or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Integrity in professional golf...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Integrity in professional golf... - Page 2

post #19 of 27

This whole thing is starting to get out of hand because of what appears to be either ignorance and or misunderstanding of the ROG. Or possibly (in combination) poor choice of specific language that is misleading or inaccurate. With that said there is a possibility the ignorance and misunderstanding is mine ... yea I do realize that.

There is no penalty for making a bad drop.
There is no penalty for making a drop in the wrong place.
It is not "illegal" to putt while on the green with the flag in.
There is no penalty for putting while on the green with the flag in.

There is a one stroke penalty for not correcting a bad drop.
There is a two stroke penalty for playing from the wrong spot after dropping in the wrong spot and not correcting it.
There is a two stroke penalty if you putt on the green and your ball strikes the flagstick still in the hole.

Rule 33-7 was not really the central issue here as the committee has had (as long as I know, not that long) discretion to waive a DQ but only in very limited and specific circumstances. Rule 33-7 is applicable here but not in the sense that I feel most people are implying, again either ignorantly or carelessly.

Decision 34-3/1 (and many more supporting decisions, 34-3/3.9 for instance) already cover the situation:


Situation A (34-3/1):

  1. Player thinks he may have made a rules violation and informs committee before returning card.
  2. Committee rules no penalty is warranted and player signs card.
  3. Next day committee realizes there was a violation and assesses player a two stroke penalty but does not DQ him.


Situation B (Tiger):

  1. Spectator thinks there may have been a rules violation and informs committee before player returns card.
  2. Committee rules no penalty is warranted before player signs card, which he obviously subsequently does.
  3. Next day committee realizes there was a violation and asseses player a two stroke penalty but does not DQ him.


The obvious difference is that in A the player brings it up and gets the feedback. In B a caller brings it up and thus Tiger was unaware of any of this happening. The feedback in case B would go to who? the caller (not likely).
 

post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

Yup.

 

Or "controversy only exists if you hate Tiger Woods and want to use this as an opportunity to express that hate while pretending that you're simply concerned about 'integrity.'"

 

Controversy exists when you have a dispute between 2 sides holding opposing views on a subject.   Controversy clearly exists in this case.  The fact that there are those that disagree with you is what defines the controversy.

 

Note, I'm not saying one side or another is correct, simply that there are many people on both sides of the issue and therefore, by definition, it's controversial.

 

FWIW, I see no integrity issue at all here.

post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas View Post

What? You guys are nuts if that's how you define the word 'controversy'.

This really is most entertaining ..... lol

 

You've added nothing of value to this thread, and your old "I hate Tiger" attitude is seeping through.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

Controversy exists when you have a dispute between 2 sides holding opposing views on a subject.   Controversy clearly exists in this case.  The fact that there are those that disagree with you is what defines the controversy.

 

There are those who think the earth is still the center of the universe. Doesn't mean it's a "controversy." As I read it, you cannot have controversy about factual matters. I think we have to consider the connotation of the word as well.

post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

Controversy exists when you have a dispute between 2 sides holding opposing views on a subject.   Controversy clearly exists in this case.  The fact that there are those that disagree with you is what defines the controversy.

 

There are those who think the earth is still the center of the universe. Doesn't mean it's a "controversy." As I read it, you cannot have controversy about factual matters. I think we have to consider the connotation of the word as well.

 

It is a fact that the committee had the right to rule as they did. It's also a fact that they could've ruled the other way (for a DQ).

 

It as an opinion that the committee ended up ruling correctly or incorrectly. Opinions on that can and do differ between reasonable minds.

 

Hence, controversy.

post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

It is a fact that the committee had the right to rule as they did. It's also a fact that they could've ruled the other way (for a DQ).

 

It as an opinion that the committee ended up ruling correctly or incorrectly. Opinions on that can and do differ between reasonable minds.

 

Hence, controversy.

No, it's not.  Had they done so, then you'd have controversy because you just DQ'd somebody for signing an incorrect scorecard who didn't sign an incorrect scorecard.

 

The only goof is that they failed to bring in Tiger to discuss the original ruling before they made it.  But that was just a silly mistake at best, not even remotely a controversy.

 

Now, if you could find somebody to leak a story that the committee made up the whole story of the first caller and the first ruling as an excuse to allow Tiger to ger the penalty instead of the DQ, then you would have yourself a controversy.  On a massive scale, no less.

post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

It is a fact that the committee had the right to rule as they did. It's also a fact that they could've ruled the other way (for a DQ).

 

It as an opinion that the committee ended up ruling correctly or incorrectly. Opinions on that can and do differ between reasonable minds.

 

Hence, controversy.

No, it's not.  Had they done so, then you'd have controversy because you just DQ'd somebody for signing an incorrect scorecard who didn't sign an incorrect scorecard.

 

The only goof is that they failed to bring in Tiger to discuss the original ruling before they made it.  But that was just a silly mistake at best, not even remotely a controversy.

 

Now, if you could find somebody to leak a story that the committee made up the whole story of the first caller and the first ruling as an excuse to allow Tiger to ger the penalty instead of the DQ, then you would have yourself a controversy.  On a massive scale, no less.

 

Here's how I look at it: It all comes down to whether the scorecard was correct at the time he signed it, right?

 

From the committee's frame of reference at the time he signed, it was a correct score - it wasn't until later that it became an incorrect score. If you look at it that way, you can't DQ him.

 

But from Tiger's frame of reference, who had more accurate and full knowledge than the committee with respect to whether the drop was legal or not, it was an incorrect score at the time he signed. If you look at it that way, you must DQ him.

 

So it all depends on whose perspective takes precedence when trying to determine whether the rules call for a DQ. Personally I believe the player's perspective should take precedence, because of my bolded text above. I believe the committee's mistake in ruling it legal among themselves is irrelevant since they never actually told Tiger they had done so. Only that would've exonerated him from a DQ, IMO.

 

But because there's no precedence for this situation and no cut-and-dried rule/decision that addresses it, the committee acted within their power to invoke rule 33-7 and waive the DQ based on what they deemed was an exceptional individual case.  That's how this committee happened to rule, but because this *was* a judgement call, a different committee might have ruled otherwise.

post #25 of 27

I think this incident is a very good reason to NOT allow TV viewers the opportunity to call in what they see as Rules Violations. No other sport has them right?

 

And, the Master's Rules Committee were correct in their decision. They decided what the correct action was, and took it. The USGA and the R&A both agreed with them.

 

They are not LAST because they are right, they are RIGHT because they are LAST. Just like the Supreme Court.

post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingkat1954 View Post

I think this incident is a very good reason to NOT allow TV viewers the opportunity to call in what they see as Rules Violations. No other sport has them right?

 

There are a lot of good reasons to allow it, the biggest one for me being you don't want someone to get away with a rule violation just because no one saw it.  That penalizes the entire field.

 

Quote:

 

And, the Master's Rules Committee were correct in their decision. They decided what the correct action was, and took it. The USGA and the R&A both agreed with them.

 

They are not LAST because they are right, they are RIGHT because they are LAST. Just like the Supreme Court.

 

The fact that the USGA and R&A backed Augusta doesn't prove it was the only correct decision. For all we know they would've backed a DQ as well, if they agreed it was a judgement call that was Augusta's to make, and/or didn't want to add fuel to the fire.

post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown413 View Post

not rehash the whole story, but tiger admitted breaking a rule for his own benefit, tho he didnt realize he was breaking it at the time.  the rules committee of the tourney penalized him, but did not disqualify him, as the rules would have called for.  instead they cited a new revision of rule 33 meant to address situations where players broke the rules and would not know of itbut tiger should have known of it.  

 

I highlighted all of the integral points of your argument.  I hope you can see how your logical conclusions conflict with each other.

 

1) Rule is designed for situations where a player would not know...

2) Tiger should have known.

 

Should have, and would not.  Please, indicate a situation where a player should not have known a rule, and your conclusion makes sense.  However, almost all golf purists and non-purists alike would agree that a player is expected to know the rules at all times.  However much I disagree with what happened to Dustin Johnson a couple years ago, he does bear the burden of knowing the local rules when he tees off at the course.  

 

When would this revision EVER be applied if the rule is only meant for players who didn't know the rules and also weren't expected to?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Integrity in professional golf...