DQ Brandel Chamblee from the Golf Channel

[boogielicious]

My Mom's word was "Sanctimonious".  It fits him perfectly.

sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous

/ˌsaNG(k)təˈmōnēəs/

Adjective derogatory . Making a show of being morally superior to other people.

[Stretch]

Originally Posted by gwlee7

Stretch's argument that the rule (33 - 7) states clearly ignorance of the rules is no reason for the committee to intervene on the player's behalf continues to be the part that, to me at least, can't be explained away no matter how badly some of us might want Tiger to be in the tournament.

Why doesn't 6 - 1 (A player and caddie are responsible for knowing the rules)  supersede any parts of 33-7 in this case?

I am confused about how 33 - 7 could be applied.

Also, the alternative that Tiger "willfully" broke the rule is hard to swallow.

Right. The committee is not permitted to intervene if the failure to record the penalty stroke(s) is deemed to have been a result of ignorance of the applicable rule. Tiger did not record the penalty stroke(s) and the committee did choose to intervene. So either they concluded that he did indeed know the rule, but chose to not to follow it, or ... what?

[zipazoid]

If anyone really thinks Tiger willfully & intentionally broke a rule to gain an advantage, I have just one request -

Say that to his face.

[Zeph]

Originally Posted by gwlee7

Stretch's argument that the rule (33 - 7) states clearly ignorance of the rules is no reason for the committee to intervene on the player's behalf continues to be the part that, to me at least, can't be explained away no matter how badly some of us might want Tiger to be in the tournament.

Why doesn't 6 - 1 (A player and caddie are responsible for knowing the rules)  supersede any parts of 33-7 in this case?

I am confused about how 33 - 7 could be applied.

Also, the alternative that Tiger "willfully" broke the rule is hard to swallow.

I suggest you read rule 33-7:

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.

This is the rule . What you are referring to, is a decision . Let's not get rules and decisions confused. Decisions are there to help in different scenarios, and they will give precedence, but not all situations are found in decisions. The wording of the rule, as highlighted in red above, clearly states that a disqualification can be waived if the Committee considers such action warranted . That is the text of the rule, which pretty much gives the committee the ability to waive a penalty if they feel it is warranted.

Decision 33-7/4.5 is pretty close to this situation, but not entirely. It is missing the part where the committee decides not to take action towards Tiger during his round. It is still a decision, based on the following scenario: "Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified". That part fits our scenario, but it does not include the actions of the committee.

[Yukari]

While I tend to agree with your general assessment, it should be noted that the double jeopardy only applies in criminal cases, not civil cases.  You can't equate Tiger's situation to a criminal case.

Originally Posted by club ho

I respectfully have to disagree with you. I feel it is the allowance of the "viewer participation index" that is going to ruin the Professional golf tour. We are allowing people that we have no knowlege of who may ulterior motives anonymously have input. This is a very slippery slope  with catastrophic consequences. Furthermore  what happened to Tiger would be considered I believe its called "Double Indemnity" in our legal public court systems. He was first judged to be innocent of any fouls then the governing body decided to change its decision based on what IMO was a statement taken out of context by Tiger. It doesn't matter if he stated that "hell I cheated afterward" it is wrong to reverse an official decision based on actions that occur after the event happens.

[Yukari]

It seems those who are having trouble accepting the decision is leaving out the most important fact about this case:

As people have been saying, the rules committee DECIDED prior to Tiger signing his card that there was no violation of the rule.  Therefore, DQ'ing was NOT an option as Tiger did NOT sign an "incorrect" scorecard.

[Rick Martin]

Originally Posted by Yukari

It seems those who are having trouble accepting the decision is leaving out the most important fact about this case:

As people have been saying, the rules committee DECIDED prior to Tiger signing his card that there was no violation of the rule.  Therefore, DQ'ing was NOT an option as Tiger did NOT sign an "incorrect" scorecard.

end of story - committee ef'ed up by not taking Tiger in immediately after his round and ask him why he didn't drop closer to his previous divot.

[keb]

I understand the Rules Committee did not talk with Tiger before he signed his score card.  If he knew they reviewed his drop and no action was taken this would have provided Tiger with justification to sign his score card without the penalty.  Under that circumstance the mistake would be more on the Committee than Tiger.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Stretch

I still don't understand how Tiger's actions did not stem from "ignorance of the rules", which would appear to explicitly preclude the committee from taking the action that it did?

Stretch, here it is as simply as I can state it: ignorance of the rules is not an excuse, so that's why he was penalized two strokes.

It's exactly the same scenario if you brush sand in a bunker on your backswing and plead ignorance - you still get penalized.

If he had been told it was a penalty, objected and signed for a 71, then he'd have signed a wrong scorecard and would be DQed.

So, basically, he WAS penalized for breaking the rules. Two strokes. The role of the committee was important, and in fact, someone alerting them before they signed his card was critical to saving him. They okayed his actions.

In fact, let's suppose the guy who brushed the bunker had an opponent. The opponent told a rules official that the guy "brushed the ground" in his backstroke and didn't mention that he was in a bunker. The rules official would, so far as he knows, rightly rule that there's no penalty, and the opponent might not even say anything to the player in question.

If after the player signs the card the opponent asks the rules official how brushing sand in a bunker is not a penalty, the rules official can waive the DQ and impose the actual penalty on the player.

In both the above scenario and the scenario with Tiger, the committee made a RULING based on the best information available to them at the time. The drop looked good, and only AFTER Tiger said he dropped from a yard or two farther away did they have some facts which spoke to providing more information about the situation.

[gwlee7]

Originally Posted by Zeph

I suggest you read rule 33-7:

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.

This is the rule. What you are referring to, is a decision. Let's not get rules and decisions confused. Decisions are there to help in different scenarios, and they will give precedence, but not all situations are found in decisions. The wording of the rule, as highlighted in red above, clearly states that a disqualification can be waived if the Committee considers such action warranted. That is the text of the rule, which pretty much gives the committee the ability to waive a penalty if they feel it is warranted.

Decision 33-7/4.5 is pretty close to this situation, but not entirely. It is missing the part where the committee decides not to take action towards Tiger during his round. It is still a decision, based on the following scenario: "Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified". That part fits our scenario, but it does not include the actions of the committee.

Ok.  Now I understand it totally.  I WAS confusing the decision with the rule and interpreted it (one of the decisions) as part of the rule.  Good.  I am straight on how it all happened now.

And now that Tiger's particular situation has occurred, I would imagine that this scenario will be included in the new decisions part of the rule book to help in future cases.

[gwlee7]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

If anyone really thinks Tiger willfully & intentionally broke a rule to gain an advantage, I have just one request -

Say that to his face.

At no time have I thought or meant to imply that Tiger "cheated".  That's why I said that would be "hard to swallow".

[zipazoid]

BTW, it's now 11am & I've been watching GC since before 8am & haven't seen Chamblee yet.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by gwlee7

And now that Tiger's particular situation has occurred, I would imagine that this scenario will be included in the new decisions part of the rule book to help in future cases.

I agree. I also think we may see a Decision to clarify what is meant by "as nearly as possible." I am less sure of this than I was two evenings ago.

There are lots of things in the Rules of Golf that rely on our interpretation. When is a player actually "testing" the conditions of the putting green, for example? So I don't think this rule will be modified to say "within two clublengths" because again we could have a situation where the exact spot is not exactly known, and the wording still protects those players.

[zipazoid]

Oh crap. There he is.

[boogielicious]

"And his hair was perfect" - Warren Zevon.

[72isgood]

All I will say is Jack didn't break any ROG.  I am 101% a Tiger fan and would like to see him break Jack's record.  But I don't want the new record (?????) tainted

[Zeph]

All I will say is Jack didn't break any ROG.  I am 101% a Tiger fan and would like to see him break Jack's record.  But I don't want the new record (?????) tainted

1: How do you know Jack didn't break any rules? 2: Tiger broke a rule and was penalized. A win would not be tainted.

[Chas]

My respect for Chamblee just went up. He was right, Tiger should have been disqualified, and he had the integrity to say so knowing full well that the Tiger fanboys would go after him viciously. Well done Brandel.