or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › 2013 Masters Discussion Thread, Update with Tiger's Illegal Drop (Post #343)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2013 Masters Discussion Thread, Update with Tiger's Illegal Drop (Post #343) - Page 25

post #433 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

LOL ... you can't derail it, this is all on topic. :)

Agree to disagree on the Tiger preferential treatment.  Well, mostly.  As far as the loose impediment goes, you are referring to a tournament in Arizona several years back where the fans moved the giant boulder for him, right?  Yeah, I sort of agree with you on that one because I doubt that many other players would have had enough of a gallery following them to be able to or even care to help on that.  Should have been something that only him or his caddy could move.  Now we're off topic a little though, but that's my fault ;)

Definitely disagree on the DJ bunker penalty ... there's no way they would have gotten around that one.

Haha, yep, it was the boulder. And, one last derailing question, if that "bunker" was a bunker, why were patrons allowed to stand in it while Dustin was taking his shot? I never understood that. If it were a bunker, you would think they might've asked spectators to vacate said bunker. I never forgave them for what they did to Dustin that day. /rant
post #434 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post

That's enough of this for one day for me, I'm going to sleep. And if I wake up tomorrow and Tiger has been DQed, I'm going to be phucking pissed! b2_tongue.gif

Banned!  Three times over for your transgressions.  (Jetphan would claim phour times because enough should apparently be enuph in his world) g2_eek.gif

post #435 of 1228
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

WTF?  Erik, are you a wizard?  How the heck did you respond to me BEFORE I said what I said?

 

Are you psychic?c2_beer.gif

 

Cuz I hate multiquotes. :)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trh98 View Post


Haha, yep, it was the boulder. And, one last derailing question, if that "bunker" was a bunker, why were patrons allowed to stand in it while Dustin was taking his shot? I never understood that. If it were a bunker, you would think they might've asked spectators to vacate said bunker. I never forgave them for what they did to Dustin that day. /rant

 

Because the course had 250 bunkers or something. Enough of the OT Dustin bunker talk, please.

post #436 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallStriker View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

 

It's a bit of a grey area, but again, the point remains that if you know you're two yards farther back, you know you're not "as nearly as possible." You're outside of that... by about two yards.

 

My point is that everyone who has taken this relief knows that they were not playing from a spot as nearly as possible --- he may have dropped, considered himself in play and then asked Joey for the yardage -- just devil's advocate because the rule calls for argument


Whether anybody else has ever done it and gotten away with it is irrelevant - it's a rule violation.  If it is, in fact, ruled as an illegal drop, he should be DQ'ed - although I sincerely doubt it will happen because I don't think the PGA has the guts to DQ the #1 player and media darling of the tournament when he's in contention, golfing well and making a charge for the win.

post #437 of 1228

In my last round, I hit a shot that just rolled back off the green into the water. I walked around the hazard to where my ball fell in, determined it was unplayable, and went back to hit my approach shot again. I couldn't tell you if I was within 6ft of where my previous shot had been, but I played it to my best guess, and moved on. It was close enough to be as the rules intended. Since no one but Tiger even realized that he was 2 yards behind his last spot, I think it was close enough to be "as intended". Since we are debating how the rules are intended to be interpreted to determine whether or not Tiger should be DQ'd, he clearly should not be.

post #438 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post


Tiger's never gotten this preferential treatment in the rules that others seem to think he's gotten.

So that means he will be DQ'd tomorrow, right? Otherwise, he will have gotten away with another "interpretation" of the rule that just so happens to favor him.
post #439 of 1228
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhockey11 View Post

In my last round, I hit a shot that just rolled back off the green into the water. I walked around the hazard to where my ball fell in, determined it was unplayable, and went back to hit my approach shot again. I couldn't tell you if I was within 6ft of where my previous shot had been, but I played it to my best guess, and moved on. It was close enough to be as the rules intended. Since no one but Tiger even realized that he was 2 yards behind his last spot, I think it was close enough to be "as intended". Since we are debating how the rules are intended to be interpreted to determine whether or not Tiger should be DQ'd, he clearly should not be.

 

You can't declare a ball in water as unplayable. :)

 

And Tiger knew he was two yards behind his divot. The wording is in there to HELP people like you, but if you knowingly drop two yards back to get a better yardage, that's knowingly not dropping "as nearly as possible."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trh98 View Post

So that means he will be DQ'd tomorrow, right? Otherwise, he will have gotten away with another "interpretation" of the rule that just so happens to favor him.

 

I spoke of the past, not the future.

post #440 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post

That's enough of this for one day for me, I'm going to sleep. And if I wake up tomorrow and Tiger has been DQed, I'm going to be phucking pissed! b2_tongue.gif

Banned!  Three times over for your transgressions.  (Jetphan would claim phour times because enough should apparently be enuph in his world) g2_eek.gif

 

Yea, I shouldn'tph done that. I deserved what I got. 

 

In other news, the Sporting News posted this on their site about phiphty-eight minutes ago. It's starting to catch on with news sources now. 

 

http://aol.sportingnews.com/sport/story/2013-04-13/tiger-woods-disqualified-masters-illegal-drop-incorrect-scorecard-pga-rules

 

Tiger seems toast to me. Brutal stuff... I mean stuphph.

post #441 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac62 View Post


Whether anybody else has ever done it and gotten away with it is irrelevant - it's a rule violation.  If it is, in fact, ruled as an illegal drop, he should be DQ'ed - although I sincerely doubt it will happen because I don't think the PGA has the guts to DQ the #1 player and media darling of the tournament when he's in contention, golfing well and making a charge for the win.

Just picking nits here because it doesn't change your sentiment, however, the PGA has no authority here.

post #442 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

I spoke of the past, not the future.

10-4. I agree with you, it does seem like Tiger purposefully dropped a couple of yards behind his first ball so that he could make the exact same swing. This time, however, the couple of yards made all the difference in the world. That first shot seemed like it was going to be at least 6 feet past the hole, if not further.
post #443 of 1228
Thread Starter 

I'm going to bed. When I wake up, I'm curious what I'll be reading.

post #444 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhockey11 View Post

In my last round, I hit a shot that just rolled back off the green into the water. I walked around the hazard to where my ball fell in, determined it was unplayable, and went back to hit my approach shot again. I couldn't tell you if I was within 6ft of where my previous shot had been, but I played it to my best guess, and moved on. It was close enough to be as the rules intended. Since no one but Tiger even realized that he was 2 yards behind his last spot, I think it was close enough to be "as intended". Since we are debating how the rules are intended to be interpreted to determine whether or not Tiger should be DQ'd, he clearly should not be.

 

What you did is fine. That's the whole reason it's worded the way it is. You need to make a reasonable best effort to play from the same spot.

 

You made an effort to play from the same spot, as best you could with the information available to you. 

 

Tiger chose to play, intentionally, from somewhere that he knew wasn't as close as possible to his previous shot. Tiger knew where he'd played his last shot from, and it would have been very easy for him to drop closer.

 

To go back 2 yards suggests to me he confused himself on the options available to him. Unfortunately I can't see how this is anything but an illegal drop.

post #445 of 1228

It should be noted that Tiger did not somehow capitalize on a break in his favor.  IF he is not DQ'd, and IF he comes back to win, anybody suggesting that he was "lucky" or "fortunate" would be severely twisting this out of context.  He was unlucky and unfortunate enough to do something he probably couldn't do if he tried 99 more times, and it would have resulted in not only preventing him from taking control of the tournament, but (as you would have it), also getting him disqualified from the tournament as a direct result of that misfortune.  

 

I, for one, will not be hesitant to respect the victory one iota because he "got away with something" ...if that were to eventually be the case.  This potential DQ would disproportionately penalize him (like some other golf rules do, as has been discussed in the past) even further than he has already been penalized for a great shot.  He can DQ himself if he chooses to, but there's no way he should apologize to anybody for winning if he doesn't.  Not simply because the spirit and social policy of the rules of golf would favor it, but also because there is just barely enough leeway in the vagueness of the rule to warrant it.

post #446 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by trh98 View Post


10-4. I agree with you, it does seem like Tiger purposefully dropped a couple of yards behind his first ball so that he could make the exact same swing. This time, however, the couple of yards made all the difference in the world. That first shot seemed like it was going to be at least 6 feet past the hole, if not further.

 

No it wasn't.  Watch the replay.  The first shot had more spin and a higher trajectory than the 2nd shot.  Feherty even references the 2nd shot had less spin after the 2nd or 3rd replay of it.  The first shot looks like it's going to land about a foot or two past the cup, take one bounce and spin back.  Given that the greens were pretty soft (and the shot just before that from Piercy), the hop shouldn't have been too big.  6 feet past the hole is about the maximum that ball would have ended up, and it likely would have been closer with that spin.

post #447 of 1228

This sucks. Hugely.

 

Did he break the rule? - Yes

Technically, should he be DQ'ed? - Yes

Is it fair (not that this matters, obviously)? - No

Will he get DQ'ed? - I'm calling 50/50, either way it sucks for Tiger. Even if he is allowed to carry on, if he wins there will always be an asterisk next to his name, and regardless of the result this will only add to all the ridiculous and unnecessary Tiger hate out there (people claiming he gets "special treatment" etc.).

post #448 of 1228

Brandel must be sporting a woody...

post #449 of 1228

One possible argument against a DQ is that the Masters is supposed to be about historical traditions. Historically, you wouldn't have people at home carefully reviewing video and interview transcripts to conclude that Tiger should be DQ'd.

 

This is really blowing up on Twitter. Hank Haney is worried (Haney thinks Tiger will win if he doesn't get disqualified). Bob Estes says it was a clear infraction. The list goes on and on.

post #450 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

It should be noted that Tiger did not somehow capitalize on a break in his favor.  IF he is not DQ'd, and IF he comes back to win, anybody suggesting that he was "lucky" or "fortunate" would be severely twisting this out of context.  He was unlucky and unfortunate enough to do something he probably couldn't do if he tried 99 more times, and it would have resulted in not only preventing him from taking control of the tournament, but (as you would have it), also getting him disqualified from the tournament as a direct result of that misfortune.  

 

I, for one, will not be hesitant to respect the victory one iota because he "got away with something" ...if that were to eventually be the case.  This potential DQ would disproportionately penalize him (like some other golf rules do, as has been discussed in the past) even further than he has already been penalized for a great shot.  He can DQ himself if he chooses to, but there's no way he should apologize to anybody for winning if he doesn't.  Not simply because the spirit and social policy of the rules of golf would favor it, but also because there is just barely enough leeway in the vagueness of the rule to warrant it.

 

He wasn't penalized for a great shot. He had some bad luck. We all have bad luck.  Sorry, I have a hard time feeling bad for someone with 14 MAJORS who had an unlucky shot. He would not be getting disqualified from the tournament as a direct result of misfortune... it's a direct result of breaking a rule to put yourself at a better distance. 

 

He did capitalize, he said so when he purposefully declared he was moving 2 yards back to get a better distance. He would be lucky to stay, much less win! It seems like anyone else would be DQ'd. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › 2013 Masters Discussion Thread, Update with Tiger's Illegal Drop (Post #343)