Established Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

94 Multiple Major Winner

About zeg

  • Rank
    Tour Winner
  • Birthday 11/30/1976

Personal Information

  • Your Location Indiana

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index 21.9
  • Handedness Righty
  1. Ball marker moved

    Bah, they're better than the Mac snobs....
  2. The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

    Maybe I misunderstand, but I thought that the video was enough that they *should* have been able to make the right decision (or, at the least, inquire further). As I understand the ruling, that's why they made an error. I hate to introduce another hypothetical, but I think it might help with a subtle point. Had the video not been as clear as it was (at least when given full attention), would the ruling have been different? I think yes, because then the committee would not have erred. The error was missing evidence that they did have. At least that's my read, but if I'm incorrect, then I've missed something (and should therefore be DQed).
  3. The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

    The video itself was actually, well, not irrefutable, but sufficient evidence to draw the correct conclusion. That's at the heart of why the DQ was waived! (Had the video been inconclusive, then the committee would not have erred in their ruling, and the post-round interview would probably have been enough to lead to a DQ.) I'm in favor of the discussion, but I do think we're running out of things to argue constructively about. A lot of the leads are falling to personal opinions about how things should be. I'd think those would be long in a separate thread.
  4. The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

    Interesting info re: DQ for an illegal drop, Fourputt. I don't think I agree with that policy, though: I think any sort of willful attempt to abuse the rules should be dealt with harshly. But I don't get to make the rules. Sacm3bill, I understand where you're coming from, and went through a period where I agreed with what you're saying. I changed my mind, though. The reason is that I don't think the equitability of the DQ waiver needs to be considered in any context except in the specific competition in question. In that context, all I think they're saying is that their ordinary practice in a scenario identical except that they had reached a correct initial ruling would have led to an intervention before the scorecard was signed. Since they made an error that prevented that from happening, Woods would be at a disadvantage relative to the hypothetical golfer who had been alerted before he reached the scorer's tent. Also, this doesn't create any obligation to police every play. If the committee had not made a ruling, the DQ would have stood. Yes, there's an element of chance there, but in this case a ruling did happen, and it's thus part of the scenario. As long as the mechanisms by which these rulings are triggered are impartial, the random element might be annoying, but it's perfectly equitable. You wrote, "The DQ was waived based on an `implicit' ruling that existed because the improper drop was observed but the player was not told they had done something wrong." That is not accurate: the DQ was not waived because the drop was observed, but because the committee made a formal ruling after reviewing it. That's an important distinction, and it is why this decision doesn't imply that the rules officials are now referees. I think what you're saying has merit, and I don't believe the official ruling is the only logical one. It comes down to a judgment call about what is most equitable, and what best protects the principles of the rules and the interests of the competition. My feeling is that in ambiguous cases, trying to avoid a DQ if the rules and their principles permit it is probably the best approach. Another question here, of course, is whether the practice of issuing rulings in this manner is a good one. That's a tricky question. It did lead to this flap, but this is an extraordinarily rare situation. It probably far more often "works" by correctly identifying a violation and getting word to the player in time. If one thinks that's a good thing, that benefit might outweigh the occasional controversy. It's not obvious to me which way is better, but it seems that the powers that be prefer to prevent DQs if they can. Most fans probably appreciate this, even if they aren't aware of what's going on behind the scenes---nobody likes to see their favorite golfer DQed.
  5. The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

    There's no reason to bring these hypotheticals into play here, because that doesn't describe what happened. Tiger did not gain a major advantage by dropping in the wrong place, so it doesn't matter what would have happened if he had. Mordan is probably right that you'd be better off with the bunt, but I think a committee would still be justified in finding that dropping in the wrong place conferred a DQ-able advantage. The rule doesn't specify that it has to have been a greater than 2-stroke advantage, just that it has to be a serious breach. Intentionally dropping in a wrong place to obtain a significantly better lie is pretty inarguably a serious breach. But that's OT here. As was correctly stated above, the final score was recorded fully according to the rules. A hole played with an improper drop, together with the associated penalty strokes, is a hole that was played according to the rules. No reason to get metaphysical.
  6. How big the 'drop zone'?

    They may not, but they frequently do. I've played a few courses in the LA area that have grossly non-compliant rules for dealing with desert scrub and environmentally sensitive areas. Like the case here, they are reasonably logical solutions, except that they violate the rules of golf. It's frustrating, but if they are enforcing those rules, probably your best bet is not to worry about the proper rule: as has been said, there wasn't one. If you keep a handicap, follow the rules for reporting a score with a hole not completed under the rules of golf (i.e., estimate your most likely score from the point you deviated from the rules). Rules-wise it's irrelevant that you had no choice in the matter. A proper informal stroke play competition will be impossible on this course (presumably they play by the rules when an organized tournament is happening). A match could work in principle because one of the players could concede the hole, or you could follow Decision 2-1/1.5 and halve the hole (although I believe you would not be permitted to agree about how to resolve this in advance, since that would be an agreement to waive the rules---you have to start the hole and then address the situation if it arises).
  7. Ok, but we haven't addressed a few things. In what coordinates is the point specified? Is it in latitude/longitude, so if the earth crust moves, the position changes relative to the course, or does it move with the course? And, for that matter, what if, as you drop it, there's a massive earthquake and the point where you were supposed to drop it is now a chasm? There may no longer even be a point for the drop. WHAT THEN?
  8. The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

    The general principle you describe has very intentionally been in force for decades. The player is responsible for following the rules, but with assistance, guidance, and final decision-making by the rules committee. Contrary to your assertion, this is not "corrosive to the integrity of the game," it is essential to it. Situations where the facts, or even the rules, are unclear will arise, and a mechanism for providing certainty is needed. That is what this provides. The committee is presumed to be neutral, so any error it makes is an honest one. A DQ for following its rulings, later found incorrect, would be patently unfair. In this case, there is the quirk that the competitor was not aware of the committee's ruling. That is certainly unusual, but because negative rulings are customarily communicated to the competitors prior to card signing, the requirement of extenuating circumstances under which a waiver of the DQ is justifiable.
  9. Of course I've lost you, because I'm not making any sense. I misread the rule when checking it, overlooking the "before it is lifted under a Rule that requires it to be replaced." Since I know you're not required to mark for dropping, in my private little fantasy world, that means that picking it up for a drop must not be "lifting" since you don't have to mark it. So just ignore all that stuff. At least I got the penalty bit right.
  10. That's why we hang out here. They ought to clarify rule 20-1 IMO, since "lifted" is a technical term in that case but is easily mistaken for picking up your ball in general. In any case, it certainly is advised, so in any case your error probably taught him a useful lesson.
  11. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you cost him an unwarranted penalty stroke. There is no requirement to mark your ball for a drop---unless he actually dropped further than two strokes from the spot where his ball lay, there was no penalty. Picking up your ball for a drop is not "lifting" as described by 20-1.
  12. The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

    And, importantly the Janzen incident over a decade ago demonstrates that this isn't a unique ruling designed to protect Woods. (and I'm not sure why anyone would care what a jackass with a grudge thinks about the rules)
  13. If you believe they have identified the wrong location, you can challenge them about it or bring it up with the committee. They have to be making a bona fide effort to identify the location and drop on it. If you have information that can help them identify the location correctly, you should assist them by providing that information. But they have the right to make their own reasonable determination, even if they make an error. There's no other practical way to solve the problem---at some point you have to rely on the integrity of the players. This was already covered, at least in one case, but you get 1 or 2 club lengths of freedom when the "closest spot" is impractical for some reason. When you're returning to the location of your previous stroke, by definition you already determined that it was reasonable to attempt a stroke from that location, so you don't automatically get leeway.
  14. The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

    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.
  15. The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

    Quote: Originally Posted by David in FL They conducted the review on the basis of a call they received alerting them to the improper drop.  It turns out that the drop was clearly improper, yet their review missed it. 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. Without the statement from Woods, it's harder to conclude that he violated the rule. He was near to the original spot and there's not a requirement that you know the actual exact spot of your previous stroke, just that you make a reasonable and honest estimate of that spot and once you've done so, do your best to drop on it. The evidence would have had to show that his drop was clearly unreasonable enough to overcome the general presumption that the golfer is acting in good faith. In this case, yes, it was close enough that they probably ought to have asked him about that, and that's a point in Woods's favor with regard to waiving the DQ. Once Woods made a statement confirming that he knowingly dropped in a wrong place (even if he did not know that it was a wrong place, it was factually a wrong place under the rule), it was unquestionable that he incurred a penalty. The committee's earlier decision was wrong, and probably "negligently" so.  My earlier statements explain why that probably happened---it's much easier to dissect this once it's a big story than when it's just one of many things to get through. That doesn't make it ok, they blew it. So they enforce the penalty and waive the DQ, thereby not unfairly penalizing a golfer for their oversight. Quote: The committee made a ruling. How much attention they paid to that decision isn't relevant, although you'd hope that it would be more than cursory in most cases. Yeah, I would hope so. What I really meant was how formal their investigation / ruling needs to be, and what factors led to their conclusion. For example, I suspect that the fact that it's usual practice to notify a competitor of a likely rules violation prior to signing his card is the basis for this waiver. I don't think that would apply in a club tournament where, somehow, the committee discussed an event, came to a wrong conclusion, but didn't stop the competitor from signing his card. In that case (which, I admit, is somewhat contrived) I don't think this decision would apply because the competitor had no reasonable expectation that the committee would review and rule on an event unless he specifically requested a ruling. But the vague nature of their explanation leaves me wondering I'm wrong, and it's some other line of reasoning.