Tiger's drop on 15

[mpare]

You've got that right.

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

[Txxxxxxx]

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.

That is some ridiculous logic..

[gbower]

I think to clarify a lot of this have a listen to Dean Ryan's comments on Kevin Haime's show yesterday. The podcast is here:

http://autopod.ca/chum/30/podcasts/

Dean comes on at about the 30 minute mark and Brad Fritsch joins in a bit later. Really good explanation and discussion.

[nokids]

That is some ridiculous logic..

Want me to recite how many professional athletes dont know the rules of their JOBS? First one that comes to mind is Donovan McNabb not realizing that overtime in the regular season could end in a tie. Madden video games taught me that

[Txxxxxxx]

Want me to recite how many professional athletes dont know the rules of their JOBS? First one that comes to mind is Donovan McNabb not realizing that overtime in the regular season could end in a tie. Madden video games taught me that

No need..McNabb is not paid to police himself when playing football. If he does something wrong, the referee blows the play dead. It's not something that could be passed and come up at a later time. Your analogies and comparisons are way out there.

You're comparing a team sport, to an individual sport.

The fact that you think that golfers on the PGA Tour should not worry about knowing the rules, and they should rely on their caddies and rules officials to know what is going on, is beyond me. Can you imagine how long a round of golf would be if the golfer had to wait on his caddie or rules official to make sure they are playing by the rules of golf?

Should the caddies also tie their shoes for them and dress them in the morning too?

Just because some don't know, doesn't mean it's the right thing or that they shouldn't know them as part of their job and what they are being paid to do.

[Txxxxxxx]

BTW...we're not talking about some obscure rule either. It was a simple drop...Something that Tiger Woods, his caddie, and anyone around him should have know about...

[Chambokl]

BTW...we're not talking about some obscure rule either. It was a simple drop...Something that Tiger Woods, his caddie, and anyone around him should have know about...

Well sort of a simple drop... were the stake yellow or red.... different options for different colours... and from there more choices....

[jlaidley]

Fascinating discussion early on in this thread when it was being discussed before the issue was "public".

After watching the video of the drop my take is that:

• His drop was within a couple of feet of his original shot (tough to say for sure because of the camera angle but sure doesn't look like 6 feet)
• The committee looked at it and felt it was close enough to be "as close as possible". Maybe a bit generous but OK. It was NOT discussed with Tiger.
• Tiger was tooting his own horn a bit too much after the round and said he went back 2 yards.
• Clearly 2 yards isn't within "as close possible" so the Committee had a problem. Either:

1. Tiger says "I was mistaken, it was only 2 feet and that is close enough to be "as close as possible"". Leaves the questions "was Tiger lying in the interview", "is Tiger lying now", "is 2 feet close enough to be "as close as possible"?".
2. Tiger knows what happened best, drop was illegal, 2 shot penalty, signed score card, should be a DQ

From the info on when to waive-DQ post above, it only applies when the player was unaware of the penalty, not because of ignorance of the rules but did not know a fact that was learned after the score card was signed and it is reasonable that he didn't know at the time.

So if Tiger was somehow unaware how far he dropped from the original spot (say if there was no divot and they had walked away) but analysis of replays showed he dropped 2 yards away. But that clearly doesn't apply in this situation.

If an official makes a call in consultation with an official and was relying on that opinion, then the opinion was later determined to be an erroneous interpretation of the rules, what happens? (I don't know)

But when he signs and is only relying on his own understanding of the rules I think it is crazy that he gets a pass because the rules committee (who (maybe) didn't have the right facts) ruled without his knowledge that they didn't need to talk to him. Maybe they should have. Maybe it was their mistake. But that shouldn't let Tiger off the hook. It is not their responsibility to call violations, it is up to the player.

[AAA]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--p...204353354.html

[DecoyOctopus]

He shouldn't have got the 2-stroke penalty because they did not call it out before he signed. What a crock... Masterisk

[jlaidley]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--p...204353354.html

The photographer for those shots is a long way back and at a sharp angle, picking up minute reflections.

I took these 3 images off of the masters website videos:
Before he took the 1st shot (no divot in front of him)


After he took his 1st shot (divot at his feet that he just took)


Before his 3rd shot (his first shot divot in front of him)


These are much closer images and part of the video on Masters.org. He was definitely NOT inches away from his first shot.

[bentgrass]

Steve Williams would never have let him take that drop

[nokids]

These are much closer images and part of the video on Masters.org. He was definitely NOT inches away from his first shot.

Not inches, but looks like it's less than 1 clublength to me

[jlaidley]

Not inches, but looks like it's less than 1 clublength to me

FYI, the "inches" reference was from the previous post where a photographer had analysed their photos from behind the 15th green and was contending that Tiger's drop was just inches from his first shot.

I agree that it looks like less than a clublength and assume you are aware that he was supposed to drop "as close as possible", not within 1 clublength.

[nokids]

you are aware that he was supposed to drop "as close as possible", not within 1 clublength.

Still beating that horse?

[JTB]

I still don't agree that people should be allowed to call in rules violations. Golf is the only sport I know that allows this. I can't call up the war room in Toronto and argue a goal or a missed penalty. With rules officials following every group should they have not mentioned to tiger he was breaking the rules? Yes Tiger kinda shot himself in the foot by saying he "went back 2 yards" but by then he was already told that his score was ok and to sign his card. Had this been any other player, would it have even been caught? if they were playing in the morning before the TV coverage started it would have gone unnoticed.

I agree with what I heard on the GC, after the penalty to Stacy Lewis, that the PGA / LPGA should have a rules official in the TV truck to review all of the plays, and stop having arm chair rules officials call in with what they think is a rules violation.

Just my opinion.

[manotick]

No. He said he deliberately dropped it that far back so he could get an extra two yards. He also wanted to take two yards off his swing. The hole location required a very precise shot...landing 4 yards in front of the pin. On his next shot he got exactly that. Shows what an amazing golfer he is. But he violated the rule through ball placement and then signing his score card without correcting it. Luckily the Masters Committee was willing to bend the rules and give him only a two-stroke penalty instead of disqualification. However, Nick Faldo, Greg Norman, Arnold Palmer said he should have disqualified himself as this is a very basic rule of golf that every duffer knows.

[manotick]

The stakes were yellow... so he had three options. (1) go to drop zone; he said it was muddy and didn't want to play there; (2) play on the line as far back as he wanted from where the ball went into the water; this was a very different line than his original shot and he looked at it and thought it would be too difficult to keep the ball on the green; and (3) retake the shot "as near as possible to the original shot"....which since there was a clear divot that he and his caddy recognized, he chose to do. But instead of dropping the ball literally over the divot and expecting it to land a few inches from the divot (and no nearer to the hole), he instead walked back two yards and dropped the ball and then shot it. That, according to all of the rules experts interviewed on ESPN and the Golf Channel, was clearing a violation of "as near as possible to the original shot". This was not rocket science, although the Masters Committee appeared to make it so. It is a rule that has been around for 150 years and one of the first rules golfers learn since a lot of us put balls into water. The rules experts gave him no leeway on that one.

[manotick]

And Tiger always had the option of calling over an official for an explanation of the rules. PGA players do this all the time in all tournaments. Yet, for whatever reasons, he chose not to do so. For someone who is "the world's greatest golfer" and has been playing golf everyday since 4 years old he must have been in this situation dozens (hundreds?) of times before and would know the rule like the back of his hand...and yet now he is described as "confused" and needed the Masters Committee to save him? Right.

[AAA]

The official story:

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=88444

[Chieflongtee]

http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/...f-story-041313

AUGUSTA, GA.

Diego Maradona deviously punched the ball into the net in the 1986 World Cup and then had the gall to credit the winning goal to “the hand of God.”

Yet despite the fact that he’s a cheat who rubbed our noses in his appalling handiwork, the Argentine still is lauded as perhaps the greatest soccer player in modern history.


Every week in soccer, players dive in the box looking to con referees into awarding bogus penalties and nothing really happens to them.

And yet, here we are, up in arms because Tiger Woodsinadvertently took an incorrect drop — and was subsequently penalized — at the Masters.

In football, linemen try to hold illegally all the time, but how many of them put their hands up and point this out to the officials who missed their infringements?

“Hey, ref, call that touchdown run back, man, I held that D-lineman” is a phrase you’ll never hear on Sundays in the NFL.

Yet the angry villagers had their pitchforks in the air on Saturday, demanding Woods be disqualified from the Masters.

“I think it would have done him a world of good to have disqualified himself. I think he should have said to the committee, ‘Thank you for your thoughts, but I have broken this rule, and I am going to call it on myself,’” said analyst and three-time Masters champion Nick Faldo.
Baseball’s biggest modern stars took steroids while many heroes of yesteryear smothered foreign substances on the ball or filled bats with cork to gain illegal advantages.

In basketball, 7-foot adonises flop to the hardwood as if mortally wounded if an opponent’s hand as much as disturbs the air around them.

• But on the longest of Masters Saturdays, Woods was painted by those who have had it in for him as Public Enemy No. 1 because he didn’t voluntarily withdraw from the tournament, despite no compelling reason to abandon his quest for a 15th major.

The most difficult commodity to find when it comes to Woods is perspective.

There’s rarely any balance with him because he’s become the most polarizing figure in not just golf, but all of sports.

But, simply put, he is not the villain of this story.

Woods certainly benefited from a lenient ruling that effectively commuted what could’ve been a death sentence and allowed him to keep playing in the Masters.
He did drop his ball in the wrong place during Friday’s second round. But, as he said on Saturday after turning in a 2-under-par round of 70 at Augusta National, “Under the Rules of Golf I was able to play.”

He was assessed a two-shot penalty, which he accepted, and for him, that was the end of the story.

His second round 71 became a 73, but he still lurked at 3-under par, just four shots behind co-leaders Brandt Snedeker and Angel Cabrera going into Sunday’s final round.

That, of course, wasn’t enough for Woods’ many detractors.

Like the religious zealots I walk past every day to get into the grounds here, they screamed that a Woods’ win would come with an asterisk.

But it will not.

Even Faldo, when he heard the facts later in the day, changed his tone, saying that the issue had been buried.

Of course, it wouldn’t be.
If there is an antagonist in what’s really an ugly blot on golf’s most special tournament, it’s Fred Ridley, chairman of the Masters Competition Committee.

If Ridley, a former USGA president and former US Amateur champion, is to be taken at his word, then he should step aside, because he did not fulfill his duty, either to Woods or to the tournament.

According to Ridley, a viewer called to say Woods incorrectly dropped his ball after hitting the flagstick and going into the water on the 15th hole.

Ridley said he investigated the claim, deemed that Woods had done nothing wrong, and didn’t even bring up the issue with Woods when he came to sign his scorecard.


It is simply incredulous that anyone who’d looked at the video footage of the offending incident couldn’t see that Woods had dropped the ball at least five or six feet beyond where he’d hit his initial shot.

But Ridley said he saw nothing wrong.

Only when CBS — the network that broadcasts the Masters — called at 10 p.m. ET Friday night to say Woods had, in fact, admitted to inadvertently dropping the ball in the wrong place did Ridley pull his finger out.

He brought Woods in on Saturday morning and determined that he had, in fact, dropped the ball in the wrong spot, then gave him the retrospective two-shot penalty.

He could have given him the death sentence, disqualification, but he couldn’t in good conscience, as he’d given Woods a clean bill of health the day before.

So he fell on his sword.

The perception will be that Woods got preferential treatment, but the history of the Masters suggests that they look after players here, much more so than at other majors.

Other than Roberto De Vicenzo, who was famously denied making a playoff for the 1968 Masters because he signed an incorrect scorecard, Augusta National has given golfers — like Arnold Palmer (twice), Dow Finsterwald, Ernie Els and Rory McIlroy — the benefit of considerable doubts on rulings.

But maybe the real issue here is that golf’s penalties already are among the harshest in sports.

Two strokes, in a tight tournament like this, is a steep price to pay.

Just how steep we wouldn’t know until late Sunday afternoon.

[jlaidley]

http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/...f-story-041313
[COLOR=#000000]
AUGUSTA, GA.

Given his analogy to the NFL Lineman doesn't put up his hand and confess to his holding penalty, the author clearly doesn't understand how things work in golf.

The official story:

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=88444

That's pretty much what Ridley said in his Saturday morning interview on CBS, but good to have a recap.

The really interesting part is the interpretation of 33-7 that to me is totally different that is outlined in the decisions (detailed HERE). The examples are all about protecting the player who could not have reasonably known that a violation had occurred because it was only visible with slow mo or high def replays. It is very clear that not knowing or forgetting the rule isn't protected.

One of the reporters asked a good question but I don't think it was really answered:
Q. Could you talk about how much kind of time elapsed over the process from when you determined that there was a violation of 26‑1 and how soon he would be covered under 33‑7. Secondly, is there not a spirit of 33‑7 directed toward things that only television can pick up?
FRED RIDLEY: Yeah, I don't know that. That certainly is one good application of it. I don't think that's necessarily the overall intent. Let's face it, committees make mistakes from time to time, and players are entitled to rely on what a Committee does.
In this case the Committee had made a decision, it's just that Tiger was not informed of it. Whether or not he was informed in my mind was irrelevant. We had made a decision before he finished his round, before he finished his scorecard, and I think he's entitled to be protected by 33‑7, and that's our decision, and others agree with us.

[Chambokl]

During a regular PGA tournament the official discretely follows the players...

At the Master he sits around the green.... on this particular hole he was sitting under or in a tree by the green. Calling him over is not that easy and Tiger knew (he thought) the rule!!

And Tiger always had the option of calling over an official for an explanation of the rules. PGA players do this all the time in all tournaments. Yet, for whatever reasons, he chose not to do so. For someone who is "the world's greatest golfer" and has been playing golf everyday since 4 years old he must have been in this situation dozens (hundreds?) of times before and would know the rule like the back of his hand...and yet now he is described as "confused" and needed the Masters Committee to save him? Right.

[Chieflongtee]

[QUOTE=jlaidley;475855]Given his analogy to the NFL Lineman doesn't put up his hand and confess to his holding penalty, the author clearly doesn't understand how things work in golf.

Before discarding his take you should check his credentials. Moreover he is an Aussie therefore he should have the reasons in the world to be biased.He was only making an analogy. As mentioned many times before name any other sport where a spectator can call in after the fact and have an impact on a ruling. Did you get to read the last part of the article?


Other than Roberto De Vicenzo, who was famously denied making a playoff for the 1968 Masters because he signed an incorrect scorecard, Augusta National has given golfers — like Arnold Palmer(twice), Dow Finsterwald, Ernie Els and Rory McIlroy — the benefit of considerable doubts on rulings.

[mpare]

To this point I remain unconvinced that Augusta National's decision to waive the disqualification penalty against Tiger was consistent with the applicable rules of golf and decisions. I have explained elsewhere when I think that neither Rule 37 nor Rule 34 provide a principled basis for their decision. Not only does the decision of the committee strain any reasonable interpretation of the rules and decisions, but it also creates illogical and, more importantly, unfair results. Let me explain my point with an example.

Two players, A and B are playing in the Masters. Player A tees off early one morning. Only the hardiest golf fans are watching the tournament. On 15 he hits his ball into the water, and inadvertently takes an illegal drop. He scores a 6, assuming that the drop he took was legal, which it was not. No one notices a problem. When he finishes his round, he signs his card. Later that day, a TV viewer watching the round on his PVR sees the drop and realizes that A dropped illegally and calls Augusta National. The committee quickly (without actually chatting with the player) decides the drop was legal and therefore there is no problem. They never call A. Later that day, others second guess that decision. The committee then looks at the matter more closely. They then speak with A. They realize that the facts disclose that A dropped illegally as a result of which A signed a card with an score on 15 that was less that it should have been. The Rules of Golf and the Decisions thereon necessitate only one thing. Player A must be disqualified. The committee's initial post round "ruling", which was rendered without all of the facts, is irrelevant to this outcome. Moreover, since the committee never spoke with A about their initial ruling, A was not induced into error, so those facts cannot be used to waive the suspension. In this scenario, the committee couldn't have spoken with A about what happened on 15 before he signed his card, because they didn't know about the problem. In short, player A is disqualified. Nothing will save him.

Contrast the previous situation with player B. He tee off later in the day when there are many more TV viewers watching. Like A, he misfires on 15 and his ball goes into the hazard. Like A he inadvertently takes illegal relief. Like A he scores a 6 on the hole, assuming that the drop he took was legal. Like A after he completes his round, he signs for an erroneous card. In his case, though, the TV viewers were more timely in their call to Augusta National. The committee learning of the concern quickly (without actually chatting with the player) decide the drop was legal and therefore there was no problem. Like A they never speak with B prior to his signing his scorecard which contains a score for 15 which is actually lower than it ought to have been. Later that day, the committee looks at the matter more closely. They then actually speak with B. They realize that the facts disclose that B dropped illegally as a result of which B signed a card with an score on 15 that was less that it should have been. Based on the Tiger ruling, since they could, and probably should, have spoken with B prior to his having signed his card, player B will only be subjected to a two stroke penalty. The automatic disqualification will be waived. Unlike the situation for player A, the committee's initial "ruling" which was rendered without all of the facts and never conveyed to B before he signed his card, is key to the outcome. According to the Tiger ruling, since the committee never spoke with B about their initial concern and their ruling, B was denied an opportunity to be saved from entering a wrong score for 15, and so he will not be disqualified. The disqualification will be waived.

This example illustrates the illogical results of the Tiger ruling. In neither case did the committee's initial ruling come to the attention of the players before they signed their cards. Both players signed their cards independent of the initial rulings. Both players were wrong about the legality of the relief taken on 15. Both players should be DQ'd under the Rules and the Decisions. Yet, because of the Tiger ruling, player A will be packing his bags, and player B will live play another round in the tournament. This is patently unfair and represents an illogical application of the Rules and the Decisions.

[AAA]

"Like A they never speak with B prior to his signing his scorecard which contains a score for 15 which is actually lower than it ought to have been."

The difference is that the committee was aware of a potential problem before B returned his card. They should and could have spoken to the player. Preventing breaches of the rules is a duty of all referees. Not fulfilling that obligation was the exceptional individual situation required by the rule.

[nokids]

Augusta messed up. Tiger messed up. His caddy messed up. It's a whole cluster

[jlaidley]

"Like A they never speak with B prior to his signing his scorecard which contains a score for 15 which is actually lower than it ought to have been."

The difference is that the committee was aware of a potential problem before B returned his card. They should and could have spoken to the player. Preventing breaches of the rules is a duty of all referees. Not fulfilling that obligation was the exceptional individual situation required by the rule.

I am not trying to be antagonistic, but could you provide a reference in the rules or decisions for this? Thanks.

[mpare]

I looked and I couldn't find one.

The committee should have spoken to Tiger, but they didn't. More importantly, though, Tiger, like all players, is responsible for knowing the rules. If a player doesn't know the rules or forgets about one and proceeds incorrectly under those rules, and then signs an erroneous card, that is his problem. That Tiger signed for a wrong score was his problem. While it would have been better for the committee to have spoken with Tiger before he signed his card, their error was not the proximate cause of his difficulty. The proximate cause was his mistake as to the rules. Going back to my example, why should A suffer a disqualification and B enjoy a waiver? In both cases, their actions were identical. The only distinction between the two is that in B's case, the committee had a chance to speak to B before he signed his card, but failed to do so because they didn't think there was a problem Like player B himself, they were mistaken. Where in the rules or the decisions does it say that when the player and the committee are both in error, the player gets to be treated more favourably than another player who exacted exactly as he did? Nowhere, as far as I can tell, save for when the committee has actually induced the player into error, and that did not happen here.

I am not trying to be antagonistic, but could you provide a reference in the rules or decisions for this? Thanks.

[nokids]

I looked and I couldn't find one.

The committee should have spoken to Tiger, but they didn't. More importantly, though, Tiger, like all players, is responsible for knowing the rules. If a player doesn't know the rules or forgets about one and proceeds incorrectly under those rules, and then signs an erroneous card, that is his problem. That Tiger signed for a wrong score was his problem. While it would have been better for the committee to have spoken with Tiger before he signed his card, their error was not the proximate cause of his difficulty. The proximate cause was his mistake as to the rules. Going back to my example, why should A suffer a disqualification and B enjoy a waiver? In both cases, their actions were identical. The only distinction between the two is that in B's case, the committee had a chance to speak to B before he signed his card, but failed to do so because they didn't think there was a problem Like player B himself, they were mistaken. Where in the rules or the decisions does it say that when the player and the committee are both in error, the player gets to be treated more favourably than another player who exacted exactly as he did? Nowhere, as far as I can tell, save for when the committee has actually induced the player into error, and that did not happen here.

A precendent has been set!