Originally Posted by Golfingdad
Originally Posted by newtogolf
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.
Yeah... mostly a lot of people who have no idea what the rule is or anything else except that they think Tiger got a break because he's Tiger. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Tiger got a break solely because the committee failed to pursue an investigation when they had information that he may have committed a breach. As a direct result of that, Tiger returned his score without the penalty added in, and was eligible for disqualification. The committee rightly felt that they were warranted in waiving the DQ because it was in part due to their negligence. After a lot of contemplation, this is my thinking on the subject:
Decision 33-7/4.5 is specifically to ensure that a player is not disqualified for a breach which he could not have known about prior to returning his card. It does not apply here. In this case, Tiger was saved for a slightly different reason. He certainly could have known about the breach, because it is a dropping situation under a rule which he should have been completely familiar with. In most cases he would have been disqualified. However, since the information was available to the committee before he finished his round, and since they reviewed it and determined that there was no foul, they are at fault for allowing him to sign his card without any additional investigation. It was stated earlier that Tiger was at the time of the shot uncertain as to his dropping allowance.
Mistakes were made on both sides, but the error by the committee in not doing a thorough investigation was what took the DQ off the books. Thus Rule 33-7 applies:
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.
In this specific case, the waiver was warranted because the committee itself is at blame for not pursuing the investigation in a timely manner when it was aware of a possible infraction. It wasn't because he was Tiger, it was a special situation in which Rule 33-7 applies.
Agree completely. They have officials with every group.
No they don't The reason that it often takes a while to get a ruling is because they usually have maybe 5 or 6 rules officials scattered around the course and they have to be notified and then they have to drive to the location. They would have to have like 40 or more officials to do what you suggest.