or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Tiger's Two-Stroke Penalty at 2013 BMW Championship?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tiger's Two-Stroke Penalty at 2013 BMW Championship? - Page 4

post #55 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by skywaterbanjo View Post
 

I, too, think sometimes the rules are harsh but, they are there for a reason.  If not enforced across the board, there is too much room for interpretation.  These rules, I believe, have been developed over many years and many experiences.

 

I believe the penalty is appropriate.

 

But the penalty assessed already required "interpretation."  If we believe that Tiger wasn't intentionally cheating, then it follows logically that Tiger--a reasonable, educated, experienced professional golfer who was INCHES from the infraction, aware of the consequences for moving the ball, and watching closely--did not see it.  It required video editors after the fact reviewing stills from tape to catch the infraction.  They had to closely scrutinize the facts and reference the rules to assess the penalty.  That is the very definition of "interpretation."  It's not a significant leap in facts, logic, or interpretation to conclude next that the ball moved so slightly that "replacing" it to its original position would be a fruitless endeavor and thus determine it unnecessary to assess an additional penalty for failure to replace the ball.

post #56 of 188

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

 

Somewhat OT, but Tiger's improper drop at the Masters was inexcusable.  That is a simple rule that just about every golfer knows; a professional with nearly 80 Tour wins and 14 majors, playing in a Major Championship, should never make that mistake.  In that situation it should almost be presumed that the player intentionally or recklessly disregarded the rules.  I'm not saying Tiger tried to cheat to improve his position, but the rules for what constitutes a proper drop are so simple and invoked so frequently that failure to follow them out of "ignorance" seems incredible.

 

It was definitely a brain fart by Tiger, but, in his defense, had he simply chunked the ball into the water (or had the ball hit the stick and ricocheted straight back at him), then his drop would have been perfectly acceptable under the rules.  It was only because it ricocheted at an angle and entered the hazard off his original target line that he dropped in the wrong location.  As I think was pointed out, Tiger didn't seem aware that he was wrong as he announced at the post round press conference that he went back- not something a logical person would say if they knew it was wrong.

 

FWIW, I have played a few times the season with an intelligent guy who plays everyday and seems to follow most of the rules- he was very surprised when I told him that you are suppose to go back on a line from the flag stick to point of entry.  He thought it was from point of entry to where you hit the original shot from.

post #57 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree View Post

It was definitely a brain fart by Tiger, but, in his defense, had he simply chunked the ball into the water (or had the ball hit the stick and ricocheted straight back at him), then his drop would have been perfectly acceptable under the rules.  It was only because it ricocheted at an angle and entered the hazard off his original target line that he dropped in the wrong location.  As I think was pointed out, Tiger didn't seem aware that he was wrong as he announced at the post round press conference that he went back- not something a logical person would say if they knew it was wrong.

FWIW, I have played a few times the season with an intelligent guy who plays everyday and seems to follow most of the rules- he was very surprised when I told him that you are suppose to go back on a line from the flag stick to point of entry.  He thought it was from point of entry to where you hit the original shot from.

It's not complex. He had two options: anywhere on a line that includes point of entry and the flag, or as near as possible to where the last shot was played from. He chose to drop under 26a, but then inexplicably decided to add 2 yards. And again, he's Tiger freaking Woods playing in the Masters. He should know the rules for dropping after hitting a ball into a water hazard.
post #58 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

 

Somewhat OT, but Tiger's improper drop at the Masters was inexcusable.  That is a simple rule that just about every golfer knows; a professional with nearly 80 Tour wins and 14 majors, playing in a Major Championship, should never make that mistake.  In that situation it should almost be presumed that the player intentionally or recklessly disregarded the rules.  I'm not saying Tiger tried to cheat to improve his position, but the rules for what constitutes a proper drop are so simple and invoked so frequently that failure to follow them out of "ignorance" seems incredible.

 

I agree with you 100% k-troop! Considering the rules and guidelines that I have to follow at my job which are exponentially more than the rules of golf, there is absolutely no excuse for these guy's that make a living in golf to not know the rule book inside out! But as crazy as it seems there are many that apparently do not.

 

Like I said before, some of these calls are difficult to even see without slow motion camera's but as far as drops go, they should have that down cold!

post #59 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by luu5 View Post
 

 

The same rule was also broken by European team and rules officials (who should know the rules) at Solheim cup. I am not saying it is very difficult rule, but for some reason it happened again.

 

The Solheim incident was somewhat different. Tiger was playing from his previous spot. In the SC, the Europeans were using the option of going to the opposite margin of the hazard equidistant to the hole and were mistakenly allowed to take the ball back keeping that spot between them and the hole.

post #60 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by VOX View Post
 

 

The Solheim incident was somewhat different. Tiger was playing from his previous spot. In the SC, the Europeans were using the option of going to the opposite margin of the hazard equidistant to the hole and were mistakenly allowed to take the ball back keeping that spot between them and the hole.

 

Tiger was playing from his previous spot and then backed couple of yards on the line. So it was different but same.

post #61 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

It takes human judgment, of course. It took human judgment to determine that Tiger's ball moved, even when reasonable people looking at the same evidence could disagree. Those same people could determine that "the ball moved so slightly that it could not accurately be replaced and the player has received no apparent advantage from the new ball position."

I would agree that it takes human judgment but unfortunately for Tiger it was not really his human judgment that mattered.
I'll raise the question, how many of you have seen some touring pro bring over a rules official for something that seems really stupid and yet I don't get pissed for the delay because I know that the player is simply covering himself from further penalty by alerting an official that they think that there may have been an infraction.
I/we don't really know what Tiger saw but what I saw was the ball moving. I can honestly say that, when I'm playing a round on the weekend with the guys, if in the process of cleaning up around the ball I see the ball move/oscillate I just play it as if it was an oscillation. But then again I'm not Tiger Woods...
I guess my point is that if he saw it move (he clearly did because as soon as it moved he stop clearing debris) he should alerted an official of the possible infraction.
post #62 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by mp33 man View Post


I would agree that it takes human judgment but unfortunately for Tiger it was not really his human judgment that mattered.
I'll raise the question, how many of you have seen some touring pro bring over a rules official for something that seems really stupid and yet I don't get pissed for the delay because I know that the player is simply covering himself from further penalty by alerting an official that they think that there may have been an infraction.
I/we don't really know what Tiger saw but what I saw was the ball moving. I can honestly say that, when I'm playing a round on the weekend with the guys, if in the process of cleaning up around the ball I see the ball move/oscillate I just play it as if it was an oscillation. But then again I'm not Tiger Woods...
I guess my point is that if he saw it move (he clearly did because as soon as it moved he stop clearing debris) he should alerted an official of the possible infraction.

 

I agree that Tiger could have done this.  So what do you think would have happened if he had?

 

Tiger- "I was moving a stick and my ball appeared to oscillate"

 

Rules Official- "Do you think it moved position?"

 

Tiger- "No"

 

Rules Official- "OK, play on"

 

Remember, the video was NOT part of the live coverage, so I don't think the Rules Official or Tiger would have had the chance to review it without causing an undue delay.

post #63 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree View Post
 

 

I agree that Tiger could have done this.  So what do you think would have happened if he had?

 

Tiger- "I was moving a stick and my ball appeared to oscillate"

 

Rules Official- "Do you think it moved position?"

 

Tiger- "No"

 

Rules Official- "OK, play on"

 

Remember, the video was NOT part of the live coverage, so I don't think the Rules Official or Tiger would have had the chance to review it without causing an undue delay.

 

Yeah, but then you'd have something like the Master's where the official OK'ed it and he signed his card, then the evidence surfaced that he was in the wrong. They'd assess him the 2 strokes then just the same as in the Masters when he took the wrong drop.

post #64 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally View Post

In my eyes, the ball clearly moved. Rules are rules. "The ball was here, and it moved to here." Anyone get the reference?

 

O:) One of my favorites.  

post #65 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree View Post

I agree that Tiger could have done this.  So what do you think would have happened if he had?

Tiger- "I was moving a stick and my ball appeared to oscillate"

Rules Official- "Do you think it moved position?"

Tiger- "No"

Rules Official- "OK, play on"

Remember, the video was NOT part of the live coverage, so I don't think the Rules Official or Tiger would have had the chance to review it without causing an undue delay.

Yes I agree that there may have been "an undue delay" (I think I addressed that when I said that "I don't get pissed for the delay") but my point is that if he had called over an official he (1 Would not have people questioning his honesty and his integrity and (2 He may have eluded all penalty based on the fact that he called an official and received an official ruling based on a judgment call by himself (oscillation vs ball moving).
Believe me if you check my post history you will see that I do not like Tiger but I still feel that he made a call (the wrong one) and didn't think twice about it until it was later brought to his attention, I certainly don't think that he was trying to cheat. I really don't think that there is any way that he could have seen whether the ball moved or oscillated based on the video that I saw, I mean you can barely see it in slow-mo with hi-def let alone in normal time in possible bad lighting.
All that being said I think that the penalty was correct.
post #66 of 188

With all this being said - no one has answered how he should have attempted to move the ball from its ending position back over to its original position - which seems to be maybe a millimeter laterally and maybe even just higher in the same space.  I'm not disagreeing with anything written so far, but this is a good question.  I don't think anyone could have gotten it closer than the second position actually was.

 

I do agree with the assessment of some penalty.  Maybe just for moving the ball.  You take a risk when you start moving stuff out of the way in order to improve your situation.  He risked it and the ball moved.  But in this case, I don't know how he could have gotten it closer to original.  Maybe a rule change to "when feasible, put back to original location." or something. 

 

I love how golf is considered a more honest sport and that many times players will actually self penalize.  I think some players actually wouldn't do it, but on the off-chance some camera picked it up, they would be forever shamed for cheating.  But at the pro level, I think they need more officiating. Just because someone plays golf doesn't mean they would never cheat at it - or as pointed out in a previous post, that they would lie in life or cheat on spouses or anything else.  

 

Even in this case, Tiger's instant stoppage of his tiny landscape project seemed to indicate that he realized the ball didn't stay still.  And I don't think he said anything about it either way.  And when asked about it, he said he thought it oscillated - which is conveniently the best case scenario for him.  And I don't know but so much about these oscillations, but I would have really thought of an oscillation as when your ball is on spongy grass or something similar and the pressure of the club on the grass changes the position - but as soon as you release pressure, right back to same spot.  Logically, it seems way less likely that you moved a stick that was in some way supporting the ball - then when you quit moving the stick, it somehow returned to original position on its own.

 

Obviously I don't know what Tiger thought or saw.  But it is a little fishy.  I'd just love to depend on an official for a ruling and not the golfer himself.

post #67 of 188
Another point that has been possibly overlooked and to give Tiger a *bit* of an out. The camera angle was low and focused in minute detail on the ball. It appears to drop about the width of a sharpie medium point line after an oscillation of a degree or two. Now- given that Tiger was moving stuff from around the ball. He is standing and looking at the ball from DIRECTLY ABOVE THE BALL. Given his perspective, he might have seen it oscillate- but NOT drop that millimeter or 2. So if an official had said " did it move as far as you know?" He can honestly answer "No".

If I'm moving leaves or twigs (besides knowing NOT to move one that might be under the ball or make it move), I certainly don't get on my knees to check to see if the ball has changed position in the 'Z' axis.
post #68 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

Hooter, or anyone else who is against anyone pointing out penalties, I have but one simple question to ask you:

 

Why does it matter WHO sees the infraction if an infraction occurs?

 

Other sports aren't self-officiated. When that fails… then what?

 

I don't think I have much of a problem with people pointing out when procedures are not properly followed (e.g., incorrect drops.)

 

I do, however, have a problem when you're using technology better than our own senses to determine if an infraction occurred.  My understanding of this most recent event is that the cameraman saw the ball wobble and thought that maybe it moved so he (or his boss) reviewed the high-definition, slow-motion replay and saw that the ball did, indeed, move a tiny tiny bit.  

 

If we accept this use of technology then we basically have to say that the players cannot be expected to call infractions on themselves because they simply do not have the technologically advanced eyes and video processing needed to police themselves.  In which case the penalty system needs to be revised because there will be more and more unintentional rule violations caught by red-light cameras moonlighting as PGA rules officials. :-D 

post #69 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by krupa View Post
 

I do, however, have a problem when you're using technology better than our own senses to determine if an infraction occurred.  My understanding of this most recent event is that the cameraman saw the ball wobble and thought that maybe it moved so he (or his boss) reviewed the high-definition, slow-motion replay and saw that the ball did, indeed, move a tiny tiny bit.  

 

I don't think TW needed any special equipment to observer that the ball did not stay still.  He used his own eyes and says he thought it oscillated.  And it seems pretty clear in the video to me that when the ball moved, he immediately reacted to it and stopped touching stuff. 

post #70 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by krupa View Post
 

 

I don't think I have much of a problem with people pointing out when procedures are not properly followed (e.g., incorrect drops.)

 

I do, however, have a problem when you're using technology better than our own senses to determine if an infraction occurred.  My understanding of this most recent event is that the cameraman saw the ball wobble and thought that maybe it moved so he (or his boss) reviewed the high-definition, slow-motion replay and saw that the ball did, indeed, move a tiny tiny bit.

 

If we accept this use of technology then we basically have to say that the players cannot be expected to call infractions on themselves because they simply do not have the technologically advanced eyes and video processing needed to police themselves.  In which case the penalty system needs to be revised because there will be more and more unintentional rule violations caught by red-light cameras moonlighting as PGA rules officials. :-D

The other problem with this sort of rules enforcement is how many cameras are out following the other competitors?  Is there a camera person dedicated to every competitor who is ready to capture every potential rule infraction or is Tiger being singled out?  Rules should be enforced equally for everyone.

post #71 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

 

I don't think TW needed any special equipment to observer that the ball did not stay still.  He used his own eyes and says he thought it oscillated.  And it seems pretty clear in the video to me that when the ball moved, he immediately reacted to it and stopped touching stuff. 

 

The problem I have with this, and apparently others do as well is IF Tiger thought he saw the ball oscillate, of course he stopped moving things further to prevent it from then moving. I don't see why this is a difficult concept. Its been said a bunch of times but it seems to bear repeating that it's easy to see the movement in HD, slow motion, and from the angle recorded. What would it look like from above? I can't say as I wasn't there. If this is anyone but Tiger, and they said they thought the ball oscillated, people would not be making such a big deal. He took a 2 stroke penalty, what more do you want? 

post #72 of 188

The retro active enforcement of rules is ridiculous and should be stopped. Once the round is over and the cards have been signed that's it. The scores cannot be changed after the round. In the NBA, NFL, NHL etc. when there is a blown call, the league simply issues a statement admitting yes the mistake was made. They don't go back and change the score and manipulate the outcome. If he knew that the penalty had been assessed during the round perhaps he would have taken a completely different strategy and his score would have reflected that as well.

 

If he was caught or turned himself in while the round was going on then that's one thing, but for him to wake up the next morning and see that he was assessed a two stroke penalty is dumb.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Tiger's Two-Stroke Penalty at 2013 BMW Championship?