Tiger's drop on 15

[Txxxxxxx]

Say hi to Tiger for me

Taken from and interview with Jack Nicklaus. Do a search and you'll see he mentions it.

Good try though...

[zee51]

Understand complete sequence of events. Perhaps other factors contributed and maybe not.

Regardless of committee decision, I am disappointed that Tiger's choice of not to withdraw knowing that he had violated the rules.

Understand that he was not obligated to do so but I know that under the formal rules there would be know question and moreover the boys from the old school would not have hesitated to DQ or withdraw.

Disappointed in current decline of integity and honour.

[TLB]

Understand complete sequence of events. Perhaps other factors contributed and maybe not.

Regardless of committee decision, I am disappointed that Tiger's choice of not to withdraw knowing that he had violated the rules.

Understand that he was not obligated to do so but I know that under the formal rules there would be know question and moreover the boys from the old school would not have hesitated to DQ or withdraw.

Disappointed in current decline of integrity and honour.

Zee51,

Probably the best opinion stated on this thread !

[AAA]

Why should he do that? He got the 2 stroke penalty due. The committee messed up the original decision, not Woods.

[jlaidley]

Why should he do that? He got the 2 stroke penalty due. The committee messed up the original decision, not Woods.

Pleases explain why you think Woods did not make an incorrect decision when he dropped illegally.

Not a precedent. Already covered by a decision. See 34-3/1.5 Case 2

Thanks very much for being so specific. If I've go the right section, I've copied it below and bolded the sections that I think make that decision different than what occurred at the Masters. I am not certified rules official but it seems pretty clear to me that the Decision allows a player who has been ADVISED of a ruling to rely upon it. And that makes total sense. Tiger was not ADVISED on this ruling so I don't think he can rely on it based on this Decision.

34-3/1.5
Committee Error and Scoring in Stroke Play

A player is responsible for knowing the Rules (Rule 6-1), but there may be situations, immediately before and during a stipulated round, when an official representative of the Committee provides the player with incorrect information on the Rules. The player is entitled to act on such information in his subsequent play. Consequently, the Committee may be required to make a judgment as to both the duration of the player's entitlement and his proper score when, as a result of proceeding according to the incorrect information provided by the official, he is liable to a penalty under the Rules.

In these situations, the Committee should resolve the matter in whatever manner it considers most equitable, in light of all the facts and with the objective of ensuring that no player receives an undue advantage or disadvantage. In cases where the incorrect information significantly affects the results of the competition, the Committee may have no option but to cancel the round. The following principles, in equity (Rule 1-4), are applicable:

1. General Guidance on the Rules
When a member of the Committee or a referee provides incorrect information in the nature of general guidance about the Rules, the player should not be exempt from penalty.

2. Specific Ruling
When a referee makes a specific ruling that is contrary to the Rules in a specific situation, the player should be exempt from penalty. The Committee has the authority to extend this exemption for the duration of the round in circumstances where the player proceeds incorrectly on his own in exactly the same manner as advised by a referee earlier in the round. However, that exemption would cease if, in that round, the player becomes aware of the proper procedure or has his actions questioned.

But even if it is not a new precedent, if a player is allowed to rely on a decision he didn't receive then consider this:

* Player a takes a drop incorrectly/accidentally and does not know it.
* The Rules Official for the group sees the drop take place. ponders it for a moment (as he should for everything he watches) and thinks the drop is fine. Says nothing to the player.
* Drop is later determined to be incorrect after the card was signed. Normally a DQ, but.......
* If Player can rely on a ruling the Rules Official made but did not communicate, then Player should just get 2 strokes added to his score but no DQ.

The only difference from the Masters situation is the decision was made by the on course referee (who is an official representative of the committee) made the decision rather than the off-course committee.

Comments?

[nokids]

Read post 194, BCMist's "last attempt"

Never mind, you already did

[jlaidley]

Read post 194, BCMist's "last attempt"

Never mind, you already did

Thanks for noticing.

Put a simpler way, I am saying:
* It is not at all obvious that 34-3/1.5 Case 2 was intended to cover rulings not given to the player.
* But at this point the Masters has ruled and apparently the USGA, R&A and PGA Tour have supported that rule.
* So if it is a done deal and if that is the intent/interpretation, then there are some very slippery slope consequences to that which should be very unappealing to rules officials and the game. The first of which I outlined in #215 above for comments (on course ref sees a situation, makes an incorrect assessment that it is OK and does not say anything).

[AAA]

Pleases explain why you think Woods did not make an incorrect decision when he dropped illegally.

Players don't make decisions or rulings. Referees and committees do.

Thanks very much for being so specific. If I've go the right section, I've copied it below and bolded the sections that I think make that decision different than what occurred at the Masters. I am not certified rules official but it seems pretty clear to me that the Decision allows a player who has been ADVISED of a ruling to rely upon it. And that makes total sense. Tiger was not ADVISED on this ruling so I don't think he can rely on it based on this Decision.

It wasn't based on that decision.

The committee made a ruling. Whether it was communicated to the player or not it was still a ruling.

* If Player can rely on a ruling the Rules Official made but did not communicate, then Player should just get 2 strokes added to his score but no DQ.

The only difference from the Masters situation is the decision was made by the on course referee (who is an official representative of the committee) made the decision rather than the off-course committee.

Correct. But 'ruling' would be a better word than 'decision'.

[jlaidley]

But even if it is not a new precedent, if a player is allowed to rely on a decision he didn't receive then consider this:

* Player a takes a drop incorrectly/accidentally and does not know it.
* The Rules Official for the group sees the drop take place. ponders it for a moment (as he should for everything he watches) and thinks the drop is fine. Says nothing to the player.
* Drop is later determined to be incorrect after the card was signed. Normally a DQ, but.......
* If Player can rely on a ruling the Rules Official made but did not communicate, then Player should just get 2 strokes added to his score but no DQ.

The only difference from the Masters situation is the decision was made by the on course referee (who is an official representative of the committee) made the decision rather than the off-course committee.

Comments?

Correct. But 'ruling' would be a better word than 'decision'.

That's what I thought the outcome would be. Following this line through a step further if

• a Rules Official sees something happen on the course, but sees no rules violation (effectively ruling there was no violation)
• there is later determined to be a rules violation which would add strokes to a player's score
• The player should not be DQ'd for signing a wrong scorecard because the player can rely on the ruling the official made but he did not hear about.

That being the case players should never be DQ'd for signing a wrong scorecard as long as Rules Officials are watching.

[AAA]

THe player would have to pretty sure the referee was watching and aware of exactly what was going on.
If he had any doubt about what he was doing he should mention it to the recorder.
Recorder will usually ask a player if he encountered any possible problems out on the course. If he says no, then he cannot rely on the referee's inaction if questioned later if someone else reported a suspected breach.

Player is doubtful if he was in a WH when he moved a branch. He looked over at a nearby referee some 50 yards away who didn't make a comment or look concerned.
He didn't say anything to anyone including his marker or the recorder and didn't record a penalty.
Later a spectator made a comment to a committee member. The committee member took the player to the spot and found the player's ball was in the WH. The player said the referee didn't say anything.
The player had every opportunity to check. DQ.
This where 33-7/4.5 is applicable. See last example in the decision.

[jlaidley]

THe player would have to pretty sure the referee was watching and aware of exactly what was going on.
If he had any doubt about what he was doing he should mention it to the recorder.

But that's not what happened with Tiger. Essentially a rules official came forward afterwards, that was watching and thought at the time it was OK. Tiger had absolutely no knowledge when he signed his card that the situation was being watched, evaluated, that an official had ruled or that they had rule favourably.

Player is doubtful if he was in a WH when he moved a branch. He looked over at a nearby referee some 50 yards away who didn't make a comment or look concerned.
He didn't say anything to anyone including his marker or the recorder and didn't record a penalty.
Later a spectator made a comment to a committee member. The committee member took the player to the spot and found the player's ball was in the WH. The player said the referee didn't say anything.
The player had every opportunity to check. DQ.
This where 33-7/4.5 is applicable. See last example in the decision.

But if they asked the referee after the round and the referee said it had looked fine to him at the time so he didn't say anything then an official ruled at the time, but did not tell the player, the player can still rely on that decision = no DQ, right?

[AAA]

[QUOTE=jlaidley;476497]But that's not what happened with Tiger. Essentially a rules official came forward afterwards that was watching and thought at the time it was OK. He had absolutely no knowledge that the situation was being watched, evaluated, that an official had ruled or that they had rule favourably.[quote]


A TV viewer rang in. It has been suggested he was an RO but nothing to do with the event so with no more standing than the guy next door.
I have heard nothing about the referee coming forwards afterwards but I can well believe the referee behind the green could see nothing wrong as his view would be foreshortened.

But if they asked the referee after the round and the referee said it had looked fine to him at the time so he didn't say anything then an official ruled at the time, but did not tell the player, the player can still rely on that decision = no DQ, right?

Right. No 2sp either. A referee's decision is final, whether or not it is correct. However, the committee can override him providing the referee consents to a reference to the committee.

[mpare]

The Manager of the Rules for the R&A today advised me of a joint press statement that was issued by R&A and the USGA explaining the ruling made by the rules committee of the Augusta National Golf Club. For those interested in this issue, here is a link to their press release:

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/N...Statement.aspx

[stevek]

Can O'Worms Re-Opened!!

[mpare]

Not at all. It's simply a clear and compelling explanation if the ruling and its limited application.

Can O'Worms Re-Opened!!

[AAA]

Can O'Worms Re-Opened!!

Whatever others may say or think, the RBs have said their piece, have quoted the rules and explained how they were used correctly.

The worms are dead. like the horse.

[BARGEGOLF]

This will be of interest.

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/ti...3-inside-story

[leftylucas]

I was just glad to see that there was no favourtism involved in the ruling, (cough, cough). It seems that the commitee gave him a very generous definition of "as near as possible" then it backfired on them and they had to eat humble pie.

[2Low4U]

I was just glad to see that there was no favourtism involved in the ruling, (cough, cough). It seems that the commitee gave him a very generous definition of "as near as possible" then it backfired on them and they had to eat humble pie.

What are you saying? He got penalized for the illegal drop for NOT dropping it at the nearest possible point. The controversy came when people said he should be DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard.

He took the infamous "drop" then someone called in saying it wasn't at the nearest possible point, the rules committee reviewed it and said their is no penalty. So when Tiger went into the scoring tent they said he was good to go and signed his card. Then at his interview he said he explained how he dropped it and it sounded weird so they reviewed it again and determined that he would incur a 2 stroke penalty for it. You can't DQ a guy for signing for the score the rules committee originally told him was the proper number.

Brandel Chamblee and Nick Faldo were on live TV saying he should be disgraced to be a golfer and should DQ himself without knowing the facts and almost got fired on the spot for it. They came on afterwards and had a formal apology in Butler Cabin infront of a live audience because they know they ed up. I wish they woulda got canned, those 2 clowns are garbage for golf and an embarrassment to broadcasting.

[leftylucas]

My cough cough was in reference to the fact that the committee decided when they looked at it that he had NOT made an illegal drop. They did not tell Tiger about it (they had made the original no penalty ruling when he was on 18) because they had decided it was not a penalty. They had egg on their face when Tiger admited after the round that he did not drop as close as possible to the original shot. That is the favouratism I am speaking of, you know like the leeway that Sydney Crosby gets with referees (Gretzky on Gilmour??) I am not saying anything about Tiger per say, he paid the penalty but the committee should have done it immediately instead of as they said "made a mistake" For example, if it was the amateur from China, they would have not made the same ruling I am sure.

[2Low4U]

If it was the amateur from China he wouldn't of gotten a penalty stroke at all because nobody would of called it in. IMO.

[BC MIST]

My cough cough was in reference to the fact that the committee decided when they looked at it that he had NOT made an illegal drop. They did not tell Tiger about it (they had made the original no penalty ruling when he was on 18) because they had decided it was not a penalty. They had egg on their face when Tiger admited after the round that he did not drop as close as possible to the original shot. That is the favouratism I am speaking of, you know like the leeway that Sydney Crosby gets with referees (Gretzky on Gilmour??) I am not saying anything about Tiger per say, he paid the penalty but the committee should have done it immediately instead of as they said "made a mistake" For example, if it was the amateur from China, they would have not made the same ruling I am sure.

There is no doubt that mistakes were made, by both Tiger and the Committee, however, to indicate that favouritism was the basis of the Committee's initial, incorrect ruling, is just not right. Had they initially ruled against Tiger, he would have been informed prior to the signing of the scorecard. Because they initially ruled in his favour, there was no need for a discussion with him.

Even though the committee should have initially looked at what happened more closely, they didn't, which was careless, but all was acknowledged and corrected within the Rules. They have a fervent desire to "get it right," in spite of what happened. Remember: There are two kinds of Rules Officials. Those who have made mistakes and those who will. I am sure that Gerry and I will make one some day.

[AAA]

I hadn't realised until recently that have is no longer spelt that way.

[BARGEGOLF]

Geoff Shackelford has an interesting post on Tiger's drop on Sunday at Sawgrass.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/home...l-in-play.html

Notwithstanding the drop, he still took a 6 on the hole.

[AAA]

The blimp was not immediately above the line of flight so it tells you absolutely zilch.

Listen to the commentators here. Particularly the one from behind the shot.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/golf-d...124525467.html

[mjf]

I've got a few thoughts about Dropgate 2.0:

- Tiger's drop was almost certainly NOT in the proper place. I'd say he dropped too close to the hole and maybe WAY too close to the hole. The blimp shot shows the ball appearing to start 'down the middle', but the blimp is clearly positioned off to the right of the hole so it's deceiving and the ball likely started down the right side of the fairway. However, it's pretty clear that the ball was hooking pretty hard right off the bat. Given that the ball landed 20+ feet into the lake, it would have had to have entered the hazard going almost sideways for his drop to be legit.

- I think most people, in similar circumstances, estimate the point where the ball crossed the margin of the hazard pretty generously. I half wonder if players, PGA Tour players in particular, give their fellow competitors the benefit of the doubt just to avoid ruffling feathers and so that maybe they'll get some generous ruling payback at some point in the future.

- Tiger may or may not have known where the ball crossed the margin, but his MO is to take whatever he can get away with. Wittenberg gave him a 'good' drop position... why wouldn't he take it?

- It almost certainly made no difference in the outcome of the tournament. Most likely, he would have taken a double regardless of where he took the drop.

[AAA]

The curve on a hook gets tighter with distance. Howard Clark said it started way out over the bunker.