Tiger's drop on 15

[mpare]

If so, it's a wrong one.

A precendent has been set!

[Happy Gilmore]

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

Based on the fact that Tiger knew he didn't play from the proper position, as admitted in the interview, and then doesn't call a penalty on himself, thus allowing the rules committee to massage the available rules bothers me the most.

The integrity of the rules was violated, both by Tiger and the rules committee.

Accidentally knocking a leaf out of a tree in a practice swing, touching a blade of grass with your club in a hazard prior to your swing, kneeling on a towel to make a shot under a tree, your ball moves on the putting surface when you remove your ball market, all penalties.

Someone else mentioned that Tiger has been playing golf since he was young, 4 years old. It is not like this is an obscure rule, rarely to be applied.

To be ignorant of the rules is not an excuse, penalty for slow play anyone???

Here is what Tiger Woods said Friday when he learned that 14-year-old Guan Tianlang had been penalized a stroke for slow play. "Well," Woods said, "rules are rules."

Maybe he was testing out the newest rule?

[jeffc]

Based on the fact that Tiger knew he didn't play from the proper position, as admitted in the interview, and then doesn't call a penalty on himself, thus allowing the rules committee to massage the available rules bothers me the most.

The integrity of the rules was violated, both by Tiger and the rules committee.

Accidentally knocking a leaf out of a tree in a practice swing, touching a blade of grass with your club in a hazard prior to your swing, kneeling on a towel to make a shot under a tree, your ball moves on the putting surface when you remove your ball market, all penalties.

Someone else mentioned that Tiger has been playing golf since he was young, 4 years old. It is not like this is an obscure rule, rarely to be applied.

To be ignorant of the rules is not an excuse, penalty for slow play anyone???

Here is what Tiger Woods said Friday when he learned that 14-year-old Guan Tianlang had been penalized a stroke for slow play. "Well," Woods said, "rules are rules."

Maybe he was testing out the newest rule?

I'm willing to bet Tiger knew the rule but he had a brain fart. As for rules are rules, Tiger admitted he made a mistake and the 2 shot rule was applied. No need to beat on Tiger, beat on the AGNC rules committee if you have a problem with this.

[AAA]

1) Accidentally knocking a leaf out of a tree in a practice swing,

2) touching a blade of grass with your club in a hazard prior to your swing,

3) your ball moves on the putting surface when you remove your ball market, all penalties.

Which rules apply a penalty for those actions?

[Chambokl]

Mike, what happen if Player A plays early and it is not on TV. He takes an illegal drop and nobody sees it on TV. Player B plays later and does the same but this time a TV viewer sees him and calls him....

Not sure this is fair neither.... What happen if player A and B play at the same time but player B is followed all day analyzing every shots but player B, even though he is on the leaderboard, is not followed at all.... IS that fair???

What do I think? After the round is done, it is done, player signed his card a referee has given the green light... if there is soem errors or mistakes be it.... too late the round is over... (only exception, wrong score and adding was wrong).... I know this will not make people happy but that is what I think...

[Happy Gilmore]

Which rules apply a penalty for those actions?

1) Accidentally knocking a leaf out of a tree in a practice swing,

Rule 13-2
A player must not improve or allow to be improved:
• the area of his intended stance or swing,
by any of the following actions:
• moving, bending or breaking anything growing or fixed (including immovable obstructions and objects defining out of bounds)

2) touching a blade of grass with your club in a hazard prior to your swing,

Rule 13-4 b
Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club;

3) your ball moves on the putting surface when you remove your ball market, all penalties

Rule 18-2 a
(i) the player, his partner or either of their caddies:
• causes the ball to move
the player incurs a penalty of one stroke.

[gbower]

I've included a few decisions that I hope help you.

1) Accidentally knocking a leaf out of a tree in a practice swing,

Rule 13-2
A player must not improve or allow to be improved:
• the area of his intended stance or swing,
by any of the following actions:
• moving, bending or breaking anything growing or fixed (including immovable obstructions and objects defining out of bounds)
-----------------------------
13-2/0.5
Meaning of "Improve" in Rule 13-2

Q.Rule 13-2 prohibits a player from improving certain areas. What does "improve" mean?

A.In the context of Rule 13-2, "improve" means to change for the better so that the player gains a potential advantage with respect to the position or lie of his ball, the area of his intended stance or swing, his line of play or a reasonable extension of that line beyond the hole, or the area in which he is to drop or place a ball. Therefore, merely changing an area protected by Rule 13-2 will not be a breach of Rule 13-2 unless it creates such a potential advantage for the player in his play.

Examples of changes that are unlikely to create such a potential advantage are if a player:

- repairs a small pitch-mark on his line of play five yards in front of his ball prior to making a 150-yard approach shot from through the green;
- accidentally knocks down several leaves from a tree in his area of intended swing with a practice swing, but there are still so many leaves or branches remaining that the area of intended swing has not been materially affected; or
- whose ball lies in thick rough 180 yards from the green, walks forward and pulls strands of grass on his line of play and tosses them in the air to determine the direction of the wind.

Examples of changes that are likely to create such a potential advantage are if a player:

- repairs a pitch-mark through the green five yards in front of his ball and on his line of play prior to making a stroke from off the putting green that might be affected by the pitch-mark (e.g., a putt or a low-running shot);
- accidentally knocks down a single leaf from a tree in his area of intended swing with a practice swing, but, as this was one of very few leaves that might either interfere with his swing or fall and thereby distract him, the area of intended swing has been materially affected; or
- pulls strands of grass from rough a few inches behind his ball to test the wind, but thereby reduces a potential distraction for the player, or resistance to his club, in the area of his intended swing.

The determination as to whether a player has gained a potential advantage from his actions is made by reference to the situation immediately prior to his stroke. If there is a reasonable possibility that the player's action has created a potential advantage, the player is in breach of Rule 13-2. (New)



2) touching a blade of grass with your club in a hazard prior to your swing,

Rule 13-4 b
Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club;
--------------------------------------
13-4/4
Touching Grass with Club During Practice Swing in Hazard

Q.A player takes a practice swing in a water hazard without grounding his club, but his club touches some long grass. Is there a penalty?

A.No - see Note to Rule 13-4. However, the player must ensure that his actions do not breach Rule 13-2 or constitute testing the condition of the hazard.


3) your ball moves on the putting surface when you remove your ball market, all penalties

Rule 18-2 a
(i) the player, his partner or either of their caddies:
• causes the ball to move
the player incurs a penalty of one stroke.

20-3a/1
Ball Moved in Removing Ball-Marker After Replacing Ball
---------------------
Q.A player replaces his ball under a Rule and, in the act of removing the object marking its position, accidentally moves the ball. What is the ruling?

A.Removal of the ball-marker is part of the replacement process. Accordingly, under Rule 20-3a, no penalty is incurred, and the ball must be replaced.

[mpare]

Jean-Guy, when I raised the question of fairness it was not to establish a basis or justification for Augusta National's committee's ruling. Rather, it was to simply highlight a problem that I saw with the ruling. The reason for this was to demonstrate that the actual ruling, which presumably was effected in part out of a sense of fairness actually works an injustice. The best way to ensure fairness is to apply the rules as they are written and as they have been interpreted. A committee can't make it up as they go along, no matter how well intended.

As I have tried to point out, Augusta National's justification for waiving what should have been a DQ for Tiger (because he signed an erroneous card) is inconsistent with those rules. Neither 33-7 nor 34-3 afforded the committee a principled basis upon which to justify their waiver of the disqualification, which would normally would have followed the signing of an incorrect card. The conversation that they might have wanted to have with Tiger before signing his card doesn't trump the fact that the conversation never took place, and that when the card was signed Tiger and Tiger alone was responsible for the scores that he entered and signed for on that card.

The problem with justifying the waiver on the basis of the referee "giving the green light" is that the waiver was never given to Tiger before he signed his card. He was never directly assured that it was safe for him to enter a 6 for the 15th hole. Had that happened, then the rules and decisions are clear. A disqualification on those facts would not be appropriate. Had Tiger actually "been given the green light", the committee, in lieu of a disqualification, could have imposed on Tiger the penalty which he should have received. The rationale for this approach is that it would be patently unfair to assure a player that he was okay before signing his card only to pull the rug out from under him later. You cannot put a player in jeopardy that way. But this is not what happened, though. The committee never assured Tiger of anything. They never talked with him before he put pen to paper. Tiger and Tiger alone was responsible for signing his card and entering the specific scores he entered.

Mike, what happen if Player A plays early and it is not on TV. He takes an illegal drop and nobody sees it on TV. Player B plays later and does the same but this time a TV viewer sees him and calls him....

Not sure this is fair neither.... What happen if player A and B play at the same time but player B is followed all day analyzing every shots but player B, even though he is on the leaderboard, is not followed at all.... IS that fair???

What do I think? After the round is done, it is done, player signed his card a referee has given the green light... if there is soem errors or mistakes be it.... too late the round is over... (only exception, wrong score and adding was wrong).... I know this will not make people happy but that is what I think...

[Happy Gilmore]

Thanks for the clarifications on those, I may have just saved some strokes.

I got those scenarios when watching the master;
One player, can't remember who, was under a tree when they commented that he has to be careful, if he hits a leaf and a leaf falls that will be a penalty.

Then they talked about the putting one from "the unfortunate case of Padraig Harrington getting disqualified for unwittingly moving his ball a short nose hair in the act of removing his ball marker."

The last was related to the Bobby Jones US Open penalty call on himself, but now I remember it was his club moving the ball for the penalty, not testing the ground.

Thanks for the corrections.

[nokids]

So in conclusion............. (Revised)


-Tiger plays from the wrong spot and uses a Jedi mind trick to fool everyone; except

-A Toydarian calls in the rules violation;

-The Committee rules no penalty and does not inform Tiger before he signs his scorecard;

-Tiger confesses to rules breach on tv;

-Keystone Committee is like "";

-Committee interviews Tiger next day and asks "How did you do that?";

-Tiger says, "You'll learn";

-2 shot penalty stands;

-Committee however can't DQ him b/c they made an incorrect ruling on Friday; and also this

-Tiger took his 2-shot penalty like a man, and played on;

-which was the right thing to do.

[mpare]

You omitted one possibility. Someone might be concerned about the ruling regardless of how they feel about Tiger.

So in conclusion.............

-Tiger played from the wrong spot, that's a 2 shot penalty;
-Tiger didn't add this penalty into his scorecard and signed a wrong scorecard; should have been DQ'd;
-the Committee shouldn't have waived the DQ because they never "ok'd" the drop with Tiger before he signed his scorecard as was hinted earlier in this thread;
-Tiger could have and probably should have DQ'd himself because he knows 33-7 wasn't meant for this situation;


If you're a TW fan, you will see this as no big deal.

If you're a TW hater you just got more ammunition to hate the guy.






My work is done here

[Txxxxxxx]

You omitted one possibility. Someone might be concerned about the ruling regardless of how they feel about Tiger.

Good point! Seems like if you have something to say that is negative towards Tiger, all of his fans get defensive. It's like trying to talk hockey with a bunch of Leafs fans....

[nokids]

You omitted one possibility. Someone might be concerned about the ruling regardless of how they feel about Tiger.

Sure that's a possibility, I'm one of those people too!

Tiger doesn't pay my bills, nor has he kicked my dog.

[adanac]

https://www.facebook.com/ErinHillsGolf

As much confusion still seems to surround the recent ruling at The Masters involving Tiger Woods, John Morrissett (Competitions Director at Erin Hills and former Director, Rules of Golf for the USGA) offers the following in hopes of clarifying what, once the key facts are determined, is a much simpler ruling than was initially thought.

First, the facts: On the 15th hole in the second round, Tiger's third shot struck the flagstick and came back into the water hazard (yellow stakes and lines) fronting the green. He elected to use the stroke-and-distance option under the water hazard Rule (Rule 26-1a). That option required him to drop a ball as near as possible to where he just played from, but Tiger dropped a ball approximately 2 1/2 feet away, a distance that does not meet the "as near as possible" requirement. He then played the ball onto the green and holed the putt, believing he had scored 6 for the hole. A former Rules official, watching the telecast at home, called to report a possible breach. While Tiger was still playing (and that is the most important point of the entire incident), the Committee reviewed the video and, believing the results to be inconclusive, ruled there was no breach. The Committee did not tell Tiger of its ruling, and Tiger went on to return his score card for the second round, with a score of 6 for the 15th hole.

Following Tiger's post-round comments to the media that he had dropped "two yards" from the spot of the previous stroke, the Committee wondered if it had made the correct decision. It consulted with Tiger Saturday morning and retroactively penalized him two strokes on the 15th hole (for playing from a wrong place - Rules 26-1a and 20-7c) but did not disqualify him for returning a score for that hole that was lower than he actually made (Rule 6-6d).

While this seems like a complicated set of facts, the ruling becomes straightforward when it is boiled down to its basic elements: On Friday the Committee made an incorrect ruling (of no penalty), and on Saturday the Committee corrected that incorrect ruling. The key is that, before Tiger returned his score card on Friday, the Committee had reviewed the incident on 15 and made the ruling of no breach. (Even though the Committee did not tell Tiger of this ruling, it was still a ruling.) On reflection, the Committee realized it made an incorrect ruling and corrected that ruling on Saturday (with ample authority and precedent to do so).

If the Committee had not become aware of the incident and had not made a ruling before Tiger returned his score card on Friday, then it would have been a straightforward disqualification. It is interesting to note, therefore, that the timely telephone call actually prevented Tiger from being disqualified.

It should be emphasized that Rule 33-7 has been part of the Rules of Golf for decades (at least 50 years). This Rule was invoked to waive the penalty of disqualification for the score card error because the score card error was a result of the Committee's incorrect ruling during the second round. In other words, if the Committee had ruled correctly on Friday and had informed Tiger of the two-stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place before Tiger returned his score card, Tiger would have returned the correct score for that hole. Decision 34-3/1 provides authority for the Committee to correct its ruling by adjusting the previous round's score.

Contrary to what some reported, Decision 33-7/4.5, which was significantly revised two years ago, played no role whatsoever in the Saturday ruling at Augusta National. That Decision shows sympathy for the player who breaches a Rule because he did not know, and could not have reasonably known, the facts that led to his breach. In Tiger's case, he could have and should have easily known the facts of the case (i.e., that he dropped 2 1/2 feet away from where he was required to drop), so the principle of this Decision does not apply.

Consider the ramifications if the Committee had disqualified Tiger on Saturday. In that case, Tiger would have been justified in being furious at the Committee for failing to advise him of the issue before he returned his score card so that he could have avoided disqualification. Tiger made an error and was penalized two strokes; the Committee's incorrect ruling should not have resulted in further penalty.

[sharkshooter]

It's like trying to talk hockey with a bunch of Leafs fans....

What if you knocked a Leaf fan from a tree during the backswing of you practice shot?

[nokids]

therefore, that the timely telephone call actually prevented Tiger from being disqualified.

That's funny

[mpare]

The bolded assertion of this quote is questionable. What relevant facts did he not know or could not have reasonably known? It was his obligation to drop as near as possible to the spot from which he had hit his previous shot. He appears not to have done so. That is not the committee's fault or anyone else's fault. It's one thing to protect a player against a possible disqualification from factual errors that are almost imperceptible to the human eye and only discoverable with the use of video machines. The rules quite reasonably allow for that. But Tiger Woods' error was not of a similar nature.

...
Contrary to what some reported, Decision 33-7/4.5, which was significantly revised two years ago, played no role whatsoever in the Saturday ruling at Augusta National. That Decision shows sympathy for the player who breaches a Rule because he did not know, and could not have reasonably known, the facts that led to his breach. In Tiger's case, he could have and should have easily known the facts of the case (i.e., that he dropped 2 1/2 feet away from where he was required to drop), so the principle of this Decision does not apply.

Consider the ramifications if the Committee had disqualified Tiger on Saturday. In that case, Tiger would have been justified in being furious at the Committee for failing to advise him of the issue before he returned his score card so that he could have avoided disqualification. Tiger made an error and was penalized two strokes; the Committee's incorrect ruling should not have resulted in further penalty.[/SIZE]

[jeffc]

The bolded assertion of this quote is questionable. What relevant facts did he not know or could not have reasonably known? It was his obligation to drop as near as possible to the spot from which he had hit his previous shot. He appears not to have done so. That is not the committee's fault or anyone else's fault. It's one thing to protect a player against a possible disqualification from factual errors that are almost imperceptible to the human eye and only discoverable with the use of video machines. The rules quite reasonably allow for that. But Tiger Woods' error was not of a similar nature.

this is the statement that disturbs me and where the committee is to blame:

While Tiger was still playing (and that is the most important point of the entire incident), the Committee reviewed the video and, believing the results to be inconclusive, ruled there was no breach. The Committee did not tell Tiger of its ruling, and Tiger went on to return his score card for the second round, with a score of 6 for the 15th hole.

So it was inconclusive, which I find bizarre since it would appear that he did not drop "as near as possible" to the previous spot and which is what eventually came out. It also tells me that they should have chatted with Woods prior to signing his scorecard, to gather all the information before making that conclusion. If they had done so, this whole debacle never would have happened, and Tiger would have been assessed those 2 strokes then and there and it would have been done with, no need to backtrack.

[adanac]

The bolded assertion of this quote is questionable. What relevant facts did he not know or could not have reasonably known? It was his obligation to drop as near as possible to the spot from which he had hit his previous shot. He appears not to have done so. That is not the committee's fault or anyone else's fault. It's one thing to protect a player against a possible disqualification from factual errors that are almost imperceptible to the human eye and only discoverable with the use of video machines. The rules quite reasonably allow for that. But Tiger Woods' error was not of a similar nature.

You may have misread the statements you put in bold? It doesn't try to excuse Tiger in any way, just points out that Decision 33-7/4.5 is not applicable in this situation because the player should have/could have been aware of everything.

[mpare]

I apologize for my error. What then purports to be the basis upon which the committee could exercise its authority to waive an automatic disqualification for signing an erroneous card?

You may have misread the statements you put in bold? It doesn't try to excuse Tiger in any way, just points out that Decision 33-7/4.5 is not applicable in this situation because the player should have/could have been aware of everything.

[adanac]

I apologize for my error. What then purports to be the basis upon which the committee could exercise its authority to waive an automatic disqualification for signing an erroneous card?

I think the key part of Morrissett's analysis is that Tiger did not sign an incorrect score card because the Committee had made a ruling of no breach and therefore 6 was the correct score (at that time).

While this seems like a complicated set of facts, the ruling becomes straightforward when it is boiled down to its basic elements: On Friday the Committee made an incorrect ruling (of no penalty), and on Saturday the Committee corrected that incorrect ruling. The key is that, before Tiger returned his score card on Friday, the Committee had reviewed the incident on 15 and made the ruling of no breach. (Even though the Committee did not tell Tiger of this ruling, it was still a ruling.) On reflection, the Committee realized it made an incorrect ruling and corrected that ruling on Saturday (with ample authority and precedent to do so).

[mpare]

Aha, now this makes a bit more sense to me. That said, I'm surprised that an in camera decision can, or should be, made without involving the player. That they justified their waiver of the DQ on the basis of their earlier in camera decision was not apparent to me. I am still not persuaded that this is as it should be, since the committee's initial decision was never conveyed to Tiger prior to signing his card. As such, as I have previously said, his act of reviewing and signing the card was not prejudiced by that earlier decision. In any event, I am not a rules official so it's not surprising to me that I was having a hard time getting it right. Thanks again for helping me get this straight in my own mind.

I think the key part of Morrissett's analysis is that Tiger did not sign an incorrect score card because the Committee had made a ruling of no breach and therefore 6 was the correct score (at that time).

While this seems like a complicated set of facts, the ruling becomes straightforward when it is boiled down to its basic elements: On Friday the Committee made an incorrect ruling (of no penalty), and on Saturday the Committee corrected that incorrect ruling. The key is that, before Tiger returned his score card on Friday, the Committee had reviewed the incident on 15 and made the ruling of no breach. (Even though the Committee did not tell Tiger of this ruling, it was still a ruling.) On reflection, the Committee realized it made an incorrect ruling and corrected that ruling on Saturday (with ample authority and precedent to do so).

[gbower]

The thing was that in the committees view there was no infraction when first looked at so no need to go and tell Tiger that there is no penalty for something that he doesn't know about. If they had noticed the drop in the wrong place they would have asked him about it before signing.

[Txxxxxxx]

The thing was that in the committees view there was no infraction when first looked at so no need to go and tell Tiger that there is no penalty for something that he doesn't know about. If they had noticed the drop in the wrong place they would have asked him about it before signing.

So basically you believe that Tiger Woods, the number one golfer in the world, did not know the rules of golf when it comes to playing a drop? But he knew enough he had three options? Come on....He knew he was not dropping in the correct spot when he told the media he went back and dropped the distance he did. This is not a confusing rule...

The guy has a habit of trying to get away with things......ahem...multiple girlfriends...Now he is the most honest person in the world all of a sudden could not be trying to get away with improving his position by dropping where he did?

[adanac]

So basically you believe that Tiger Woods, the number one golfer in the world, did not know the rules of golf when it comes to playing a drop? But he knew enough he had three options? Come on....He knew he was not dropping in the correct spot when he told the media he went back and dropped the distance he did. This is not a confusing rule...

The guy has a habit of trying to get away with things......ahem...multiple girlfriends...Now he is the most honest person in the world all of a sudden could not be trying to get away with improving his position by dropping where he did?

And just what is your point? He was correctly penalized two strokes.

[Txxxxxxx]

And just what is your point? He was correctly penalized two strokes.

My point is he signed his scorecard knowing full well that he had an incorrect score marked down. Which is a DQ...No matter what the committee had discussed, they had not shared it with him. So he did not have the info that they deemed it to be a legal drop until the following day.

Which means...he should have been DQ'd and the ruling that gives way to shots or penalties only seen by video equipment etc should not have applied.

[Txxxxxxx]

This does not apply to his drop....

That Decision shows sympathy for the player who breaches a Rule because he did not know, and could not have reasonably known, the facts that led to his breach.

As you said...it does not excuse him...AND...the fact that the committee did not communicate with him that his drop was fine, means he would have no info of their discussion.

Bottom line is that he dropped incorrectly...I do not believe for one second he knew everything about the rule EXCEPT that he had to drop closest to his original shot. Which means he tried to get away with dropping where he did, because it was an advantageous spot. Then he signed his scorecard knowing full well he did that. Which means he signed an incorrect scorecard.

This is not rocket science...

[gbower]

My point is he signed his scorecard knowing full well that he had an incorrect score marked down. Which is a DQ...No matter what the committee had discussed, they had not shared it with him. So he did not have the info that they deemed it to be a legal drop until the following day.

Which means...he should have been DQ'd and the ruling that gives way to shots or penalties only seen by video equipment etc should not have applied.

Please read some of the previous posts by some knowledgeable people and hopefully you'll figure out that the way things unfolded he should not have been DQ'd and the ruling regarding video equipment did not enter into this decision. I'm not going to keep pounding on the dead horse as I don't know if you'll be able to figure it out. I'm hoping you will. No sympathy for any player. Have you ever made a mistake and dropped in a wrong place, I know I have and I've taken the two stroke penalty, which he did. If there had been no phone call until later in the evening after he signed his score card I guarantee you that he would have been DQ'd but the committee had the chance to apply the two stroke penalty if they had felt it justified after their first viewing of the drop but they didn't feel it necessary. This is explained in a lot of posts.
I'm out on this topic

[mpare]

But, as it turns out, he signed an incorrect score card because he took improper relief, and the committee ealier ruling had missed this misadventure because they never spoke to Tiger. I assume from this event that officials will now avoid at all costs rendering decisions without speaking to the player involved first. Agreed? Also, does this now mean that rules officials are required to immediately approach a player, if they suspect that he is about to do something contrary to the rules? That seems to me an implication of the underlying premise in the ANGC rules committee final decision.

The thing was that in the committees view there was no infraction when first looked at so no need to go and tell Tiger that there is no penalty for something that he doesn't know about. If they had noticed the drop in the wrong place they would have asked him about it before signing.

[Txxxxxxx]

Please read some of the previous posts by some knowledgeable people and hopefully you'll figure out that the way things unfolded he should not have been DQ'd and the ruling regarding video equipment did not enter into this decision. I'm not going to keep pounding on the dead horse as I don't know if you'll be able to figure it out. I'm hoping you will. No sympathy for any player. Have you ever made a mistake and dropped in a wrong place, I know I have and I've taken the two stroke penalty, which he did. If there had been no phone call until later in the evening after he signed his score card I guarantee you that he would have been DQ'd but the committee had the chance to apply the two stroke penalty if they had felt it justified after their first viewing of the drop but they didn't feel it necessary. This is explained in a lot of posts.
I'm out on this topic

Please re-read what I said then. I just said that the ruling regarding video DID NOT come into play here.

My posts have nothing to do with the committee. They have to do with Tiger Woods himself pretending to not know the rules, signing a scorecard knowing full well he dropped in the wrong place, and getting the two-stroke penalty after the fact instead of being DQ'd for signing the card. The man should have DQ'd himself after finding out he was caught. For him to say he is playing the next round, and not DQ'd under the rules of golf was a travesty in my opinion.


And to answer your question...yes..I have dropped in the wrong spot, then my playing partner and I have discussed this after the hole while counting strokes to get a total. Not a day after our round of golf or on our way home from the course.

It's beyond me, how this never came up during the round BEFORE he signed his card.

This is my opinion on the matter....Which btw, I am entitled to whether or not others share it.

Explaining why he was not DQ'd by the committee is irrelevant as I understand what happened without someone going into great detail to explain it. It does not change what the situation SHOULD have been under the rules of golf.

You would think though...besides Tiger's caddie, that his competitors and their caddies may have mentioned something to him so he avoided getting into this big mess in the first place. You often see players discussing the placement of the ball with their playing partners. It's odd nothing came up between the 15th and 18th.