Woods gets 2 shot penalty - did it move?

[Backsticks]

Does the definiton of a ball moving in the rules mean just a ball 'changing location' or also a ball moving without changing location but rotating on an axis ?
In the TV footage we are clearly looking at a different part of his ball after it moves - and so concluding that it changed location rather just rocking back to its original one. But if the ball rotated while oscillating, ie. slipping on the leaves or twigs, and then does indeed roll back to its same position, then he his hard done by if we are concluding that the ball has moved.

 

[HughJars]

Doesn't look like its going to stop him having a massive chance of winning the thing still and at least he doesn't sulk around the course like Rory and co when things go against him. Heart of a lion!!!

Tiger, Tiger Woods you mean? The guy that's always on TV? The guy who swears and chucks clubs and batters the ground when things go a bit sour? That Tiger Woods? He doesn't sulk?

 

[Beezerk]

I really don't see the argument, Tiger obviously sees the ball move as he backs away straight after trying to move the twig.
Wonder if he thought he may get away with it as he was deep in the bushes?

 

[two-clubs]

Perhaps he thought ''better not remove that stick, the ball might move''

 

[HughJars]

Perhaps he thought ''better not remove that stick, the ball might move''

.....more

 

[duncan mackie]

Quote Originally Posted by duncan mackie View Post
you mis-understand the rule change

in this case if TW had signed and returned his card before a call/review, he would still have been DQ'd because -

1. he knew it had done something (he claimed it returned to the same point)
2. he could have established whether it had moved at the time, but didn't choose to.

Well then I guess the officials need to learn the rules too. We either believe him that he didn't think it actually moved and therefor no need to ask for a replay, or we believe he's a cheat.......

The officials know the rules - you seem further confused.

1. An error of judgement regarding whether a ball moved or not is not cheating.
2. If he had called an RO at the time he would have established a 1 shot penalty - he chose not to on his judgement, which subsquently proved wrong.
3. If he had subsequently been judged to have gain a significant advantage in not replacing the ball he would have been disqualified.

Personally I consider the additional penalty shot, and no possible advantage, as clear evidence that he really believed it hadn't moved, verging on proof!

 

[talksalot81]

I think he should have called a rules official at the time. Had he told them that he attempted to move a stick and the ball oscillated and returned to position then I suspect they would have said it was grand and then there would have been no question later.

 

[Mungoscorner]

The ball moves whilst he is attempting to remove one of the twigs, he knows it moved and that is why he decides to stop trying to remove twigs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dou8GRzVk7o

 

[duncan mackie]

I think he should have called a rules official at the time. Had he told them that he attempted to move a stick and the ball oscillated and returned to position then I suspect they would have said it was grand and then there would have been no question later.

almost

they would have reviewed all the available information and either -

1. agreed (effectively accepting the player's view in the abscence of any evidence to the contrary - in which case there would be no comeback if later evidence proved this conclusion false, unless the player was considered to have been in some way complicit.
2. in this case, based on the evidence, advised the player that it did move and that it needs replacing and he has a 1 shot penalty.

 

[Smiffy]

Makes me laugh this. Seve was one of the biggest rules benders in golf, not adverse to a bit of gamesmanship and rubbing refs up the wrong way. Yet God forbid if you were to say anything against him