Originally Posted by rehmwa
2 - like any other activity, we make the 'refs' responsible for enforcing the rules, not spectators, not bored TV watcher, not the players or the caddies - players should know the rules, but infractions should be called by the officials.
Two simple rules should be added
1 - people watching TV should be ignored, spectators should be ignored. The rules officials should do their jobs.
Completely disagree. The fact that a spectator, in person or on TV, or a caddie, or anyone sees a rules infraction does not change the fact that the rules were violated. Nope. That's like saying only the police can report crimes.
Originally Posted by laconic517
His argument was that he gained no advantage because hed make the putt anyway. IMO thats a cop out and if a rule is truly a rule it should be enforced no matter what. I feel like theres definitely precedence for this ruling based on the Bobby Locke example.
Yes. Which is odd given Brandel's stance on Tiger. Well, not really, since he says Tiger gained an advantage (because Tiger said he did, kinda).
Originally Posted by Mordan
Having had a bit more time to think about this, I think the right outcome has been reached.
Had the committee done a decent job of investigating the incident during the round yesterday, then Tiger would have been penalised 2 shots before he signed his score card.
Tiger should not be penalised for the failings of the committee, so a two shot penalty but no DQ is correct given the circumstances. There is leeway under rule 33, in the general exception (not 33-7 as has been erroneously mentioned).
A botched job all round, but the right and fair result in the end. The fact that nothing was released to the public regarding the committee's initial review of the drop is a bit of an indictment of the way things are run, a completely lack of transparency that in many ways fed the resulting twitter/media storm.
I think so. And if the ball was an inch to the left or right, it's a four-shot difference. Might be five, would be at least three.
Originally Posted by mtsalmela80
Augusta knows tiger not playing the weekend would cause a huge loss of revenue. This is why this decision was made. Anyone else. Gone
Stupid comment: Augusta would not suffer any loss of revenue.
Originally Posted by David in FL
There are some rules where intent matters.
Not many, and this isn't one of them. Tiger's comments spoke to what he actually DID - not his "intent." It spoke to his ACTIONS.
Originally Posted by VOX
It might seem that way based solely on the rule but the decisions say otherwise. I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
No need to agree to disagree - you're wrong on how you're reading the rules.
Originally Posted by Pablo68
I just watched the clip of him again, describing why he did drop there. So it was into the grain where he would have to drop so he went two yards away to give himself a better shot? Yep......that's cheating folks.
The grain comment was re: the drop area.
The proper decision was done. Fred Ridley explained things well in the opening. I'll defer any and all comments to that interview session with Jim Nantz.
Tiger's only E through 10 so he will not be winning this year. Not unless he goes -6 on the last 8 today, and that ain't happenin'.