Tiger to be DQ'd?

[Colin L]

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.

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]

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

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]

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

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]

anyone got a link to the interview?

 

[Val]

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.

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]

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 “referee’’ 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.

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]

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

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]

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

 

[Neddy]

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]

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

Their verdict is DQ. "Heartbreaking for the tournament"

 

[Fish]

anyone got a link to the interview?

His 3rd answer is key

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

 

[fundy]

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]

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]

His 3rd answer is key

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

Just saw it on sky fish, thanks

 

[fundy]

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

 

[harpo_72]

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]

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]

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

 

[Val]

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.

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

 

[Colin L]

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

Synchronisation again