Tiger to be DQ'd?

[Deleted member 1418]

Not 100 Justone pages though. Way too much.

not on golf related posts anyway!!

 

[SyR]

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.

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]

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!!

You have had a year and a half to save up though. :mmm:

 

[Iaing]

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.

It was disrespectful to the game not to withdraw.

 

[Fader]

It was disrespectful to the game not to withdraw.

WhAt a load of tosh!

 

[Bomber69]

I can't believe that he has not withdrawn from this event, total shocking decision from him but after all the stuff in his past I am not surprised.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]

How many players over the years have called a penalty on themselves ?
They had honesty, courtesy and integrity, and upheld the rules of golf.

I do believe that Tiger has even done that too.

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.

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.

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

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]

WhAt a load of tosh!

I take it that you like to bend the rules when it suits you then?

'nuff said

 

[Fader]

I take it that you like to bend the rules when it suits you then?

'nuff 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:

 

[Foxholer]

I take it that you like to bend the rules when it suits you then?

'nuff said

Absolutely nothing wrong with bending rules - that's how the Pros get so much relief.

Breaking them is a different story though!

 

[Iaing]

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:

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]

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]

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 “gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong place”, and then compounded it by submitting an incorrect card. Two reasons for DQ.

The committee cannot waive the rules, and it wasn’t their decision to make. TW DQ’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 can’t just drop the ball where you like – downhill slope, don’t like that, sandy lie, don’t like that, tree in the way, don’t like that, etc. etc. You drop it where the rules say you should.

 

[bobmac]

Foxholer, in future, if you get the urge to edit my posts....... please don't.
Thank you

 

[Foxholer]

Foxholer, in future, if you get the urge to edit my posts....... please don't.
Thank you

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]

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. Tthe 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

 

[Colin L]

The committee cannot waive the rules, and it wasn’t their decision to make. TW DQ’ed himself by his actions, irrespective of any rulings.

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]

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]

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]

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: