Originally Posted by ghalfaire
Just too many to quote and respond individually to here that responded to my comment that I thought it unfair that Tiger was not DQ'ed at the Masters considering Padraig (and many others were) were DQ'ed for signing an incorrect score card. So I apologize for that and being late with a response (I was on the course yesterday). My only response is that I don't know of another case where a player was not disqualified for an incorrect score card and instead was assessed the penalty for the infraction and yes the committee, I believe, has always had the power to do that if they felt the circumstances warranted it. So unless someone knows of a PGA player signing an incorrect score card and not being DQ'ed, other than Tiger, I would like to hear about. I have tired to find such an event but have not been successful but a lot of you out there are better informed than I am and maybe know of one. But unless there was such case I remain convinced that Tiger got a break because of his place in the game that that other touring PGA professionals who were equally innocent of intent to cheat but just made a mistake were denied.
I am not one of the Tiger haters and if the role of Tiger and Padraig were reversed I'd feel the same way about different outcomes for same infractions. The fact that the committee knew and didn't respond doesn't relieve Tiger or anyone else from the consequences of their mistakes. It is the golfer's responsibility for the their actions and not the committee's.
Iacas and turtleback have provided some examples, I believe, where this has happened before, and also pointed out that just because something hasn't happened before doesn't preclude it from ever happening. There always has to be a first time, right?
But in Tiger's case, I would actually argue that the bold portion of your statement is incorrect. It's a grey area, so I realize that there is no right or wrong, but one could argue that since the committee made a ruling (without discussing it with Tiger, which is the problem) that there was no infraction, then, he did not, in fact, sign an incorrect scorecard.
Originally Posted by phan52
Here is where I diverge from what you are saying, and central to my opinion that Tiger is treated differently. If it had been someone else, I think they would have looked at it closer and acted differently, at the very least talking to the player when he came off the golf course. Instead, Ridley said they were "splitting hairs" and it wasn't worth further attention. Tiger was lucky that he had a backup rule in order to stay qualified because the rules chairman was delinquent.
The Rules of Golf are pretty back-and-white and there is no room for "splitting hairs". Did Tiger apply rule 26-1(a) properly? No he did not, and Eger recognizd it immediately. But IMO, Ridley gave Tiger a pass and it bit him in the butt.
Now this Chamblee thing has reached the next level and it will be interesting to see if the Golf Channel bows to Tiger's tactic.
I think it's a big leap to assume that another player would be treated differently. First off, other players aren't paid nearly the same amount of attention, so it's possible, and even likely, that nobody would even notice.
But for arguments sake, lets say everything went exactly as you propose. I think its entirely possible that anybody, including Tiger, could have escaped with NO penalty if they had come talked to him prior to his signing the card. That would have given him the chance to think clearly about what had happened and what he had done and why he had done it prior to his incriminating interview. Everybody knows the rule, and when they're thinking clearly, how easy would it be for anybody to just nod and say yes when asked if they dropped as nearly as possible to the previous spot?
As far as your last sentence regarding BC ... I agree, and I hope that TGC does not "bow to Tiger's tactic." That won't look good for anybody.