Brandel Gives Tiger an F/ Tiger's Agent Hints at Legal Action Against Chamblee

[Fourputt]

Or, are we supposed to cut Tiger some slack on the basis that most players in the field wouldn't have been filmed moving their ball in the woods?

He thougth that the ball merely oscillated.  I have never seen the replay, but from what I've read, the ball mostly moved vertically.  If I'm looking directly down on the ball and it wiggles, I can't tell if it moved down 1/16 of inch.  It may not even be obvious that it didn't return to it's original position.  What I'd have done is call in a RO, but even then the RO can usually only go by what the player says happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Yep.  Tiger was ultimately condemned by his own words.  95% of the field would have gone unpenalized in the same situation.

That might be true. But if it is, it would only be logical to let that influence your opinion of the other 95% of the field - not your, or my, or Brandel's opinion of Tiger.

The point is that it was clear from his interview that he was unaware of the breach.  If he had been trying to cheat (which I would never suspect for a moment), then he sure as hell as wouldn't have described his thought processes so clearly.  For that reason, I can't fault him for anything other than simply not knowing the rule.

[phan52]

The point is that it was clear from his interview that he was unaware of the breach.  If he had been trying to cheat (which I would never suspect for a moment), then he sure as hell as wouldn't have described his thought processes so clearly.  For that reason, I can't fault him for anything other than simply not knowing the rule.

Do you really think that Tiger doesn't know one of the more fundamental rules of golf? The whole point of what Chamblee is saying is that, while he didn't necessarily cheat, he was cavalier" with the rules. He was, at that moment, very careless in his understanding and execution of his options and he should have known better. Tiger would probably be the first one to tell you that.

[Golfingdad]

The infraction was not just caught by what Tiger said in his presser. That is what forced them to act. They knew about the possible infraction beforehand ( http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-drop-masters-2013-inside-story ), but they were "cavalier" about it and chose not to even address it with Tiger before he finished his round.  That was why and how they came up with the convoluted (and correct) ruling to allow him to stay in the field.

Tiger's admission in the press conference might actually be what saved his butt because the officials realized they had screwed up. If it was another player and they had found out about the infraction after the fact and the other player had incorrectly signed his score card, he would have been gone. It turned out to be a very complex issue, and I think that Tiger could have made it all go away by just withdrawing. I am sure he was frustrated because I think it can be posited that, if his ball had not hit that pin, he probably would have birdied the hole and may very well have won the Masters. But in the end, the whole thing was precipitated by Tiger being careless and breaking the rules, and that is why I believe he would have been better off just going home.

I could be misremembering as well, but as I recall, the vagueness of "as nearly as possible" is what kept what he did from even being an infraction until he flat out said he intentionally went two yards back.  I believe that had he done nothing physically different at all, yet also not mentioned that he intentionally dropped 2 yards back, he would not have been penalized.  That admission, and only that admission, is what started the firestorm.  Until then, everybody just assumed (and rightfully so) that he dropped "as close as possible" to the previous spot.

[phan52]

I could be misremembering as well, but as I recall, the vagueness of "as nearly as possible" is what kept what he did from even being an infraction until he flat out said he intentionally went two yards back.  I believe that had he done nothing physically different at all, yet also not mentioned that he intentionally dropped 2 yards back, he would not have been penalized.  That admission, and only that admission, is what started the firestorm.  Until then, everybody just assumed (and rightfully so) that he dropped "as close as possible" to the previous spot.

My "OPINION" (OK, Erik?) about the incident that I think would have been handled differently is how the officials reacted after Eger told them what he saw. I think Ridley would have been a little tougher with somebody else and maybe scrutinized the tape a little closer, instead of blowing it off and telling Eger he was "splitting hairs". DQed? No, not if they got to the player before he signed his card. But for sure if it happened later.

In the end, the tape verified what Tiger did. Ridley saw it before Tiger finished his round but why did he understand that it was an infraction only after Tiger admitted to it? If anything, food for thought.

[iacas]

My "OPINION" (OK, Erik?)

Chill out, pal. When you say things like "Anyone else would have been DQed" without giving the reasons why you've arrived at that opinion, you're blurring the line between facts (i.e. relevant facts here would be what the rules say) and your opinion.

phan52 is a Tiger hater.

See what I mean? An opinion that comes off as a fact..

Really, you have to stop. I do not have a "distaste" for Tiger Woods. I think he is the best thing to happen to professional golf since Arnold Palmer. And I didn't misremember anything. In fact, I posted a link to an article about what really happened, maybe you should read it.

Your actions (posts) speak differently IMO, and the opinion of many others.

I've read the article. Hell, I played a role in Tiger getting penalized, and I care about the Rules of Golf - it seems odd to assume I wouldn't have read it (several times). And the facts of the matter support the likelihood that had anyone else done that, they'd have either gotten away with it (no post-round interview) or been penalized exactly the same as Tiger Woods (because the Rules were enforced properly). That's my opinion, but it's based on the facts of the matter - the rules, the series of events, and what was right.

You can have an opinion that because it was Tiger Woods they fibbed about arriving at a ruling prior to his signing of a scorecard, and that for any other player they'd have not lied, but if that's the case, say that. Just saying "anyone else would have been DQed" comes off as a statement of fact because you've left out any of the reasons why you've arrived at that opinion.

You basically did just that here (taking a different angle than "they lied"):

I think would have been handled differently is how the officials reacted after Eger told them what he saw. I think Ridley would have been a little tougher with somebody else and maybe scrutinized the tape a little closer, instead of blowing it off and telling Eger he was "splitting hairs".

[phan52]

You can have an opinion that because it was Tiger Woods they fibbed about arriving at a ruling prior to his signing of a scorecard, and that for any other player they'd have not lied, but if that's the case, say that. Just saying "anyone else would have been DQed" comes off as a statement of fact because you've left out any of the reasons why you've arrived at that opinion.

You basically did just that here (taking a different angle than "they lied"):

I did not say that they lied. I said that Ridley blew Eger off and didn't rule on it properly. Eger saw it and everybody ended up agreeing that it was an infraction in the end, including Tiger.

Ridley didn't lie, in fact, he realized he was wrong and found a way out of it (using additional rules). But the fact is that Tiger broke a rule and Ridley decided it was "splitting hairs" until he was backed into a corner. Ridley later said, "There's not a day that goes by that there are not some things I wish I would have done differently." I am sure blowing off Eger was one of them. It is my opinion that Ridley would have looked at it closer and very possibly ruled differently if it was someone else. And if it happened to be after the guy signed his scorecard, well, too bad.

[k-troop]

http://thesandtrap.com/t/69970/tigers-two-stroke-penalty-at-2013-bmw-championship

We've been here before.

[turtleback]

Yep.  Tiger was ultimately condemned by his own words.  95% of the field would have gone unpenalized in the same situation.

This is where the whole cheater meme of Chamblee flies apart.  If he was cheating (which implies intent) would he have said the things he said at the Masters?

And on both of the other real situations (the whole Players thing is completely bogus) he got penalized.  Making a mistake and getting penalized is NOT cheating.

[phan52]

This is where the whole cheater meme of Chamblee flies apart.  If he was cheating (which implies intent) would he have said the things he said at the Masters?

Chamblee never said Tiger cheated. He said he was "cavalier with the rules". Specifically at the Masters, that pretty much applies. Which is why the idea that it libelous and/or actionable in court would be a waste of time and money.

[Golfingdad]

Chamblee never said Tiger cheated. He said he was "cavalier with the rules". Specifically at the Masters, that pretty much applies. Which is why the idea that it libelous and/or actionable in court would be a waste of time and money.

I don't know the legal rules of libel, so you may be right about that, however, he basically did call him a cheater.

If I say that monkeys smell bad, and then say that Brandel Chamblee smells like a monkey, I guess that I could argue, 'technically,' that I never said Chamblee smelled bad.  But that is really splitting hairs.  My implication is clear is day.  There was no other reason for me to even mention monkeys if not to say that Brandel stinks.  Just like there was no other reason for Brandel to bring up his cheating story.

I think this is a factually correct statement:  Brandel Chamblee CLEARLY implied that he thinks Tiger is a cheater.

[iacas]

I did not say that they lied.

At no point did I say that you did. Please read or re-read what I wrote. I simply provided an example.

It is my opinion that Ridley would have looked at it closer and very possibly ruled differently if it was someone else.

And your basis for this opinion is what, exactly?

[k-troop]

Chamblee never said Tiger cheated. He said he was "cavalier with the rules".

Chamblee wrote a paragraph about how he cheated in school when he was younger.  He explained that his teacher caught him, and wrote "100" at the top of the page, then scratched it out, and wrote an "F."  Then he talked about all of Tiger's rules issues.  He then gave Tiger a "100", scratched it out, and gave him an "F."  If that's not clear enough for you, then you get an F for comprehension.

Which is why the idea that it libelous and/or actionable in court would be a waste of time and money.

It's not libelous or actionable because you could never prove or disprove that Brandel intentionally and knowingly expressed a false fact with the specifc intent to wrongfully injure Tiger.  That's a very specific and difficult standard.  Did Tiger have 3 (or 4, depending on your persuasion) rules "issues"?  Yes, he did.  Did Brandel falsely describe those events?  No, he did not.  Did Tiger cheat?  Well, only Tiger really knows for sure whether he was trying to get away with anything--and we've argued to death what to conclude from the objective (but circumstancial) evidence on that point.  Brandel certainly characterized Tiger's actions as cheating, but it's very legally suspect whether that characterization was

(1) a factual assertion, and

(2) knowingly and intentionally false.

That's why a lawsuit would be pointless.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The point is that it was clear from his interview that he was unaware of the breach.  If he had been trying to cheat (which I would never suspect for a moment), then he sure as hell as wouldn't have described his thought processes so clearly.  For that reason, I can't fault him for anything other than simply not knowing the rule.

Do you really think that Tiger doesn't know one of the more fundamental rules of golf? The whole point of what Chamblee is saying is that, while he didn't necessarily cheat, he was cavalier" with the rules. He was, at that moment, very careless in his understanding and execution of his options and he should have known better. Tiger would probably be the first one to tell you that.

Come on,  get real.  You think that if Tiger knew the rule and still dropped where he did that he would have still gone on national TV and said what he said?  That's ludicrous.  Ignorant he may be, but stupid he is not.

Under normal circumstances, the rule about dropping "as near as possible" to the previous spot is regularly fudged because most of the time the player has gone forward, failed to find his ball, then returned and in that case the previous spot is often a bit of a guess.  Thus it's common to miss the exact spot when proceeding under this rule.  Tiger made a 2 clublength mistake, believing that it was an allowable stretch of the rule.  Even though it was a conscious decision, it was still made in ignorance, not by deliberation of cheating.  If you think otherwise, then you are seeing with blinders.

[phan52]

Chamblee wrote a paragraph about how he cheated in school when he was younger.  He explained that his teacher caught him, and wrote "100" at the top of the page, then scratched it out, and wrote an "F."  Then he talked about all of Tiger's rules issues.  He then gave Tiger a "100", scratched it out, and gave him an "F."  If that's not clear enough for you, then you get an F for comprehension.

Originally Posted by k-troop

It's not libelous or actionable because you could never prove or disprove that Brandel intentionally and knowingly expressed a false fact with the specifc intent to wrongfully injure Tiger. That's a very specific and difficult standard. Did Tiger have 3 (or 4, depending on your persuasion) rules "issues"? Yes, he did. Did Brandel falsely describe those events? No, he did not. Did Tiger cheat? Well, only Tiger really knows for sure whether he was trying to get away with anything--and we've argued to death what to conclude from the objective (but circumstancial) evidence on that point. Brandel certainly characterized Tiger's actions as cheating, but it's very legally suspect whether that characterization was

(1) a factual assertion, and

(2) knowingly and intentionally false.

That's why a lawsuit would be pointless.

I pretty much said the same thing when I said that Brandel Chamblee never said that Tiger cheated, but thanks for the clarification.

If this ended up in court, all the defense attorney would need to do is bring a Merriam-Webster dictionary and open it to "cavalier". Thank you very much, next case.

[phan52]

The point is that it was clear from his interview that he was unaware of the breach. If he had been trying to cheat (which I would never suspect for a moment), then he sure as hell as wouldn't have described his thought processes so clearly. For that reason, I can't fault him for anything other than simply not knowing the rule.

Originally Posted by phan52

Do you really think that Tiger doesn't know one of the more fundamental rules of golf? The whole point of what Chamblee is saying is that, while he didn't necessarily cheat, he was cavalier" with the rules. He was, at that moment, very careless in his understanding and execution of his options and he should have known better. Tiger would probably be the first one to tell you that.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Come on,  get real.  You think that if Tiger knew the rule and still dropped where he did that he would have still gone on national TV and said what he said?  That's ludicrous.  Ignorant he may be, but stupid he is not.

Under normal circumstances, the rule about dropping "as near as possible" to the previous spot is regularly fudged because most of the time the player has gone forward, failed to find his ball, then returned and in that case the previous spot is often a bit of a guess.  Thus it's common to miss the exact spot when proceeding under this rule.  Tiger made a 2 clublength mistake, believing that it was an allowable stretch of the rule.  Even though it was a conscious decision, it was still made in ignorance, not by deliberation of cheating.  If you think otherwise, then you are seeing with blinders.

I highly doubt that is true. I'm pretty sure that Tiger can recite 26-1 in his sleep. He knows the rules. He screwed up. He was careless. He was "cavalier". He didn't cheat. Somebody in this conversation has blinders, but it ain't me.

[iacas]

There is nothing wrong with my comprehension.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise. You also thought I claimed you said Ridley lied. (Poking fun, pal… if you can't take some ribbing, well… then you can't take some ribbing, I guess.)

P.S. Please multiquote.

[mvmac]

Chamblee never said Tiger cheated. He said he was "cavalier with the rules". Specifically at the Masters, that pretty much applies. Which is why the idea that it libelous and/or actionable in court would be a waste of time and money.

No he didn't write the words "Tiger cheated" but strongly implied it via the "I cheated on a test" story.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The point is that it was clear from his interview that he was unaware of the breach. If he had been trying to cheat (which I would never suspect for a moment), then he sure as hell as wouldn't have described his thought processes so clearly. For that reason, I can't fault him for anything other than simply not knowing the rule.

Originally Posted by phan52

Do you really think that Tiger doesn't know one of the more fundamental rules of golf? The whole point of what Chamblee is saying is that, while he didn't necessarily cheat, he was cavalier" with the rules. He was, at that moment, very careless in his understanding and execution of his options and he should have known better. Tiger would probably be the first one to tell you that.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Come on,  get real.  You think that if Tiger knew the rule and still dropped where he did that he would have still gone on national TV and said what he said?  That's ludicrous.  Ignorant he may be, but stupid he is not.

Under normal circumstances, the rule about dropping "as near as possible" to the previous spot is regularly fudged because most of the time the player has gone forward, failed to find his ball, then returned and in that case the previous spot is often a bit of a guess.  Thus it's common to miss the exact spot when proceeding under this rule.  Tiger made a 2 clublength mistake, believing that it was an allowable stretch of the rule.  Even though it was a conscious decision, it was still made in ignorance, not by deliberation of cheating.  If you think otherwise, then you are seeing with blinders.

I highly doubt that is true. I'm pretty sure that Tiger can recite 26-1 in his sleep. He knows the rules. He screwed up. He was careless. He was "cavalier". He didn't cheat. Somebody in this conversation has blinders, but it ain't me.

We will simply have to disagree.  You think Tiger is stupid.  I think you are wrong.