2013 Masters Discussion Thread, Update with Tiger's Illegal Drop (Post #343)

[Wally Fairway]

Originally Posted by jbishop15

I'm trying to find this on other media outlets, but it's not there. Very strange. You think someone would hear this and fall all over themselves to report it.

In the comments section of the golf channel.com write up on Tigers round for today

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/woods-scorches-front-struggles-on-back/#disqus_thread

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by trh98

There is absolutely ZERO chance Tiger gets DQ'd. Come on people. Do you think they will take Tiger out of the Masters with him vying for the lead going into the weekend? I'd say the chances of him getting DQ'd are about the same as Tianlang getting his penalty stroke back.

FWIW, I do think Tiger broke the rule.

I disagree with your insinuation that Tiger plays by special rules, however, I agree with you that they probably won't DQ him. "As near as possible" is just vague enough for them to rule in his favor.  Erik's probably right, though, that they would clarify that part of the rule in the next set of decisions.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by jbishop15

I'm trying to find this on other media outlets, but it's not there. Very strange. You think someone would hear this and fall all over themselves to report it.

https://twitter.com/PGATOURNEWS?tw_i=322918154806386690&tw;_p=tweetembed

https://twitter.com/JasonSobelGC/status/322909885337571328

[Dr. Manhattan]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I disagree with your insinuation that Tiger plays by special rules, however, I agree with you that they probably won't DQ him. "As near as possible" is just vague enough for them to rule in his favor.  Erik's probably right, though, that they would clarify that part of the rule in the next set of decisions.

They need to clarify a whole bunch of things in the rules. If they DQ him, it will be a turn off to casual observers who might be interested in playing the game someday. If they want to grow the game more than they have in recent years, they need to simplify the rules. This could be a bad and good thing for the governing bodies. Bad in the short term because it turns off some people from wanting to even try playing the game. Good in the long term because the high profile nature of this situation might force the ruling bodies to make sure the rules are simpler and easier for everyone to follow.

[BallStriker]

Drilling down with another dumb question -- how many drops would he get to make sure is was "as nearly as possible" to the prior shot?  Do you have to keep dropping until it is as nearly as possible?  Or would you get to place it as nearly as possible, which I think would be on the back edge of the divot

And, is it even possible to comply with the rule?  I doubt anyone in the history of the game has played from a spot that is "as nearly as possible" to the prior shot

[bogdan101]

Yep, Tiger should DQ himself; this is a golden chance to get some goodwill back.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by BallStriker

Drilling down with another dumb question -- how many drops would he get to make sure is was "as nearly as possible" to the prior shot?  Do you have to keep dropping until it is as nearly as possible?  Or would you get to place it as nearly as possible, which I think would be on the back edge of the divot

And, is it even possible to comply with the rule?  I doubt anyone in the history of the game has played from a spot that is "as nearly as possible" to the prior shot

No, you pick the spot ... say, 6-8 inches perhaps, behind the original spot and drop there.  So long as it doesn't end up in front of the original spot, you're golden.  If it rolls forward, you drop again, if it rolls forward again, you place it on the spot the second drop hit the ground.

[dhockey11]

Why should a player who cannot remember where they last shot from be given more room for error than someone who is more aware/observant? I think that Tiger's 2 yard calculation is not a DQable offense simply because the rule is written poorly. This can't be the first time this has been debated (although no other time was probably as important), and the rules committee should clearly have changed it before this. "Nearly as possible" is not an acceptable description if the rounds are to be scrutinized as much as they are these days. Also, all the broadcasting companies would rage if Tiger was DQs. Not going to happen, nor do I think it should.

[trh98]

I disagree with your insinuation that Tiger plays by special rules, however, I agree with you that they probably won't DQ him. "As near as possible" is just vague enough for them to rule in his favor.  Erik's probably right, though, that they would clarify that part of the rule in the next set of decisions.

In all honesty, the rule probably should be clarified in writing. It is definitely too vague. I've always felt like Tiger got special treatment, a free drop here, a "loose" impediment there, 'no the parking lot isn't out of bounds, here's a free drop'. For example, I feel like if it had been Tiger that grounded his club in the "bunker" at the PGA instead of Dustin, they would not have penalized him. But anyways, that's just how it seems to me, just my opinion. I don't want to derail the thread too much. I do enjoy watching him play the game though.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

Certainly wouldn't be the first time Tiger was penalized for an incorrect drop http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/woods-penalty-misses-abu-dhabi-cut/

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by dhockey11

Why should a player who cannot remember where they last shot from be given more room for error than someone who is more aware/observant? I think that Tiger's 2 yard calculation is not a DQable offense simply because the rule is written poorly. This can't be the first time this has been debated (although no other time was probably as important), and the rules committee should clearly have changed it before this. "Nearly as possible" is not an acceptable description if the rounds are to be scrutinized as much as they are these days. Also, all the broadcasting companies would rage if Tiger was DQs. Not going to happen, nor do I think it should.

While "nearly as possible" is pretty vague it's pretty obvious that where Tiger dropped wasn't the right spot. We're talking 6 feet here, and from the interview it's obvious he chose the spot on purpose. As much as I hate to say it, a DQ is probably the right call. I want to see Tiger get another major (actually 5 more) but he broke the rules.

I also think that "nearly as possible" needs to be changed to something a bit clearer.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Wally Fairway

In the comments section of the golf channel.com write up on Tigers round for today

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/woods-scorches-front-struggles-on-back/#disqus_thread

I'm the "buddy" who turned Bryan on to that rule.

So far as I can tell, I'm the first person to have reported this at all. And by "reported" I mean:

• I posted in this thread.
• I tweeted at a few people.
• I posted it immediately in the TST chat.
• I posted it on Facebook.

(Not in that order, but the TST chat was right when Tiger said it in the interview.)

Originally Posted by BallStriker

And, is it even possible to comply with the rule?  I doubt anyone in the history of the game has played from a spot that is "as nearly as possible" to the prior shot

It's a bit of a grey area, but again, the point remains that if you know you're two yards farther back, you know you're not "as nearly as possible." You're outside of that... by about two yards.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

No, you pick the spot ... say, 6-8 inches perhaps, behind the original spot and drop there.  So long as it doesn't end up in front of the original spot, you're golden.  If it rolls forward, you drop again, if it rolls forward again, you place it on the spot the second drop hit the ground.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by dhockey11

Why should a player who cannot remember where they last shot from be given more room for error than someone who is more aware/observant?

He clearly knew where he'd played it from since he said he played from two yards farther back.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

LOL ... you can't derail it, this is all on topic. :)

Agree to disagree on the Tiger preferential treatment.  Well, mostly.  As far as the loose impediment goes, you are referring to a tournament in Arizona several years back where the fans moved the giant boulder for him, right?  Yeah, I sort of agree with you on that one because I doubt that many other players would have had enough of a gallery following them to be able to or even care to help on that.  Should have been something that only him or his caddy could move.  Now we're off topic a little though, but that's my fault ;)

Definitely disagree on the DJ bunker penalty ... there's no way they would have gotten around that one.

Tiger's never gotten this preferential treatment in the rules that others seem to think he's gotten.

The loose impediment rule was changed a few years ago too, btw, IIRC. But I give him credit for knowing the rules back then and knowing he could have people help move the loose impediment.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by trh98

In all honesty, the rule probably should be clarified in writing. It is definitely too vague.

I've always felt like Tiger got special treatment, a free drop here, a "loose" impediment there, 'no the parking lot isn't out of bounds, here's a free drop'. For example, I feel like if it had been Tiger that grounded his club in the "bunker" at the PGA instead of Dustin, they would not have penalized him. But anyways, that's just how it seems to me, just my opinion. I don't want to derail the thread too much. I do enjoy watching him play the game though.

LOL ... you can't derail it, this is all on topic. :)

Agree to disagree on the Tiger preferential treatment.  Well, mostly.  As far as the loose impediment goes, you are referring to a tournament in Arizona several years back where the fans moved the giant boulder for him, right?  Yeah, I sort of agree with you on that one because I doubt that many other players would have had enough of a gallery following them to be able to or even care to help on that.  Should have been something that only him or his caddy could move.  Now we're off topic a little though, but that's my fault ;)

Definitely disagree on the DJ bunker penalty ... there's no way they would have gotten around that one.

[dkling8]

It will be interesting to see the discussion in the morning. These types of things spread like wildfire because of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

I'm going out on a limb and predicting a DQ. He said on camera that he was taking 2 yards off his swing, and taking 2 more yards off by moving back, for a total of 4 yards shorter than his previous shot. Then he nailed the shot. People get DQed for illegally raking bunkers, brushing twigs on their backswings, etc. I think this was more of an advantage than any of those things.

So the rules committee can DQ him if they think he was too far away from his original shot? Or does he have to admittedly say that he was not "intending" to play the same shot "as close as possible"?

[Cracker24]

Originally Posted by bogdan101

Yep, Tiger should DQ himself; this is a golden chance to get some goodwill back.

I bet that is the last thing on Tiger's mind, and rightly so. He had a moment of stupidity in the intensity of it all, not to mention he would still be pissed off after the last shot. Technically, as Eric said, by a strict interpretation of the rules he should get DQ'ed, and if so, it really will be extremely unlucky on his part.

If he does get DQ'ed it will say a lot more about some of the vagueness and stupidity in the rules of golf, than Tiger's honesty and integrity. I find it hard to believe that anybody would DQ themselves after an incident like this, I'm sure, like anybody else in the same situation, Tiger will wait it out tonight and tomorrow morning to see what Augusta decide to do.

[BallStriker]

Originally Posted by iacas

It's a bit of a grey area, but again, the point remains that if you know you're two yards farther back, you know you're not "as nearly as possible." You're outside of that... by about two yards.

My point is that everyone who has taken this relief knows that they were not playing from a spot as nearly as possible --- he may have dropped, considered himself in play and then asked Joey for the yardage -- just devil's advocate because the rule calls for argument

[jamo]

That's enough of this for one day for me, I'm going to sleep. And if I wake up tomorrow and Tiger has been DQed, I'm going to be phucking pissed! :-P

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

Tiger's never gotten this preferential treatment in the rules that others seem to think he's gotten.

The loose impediment rule was changed a few years ago too, btw, IIRC. But I give him credit for knowing the rules back then and knowing he could have people help move the loose impediment.

WTF?  Erik, are you a wizard?  How the heck did you respond to me BEFORE I said what I said?

Are you psychic?