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

[Mordan]

I'm still looking for something official on it being an "HDTV" ruling but here is the decision that it has apparently comes under:

33-7/4.5

Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified

Q. A competitor returns his score card. It later transpires that the score for one hole is lower than actually taken due to his failure to include a penalty stroke(s) which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered before the competition has closed.

Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7 , in waiving or modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule 6-6d ?

A. Generally, the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.

However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d . The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would be justified in waiving the disqualification penalty:

• A competitor makes a short chip from the greenside rough. At the time, he and his fellow-competitors have no reason to suspect that the competitor has double-hit his ball in breach of Rule 14-4 . After the competitor has signed and returned his score card, a close-up, super-slow-motion video replay reveals that the competitor struck his ball twice during the course of the stroke. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the one-stroke penalty under Rule 14-4 to the competitor's score at the hole in question.
• After a competitor has signed and returned his score card, it becomes known, through the use of a high-definition video replay, that the competitor unknowingly touched a few grains of sand with his club at the top of his backswing on a wall of the bunker. The touching of the sand was so light that, at the time, it was reasonable for the competitor to have been unaware that he had breached Rule 13-4 . It would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the two-stroke penalty to the competitor's score at the hole in question.
• A competitor moves his ball on the putting green with his finger in the act of removing his ball-marker. The competitor sees the ball move slightly forward but is certain that it has returned to the original spot, and he plays the ball as it lies. After the competitor signs and returns his score card, video footage is brought to the attention of the Committee that reveals that the ball did not precisely return to its original spot. When questioned by the Committee, the competitor cites the fact that the position of the logo on the ball appeared to be in exactly the same position as it was when he replaced the ball and this was the reason for him believing that the ball returned to the original spot. As it was reasonable in these circumstances for the competitor to have no doubt that the ball had returned to the original spot, and because the competitor could not himself have reasonably discovered otherwise prior to signing and returning his score card, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty. The two-stroke penalty under Rule 20-3a for playing from a wrong place would, however, be applied to the competitor's score at the hole in question.

A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the competitor's failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the competitor could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:

• As a competitor's ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1 , the competitor fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the competitor was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1 .
• A competitor's ball lies in a water hazard. In making his backswing for the stroke, the competitor is aware that his club touched a branch in the hazard. Not realising at the time that the branch was detached, the competitor did not include the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4 in his score for the hole. As the competitor could have reasonably determined the status of the branch prior to signing and returning his score card, the competitor should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4 . (Revised)

There is just no way this fits the exceptions listed above. No way at all. Shocking decision.

[HOT IRISH]

It's a complete no- brainer he should br disqualified, he played from the wrong place & signed for a wrong score. The rule is 100% clear so giving any golfer a 2 shot penalty is absolutely the wrong call.

[Rfordeagle]

With all this said, I still hope he wins the tournament!  Change that rule-book please!

[David B]

Yeap!! Your right, too much corporate money involved! Get rid of the 4 minute per hour commercials!! The members can afford it!! If Tiger had been DQ, they would loose 40% of the viewers !

[Rick Martin]

Originally Posted by Mordan

I haven't seen an official statement yet, but that rule is for things the player couldn't see. Tiger knew exactly what he was doing, he just forgot the rules. A good result via a shockingly bad decision if that's the way they've gone with it.

I agree w/ you - seems like they're finding a loophole to keep their number one draw - but he really clearly broke the rule that he as a professional should have known about.

[jnewby]

Tiger should DQ himself from the 2013 Master's.  What a poor example to all the kids that idolize him-- do what you need to to win.

What about honesty and ethics.  Play the game as well as you can and try to beat everyone else within the rules.

This just shows that his personal problems were indicative of a flawed personality that he isn't trying to improve upon.  He is the Bill Bellicheck of golf.

Boooo!

He agreed that he took an improper drop after review and so the rule clearly states that signing an improper scorecard is a DQ.  Does the guy have no ethics?  Is he so focussed on winning that he will trade away everything else?

[laconic517]

I think hell DQ himself in the next couple of hours

[David B]

Yeah Sir Nick thinks Tiger will DQ himself! He should!!

[Rick Martin]

Originally Posted by David B

Yeah Sir Nick thinks Tiger will DQ himself! He should!!

would be a good PR move on his part - right now the Chinese kid is looking better than the Tiger.

[Zeph]

I'm still looking for something official on it being an "HDTV" ruling but here is the decision that it has apparently comes under: There is just no way this fits the exceptions listed above. No way at all. Shocking decision.

To be fair, those are just examples. The deciding wordings are: [QUOTE]However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred. A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.[/QUOTE] Where you bring in a lot of factors, relevant as well as not relevant. I still think it's a long shot, based on the wording below in bold. [quote]The R&A; and the USGA have announced a new interpretation of the rules that apply in limited circumstances not previously contemplated by the Rules of Golf where disqualifications have been caused by score card errors identified as the result of recent advances in video technologies. This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the Committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying Rule, but is not disqualified. In revising the decision, The R&A; and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognizing that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach . This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 is effective immediately. “For some time we have been concerned that, in certain limited circumstances, disproportionate disqualification penalties have been required by the Rules,” said Peter Dawson, chief executive of The R&A.; “This carefully considered decision reflects our desire to ensure that the Rules of Golf remain fair and relevant in the changing environment in which the game is played today.” “This is a logical and important step in our re-evaluation of the impact of high-definition video on the game,” said Mike Davis, executive director of the USGA. “We collectively believe that this revised decision addresses many video-related issues never contemplated by the Rules of Golf.[/quote]

[Dave H]

I actually think this is a good way to deal with this type of thing going forward. It seems (I'll admit none of us can truly know intent) that there was no intentional cheating going on. Now that we have HD, infinite replays, etc we can easily see what the right call should be in hindsight. The players don't have that luxury during the middle of the round. If they get it wrong and there's clear video evidence of that, why not just adjust the score to be what it should be? In this case, the field is catching a break as what would have been a 1 stroke penalty is now a 2 stroke penalty.

[David B]

Boy Brandel is still letting Tigger have it! Referring to Tiggers tainted past! I think the old boy will take the high road!!

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by Zeph

To be fair, those are just examples. The deciding wordings are:

However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules

What fact could Tiger not have know or discovered that affected his breach? I can't think of any.

[Rick Martin]

Speaking of drops, did anyone see Dustin Johnson's free drop from that utility box on #15 where he called Freddy to validate?  He looked like he was 10 yds left of the nearest point of relief (and in much better shape).  I was saying "WTH is that?".......guess it was legal, but looked very odd.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by Dave H

I actually think this is a good way to deal with this type of thing going forward. It seems (I'll admit none of us can truly know intent) that there was no intentional cheating going on. Now that we have HD, infinite replays, etc we can easily see what the right call should be in hindsight. The players don't have that luxury during the middle of the round. If they get it wrong and there's clear video evidence of that, why not just adjust the score to be what it should be? In this case, the field is catching a break as what would have been a 1 stroke penalty is now a 2 stroke penalty.

He admitted what he did, and why.  He intentionally backed up 2 yards to play the next shot.

He just applied the rule improperly.  No doubt as to his intent in taking the drop though.

[Yukari]

Where was LaCava on all this?

He should have said something.

[Golfingdad]

Just dawned on me ... Tiger never clarified if he was proceeding under stroke ad distance or the line where it last crossed hazard. We know that the line was way left, but because of the sun perhaps he didn't. If that's the case, I guess I can see the justification for the HDTV rule.

[Dormie1360]

Just heard about this and trying to get caught up.  D 33-7/4.5 does not apply.  Wow.  My first reaction is a very bad decision on the Masters committee's part.