or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

post #1 of 233
Thread Starter 

The media keeps referring to 33-7 as being a "new rule".  I have rules books going back to 2008-09 and it is the same as now word for word.  I assume they are referring to decision 33-7/4.5.  If I understand the committee ruling, 33-7/4.5 was not a consideration.  What saved Tiger from DQ is that the committee reviewed the situation prior to him signing his scorecard and concluded the drop was within the rules and then changed that decision after he signed the scorecard.  Is that correct or am I confused?  

post #2 of 233
Somewhere in there is a part that mentions something like "at the discretion of the committee" if the player KNOWINGLY did or did not break a rule. It was added in 2011. Basically it was put in to protect "the stars" from phone-in rules challenges.

We all have done something like that- maybe while chipping up your ball may have moved imperceptibly, but you never noticed. Well, the HD cameras can practically zoom in to the molecular structure of the ball, and they can see the ball shift by a hair. Well, someone calls in and says "..."so and so" hit a moving ball on #13...". they could look at it and see that, yes it did move- but such a miniscule amount it was not apparent to the player so they might decide NOT to enforce that rule. OR, if it moved enough that he HAD to notice it, they could impose penalty strokes or DQ for signing an incorrect card or whatever.
post #3 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3 Putt Again View Post

The media keeps referring to 33-7 as being a "new rule".  I have rules books going back to 2008-09 and it is the same as now word for word.  I assume they are referring to decision 33-7/4.5.  If I understand the committee ruling, 33-7/4.5 was not a consideration.  What saved Tiger from DQ is that the committee reviewed the situation prior to him signing his scorecard and concluded the drop was within the rules and then changed that decision after he signed the scorecard.  Is that correct or am I confused?  

 

You have the gist of the matter.  The committee had the opportunity to discuss the matter with Tiger before he returned his card and failed to follow up.  That is the only reason for the decision to waive the disqualification penalty.

post #4 of 233
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayG View Post

Somewhere in there is a part that mentions something like "at the discretion of the committee" if the player KNOWINGLY did or did not break a rule. It was added in 2011. Basically it was put in to protect "the stars" from phone-in rules challenges.

We all have done something like that- maybe while chipping up your ball may have moved imperceptibly, but you never noticed. Well, the HD cameras can practically zoom in to the molecular structure of the ball, and they can see the ball shift by a hair. Well, someone calls in and says "..."so and so" hit a moving ball on #13...". they could look at it and see that, yes it did move- but such a miniscule amount it was not apparent to the player so they might decide NOT to enforce that rule. OR, if it moved enough that he HAD to notice it, they could impose penalty strokes or DQ for signing an incorrect card or whatever.

 

Decision 33-7/4.5 was introduced in 2011 to cover situations like the example you cite but I think you are making the same mistake many in the media are making.  This decision does not apply to Tiger's situation and was not the basis for the committee's decision to waive the DQ.  33-7 has been around much longer and allows a committee to waive DQ penalty in exceptional circumstances. 

 

You are incorrect in saying that the committee might decide not to enforce a rule.  A committee is never allowed to decide which rules it will enforce nor to modify or waive the penalty for an infraction except the waiver of DQ penalty per 33-7.    

post #5 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayG View Post

Somewhere in there is a part that mentions something like "at the discretion of the committee" if the player KNOWINGLY did or did not break a rule. It was added in 2011. Basically it was put in to protect "the stars" from phone-in rules challenges.

We all have done something like that- maybe while chipping up your ball may have moved imperceptibly, but you never noticed. Well, the HD cameras can practically zoom in to the molecular structure of the ball, and they can see the ball shift by a hair. Well, someone calls in and says "..."so and so" hit a moving ball on #13...". they could look at it and see that, yes it did move- but such a miniscule amount it was not apparent to the player so they might decide NOT to enforce that rule. OR, if it moved enough that he HAD to notice it, they could impose penalty strokes or DQ for signing an incorrect card or whatever.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3 Putt Again View Post

Decision 33-7/4.5 was introduced in 2011 to cover situations like the example you cite but I think you are making the same mistake many in the media are making.  This decision does not apply to Tiger's situation and was not the basis for the committee's decision to waive the DQ.  33-7 has been around much longer and allows a committee to waive DQ penalty in exceptional circumstances.   

Actually, all he did was try answer your question regarding the rule.  He made no mention in his answer of Tiger or whether or not that rule applied to him.  What, exactly, is your basis for saying that he is wrong?

post #6 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3 Putt Again View Post

The media keeps referring to 33-7 as being a "new rule".  I have rules books going back to 2008-09 and it is the same as now word for word.  I assume they are referring to decision 33-7/4.5.  If I understand the committee ruling, 33-7/4.5 was not a consideration.  What saved Tiger from DQ is that the committee reviewed the situation prior to him signing his scorecard and concluded the drop was within the rules and then changed that decision after he signed the scorecard.  Is that correct or am I confused?  

 

Your not confused.  You are in the minority.  .  Most are getting hung up over the fact that a committee ruled without talking to Tiger and because of the this the thought is he should still be responsible for the infraction.  The other confusing thing for some is that most know a signed score card without including a penalty that was incurred is a DQ.  Still others feel that Tiger should still DQ himself because it would be the "right' thing to do.  And then there is the Tiger bias.

 

 

This was posted elsewhere and I think describes the ruling rather succinctly.

 

I suggest that Decision 34-3/1 is more applicable than either Rule 33-7 or Decision 33-7/4.5
The Committee made an initial ruling of no penalty. Because of this initial ruling, the player did not submit an incorrect score and therefore was not subject to disqualification. Upon further review, they assessed a two stroke penalty,

 

 

Tiger didn't win, the ruling bodies seem to be comfortable with the decision, so IMHO I think everyone should just let this one fade away

post #7 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dormie1360 View Post

 

Your not confused.  You are in the minority.  .  Most are getting hung up over the fact that a committee ruled without talking to Tiger and because of the this the thought is he should still be responsible for the infraction.  The other confusing thing for some is that most know a signed score card without including a penalty that was incurred is a DQ.  Still others feel that Tiger should still DQ himself because it would be the "right' thing to do.  And then there is the Tiger bias.

 

 

This was posted elsewhere and I think describes the ruling rather succinctly.

 

I suggest that Decision 34-3/1 is more applicable than either Rule 33-7 or Decision 33-7/4.5
The Committee made an initial ruling of no penalty. Because of this initial ruling, the player did not submit an incorrect score and therefore was not subject to disqualification. Upon further review, they assessed a two stroke penalty,

 

 

Tiger didn't win, the ruling bodies seem to be comfortable with the decision, so IMHO I think everyone should just let this one fade away

Just to be clear on my understanding of the rules. Tiger didn't have the option to DQ himself, only the rules committee can DQ someone.  Tigers only option would be to withdraw, is that correct?

post #8 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

Just to be clear on my understanding of the rules. Tiger didn't have the option to DQ himself, only the rules committee can DQ someone.  Tigers only option would be to withdraw, is that correct?

Semantics.  A lot pf people thought Tiger should not be playing anymore.  Call it a WD or DQ, but either way, they didn't think he should continue.

 

Somebody on one of the myriad threads about this topic posted a story about a situation where Jeff Sluman WD'd after a "similar" situation because he said he "couldn't live with himself if he won a tournament where he might have broken a rule."  Their opinion was that Tiger was a bad person for not doing the same thing.  It's certainly not black and white, and I don't think any less of Tiger for not WD'ing (and, no, it's not because I think lowly of him now, because I don't) HOWEVER, if he had WD'd, I think he would have gained a ton of goodwill.

 

Again, not saying he should or shouldn't have - he abided the rules and took his penalty, it was perfectly fair and in his right to keep playing - just that IF he had, he would have gained a lot of respect, praise, and admiration from a lot of people.

post #9 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Semantics.  A lot pf people thought Tiger should not be playing anymore.  Call it a WD or DQ, but either way, they didn't think he should continue.

 

Somebody on one of the myriad threads about this topic posted a story about a situation where Jeff Sluman WD'd after a "similar" situation because he said he "couldn't live with himself if he won a tournament where he might have broken a rule."  Their opinion was that Tiger was a bad person for not doing the same thing.  It's certainly not black and white, and I don't think any less of Tiger for not WD'ing (and, no, it's not because I think lowly of him now, because I don't) HOWEVER, if he had WD'd, I think he would have gained a ton of goodwill.

 

Again, not saying he should or shouldn't have - he abided the rules and took his penalty, it was perfectly fair and in his right to keep playing - just that IF he had, he would have gained a lot of respect, praise, and admiration from a lot of people.

 

I have to disagree. I mean they looked at the video and decided not to penalize then turned around and changed it after the fact. This is the exact reason they implemented this rule in the first place. The one rule in golf I never agreed with was DQing a player for signing an incorrect scorecard when at the time they signed they had no clue they broke a rule. That would be like the referee in the Lousville- Michigan game going back to look at the film later on and changing that hideous call he made the next day. Sorry Louisville, we looked at the film and you actually broke the rule so your DQed. Its not right.

 

Plus really and truly if this wasn't Tiger it would be a non issue.

post #10 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Semantics.  A lot pf people thought Tiger should not be playing anymore.  Call it a WD or DQ, but either way, they didn't think he should continue.

 

Somebody on one of the myriad threads about this topic posted a story about a situation where Jeff Sluman WD'd after a "similar" situation because he said he "couldn't live with himself if he won a tournament where he might have broken a rule."  Their opinion was that Tiger was a bad person for not doing the same thing.  It's certainly not black and white, and I don't think any less of Tiger for not WD'ing (and, no, it's not because I think lowly of him now, because I don't) HOWEVER, if he had WD'd, I think he would have gained a ton of goodwill.

 

Again, not saying he should or shouldn't have - he abided the rules and took his penalty, it was perfectly fair and in his right to keep playing - just that IF he had, he would have gained a lot of respect, praise, and admiration from a lot of people.

I'd argue it's more than just semantics.  DQ is a scarlet letter, especially if a result of "cheating".  Withdrawal has it's own negative connotations, just ask Rory.  One is mandatory and other voluntary.   Contractually it could also be interpreted completely different. 

post #11 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

I'd argue it's more than just semantics.  DQ is a scarlet letter, especially if a result of "cheating".  Withdrawal has it's own negative connotations, just ask Rory.  One is mandatory and other voluntary.   Contractually it could also be interpreted completely different. 

Nah.  It's not the official designation, it's the circumstances.  Otherwise, Jeff Sluman would have got the same pushback that Rory received.  And getting DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard is something that happens often but it doesn't make anybody a cheater.  Cheating is what makes you a cheater.  In most cases, it just means you messed up.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NM Golf View Post

I have to disagree. I mean they looked at the video and decided not to penalize then turned around and changed it after the fact. This is the exact reason they implemented this rule in the first place. The one rule in golf I never agreed with was DQing a player for signing an incorrect scorecard when at the time they signed they had no clue they broke a rule. That would be like the referee in the Lousville- Michigan game going back to look at the film later on and changing that hideous call he made the next day. Sorry Louisville, we looked at the film and you actually broke the rule so your DQed. Its not right.

 

Plus really and truly if this wasn't Tiger it would be a non issue.

What exactly did I say that you are disagreeing with?

post #12 of 233

Agree completely. They have officials with every group. They must need to have them make calls and enforce them at the time. To say golf is different from other sports is baloney and a red herring - other than some of the rules are so archaic as to be nonsensical. The point is that when the rules were adopted they had no referees so they had to have some type of rule system, and most people playing in a social round of golf do not have referees. You don't have referees in pick-up basketball, baseball or football. But, when it gets to a high enough level you have referees and avoid the issue.

What is really absurd is that the PGA and golf officials started answering the phone from people sitting on their couch and used that to later overturn results on the course. Began I believe with Craig Stadler not wanting to mess up his pants kneeling under a tree on the back 9 at Torrey Pines. Wasn't funny then and not funny now. Totally absurd that golf allow NON PARTICIPANTS to change the outcome of its events. 

Call Roger Goodell and tell him that the refs blew the holding call that resulted in the winning touchdown in the Super Bowl, or the umpire how clearly missed the call at home plate. Let's reverse the outcome the next day because someone saw something at home.

Whether Tiger should have been in or out is immaterial, golf has to stop letting fans interfere with play. Get in the 20th century and have referees make the call. Then we can all debate whether they made the right call or not, but the players aren't going to be pt in the spot - - and called cheats.

post #13 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

What exactly did I say that you are disagreeing with?

 

LOL I guess I could be a little clearer. I don't agree with this statement:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
IF he had, he would have gained a lot of respect, praise, and admiration from a lot of people.

I don't think there was anything he could have gained by not continuing the tournament.  Why should he WD? He followed the rules, the tournament committee made the ruling they did. It was 100% by the book. I think a majority of the people who wanted him to WD are just haters.

post #14 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by NM Golf View Post

LOL I guess I could be a little clearer. I don't agree with this statement:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
IF he had, he would have gained a lot of respect, praise, and admiration from a lot of people.

 

 

I don't think there was anything he could have gained by not continuing the tournament.  Why should he WD? He followed the rules, the tournament committee made the ruling they did. It was 100% by the book. I think a majority of the people who wanted him to WD are just haters.

Gotcha.  Again, I wasn't saying he should WD.  I 100% agree that he had every right to be in the tournament, and I 100% agree that a lot of people who said he should WD are Tiger haters.  But if he had WD'd, you don't think that he would have gained anything?

 

How many times do you here the story of Bobby Jones calling a penalty on himself when nobody else saw him commit the infraction?  Or his quote in regards to calling penalties on yourself comparing it people praising (or not) somebody for not committing a crime?  All the time, right?  I mean, that is a large part of his legacy.  It seems to me that that part of Bobby Jones is talked about even more than his actual golf.

 

I'm just saying that had Tiger WD'd, I think that its possible that this would have gone down as a similarly positive part of his legacy.

post #15 of 233
post #16 of 233

Just saw this:

 

The photo comparison prompted more questions of Woods about the drop after his final round 70 left him four shots out of the playoff.

 

Q.  Is there any chance that you were mistaken when you said you were two yards back, because there were photos that looked like you were in the exact same spot?
TIGER WOODS:  No, I saw the photos. 

Q.  What do you think?
TIGER WOODS:  I was behind it. 

Q.  You do?
TIGER WOODS:  Yeah. 

Q.  So you're pretty sure that the two yards is actually ‑‑
TIGER WOODS:  One, two yards.  But it certainly was not as close as the rule says.

post #17 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

I'm just saying that had Tiger WD'd, I think that its possible that this would have gone down as a similarly positive part of his legacy.

 

I'm a cynical person by nature.  Having said that, I think you're underestimating how much hatred and dislike there is for Tiger.  Here's what I think would have happened:

 

1) Rabid Tiger fans would have been pissed and upset.

2) Other Tiger fans would have been disappointed but accepting and possibly garnered a bit more respect for him.

3) Impartial and neutral fans (vast minority) may have gained a bit more respect for him, but likely wouldn't even care enough to remember.

4) Tiger haters would forget about it as they were bluffing when they said they would gain respect for him as they only said that under the assumption that he wouldn't do it.

 

Remember, the last group already hates him and every perception of him is colored by that view.  The most transparent part of the conversation I heard at the golf course this weekend was when the guy started off with, "I always thought he was a douchebag with no integrity..." and the rest was just his take on the situation through that filter.  Everything he did this weekend was a manifestation of his douchebaggery, in that guy's eyes.

 

I imagine there is a strong possibility that the most extreme haters would have gone the other way had he DQ'd himself: they would have claimed he was quitting after giving 4 strokes back to the field because he knew he couldn't win.

post #18 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

 

I'm a cynical person by nature.  Having said that, I think you're underestimating how much hatred and dislike there is for Tiger.  Here's what I think would have happened:

 

1) Rabid Tiger fans would have been pissed and upset.

2) Other Tiger fans would have been disappointed but accepting and possibly garnered a bit more respect for him.

3) Impartial and neutral fans (vast minority) may have gained a bit more respect for him, but likely wouldn't even care enough to remember.

4) Tiger haters would forget about it as they were bluffing when they said they would gain respect for him as they only said that under the assumption that he wouldn't do it.

 

Remember, the last group already hates him and every perception of him is colored by that view.  The most transparent part of the conversation I heard at the golf course this weekend was when the guy started off with, "I always thought he was a douchebag with no integrity..." and the rest was just his take on the situation through that filter.  Everything he did this weekend was a manifestation of his douchebaggery, in that guy's eyes.

I agree, there's nothing Tiger can do to satisfy his haters or make them hate him less.  At this point he owes those people nothing and shouldn't care what their opinion is of him. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout