gmc40
Head Pro
Therefore Luke Donald would have been disqualified. As would Tiger if the 'viewer' had not phoned in.
Tiger to be DQ'd?
- Thread starter Stuey01
- Start date
Therefore Luke Donald would have been disqualified. As would Tiger if the 'viewer' had not phoned in.
Region3
Ryder Cup Winner
I don't get it. Please put me out of my misery!
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
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
Money List Winner
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.
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
Q-School Graduate
And me
triple_bogey
Tour Rookie
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.
No experts have piped up yet of the pic being photoshopped. Time will tell.
bladeplayer
Money List Winner
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
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
Last edited:
Foxholer
Blackballed
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'.
Indeed!
Possibly the reason why Tiger couldn't be reached overnight?
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.
Last edited:
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
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
Grand Slam Winner
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
Ryder Cup Winner
Murph, that is too sensible a reason pal. It has to be more sinister.
D
Deleted member 1147
Guest
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!
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
Money List Winner
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
Ryder Cup Winner
I'd have thought he was past playing just to get his handicap lower nowadays
(sorry couldn't help myself)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
Ryder Cup Winner
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?
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?
Hmm, going down the "intent" route now?
JustOne
Ryder Cup Winner
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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)
