Originally Posted by David in FL
I'd imagine they would have access to the same video that we saw. No difficulty telling from that. Something that important, I'd have thought someone could have trotted out to take a look at the divots. Not that difficult, and certainly reasonable given the circumstances.
And if they had we would have ended up in exactly the same place as we ended up.
Originally Posted by Rudyprimo
Just my take on it, Tiger purposely dropped 2 yards behind the original spot not realizing he was breaking a rule. As soon as the rules committee approached and explained what they were looking at Tiger knew he had committed a penalty even though the rules committee(wink, wink) said they couldn't see where Tiger had dropped. A golfer is supposed to call a penalty on himself when he knows he committed a foul. Tiger kept his mouth shut and that amounts to cheating, figuring well if the rules committee didn't see it I'm not going to call it on myself even though I know I didn't drop in the original spot. Everything would have been alright until Tiger opened his mouth while being interviewed and admitted he didn't drop in the original spot. That sent the rules committee into damage control mode and wonder of wonders they saw the infraction while viewing the video again.
They then invoked the rule even though it does not apply to Tigers situation. The rule, as explained on the USGA website, is for when a golfer doesn't physically feel an infraction, like double hitting a chip or brushing the back wall of a deep bunker on his backswing. In those cases, they wouldn't DQ the golfer because the only way it showed up was by watching slow motion replays on TV. There was no such thing with Tiger, he knew exactly where he dropped it. He should have called the penalty on himself as soon as the rules committee brought it to his attention.
When Bobby Jones called that famous penalty on himself at the 1925 US Open, his playing partner, Walter Hagen, tried talking him out of it because he didn't see anything. A USGA official argued with Jones after his round and before he signed his scorecard that they didn't see the penalty and he shouldn't call it. Jones is an honorable man and did the right thing. Even though the rules committee said they didn't see an illegal drop Tiger knew where he dropped it and didn't call the penalty on himself. That amounts to cheating in golf.
The Committee never approached Tiger until the next morning, so pretty much everything in the this post is nonsense.
Originally Posted by Rudyprimo
Here's a link for the USGA's explanation of rule 33-7, the rule I explained but the one you don"t understand.
It says they can waive the DQ if the player had no way of knowing he broke the rule and signed an incorrect scorecard. It explains it has to do with modern technology ie.,slow motion HD replay. There's no need for any replay in Tiger's case, he freely admits he dropped in a different spot. He didn't realize he was breaking a rule and that is NEVER an excuse for not being penalized. As soon as the rules committee approached him about the infraction, Tiger knew he committed a penalty. Just because the committee says they didn't see it doesn't absolve Tiger from calling it on himself. Exactly like the Bobby Jones incident.
Rule 33-7/4.5 is the revision to rule 33-7 and is the only applicable rule. When there is a revision to a rule that has to be followed. They made the revision so a committee couldn't waive the DQ without having a very good reason to apply it. And I really don't care what you or anyone else wrote on the thread. Everything I wrote is fact. Anything else is a cover up.
And yeah, Tiger was pretty stupid for opening his mouth in the interview. He thought everything was taken care of. And like I said, when he freely admitted he dropped 2 yards farther back that sent the committee into damage control mode. Tiger opened his mouth and blew it.
If Tiger would have brought up he dropped farther back when the committee first approached him, what an honorable man would do, he would have taken the penalty and that would have been the end of it. Instead, the committee lied and tried to give him a break, it's very clear where he dropped it, and Tiger kept his mouth shut and went along with it. He cheated. And if you and practically everyone else want to lie and twist things around, go right ahead.
And golf is played on a course, not a stadium, and I'm firmly entrenched in it with my explanation.
33-7/4.5 is not a Rule it is a Decision. It does not revise the rule, it provides an explanation of how the rule would apply in certain circumstances. None of those circumstances occurred in Tiger's case and Decision 33-7/4.5 had nothing to do with the Committee's waiver of DQ.
Quite possibly the 2 most ignorant posts in all of the threads on this topic.
Originally Posted by zeg
I think a more detailed explanation would be helpful, in terms of how much attention the committee would have to give a possible infraction before their inaction would constitute grounds for waiving the DQ.
In a radio interview David Fay said that the standard procedure when there is a call in or a reason for concern on a potential violation when the player is still on the course is to alert the scoring tent people to not allow the player to sign his card until a member of the Committee has spoken to the player. Fay described this as rules administration 101. This is what the Committee failed to do, as we know, and the reason the DQ was waived. Had the Rules Committee's observed standard procedure Tiger would have signed for 73. So if the Committee has reason to believe there is a potential problem before a player signs his card and allows the player to sign his card without speaking to him and making an informed ruling then I think the DQ gets waived if they later retroactively penalize him.
Originally Posted by Dormie1360
This is the part that gets a little swampy for me. Not that the overall outcome wasn't correct , but how they got there.
If the committee ruled on the drop before the card was returned, technically did Woods return an incorrect score card? It would seem that it only became a wrong card later, after further review from the committee. If in a similar the case, the committee had actually talked to the player before signing the card but still got the ruling wrong, what would the status of the player be if later information proved that the initial ruling was wrong. (We're assuming no knowledge of the breach by the player.) Would you say the player was still DQ'd unless the committee used 33-7?
Isn't this covered by Decision 34-3/1? Now 34-3/1 never mentions 33-7 but I would imagine that is what the waiver of DQ was based on. In all the talk of the change 2 years back, namely the extensive Decision under 33-7 some people seem to think that 33-7 is also only a couple of year old. It has actually been in the rule book in one form or another since at least 1984.
Originally Posted by David in FL
The divot we're looking at 5 feet or so in front of him is his divot. It's been acknowledged as such. It was clear to me the first time I looked at it in the context of a possible improper drop. I just don't understand why people are trying so hard to make excuses for the committee here. I still think they screwed the pooch.
No matter. The ruling was correct in the end. Just hope the committee next year has learned something, whether we hear about it or not.
The funny thing is that there are pictures from an Augusta newspaper that just as conclusively "prove" that his drop and subsequent shot was almost exactly from the original spot. Camera angles as a pretty sucky way to make a decision like that. So I think the real mistake was not talking to Tiger, not their interpretation of what they saw. He was the best one, and certainly better than dubious camera angles, to know what really happened.