or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › DQ Brandel Chamblee from the Golf Channel
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DQ Brandel Chamblee from the Golf Channel - Page 4

post #55 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh No L-drik View Post

Just texted my w/e foursome and informed them that I actually shot a 86 instead of and 83,..I did not know I was suppose to count ALL of my strokes ..I claimed ignorance of the rules so the $7.50 I won would not be refunded. They are not happy...obviuosly not Eldrick fans.

Your "handle" says everything about your resentment for Tiger.

 

Give up your protesting...


Hmmm... I blocked him and it did not change the thread quality

post #56 of 236

@ IACAS...I am in no market for ocean front property (Gulf Coast), already got dat,..actually have lots...you need some? But to clarify your point, I do not "hate" Eldrick, I have no love for el-feline...which some can not accept...so be it. I despise his demeanor and arrogance much more than I admire his game. Some can seperate the two, I choose not to. I truly respect the young guns who also choose not to be the "next Tiger" in on/off the course demeanor...but play it with the same passion.

post #57 of 236

Glad to see I got you cart-riders heart rate's up...you can thank me later.  Now take your meds and geaux night-night. Us protectors-of-the-game have a half-marathon in the AM...then its an afternoon of couch time and the MASTERS...and if Tiger wins, congrats to him.

post #58 of 236

I like Chamblee.....I think he calls it as he sees it and lets the chips fall....he also has a great perspective of being an ex-fringe type PGA player...spots between 75 and 250 on the PGA/Web is a friggin shark tank.....better learn all you can if you want to stick around but don't have the talent to be top 50

post #59 of 236
Chamblee's argument:

post #60 of 236

Tiger is the best golfer ever.  And if he wins 18 or 19 majors to tie or beat Nicklaus, and this Masters is one of those victories, it will forever tarnish his image as a golfer and leave the argument open as to who actually won more majors.  Not the situation the rule was created for, and he would have been DQ'd had it been anyone but Tiger.  Golf is different than other sports, trying to get away with cheating, even something you did unintentionally, just isn't allowed/doesn't happen.  Of course I would rather have Tiger contending on Sunday at any tournament, especially a major.  But he should have DQ'd himself - he signed for an incorrect score.

post #61 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

Chamblee's argument:

 

He's correct that 33-7/4.5 isn't applicable in this situation and that Tiger's DQ can't be waived under that decision. However 33-7/5 is a closer fit to this situation.

 

 

 

Quote:

33-7/5

Play of Wrong Ball Not Rectified on Advice of Referee

Q.In stroke play, a competitor plays two strokes on the 14th hole and then plays a wrong ball for what he believed to be his third stroke. He plays a total of four strokes with the wrong ball, holing out with it. He then discovers the error. Before teeing off at the 15th, he asks a referee as to the procedure. The referee told the competitor to proceed and consult the Committee when the round was completed, instead of telling him to rectify the error as prescribed in Rule 15-3b.

Should the competitor be disqualified as prescribed in Rule 15-3b?

A.No. In the circumstances, the competitor should incur a penalty of two strokes for a breach of Rule 15-3b. The disqualification penalty that he also incurred under that Rule should be waived by the Committee under Rule 33-7, since the competitor's failure to correct his mistake was due to the error of the referee.

Generally, strokes played with a wrong ball do not count in the competitor's score. However, in this case such strokes must be counted. Otherwise, the competitor would not have a score for the hole. In equity (Rule 1-4), his score for the hole would be 8: the two strokes he played with his ball, the two penalty strokes for playing a wrong ball and the four strokes he played with the wrong ball. (Revised)

 

I do understand that there is a difference in that the competitor above has asked for a ruling, where as in Tiger's case the committee ruled without his knowledge or his prompting. But ultimately had the committee not made a mistake by failing to speak to Tiger prior to him returning his card, then he would not have been DQed. Thus waiving the DQ is the correct course of action.

 

In the end Tiger can count himself very lucky that someone called in before he finished his round, otherwise a DQ would have been the correct and only course of action.

post #62 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

Chamblee's argument:



It was an intended change of drop from woods.
DQ should been a formality.
 

post #63 of 236

If Tiger comes from 4 back to win, this will be heralded as one of his best ever -- coming back from maybe one of the worst breaks in major championship history by hitting the flagstick on the approach, about to take control of the tournament, and then making a bad decision and the resulting shittttstorm..........an inch to the right, he has a look at birdie or would have at worst made a par if it skipped back....fact is we'll never know

 

The unfairness here is that if Tiger doesn't win, the winner will never get the credit he deserves -- it will always be the seen as a horrible, horrible break for Tiger -- some will say karma of course

post #64 of 236

The reason the committee did what they did, was the time-line. 

 

  • Hole 15: Tiger makes an illegal drop
  • Hole 18: A viewer makes the officials aware of the issue at 15
  • Hole 18: The committee decides Tiger did not break any rules and does not confront him with it
  • Post-round interview: Tiger says he moved two yards back on purpose
  • Post-round: The committee sees the interview and realize they made a mistake not confronting Tiger with the illegal drop. They discuss it and in the morning contact Tiger to talk. The committee give Tiger a two stroke penalty for the illegal drop and Tiger accepts.

 

The committee issues a statement, with the following words:

 

 

Quote:
The penalty of disqualification was waived by the Committee under Rule 33 as the Committee had previously reviewed the information and made its initial determination prior to the finish of the player’s round.

 

Here is the general text of rule 33-7, which leaves the decision to the committee.

 

33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion

A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.

Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.

If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.

Given the circumstances, the committee decided it was not a serious breach, and I've come to accept that. Tiger did gain an advantage, but not a very big one. He had to hit the same shot, just a few yards farther back. Some might say it's a disadvantage, but since Tiger consciously did this, we must agree it was to gain an advantage, but it was probably not deemed a serious breach. The important part, as far as I believe, is that the committee decided it was not a breach during play. They should have confronted Tiger with it before he signed his card, but failed to do so. Upon watching his post-round interview, they realize they made a mistake. Given all these circumstances, the committee decided it was too harsh to disqualify Tiger - the subject was not even on the table - and give him a two stroke penalty. Partly due to their wrongdoing in not confronting Tiger before he signed his card.

 

Some might say it's a stretch of rule 33-7, but it is what it is. Personally, I think the decision not to confront Tiger with it during his round was the determining factor.

 

As far as Tiger's legacy goes and whether people will "accept" a win today is not a concern of mine. If he wins, he wins. He's taken his penalty and moved on. We can discuss the events in hindsight, claim the committee did a poor job and question the wording or interpretation of rule 33-7, but Tiger has done as he was asked to do.

post #65 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallStriker View Post

If Tiger comes from 4 back to win, this will be heralded as one of his best ever -- coming back from maybe one of the worst breaks in major championship history by hitting the flagstick on the approach, about to take control of the tournament, and then making a bad decision and the resulting shittttstorm..........an inch to the right, he has a look at birdie or would have at worst made a par if it skipped back....fact is we'll never know

 

The unfairness here is that if Tiger doesn't win, the winner will never get the credit he deserves -- it will always be the seen as a horrible, horrible break for Tiger -- some will say karma of course

 

I have to disagree.  It's a lose/lose situation for Tiger.  If he wins, it will be tainted because there are so many that think he should have been DQ'd.  If he loses, people will say either he shouldn't have been playing anyway, or that hitting the flagstick is just part of the nature of the game. 

 

How many times has someone hit a tree and the ball caromed back into the fairway?  Last year Bubba caught a break when his ball was perched on the pine straw with a slight opening to play his hook shot.  Lefty hit that epic 6 iron because his ball was situated exactly between two trees.  In the Open a couple years ago, Tom Watson hit a nice shot into the 72nd green, but it hit something and bounced over causing him to score a bogey.  Then he lost in a playoff.  Payne Stewart and the divot, Ray Floyd and the ball marker...  The history of the game is full of breaks - good and bad.

 

Also, in all of Tiger's majors, he has never come back from any deficit to win.  He's only gone on to win if he had the 54 hole lead outright or was tied.  So history doesn't favor his chances.

post #66 of 236
Tainted for now and the nay sayers? If he crushes the record it won't matter. If he wins all the majors to break the record, this one hazy decision taints his whole accomplishment?

Bottomline, I hope he gets pissed and wins just cause he likes to throw fire on the haters lol.
post #67 of 236

Early in the coverage yesterday ... I thought his head was going to explode.       Never seen a commentator go full mental on the air like that.     Faldo felt the same way as BC, but presented his way of thinking in a much calmer and more reasonable way (and at the end of the day accepted why the rules committe did not DQ him by applying the new rule 33---, whereas BC still didn't seem to accept it).    

post #68 of 236
I still don't understand how Tiger's actions did not stem from "ignorance of the rules", which would appear to explicitly preclude the committee from taking the action that it did?

What's the alternative, that he knew he was dropping wrong but went ahead anyway?
post #69 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

I still don't understand how Tiger's actions did not stem from "ignorance of the rules", which would appear to explicitly preclude the committee from taking the action that it did?

What's the alternative, that he knew he was dropping wrong but went ahead anyway?
He did, but they chose not to do anything until the round was over, which made the situation different. There are no decisions which currently match the situation in round two, so you can't look at the rules and expect to find a wording that matches the incident. They are given the authority to waive a disqualifications and chose to do so.
post #70 of 236
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh No L-drik View Post

You can dismiss my opinions as being anti-Eldrick...I have no "hate" for Eldrick. I have aknowledged the narcissist his greatness. However, I will not allow the sycophants at home and in the media to exploit/bastardize OUR game without protestation. NOBODY is bigger than the game...the game belongs to us. We are unique, the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, etc...do not enjoy the "viewer particiption index" the PGA does. Collectively we are more invested (time and treasure) in the game of golf than fans of any other major sport. As loyal members of that not-so-elite group, we should call FOUL. Not out of dislike/disrespect for Mr. Woods...Tiger is as good as it gets, when he chooses to be...but out of love for the game.

I respectfully have to disagree with you. I feel it is the allowance of the "viewer participation index" that is going to ruin the Professional golf tour. We are allowing people that we have no knowlege of who may ulterior motives anonymously have input. This is a very slippery slope  with catastrophic consequences. Furthermore  what happened to Tiger would be considered I believe its called "Double Indemnity" in our legal public court systems. He was first judged to be innocent of any fouls then the governing body decided to change its decision based on what IMO was a statement taken out of context by Tiger. It doesn't matter if he stated that "hell I cheated afterward" it is wrong to reverse an official decision based on actions that occur after the event happens.

post #71 of 236

Stretch's argument that the rule (33 - 7) states clearly ignorance of the rules is no reason for the committee to intervene on the player's behalf continues to be the part that, to me at least, can't be explained away no matter how badly some of us might want Tiger to be in the tournament. 

 

Why doesn't 6 - 1 (A player and caddie are responsible for knowing the rules)  supersede any parts of 33-7 in this case? 

 

I am confused about how 33 - 7 could be applied. 

 

Also, the alternative that Tiger "willfully" broke the rule is hard to swallow.  

 

post #72 of 236

I think it's almost laughable that some think Tiger got some kind of 'pass' from punishment because of who he is. I'm looking at the leaderboard this Sunday morning & he's 4 shots off the lead...and those 4 shots were, basically, the result of hitting TOO GOOD of a shot on 15 Friday. By hitting the flagstick. Not only did he get dicked by the ball ricocheting into the water, but because of the angle it went into the water it turned what was a routine drop into a nuanced one that introduced the possibility of misunderstanding the options. I'm sure Tiger was burning red-hot when the ball went into the water. I know I would be. 

 

So a perfectly-played shot cost him 4 shots. And to think there are some here who don't think that's enough. And they use the rules as their rationale. The rules were followed! He got gigged two, and based on the circumstances they invoked Rule 33. In all I think it was handled very well. If the argument is 'He didn't get DQ'd cuz it was Tiger'....well, maybe. Maybe not. We will never truly know will we. But as it were, he got gigged two for taking a bad drop that they first thought was appropriate. 

 

All that aside, I do think Chamblee's schtick has worn very thin. My mom used to used a word to describe someone like him. Supercilious. He has this "I am smarter and more honorable than you so just shut up and listen to me" attitude.

 

I'll tell you who I think is a rising star & would like to hear more from - Notah Begay.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › DQ Brandel Chamblee from the Golf Channel