Is this Cheating?

[Sphere Hunter]

WOW, 32 is a ton of strokes to have to give up and you still won
Did your oponent feel like a

I think he did feel beat up. I did nothing special. In fact, I played above my handicap that day by 5 or 6 shots.
Since I wasn;t really in the match, it didn't matter. It was Mr. 32 against himself. I just watched and helped him look for his ball. Maybe he was injured but he was too nice a man to give excuses.


Thanks BCmist for explaining the temporary handciap thing. I've never heard of that before.

[rpangman]

We all have played with guys who are having a good round and then suddenly 3 putt the last 3 or 4 holes. Sandbagging at its best.

[jonf]

By that definition, I am the ultimate sandbagger. But I assure you, when I screw up the last 4 holes and blow my round, it is NOT intentional

[BullDog]

Errr. 148 and counting.

Yeah... how much longer does this horse get beaten? Anyone want to start a pool and bet on when Dan finally locks this one down for good?!

Mike

[BC MIST]

Yeah... how much longer does this horse get beaten? Anyone want to start a pool and bet on when Dan finally locks this one down for good?!

Mike

Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, perhaps the thread has made us more aware of the importance of earning an accurate handicap factor, of the strengths and perceived weaknesses of the handicap System and of the disrespect that a very few have of the both the game and the system.

Ultimately golf is a game of honesty, like few others, with no cops or referees to call infractions. Because of this, there are always going to be cheaters and IMO, there would be fewer if those of us who play honestly could get ourselves into a position to do something about it. You can certainly understand why the RCGA now mandates that every member golf club have an active Handicap Committee that both educates the members about the system and nails those who don't comply. All it takes is a little effort.

[Terry Clarke]

With regards to the Tiger boulder thing. The boulder was obviously placed in
such a position by the course designer to punish a wayward tee shot. While
moving the boulder technically did not break any rules, it was still unethical.

DO NOT EQUATE RULE BREAKING AND ETHICS THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

You do not have to break a rule to be unethical. Rules are interpreted, it is impossible for a rule book to cover every eventuality. The spirit of any rule is
the most important thing and unfortunately the rule is only as good as the person
doing the interpreting. Was the boulder moveable under the rules? YES. Was it
the intention of the course designer that the boulder be moved if someone was
snookered? I would have to say NO. Otherwise why would he have put it there?
In that sense under the spirit of the rule, that was not intended to be a moveable
obstruction or a loose impediment.

What if the next player who came along was snookered behind the moved boulder
but he could not find anyone willing to help him move it. What if he then proceeded
to lose to Tiger by one stroke? Would that be fair?

I guarantee after a few sticks of dynamite, anything would be considered a loose
impediment. Is there anything in the rule book about dynamite?

Golfbum, don't worry I don't let it stress me out. I play my game. I was just
pointing out how eroded the idea of sportsmanship and fair play is becoming
in our society. Even if surrounded by cheaters I will still continue to uphold
my values, at night a candle is definitely brighter than the sun.

[BC MIST]

With regards to the Tiger boulder thing. The boulder was obviously placed in
such a position by the course designer to punish a wayward tee shot. While
moving the boulder technically did not break any rules, it was still unethical.
DO NOT EQUATE RULE BREAKING AND ETHICS THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

Teachers, doctors, lawyers have a written code of ethics by which they must follow. While golf has a written code of etiquette, it is not the same as a code of ethics. Because no rule was broken nothing unethical took place. It is your opinion that something unethical took place, but that's all it is. An opinion. The facts speak for themselves.

You do not have to break a rule to be unethical. Rules are interpreted,

Wrong. Rules are misinterpreted. Nearest point of relief does not mean best point of relief. Rules are misinterpreted because we don't know them and/or because we believe someone else's lack of knowledge of a rule.

Was the boulder moveable under the rules? YES.
In that sense under the spirit of the rule, that was not intended to be a moveable
obstruction or a loose impediment.

Regardless of the intent, it was what it was. A loose impediment. And Tiger et al broke no rule. If you read my post above you MAY have seen that the rules makers saw a weakness in the rule and changed it so that now if Tiger et al moved the boulder, it would be a penalty. But it was not, then.

What if the next player who came along was snookered behind the moved boulder
but he could not find anyone willing to help him move it. What if he then proceeded
to lose to Tiger by one stroke? Would that be fair?

Yes. In golf the element of luck is way out of proportion. But that is golf.

I guarantee after a few sticks of dynamite, anything would be considered a loose
impediment. Is there anything in the rule book about dynamite?

Yes there is. Now go find the rule or decision that covers this.

No-one here is trying to deprive you of having and expressing an opinion. However, it seems that you are trying to stuff your opinion down our throats as though what you say is fact. It is not. No-one cheated. No-one was unethical.

Last question. Is it OK in your mind for television viewers to call in or for spectators on site to report a Tour player for breaking a rule, that no-one else on site saw?

[Terry Clarke]

The fact that they changed the rule after Tiger moved the boulder proves that he
was not operating within the spirit of the rule. Once again, just because no rule
was broken by moving the boulder does not mean it was not unethical to move it.

I fear for the future of golf when there are so many, you included, who are so
willing to take advantage of any perceived weakness in a rule when they fully
understand the intent of the rule, then chose to ignore that intent anyway.

The boulder was placed there for the purpose of punishing a bad tee shot.
Instead of trying to find a loophole and wandering into a very grey area
with regard to ethics, Tiger should have just taken his medicine. That simple.

[Terry Clarke]

Your question:
"Last question. Is it OK in your mind for television viewers to call in or for spectators on site to report a Tour player for breaking a rule, that no-one else on site saw?"


My Answer:
They shouldn't have to.

[jvincent]

I fear for the future of golf when there are so many, you included, who are so
willing to take advantage of any perceived weakness in a rule when they fully
understand the intent of the rule, then chose to ignore that intent anyway.

The boulder was placed there for the purpose of punishing a bad tee shot.
Instead of trying to find a loophole and wandering into a very grey area
with regard to ethics, Tiger should have just taken his medicine. That simple.

There is no intent with respect to the rules. They are applied as written, subject to clarification in the decisions.

If a player knows the rules and is able to apply them to his/her advantage that just makes them a better player.

If the course designer had meant for the boulder to be immovable, he should have embedded it.

[BC MIST]

The fact that they changed the rule after Tiger moved the boulder proves that he was not operating within the spirit of the rule. Once again, just because no rule was broken by moving the boulder does not mean it was not unethical to move it.

And once again you have proven that there is only one way to look at everything and that is your way. Most reasonable people try to look at an issue from a point of view other than there own, and while they may not agree with an alternate point of view, they can often see the logic behind it. The logic behind mine and many other's comments is based on playing by the rules. Your comments are consistently laced with contradictions but you seem NOT to be able to see this. Tiger played within the rules at that time but you say he should not have moved or have not had moved the boulder. Tiger played by the rules but it would have made you happier if he did not. How contradictory is that?

I fear for the future of golf when there are so many, you included, who are so willing to take advantage of any perceived weakness in a rule when they fully understand the intent of the rule, then chose to ignore that intent anyway.[/B]

What is truly unethical are golfers who do NOT play by the rules. By your suggesting that Tiger should NOT have played by the rules of the time, are you not being as unethical as you think he is. You want to play golf BY OPINION, and this is truly scary. Your thought process of, "My ball is interfered with by the boulder, I am allowed to move the boulder, but in my opinion, I shouldn't, so I won't," is your choice, and that is all. If your opponent played outside the teeing ground and hit a 400 yard drive, you would never consider having him replay the shot, because it would be "unethical." It would be your choice, withing the rules, but NOT unethical.

Your comment about my taking advantage of the weakness in a rule is most revealing. You do not know anything about me nor do you know you how I play the game. I love golf, respect the rules of golf and I play by them. While my game is far from perfect, I have done OK over the years and I have done so by playing by the Rules and being as courteous and as considerate as possible and for you to infer anything to the contrary is ignorant. I have seem my ball roll forward 1/8", and called the penalty on myself when no-one else saw the ball move, and lost being the outright winner by doing so. I have also played my ball into some ground under repair, behind some trees with no shot, however, in playing by the rules and properly taking relief, I was able top get a clear shot. You, from your ivory tower, would condemn me for doing this. The Rules of Golf and the resulting Decisions tell golfers what is or is what NOT acceptable. They are not opinions, as you obviously see some of them.

Your question:
"Last question. Is it OK in your mind for television viewers to call in or for spectators on site to report a Tour player for breaking a rule, that no-one else on site saw?"
My Answer:
They shouldn't have to.

Is it unethical to answer a "Yes" or "No" question with a "Yes," or a "No." You just don't get it. Permanently out.

[Terry Clarke]

BC Mist, sorry I avoided your trap. You will have to think of a better one than
that. Can you spell OBVIOUS???

[Kilroy]

Terry, I am certain that BC is not trying to bait you. I share his frustration in trying to communicate with you. It would be great if you would be less confrontational, and at least try to see the other side.

[AAA]

The fact that they changed the rule after Tiger moved the boulder proves that he was not operating within the spirit of the rule.

The Rule was in existence well before the Tiger incident. It was not changed afterwards. You need to get your facts right before taking on an argument.

[Terry Clarke]

AAA, read back a few posts, I wasn't the one who initially said the rule was
changed after Tiger.

[Terry Clarke]

AAA, I was just taking what BC MIST said:

QUOTE:
Regardless of the intent, it was what it was. A loose impediment. And Tiger et al broke no rule. If you read my post above you MAY have seen that the rules makers saw a weakness in the rule and changed it so that now if Tiger et al moved the boulder, it would be a penalty. But it was not, then.
UNQUOTE:

Maybe you are the one who should do some research before taking on an argument.

[AAA]

AAA, read back a few posts, I wasn't the one who initially said the rule was
changed after Tiger.

My apologies. I have been away for a week and skipped some of the intermediate pages. I hadn't realised BCMIst had got it wrong.

[AAA]

In rethinking Tiger's scenario, would the boulder NOT have been a loose impediment instead of a moveable obstruction as I indicated above.

Before Decision 23/2 was included, having the spectators move the boulder was acceptable. No rule was broken and so nothing unethical was done.

In their infinite wisdom, the powers at be saw a weakness in the rule that gave too much of an advantage to the player for a bad shot, and changed the rule. Good for them.

I'm unclear about what you are saying. A boulder was/is a loose impediment. You have always been able to get help in moving a loose impediment. No rule was changed as a result of the Woods' incident.
D23/2 is about 'embedded'. This boulder was sitting on the surface not partially embedded.

[Kiwi battler]

Sandbagging , no doubt

Here in New Zealand we have a handicap system that basically averages out the 10 best of your last 20 cards ........
The system is designed to give "an indication of how good a player can play"

Such actions as using your weakest club in non championship games so as to inflate the handicap , wether deliberate or not , would likely rise the curiosity of the duely appointed handicapper ...as much as not putting in midweek cards , or numerous midweek cards way worse than clubday scores
The handicapper does have the power to "assess" a players ability and adjust his handicap accordingly.....

[Terry Clarke]

Happy Masters Day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mpare]

Well, there's something that is not likely to lead to any argument.

Happy Masters Day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sensfan63]

I fear for the future of golf when there are so many, you included, who are so
willing to take advantage of any perceived weakness in a rule when they fully
understand the intent of the rule, then chose to ignore that intent anyway.

.

Mr. Clarke:

If you ever have gone 1 km/h over the speed limit, then you have no right to impune anyone else's integrity over perceived "weaknesses" in rules. Because we all know that you can go at least 10 km/h over the speed limit and not get pulled over. But you still know what the rule is, so do you break it???

You don't know BC MIST, and neither do I, personally anyways. But I remember him from 20 years ago, when I was a kid and I watched him win club championships at my club. He has a great reputation in the Ottawa area, and for you to simply dismiss his integrity with a wide brush is a bunch of BS. A lot of us on this board know him, or know of him, but nobody knows you. I think we'll take his side in this, and dismiss YOU. Go away.

[Golfbum]

Terry, I am certain that BC is not trying to bait you. I share his frustration in trying to communicate with you. It would be great if you would be less confrontational, and at least try to see the other side.

Well said Dan. Communicating with Terry is like

Terry if you have ever bent any rules, in life, work or play then you really have no rights to sit at your desk and post comments towards people you have never met in person.

The majority of your posts on this forum are right here in this one thread. Have you taken time to read through this forum, and find out what BC Mist is all about? I somehow doubt you have. If you had, you would see that Lyle, of all people who be least likely to bend any rules of golf.

Like I said before, do not let this matter stress you out. Go play your game of golf, but do not sit there and say that other members of this forum are out to bend the rules of the game in any way that that gives them an advantage. I for one have played golf for 25 years and I try to play the game the way it was meant to be played. I am pretty sure the majority of the members of this forum do the same thing. It appears you know the Rule Book inside and out, and that is good for you. For the people who play the game of golf for relaxation, exercise and fun, they do not need to know the Rule Book inside and out. Most PGA Tour players do not know the Rule Book inside and out. If they did there would be no need for Rules Officials at Tour events.

Relax, watch The Masters and let this thread die.

LOCK ER UP DAN

[BC MIST]

My apologies. I have been away for a week and skipped some of the intermediate pages. I hadn't realised BCMIst had got it wrong.

I did get it wrong. I confused part of the definition of an obstruction (movable) "....it can be moved without unreasonable effort ..." with that of a loose impediment(boulder). So if Tiger gets behind that same rock again he can move it (he is now strong enough) or have it moved, WITHOUT PENALTY, even if the ethics police are watching.

At least I listen and learn from my mistakes.

[BC MIST]

You don't know BC MIST, and neither do I, personally anyways. But I remember him from 20 years ago, when I was a kid and I watched him win club championships at my club. He has a great reputation in the Ottawa area, and for you to simply dismiss his integrity with a wide brush is a bunch of BS. A lot of us on this board know him, or know of him, but nobody knows you. I think we'll take his side in this, and dismiss YOU. Go away.

Hmmmm. 20 years ago, eh? Carleton Golf and Yacht Club? Was it in a playoff? If "Yes," - 1986. If "No," - 1985. Have an idea. Time goes by too fast.

[sensfan63]

Hmmmm. 20 years ago, eh? Carleton Golf and Yacht Club? Was it in a playoff? If "Yes," - 1986. If "No," - 1985. Have an idea. Time goes by too fast.

definitely a playoff...against George Brancato Jr. amd someone else, can't remember. Maybe Mr. Keith Zavitski?

[AAA]

At least I listen and learn from my mistakes.

[BC MIST]

definitely a playoff...against George Brancato Jr. amd someone else, can't remember. Maybe Mr. Keith Zavitski?

Actually George and I were the only two in the playoff but Keith, who won the CGYC several times, came along and watched.

Funny, while most other club championships are a blur, some of this one sticks out. George was ahead and coming down 17, I believe, he hooked badly and this allowed me to tie and force the playoff. In the playoff we both parred 1 and 2 and I just made a 15 footer or so on #3 to win. I know those that watched the playoff wanted George to win and that's understandable, but it was nice to come through when the pressure was on.

George JR, like his dad, is a superb athlete and I gather still plays a good game of golf. Oh to have that kind of ability.

BTW: Do you recall the ruling we had in the fairway on #3? This will test your memory.