The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

[Fourputt]

The committee is made up of human beings.  Human beings are imperfect - they make mistakes.  That's all that needs to be said.  Any other conclusion is just hate inspired paranoia.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by David in FL

A viewer called and said that based on what he saw on TV, the drop was inappropriate.  What video do you think the committee was shown?  I'm guessing (betting my house) that it was exactly what was shown on TV.

Everyone here has seen that video and I haven't heard anyone say that they think that the drop was appropriate.  Erik immediately tweeted that it appeared to be an inappropriate drop.  It was easy to gain some depth perspective in the difference between the first divot and the drop by looking at Tiger's feet and his stance.  Tiger ultimately confirmed (inadvertently) what we could all see pretty easily, that the drop was actually a couple of yards back from the original shot.  Now the question is, how could the committee see something completely different in watching that video?

Ridley needs to answer that, or there are going to continue to be conspiracy nuts that are going to claim that there never was a call and review prior to Tiger signing his card.  Let's be clear, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT.  If the answer is "hey, we were all drunk and just blew it", that's fine.  If it's "hey, we didn't get (or think to ask for) the video of what the guy who called saw on TV and we blew it", that's fine.  But this whole, "what we looked at looked fine" response doesn't pass the smell test.

I know and share your passion for the rules.   I'm struggling to understand why you're not curious as to how this particular committee could have arrived at a clearly bad decision.  Again, I'm not trying to blame anyone.  But the old adage applies......those that do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

No, Dave, that is incorrect.  Erik tweeted immediately after hearing Tiger's interview.  That is the key part here.  (And for the record, Zeg already said this several posts up)  It was not an incorrect drop until then, because it was perfectly reasonable for anybody to assume* (I'll get back to that) that he didn't know exactly where his previous spot was.  Which divot was his, or if he even made a divot.  Once he came on TV and said he knew exactly where his previous spot was and intentionally dropped 2 yards behind that ... then and only then did it become an improper drop.  So, they did not arrive at a "clearly bad decision" except for one thing ...

* On the other hand, it's also perfectly reasonable to think that the committee would ask Tiger about this.  I presume the rules committee is probably not far from the scorers tent ... and perhaps even in it?  He's supposedly on 18 when this decision is made, so how hard would it be to ask him when he's in the room 5 minutes later?

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

No, Dave, that is incorrect.  Erik tweeted immediately after hearing Tiger's interview.  That is the key part here.  (And for the record, Zeg already said this several posts up)  It was not an incorrect drop until then, because it was perfectly reasonable for anybody to assume* (I'll get back to that) that he didn't know exactly where his previous spot was.  Which divot was his, or if he even made a divot.  Once he came on TV and said he knew exactly where his previous spot was and intentionally dropped 2 yards behind that ... then and only then did it become an improper drop.  So, they did not arrive at a "clearly bad decision" except for one thing ...

* On the other hand, it's also perfectly reasonable to think that the committee would ask Tiger about this.  I presume the rules committee is probably not far from the scorers tent ... and perhaps even in it?  He's supposedly on 18 when this decision is made, so how hard would it be to ask him when he's in the room 5 minutes later?

Sorry, I missed the timing on Erik's tweet.  Thought it was sooner than that.

Regardless, it's easy to see on the video.  LaCava also remained right at the original shot.....complete with his very evident divot, while Tiger checked out the drop area option.  There's no doubt that Tiger knew exactly where he had previously hit from.  Given all that, how did the committee come to the conclusion that the drop was correct?

Again, my point is NOT anything about Tiger.  He goofed, and that's all.....shit happens.  But the committee failure was either a procedural error or an extraordinary human error of some sort.  Either way it should be identified and corrected before it happens again.  It should also be explained to the golfing community to quiet those that are claiming some weird conspiracy to avoid having to DQ the top player and TV draw in the tournament.

[szaino]

Originally Posted by jamo

Not quite. Good ballstrikers hit the ball first, then the ground, so their divot would be closer to the hole than where they played their last shot from. You'd be dropping closer to the hole.

I agree that the divit is normally in front of where the ball actually lay on the ground.

The point for all to know is that you need to pick " a specific spot " where either you know the ball last was or where it is estimated to have been. In this case Tiger knew exactly where his last divit was and where the ball last layed. Once you know this, the rules required him to stand over this "exact" spot and drop the ball. The rules don't use the word "exact",  they call it " as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played ".

"Knowingly" holding the ball a foot behind this spot, is not in compliance.

"Knowingly" holding the ball 6 inches behind the spot, is not in compliance.

That is why the rule allows you to redrop without penalty as many times as you have to, if it should land closer to the hole.

The literal interpretation is as explained above, the rules do not at all allow or address dropping a little behind the "spot" so as to not drop "nearer to the hole".

The rules people just blew it when they looked at the film the first time. As said above, it doesn't matter because they finally made the correct decision and the out come was the same.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by szaino

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamo

Not quite. Good ballstrikers hit the ball first, then the ground, so their divot would be closer to the hole than where they played their last shot from. You'd be dropping closer to the hole.

I agree that the divit is normally in front of where the ball actually lay on the ground.

The point for all to know is that you need to pick "a specific spot" where either you know the ball last was or where it is estimated to have been. In this case Tiger knew exactly where his last divit was and where the ball last layed. Once you know this, the rules required him to stand over this "exact" spot and drop the ball. The rules don't use the word "exact",  they call it "as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played".

"Knowingly" holding the ball a foot behind this spot, is not in compliance.

"Knowingly" holding the ball 6 inches behind the spot, is not in compliance.

That is why the rule allows you to redrop without penalty as many times as you have to, if it should land closer to the hole.

The literal interpretation is as explained above, the rules do not at all allow or address dropping a little behind the "spot" so as to not drop "nearer to the hole".

The rules people just blew it when they looked at the film the first time. As said above, it doesn't matter because they finally made the correct decision and the out come was the same.

If you are going to discuss rules and state absolutes, then at least get it right.  You are not allowed to " redrop without penalty as many times as you have to". You must drop a second time if the ball comes to rest after the first drop in a place not allowed under the particular procedure.  After the second drop, you must place the ball on the spot where it first touched the course on the drop.  If you have dropped in a wrong place (meaning that you have done something wrong in locating the drop point for the procedure you are following), you are allowed to correct your mistake by redropping without penalty before making a stroke.  There is more to it than that, but that is all that applies to our comment.

If Tiger had been informed before making his stroke that his drop was incorrect, he could have redropped without penalty.  If I had been his caddie, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zeg

I had thought the call came after the round, I wasn't aware that there was a call during the round. It changes things at most slightly, though.

It changes things quite a bit.

If the committee hadn't ruled it "okay" and then reversed its decision later, a DQ would have resulted if they determined he'd dropped and played from the wrong spot.

Originally Posted by 460CompMark

so do any of you have actual proof other than Tiger saying he dropped it a couple feet further back?  was there actually someone out on the course that can confirm that his divots were too far apart?  a freaking viewer called in and said he thought Tiger dropped too far apart.  give me a freaking break.  this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard.  the committee penalized him based on what he SAID, not on proof of what he actually did.  if you don't have proof other than what he said, this is ludacris.

You don't need further proof. The golfer said he dropped in the wrong spot. Tiger effectively DID penalize himself, by saying that, and being honest that he meant it.

There are lots of times when the player's word is all the information necessary, especially when the player is saying "yes, I should be penalized."

Originally Posted by David in FL

Erik immediately tweeted that it appeared to be an inappropriate drop.

Based on his interview.

In other words, my own reactions were the same as the committee. I saw nothing wrong with the drop (albeit watching live), but then immediately thought "oh no" when he gave the interview.

Originally Posted by David in FL

Now the question is, how could the committee see something completely different in watching that video?

It's very simple: the rule is there to protect the golfer who doesn't know exactly where he last played from. Tiger had walked around, and returned to the general area, which meets the definition of "as nearly as possible."

The information the committee didn't have was that despite walking around, Tiger knew exactly where he'd hit the ball from, so that changed the area or size of the region that meets the "as nearly as possible" region.

That's important, what I just said there, and perhaps will change how you see this. As I said I saw nothing wrong with it live, but when it became obvious Tiger knew exactly where he had played from prior, it was obvious that he'd dropped in the wrong spot.

The timeline still fits.

Originally Posted by David in FL

But this whole, "what we looked at looked fine" response doesn't pass the smell test.

I disagree, and can relate personally as I went through the same stages. See the above. It's perfectly reasonable to see how the definition of "as nearly as possible" changes with the additional info Tiger gave in the interview, and how that can change the decision of the committee.

Originally Posted by David in FL

I'm struggling to understand why you're not curious as to how this particular committee could have arrived at a clearly bad decision.

Perhaps because it's not "clearly a bad decision>"

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

No, Dave, that is incorrect.  Erik tweeted immediately after hearing Tiger's interview.  That is the key part here.  (And for the record, Zeg already said this several posts up)  It was not an incorrect drop until then, because it was perfectly reasonable for anybody to assume* (I'll get back to that) that he didn't know exactly where his previous spot was.  Which divot was his, or if he even made a divot.  Once he came on TV and said he knew exactly where his previous spot was and intentionally dropped 2 yards behind that ... then and only then did it become an improper drop.  So, they did not arrive at a "clearly bad decision" except for one thing ...

That's what I just typed out, slightly differently. I agree, and concur.

Originally Posted by David in FL

Regardless, it's easy to see on the video.  LaCava also remained right at the original shot.....complete with his very evident divot, while Tiger checked out the drop area option.  There's no doubt that Tiger knew exactly where he had previously hit from.  Given all that, how did the committee come to the conclusion that the drop was correct?

I will say this: I just re-watched the video as it played out live, and unless you're trying to say "yes, he screwed up" you won't see it that way. You see Tiger taking a tiny divot in an area that has several other divots. The camera switches to a view of him shielding his eyes from the sun. Then to the ball hitting the flagstick. Then we see him wandering 50 yards, maybe more, to look at the drop area. Then back. Then he is handed a ball, walks a few steps sideways, and drops.

There's no reason to assume that he knew exactly where his previous spot was, so again, at that time, he meets the definition of "as nearly as possible."

[David in FL]

Given the divot and that LaCava remained there while Tiger checked the drop area, it was always clear to me that Tiger knew exactly where his original shot was played from.  At the very least, the assumption should have been so until proven otherwise.  In that case, as others have said many times, the committee should have talked to him prior to the end of his round.

I'm surprised that others, especially the rules committee, didn't see it like that.  I'll accept it though.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Given the divot and that LaCava remained there while Tiger checked the drop area, it was always clear to me that Tiger knew exactly where his original shot was played from.  At the very least, the assumption should have been so until proven otherwise.  In that case, as others have said many times, the committee should have talked to him prior to the end of his round.

I'm surprised that others, especially the rules committee, didn't see it like that.  I'll accept it though.

Nobody ever said that Tiger didn't know what he was doing, only that he didn't know that it was wrong.  He remained within 2 clublengths of the original spot, and he thought he had that latitude.  He was wrong, but his thought processes weren't made public until he said so after the round.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Given the divot and that LaCava remained there while Tiger checked the drop area, it was always clear to me that Tiger knew exactly where his original shot was played from.  At the very least, the assumption should have been so until proven otherwise.

You're arguing against yourself now and don't even know it. :-)

They did assume he knew where he played from which is why they didn't see the need to penalize him. It was only after he said he not only knew where he played from but dropped a little bit away from that spot that they had to look again at the decision.

It would have been nice if the committee had talked to him prior, but they had no real reason to do so. They assumed he'd followed the rules, like they do for EVERY other golfer on EVERY other shot during the tournament. Nothing in the video replay of the events would have led them to believe otherwise.

Again, unless you know LaCava never moves, unless you note in a fraction of a second that Tiger took a little divot and where it is in the landscape of other little divots, etc. you could easily watch this video and see nothing wrong.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by iacas

It changes things quite a bit.

If the committee hadn't ruled it "okay" and then reversed its decision later, a DQ would have resulted if they determined he'd dropped and played from the wrong spot.

I think I may have been unclear. My assumption prior to knowing when the call was received had been that the committee had independently reviewed the drop and reached its conclusion, and that the call was related to revisiting their decision. That's why the impact is minor---in either my (incorrect) scenario or the apparently real course of events, the committee had made an initial ruling. The only real difference I see is that in my mistaken scenario, the confusion with 33-7/4.5 is more likely since it involves a call coming in after the scorecard is signed. It's still not applicable, though.

More generally, I think it's the distinction between waiving the DQ and waiving the 2-stroke penalty that trips people up. Like you said in your last (as of when I typed this) post, arguing that the committee screwed up their initial decision is an argument in favor of how they resolved it. An argument against it (and, I think a mostly reasonable one) would be that Woods had no knowledge that his drop had been reviewed---after all, the committee has no responsibility under the rule to make rulings unless requested by a competitor (as far as I know)---and he should therefore be fully responsible for the full consequences including the DQ.

I'm not making that argument here, it has some problems, but it would at least make sense as a complaint about the non-DQ.

[Fourputt]

That's the first time I've seen the video, and I couldn't see anything from that which would have led me to believe that he did anything wrong.  I don't know what David is seeing, but I'm not.

[Rulesman]

Anyone notice what the commentator said at about 1min 50s

"Probably give himself the few yards farther"

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by szaino

That is why the rule allows you to redrop without penalty as many times as you have to, if it should land closer to the hole.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

If you are going to discuss rules and state absolutes, then at least get it right.  You are not allowed to "redrop without penalty as many times as you have to".  You must drop a second time if the ball comes to rest after the first drop in a place not allowed under the particular procedure.  After the second drop, you must place the ball on the spot where it first touched the course on the drop.  If you have dropped in a wrong place (meaning that you have done something wrong in locating the drop point for the procedure you are following), you are allowed to correct your mistake by redropping without penalty before making a stroke.  There is more to it than that, but that is all that applies to our comment.

Try this:  If when you first drop the ball it does not strike the course within the required area, (including closer to the hole), you must redrop. You are dropping in a wrong place.  There is no limit to the number of drops to correct this.

If your ball does hit the course in the correct spot or required area, but then rolls to an area covered in R20-2c, (there are 7 things) then you get one more drop.  If the ball again then rolls to any of the items covered under R20-2c, (doesn't have to be the same one) the player places the ball where the ball struck the course on the 2nd drop.

[David in FL]

Not at all. I was responding to your last sentence saying that there was no reason to assume that he knew exactly where his previous spot was. I not only assumed that Tiger knew where his original shot was played from, I could also easily tell that he played from several feet behind it. But, like you, I didn't really notice it in real time. Only after it had been brought to my attention, then it became clear to me in looking at the video..... .....and that's my point. It was brought to the committee's attention before he finished his round and they reviewed that same video. If, as you say they believed that he did know exactly where he had played from, how could they not tell that he was not in compliance with the rule? I still struggle to understand how once they knew what they were looking for, they still couldn't see it. You even made a good point in the chat room that although the camera tends to compress distances with a longer lens, you can gain perspective by looking at Tiger's stance and feet.

[David in FL]

That's the first time I've seen the video, and I couldn't see anything from that which would have led me to believe that he did anything wrong.  I don't know what David is seeing, but I'm not.

You don't see his original divot in front of his drop? Heck, maybe I'm imagining things, but it's right there....and clearly several feet in front of the drop. Again. It didn't really register with me in real time either, but after it was mentioned and I looked at it, it became clear. Edited to apologize for not multi-quoting the last two posts. Fourputt's post happened as I was responding to Erik.

[460CompMark]

sounds like a dumb rule anyways.  he can go back as far as he wants from the point the ball went into the hazard, but the option he took he had to stay in close proximity to his 3rd shot.  makes no sense.  regardless, it doesn't matter anymore.  the Masters is over.  time to move on.  yes it sets a precedent for future incidents, but how many times is that going to happen.  this is the first i have ever heard of 33-7 being enforced.

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

That's the first time I've seen the video, and I couldn't see anything from that which would have led me to believe that he did anything wrong.  I don't know what David is seeing, but I'm not.

I can't speak for David, but I thought it was pretty clear from the two still photos that Erik (I think) posted.  The post where he mentioned something about looking at Tigers feet/stance in relation to the original divot.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by 460CompMark

he can go back as far as he wants from the point the ball went into the hazard, but the option he took he had to stay in close proximity to his 3rd shot.  makes no sense.

You got it, so it seems to make sense.

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

I can't speak for David, but I thought it was pretty clear from the two still photos that Erik (I think) posted.  The post where he mentioned something about looking at Tigers feet/stance in relation to the original divot.

That's upon further reflection and after hearing Tiger's statement. You don't seem to be putting yourself in the "realtime" mode or in a state where you can somehow block out the added information.