stevie_r
Tour Winner
Has the pope got a balcony?
Tiger to be DQ'd?
- Thread starter Stuey01
- Start date
Has the pope got a balcony?
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
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
Occasional Tour Caddy
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!
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!
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 player’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...!
Last edited:
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
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.
T
thecraw
Guest
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.
If your a big enough player you can break the rules and get away with it.
Doon frae Troon
Ryder Cup Winner
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.
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.
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.
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
Tour Winner
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.
D
Deleted member 1418
Guest
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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!
S
Snelly
Guest
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.
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
Major Champion
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:
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
Major Champion
I fully agree with your analysis of the context of the rule, and TWs part in the incident. @SILH
triple_bogey
Tour Rookie
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
Challenge Tour Pro
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 £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
Blackballed
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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...
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!!!!
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
Tour Rookie
Makes perfect sense, but I've said this many times. Some just CANNOT see past the hate for the man. (not golfer)
HawkeyeMS
Ryder Cup Winner
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.
