Tiger's drop on 15

[jeffc]

We are learning that "as nearly as possibly" is to be taken literally and the two stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place, is justified.

He would normally be disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard, but:
The issue was discussed with him by the Committee before he signed his card and they ruled - no penalty, and Tiger signed.

Subsequently, and after further review, they determined that he did play from a wrong place, assessed a two stroke penalty with no disqualification. The Committee has the right to assess a penalty "after the fact" upon review and if other facts are brought forward. Tiger was not disqualified, because he signed his scorecard based on the incorrect ruling giving to him by the Committee and this absolves him from fault for the incorrect signing.

After all the furor, the officials got it right. As they always do.

So the committee messed up? Why didn't they look at all evidence at the time. It's pretty obvious he didn't drop at the nearest possible spot. It's easy to say they got it right, but they made a bad situation even worse by not applying the rule properly at the time of the infraction.

[mpare]

Lyle, a post that I made elsewhere is equally applicable here:

If that is what actually happened, then a DQ would not have been fair since Tiger would only have signed his scorecard after receiving the committee's nod of approval with respect to the action he had taken on 15. Has the Masters actually stated that this is what happened?

Edit: I just saw a part of their press release. The release said that "... the Committee had previously reviewed the information and made its initial determination prior to the finish of the player's round." What it doesn't say, though, is whether they discussed this with Tiger before he signed his card, and on the strenhth of which Tiger signed his card. If that did not happen, then why wouldn't a DQ still be in order? Better yet, if the committee discussed it with Tiger, why would they not have discovered from him, before he signed his card, what actually happened on 15? Tiger was very candid about it during the press conference, and yet presumably none of this came out during their chat with him before he signed his card. This just doesn't add up.

We are learning that "as nearly as possibly" is to be taken literally and the two stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place, is justified.

He would normally be disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard, but:
The issue was discussed with him by the Committee before he signed his card and they ruled - no penalty, and Tiger signed.

Subsequently, and after further review, they determined that he did play from a wrong place, assessed a two stroke penalty with no disqualification. The Committee has the right to assess a penalty "after the fact" upon review and if other facts are brought forward. Tiger was not disqualified, because he signed his scorecard based on the incorrect ruling giving to him by the Committee and this absolves him from fault for the incorrect signing.

After all the furor, the officials got it right. As they always do.

[BC MIST]

Edit: I just saw a part of their press release. The release said that "... the Committee had previously reviewed the information and made its initial determination prior to the finish of the player's round." What it doesn't say, though, is whether they discussed this with Tiger before he signed his card, and on the strenhth of which Tiger signed his card. If that did not happen, then why wouldn't a DQ still be in order? Better yet, if the committee discussed it with Tiger, why would they not have discovered from him, before he signed his card, what actually happened on 15? Tiger was very candid about it during the press conference, and yet presumably none of this came out during their chat with him before he signed his card. This just doesn't add up.

Time will tell and hopefully, all the facts will be forthcoming.

The two stroke penalty was deserved. Based on the information that he signed his scorecard after some Committee discussion regarding the drop on 15, the Rules would not disqualify him and he should not withdraw, in spite of the comments by Brandel Chamblee et al.

[jvincent]

Time will tell and hopefully, all the facts will be forthcoming.

The two stroke penalty was deserved. Based on the information that he signed his scorecard after some Committee discussion regarding the drop on 15, the Rules would not disqualify him and he should not withdraw, in spite of the comments by Brandel Chamblee et al.

How about this scenario.

Somebody tells the Committee that Tiger bent his putter in anger, subsequently fixed it, and then continued play. The Committee looked at the film and didn't see anything and didn't approach Tiger. In his post round interview, he says that he did in fact fix his putter.

Please explain how he should not be DQ'd for this and why it is any different from the incorrect drop.

[Wilster]

Just wait until tomorrow , because if he wins , or loses by 1 , well holy crap , what a gong show this will turn out to be.

[Break68]

Just wait until tomorrow , because if he wins , or loses by 1 , well holy crap , what a gong show this will turn out to be.

True that.

[BC MIST]

Somebody tells the Committee that Tiger bent his putter in anger, subsequently fixed it, and then continued play. The Committee looked at the film and didn't see anything and didn't approach Tiger. In his post round interview, he says that he did in fact fix his putter.

Please explain how he should not be DQ'd for this and why it is any different from the incorrect drop.

(1) What is the penalty for damaging your putter in anger, fixing and then playing with it? Disqualification (4-4b)

(2) What is the penalty for playing from a wrong place? 2 strokes (20-7) There is NO disqualification unless there was a serious breach and in Tiger's case, there was not.

(3) If the Committee rules that no infraction took place BEFORE a player signs his scorecard, and they subsequently decide that they erred and a two stroke penalty was warranted, is the player disqualified? No. From Decision 34-3/1 "Rule 34-3 does not prevent a Committee from correcting an incorrect ruling and imposing or rescinding a penalty provided that no penalty is imposed or rescinded after the competition is closed..."

[nokids]

Lesson learned: dont admit to a rules violation on national tv after the rules committee gives you a free pass

[Chieflongtee]

If he had been at -7 after yesterday's round a lot of players would have missed the cut and gone home Can just imagine ?

[mjf]

Lesson learned: dont admit to a rules violation on national tv after the rules committee gives you a free pass

Pablo, I believe your comment sums up my feeling on this issue almost perfectly.

[mjf]

So... How about this (purely hypothetical) scenario then:

Let's say a famous professional thinks he scored a 6 on a par 5 but was confused and actually scored a 7. Somebody watching questions whether the player had a 6 or a 7 so the Committee has a chat with the player to confirm what his score was. Still confused, he says it was a 6, the Committee says that's fine and then he signs his scorecard. Shortly after, the player goes and talks to somebody and says "Gosh darn it... I was pretty disappointed with that 6 I scored on the par 5. Oh, wait... It was a SEVEN!" and goes on to recount exactly how he had, in fact, scored a 7 on the hole. Oh, and it turns out somebody had the whole thing recorded on video and he definitely scored a 7.

What's the ruling? He's signed an incorrect scorecard and is DQ'ed... right?

[mpare]

DQ, for certain.

[AAA]

Woods did not know he had breached a rule.
Why would he deliberately drop in a wrong place with hundreds of spectators and millions of TV viewers watching?
He knew he dropped it a couple of yards back but did not know that was wrong.


34-1b/1
Omission of Penalty Stroke When Score Returned

Q.In stroke play, a competitor returned an incorrect score for a hole due to failure to include a penalty stroke. After the competition closed the error was discovered. Does Rule 34-1b allow imposition of a disqualification penalty for a breach of Rule 6-6d?
A.As stated in Rule 34-1b, the Committee should impose a penalty of disqualification if the competitor knew, before the competition closed, that he had incurred the penalty but intentionally or unintentionally failed to add the penalty to his score, but not if the competitor did not know he had incurred the penalty.

[mpare]

And if you signed for a wrong score and the competition hasn't closed, then it's a DQ, right?

Woods did not know he had breached a rule.
Why would he deliberately drop in a wrong place with hundreds of spectators and millions of TV viewers watching?
He knew he dropped it a couple of yards back but did not know that was wrong.


34-1b/1
Omission of Penalty Stroke When Score Returned

Q.In stroke play, a competitor returned an incorrect score for a hole due to failure to include a penalty stroke. After the competition closed the error was discovered. Does Rule 34-1b allow imposition of a disqualification penalty for a breach of Rule 6-6d?
A.As stated in Rule 34-1b, the Committee should impose a penalty of disqualification if the competitor knew, before the competition closed, that he had incurred the penalty but intentionally or unintentionally failed to add the penalty to his score, but not if the competitor did not know he had incurred the penalty.

[Txxxxxxx]

The number one rule in golf is to KNOW the rules of golf. Are you telling me Jim Furyk knew the rules and Tiger Woods, the number one golfer in the world, did NOT know the rules? How does that even make sense to anyone?

This is not the NHL where the rules are changed every year and players take time to 'adjust' to them, thus getting more penalties in the first 10 games of the season than before, or more whistles than the previous season.

I don't buy the excuse he is selling. It's not like this guy is known for his honesty.....

Anyway...arguing about it is obviously a redundant scenario. He got the 2-stroke penalty, he played yesterday, and he will play today.

[nokids]

The number one rule in golf is to KNOW the rules of golf.

Is the #1 rule in life to know the laws of Canada? Dont think so

#1 rule is to enjoy yourself, be respectful and honest. Its just a game.

[Txxxxxxx]

Is the #1 rule in life to know the laws of Canada? Dont think so

#1 rule is to enjoy yourself, be respectful and honest. Its just a game.

Are you serious right now? HAHA! These players make MILLIONS of dollars to play this "game". It is their JOB to know the rules.

For recreational golfers like you and I, yes, enjoying yourself is the #1 rule. But this does not apply to people who are getting paid to play, and police themselves so to speak, while they play this game.

[nokids]

dead serious; pros play for the love of the game, not the love of money

[mpare]

Pablo, April Fools Day was more than a week ago.

dead serious; pros play for the love of the game, not the love of money

[Colby]

How about the use of this rule:

33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion


A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.

Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.

If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.

Or this decision:

33-7/4.5


Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified


It's too long to include it, however it appears that it is up to the committee and that is probably why they met with Tiger again in the morning, to determine his knowledge of the rule violation. I would hope that if there was any attempt to consciously circumvent the rule, he would have been DQ'd.

[mpare]

Rule 33 shouldn't provide the salvation according to this Decision:

33-7/4.5
Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified
Q. A competitor returns his score card. It later transpires that the score for one hole is lower than actually taken due to his failure to include a penalty stroke(s) which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered before the competition has closed.

Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7, in waiving or modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule 6-6d?

A. Generally, the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.
However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.
For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would be justified in waiving the disqualification penalty:
•A competitor makes a short chip from the greenside rough. At the time, he and his fellow-competitors have no reason to suspect that the competitor has double-hit his ball in breach of Rule 14-4. After the competitor has signed and returned his score card, a close-up, super-slow-motion video replay reveals that the competitor struck his ball twice during the course of the stroke. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the one-stroke penalty under Rule 14-4 to the competitor's score at the hole in question.
•After a competitor has signed and returned his score card, it becomes known, through the use of a high-definition video replay, that the competitor unknowingly touched a few grains of sand with his club at the top of his backswing on a wall of the bunker. The touching of the sand was so light that, at the time, it was reasonable for the competitor to have been unaware that he had breached Rule 13-4. It would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the two-stroke penalty to the competitor's score at the hole in question.
•A competitor moves his ball on the putting green with his finger in the act of removing his ball-marker. The competitor sees the ball move slightly forward but is certain that it has returned to the original spot, and he plays the ball as it lies. After the competitor signs and returns his score card, video footage is brought to the attention of the Committee that reveals that the ball did not precisely return to its original spot. When questioned by the Committee, the competitor cites the fact that the position of the logo on the ball appeared to be in exactly the same position as it was when he replaced the ball and this was the reason for him believing that the ball returned to the original spot. As it was reasonable in these circumstances for the competitor to have no doubt that the ball had returned to the original spot, and because the competitor could not himself have reasonably discovered otherwise prior to signing and returning his score card, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty. The two-stroke penalty under Rule 20-3a for playing from a wrong place would, however, be applied to the competitor's score at the hole in question.

A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the competitor's failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the competitor could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:
•As a competitor's ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the competitor fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the competitor was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.
•A competitor's ball lies in a water hazard. In making his backswing for the stroke, the competitor is aware that his club touched a branch in the hazard. Not realising at the time that the branch was detached, the competitor did not include the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4 in his score for the hole. As the competitor could have reasonably determined the status of the branch prior to signing and returning his score card, the competitor should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4. (Revised)
33-7/5

[nokids]

Pablo, April Fools Day was more than a week ago.

We all know why you play the game Mike.... for the love of destroying your competition

[Txxxxxxx]

dead serious; pros play for the love of the game, not the love of money

So when Tiger said he wanted royalties from the television stations, that was for the love of the game as well?

It is their responsibility to their sponsors, their fans, the PGA, and themselves to know the rules of the game they play for millions of dollars.

If for some reason they are unsure of something, the rules official following the group should be called in.

It is THEIR JOB to know the rules.

[gbower]

Txxxxxx there is no rules official following the group but usually a few on the hole and will be well off to the side. If Tiger was in any doubt about where to drop he would have waved the official over. My guess is from where the official was standing it most likely looked like he was dropping where he had played the previous stroke. Tiger's caddie had remained in position so other than a couple of feet, nothing had changed.

[Txxxxxxx]

I didn't literally mean following them on the fairway. They are on the same hole is what I was referring to.

[gbower]

In other majors there is actually an official following the group and I think you may see that happen in future Masters tournaments to avoid what happened.

[gbower]

A good friend of mine was officiating the US Women's Open last year and she was assigned a group to follow and the players were asking about any little situation.

[nokids]

Yes
No
Yes
Disagree

So when Tiger said he wanted royalties from the television stations, that was for the love of the game as well?

It is their responsibility to their sponsors, their fans, the PGA, and themselves to know the rules of the game they play for millions of dollars.

If for some reason they are unsure of something, the rules official following the group should be called in.

It is THEIR JOB to know the rules.

[nokids]

A good friend of mine was officiating the US Women's Open last year and she was assigned a group to follow and the players were asking about any little situation.

This

Txxxx, why should players bother knowing the rules when rules officials are following them around, can be called on for anything, and you have your caddy there as well? Pro's aren't as knowledgeable as you think when it comes to rules.

[AAA]

Apparently the assigned referee was sitting in the trees on the far side of the green. Perspective would give him no clue that there might be a problem.
The Masters' officials are instructed to keep away from the players and out of sight of the TV cameras and are generally assigned a spot on the hole. They are the odd ones out. The other majors have the referees in close but discrete attendance.