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 49

post #865 of 1228

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.

 

If you think he should still be playing right now, you are not a fan of the game; you're a fan of Tiger who gives him a pass no matter what.

 

What a shame if he wins this. What else is he doing to gain advantages on?

post #866 of 1228
post #867 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by rehmwa View Post

 

I think backing up from the point of the original shot is an pretty honest oversight.  But not for a pro.

 

 

 

In his own words, he purposely dropped it wrong to give him a better shot.

 

Not an oversight and certainly not honest.

post #868 of 1228

Stupid golfwrx, yeah Tiger shouldn't know the rules f4_glare.gif

 

 

post #869 of 1228

Augusta National and Rules committee put Tiger in a terrible position.  They determine yesterday that the drop was proper and decide not to confront him.  After he signs, the pressure mounts after his interview and they change their mind that they should have assessed a penalty.  He should have been notified before he signed the scorecard to give him a chance to explain and then he could discuss it and the 2 stroke penalty gets imposed before he signs the scorecard.  After he signed, they either say that they considered it and chose not to assess a penalty and he's allowed to play with no penalty OR they DQ him. This halfway penalty sets up a precedent that is ridiculous.

Everyone saying it's about the ratings -- has anyone noticed that Augusta still controls all the strings -- limited tv times, limited commercials.  They're the last bastion who doesn't care about ratings. I don't believe the ruling is about the money, believe it or not, it's about Augusta knowing they screwed up by determining there was no infraction when there was one. 

post #870 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo68 View Post

 

In his own words, he purposely dropped it wrong to give him a better shot.

 

Not an oversight and certainly not honest.

Not once does he mention doing it to get a better shot, he simply describes the adjustments he made. Even if he would have placed it on the divot he would have made an adjustment in an attempt to avoid the stick again. He's not admitting anything it's a description of what happened after being asked by the interviewer.

post #871 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo68 View Post

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.

If you think he should still be playing right now, you are not a fan of the game; you're a fan of Tiger who gives him a pass no matter what.

What a shame if he wins this. What else is he doing to gain advantages on?
Was he talking about his original shot position or the drop area?
post #872 of 1228

Faldo and Nantz were just discussing this and Faldo made the statement that by Tiger's own words it became clear to the Rules Committee that he sought to gain an advantage with his drop.

 

Like I said, if you think Tiger should still be playing then you're a Tiger fan and not a fan of the game.

post #873 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by VOX View Post

I keep hearing people say that because the rules committee did not think Tiger violated the rule before he signed his scorecard that that absolves Tiger of a DQ. That is incorrect unless Tiger asked for a ruling (and told a rules official what he had done) and was given an incorrect ruling before he signed his scorecard. I have not heard anyone say that Tiger was GIVEN an incorrect ruling before he signed his card. Therefore he should have been DQed. After the fact, he should have had the class to DQ himself.

 

Ok, got pretty well caught up on the facts, listened to the committee's reasoning.  First everyone forget D34-7/4.5 it was not a factor in the ruling.

 

Vox, I'm not sure I agree with this. Certainly, the committee does not.  The committee deemed that Tiger did not breach R26-1a, before he signed his card.  If a committee makes a ruling, it's a ruling, correct or not.  This is not limited to a player only receiving a ruling, proactively or otherwise, before signing his card.  I understand the reasoning for no DQ.

 

A lot of what that is being said here is irrelevant as far as correctly applying the rules.  This includes the talking heads on TV.

 

Obviously, Tiger should have known the rule.  Also, the committee should have done a better job of determining the drop when they had the chance.  They should have asked Tiger about it.(Before the card was signed).

 

I don't agree with the assertion that this would have been done differently for another player.  You may think that at first blush, but there is way too much at stake here.  Things much more important than TV ratings for a weekend.

post #874 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by achorripsis View Post

Was he talking about his original shot position or the drop area?

He was talking about how the drop area was grainy, not the spot of his original shot.
post #875 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by achorripsis View Post


Was he talking about his original shot position or the drop area?

He's combined the descriptions of both scenarios in an attempt to further his cheating argument. The into the grain shot Tiger mentions during the interview was describing the drop area not where he played his shot. People need to remember that the interview was before the controversy. He wasn't being asked about anything but how he recovered from hitting the stick. The placement of his ball wasn't being questioned at this point.

post #876 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo68 View Post

Faldo and Nantz were just discussing this and Faldo made the statement that by Tiger's own words it became clear to the Rules Committee that he sought to gain an advantage with his drop.

Like I said, if you think Tiger should still be playing then you're a Tiger fan and not a fan of the game.
You can't make a sweeping statement like that and have it be correct. He WAS penalized even after the committee ruled during the round he was fine. That last part is the difference between this situation and other scorecard DQs, and is the reason for rule 33-7.
post #877 of 1228
Good to see Tigers now doing trick shots around the hole! That was crazy.
post #878 of 1228
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rehmwa View Post

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.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by laconic517 View Post

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).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordan View Post

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.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtsalmela80 View Post

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.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

 

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.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by VOX View Post

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.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo68 View Post

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'.

post #879 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dormie1360 View Post

 

Ok, got pretty well caught up on the facts, listened to the committee's reasoning.  First everyone forget D34-7/4.5 it was not a factor in the ruling.

 

Vox, I'm not sure I agree with this. Certainly, the committee does not.  The committee deemed that Tiger did not breach R26-1a, before he signed his card.  If a committee makes a ruling, it's a ruling, correct or not.  This is not limited to a player only receiving a ruling, proactively or otherwise, before signing his card.  I understand the reasoning for no DQ.

 

A lot of what that is being said here is irrelevant as far as correctly applying the rules.  This includes the talking heads on TV.

 

Obviously, Tiger should have known the rule.  Also, the committee should have done a better job of determining the drop when they had the chance.  They should have asked Tiger about it.(Before the card was signed).

 

I don't agree with the assertion that this would have been done differently for another player.  You may think that at first blush, but there is way too much at stake here.  Things much more important than TV ratings for a weekend.

Well said. I'm not sure people can properly comprehend rationales anymore. I'm a big Tiger fan and I supported a DQ based on the fact ignorance of the rule isn't excused. However, this drop was reviewed by officials prior to him finishing his round, and it deemed a proper drop. For them to now come and DQ him will be unfair. There was NOTHING Tiger said in that interview that wasn't apparent on the video. We could all see where the drop was made, and we all saw him examine the drop zone. Any golfer would have ignored the drop zone and played it either in-line or from the spot of the last shot. That's not an advantage, that's phreaking common sense. I also don't know how you will prove that he had a better shot from his drop spot compared to the last shot. He could have taken 4 yards off his shot instead of 2 yards.

post #880 of 1228
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3putter View Post

Well said. I'm not sure people can properly comprehend rationales anymore. I'm a big Tiger fan and I supported a DQ based on the fact ignorance of the rule isn't excused. However, this drop was reviewed by officials prior to him finishing his round, and it deemed a proper drop. For them to now come and DQ him will be unfair. There was NOTHING Tiger said in that interview that wasn't apparent on the video. We could all see where the drop was made, and we all saw him examine the drop zone. Any golfer would have ignored the drop zone and played it either in-line or from the spot of the last shot. That's not an advantage, that's phreaking common sense. I also don't know how you will prove that he had a better shot from his drop spot compared to the last shot. He could have taken 4 yards off his shot instead of 2 yards.

By that logic (bold), you could almost say that the two-stroke penalty was unfair and no penalty at all should have been assessed. And I think you would have a case.
post #881 of 1228
post #882 of 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOT IRISH View Post


Yes but tiger subsequently realised he was wrong & said it in the interview - the penalty for this is DQ, not some nonsense about TV evidence. Countless golfers DQ themselves every weekend for realising they'd made an error, often after a chat about an incident in the bar afterwards, the right thing to do is DQ yourself, Tiger didn't cuz he has no class. This is heading into the cheating category now but of course he's experienced there!

HAHAHA, in what warped world did Tiger said he was wrong in an interview? Learn to comprehend, folks.

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)