Originally Posted by wannabe
Haven't read all of the thread, so pardon if I'm being redundant, but here's my take on this whole discussion.
Seems like what Brandel's calling Tiger out for is more about spirit than technicality. In golf, there's a tradition that favors the integrity of the game beyond any doubt about scores and results.
Over and over again throughout the life of the sport, golfers are revered for disqualifying themselves, calling penalties on themselves, etc. My understanding is that even for those situations where the was even the shadow of doubt about rule infraction, the good golfer was the golfer who fell on the sword and DQ'd himself. Golf has a noble air about it, and this is why. Brandel is calling Tiger to this higher view of the game and his actions within the spotlight of this great sport.
Tiger's been in some situations where other golfers would've disqualified themselves, no questions asked, just due to the cloud of suspicion surrounding the event, regardless of whether the golfer believed they were within the strictness of the rules, the rules officials got it wrong, what some machine shows, etc. Their own consciences and the call of the game was to a higher standard than just what's written in the book or decided by a committee or recorded by a camera.
Brandel may be calling him a cheater, but I think he's actually aiming for something that is supposed to be worse in golf: he's calling him a man of low character. With this -- and for Tiger, who has told us all along that winning is all he cares about -- I agree.
If Tiger can bend the rules in his favor to get the win, he will. That's not the way golfers are supposed to do it.
You have a misconception about how the rules are applied. No player can disqualify himself, only a serious breach of certain rules can do that. Nothing that has happened to Tiger since Dubai falls into that category.
I really don't have any idea how you manage to jump from some odd rules situations to the accusation that Tiger is intentionally bending the rules. I haven't seen it, and I'm as much a stickler for the rules as anyone on this forum (as most anyone here will tell you). I have seen instances many times in real life where a player tried to move a loose impediment, and when the ball oscillated, he immediately desisted. There was no way to know from real time observation whether the ball merely oscillated or actually moved a microscopic amount. Pretty much like Tiger, I'm not calling a penalty on myself that I don't even think actually happened. In my opinion, the rule itself is at fault for allowing such doubt to creep into the mix. If the definition of "moved" was amended to mean any movement at all, then it would be more in keeping with the bulk of the rules, making such a determination black and white, with no gray area to put the seed of doubt in the picture.
Originally Posted by phan52
Originally Posted by krupa
I don't think it does.
Here's my opinion on the Tiger thing: I watched the video repeatedly and barely saw that the ball moved (as defined by the Rules of Golf.) I totally saw it jiggle. Many people in the thread about the incident did not realize that a ball that oscillates and comes to rest in its original position has not moved as defined by the RoG.
So Tiger says the ball didn't move. Which definition of "move" is he using? I realize I'm splitting hairs a little here, but unlike the definition of "is", we're talking about a word that has multiple meanings. So I can't really make up my mind if Tiger was claiming that the ball didn't do anything (which I think his hesitancy when moving the twig shows he knew it jiggled) or that he was asserting that the ball didn't move as the RoG defines it. I didn't see it move and people had to use a lot of technology to show that it did.
The other difference is that Chamblee had a lot of time to consider what he was writing and then more time to consider how to react to the public's reaction to his writing, etc, Tiger was challenged after the round and had to answer for it right then and there. I don't really know how it affects my point, but with Chamblee, anyway, he had plenty of time to think about what he was writing before letting it out to the public and he still originally chose to defend his article.
The ball moved. If you saw the video, and if you are honest with yourself, you know the ball moved. If there was any question about whether the ball moved or if it instead oscillated, the officials would have considered that and found it hard to apply the penalty. I don't think they meant to have a debate; they were showing him the reason why he was being given a penalty. Slugger White: "There was a little stick of some kind next to his ball, and when he rolled that, the ball in fact moved. He knew there was movement there, but he was very adamant that is oscillated and it stayed there. But this video was at the site, and the ball did in fact move."
The problem is that Tiger refused to admit that the ball moved, even when offered the evidence by the officials. He apparently knew something happened WHEN it happened, otherwise he would not have hesitated the way he did when the ball moved. Yet, he did nothing at the time. Why? That is a fair question. And his recalcitrant behavior when he was shown the clear evidence is questionable as well, and that goes to the core of what Chamblee saw as questionable behavior. Why didn't he just take the penalty and move on in the face of irrefutable evdence? A little guilt, maybe?
Just speculating on a hypothesis....
Was Tiger shown the video evidence, or was he just told? How vehemently did he dispute it? I didn't see it, so I'm in the dark here.
Also, what was he supposed to do at the time of the incident. I realize that we all automatically think that he should call in an official to make a ruling, but in a case like this, in real time, all the official can do is take Tiger's word for what he saw, which was the ball oscillating. Even if the official says that he has to take the one stroke penalty and replace the ball, all he's really doing is making a gesture, since nobody actually knows if the ball really moved and with that lie, how do you "replace" it for such a minuscule shift. It is a bad situation all the way around.
I'll grant you that he shouldn't have argued the ruling, but I've been in the same situation, working as a rules official and having my ruling disputed by the player. In that case, the player also didn't think that he had done anything wrong, and like Tiger, the committee ultimately ruled against him. When you have a very competitive individual who is certain of his own rightness, it can be a very difficult thing for him to accept what he sees as an unjust penalty.