder by withdrawing
		
Click to expand...

He will be playing well within the rules today mate, remember that.


----------



## doublebogey7 (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			The way I'm reading this new ruling is as follows... 

New rules state that 'if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor *could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules*, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d.'

Daily Mail

Now if Tiger didn't deliberately break the rule then he hasn't done anything wrong has he?

Can someone explain where I'm getting mixed up?
		
Click to expand...

Read again the section in bold.   Tiger clearly knew the facts,  so the committee's discretion to waive the penalty should not apply.


----------



## bobmac (Apr 13, 2013)

Wayne Grady was just asked what he thought of the 2 shot penalty. 
His reply......
Rubbish


----------



## mattdeeks (Apr 13, 2013)

Just woke from night shift, wow missed all this.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Apr 13, 2013)

Only just got back from playing so just seen this. Whilst it seems severe he should have been DQ'd. Augusta have bottled it big time. If that had been any other played in the field they would be out make no mistake. Not a Tiger hater or a fan but hope he chops it round today to put himself firmly out of contention.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 13, 2013)

MegaSteve said:



			If he had any 'class' he would withdraw....
		
Click to expand...

Best post so far.......Tiger once again showing us what he is made of.


----------



## North Mimms (Apr 13, 2013)

I really think the best decision would have been for Woods to put his hand up and say he  was wrong and withdraw / DQ himself.

Since that hasn't happened, the best we can hope for is... that he

Doesn't win - cos those in favour of DQ will insist he shouldn't have been playing
Doesn't come runner up by one shot, as those in favour of no penalty will insist he "really won"

A McIlroy-style implosion by Woods would help!


----------



## North Mimms (Apr 13, 2013)

Can I just remind everyone on here that MikeH asked that we avoid using terms like "haters"


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

Daveyboy, I have yet to see on here anyone say he deliberately broke the rules or cheated but what is apparent is he broke a rule and deserves the punishment, It doesn't matter if its deliberate or not.

Unfortunately the tournament committee have bottled it as the only correct punishment should be DQ.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

Even as a massive fan I said this morning what ever happens Tiger should DQ himself but now this new rule has been bought up he hasn't done anything wrong and is well within the rules to play.

It's funny though if you are all saying he has still broke the rules then your admitting the great man is bigger than the Masters and possibly the sport itself - another win for Tiger then :thup:


----------



## kid2 (Apr 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Wayne Grady was just asked what he thought of the 2 shot penalty. 
His reply......
Rubbish 

Click to expand...


I cant believe Allis....When questioned earlier about the incident he said that it would be bad for the game if Tiger was DQ'd.......Then after the outcome he said that it was a sad day that it happened.....He said that Big Sports people have the power to sway decisions and he likened to the days of John Macenroe when he used the fly off the handle....... They didnt care once it put backsides in seats.....

And as much as i hate to see it i think this is what the USGA were looking at too....My thoughts are that if they DQ'd Woods then there would be a serious decline in TV Ratings in the states.......

I think he should have been DQ'd.......Like has been said Paddy got DQ'd last year for signing for an incorrect score......

Also the decision by them to penalize the young lad from china is a disgrace...The whole course was running slow.....Why wasnt everyone else given penalties...


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Best post so far.......Tiger once again showing us what he is made of.
		
Click to expand...

He doesn't know how to withdraw, ask all the women he's been with


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

North Mimms said:



			Can I just remind everyone on here that MikeH asked that we avoid using terms like "haters"
		
Click to expand...

We can't say there are Tiger Haters in the world? Really what are we nursery kids


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

Another win for Tiger for sure.


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

do we not see this in most sports now? I am not excusing it but, it seems that money via bums on seats/tv audiences is more important.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

G1BB0 said:



			do we not see this in most sports now? I am not excusing it but, it seems that money via bums on seats/tv audiences is more important.
		
Click to expand...

Yep and there would be a 50% decrease without the GOAT Tiger :clap:


----------



## kid2 (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			It's funny though if you are all saying he has still broke the rules then your admitting the great man is bigger than the Masters and possibly the sport itself - another win for Tiger then :thup:
		
Click to expand...


I think you'll find that the Majority of the comments on here are against Tiger...So how can we be admitting that he is bigger than the Masters.........No one is admitting anything......Its a discussion about whether or not we think he should be DQ'd.........

I dont see it as a win for Tiger.......I see it more as another Cock Up by the Rules officials and the USGA Officials......


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

I wonder if this thread would have a different feel to it if it had of been boring Donald in the frame?


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Yep and there would be a 50% decrease without the GOAT Tiger :clap:
		
Click to expand...

:rofl: Never in a milion years, fans and supporters are like parasites, they'd just move to another host


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Even as a massive fan I said this morning what ever happens Tiger should DQ himself but now this new rule has been bought up he hasn't done anything wrong and is well within the rules to play.

It's funny though if you are all saying he has still broke the rules then your admitting the great man is bigger than the Masters and possibly the sport itself - another win for Tiger then :thup:
		
Click to expand...

He broke the rule Davey - otherwise why the 2 shot penalty.....


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

maybe they have Sepp Blatter on the committee


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			I wonder if this thread would have a different feel to it if it had of been boring Donald in the frame?
		
Click to expand...

Probably not as Donald would have most likely been DQ'd


----------



## MetalMickie (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Tiger haters will cling on to anything, its hilarious :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

So if I criticise Tiger or do not fall at his feet I hate him apparently? 

Pretty perverted logic to suggest that his actions are above criticism or that any golfer should be above the Rules.

It is clear that his breach was one that he * could*have been aware of and, in those circumstances, there does not appear to be room for any leeway.

It appears to me that the Tiger lovers are the ones who will cling to anything to favour their man.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			I wonder if this thread would have a different feel to it if it had of been boring Donald in the frame?
		
Click to expand...

I think the only difference would have been, he'd have been DQ'd but we live in the media TW circus so....


----------



## duncan mackie (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			You thought there were a lot of Tiger Haters.
If he doesn't withdraw you'll see a whole lot more.....
He wants to be the Greatest?
Here's his chance to get further up the ladder by withdrawing
		
Click to expand...

Indeed

I think he is an amazing golfer, right up there with the greatest through the ages, and like many nere my posts to this thread have absolutely nothing to do with Tiger and everything to do with the rules.

But, there is a cross over when the rules appear to be modified because it's Tiger......

In fact the point's been past, and the damage done. Even if Tiger withdrew now we have an almighty mess because it comes over that he's bigger than the game. Tiger would look better though.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Apr 13, 2013)

Yep Donald would have been DQ'd last night probably as soon as the offence came to light.


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Is that really the rule? I think you may need to re-read it.
		
Click to expand...

Doesent the ruling state that you either drop two club lengths from the hazard where your ball entered or play from where you played your last shot?


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			He broke the rule Davey - otherwise why the 2 shot penalty.....
		
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing the rule break, yes he did and should be punished buttt... It wasn't deliberate and he put pen to paper not knowing he had broke a rule so the situation has been dealt with well within the rules and he deserves to be on course today.


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 13, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			So if I criticise Tiger or do not fall at his feet I hate him apparently? 

Pretty perverted logic to suggest that his actions are above criticism or that any golfer should be above the Rules.

It is clear that his breach was one that he * could*have been aware of and, in those circumstances, there does not appear to be room for any leeway.

It appears to me that the Tiger lovers are the ones who will cling to anything to favour their man.
		
Click to expand...


Apparently the powers that be brought out a rule to cover this, after an infringement by Harrington? Last year. Tiger has fallen foul of it, and been pinged. He has taken the penalty. Move on, nothing to see here.


----------



## bladeplayer (Apr 13, 2013)

shivas irons said:



			How on earth do you decide whether a player knew or not that he had incurred an infringement? Woods must have know that the two yards he added were to benefit him as it was the optimum distance he was looking for.
Tiger Woods has cheated and thinks he can get away with it because its him,how right he is......
		
Click to expand...

Just seen it on the beeb ,  2 yards is aprox 6 feet .. it didnt even look like 2 feet to me , could be just the camera angle tho .. Personaly i dont think the drop was excessivly far behind  the origional spot for a drop .. just my opinion tho


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			I'm not disputing the rule break, yes he did and should be punished buttt... It wasn't deliberate and he put pen to paper not knowing he had broke a rule so the situation has been dealt with well within the rules and he deserves to be on course today.
		
Click to expand...

That's wrong and your inventing another rule, if you didn't sign your card, you'd be DQ'd, if you added it up incorrectly, you'd be DQ'd he hasn't added a penalty stroke after knowingly and deliberately playing from an incorrect position and as such his card is incorrect which is a DQ.

Its quite black & white really!


----------



## kid2 (Apr 13, 2013)

shivas irons said:



			Doesent the ruling state that you either drop two club lengths from the hazard where your ball entered or play from where you played your last shot?
		
Click to expand...


Yes but he didnt play from where his last shot was taken......It was in his words 2 yards further back to allow for the ball to pitch less distance from the flag...... So in effect his penalty drop was wrong per the rules!


----------



## credman82 (Apr 13, 2013)

This is an absolute disgrace, mark roe will no doubt have a few things to say on the matter later, but if you're no1 you are untouchable. Looks like our game of honest gents has taken a real hit today. He signed the card wrong end of story it's a DQ and that's that. But the officials at Augusta seem to think they are above the laws of the sport. I'm bitterly disappointed in the officials.


----------



## North Mimms (Apr 13, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			Just seen it on the beeb ,  2 yards is aprox 6 feet .. it didnt even look like 2 feet to me , could be just the camera angle tho .. Personaly i dont think the drop was excessivly far behind  the origional spot for a drop .. just my opinion tho
		
Click to expand...

Tiger said in his interview that he dropped 2 yards further back


----------



## gmc40 (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Apparently the powers that be brought out a rule to cover this, after an infringement by Harrington? Last year. Tiger has fallen foul of it, and been pinged. He has taken the penalty. Move on, nothing to see here.
		
Click to expand...

That rule is to deal with cases of 'trial by TV'. Therefore completely irrelevant in this case.


----------



## LIG (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			You thought there were a lot of Tiger Haters.
If he doesn't withdraw you'll see a whole lot more.....
He wants to be the Greatest?
Here's his chance to get further up the ladder by withdrawing
		
Click to expand...

:sbox:
I don't really follow the pro tours except for the "three" majors - Augusta, US Open and The Open.  (USPGA - pah!) 
I like watching great golf being played on these occasions, whether on TV or on the course, and I have no particular favourites - they're just names to me. 
I do, however, abhor people who refuse to follow the rules of a GAME !!  Amateurs as well as Pros.

Until now, I've had respect for Tiger Woods but, unless he does the right thing here, I will become ..... not a hater, but .... a supporter of anyone else he happens to play against. 

I know many will say - but it's his job, it's worth a lot of money! To you I say, try to imagine someone else in another PRO-fession doing the dirty; lawer, banker, financial consultant, etc., would you forgive cheating on their part if it was "for the money"? 

INTEGRITY ! That's what golf is about!    
Do YOU have enough to admit mistakes and accept the consequences?  Yes?  
Then why shouldn't Tiger? 

**gets off soapbox**


----------



## Ethan (Apr 13, 2013)

I don't think for a second that Tiger did anything other than make a mistake. No way was this is deliberate. 

Still, people get DQ'd for innocent mistakes. So is the ANGC decision fair? Actually I think it is and I am no Tiger lover. Hopefully the same decision would have been made if it had been David Lynn or some other lesser light.


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

gmc40 said:



			That rule is to deal with cases of 'trial by TV'. Therefore completely irrelevant in this case.
		
Click to expand...

Clearly not irrelevnt if you read the committes ruling


----------



## garyinderry (Apr 13, 2013)

i wonder would this have come to light had he bladed the pitch (unlikely) or airmailed the green.   it was down to his pin point approach that highlighed what he had done.  


goddam talent getting him in  trouble!  lol


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 13, 2013)

gmc40 said:



			That rule is to deal with cases of 'trial by TV'. Therefore completely irrelevant in this case.
		
Click to expand...

The rule is for people signing for a wrong score. Tv is not mentioned in the rule.


----------



## gmc40 (Apr 13, 2013)

fundy said:



			Clearly not irrelevnt if you read the committes ruling
		
Click to expand...

I have and it's still completely irrelevant. Woods clearly stated he broke a rule of golf to gain an advantage.


----------



## Matty (Apr 13, 2013)

gmc40 said:



			That rule is to deal with cases of 'trial by TV'. Therefore completely irrelevant in this case.
		
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with this. It was a TV interview where he stated he'd dropped the ball 2 yards back. If it were not for the TV or media he might not have made this statement, his card would have stood and nobody would be making a fuss.

If you were playing in a comp and dropped your ball as he did would you feel it fair to be DQ'd? A two shot penalty is more than adequate and having seen the shot he played AFTER the drop to avoid carding a huge score on that hole he deserves some credit for keeping his composure after some poor luck.

This would be my feeling if this was ANY golfer. I am pretty ambivalent towards Tiger, I neither love nor hate him. I'd have thought it pretty poor for any professional golfer for being DQ'd for that, he dropped the ball further away so to my mind gained no advantage.


----------



## MetalMickie (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Apparently the powers that be brought out a rule to cover this, after an infringement by Harrington? Last year. Tiger has fallen foul of it, and been pinged. He has taken the penalty. Move on, nothing to see here.
		
Click to expand...

The rule change to which you refer was intended to cover situations where the player could not be expected to be aware that he had broken a rule e,g, a ball moving marginally,

In Tiger's case this would not appear to apply as, by his own admission and to his advantage, he did not drop the ball in the correct place. It was to his advantage as he chose the spot to ensure that he did not repeat his earlier error of overpitching.

Ignorance of the rule is no defence for you, me or the World No:1.


----------



## bladeplayer (Apr 13, 2013)

North Mimms said:



			Tiger said in his interview that he dropped 2 yards further back
		
Click to expand...

only going by the video is saw ........ so just wondering then the committe reviewed it & decided against DQ.. 

Are they cheating or deliberatly breaking rules surely Tigers fate was in their hands not his own at this stage , they feel it fell under the new regulation of 2 shot penalty , should that not be enough  ?


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

Matty said:



			I have to disagree with this. It was a TV interview where he stated he'd dropped the ball 2 yards back. If it were not for the TV or media he might not have made this statement, his card would have stood and nobody would be making a fuss.

If you were playing in a comp and dropped your ball as he did would you feel it fair to be DQ'd? A two shot penalty is more than adequate and having seen the shot he played AFTER the drop to avoid carding a huge score on that hole he deserves some credit for keeping his composure after some poor luck.

This would be my feeling if this was ANY golfer. I am pretty ambivalent towards Tiger, I neither love nor hate him. I'd have thought it pretty poor for any professional golfer for being DQ'd for that, he dropped the ball further away so to my mind gained no advantage.
		
Click to expand...

That's not right because in the committee's statement they clearly state that decisions were being made PRIOR to Tiger finishing his round!


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

It's not first Masters rules controversy for Tiger either, In Round 1 in 2005, no penalty after question over putting stance at 14th hole. 
Went on to win the play-off.


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

question -
When he hit the flag, went into the water then dropped his ball how many jumped off the sofa saying he has dropped in the wrong place? how many saw the replay (that was shown several times) and said penalty for Mr Woods incorrect drop?  the interview was picked up on then broadcast over this wonderful thing called the internet. If that isnt trial by tv/technology then I am hung like John Holmes!


----------



## gmc40 (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			The rule is for people signing for a wrong score. Tv is not mentioned in the rule.
		
Click to expand...

But applies in cases were the player was not aware. In this case Woods was aware of what he had done, he was just ignorant of the relevant rule. Totally different scenario.


----------



## LIG (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			I'm not disputing the rule break, yes he did and should be punished buttt... It wasn't deliberate and he put pen to paper not knowing he had broke a rule so the situation has been dealt with well within the rules and he deserves to be on course today.
		
Click to expand...

Blimey, Daveyboy! You put your whole house on him or something?? :lol:


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

Why does the word "advantage" always get used......
Whether he gained an advantage or not is irrelevent.
If dropping in the wrong place actually puts you at a disadvantage you still break the rule...


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

LIG said:



			Blimey, Daveyboy! You put your whole house on him or something?? :lol:

Click to expand...

lmao


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

They have just been talking about this on the golf channel live,John Cook, Olin Browne and Brad faxon all agreed that Tiger should "slam he's trunk" and get out of there.They also agreed that should he win he's credibility would take a serious knock.


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Why when the rules state if he didn't deliberately sign for the wrong score then he didn't do anything wrong and the 2 shot penalty is his punishment.
		
Click to expand...

For the record I don't do forum 'hate'... Can't get my head around the concept of hating someone I don't personally know...

However I do measure those in the 'spotlight' by how they conduct themselves and to be blunt Tiger doesn't measure up very well in his sporting 'life' or [indeed] his personal 'life'...

Now [in my opinion] he has a chance to re-set the balance...

I believe [like many others] anyone else other than Tiger it would be a DQ end of story... So why should it be any different just because it is Tiger?  As has already been pointed out... It stinks!


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

LIG said:



			Blimey, Daveyboy! You put your whole house on him or something?? :lol:

Click to expand...

LOL, No my money is on Scott, I'm just stating he has been punished well within the rules and deserves his place in the field this afternoon.


----------



## Crow (Apr 13, 2013)

Iâ€™d like to see the fans make some form of protest today but of course the puppets, sorry patrons, are so under the thumb of Augusta that not a sound will be heard.

Iâ€™ve always had concerns about the Masters as a Major due to its â€œqualificationâ€ policy but right now it just seems like a tin-pot tourney to me.


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

has the masters got to big for its own boots maybe?


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

Crow said:



			Iâ€™d like to see the fans make some form of protest today but of course the puppets, sorry patrons, are so under the thumb of Augusta that not a sound will be heard.

Iâ€™ve always had concerns about the Masters as a Major due to its â€œqualificationâ€ policy but right now it just seems like a tin-pot tourney to me.
		
Click to expand...

Yes because shouting abuse and making a player feel uncomfortable is well within lines of this so called gentlemans sport isn't it.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

G1BB0 said:



			has the masters got to big for its own boots maybe?
		
Click to expand...

It certainly seems to have bent over backwards and folded itself in half just to keep Tiger in.


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 13, 2013)

If the officials had dq'ed tiger, he would have held his hand up and walked. They didn't. So he plays this weekend. it's not his call. They rule, he goes with the ruling. What has he done wrong?


----------



## bobmac (Apr 13, 2013)

When Tiger dropped 'incorrectly', a viewer contacted the Masters and reported it. The committee reviewed the evidence and ruled he had "complied with the rules"
After the interview, it was obvious that Tiger had not dropped at the nearest point, hence the 2 shot penalty.

http://www.masters.com/en_US/news/articles/2013-04-13/201304131365864008839.html


----------



## LIG (Apr 13, 2013)

Crow said:



			Iâ€™ve always had concerns about the Masters as a Major due to its â€œqualificationâ€ policy but right now it just seems like a tin-pot tourney to me.
		
Click to expand...

+1

It's decisions of this ilk that remind everyone of one their older traditions - no women members!


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 13, 2013)

G1BB0 said:



			has the masters got to big for its own boots maybe?
		
Click to expand...


Think 'the masters' has always picked and choosed its own way of making/applying rules... Mostly they're right... On this occasion I am not so sure...


----------



## Crow (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Yes because shouting abuse and making a player feel uncomfortable is well within lines of this so called gentlemans sport isn't it.
		
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying they should shout abuse, and ineed, my post proves that.


----------



## MetalMickie (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			If the officials had dq'ed tiger, he would have held his hand up and walked. They didn't. So he plays this weekend. it's not his call. They rule, he goes with the ruling. What has he done wrong?
		
Click to expand...

We are in agreement.

My complaint lies with the organisers and their interpretation of the rules, I have no problem with Tiger.


----------



## LIG (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			If the officials had dq'ed tiger, he would have held his hand up and walked. They didn't. So he plays this weekend. it's not his call. They rule, he goes with the ruling. What has he done wrong?
		
Click to expand...

He's made a numpty of himself by doing something soooooo stooooopid as dropping incorrectly AND he's being dis-honorable by not withdrawing. That IS up to him!


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

It seems to be moving towards the officials now making an error.

American commentators are stating that, as per the committee's statement, if they did know he made an error with dropping the ball in the wrong place whilst he was still in play, which the statement clearly makes reference to, then an official should have approached Tiger on the 16th or 17th tee's and state to him that he has made an error and needs to score an 8 for the 15th and the marker then amends his score but he is then fully abreast of matters before coming in and signing!


----------



## doublebogey7 (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			I don't believe that Tiger in any way broke the rule on purpose... No way it's not the type of player he is.

So is everyone who is saying he should have been DQ now saying he purposely cheated?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely not,  but ignorance of the rules had never and should never be a defence.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			When Tiger dropped 'incorrectly', a viewer contacted the Masters and reported it. The committee reviewed the evidence and ruled he had "complied with the rules"
After the interview, it was obvious that Tiger had not dropped at the nearest point, hence the 2 shot penalty.

http://www.masters.com/en_US/news/articles/2013-04-13/201304131365864008839.html

Click to expand...

If the viewer was watching the same pictures I was watching there is no way they could have had any idea that dropped in the wrong place. The cameras are not fixed so viewing angles change...
My cynical mind sees the "viewer" being invented to give them a way out....


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 13, 2013)

LIG said:



			He's made a numpty of himself by doing something soooooo stooooopid as dropping incorrectly AND he's being dis-honorable by not withdrawing. That IS up to him!
		
Click to expand...


Are we back to this mythical 'spirit of golf' guff?

The officials make a ruling, the player plays according to the ruling.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

Just in from doing something useful in the garden this afternoon.  Half a mug of coffee before I reached page 33!

Most of the posts I've skimmed through are debating the wrong thing.  There is now no debate that Tiger breached Rule 26, the Committee has determined that he did; there is no debate that he cops a 2 stroke penalty for that; there is no debate that he therefore handed in a scorecard which breached Rule 6-6d; there is no debate that the penalty for that breach is disqualification; but, and this is the important but, there is no debate that the Committee has the power within the Rules of Golf to waive a disqualification for individual and exceptional reasons (Rule 33-7).

The only debate really is whether the Masters Committee was right to determine that in this instance there were justifiable individual and exceptional reasons to waive the disqualification.   Its decision, I take it, was made in the context of the "trial by television" consideration.


----------



## duncan mackie (Apr 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			When Tiger dropped 'incorrectly', a viewer contacted the Masters and reported it. The committee reviewed the evidence and ruled he had "complied with the rules"
After the interview, it was obvious that Tiger had not dropped at the nearest point, hence the 2 shot penalty.

http://www.masters.com/en_US/news/articles/2013-04-13/201304131365864008839.html

Click to expand...


having finally found this myself (I couln't read the version Fish kindly posted earlier) I can now understand, and agree, the decision.

basically the committee screwed up big time in not raising the matter, that they had been made aware of and discussed, with the player before he signed his card.

this 'error' by the committee meant that the player did not get the opportunity to hold up his hand to a 2 shot penalty at the time, and sign for a correct score.

the use of the particular decision then related the lack of facts known to the committee, who have made their decsion on the basis of the wrong facts because they didn't ask for the right ones at the right time - rather than the player. 

convoluted, but valid.

having read every post on this thread many times I can't help feeling that the nuances here aren't going to travel well!

however, I'm convinced that the committee have now done the right thing (having done the wrong thing) and if anything they have put Tiger in a place he doesn't deserve to be in.

there will be many who neither understand, or want to understand, but that's life.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

duncan mackie said:



			having finally found this myself (I couln't read the version Fish kindly posted earlier) I can now understand, and agree, the decision.

basically the committee screwed up big time in not raising the matter, that they had been made aware of and discussed, with the player before he signed his card.

this 'error' by the committee meant that the player did not get the opportunity to hold up his hand to a 2 shot penalty at the time, and sign for a correct score.

the use of the particular decision then related the lack of facts known to the committee, who have made their decsion on the basis of the wrong facts because they didn't ask for the right ones at the right time - rather than the player. 

convoluted, but valid.

having read every post on this thread many times I can't help feeling that the nuances here aren't going to travel well!

however, I'm convinced that the committee have now done the right thing (having done the wrong thing) and if anything they have put Tiger in a place he doesn't deserve to be in.

there will be many who neither understand, or want to understand, but that's life.
		
Click to expand...

Which is what the USA commentators are now saying as in my #328


----------



## Fader (Apr 13, 2013)

So now people are saying tiger has no integrity unless he walks away just brilliant. 

He doesn't make the rules or decisions the tournament committee and USGA officials do and have done that. Now all he needs do is get out there put on his A game and shut up all the whining old gits that are just bitter he's getting back to his best an likely can break their saviour mr Nicklaus record. 

It just amazes me how many were saying just last night what a wonderful recovery he made, no mention of the drop or rules. But he makes an honest statement and the wolves circle vilifying him and demanding his DQ or walk away. Brilliant. 

I wasn't wanting him to win this week at start of the event but now I hope he digs deep and comes through the pack to win to give all those that dislike him something else to gripe about.


----------



## duncan mackie (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Its decision, I take it, was made in the context of the "trial by television" consideration.
		
Click to expand...

no

it was in the context of the committee's failure to discuss the situation with the player before he signed his card having been made aware it it - which they recognise was a failure on their part.


----------



## Fader (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Tiger haters will cling on to anything, its hilarious :rofl:
		
Click to expand...




murphthemog said:



			Are we back to this mythical 'spirit of golf' guff?

The officials make a ruling, the player plays according to the ruling.
		
Click to expand...

Well said that man. 

They make the decisions he abides by it but still in the wrong in some people's eyes you really couldn't make it up could you.


----------



## duncan mackie (Apr 13, 2013)

Fish said:



			Which is what the USA commentators are now saying as in my #328
		
Click to expand...

possibly, but I started typing at #324 and don't have multiple thread windows open, or even the TV switched on!


----------



## gmc40 (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			If the viewer was watching the same pictures I was watching there is no way they could have had any idea that dropped in the wrong place. The cameras are not fixed so viewing angles change...
My cynical mind sees the "viewer" being invented to give them a way out....
		
Click to expand...

I also have suspicions that the 'viewer' they refer to is a figment of someone's imagination.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

duncan mackie said:



			possibly, but I started typing at #324 and don't have multiple thread windows open, or even the TV switched on! 

Click to expand...

You need to get more than 2 fingers going on that keyboard Duncan 

You have accrued an infraction for slow typing and slowing the forum down


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Are we back to this mythical 'spirit of golf' guff?.
		
Click to expand...

This is one of life's great questions. Golf on a amateur level is one of the most backstabbing/two-faced sports I've ever played. Not to mention the history of the pro game.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

Yes you have lets start a thread for the rule breach and see if we can beat 38 pages :rofl:

Edit, this was a reply to Fish thread regarding Duncan's rule breach, my ipad didn't copy it over


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

duncan mackie said:



			no

it was in the context of the committee's failure to discuss the situation with the player before he signed his card having been made aware it it - which they recognise was a failure on their part.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks Duncan.  I was unaware of that additional information you provided when I wrote that - which information puts the whole decision in a very different context.  That was a notable failure on the Committee's part  and I would agree that a player should not be penalised as a result of it.


----------



## fundy (Apr 13, 2013)

Tiger Woods â€@TigerWoods 1m

At hole #15, I took a drop that I thought was correct and in accordance with the rules. I was unaware at that time I had violated any rules.

Tiger Woods â€@TigerWoods 46s

I didnâ€™t know I had taken an incorrect drop prior to signing my scorecard. Subsequently, I met with the Masters Committee Saturday morning..

Tiger Woods â€@TigerWoods 25s

and was advised they had reviewed the incident prior to the completion of my round. Their initial determination...

Tiger Woods â€@TigerWoods 21s

was that there was no violation, but they had additional concerns based on my post-round interview. After discussing the situation...

Tiger Woods â€@TigerWoods 36s

...with them this morning, I was assessed a two-shot penalty. I understand and accept the penalty and respect the Committeesâ€™ decision.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

triple_bogey said:



			This is one of life's great questions. Golf on a amateur level is one of the most backstabbing/two-faced sports I've ever played. Not to mention the history of the pro game.
		
Click to expand...

This, most amateur golfers are nobs :rofl:


----------



## Jackooo (Apr 13, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			Just seen it on the beeb ,  2 yards is aprox 6 feet .. it didnt even look like 2 feet to me , could be just the camera angle tho .. Personaly i dont think the drop was excessivly far behind  the origional spot for a drop .. just my opinion tho
		
Click to expand...

Lets not forget that a zoom lens alters distance and perspective when fully zoomed in!


----------



## lyden (Apr 13, 2013)

As long as this is a consistent ruling throughout the game I see no issues. Rules are rules but sometimes they are overly penal based on the breach committed.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

I still don't buy it.

The officials, after being alerted by a viewer, review the drop and decide that no rule has been broken.
On the face of it - End of Story

When Tiger tells the World that he dropped a couple of yards further back - ie effectively admitting he broke a rule - they have another look and decide that he actually has broken a rule.

How did they fail to tell Tiger he'd broken a rule if they'd reviewed it and decided he hadn't?

The "Viewer" part of this becomes irrelevent as soon as the Officials reviewed the drop and decided No Foul. Trial by TV is over.

So they only review again after Tiger states he dropped 2 yards further back.

They then come out and say that a Rule has been broken.
So, therefore, Tiger has signed for an incorrect score.......


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			I still don't buy it.

The officials, after being alerted by a viewer, review the drop and decide that no rule has been broken.
On the face of it - End of Story

When Tiger tells the World that he dropped a couple of yards further back - ie effectively admitting he broke a rule - they have another look and decide that he actually has broken a rule.

How did they fail to tell Tiger he'd broken a rule if they'd reviewed it and decided he hadn't?

The "Viewer" part of this becomes irrelevent as soon as the Officials reviewed the drop and decided No Foul. Trial by TV is over.

So they only review again after Tiger states he dropped 2 yards further back.

They then come out and say that a Rule has been broken.
So, therefore, Tiger has signed for an incorrect score.......
		
Click to expand...

Still not tigers fault though.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Still not tigers fault though.
		
Click to expand...

Not saying it is Chris - not at all.

The Masters Tournament Committee have dropped a huge one.


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

Now imagine if he went on to win it all? Heart attacks all around.................:rofl::rofl:


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

fundy said:



			Tiger Woods â€@TigerWoods 1m

At hole #15, I took a drop that I thought was correct and in accordance with the rules. I was unaware at that time I had violated any rules.

Tiger Woods â€@TigerWoods 46s

I didnâ€™t know I had taken an incorrect drop prior to signing my scorecard. Subsequently, I met with the Masters Committee Saturday morning..

Tiger Woods â€@TigerWoods 25s

and was advised they had reviewed the incident prior to the completion of my round. Their initial determination...

Tiger Woods â€@TigerWoods 21s

was that there was no violation, but they had additional concerns based on my post-round interview. After discussing the situation...

Tiger Woods â€@TigerWoods 36s

...with them this morning, I was assessed a two-shot penalty. I understand and accept the penalty and respect the Committeesâ€™ decision.
		
Click to expand...

I just read all this,now is he making out he's the HONEST one :rofl:


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			I still don't buy it.

The officials, after being alerted by a viewer, review the drop and decide that no rule has been broken.
On the face of it - End of Story

When Tiger tells the World that he dropped a couple of yards further back - ie effectively admitting he broke a rule - they have another look and decide that he actually has broken a rule.

How did they fail to tell Tiger he'd broken a rule if they'd reviewed it and decided he hadn't?

The "Viewer" part of this becomes irrelevent as soon as the Officials reviewed the drop and decided No Foul. Trial by TV is over.

So they only review again after Tiger states he dropped 2 yards further back.

They then come out and say that a Rule has been broken.
So, therefore, Tiger has signed for an incorrect score.......
		
Click to expand...

In your opinion, but not in the opinion of the committee, which is the one that counts.

It is now a moot point, Tiger is still in the masters, that 1 shot has cost him 4 shots, otherwise he would be 1 off the lead, rather than 5 down. game On

Im looking forward to watching later,


----------



## Crow (Apr 13, 2013)

From the BBC website:

_Fred Ridley, the chairman of the Masters competition committee, has released a statement detailing his reasons for penalising Tiger Woods two shots despite the four-time winner apparently revealing that he had knowingly dropped the ball illegally yesterday.

Basically Tiger gets off because the officials made an even bigger mistake.

"In preparation for his fifth shot, the player dropped his ball in close proximity to where he had played his third shot in apparent conformance with Rule 26," said Ridley. 

"After being prompted by a television viewer, the Rules Committee reviewed a video of the shot while he was playing the 18th hole. At that moment and based on that evidence, the Committee determined he had complied with the Rules.

"The subsequent information provided by the player's interview after he had completed play warranted further review and discussion with him this morning...the penalty of disqualification was waived by the Committee under Rule 33 as the Committee had previously reviewed the information and made its initial determination prior to the finish of the player's round."_

I still don't see how this is a reason for not DQing him. They initially acted on the information available at the time, then further information became available which changed the scenario and quite simply they should have DQ'd him. 

Embarassing for all parties but as Tiger said when asked about Guan, rules are rules.


----------



## Bucket92 (Apr 13, 2013)

Apparently the committee discussed his drop BEFORE his round was completed and they thought it was fine and decided that no penalty should be given. Then only AFTER the round and after he'd signed his scorecard did they realise that he's dropped behind his original spot. So they decided to give him the 2 stroke penalty instead of disqualification. This seems fair to me, I don't think Tiger did it on purpose thinking he could get away with no one seeing it.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

PhilTheFragger said:



			In your opinion,
		
Click to expand...

And that of many, many others.......


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			I still don't buy it.

The officials, after being alerted by a viewer, review the drop and decide that no rule has been broken.
On the face of it - End of Story

When Tiger tells the World that he dropped a couple of yards further back - ie effectively admitting he broke a rule - they have another look and decide that he actually has broken a rule.

How did they fail to tell Tiger he'd broken a rule if they'd reviewed it and decided he hadn't?

The "Viewer" part of this becomes irrelevent as soon as the Officials reviewed the drop and decided No Foul. Trial by TV is over.

So they only review again after Tiger states he dropped 2 yards further back.

They then come out and say that a Rule has been broken.
So, therefore, Tiger has signed for an incorrect score.......
		
Click to expand...





PhilTheFragger said:



			In your opinion, but not in the opinion of the committee, which is the one that counts.

It is now a moot point, Tiger is still in the masters, that 1 shot has cost him 4 shots, otherwise he would be 1 off the lead, rather than 5 down. game On

Im looking forward to watching later,
		
Click to expand...

ooooooohhhhhhhhh, I can already feel the tension at the Christmas table :whoo:

Wow, more pages than the 'Thatcher' thread in one morning...............:clap:


----------



## Slime (Apr 13, 2013)

Matty said:



			I am pretty ambivalent towards Tiger, I neither love nor hate him. I'd have thought it pretty poor for any professional golfer for being DQ'd for that, *he dropped the ball further away so to my mind gained no advantage.*

Click to expand...

He dropped the ball further away *specifically* to gain an advantage, at least that's what Woods himself said in his interview. 



LIG said:



			It's decisions of this ilk that remind everyone of one their older traditions - *no women members!*

Click to expand...

I have no more oppostion to that 'tradition' as I would to a women only golf club, gym, social club, busines club etc.
If women want a male free club of any description, that'd be thier choice and I would have no objection to that.



murphthemog said:



			Still not tigers fault though.
		
Click to expand...

:rofl: 

*Slime*.


----------



## lyden (Apr 13, 2013)

Its only an infringement because he said he did it on purpose, if he said nothing then he didn't break a rule. Are people on the tiger witch hunt because they've bet on someone else?


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

lyden said:



			Its only an infringement because he said he did it on purpose, if he said nothing then he didn't break a rule. Are people on the tiger witch hunt because they've bet on someone else?
		
Click to expand...

No, they just hate Tiger 'the man'


----------



## lyden (Apr 13, 2013)

triple_bogey said:



			No, they just hate Tiger 'the man'
		
Click to expand...

The game / tournament needs him, if I was in the field I wouldn't want him dq`d


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

lyden said:



			The game / tournament needs him, if I was in the field I wouldn't want him dq`d
		
Click to expand...

Don't need preach to me brother........hater's are just gonna hate :thup:


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

So nothing to do with wanting the Rules of Golf to be upheld then...........

**-shakeshead-**


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 13, 2013)

shivas irons said:



			Why wasn't Tiger DQ'd? he signed for an incorrect scorecard,you only incure stroke penalties during play, what the hecks happening with the PGA and the rules of golf? 

Click to expand...

But by that reckoning, if you only incur penalties during play, and during play, no penalty was called upon or incurred by Tiger, then he couldn't possibly have signed for an incorrect scorecard.


----------



## Crow (Apr 13, 2013)

triple_bogey said:



			Don't need preach to me brother........hater's are just gonna hate :thup:
		
Click to expand...

I think that the majority of those who'd like to see a DQ are not "Tiger haters", they just want to see the rules applied correctly, that's my position anyway.

Although he played the shot I don't lay any blame for the decision at Tiger's door, it's the committee that have got this so wrong.


----------



## lyden (Apr 13, 2013)

I disagree if you did this in your medal and dropped it in the same place you would be operating within the rules. If they want to remove the grey area they should say they want it placed within 6 inches.


----------



## CMAC (Apr 13, 2013)

Right decision- best player and most exciting player in the world............

we ALL love golf and love to see the best player in the world......

but majority of posts want him disqualified for a mistake even though he's been penalised 2 shots....


sad day...........but not surprising


----------



## Slime (Apr 13, 2013)

lyden said:



*The game / tournament needs him*, if I was in the field I wouldn't want him dq`d
		
Click to expand...

Why is that exactly? The game seemed to survive perfectly well when he was off the radar for a while.
If I was in the field, (as if), I would want him DQ'd as I would expect to be DQ'd myself.
No-one should be bigger than their sport or above the rules, sadly this doesn't seem to be the case.

*Slime*.


----------



## CMAC (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm going to WATCH the golf now, it's all a done deal, time to move on.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

DarthVega said:



			Right decision- best player and most exciting player in the world............

we ALL love golf and love to see the best player in the world......

but majority of posts want him disqualified for a mistake even though he's been penalised 2 shots....


sad day...........but not surprising 

Click to expand...

The problem is he should have been dq'd 

It gives the impression that ANGC have bent the rules to breaking point to keep him in.
That doesn't look good for ANGC and I don't think it'll look good for Tiger either.


----------



## Andy808 (Apr 13, 2013)

If players are going to be tried by television then I think they should have some little flags in their bags so in this situation they can pop one in the ground where they played the shot from and if they decide to go back to play the shot from there then there is no argument as to the original ball position. It wouldn't take anything for a course marshal or official to recover it from the course if the player doesn't return to the previous position. I know it would ruin the fun for the jobsworths who sit checking these things on the tv but it would prevent any player having to take a penalty that none of us would have to take in the real world. If anyone on here can say they have played every shot from the exact same position when faced with a walk away and returning to play the shot again then you are a golfing god!


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

The camera's and coverage will now be all over Tiger to see if this has mentality affected him, all the way to the 18th!


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

How do these people know where to call?
Do they have the number of the Chairman of the Rules committee or something...?


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

DarthVega said:



			I'm going to WATCH the golf now, it's all a done deal, time to move on.
		
Click to expand...

Me too,pot of tea,plate of biscuits and Tiger shooting a 75 would be a good evening...........


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			The problem is he should have been dq'd 

It gives the impression that ANGC have bent the rules to breaking point to keep him in.
That doesn't look good for ANGC and I don't think it'll look good for Tiger either.
		
Click to expand...

Bang on 100%

It's not about liking or disliking Tiger it's about applying rules properly.

However, the deal is done and he is there for the weekend, lets enjoy what's left of the masters and hope  the masters gets the winner it deserves


----------



## 6inchcup (Apr 13, 2013)

this decision STINKS,he broke the rules ,admitted in a press conference what he had done,then the MASTERS committee running scared used a rule that has no duristinction in this case to let him carry on,if it had been a lesser light or a european player they would have DQ'D them without fail,this just proves that THE MASTERS should not be a major and that once again it shows WOODS has no morals or integrity,and for all those that say he did nothing wrong and keep trying to justify what he did,would you cheat in a comp?


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

Greg Norman on Golf Channel says "its also about integrity and Tiger should have withdrawn himself".


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

RED BUTTON: Tiger looking calm and swinging beautifully....................


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 13, 2013)

If and it is still a big IF, should Woods go on and win now how much furore and argument will there be. I do feel a little of the magic of the Masters has been lost. It seems that the committe at Augusta really do feel they are bigger than the game. Wrong decision. I have loved watching Woods play close to his best for the first two rounds but an incorrect drop, signing a wrong score is DQ. End of


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

6inchcup said:



			this decision STINKS,he broke the rules ,admitted in a press conference what he had done,then the MASTERS committee running scared used a rule that has no duristinction in this case to let him carry on,if it had been a lesser light or a european player they would have DQ'D them without fail,this just proves that THE MASTERS should not be a major and that once again it shows WOODS has no morals or integrity,and for all those that say he did nothing wrong and keep trying to justify what he did,would you cheat in a comp?
		
Click to expand...

No ones cheated here, please read through the thread.


----------



## AmandaJR (Apr 13, 2013)

I've not read all the posts - way too many to wade through! I don't think Tiger is a cheat (at golf!) so his drop away from the original spot was a mistake and a 2 shot penalty sufficient punishment. The fact they reviewed it - no doubt in HD/3D/SloMo yet thought it not sufficiently away from the original spot to call it a foul would, for me, be the end of it and a retrospective 2 shot penalty never mind a DQ harsh!

I hope it doesn't affect his play for the weekend and the best golfer at the end of Sunday, whoever that is, wins what remains, imho, a great tournament...


----------



## bladeplayer (Apr 13, 2013)

lyden said:



			The game / tournament needs him, if I was in the field I wouldn't want him dq`d
		
Click to expand...

would you change the cut mark for him also ?

For the record id go with the decision made by the committe , they will have good grounds to make that call or they wouldnt risk making it ..


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			would you change the cut mark for him also ?
		
Click to expand...

Mmmmm...

There's a thought.......


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			How do these people know where to call?
Do they have the number of the Chairman of the Rules committee or something...?
		
Click to expand...

The Golf channel just stated that two viewers phoned up Augusta.Hows that done"Eh I'd like to speak to somebody about ruining the chances of the greatest player ever winning another major"...........


----------



## 6inchcup (Apr 13, 2013)

Amanda said:



			I've not read all the posts - way too many to wade through! I don't think Tiger is a cheat (at golf!) so his drop away from the original spot was a mistake and a 2 shot penalty sufficient punishment. The fact they reviewed it - no doubt in HD/3D/SloMo yet thought it not sufficiently away from the original spot to call it a foul would, for me, be the end of it and a retrospective 2 shot penalty never mind a DQ harsh!

I hope it doesn't affect his play for the weekend and the best golfer at the end of Sunday, whoever that is, wins what remains, imho, a great tournament...
		
Click to expand...

they didn't have to use anytv evidence HE admitted what he had done in a press conference after the round,they were just using the tv ploy to cover up their decision of a 2 shot penalty as this is the only time this rule can be used,everyone knows what he said and thus he should by the rules of golf be automatically DQ'D.


----------



## NWJocko (Apr 13, 2013)

HomerJSimpson said:



			If and it is still a big IF, should Woods go on and win now how much furore and argument will there be. I do feel a little of the magic of the Masters has been lost. It seems that the committe at Augusta really do feel they are bigger than the game. Wrong decision. I have loved watching Woods play close to his best for the first two rounds but an incorrect drop, signing a wrong score is DQ. End of
		
Click to expand...


Have you read the explanation!? Can everyone just do that to avoid going round in circles......

The fault lies with the committee not tiger. I am in no way a fan of woods to clarify.


----------



## Andy808 (Apr 13, 2013)

6inchcup said:



			they didn't have to use anytv evidence HE admitted what he had done in a press conference after the round,they were just using the tv ploy to cover up their decision of a 2 shot penalty as this is the only time this rule can be used,everyone knows what he said and thus he should by the rules of golf be automatically DQ'D.
		
Click to expand...

I would say someone told him between signing his card and the interview....




*WOODS STATEMENT ABOUT TWO-SHOT PENALTY*Tiger Woods: "I didn't know I had taken an incorrect drop prior to signing my scorecard. Subsequently, I met with the Masters Committee Saturday morning and was advised they had reviewed the incident prior to the completion of my round.

"Their initial determination was that there was no violation, but they had additional concerns based on my post-round interview. After discussing the situation with them this morning, I was assessed a two-shot penalty. I understand and accept the penalty and respect the Committees' decision."

Click to expand...


----------



## Slime (Apr 13, 2013)

Fish said:



*The camera's and coverage will now be all over Tiger* to see if this has mentality affected him, all the way to the 18th!
		
Click to expand...

No change there then!
He should play fair and DQ himself.

*Slime*.


----------



## 6inchcup (Apr 13, 2013)

Andy808 said:



			I would say someone told him between signing his card and the interview....
		
Click to expand...

so someone must have had their doubts about the drop or why else revue it before he had finished his round?smacks like the masters committee have done a cover up.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 13, 2013)

Ethan said:



			I don't think for a second that Tiger did anything other than make a mistake. No way was this is deliberate. 

Still, people get DQ'd for innocent mistakes. So is the ANGC decision fair? Actually I think it is and I am no Tiger lover. Hopefully the same decision would have been made if it had been David Lynn or some other lesser light.
		
Click to expand...

If it was some other lesser light, it wouldn't have been on TV and we'd never known it happened and they wouldn't even have got the 2 shot penalty, let alone have half the world calling for their disqualification


----------



## G1BB0 (Apr 13, 2013)

as stated previously and by others, the decision has been made, lets move on and enjoy the rest of the tournament :thup:


----------



## Piece (Apr 13, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			If it was some other lesser light, it wouldn't have been on TV and we'd never known it happened and they wouldn't even have got the 2 shot penalty, let alone have half the world calling for their disqualification
		
Click to expand...

Good point. You have to wonder what may have been going on pre full TV coverage. By Googling 'Gary Player cheats' does bring up a lot of very interesting going-ons!


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

Not the first time Augusta officials make up there own rules...


http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tour...iger-drop-fiasco-dow-finsterwald-in-1960.html


----------



## 6inchcup (Apr 13, 2013)

Piece said:



			Good point. You have to wonder what may have been going on pre full TV coverage. By Googling 'Gary Player cheats' does bring up a lot of very interesting going-ons!
		
Click to expand...

the question we should ask if WOODS didn't know!!!!!!!!! it wasn't ok to drop a ball no were near were it should have been dropped,how many times has he done it before?


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 13, 2013)

Fish said:



			Not the first time Augusta officials make up there own rules...


http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tour...iger-drop-fiasco-dow-finsterwald-in-1960.html

Click to expand...

But they haven't made up any rules. There is scope within the rules to do what has been done.


----------



## lyden (Apr 13, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			would you change the cut mark for him also ?

For the record id go with the decision made by the committe , they will have good grounds to make that call or they wouldnt risk making it ..
		
Click to expand...

Not at all but I think we all know had this not happened tiger would have gone on to win and easily. In my personal opinion he gained no advantage so why would I want to win my green jacket by default. I'd want it because when alls said and done I was the best player.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

6inchcup said:



			this decision STINKS,he broke the rules ,admitted in a press conference what he had done,then the MASTERS committee running scared used a rule that has no duristinction in this case to let him carry on,if it had been a lesser light or a european player they would have DQ'D them without fail,this just proves that THE MASTERS should not be a major and that once again it shows WOODS has no morals or integrity,and for all those that say he did nothing wrong and keep trying to justify what he did,would you cheat in a comp?
		
Click to expand...

What a remarkable rant.  Try reading the account of what happened.  The Committee determined - eventually - that he dropped in the wrong place and incurred a 2 stroke penalty.  The normal penalty of DQ for handing in an incorrect card was waived because in the first place, before the card was handed in, the Committee had determined there was no breach.  The decision to penalise him was not made till later: the player should not face DQ because the Committee muddled it up.  You might be of the opinion that the Committee should not have waived the DQ, but you have absolutely no grounds to say that Woods cheated.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 13, 2013)

lyden said:



			Not at all but I think we all know had this not happened tiger would have gone on to win and easily.
		
Click to expand...

What world do you live in boyo?

We all know..........I don't think so.


----------



## JustOne (Apr 13, 2013)

duncan mackie said:



			having finally found this myself (I couln't read the version Fish kindly posted earlier) I can now understand, and agree, the decision.

basically the committee screwed up big time in not raising the matter, that they had been made aware of and discussed, with the player before he signed his card.

this 'error' by the committee meant that the player did not get the opportunity to hold up his hand to a 2 shot penalty at the time, and sign for a correct score.

the use of the particular decision then related the lack of facts known to the committee, who have made their decsion on the basis of the wrong facts because they didn't ask for the right ones at the right time - rather than the player. 

convoluted, but valid.

having read every post on this thread many times I can't help feeling that the nuances here aren't going to travel well!

however, I'm convinced that the committee have now done the right thing (having done the wrong thing) and if anything they have put Tiger in a place he doesn't deserve to be in.

there will be many who neither understand, or want to understand, but that's life.
		
Click to expand...


I think it's just you, me and Murphthemog who understand.

Tiger should have been informed that he was under investigation for taking an illegal drop (and questioned about it) prior to signing his card OR taking interviews. The fault is with the committee who have it in their RIGHTS to administer a 2 shot penalty rather than a DQ - that's it.

No Tiger hating required, it's not his fault but he DID drop incorrectly and I expect WOULD have taken a penalty had it been bought to his attention within time.


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

Some just cannot see past the hate..............

This incident should had been treated the same as Dustin Johnson's at the 2010 PGA. Inform him of the wrongdoing before the card goes in. Hence DJ keeping his top 10 position and prize money. As stated before, the committee knew of the incident before Tiger finished his round.


----------



## Kellfire (Apr 13, 2013)

33-7 is a rule in golf, yes?

If so, no one can say any rule was bent to keep Tiger Woods in.


----------



## Fish (Apr 13, 2013)

Fred Riley just made a very detailed live statement, Tiger violated rule 26 _after_ he admitted dropping the ball back so he could be 2 yards short of the pin but the committee at the time of reviewing the footage whilst he was still in play did not think he had contravened rule 26-1.a.


----------



## 6inchcup (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			What a remarkable rant.  Try reading the account of what happened.  The Committee determined - eventually - that he dropped in the wrong place and incurred a 2 stroke penalty.  The normal penalty of DQ for handing in an incorrect card was waived because in the first place, before the card was handed in, the Committee had determined there was no breach.  The decision to penalise him was not made till later: the player should not face DQ because the Committee muddled it up.  You might be of the opinion that the Committee should not have waived the DQ, but you have absolutely no grounds to say that Woods cheated.
		
Click to expand...

my statement stands,if he has any morals or integrity he would have DQ'D himself,why did they revue the drop prior to him finishing? it is obvious from the tv footage were his previous divot was so why no penalty until WOODS admitted what he had done,as i said the whole sorry saga stinks and makes a mockery out of golf if the MASTERS can ride rough shod over the rules,strip it from its major status and see what they do then.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

6inchcup said:



			my statement stands,if he has any morals or integrity he would have DQ'D himself,why did they revue the drop prior to him finishing? it is obvious from the tv footage were his previous divot was so why no penalty until WOODS admitted what he had done,as i said the whole sorry saga stinks and makes a mockery out of golf if the MASTERS can ride rough shod over the rules,strip it from its major status and see what they do then.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure Tiger will take note of your statement...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 13, 2013)

6inchcup said:



			my statement stands,if he has any morals or integrity he would have DQ'D himself,why did they revue the drop prior to him finishing? it is obvious from the tv footage were his previous divot was so why no penalty until WOODS admitted what he had done,as i said the whole sorry saga stinks and makes a mockery out of golf if the MASTERS can ride rough shod over the rules,strip it from its major status and see what they do then.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with all of that.
There is a fundamental 'morals' aspect of this that stinks.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 13, 2013)

JustOne said:



			I think it's just you, me and Murphthemog who understand.

Tiger should have been informed that he was under investigation for taking an illegal drop (and questioned about it) prior to signing his card OR taking interviews. The fault is with the committee who have it in their RIGHTS to administer a 2 shot penalty rather than a DQ - that's it.

No Tiger hating required, it's not his fault but he DID drop incorrectly and I expect WOULD have taken a penalty had it been bought to his attention within time.
		
Click to expand...

Add me to that list please


----------



## smange (Apr 13, 2013)

6inchcup said:



			this decision STINKS,he broke the rules ,admitted in a press conference what he had done,then the MASTERS committee running scared used a rule that has no duristinction in this case to let him carry on,if it had been a lesser light or a european player they would have DQ'D them without fail,this just proves that THE MASTERS should not be a major and that once again it shows WOODS has no morals or integrity,and for all those that say he did nothing wrong and keep trying to justify what he did,*would you cheat in a comp*?
		
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldnt deliberately cheat but I would hazard a guess that I have probably inadvertantly broke a rule during a comp at some stage of my golfing life as im sure most of us on here have

Do you want me and everyone else DQd from every comp we ever played in just in case we broke a rule?

Tiger didnt cheat, he unbeknown to himself broke a rule.

Im not saying I agree with the outcome of this but lets not be accusing Tiger (or any other golfer) of being a cheat purely on the basis that they broke a rule.


----------



## Andy808 (Apr 13, 2013)

Well this thread is going so well. I'm sure there is going to be some infractions soon at the rate it's going!
For that reason, I'm out!


----------



## JustOne (Apr 13, 2013)

Fish said:



			Fred Riley just made a very detailed live statement, Tiger violated rule 26 _after_ he admitted dropping the ball back so he could be 2 yards short of the pin but the committee at the time of reviewing the footage whilst he was still in play did not think he had contravened rule 26-1.a.
		
Click to expand...

Is correct,.. he was fine until HE opened his big gob..... he could also have been a cheat and not said anything 


Out of all this I'm just *flabbergasted* that the world No1 for all these years doesn't know how to take a simple drop from a water hazard---- and *THAT* is just amazing!!!!!!


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

JustOne said:



			I think it's just you, me and Murphthemog who understand.

Tiger should have been informed that he was under investigation for taking an illegal drop (and questioned about it) prior to signing his card OR taking interviews. The fault is with the committee who have it in their RIGHTS to administer a 2 shot penalty rather than a DQ - that's it.

No Tiger hating required, it's not his fault but he DID drop incorrectly and I expect WOULD have taken a penalty had it been bought to his attention within time.
		
Click to expand...

100% spot on James.

There is a lot of defence for Tiger the golfer but he had no control over the outcome, however it doesn't make it right that he can accept their decision even though its not right.


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

JustOne said:



			Is correct,.. he was fine until HE opened his big gob..... he could also have been a cheat and not said anything 


Out of all this I'm just *flabbergasted* that the world No1 for all these years doesn't know how to take a simple drop from a water hazard---- and *THAT* is just amazing!!!!!!
		
Click to expand...

Or the fact that people don't know the difference between his and Furyks drop


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

JustOne said:



			I think it's just you, me and Murphthemog who understand.
.
		
Click to expand...

Cooee.


----------



## JustOne (Apr 13, 2013)

Valentino said:



			however it doesn't make it right that he can accept their decision even though its not right.
		
Click to expand...

which part is not right Valentino?

Tiger has done nothing wrong, only done what the committee has decreed.
The committee has done nothing wrong as they applied a penalty after his round was finished (trial by TV) other than they should have bought it to his attention he was 'under investigation' earlier, but that's still not a wrong as they had already investigated and found NO violation.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

I don't care I'm buying the top Watney is wearing.


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

JustOne said:



			which part is not right Valentino?
		
Click to expand...

The penalty rather than a DQ


----------



## timchump (Apr 13, 2013)

a fair decision to be honest, i bet Joe LaCava is relieved, should keep his job now


----------



## DCB (Apr 13, 2013)

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the next meeting of the championship rules committee. There'll certainly be some uncomfortable seats around that table


----------



## JustOne (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Cooee.   

Click to expand...

OK..... and you


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 13, 2013)

Fish said:



			Fred Riley just made a very detailed live statement, Tiger violated rule 26 _after_ he admitted dropping the ball back so he could be 2 yards short of the pin but the committee at the time of reviewing the footage whilst he was still in play did not think he had contravened rule 26-1.a.
		
Click to expand...

I just watched this :rofl: everytime a reporter asked a leading question to Fred it was like err umm ahhh I cant answer that er hmmm,Fred says at one point that when Tiger was interviewed by him Tiger says that he's first shot that hit the pin was too long and he "adjusted"(adding 2 yards) to get closer to the pin............ but they still didn't DQ him,UNBELIEVABLE


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 13, 2013)

JustOne said:



			Is correct,.. he was fine until HE opened his big gob..... he could also have been a cheat and not said anything 


Out of all this I'm just *flabbergasted* that the world No1 for all these years doesn't know how to take a simple drop from a water hazard---- and *THAT* is just amazing!!!!!!
		
Click to expand...

How many on here are not professional golfers and know the correct way to drop after taking relief from a water hazzard.
How come the world NO 1 golfer does not know how to do  that?


----------



## Kellfire (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			I don't care I'm buying the top Watney is wearing.
		
Click to expand...

The Nike efforts are quality this year.

Adidas' ploy of putting out loads of players in the same outfit looks cheap and tacky. Booboo.


----------



## NWJocko (Apr 13, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			Add me to that list please
		
Click to expand...

Me too.....


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

I like Watney's top a lot, misses thinks it looks like a F1 flag lol, he's 6 under on the back nine so the top has got powers lol


----------



## JPH (Apr 13, 2013)

NWJocko said:



			Me too.....
		
Click to expand...

Word


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

Tiger birdies the 1st :clap:


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Tiger birdies the 1st :clap:
		
Click to expand...

The guy's a beast. Doesn't faze him one bit.


----------



## JustOne (Apr 13, 2013)

Worst thing about this is we're probably going to have to watch Mark Roe discuss it on SKY-PAD


----------



## Imurg (Apr 13, 2013)

JustOne said:



			Worst thing about this is we're probably going to have to watch Mark Roe discuss it on SKY-PAD 

Click to expand...

Not on the Beeb you won't.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 13, 2013)

JustOne said:



			Worst thing about this is we're probably going to have to watch Mark Roe discuss it on SKY-PAD 

Click to expand...

Actually, the worst thing is we have to watch Mark Roe discuss *anything at all*


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

:mmm: seriously, how much make up does MR really need?


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

Que the Sky-Pad ha ha


----------



## duncan mackie (Apr 13, 2013)

DCB said:



			I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the next meeting of the championship rules committee. There'll certainly be some uncomfortable seats around that table 

Click to expand...

the notes to TD's are already being updated I bet!


----------



## JustOne (Apr 13, 2013)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Que the Sky-Pad ha ha
		
Click to expand...

I know stuff!!! :whoo:


----------



## Slime (Apr 13, 2013)

lyden said:



			Not at all but *I think we all know had this not happened tiger would have gone on to win and easily.* In my personal opinion he gained no advantage so why would I want to win my green jacket by default. I'd want it because when alls said and done I was the best player.
		
Click to expand...


:rofl::rofl::rofl:
That is just such an astonishingly, unbelievably ridiculous comment that you must surely be joking. 
Or are you smoking something that maybe you shouldn't be?

*Slime*.


----------



## duncan mackie (Apr 13, 2013)

shivas irons said:



			I just watched this :rofl: everytime a reporter asked a leading question to Fred it was like err umm ahhh I cant answer that er hmmm,Fred says at one point that when Tiger was interviewed by him Tiger says that he's first shot that hit the pin was too long and he "adjusted"(adding 2 yards) to get closer to the pin............ but they still didn't DQ him,UNBELIEVABLE 

Click to expand...

you raise the only valid discussion point left open Shivas - and it's a good one.

Note 1 to 20-7 makes it realy clear that "Note 1: A competitor is deemed to have committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule if the Committee considers he has gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong place."

And the penalty for a serious breach os DQ not 2 shots.

Here's my take on the ruling (based on what we now know)

The committee got a call saying that TW hadn't dropped at the right place. While TW was still playing, and without discussion with him, the committee determined that where he dropped the ball was not a 'wrong place' ie it was close enough, given the overall environment, to where he played his previous shot from. It follows that they inherently determine that where he dropped did not constitute an advantage.

TW's statement that he deliberately dropped there in order to gain an advantage *must* result in a penalty for wrong place but the committee, having already ruled that it wasn't an advantage, can't now decide that it was an advantage because the player said so - it's a committee decision as to whether there was an advantage! (the corollary would be that the player stating he didn't get an advantage would be binding on the committee - and that's obviously incorrect).

TW is one lucky bunny that the committee got that call when they did - if it had happened after he finished he's toast. He would probably also be toast if the committee had discussed it with him before he returned his card; on the basis that he said the same things to them that he did in the press comment.

Hope this helps


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 13, 2013)

lyden said:



			Not at all but I think we all know had this not happened tiger would have gone on to win and easily.
		
Click to expand...

any chance of next weeks lottery numbers mate?


----------



## Khamelion (Apr 13, 2013)

I'll admit here from the get go, that I've not read through the previous 44 pages, there's golf on the tele and I don't to miss Tiger cheat and then openly admit it in his post round interview.

The only reason he's still in the masters is soley because he is Tiger Woods and the organisers have bent the rules to suit and keep him in, thousands or people has flocked to Augusta to watch Tiger and money talks. If Tiger was to walk then so would a lot of revenue.

NO one should be above the rules, no matter who you are.


----------



## Andy808 (Apr 13, 2013)

JustOne said:



			Worst thing about this is we're probably going to have to watch Mark Roe discuss it on SKY-PAD 

Click to expand...

That's your fault for watching it on sky.


----------



## GreiginFife (Apr 13, 2013)

What saddens me about the whole affair is how this makes the rules committee look overall; happy enough to be heavy handed on a 14 year old for slow play when I watched yesterday's play and say alot of players taking an age with no warning. Then when it comes to the world number one they choose to go softly softly so's not to a) upset the man himself and b) upset the paying public/damage potential income as there was still two days play left. 
So, what have I learned from the noble game's ruling parties? Pick on 14 year olds, they are a soft target.


----------



## Jackooo (Apr 13, 2013)

Ken will sort this out once and for all haha!


----------



## SaintHacker (Apr 13, 2013)

If that was me or  you we would be back on the plane home already. 
Never been a big Tiger fan but I was warming to him over the last few weeks. That, and any respect I had for him, has now gone. If he wins it will be the biggest travesty in the history of the game.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 13, 2013)

I missed all this while on the course this afternoon so haven't read the gazillion posts since i left. I agree the committee bottled it. Worst thing though is once someone explained the rule to him tiger must know that he got it wrong (didn't cheat, just a mistake) so he should have withdrawn instead of continuing on a technicality. 

Omg.... I agree with Faldo!


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 13, 2013)

SaintHacker said:



			If that was me or  you we would be back on the plane home already. 
Never been a big Tiger fan but I was warming to him over the last few weeks. That, and any respect I had for him, has now gone. If he wins it will be the biggest travesty in the history of the game.

Click to expand...

Have you actually read any of the thread or the comments from the tournament committee?


----------



## bigslice (Apr 13, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			I missed all this while on the course this afternoon so haven't read the gazillion posts since i left. I agree the committee bottled it. Worst thing though is once someone explained the rule to him tiger must know that he got it wrong (didn't cheat, just a mistake) so he should have withdrawn instead of continuing on a technicality. 

Omg.... I agree with Faldo! 

Click to expand...

lol I just seen Faldo talking and agree with him also


----------



## Colin L (Apr 13, 2013)

Are you suggesting that any player from Tiger in the Masters to me in a club tournament should withdraw because he makes a mistake and breaches a rule?


----------



## North Mimms (Apr 13, 2013)

The fans /patrons want to see Tiger.

So leave in him, let him play, then on 18th tee on Sunday, he puts his ball back in his pocket, and says "I'm out"

THAT would be classy!


----------



## SaintHacker (Apr 13, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			Have you actually read any of the thread or the comments from the tournament committee?
		
Click to expand...

No, whats to read? The guy has virtually got away with cheating, end of.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Are you suggesting that any player from Tiger in the Masters to me in a club tournament should withdraw because he makes a mistake and breaches a rule?
		
Click to expand...

If you've signed your card, yes. I've done it and called it on myself.


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

SaintHacker said:



			No, whats to read? The guy has virtually got away with cheating, end of.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

SaintHacker said:



			No, whats to read? The guy has virtually got away with cheating, end of.
		
Click to expand...

We need to be clear mate, he didn't cheat or knowingly break the rules. Tiger is at fault for accepting the committee decision but they are the biggest culprits for not DQing him.


----------



## SaintHacker (Apr 13, 2013)

Valentino said:



			We need to be clear mate, he didn't cheat or knowingly break the rules. Tiger is at fault for accepting the committee decision but they are the biggest culprits for not DQing him.
		
Click to expand...

So your trying to tell me the worlds best golfer doesn't know, or fully understand, one of the basic rules of the game? No, sorry, believe what you want but I don't buy it


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 13, 2013)

SaintHacker said:



			So your trying to tell me the worlds best golfer doesn't know, or fully understand, one of the basic rules of the game? No, sorry, believe what you want but I don't buy it
		
Click to expand...

The most scrutinised player in the game would be an idiot to deliberately try and cheat, especially in a major. He just got mixed up and made a mistake.

And he's making another one by playing today.


----------



## Dodger (Apr 13, 2013)

I am sick of this love in for him.

he is going to do nothing this week,leave him to shoot his even par and lie 8 back and get some players who are actually doing something on the TV.


----------



## Kellfire (Apr 13, 2013)

Dodger said:



			I am sick of this love in for him.

he is going to do nothing this week,leave him to shoot his even par and lie 8 back and get some players who are actually doing something on the TV.
		
Click to expand...

Good point, level par around Augusta is buttons.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Are you suggesting that any player from Tiger in the Masters to me in a club tournament should withdraw because he makes a mistake and breaches a rule?
		
Click to expand...

Once you have signed your card for an incorrect score, there is no other thing to do.
The guy is now embarrassing himself and the tournament.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 13, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			The most scrutinised player in the game would be an idiot to deliberately try and cheat, especially in a major. He just got mixed up and made a mistake.
		
Click to expand...

He made a mistake but should still pay the penalty and be out.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Apr 13, 2013)

If he had been in the middle of the pack with no chance of winning Woods probably would have DQ'd himself. With him being near the top of the leaderboard that was never going to happen


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 13, 2013)

100% DQ - 1000's on  the course saw it live; the divot marks on the fairway and his own words were the admission.  Don't like Faldo that much but he was bang on when interviewed in the Butler Cabin about it.  Sycophantic Tiger love in.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 13, 2013)

HomerJSimpson said:



			He made a mistake but should still pay the penalty and be out.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely!


----------



## JustOne (Apr 13, 2013)

Dodger said:



			he is going to do nothing this week (now that hitting the pin has cost him 4 shots),leave him to shoot his even par and lie 8 back and get some players who are actually doing something on the TV.
		
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you Dodger.

Frankly I'm surprised that you bother watching it at all. There must be something that you can watch that will make you less miserable - isn't Taggart on?


----------



## Kellfire (Apr 13, 2013)

HomerJSimpson said:



			He made a mistake but should still pay the penalty and be out.
		
Click to expand...


Even though, as per the rules, he has no need to be?


----------



## Dodger (Apr 13, 2013)

JustOne said:



			Fixed that for you Dodger.

Frankly I'm surprised that you bother watching it at all. There must be something that you can watch that will make you less miserable - isn't Taggart on?



Click to expand...

I am unaware of what part of my statement is miserable,simply telling it how it is.

And for your info I have never enjoyed said programme.

Is anyone bar the man who should not even be playing actually taking part in this Major? 

It appears not.


----------



## Kellfire (Apr 13, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			100% DQ
		
Click to expand...

The committee ruled, in play, that he had no case to answer.

Your stance is null and void due to that fact.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 13, 2013)

Bucket92 said:



			Apparently the committee discussed his drop BEFORE his round was completed and they thought it was fine and decided that no penalty should be given. Then only AFTER the round and after he'd signed his scorecard did they realise that he's dropped behind his original spot. So they decided to give him the 2 stroke penalty instead of disqualification. This seems fair to me, I don't think Tiger did it on purpose thinking he could get away with no one seeing it.
		
Click to expand...

Tough - I do not doubt he got muddled and didn't realise that he'd got it wrong - but he got it wrong.  I've been DQd for something I didn't realise I'd done wrong - think it was a card technicality.  Does make any difference. DQd the minute he signed his card.  When confronted by the officials HE could have told them that they were wrong - they were OBVIOUSLY wrong.  As it happens I struggle to believe the officials got it wrong.  Even I knew as soon as I saw it it was wrong due to a recent rules discussion we have had on here - the one playing from in a water hazard and ball hitting bank in front of player and going back over shoulder into water.  Colin L et al were quite clear on the ruling and it was obvious to any watcher that the ball went back into the hazard on a very different line to that which it first crossed the front edge. DQ.  He should withdraw on completion after his 3rd round.


----------



## Fader (Apr 13, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Once you have signed your card for an incorrect score, there is no other thing to do.
The guy is now embarrassing himself and the tournament.
		
Click to expand...

Is he embarrassing himself! Nope he still has a chance to win and is doing so having been given a ruling by the powers that be. 

Certainly not embarrassing the event either. 

Mind you all the Nicklaus fanboys have ammo if Tiger were to win here and go on to get more than 18, everyone can run around saying its not true because the 2013 Masters shouldn't count. 


The decision was made by the officials it's times to move on watch the golf and stop being bitter surely.


----------



## JustOne (Apr 13, 2013)

Dodger said:



			Is anyone bar the man who should not even be playing actually taking part in this Major? 

It appears not.
		
Click to expand...


They are now! :whoo:

Go Westwood!!!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 13, 2013)

6inchcup said:



			they didn't have to use anytv evidence HE admitted what he had done in a press conference after the round,they were just using the tv ploy to cover up their decision of a 2 shot penalty as this is the only time this rule can be used,everyone knows what he said and thus he should by the rules of golf be automatically DQ'D.
		
Click to expand...

Correct - in this instance TV was irrelevant.  Many people saw him break a rule - and he would have absolutely known that when reviewing the situation this morning.  He could easily have said - no ANGC you are wrong - I broke the rules - you must disqualify me.


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

Fader said:



			Mind you all the Nicklaus fanboys have ammo if Tiger were to win here and go on to get more than 18, everyone can run around saying its not true because the 2013 Masters shouldn't count.
		
Click to expand...

Need this framing....................:thup:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 13, 2013)

triple_bogey said:



			The guy's a beast. Doesn't faze him one bit.
		
Click to expand...

Well it bl**dy well should :angry:


----------



## gmc40 (Apr 13, 2013)

Did they discuss it with the player? No.

Was he aware prior to completing his round? No.

Should he 'have reasonably known' of the rules infraction? Yes.(therefore 33/7 4.5 should never have applied). 

As a result the breach was only identified following his interview and he had already signed for an incorrect scorecard. The only correct outcome should have been disqualification.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Apr 13, 2013)

I've been trying to find the Vijay thread with 40+ pages of why he shouldn't of played this week... Any ideas?


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well it bl**dy well should :angry:
		
Click to expand...

Calm down dear........you're gonna blow a vein.


----------



## Birchy (Apr 13, 2013)

The competition needs Tiger so he does what he wants. Absolutely ridiculous beyond belief.

There is no way a low profile player would of got away with this at all. I am totally convinced.


----------



## Dodger (Apr 13, 2013)

triple_bogey said:



			Calm down dear........you're gonna blow a vein. 

Click to expand...

I thought I had logged onto the wrong forum there!!

Saucy.


----------



## tsped83 (Apr 13, 2013)

A lot of soap boxes are out on this thread aren't they? Jesus. 

Like it or not, the committee ruled and have kept him in the tournament. 

Move on.


----------



## Fader (Apr 13, 2013)

The more responses and bitterness I read on this thread the more I'm understanding what a broken record in a digital age sounds like!


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

Fader said:



			The more responses and bitterness I read on this thread the more I'm understanding what a broken record in a digital age sounds like!
		
Click to expand...

You never download a corrupt mp3?


----------



## ArnoldArmChewer (Apr 13, 2013)

What happened to personal integrity and honesty??  Perhaps he should have called a mulligan


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 13, 2013)

Dodger said:



			I thought I had logged onto the wrong forum there!!

Saucy.

Click to expand...

Wash you're filthy mind young man. The game of golf is based on clean civilized ...............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz snore!


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 13, 2013)

SaintHacker said:



			No, whats to read? The guy has virtually got away with cheating, end of.
		
Click to expand...

No comment


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 13, 2013)

Let's say he ignored the organisers rules committee, and said I'm ignoring your ruling, you've got it wrong, you're incompetent and don't know what you are doing. I know I messed it up, and am dq'ing myself.

How much respect does that show?

To me, none. 

As a competitor, you have to go along with what ever is decided, good, or bad. As a competitor, you put up, shut up, get on with it.


----------



## bobmac (Apr 13, 2013)

How many players over the years have called a penalty on themselves ?
They had honesty, courtesy and integrity, and upheld the rules of golf.

Tiger must know that the committee have bent over backwards to let him carry on playing.

If he was a decent man, he should have said thanks anyway and walked.

He may have won the chance of winning another major but he has missed the opportunity of earning the respect of many by playing today.

Some may say he will go on to beat Jack's record.
Right now, I dont care any more how many majors he wins, he will always be a bad tempered, arrogant liar and will never hold a candle to Jack Nicklaus 
IMHO


----------



## Val (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Let's say he ignored the organisers rules committee, and said I'm ignoring your ruling, you've got it wrong, you're incompetent and don't know what you are doing. I know I messed it up, and am dq'ing myself.

How much respect does that show?

To me, none. 

As a competitor, you have to go along with what ever is decided, good, or bad. As a competitor, you put up, shut up, get on with it.
		
Click to expand...

That is also a very good point, he could however withdraw due to his head in the wrong place


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Let's say he ignored the organisers rules committee, and said I'm ignoring your ruling, you've got it wrong, you're incompetent and don't know what you are doing. I know I messed it up, and am dq'ing myself.

How much respect does that show?

To me, none. 

As a competitor, you have to go along with what ever is decided, good, or bad. As a competitor, you put up, shut up, get on with it.
		
Click to expand...

I think that's a fair comment.


----------



## Tommo21 (Apr 13, 2013)

tsped83 said:



			A lot of soap boxes are out on this thread aren't they? Jesus. 

Like it or not, the committee ruled and have kept him in the tournament. 

Move on.
		
Click to expand...

Thats that sorted, I'll not bother then.


----------



## Dodger (Apr 13, 2013)

Frankly this coverage is a total joke.

Tiger makes bogey on 9 to go to -1 and we have no idea if the leader holes on 5  to stay ahead.

Utter joke,get the clown off the coverage.


----------



## ArnoldArmChewer (Apr 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			How many players over the years have called a penalty on themselves ?
They had honesty, courtesy and integrity, and upheld the rules of golf.

Tiger must know that the committee have bent over backwards to let him carry on playing.

If he was a decent man, he should have said thanks anyway and walked.

He may have won the chance of winning another major but he has missed the opportunity of earning the respect of many by playing today.

Some may say he will go on to beat Jack's record.
Right now, I dont care any more how many majors he wins, he will always be a bad tempered, arrogant liar and will never hold a candle to Jack Nicklaus 
IMHO
		
Click to expand...


Perfectly put sir


----------



## Crow (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Let's say he ignored the organisers rules committee, and said I'm ignoring your ruling, you've got it wrong, you're incompetent and don't know what you are doing. I know I messed it up, and am dq'ing myself.

How much respect does that show?

To me, none. 

As a competitor, you have to go along with what ever is decided, good, or bad. As a competitor, you put up, shut up, get on with it.
		
Click to expand...

Depends which you respect the most; a private club with its own agenda or, that favourite of yours, the spirit of the game.


----------



## birdieman (Apr 13, 2013)

As a former Match and Handicap Secretary, had an incident similar to this been raised with me it would have been a straight DQ for any player. There is not a grey area here, he's mistakenly played from the wrong spot which could have been rectified up to the point when he signed his card for a wrong score when it became a DQ. He should have done the honourable thing and withdrawn. 
His caddie should've been sharper with this too.
He's been dreadfully unlucky but rules is rules.
It does seem wrong watching him still playing.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Apr 13, 2013)

Tiger for President:whoo:


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 13, 2013)

Dodger; said:
			
		


			and we have no idea if the leader holes on 5  to stay ahead..
		
Click to expand...

May be if Day got a bit of a hurry on, we'd see more of him?


----------



## Dodger (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			May be if Day got a bit of a hurry on, we'd see more of him?
		
Click to expand...

I didn't realise the camera's had a time limit on them.


----------



## Aztecs27 (Apr 13, 2013)

Dodger said:



			Frankly this coverage is a total joke.

Tiger makes bogey on 9 to go to -1 and we have no idea if the leader holes on 5  to stay ahead.

Utter joke,get the clown off the coverage.
		
Click to expand...

They have to justify their decision to keep him in the tournament.


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 13, 2013)

Dodger said:



			I didn't realise the camera's had a time limit on them.
		
Click to expand...

They keep cutting to an advert break?


----------



## bobmac (Apr 13, 2013)

Just turned off the golf.
Freddy was about to hit a putt and the camera switched to see Tiger spit while he watched Gonzo hit a tee shot.
Good evening


----------



## harpo_72 (Apr 13, 2013)

Geez this has gone on and on, Tiger was a lucky boy thanks to the Harrington ruling. Should he have walked, sorry that's not really his decision is it, he has sold himself to his sponsors and believe it or not they like their pound of flesh. Plus you don't get to the top by passing up opportunity (hard I know, PC no - but that is pro sport now  ... )


----------



## ArnoldArmChewer (Apr 13, 2013)

harpo_72 said:



			Geez this has gone on and on, Tiger was a lucky boy thanks to the Harrington ruling. Should he have walked, sorry that's not really his decision is it, he has sold himself to his sponsors and believe it or not they like their pound of flesh. Plus you don't get to the top by passing up opportunity (hard I know, PC no - but that is pro sport now  ... )
		
Click to expand...

Your probably right, sad isn't it?


----------



## birdieman (Apr 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Just turned off the golf.
Freddy was about to hit a putt and the camera switched to see Tiger spit while he watched Gonzo hit a tee shot.
Good evening
		
Click to expand...

Saw that, made me think of 'Gob of the Week' from Not the 9 oclock news!
I wish he would refrain from that or go into a bush if he must.
Bigger than the game and he knows it!


----------



## CMAC (Apr 13, 2013)

Dodger said:



			The ever increasing amount of folk that appear to struggle to cross over the doorstep in the morning without being upset or offended by things is becoming alarmingly disturbing!
		
Click to expand...

this will run and run, it's what some live for


----------



## CMAC (Apr 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Just turned off the golf.
Freddy was about to hit a putt and the camera switched to see Tiger spit while he watched Gonzo hit a tee shot.
Good evening
		
Click to expand...

are we off on the spitting thing again 

I never see any rants about footballers spitting, keegan still does it and nothing....Oh hang on...it's Tiger, he has to act differently to everyone else.........for some reason


----------



## Pin-seeker (Apr 13, 2013)

He got a 2 stroke penalty,get over it! Would there be all this discussion if it was any one else?? Seriously would there be 500 replies to this Post if it was Luke Donald or Fred Couples????


----------



## In_The_Rough (Apr 13, 2013)

No there wouldn't because Couples and Donald would have been DQ'd almost immediatly


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 13, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			No there wouldn't because Couples and Donald would have been DQ'd almost immediatly
		
Click to expand...


And you know that?

Wow, you're good.

Got any lottery tips?


----------



## Pin-seeker (Apr 13, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			No there wouldn't because Couples and Donald would have been DQ'd almost immediatly
		
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. Everybody loves a drama


----------



## JustOne (Apr 13, 2013)

Love watching Tiger play!!! Coverage is bang on :thup:

By the way... is Rory (world No2) playing today? :whoo:


----------



## In_The_Rough (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			And you know that?

Wow, you're good.

Got any lottery tips?
		
Click to expand...

Seems to be the belief of most on here apart from the Tiger fan club. I neither anti Tiger or a fan so neutral and I say anybody else would not be playing today. 
As for lottery tips wouldn't post them here sorry


----------



## In_The_Rough (Apr 13, 2013)

Pin-seeker said:



			That's your opinion. Everybody loves a drama
		
Click to expand...

Mine and the bulk of people on here yes


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 13, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Seems to be the belief of most on here apart from the Tiger fan club. I neither anti Tiger or a fan so neutral and I say anybody else would not be playing today. 
As for lottery tips wouldn't post them here sorry

Click to expand...

I'm not in the tiger fan club, I just want to see the best golfers Playing the best golf. There has been a ruling, thats that. I don't want to watch tiger watching gonzo, or see his parking space in the car park. He can play a bit though, and that's what I want to see. I want to see any one else who is playing well too. I can watch choppers tomorrow at my own course. There is no way of knowing if they would have dq'ed anyone else. It is disrespectful to suggest that they have only done this for tiger. You weren't party to the discussion, neither was I. I bet it wasn't an easy decision, but that is what they have decided, for better or worse. Worse in your opinion, clearly.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Apr 13, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Mine and the bulk of people on here yes
		
Click to expand...

As I said,everybody loves a drama.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			I'm not in the tiger fan club, I just want to see the best golfers Playing the best golf. There has been a ruling, thats that. I don't want to watch tiger watching gonzo, or see his parking space in the car park. He can play a bit though, and that's what I want to see. I want to see any one else who is playing well too. I can watch choppers tomorrow at my own course. There is no way of knowing if they would have dq'ed anyone else. It is disrespectful to suggest that they have only done this for tiger. You weren't party to the discussion, neither was I. I bet it wasn't an easy decision, but that is what they have decided, for better or worse. Worse in your opinion, clearly.
		
Click to expand...

We also don't know that no-one else has made an incorrect drop this week, because we haven't seen it on TV.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			I'm not in the tiger fan club, I just want to see the best golfers Playing the best golf. There has been a ruling, thats that. I don't want to watch tiger watching gonzo, or see his parking space in the car park. He can play a bit though, and that's what I want to see. I want to see any one else who is playing well too. I can watch choppers tomorrow at my own course. There is no way of knowing if they would have dq'ed anyone else. It is disrespectful to suggest that they have only done this for tiger. You weren't party to the discussion, neither was I. I bet it wasn't an easy decision, but that is what they have decided, for better or worse. Worse in your opinion, clearly.
		
Click to expand...

Yep worse in my opinion, it has overshadowed the tournament. As I say not anti Tiger but I feel the powers that be do everything they can to help him as he puts bums on seats wich in return means Â£Â£Â£ so I bet it was an easy decision in that aspect. As somebody else said earlier they were never going to DQ him and I agree. Of course nobody can say 100% only the people involved know that.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Apr 13, 2013)

Pin-seeker said:



			As I said,everybody loves a drama.
		
Click to expand...

Yep one which you are commenting on as well as everybody else


----------



## Pin-seeker (Apr 13, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Yep one which you are commenting on as well as everybody else
		
Click to expand...

But not getting as excited as some


----------



## In_The_Rough (Apr 13, 2013)

Pin-seeker said:



			But not getting as excited as some

Click to expand...

Me neither only found out what had gone on at around 3pm today by which time the thred was about 30 pages long


----------



## PieMan (Apr 13, 2013)

If he doesn't win then all those of us who think he should have been disqualified can say that justice has been done. I certainly don't want him to win as about 18 months ago I bet RickG a fiver he wouldn't win another major!!


----------



## JustOne (Apr 13, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Me neither only found out what had gone on at around 3pm today by which time the thred was about 30 pages long

Click to expand...

You REALLY need to change your settings in your preferences (show more posts per page)..... it's 13 pages for me.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Apr 13, 2013)

JustOne said:



			You REALLY need to change your settings in your preferences (show more posts per page)..... it's 13 pages for me.
		
Click to expand...

Did not know you could do that or I would have done


----------



## PieMan (Apr 13, 2013)

Come on everyone - let's get this thread to a 100 pages!!


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 13, 2013)

PieMan said:



			Come on everyone - let's get this thread to a 100 pages!!
		
Click to expand...

Not 100 Justone pages though. Way too much.


----------



## JustOne (Apr 13, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Did not know you could do that or I would have done

Click to expand...

You're welcome. I have mine set to 40 posts per page, seems about right.


----------



## PieMan (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Not 100 Justone pages though. Way too much.
		
Click to expand...

   not on golf related posts anyway!!


----------



## SyR (Apr 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Let's say he ignored the organisers rules committee, and said I'm ignoring your ruling, you've got it wrong, you're incompetent and don't know what you are doing. I know I messed it up, and am dq'ing myself.

How much respect does that show?

To me, none. 

As a competitor, you have to go along with what ever is decided, good, or bad. As a competitor, you put up, shut up, get on with it.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. It would be disrespectful to the committee if he dq'd himself.

They screwed up when they reviewed the drop during his round and didn't seek his comment.


----------



## sydney greenstreet (Apr 13, 2013)

PieMan said:



			If he doesn't win then all those of us who think he should have been disqualified can say that justice has been done. I certainly don't want him to win as about 18 months ago I bet RickG a fiver he wouldn't win another major!! 

Click to expand...

You have had a year and a half to save up though. :mmm:


----------



## Iaing (Apr 14, 2013)

SyR said:



			Agreed. It would be disrespectful to the committee if he dq'd himself.

They screwed up when they reviewed the drop during his round and didn't seek his comment.
		
Click to expand...

It was disrespectful to the game not to withdraw.


----------



## Fader (Apr 14, 2013)

Iaing said:



			It was disrespectful to the game not to withdraw.
		
Click to expand...

WhAt a load of tosh!


----------



## Bomber69 (Apr 14, 2013)

I can't believe that he has not withdrawn from this event, total shocking decision from him but after all the stuff in his past I am not surprised.


What a farce.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 14, 2013)

bobmac said:



			How many players over the years have called a penalty on themselves ?
They had honesty, courtesy and integrity, and upheld the rules of golf.
		
Click to expand...

I do believe that Tiger has even done that too.



bobmac said:



			Tiger must know that the committee have bent over backwards to let him carry on playing.

If he was a decent man, he should have said thanks anyway and walked.

He may have won the chance of winning another major but he has missed the opportunity of earning the respect of many by *NOT* playing today.
		
Click to expand...

I think the edit I've made is what's really meant

I would have expected him to completely remove himself from any decision and accepted whatever one was made. He my well have done so, so any 'influence' was purely in the minds of those making the decision. Whether they allowed that 'influence' to affect their decision is purely their problem, not Tiger's. That's rather different from Tiger attempting to influence their decision, which would be obscene imo - and something I don't believe he would do.



bobmac said:



			Some may say he will go on to beat Jack's record.
Right now, I dont care any more how many majors he wins, he will always be a bad tempered, arrogant liar and will never hold a candle to Jack Nicklaus 
IMHO
		
Click to expand...

I believe that was the case (save the 'liar' perhaps, though his ex-wife could probably confirm) even before this incident.

As for the actual decision, I think the result is reasonably fair - though I can understand the 'haters'attitude. Tthe Rules Officials actually ruled that the drop was OK. Had they ruled otherwise, they would have informed and the 2 shots would have been added before he signed his card. The retrospective penalty rule, as opposed to DQ, (an excellent thing to introduce after incidents like Harrington's) may be being pushed, but I don't believe it's actually being pushed by Tiger, so he's not the one 'at fault' here.


----------



## Iaing (Apr 14, 2013)

Fader said:



			WhAt a load of tosh!
		
Click to expand...

I take it that you like to bend the rules when it suits you then?

'nuff said


----------



## Fader (Apr 14, 2013)

Iaing said:



			I take it that you like to bend the rules when it suits you then?

'nuff said 

Click to expand...

Nuff said good argument. 

I like to bend the rules? Do I ? so are you accusing me of being a cheat because I disagree with you? Brilliant. 

No I don't like to bend the rules but the player has been penalised end of and move on. To say he has to remove himself is more ore a farce than the whole situation and more than a little pathetic. 

As you say Nuff Said! Off to find you that dummy you lost now :thup:


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 14, 2013)

Iaing said:



			I take it that you like to bend the rules when it suits you then?

'nuff said 

Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing wrong with bending rules - that's how the Pros get so much relief.

Breaking them is a different story though!


----------



## Iaing (Apr 14, 2013)

Fader said:



			Nuff said good argument. 

I like to bend the rules? Do I ? so are you accusing me of being a cheat because I disagree with you? Brilliant. 

No I don't like to bend the rules but the player has been penalised end of and move on. To say he has to remove himself is more ore a farce than the whole situation and more than a little pathetic. 

As you say Nuff Said! Off to find you that dummy you lost now :thup:
		
Click to expand...

WhAt a load of tosh!

Where did I accuse you of cheating? Just because you like the rules to be bent to suit you doesn't automatically make you a cheat.

Just ask the Masters rules committee.


----------



## harpo_72 (Apr 14, 2013)

I saw Freddy have a spit ,this is an American thing not a tiger thing, it's like Indian men happily wee in the street in India. Yes we find it unpleasant but this is cultural, if you could change it you would. 
So why is everyone getting wound up here, he was penalised, the Harrington ruling saved him being dq'd, the rules have been applied and he has played by the rules and the rulings. 
Who cares that it is Tiger it just wouldn't be head line news, who cares that he played away, that's his choice and the women who participated , no he isn't a role model. Christ I don't want his swing either! 
The point is as long as the rules are applied the same to other players in the future how can you complain?? This is pro sports, win at all cost say good bye to sweet notions of integrity that doesn't move you up the rankings or pay you money ! And by the way fans come and go, so if you lose a few here whoopee doo, that might cheapen your value but the Nike money is in the bank !


----------



## alisoncc (Apr 14, 2013)

_Note 1: A competitor is deemed to have committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule if the Committee considers he has gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong place.

If the competitor has committed a serious breach and has failed to correct it as outlined above, he is disqualified.
_

By his own admission he â€œgained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong placeâ€, and then compounded it by submitting an incorrect card. Two reasons for DQ. 

The committee cannot waive the rules, and it wasnâ€™t their decision to make. TW DQâ€™ed himself by his actions, irrespective of any rulings. He knows the rules well enough, should have DQ'ed himself. 

When you have to take a drop, you canâ€™t just drop the ball where you like â€“ downhill slope, donâ€™t like that, sandy lie, donâ€™t like that, tree in the way, donâ€™t like that, etc. etc. You drop it where the rules say you should.


----------



## bobmac (Apr 14, 2013)

Foxholer, in future, if you get the urge to edit my posts....... please don't.
Thank you


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 14, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Foxholer, in future, if you get the urge to edit my posts....... please don't.
Thank you
		
Click to expand...

Humble apologies!

I thought you'd typed it so that it looked the opposite of what you had intended, but see it was me that did!  I saw 'negatives' that weren't really there! I'll blame not being used to the late hour. 

I thought you'd got it the opposite of what you'd intended, but I see it was me!


----------



## bobmac (Apr 14, 2013)

Apology accepted.
In which case it would be childish of me to point out any errors you make.





			As for the actual decision, I think the result is reasonably fair - though I can understand the 'haters' attitude. T*t*he Rules Officials actually ruled that the drop was OK. Had they ruled otherwise, they would have informed *him* and the 2 shots would have been added before he signed his card
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Colin L (Apr 14, 2013)

alisoncc said:



_

The committee cannot waive the rules, and it wasnâ€™t their decision to make. TW DQâ€™ed himself by his actions, irrespective of any rulings. _

Click to expand...

_

This is just not the case.  

a) The Committee in this instance has not waived any rules.  
b) It certainly was the Committee's decision to make.  It must decide on whether a breach had occurred. See Rule 34-3: In the absence of a referee, any dispute or doubtful point on the Rules must be referred to the Committee, whose decision is final.
c) The Committee determined there had been a Rule 26 breach and he has been correctly penalised 2 strokes for that. We have to infer that it decided there had not been a serious breach.
d) The Committee waived the penalty of disqualification for the breach of 6-6d (submitting a card with a wrong score) which it is empowered to do within the Rules.  See Rule 33-7.  The reason for this appears to be that the Committee changed its ruling  after Woods had submitted his card.

I can't say I particularly like the outcome, but let's be accurate.  It has been arrived at (if rather messily) entirely within the Rules._


----------



## freddielong (Apr 14, 2013)

The thing that gets me is this is rules of golf basics how can Tiger get it wrong, thats two incorrect drops in a year and he wasnt cheating he just didnt know thats why he said it in the interview he thought he was right. 

How can he not know that


----------



## Sweep (Apr 14, 2013)

What is worrying for me is that because I had read this forum and studied the problem on Sky and therefore understood the nature of the problem, I found myself explaining it to a lot of golfing friends -and some none golfers, which was really hard.  This involved the use of a number of beer mats and descriptions of the 3 choices available etc. It is pretty clear that the rules of golf can be very confusing and often open to interpretation ( just see a few of the last few posts), even to golfers who play this game at a high level every week. Now we have to explain another rule that caters for trial by tv. I am not saying the rules are wrong, but I do think many would benefit from simplification. Some of the rules are daft and the water hazard rule certainly isn't the daftest, but that is a whole new thread...


----------



## birdieman (Apr 14, 2013)

For any pro golfer to not understand dropping options beggars belief, in this case Tiger has got mixed up between 3 available options. 

1. He didn't like drop zone option 
2. He didn't like back in straight line between flag and where ball *last* crossed hazard option. 
3. He chose option to play from where last shot was taken, then appears to have applied option 2 thinking to it.

No matter what the committee said, a player with integrity would have accepted he's broken rules. Harrington rule does not apply here imo, it was for a ball oscillating them moving fractionally, so little a player couldn't even tell but tv might see. Intentionally moving ball 2 yards back is a serious infraction, whether he benefitted or not has nothing to do with it. Masters bottled it, Tiger showed the game no respect which is disappointing.

Bad precedent set and can of worms opened.

Faldo may be a bit of tube at times but he's bang on right on this occassion................. IMO:thup:


----------



## Piece (Apr 14, 2013)

bobmac said:



			How many players over the years have called a penalty on themselves ?
They had honesty, courtesy and integrity, and upheld the rules of golf.
		
Click to expand...

Would be nice to see players *giving themselves * a shot penalty for slow play... But that will never happen.


----------



## Sweep (Apr 14, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Are you suggesting that any player from Tiger in the Masters to me in a club tournament should withdraw because he makes a mistake and breaches a rule?
		
Click to expand...

Yes


----------



## freddielong (Apr 14, 2013)

I fail to see how this is Tigers fault it is not Tigers responsibility to DQ himself the USPGA IMO have bowed to the Masters commitee and that is the problem


----------



## birdieman (Apr 14, 2013)

This is called integrity and respect for the game - Tiger, have a read!

_1996 Bay Hill Invitational 

 After the second round Jeff Sluman was only two back of the leaders, but he became concerned the night after the round when he thought he may have taken an incorrect drop after hitting into a water hazard. The next morning Sluman returned to the scene and confirmed that the drop area which he used was closer to the hole and that his drop was incorrect. He then disqualified himself from the tournament.

1990 Palm Meadows Cup 

 Going into the third round, it was appeared that a classic battle was about to unfold, as Greg Norman had a one-shot lead over Curtis Strange. However, on the driving range he found out that on the first day he had taken an illegal drop from a water hazard. When told of the problem Norman disqualified himself, thus losing a chance at the first-place check of $160,000._


There are plenty other examples of honest pros DQ'ing themselves.:thup:


----------



## shivas irons (Apr 14, 2013)

birdieman said:



			This is called integrity and respect for the game - Tiger, have a read!

_1996 Bay Hill Invitational 

 After the second round Jeff Sluman was only two back of the leaders, but he became concerned the night after the round when he thought he may have taken an incorrect drop after hitting into a water hazard. The next morning Sluman returned to the scene and confirmed that the drop area which he used was closer to the hole and that his drop was incorrect. He then disqualified himself from the tournament.

1990 Palm Meadows Cup 

 Going into the third round, it was appeared that a classic battle was about to unfold, as Greg Norman had a one-shot lead over Curtis Strange. However, on the driving range he found out that on the first day he had taken an illegal drop from a water hazard. When told of the problem Norman disqualified himself, thus losing a chance at the first-place check of $160,000._


There are plenty other examples of honest pros DQ'ing themselves.:thup:
		
Click to expand...

How the worlds changed.....


----------



## Scouser (Apr 14, 2013)

birdieman said:



			This is called integrity and respect for the game - Tiger, have a read!

_1996 Bay Hill Invitational 

 After the second round Jeff Sluman was only two back of the leaders, but he became concerned the night after the round when he thought he may have taken an incorrect drop after hitting into a water hazard. The next morning Sluman returned to the scene and confirmed that the drop area which he used was closer to the hole and that his drop was incorrect. He then disqualified himself from the tournament.

1990 Palm Meadows Cup 

 Going into the third round, it was appeared that a classic battle was about to unfold, as Greg Norman had a one-shot lead over Curtis Strange. However, on the driving range he found out that on the first day he had taken an illegal drop from a water hazard. When told of the problem Norman disqualified himself, thus losing a chance at the first-place check of $160,000._


There are plenty other examples of honest pros DQ'ing themselves.:thup:
		
Click to expand...


At the time was dq the option for such a mistake?  Or could penalty shots have been added.... There have been many threads on here about playing with in the rules and using any option... . . 

Is the two shot penalty within the rules and an option tiger could take?  Apparently so so what's the problem?


----------



## Fader (Apr 14, 2013)

shivas irons said:



			How the worlds changed.....
		
Click to expand...

Has it?  Wasn't long ago Brian Davis DQ'd himself when he had a chance to win at Hilton Head. 

Just seems people on here want to continually dig Woods out because he accepted a decision made by the rules committee instead of saying you know why even though I'm allowed to play as I've been penalised according to the rules, I think I'll walk away so a bunch of overacting golf fans can't get off their high horses. 


Lot of soap boxes being used about this when 90% of the people on here were saying what a great recovery he made and never noticed the infringement. What about the fact the rules officials and all of us fans that had no idea he'd done wrong until he was honest in an interview, honesty which lead to this situation but its ok we'll casually forget that and question his integrity instead!

Great bit of double standards.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 14, 2013)

I don't think Tiger tried to influence the decision, but the fact it was Tiger was an influence on the decision but let's forget Tiger for a moment (difficult I know). What worries me most about the precedent that has been set here is that previously the USGA has said that ignorance of the rules is no excuse. This case flies in the face of that so essentially the potential precedent is that not knowing the rules is ok. 

I blame the committee.

1. I'll accept the fact they had a call and the committee reviewed the footage (which foreshortened the image) and thought 'that's close enough' because they didn't want to dock Tiger two shots. 
2. They then didn't discuss it with Tiger and he signed his card
3. Tiger fesses up to deliberately dropping a couple of yards back to gain an advantage. I think this was an honest mistake as in the heat of the moment he made an error of judgement
4. The committee now have a problem as it was partly their fault for not discussing with Tiger before he signed his card
5. The bottle the correct decision in the circumstances which is DQ

What happens next is the big thing. I think the rule regarding disqualification needs adjusting to prevent further misuse. Tiger is a lucky man but I hope for his sake he doesn't win The Masters. He had a great opportunity to rebuild his image as he knows as well as the rest of us that this whole thing stinks. A sad day for golf but the real villain of this piece is the Augusta rules committee


----------



## bobmac (Apr 14, 2013)

What about the fact the rules officials and all of us fans that had no idea he'd done wrong until he was honest in an interview, honesty which lead to this situation but its ok we'll casually forget that and question his integrity instead!
		
Click to expand...

Do you think he would have mentioned his drop if he had known it was against the rules?


----------



## Fader (Apr 14, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Do you think he would have mentioned his drop if he had known it was against the rules?
		
Click to expand...

Do you think he'd have taken the drop as he did if he had known the ruling exactly word for word like everyone is quoting on here. 

It's easy to speculate and question his honesty from the comfort of a keyboard!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 14, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			We also don't know that no-one else has made an incorrect drop this week, because we haven't seen it on TV.
		
Click to expand...

Except you didn't need to use TV to have it confirmed that he had boobed.


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 14, 2013)

Fader said:



			Has it?  Wasn't long ago Brian Davis DQ'd himself when he had a chance to win at Hilton Head. 

Just seems people on here want to continually dig Woods out because he accepted a decision made by the rules committee instead of saying you know why even though I'm allowed to play as I've been penalised according to the rules, I think I'll walk away so a bunch of overacting golf fans can't get off their high horses. 


Lot of soap boxes being used about this when 90% of the people on here were saying what a great recovery he made and never noticed the infringement. What about the fact the rules officials and all of us fans that had no idea he'd done wrong until he was honest in an interview, honesty which lead to this situation but its ok we'll casually forget that and question his integrity instead!

Great bit of double standards.
		
Click to expand...

Care to explain how it is an example of double standards?  
The fact that a lot of people didn't notice his error doesn't exonerate him.  It's not about high horses, it's about a sport which pretty much self referees with guidance from officials if you are unclear on a particular rule.

I fail to believe that a man that has played the game for so long can't correctly apply one of the most widely used rules in the game.


----------



## birdieman (Apr 14, 2013)

If you don't understand why there is worldwide criticism of Woods for not DQ'ing himself you don't understand golf. It's a sport where there is no referee watching, you referee yourself and you are entrusted to play fair and not cheat. A cheat tag at golf sticks with you for life and makes you a pariah at any golf club. It is never forgotten by other members.
Even if, in this case, the committee can be blamed for giving him a way out Tiger should have the moral fibre to handle this himself in the correct manner, walk away and his reputation would have been greatly enhanced by taking it on the chin.
Incidentally I am a Tiger fan and enjoy watching him as much as anyone, not a hater. It is nothing personal, people like me want the spirit of the game to be upheld.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 14, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			I fail to believe that a man that has played the game for so long can't correctly apply one of the most widely used rules in the game.
		
Click to expand...

And then go on television and tell the world about it.


----------



## alisoncc (Apr 14, 2013)

It was pretty obvious where his divot was, and where he should have been dropping his ball if choosing to play from his previous position. Just look at any of the photos or videos of the incident. The fact that his ball hit the flagstick and rebounded back into the water hazard had all the media's attention. 

I was recording the game off-air, and if I had the time now would be happy to grab a still and post it here. TW's first divot is easily visible some distance from where he dropped. It's more than two club lengths for starters.


----------



## Fader (Apr 14, 2013)

My previous post explains the double standards quite clearly! Honest in his intervied about the drop, it was only after that honesty did anyone notice the infringement which has led to eveyone questioning his integrity simples!

As for not understanding why? I never said I didn't understand! I said I don't agree, he accepted a decision by ruling body and has moved on as we all should. But your all clearly better men than me or just more judgemental.


----------



## Ethan (Apr 14, 2013)

Fader said:



			Has it?  Wasn't long ago Brian Davis DQ'd himself when he had a chance to win at Hilton Head.
		
Click to expand...

No, he called a penalty on himself in the playoff. Still finished second. The same discretion, under Rule 33-7 was not available to the Committee at Hilton Head because the penalty for Davis was not DQ.

The ruling on Tiger is legit, but clearly has been done using discretion on the part of the Committee which they could have chosen not to exercise. If they would have exercised the same discretion to other players then it is all right. If not, then it is clearly double standards but we will never really know.


----------



## tsped83 (Apr 14, 2013)

How is there so much bitterness towards Tiger on this thread?? The committee made a ruling, move on, GET OVER IT!!!

There is a tournament going on with some good golf being played or has everyone lost sight of that in through their ranting about a decision over one shot by one player. If this was anyone else it wouldn't be so much of a big deal. Tiger bashing season for you Daily Mail readers.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 14, 2013)

The committee made a mistake - they deemed Tiger had not gained a significant advantage - Tiger has said that he did.The player referees himself.  

In medal yesterday while taking a couple of practice swings for a putt about to make the ball moved about a centimetre down the slight slope it was on - my playing companions would not have seen this happen.  I had not addressed the ball and had not touched the ground close to the ball (as I was aware that doing so might cause it to move) . I was about to call a penalty on myself but realised that I had not done anything to make the ball move and had not addressed it - so I had nothing that broke a rule.  So I didn't call a penalty or consult.  If I had called a shot on myself would I have been right or wrong to do so?  If I had called a penalty and signed for it and then discovered I needn't have done so - then tough on me.  If you tell me I should have called a penalty then I will have signed for an incorrect score and will fess up.  The secretary then makes a decision on behalf of 'the committee' and will accept what I said I did.


----------



## Ethan (Apr 14, 2013)

tsped83 said:



			How is there so much bitterness towards Tiger on this thread?? The committee made a ruling, move on, GET OVER IT!!!

There is a tournament going on with some good golf being played or has everyone lost sight of that in through their ranting about a decision over one shot by one player. If this was anyone else it wouldn't be so much of a big deal. Tiger bashing season for you Daily Mail readers.
		
Click to expand...

Do you need to have a lie down somewhere quiet?

If you find this thread annoying there is an obvious remedy.


----------



## tsped83 (Apr 14, 2013)

Ethan said:



			Do you need to have a lie down somewhere quiet?

If you find this thread annoying there is an obvious remedy.
		
Click to expand...

You're quite right, I shall unsubscribe from this nonsense.


----------



## Val (Apr 14, 2013)

Tiger not being DQ is not his fault its the committees however he could DQ himself as he admitted taking the drop illegally (maybe not in those words though). That is not trial by television that is self refereeing and for me the rule 33- whatever should not have been used.

It is what it is and so be it, doesn't make it right though.

Anyway, final round looks poised for a good finish.


----------



## AllyLodge (Apr 14, 2013)

i don't actually think he was that far away from where he hit his 1st shot. 
as shown by http://www.augusta.com/masters/photos/2013-tigers-2-shot-penalty-2013#slide=5
but what's done is done now, hopefully today we can watch some good golf


----------



## Heidi (Apr 14, 2013)

This has now set an interesting precedent!
last year in a ladies open - one of my ladies was DQ'd - her playing partners claimed that she played a wrong ball on something like 5th hole - but they didnt tell her at the time. they waited until she had signed her card and handed it in.
they then went to the committee to say her score was wrong, she should have had a penalty added.
unfortunately my lady cant remember what she had for breakfast let alone what she did on a certain hole. As she didnt have a good score anyway, no 2s or any other prize winning stuff, i told her that if she couldnt remember what the situation was then there was no harm in her accepting the DQ.

So, if this had happened this year, she would have come away with an extra couple of penalty strokes as i would have argued that she was not aware of the rules!

hmmm...this is gonna be messy!


----------



## Imurg (Apr 14, 2013)

At the end of the Day, Tiger's been allowed to play on - right or wrong.
The Master's Tournament Committee are the Villains here. Not Tiger.
Tiger broke the Rules and has been penalised - in, I think, the majority of eyes not enough but that's done and dusted now.
He could have withdrawn but, under the Rules, he doesn't have to.

My biggest worry now is what the "outside World" will take from this.

Forget the facts for now - how will Joe Average in the street see it?
He doesn't really understand Golf that much and, to his eyes, Tiger has had the Rules bent to the extreme to allow him to continue.
Whether they have or not is largely irrelevent to those outside Golf.
They will see a game that has given the impression that it has changed rules to let the best player in the World play - that can't be good for the image of Golf.
They will see a game that has Rules so complicated that even the World No.1 gets them wrong - that can't be good either.

The whole thing is a mess and the blame lies squarely at the Tournament Committee's door.

This is a tarnished Masters. It'll forever be debated, should Tiger win, as to whether he should be there to win or not. If he doesn't win it will be debated forever that the incident distracted him and the final result is false. Should Tiger lose by a shot then I don't want to imagine the meltdown that will occur.

The whole episode is a complete and utter cock-up. It hasn't done the Masters any good, it hasn't done Tiger any good and it hasn't done the game any favours either.

Anyone got a Time Machine so we can go back to Thursday morning and start all over again...?


----------



## Colin L (Apr 14, 2013)

Heidi said:



			This has now set an interesting precedent! !
		
Click to expand...

Probably, but not the one you describe.  Tiger's  DQ was not waived because he wasn't aware of  the rules but essentially because the Committee changed its ruling on the incident after his card was submitted.

The wording of Decision 33-7/4.5 is very tight:

_However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d._

And the examples that follow that are very specific.

The lady in your description could easily have known the facts of her playing a wrong ball - she could have identified it as not being hers.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 14, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Probably, but not the one you describe.  Tiger's  DQ was not waived because he wasn't aware of  the rules but essentially because the Committee changed its ruling on the incident after his card was submitted.

The wording of Decision 33-7/4.5 is very tight:

_However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d._

The lady in your description could easily have known the facts of her playing a wrong ball - she could have identified it as not being hers.
		
Click to expand...

I don't really want to start this all over again but could Tiger have reasonably known that he'd breached a rule?
Is it reasonable to assume that the World No.1 who has been playing since he could walk would know one of the most common rules?

I think this is where most people can't get their heads around the ruling.


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 14, 2013)

Corinthian spirit is dead...

Long live the corinthian spirit....


----------



## Heidi (Apr 14, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Probably, but not the one you describe.  Tiger's  DQ was not waived because he wasn't aware of  the rules but essentially because the Committee changed its ruling on the incident after his card was submitted.

The wording of Decision 33-7/4.5 is very tight:

_However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d._

And the examples that follow that are very specific.

The lady in your description could easily have known the facts of her playing a wrong ball - she could have identified it as not being hers.
		
Click to expand...

No no - the ball in question was hers! she had a ball in play, but lost it in the rough, looked for a couple of mins and then thought she might go back to the tee to stick another into play. as she turned round to walk back, her ball was found by one of the members, so she played it. 
her 5 mins searching time wasnt up
unfortunately, as i said, she has the memory span of a gnat, and couldnt argue with the committee cos she couldnt remember.

she actually didnt do anything wrong. her playing partners said cos she had started to walk back then she should have abandoned the ball and played 3 off the tee

it was all very messy - and a DQ didnt hurt.

But it is going to throw up a lot of issues in club golf


----------



## Colin L (Apr 14, 2013)

Imurg said:



			I don't really want to start this all over again but could Tiger have reasonably known that he'd breached a rule?
		
Click to expand...

Yes he could. It is his responsibility to know that rules and facts of what he did were clear.  33-7/4.5 is about waiving a DQ because facts come to light later that the player could not have known - such as when it takes close-up HD television to show that his ball had moved.  And that as far as I am aware is not why the DQ was waived in his case anyway.


----------



## North Mimms (Apr 14, 2013)

Do you think Tiger could claim a convenient "injury" this morning which prevents him playing the final round?
gives him an opportunity to withdraw without disaggreeing with committee


----------



## CMAC (Apr 14, 2013)

23,549 views on this thread.
He certainly polarises opinions even when it wasn't his decision.


----------



## JustOne (Apr 14, 2013)

Heidi said:



			This has now set an interesting precedent!
last year in a ladies open - one of my ladies was DQ'd - her playing partners claimed that she played a wrong ball on something like 5th hole - *but they didnt tell her at the time. they waited until she had signed her card and handed it in*.
		
Click to expand...

Is THAT in the rules?


----------



## JezzE (Apr 14, 2013)

Fascinating stuff all this and an incident which has clearly divided opinion down the middle, especially when you throw what happened to Guan into the mix too!

I'm not 100% sure where I stand, other than to say that something unsavoury has happened, and regardless of the rights and wrongs of various parties in the whole episode, I struggled to get even remotely excited watching the golf last night, which is a shame as normally I'm glued to the coverage without averting my eyes until the final putt is holed


----------



## mab (Apr 14, 2013)

FWIW, I find this thread ridiculous and the thought of Tiger DQing himself equally ridiculous.


----------



## Heidi (Apr 14, 2013)

JustOne said:



			Is THAT in the rules?
		
Click to expand...

Either they were being very unsporting, or more likely didn't have a clue about rules!


----------



## JezzE (Apr 14, 2013)

mab said:



			FWIW, I find this thread ridiculous and the thought of Tiger DQing himself equally ridiculous.
		
Click to expand...

Really?


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 14, 2013)

DarthVega said:



			23,549 views on this thread.
He certainly polarises opinions even when it wasn't his decision.
		
Click to expand...


He had opportunity to make a decision of his own but clearly wasn't inclined to do so...


----------



## Dodger (Apr 14, 2013)

birdieman said:



			If you don't understand why there is worldwide criticism of Woods for not DQ'ing himself you don't understand golf. It's a sport where there is no referee watching, you referee yourself and you are entrusted to play fair and not cheat. A cheat tag at golf sticks with you for life and makes you a pariah at any golf club. It is never forgotten by other members.
Even if, in this case, the committee can be blamed for giving him a way out Tiger should have the moral fibre to handle this himself in the correct manner, walk away and his reputation would have been greatly enhanced by taking it on the chin.
Incidentally I am a Tiger fan and enjoy watching him as much as anyone, not a hater. It is nothing personal, people like me want the spirit of the game to be upheld.
		
Click to expand...


Plus 1.....that is my feelings exactly and I am a great Tiger fan....not so much now though.


----------



## Dodger (Apr 14, 2013)

JezzE said:



			Fascinating stuff all this and an incident which has clearly divided opinion down the middle, especially when you throw what happened to Guan into the mix too!

I'm not 100% sure where I stand, other than to say that something unsavoury has happened, and regardless of the rights and wrongs of various parties in the whole episode, I struggled to get even remotely excited watching the golf last night, which is a shame as normally I'm glued to the coverage without averting my eyes until the final putt is holed
		
Click to expand...

Jezz,do you think that 'outside agencies' clouded the competition committee's ruling?


i.e. TV audiences/exposure for sponsors etc?

Just asking as it was thrown around over a cuppa and a bacon roll down the club this morning after the hurricane had mauled me.


----------



## stevie_r (Apr 14, 2013)

Dodger said:



			Jezz,do you think that 'outside agencies' clouded the competition committee's ruling?


i.e. TV audiences/exposure for sponsors etc?

Just asking as it was thrown around over a cuppa and a bacon roll down the club this morning after the hurricane had mauled me.
		
Click to expand...

Has the pope got a balcony?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 14, 2013)

mab said:



			FWIW, I find this thread ridiculous and the thought of Tiger DQing himself equally ridiculous.
		
Click to expand...

No more ridiculous surely than, for instance, TV evidence being used to show that a player's movement in bushes or in the rough caused his ball to move - even although he didn't actually see it move or subsequently realise it *had * moved.  Is that not why this new rule has been put in place?   My player would sign his card *completely unaware* that he broken a rule because he *didn't know he had caused his ball to move* - and therefore should have been penalised.  In my example the player would have no idea that his ball had moved and that he had cause it to move.  Tiger knew exactly what he was doing - he was in control of the ball - confusion or ignorance of the law is no defence.

If the committee were unsure whether or not he had given himself and advantage then the word of the player should determine the outcome.  And if the player can't change the decision and *knows* that the outcome is wrong - then he alone can right that wrong.


----------



## Slab (Apr 14, 2013)

I think the right result's been arrived at but in the wrong way

Over the years loads of folks have agreed with previous DQ's as following the rules as they're written (at that time) but overly harsh or severe compared to the breach (Harrington et-al)

A breach happened, no-one is saying he cheated, penalty is therefore due. All the talk is simply about whether you believe the penalty to be in line with the breach 

Given the various contributing factors & the chain of events associated to this particular case a DQ cant really be applied without being far too harsh and neither can the breach be ignored so 2 shots sounds about right

Should he or should he not be aware of which rule he's following? well any golf rule is easy to understand and comply with in isolation but its when applied to the real world that it means there are now literally hundreds of pages dedicated to turning the rules into decisions

Yes we should expect our tournament pros to know the rules, however we cannot expect them to know each decision

its been mentioned a few times but I've seen nothing to indicate which rules are fundamental and which are periphery, they all carry equal standing and one is no more important than another    

Lastly I cant really see where the 'noble act' of withdrawing supports any decision in relation to a breach

Lastly lastly, I read the entire 58 pages for the first time today.. in reverse, so much more fun!


----------



## JezzE (Apr 14, 2013)

Dodger said:



			Jezz,do you think that 'outside agencies' clouded the competition committee's ruling?

i.e. TV audiences/exposure for sponsors etc?

Just asking as it was thrown around over a cuppa and a bacon roll down the club this morning after the hurricane had mauled me.
		
Click to expand...

That is very hard to say one way or the other.

One would like to think that such things have absolutely nothing to do with it, but it would have been interesting to see if the committee would have bent over quite so much to ensure the player's continued presence had that player not been Tiger, especially set against the seemingly stern and perhaps even hypocritical way a 14-year-old relative nobody was dealt with the day before.

The big problem for me in all this is that Tiger knew what he was doing when pinching an extra couple of yards. It wasn't just a matter of 'that's pretty near, that will do' - it was a specific matter of going 2 yards further back to ensure he didn't hit the flag again (surely about a million to one shot anyway). The question then is perhaps, in a moment of fluster at the unfairness of it all (the ricochet off the flag) did he absent-mindedly confuse the 'play again from as near as possible to the previous spot' option with the 'drop back as far as you like in line' had he gone for the point of entry option? You'd like to think that might be the case given the goldfish bowl setting and the number of people watching his every move - hard to believe he would seriously have been trying 'to get away with it' in full view of the watching millions.

The other problem for me is that I don't think the amendments to Rule 33-7 were really designed for situations like this where someone has basically just got a rule wrong. It was designed far more for situations where the player couldn't possibly have known he had infringed a rule (i.e. ball moving a tiny amount on the green perhaps while the player is looking up at the hole).

Decision 33-7/4.5 says... "A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the playerâ€™s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card."

Anyway, lots to chew over...

I think on balance, I would say he has seriously dodged a bullet here, but maybe only temporarily as I'm sure it will come back to haunt him should he win tonight. Might be best for all concerned if he has a mediocre final round and never really threatens...!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 14, 2013)

JezzE said:



			That is very hard to say one way or the other.

One would like to think that such things have absolutely nothing to do with it, but it would have been interesting to see if the committee would have bent over quite so much to ensure the player's continued presence had that player not been Tiger, especially set against the seemingly stern and perhaps even hypocritical way a 14-year-old relative nobody was dealt with the day before.

The big problem for me in all this is that Tiger knew what he was doing when pinching an extra couple of yards. It wasn't just a matter of 'that's pretty near, that will do' - it was a specific matter of going 2 yards further back to ensure he didn't hit the flag again (surely about a million to one shot anyway). The question then is perhaps, in a moment of fluster at the unfairness of it all (the ricochet off the flag) did he absent-mindedly confuse the 'play again from as near as possible to the previous spot' option with the 'drop back as far as you like in line' had he gone for the point of entry option? You'd like to think that might be the case given the goldfish bowl setting and the number of people watching his every move - hard to believe he would seriously have been trying 'to get away with it' in full view of the watching millions.

The other problem for me is that I don't think the amendments to Rule 33-7 were really designed for situations like this where someone has basically just got a rule wrong. It was designed far more for situations where the player couldn't possibly have known he had infringed a rule (i.e. ball moving a tiny amount on the green perhaps while the player is looking up at the hole).

Decision 33-7/4.5 says... "A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the playerâ€™s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card."

Anyway, lots to chew over...

I think on balance, I would say he has seriously dodged a bullet here, but maybe only temporarily as I'm sure it will come back to haunt him should he win tonight. Might be best for all concerned if he has a mediocre final round and never really threatens...!
		
Click to expand...

My views precisely on context 33-7/4.5 is applied - and this incident could not in any way be deemed to have occurred in that context.  So if he wins he wins - I hope he enjoys the adulation he'll get from his sycophantic followers - but he won't get any congrats from me.


----------



## thecraw (Apr 14, 2013)

Its cheating to ensure big gate turnover Saturday and Sunday, the integrity of golf can now be questioned over this decision!

If your a big enough player you can break the rules and get away with it.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 14, 2013)

The big gate was never in doubt but the TV viewing and advertising streams would have been slaughtered.
We seem to be moving towards a strange new world in sport, sad that advertising seems to be more important than the integrity of the sport.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 14, 2013)

The problem with Rule 33 is it brings in an element of subjectivity. The old rule, however harsh, protected both the player, from what Tiger is currently being subjected to, and the competetion's committee from being accused of bias/weakness/bottle etc. Tiger is totally right in respect to the rules to tee it up in round 3, but maybe naive in where it fits in the game of golf. 

And I dare say in the ethos of professionalism no one would decry him but in our world of idealistic amatuerism he's got it wrong - perhaps further evdence of the growing difference between the two codes, e.g. belly putters.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 14, 2013)

Heidi said:



			No no - the ball in question was hers! she had a ball in play, but lost it in the rough, looked for a couple of mins and then thought she might go back to the tee to stick another into play. as she turned round to walk back, her ball was found by one of the members, so she played it. 
her 5 mins searching time wasnt up
unfortunately, as i said, she has the memory span of a gnat, and couldnt argue with the committee cos she couldnt remember.

she actually didnt do anything wrong.* her playing partners said cos she had started to walk back then she should have abandoned the ball and played 3 off the tee*

it was all very messy - and a DQ didnt hurt.

But it is going to throw up a lot of issues in club golf
		
Click to expand...

A very different situation altogether!  But did the ladies who were reporting this supposed "wrong ball" matter to the Committee (and what a shocking way to behave),  mention the bit I've highlighted?   If they did it looks as if your Committee made a wrong ruling.


----------



## PieMan (Apr 14, 2013)

JezzE said:



			I think on balance, I would say he has seriously dodged a bullet here, but maybe only temporarily as I'm sure it will come back to haunt him should he win tonight. Might be best for all concerned if he has a mediocre final round and never really threatens...!
		
Click to expand...

That's how I'm seeing it. IMO he should have been disqualified - he wasn't; in that case perhaps he should have considered that ruling, weighed it against public opinion and integrity of the rules and disqualified himself - he chose not to. So hopefully he doesn't contend tonight and we can look forward to a cracking final day's play involving some guys going for their first major and a previous Champion who hasn't been in the mix for a while.


----------



## JustOne (Apr 14, 2013)

JezzE said:



			I struggled to get even remotely excited watching the golf last night, which is a shame as normally I'm glued to the coverage without averting my eyes until the final putt is holed
		
Click to expand...

Nothing much happened though, just a ton of missed putts and a heap of scores from -1 to -3. The best part was (unfortunately) watching Couples' score collapse as I can relate to that :angry: The only thing worth watching was how Tiger coped with his round following the penalty.... and boy he was close to carding a great round!


----------



## Snelly (Apr 14, 2013)

I fell asleep during the coverage myself.  Not much to get excited about.  I did shout at the television a few times as the coverage seemed to focus on Tiger, eating, drinking and obviously spitting on tees and greens at the expense watching other people's shots but other than that, all fairly dull.

The bigger picture is that Woods should have been disqualified and his soiled reputation is now even grubbier.


Good points by Jezz on the rulings too.  I am in full agreement.


----------



## richart (Apr 14, 2013)

My understand was that the new rule where a player is not necessaiily DQ'd, was introduced primarily for trial by television. If a ball moves fractionally, as in Harrington's case where no one sees it, but it is picked up later on TV. 

Dropping a ball that has gone into a hazard is a not such a case, and it was not the tv coverage that brought it to light, but Tiger's own admission. Dropping from hazards is a basic rule of golf, and Tiger knows the rule as well as anyone. It was not ignorance that made him drop his ball two yards further back, but the fact he was not thinking straight after bouncing off the flag into the hazard. He just forgot that the last point of entry was not in front of him. He admitted this, and there was no attempt by him to get an advantage. If he had, he is hardly likely to admit to it in an interview.

He broke a basic rule, signed his card, and should have been DQ'd for signing for a lower score. If it had been some journey man Pro, four over par just having made the cut, he would have been on his way. It seems to me that one man is actually bigger than the game as far as the Rules Committee are concerned. (No blame attached to Tiger for this) The fall out of DQ'ing him seemed to be their major concern. It was a total fudge.

Tiger's comment that rules are rules concerning the 14 year old Chinese player, does put a bigger spot light on him, and for the good of the game he could have withdrawn, but it was never going to happen.

Must say I was impressed that he moved the ball back two yards and hit a perfect shot second time around. Just shows his distance control, and the fact that his second shot lay up was all of two yards out as well !

I am sure others have said the same, but having just come to this thread, I couldn't be bothered to read through the umpteen pages.:mmm:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 14, 2013)

richart said:



			My understand was that the new rule where a player is not necessaiily DQ'd, was introduced primarily for trial by television. If a ball moves fractionally, as in Harrington's case where no one sees it, but it is picked up later on TV. 

Dropping a ball that has gone into a hazard is a not such a case, and it was not the tv coverage that brought it to light, but Tiger's own admission. Dropping from hazards is a basic rule of golf, and Tiger knows the rule as well as anyone. It was not ignorance that made him drop his ball two yards further back, but the fact he was not thinking straight after bouncing off the flag into the hazard. He just forgot that the last point of entry was not in front of him. He admitted this, and there was no attempt by him to get an advantage. If he had, he is hardly likely to admit to it in an interview.

He broke a basic rule, signed his card, and should have been DQ'd for signing for a lower score. If it had been some journey man Pro, four over par just having made the cut, he would have been on his way. It seems to me that one man is actually bigger than the game as far as the Rules Committee are concerned. (No blame attached to Tiger for this) The fall out of DQ'ing him seemed to be their major concern. It was a total fudge.

Tiger's comment that rules are rules concerning the 14 year old Chinese player, does put a bigger spot light on him, and for the good of the game he could have withdrawn, but it was never going to happen.

Must say I was impressed that he moved the ball back two yards and hit a perfect shot second time around. Just shows his distance control, and the fact that his second shot lay up was all of two yards out as well !

I am sure others have said the same, but having just come to this thread, I couldn't be bothered to read through the umpteen pages.:mmm:
		
Click to expand...

I fully agree with your analysis of the context of the rule, and TWs part in the incident. @SILH


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 14, 2013)

richart said:



			He broke a basic rule, signed his card, and should have been DQ'd for signing for a lower score. If it had been some journey man Pro, four over par just having made the cut, he would have been on his way. It seems to me that one man is actually bigger than the game as far as the Rules Committee are concerned. (No blame attached to Tiger for this) The fall out of DQ'ing him seemed to be their major concern. It was a total fudge.
		
Click to expand...

The committee/referee or whoever knew of a possible infringement before Tiger finished his round. No-one had approached him before he finished. If it was bought to light earlier, scorecard would had been changed and then signed. Same incident as the Dustin Johnson one in 2010.


----------



## mab (Apr 14, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No more ridiculous surely than, for instance, TV evidence being used to show that a player's movement in bushes or in the rough caused his ball to move - even although he didn't actually see it move or subsequently realise it *had * moved.  Is that not why this new rule has been put in place?   My player would sign his card *completely unaware* that he broken a rule because he *didn't know he had caused his ball to move* - and therefore should have been penalised.  In my example the player would have no idea that his ball had moved and that he had cause it to move.  Tiger knew exactly what he was doing - he was in control of the ball - confusion or ignorance of the law is no defence.

If the committee were unsure whether or not he had given himself and advantage then the word of the player should determine the outcome.  And if the player can't change the decision and *knows* that the outcome is wrong - then he alone can right that wrong.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, no more ridiculous. That, too, is ridiculous. Can you imagine a Major winner being stripped of his title on Monday morning after video evidence identified his ball was indirectly moved when searching for it in the rough. Crazy. 

Rules appear to have overpowered common sense. 

Should everyone doing 71 on a motorway automatically get 3 points and a Â£60 fine? Rules say yes, common sense suggests perhaps not. The poor chap just suffered a terrible bit of bad luck and has ended up dropping his ball incorrectly in the aftermath of what is a rather frustrating situation. That lapse of thought has cost him a further 2 shots and, IMO, sufficiently addresses the crime committed. 

FWIW... if this makes any sense at all... I believe my opinion is wrong, but it's still my opinion. He hit the ball, he lost the ball, he dropped his provisional near where he hit his first ball and not nearer the hole. Yes, he backed up 2 yards and has has taken a penalty for it, but does that warrant DQ... most people on this board think yes, a potentially biased Augusta National and myself think not.

There should be a rules official with every group to avoid this sort of thing happening.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 14, 2013)

Heidi said:



			Either they were being very unsporting, or more likely didn't have a clue about rules!
		
Click to expand...




Colin L said:



			A very different situation altogether!  But did the ladies who were reporting this supposed "wrong ball" matter to the Committee (and what a shocking way to behave),  mention the bit I've highlighted?   If they did it looks as if your Committee made a wrong ruling.
		
Click to expand...

So not only did the Ladies wait until after the round - there may have been a legitimate reason for this but they, and maybe the Committee, were wrong anyway.

I hope ll parties have been notified that it's only if the ball is not found and identified within 5 minutes (and there's a bit of leeway to allow identification) or the player has 'put another ball in play' that the first ball is out of play.

Also worth remembering that you can, with some other considerations, also play a second ball if not certain of the ruling. I have done that in those exact circumstances.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 14, 2013)

I still can't decide exactly where I sit on this. I don't think it's Tiger's fault apart from the fact that he should know where to drop. What happened after the drop has been a complete farce. The tournament committee have messed up big style, really really big style and have tried to "undo" there mistake by employing this new rule. The thing that makes me uncomfortable with this decision is this from the R&A website...




			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 recognising that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach.
		
Click to expand...





			A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the playerâ€™s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.
		
Click to expand...

Clearly in this case Tiger was ignorant of the rules so waiving the disqualification wasn't a valid option.

The problem we have here is that the committee have admitted they were made aware of the potential breach but decided there was no case to answer without consulting the player. Had they consulted the player, it would have been cleared up there and then but they didn't.

But is it the committee's responsibility to bring rule breaches to the players attention and does not doing so excuse the player from breaking the rules, however unwittingly?

I think, as I write this I am coming to the conclusion he should have been disqualified. Whether he should have disqualified himself is still open to question. If he is aware of the quote above, then he should have walked away. I suspect however he has been told by the rules committee that he can continue under this rule and has continued believing he is doing so under the rules of golf and has taken the committee's word for it not knowing that they appear to be wrong.

At the end of the day, I'm just glad Tiger wasn't 7 under after round 2 as that would have caused a lot of players to miss the cut and probably gone home who would then, after this penalty, have been back inside the cut line. The fallout from that doesn't bare thinking about!!!!


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 14, 2013)

mab said:



			I agree, no more ridiculous. That, too, is ridiculous. Can you imagine a Major winner being stripped of his title on Monday morning after video evidence identified his ball was indirectly moved when searching for it in the rough. Crazy. 

Rules appear to have overpowered common sense. 

Should everyone doing 71 on a motorway automatically get 3 points and a Â£60 fine? Rules say yes, common sense suggests perhaps not. The poor chap just suffered a terrible bit of bad luck and has ended up dropping his ball incorrectly in the aftermath of what is a rather frustrating situation. That lapse of thought has cost him a further 2 shots and, IMO, sufficiently addresses the crime committed. 

FWIW... if this makes any sense at all... I believe my opinion is wrong, but it's still my opinion. He hit the ball, he lost the ball, he dropped his provisional near where he hit his first ball and not nearer the hole. Yes, he backed up 2 yards and has has taken a penalty for it, but does that warrant DQ... most people on this board think yes, a potentially biased Augusta National and myself think not.

There should be a rules official with every group to avoid this sort of thing happening.
		
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense, but I've said this many times. Some just CANNOT see past the hate for the man. (not golfer)


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 14, 2013)

birdieman said:



			This is called integrity and respect for the game - Tiger, have a read!

_1996 Bay Hill Invitational 

 After the second round Jeff Sluman was only two back of the leaders, but he became concerned the night after the round when he thought he may have taken an incorrect drop after hitting into a water hazard. The next morning Sluman returned to the scene and confirmed that the drop area which he used was closer to the hole and that his drop was incorrect. He then disqualified himself from the tournament.

1990 Palm Meadows Cup 

 Going into the third round, it was appeared that a classic battle was about to unfold, as Greg Norman had a one-shot lead over Curtis Strange. However, on the driving range he found out that on the first day he had taken an illegal drop from a water hazard. When told of the problem Norman disqualified himself, thus losing a chance at the first-place check of $160,000._


There are plenty other examples of honest pros DQ'ing themselves.:thup:
		
Click to expand...

It's all very well recounting these examples of honesty, but how many other occasions have there been when people have suspected they have broken the rules and not said anything? I suspect at least the same amount but we'll never know. It's all very well claiming golf to be the honest sport that it is, but in a sport where players referee themselves and you are relying on honesty, there are going to be breaches that go un-noticed. You would like to hope that every pro golfer is honest, but I sadly doubt that is true.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 14, 2013)

Not sure if it has been said but this whole sorry episode would never have happened on Stevie Williams watch.


----------



## Colin L (Apr 14, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			The tournament committee have messed up big style, really really big style and have tried to "undo" there mistake by employing this new rule. The thing that makes me uncomfortable with this decision is this from the R&A website...
		
Click to expand...

They did not employ this 'new rule'.  Decision 33-7/4.5 is not applicable to this incident and was not applied to it, so you don't need to feel uncomfortable about it. 

The Committee exercised its power to waive a disqualification under _exceptional individual circumstances_ (Rule 33)   The exceptional circumstances in effect were that the Committee messed up by not sorting the matter out before Tiger handed in his card. It decided it would be too harsh to disqualify a player where it had been at fault.   That may have been a good or a bad decision, but it wasn't made as a result of 33-7/4.5.


----------



## MashieNiblick (Apr 14, 2013)

I think in relation to the Rules it has effectively all been said, for which I for one am grateful in particular for the expert knowledge of Duncan, Colin and JezzE and others.

The recent Decision (33-7/4.5) based on the Harrington situation is not applicable as confirmed above because Tiger's mistake was due to a misunderstanding of the Rules not ignorance of the facts.

It seems the Committee therefore exerised a wider discretion under Rule 33-7 to waive the DQ on the grounds that they were alerted to a possible breach but took no further action as they thought the drop was OK (maybe fooled by the foreshortening of the camera lens).

They therefore missed the opportunity to warn Tiger so that he could add the penalty before signing his card. Later following his interview everyone realised what had happened was wrong and that Tiger should have incurred a penalty and had therefore signed for a wrong score. However the DQ for this was waived it would seem on the grounds that the Committee's earlier decision that the drop was Ok had had a direct bearing on this.

Whether they were right or wrong is hard to say.

Their statement says

"The penalty of disqualification was waived by the Committee under Rule 33 as the Committee had previously reviewed the information and made its initial determination prior to the finish of the playerâ€™s round."

Which I am not sure really sheds much light on what their reasoning was.

Ultimately though a decision has been made which effectively put Tiger where he would have been had the incorrect drop been properly identified by the Committee when they were first alerted to it (although I am not sure where that leaves a player's responsibility under Rule 6-1).

It is hard to try and enjoy what is left of the golf though as I think Tiger will be in the mix tonight and accordingly can't help feeling that we haven't done with this yet.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 14, 2013)

Colin L said:



			They did not employ this 'new rule'.  Decision 33-7/4.5 is not applicable to this incident and was not applied to it, so you don't need to feel uncomfortable about it. 

The Committee exercised its power to waive a disqualification under _exceptional individual circumstances_ (Rule 33)   The exceptional circumstances in effect were that the Committee messed up by not sorting the matter out before Tiger handed in his card. It decided it would be too harsh to disqualify a player where it had been at fault.   That may have been a good or a bad decision, but it wasn't made as a result of 33-7/4.5.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks Colin, my mistake :thup:


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 14, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			It's all very well recounting these examples of honesty, but how many other occasions have there been when people have suspected they have broken the rules and not said anything? I suspect at least the same amount but we'll never know. It's all very well claiming golf to be the honest sport that it is, but in a sport where players referee themselves and you are relying on honesty, there are going to be breaches that go un-noticed. You would like to hope that every pro golfer is honest, but I sadly doubt that is true.
		
Click to expand...

You also have to ask whether, had the rules committee deemed that "exceptional circumstances" were relevant in the historical cases quoted, whether the players in question would have continued. Of course, we can't answer that but if there were no exceptional circumstances, then they are not the same as Tiger's predicament.


----------



## bobmac (Apr 14, 2013)

Tiger made a wrong drop at around 3pm (their time) ish.
His 'telling interview' was, say, 5 pm.
And yet Tiger didn't hear anything about the investigation until the next morning?
Why wasn't he told the night before?
And if he had time to sleep on it, would he have withdrawn the next morning?

As it was, he was summoned by the committee in the morning, told of the 2 shot penalty and told to go and play.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 14, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Tiger made a wrong drop at around 3pm (their time) ish.
His 'telling interview' was, say, 5 pm.
And yet Tiger didn't hear anything about the investigation until the next morning?
Why wasn't he told the night before?
And if he had time to sleep on it, would he have withdrawn the next morning?

As it was, he was summoned by the committee in the morning, told of the 2 shot penalty and told to go and play.
		
Click to expand...

These are all very good questions Bob, the answer to which we will probably never know.


----------



## richart (Apr 14, 2013)

I find the fact the drop was discussed by the commitee and a decision made as Tiger played the last hole, 'very convenient'


----------



## Piece (Apr 14, 2013)

MashieNiblick said:



			I think in relation to the Rules it has effectively all been said, for which I for one am grateful in particular for the expert knowledge of Duncan, Colin and JezzE and others.

The recent Decision (33-7/4.5) based on the Harrington situation is not applicable as confirmed above because Tiger's mistake was due to a misunderstanding of the Rules not ignorance of the facts.

It seems the Committee therefore exerised a wider discretion under Rule 33-7 to waive the DQ on the grounds that they were alerted to a possible breach but took no further action as they thought the drop was OK (maybe fooled by the foreshortening of the camera lens).

They therefore missed the opportunity to warn Tiger so that he could add the penalty before signing his card. Later following his interview everyone realised what had happened was wrong and that Tiger should have incurred a penalty and had therefore signed for a wrong score. However the DQ for this was waived it would seem on the grounds that the Committee's earlier decision that the drop was Ok had had a direct bearing on this.

Whether they were right or wrong is hard to say.

Their statement says

"The penalty of disqualification was waived by the Committee under Rule 33 as the Committee had previously reviewed the information and made its initial determination prior to the finish of the playerâ€™s round."

Which I am not sure really sheds much light on what their reasoning was.

Ultimately though a decision has been made which effectively put Tiger where he would have been had the incorrect drop been properly identified by the Committee when they were first alerted to it (although I am not sure where that leaves a player's responsibility under Rule 6-1).

It is hard to try and enjoy what is left of the golf though as I think Tiger will be in the mix tonight and accordingly can't help feeling that we haven't done with this yet.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree. A great summary of the facts and not driven by conspiracy theories. :thup:


----------



## bluewolf (Apr 14, 2013)

richart said:



			I find the fact the drop was discussed by the commitee and a decision made as Tiger played the last hole, 'very convenient'

Click to expand...

Totally agree mate. It appears that the committee have taken the hit to protect the games biggest player. It's over and done now though so best to just hope that TW doesn't challenge and make things worse for everyone.


----------



## upsidedown (Apr 14, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Tiger made a wrong drop at around 3pm (their time) ish.
His 'telling interview' was, say, 5 pm.
And yet Tiger didn't hear anything about the investigation until the next morning?
Why wasn't he told the night before?
And if he had time to sleep on it, would he have withdrawn the next morning?

As it was, he was summoned by the committee in the morning, told of the 2 shot penalty and told to go and play.
		
Click to expand...

Wasn't he out in one of the last groups which woud have made it a bit later? Think it's  five hour difference from UK.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 14, 2013)

richart said:



			I find the fact the drop was discussed by the commitee and a decision made as Tiger played the last hole, 'very convenient'

Click to expand...

I still maintain that, assuming the US get the same footage at the same time, it's very unlikely anyone watching the tv would have been able to tell with sufficient confidence that Tiger had dropped incorrectly. 
When you see it again it's obvious but first time, in real time...??


----------



## upsidedown (Apr 14, 2013)

Bit that I cant get round is if it's ok for a viewer to phone in with concerns why in Majors is there not a designated rules official watching the TV coverage ?


----------



## Slime (Apr 14, 2013)

mab said:



			FWIW, I find this thread ridiculous and the thought of Tiger DQing himself equally ridiculous.
		
Click to expand...

So why read it & then contribute to it?

*Slime*.

P.S. Thanks for your invaluable input *mab*.


----------



## Heidi (Apr 14, 2013)

Colin L said:



			A very different situation altogether!  But did the ladies who were reporting this supposed "wrong ball" matter to the Committee (and what a shocking way to behave),  mention the bit I've highlighted?   If they did it looks as if your Committee made a wrong ruling.
		
Click to expand...

not my committee...it was an open
i have no idea what was going on
if it had happened to me personally and not just one of my ladies then i would have got to the bottom of it
as it was the girl didnt give two hoots about the DQ!

just goes to show that committees dont always make the right decisions.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 15, 2013)

Sorry to bring this thread up again but I think I have finally got off the fence on this one and decided that Tiger should have been disqualified. The committee messed up, but it isn't the committee's job to tell the player he has broken the rules, particlarly, a rule that top pro's and caddies should know.

However, once the ruling had been made that he was to continue, I don't think he should have withdrawn.


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 15, 2013)

Pictures circulating around. Suggests his drop wasn't as far as the TV made out. Interesting all the same.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 15, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			The committee messed up, but it isn't the committee's job to tell the player he has broken the rules, particlarly, a rule that top pro's and caddies should know.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, in the 'trial by television' age, when it was a viewer that notified the Committee that there was a breach, It IS the Committee's job to do so. That's also why they brought in the 'television age' rule - recognising that such incidents might be unfair. If it has happened to his playing partner (Luke Donald), I doubt whether it would have been spotted - I only saw him hit 1 shot in the first 2 days!

If the comp was played like most club comps - without anyone but the players watching - then the breach would not have been noticed, the card would have been signed and no-one - including Tiger - would have been the wiser. I'm certain this sort of error - and it's not cheating imo - happens a huge amount in club comps.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 15, 2013)

triple_bogey said:



			Pictures circulating around. Suggests his drop wasn't as far as the TV made out. Interesting all the same.





Click to expand...

Quite brilliant.............it took me a while!!!


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 15, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Actually, in the 'trial by television' age, when it was a viewer that notified the Committee that there was a breach, It IS the Committee's job to do so. That's also why they brought in the 'television age' rule - recognising that such incidents might be unfair. If it has happened to his playing partner (Luke Donald), I doubt whether it would have been spotted - I only saw him hit 1 shot in the first 2 days!

If the comp was played like most club comps - without anyone but the players watching - then the breach would not have been noticed, the card would have been signed and no-one - including Tiger - would have been the wiser. I'm certain this sort of error - and it's not cheating imo - happens a huge amount in club comps.
		
Click to expand...

I made a similar point on page 3651 I think. Just about anyone else in he field wouldn't have even got the 2 shot penalty.

I still can't agree that it is anyone else's responsibility but the player. Particularly when it is a rule which should be understood


----------



## gmc40 (Apr 15, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Actually, in the 'trial by television' age, when it was a viewer that notified the Committee that there was a breach, It IS the Committee's job to do so. That's also why they brought in the 'television age' rule - recognising that such incidents might be unfair. If it has happened to his playing partner (Luke Donald), I doubt whether it would have been spotted - I only saw him hit 1 shot in the first 2 days!

If the comp was played like most club comps - without anyone but the players watching - then the breach would not have been noticed, the card would have been signed and no-one - including Tiger - would have been the wiser. I'm certain this sort of error - and it's not cheating imo - happens a huge amount in club comps.
		
Click to expand...

Therefore Luke Donald would have been disqualified. As would Tiger if the 'viewer' had not phoned in.


----------



## Region3 (Apr 16, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Quite brilliant.............it took me a while!!!
		
Click to expand...

I don't get it. Please put me out of my misery!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 16, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Actually, in the 'trial by television' age, when it was a viewer that notified the Committee that there was a breach, It IS the Committee's job to do so. That's also why they brought in the 'television age' rule - recognising that such incidents might be unfair. If it has happened to his playing partner (Luke Donald), I doubt whether it would have been spotted - I only saw him hit 1 shot in the first 2 days!

If the comp was played like most club comps - without anyone but the players watching - then the breach would not have been noticed, the card would have been signed and no-one - including Tiger - would have been the wiser. I'm certain this sort of error - and it's not cheating imo - happens a huge amount in club comps.
		
Click to expand...

And if this is your buddy and he did what TW did and describes it to you in the clubhouse afterwards - and you realise that your mate has broken a rule and dropped in the wrong place - then what?  If he doesn't report his mistake to the club then you should.  Just that Tiger mentioned it to many millions of 'mates'.


----------



## GB72 (Apr 16, 2013)

Imurg said:



			I still maintain that, assuming the US get the same footage at the same time, it's very unlikely anyone watching the tv would have been able to tell with sufficient confidence that Tiger had dropped incorrectly. 
When you see it again it's obvious but first time, in real time...??
		
Click to expand...

I actually read an article online last night that brings into doubt whether there was a rule breach. The TV pictures were not taken from the same spot at the cameraman moved. This article had still photos taken from a photographer who did not move and by lining up divots and marks on the fairway it appears that Tiger may have been mistaken in thinking it was 2 yards away as the pictures indicate that that is was only a matter of inches. I know all of this is open to debate and be torn to shreds but it was interesting to see some photos that suggest it was not that clear cut.


----------



## CMAC (Apr 16, 2013)

GB72 said:



			I know all of this is open to debate and be torn to shreds but it was interesting to see some photos that suggest it was not that clear cut.
		
Click to expand...

I also saw these 'photos' and yes it clearly looks likes inches when the tv footage (and Tiger own words) made it look like a few feet.

Photoshop anyone!


----------



## JPH (Apr 16, 2013)

Region3 said:



			I don't get it. Please put me out of my misery!
		
Click to expand...

And me


----------



## triple_bogey (Apr 16, 2013)

Jokingly, Lindsey Vonn's ex-husband has admitted to be the infamous caller.....:rofl:

No experts have piped up yet of the pic being photoshopped. Time will tell.


----------



## bladeplayer (Apr 16, 2013)

Region3 said:



			I don't get it. Please put me out of my misery!
		
Click to expand...

Not sure there is something to get Gary (otherwise im like you and don't see it ) I thought it was showing he in fact didn't drop 2 yards behind his original in fact his stance was very near his 1st, use the mark on the ground at camera mans left foot as a guide  , & the second pic shows the cameraman moved so position of the previous divot via the TV would have been distorted .. not sure tho  



GB72 said:



			I actually read an article online last night that brings into doubt whether there was a rule breach. The TV pictures were not taken from the same spot at the cameraman moved. This article had still photos taken from a photographer who did not move and by lining up divots and marks on the fairway it appears that Tiger may have been mistaken in thinking it was 2 yards away as the pictures indicate that that is was only a matter of inches. .
		
Click to expand...

As per my comment @ post #292

Just seen it on the beeb , 2 yards is aprox 6 feet .. it didnt even look like 2 feet to me , could be just the camera angle tho .. Personaly i dont think the drop was excessivly far behind the origional spot for a drop .. just my opinion tho


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 16, 2013)

gmc40 said:



			Therefore Luke Donald would have been disqualified. As would Tiger if the 'viewer' had not phoned in.
		
Click to expand...

Well, as no one had noticed it and player hadn't realised it, absolutely nothing would have happened. That's why the authorities brought in the 'Trial by Television' rule - as the coverage wasn't the same for everyone, highlighting the ones that are seen is deemed 'unfair'.



SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And if this is your buddy and he did what TW did and describes it to you in the clubhouse afterwards - and you realise that your mate has broken a rule and dropped in the wrong place - then what?  If he doesn't report his mistake to the club then you should.  Just that Tiger mentioned it to many millions of 'mates'.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed!



triple_bogey said:



			Jokingly, *Lindsey Vonn's* ex-husband has admitted to be the infamous caller.....:rofl:
		
Click to expand...

Possibly the reason why Tiger couldn't be reached overnight? 



DarthVega said:



			I also saw these 'photos' and yes it clearly looks likes inches when the tv footage (and Tiger own words) made it look like a few feet.
		
Click to expand...

Remember that it's the drop that has to be made as close as possible, not the result of the drop. Photo shows the latter.


----------



## Val (Apr 16, 2013)

I take it that despite all the photos and examinations taken place no one is actually listening to the guy who dropped saying he went back "2 yards further"


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 16, 2013)

Valentino said:



			I take it that despite all the photos and examinations taken place no one is actually listening to the guy who dropped saying he went back "2 yards further"
		
Click to expand...

May be he lied about this too? May be he wanted to get the weekend off, so he could go skiing or something with ms Vonn? If he gets dq, then he doesn't have to explain to his sponsors or the bookies why he didn't complete his 4 rounds. he wasn't going to win anyway, so why bother playing the weekend when there is something better on offer?


----------



## Val (Apr 16, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			May be he lied about this too? May be he wanted to get the weekend off, so he could go skiing or something with ms Vonn? If he gets dq, then he doesn't have to explain to his sponsors or the bookies why he didn't complete his 4 rounds. he wasn't going to win anyway, so why bother playing the weekend when there is something better on offer?
		
Click to expand...

Murph, that is too sensible a reason pal. It has to be more sinister.


----------



## JamesR (Apr 16, 2013)

I've not read every word but this has been quite an interesting thread.
My point of view, for what it's worth, is...

Golf is a sport, in Tiger's case a professional sport, it is played to win and get handsomely paid for winning.
So I can see why someone would not want to DQ themselves.
I get the impression that in many professional sports the etiquette of calling penalties on yourself is being eroded, they don't "walk" in cricket as often, there are stories of snooker players being accused of not calling push shots etc, so I suppose golf is going the same way.

I've seen Tiger accept rules officials decisions with good grace, it cost him two shots and a cut earlier this year. But why not let a rule help you if it can? They don't only have to be against the competitor do they?

Also, I wonder if he and his caddy shouldn't be more aware of the rules.

I'm glad he didn't get kicked out, because I'm a Tiger fan (there you go I admitted it - I think he's a brilliant golfer, he isn't a role model).
If the rules officials had decided to DQ him, then we would have all got on with it. They didn't, so again, lets get on with it anyway. It didn't affect my enjoyment of the tournament, only Monty came close to that.

Another thing, I heard and I don't think I've seen mentioned on here is that when Fred Ridley(?) was in a press conference he stated something to the effect that the committee had conferred with the tour(s) and governing bodies who had agreed with their course of action. So I think maybe some of the criticism of the committee may be a bit OTT.

Other that that all I can say is, wow how accurate and unlucky was that wedge shot!


----------



## duncan mackie (Apr 16, 2013)

Gil_Emott said:



			Another thing, I heard and I don't think I've seen mentioned on here is that when Fred Ridley(?) was in a press conference he stated something to the effect that the committee had conferred with the tour(s) and governing bodies who had agreed with their course of action. So I think maybe some of the criticism of the committee may be a bit OTT.
		
Click to expand...

The committee came in for 2 seperate criticisms in this thread - 
1. for not discussing the incident with TW before he signed his card, despite having effectively 'ruled' on his drop before he signed, and
2. for not DQ'ing him.

I beleive the first remains extremely valid and will result in new notes to Tournament Directors I'm sure - the second issue wouldn't have occured in the way it did if they had done this.


----------



## Region3 (Apr 16, 2013)

Gil_Emott said:



			I've seen Tiger accept rules officials decisions with good grace, *it cost him two shots and a cut earlier this year*. But why not let a rule help you if it can? They don't only have to be against the competitor do they?
		
Click to expand...

I'd have thought he was past playing just to get his handicap lower nowadays  (sorry couldn't help myself)




Gil_Emott said:



			I get the impression that in many professional sports the etiquette of calling penalties on yourself is being eroded, they don't "walk" in cricket as often, there are stories of snooker players being accused of not calling push shots etc, so I suppose golf is going the same way.
		
Click to expand...

On the subject of sportsmanship and calling penalties etc, there was a female England international cricketer interviewed on the radio a week or two ago because of the work she and others are doing with young kids, stressing on them the values of sportsmanship.

The interviewer asked her repeatedly if she would walk if she knew she had edged a ball that had been caught and all she kept saying is "it's up to the umpire to make that decision". Sad.


----------



## Region3 (Apr 16, 2013)

Hypothetically.......

If Tiger _thought _he was dropping 2 yards further back thinking it was allowed having got mixed up with the rule, but _actually _dropped within inches of the original spot, is it a penalty?


----------



## Fish (Apr 16, 2013)

Region3 said:



			Hypothetically.......

If Tiger _thought _he was dropping 2 yards further back thinking it was allowed having got mixed up with the rule, but _actually _dropped within inches of the original spot, is it a penalty?
		
Click to expand...

Hmm, going down the "intent" route now?


----------



## JustOne (Apr 16, 2013)

Gil_Emott said:



			I've not read every word but this has been quite an interesting thread.
My point of view, for what it's worth, is...

Golf is a sport, in Tiger's case a professional sport, it is played to win and get handsomely paid for winning.
So I can see why someone would not want to DQ themselves.
I get the impression that in many professional sports the etiquette of calling penalties on yourself is being eroded, they don't "walk" in cricket as often, there are stories of snooker players being accused of not calling push shots etc, so I suppose golf is going the same way.

I've seen Tiger accept rules officials decisions with good grace, it cost him two shots and a cut earlier this year. But why not let a rule help you if it can? They don't only have to be against the competitor do they?

Also, I wonder if he and his caddy shouldn't be more aware of the rules.

I'm glad he didn't get kicked out, because I'm a Tiger fan (there you go I admitted it - I think he's a brilliant golfer, he isn't a role model).
If the rules officials had decided to DQ him, then we would have all got on with it. They didn't, so again, lets get on with it anyway. It didn't affect my enjoyment of the tournament, only Monty came close to that.

Another thing, I heard and I don't think I've seen mentioned on here is that when Fred Ridley(?) was in a press conference he stated something to the effect that the committee had conferred with the tour(s) and governing bodies who had agreed with their course of action. So I think maybe some of the criticism of the committee may be a bit OTT.

Other that that all I can say is, wow how accurate and unlucky was that wedge shot!
		
Click to expand...

I just read the first few words of your post... could you summarise it please as I can't be bothered to read it all - ta!

:mmm:


----------



## Region3 (Apr 16, 2013)

Fish said:



			Hmm, going down the "intent" route now?
		
Click to expand...

Not at all, honestly just a hypothetical question.

Putting it the other way round, if a player and caddie were certain that they were within inches of the original spot but tv proved them to be 2yds away, is that a penalty?

If I were to trudge back down the fairway after finding my approach shot in the middle of a bush and 2 club lengths or 'back as far as you want on the line' don't give a shot, with the best will in the world of dropping 'as close as possible' I might end up 10' away. Is that a penalty?


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 16, 2013)

Region3 said:



			Hypothetically.......

If Tiger _thought _he was dropping 2 yards further back thinking it was allowed having got mixed up with the rule, but _actually _dropped within inches of the original spot, is it a penalty?
		
Click to expand...

If he thought he was dropping within inches and actually dropped within yards, he would be penalised. Therefore, if he thought he was dropping 2 yards away, but actually dropped within inches, he can't be penalised.

Surely the penalty is for breaching the rule, not thinking he had breached the rule?

If it is proven his drop was fine then this whole thing has been a comedy of errors, the only result of which is Tiger potentially losing the masters as that hole cost him probably 4 shots (assuming the original shot stopped close and he made birdie)


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 16, 2013)

Just found this...

After completing his final round (and tying for fourth), Woods was asked about the photos.

Reporter: Is there any chance that you were mistaken when you said you were two yards back, because there were photos that looked like you were in the exact same spot?

Woods: No, I saw the photos.

Reporter: What do you think?

Woods: I was behind it.

Reporter: You do?

Woods: Yeah.

Reporter: So, youâ€™re pretty sure that the two yards is actually â€¦

Woods: One, two yards. But it certainly was not as close as the rule says.

From http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/woods-positive-drop-was-illegal-despite-photos/


----------



## garyinderry (Apr 16, 2013)

what if he hadnt taken a divot?  he could have taken the two yards and no one would be any the wiser!


----------



## Colin L (Apr 16, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			N
Just seen it on the beeb , 2 yards is aprox 6 feet .. it didnt even look like 2 feet to me , could be just the camera angle tho .. Personaly i dont think the drop was excessivly far behind the origional spot for a drop .. just my opinion tho
		
Click to expand...

The ball should strike the ground within about 20cm of the spot.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 16, 2013)

garyinderry said:



			what if he hadnt taken a divot?  he could have taken the two yards and no one would be any the wiser!
		
Click to expand...

What if he hadn't said anything afterwards, or it was someone like Tim Clark who'd not been seen on TV all day? Again, no-one would be any the wiser.


----------



## duncan mackie (Apr 16, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			What if he hadn't said anything afterwards, or it was someone like Tim Clark who'd not been seen on TV all day? Again, no-one would be any the wiser.
		
Click to expand...

the problem with what if's is that we will never know....

TW might have realised the issue the next morning and withdrawn - note the irony here; he would have withdrawn without knowing the committee had already ruled!

(note also that you can't DQ yourself for those that have commentet to that effect - you just withdraw in this instance.)


----------



## gmc40 (Apr 16, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Well, as no one had noticed it and player hadn't realised it, absolutely nothing would have happened. That's why the authorities brought in the 'Trial by Television' rule - as the coverage wasn't the same for everyone, highlighting the ones that are seen is deemed 'unfair'.
		
Click to expand...

Am I confused? Or are you saying that it only came to light because the viewer phoned in? 

33/7 4.5 did not apply in this case and if the viewer had not of called Woods would have been disqualified. The viewer actually kept him in the comp.


----------



## duncan mackie (Apr 16, 2013)

gmc40 said:



			Am I confused? Or are you saying that it only came to light because the viewer phoned in? 

33/7 4.5 did not apply in this case and if the viewer had not of called Woods would have been disqualified. The viewer actually kept him in the comp.
		
Click to expand...

the combination of the timing of the viewers call and the committee's reaction

if the viewer in the Padraig Harrington incident had called in in a similar manner (before he'd signed) he would also have had a 2 shot penalty rather than DQ (although there are key differences in the incidents)


----------



## gmc40 (Apr 16, 2013)

duncan mackie said:



			the combination of the timing of the viewers call and the committee's reaction

if the viewer in the Padraig Harrington incident had called in in a similar manner (before he'd signed) he would also have had a 2 shot penalty rather than DQ (although there are key differences in the incidents)
		
Click to expand...

I know exactly what happened and the applicable rule. I thought (but could be mistaken) that Foxholer is saying 33/7 4.5 was the reason he was not disqualified. Which wasn't the case.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Apr 16, 2013)

duncan mackie said:



			the problem with what if's is that we will never know....

TW might have realised the issue the next morning and withdrawn - note the irony here; he would have withdrawn without knowing the committee had already ruled!

(note also that you can't DQ yourself for those that have commentet to that effect - you just withdraw in this instance.)
		
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, in fact I made the last point earlier in the thread. Unfortunately, we will never know a lot about this incident.


----------

