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

[noz11]

Surely Tiger signed for the wrong score, the penalty for which is disqualification? I am so annoyed re this that I have tried to Email  Augusta to complain but I am unable to get their address.

[Zeph]

Because the ruling stinks, and I think he knows it.

[atb5079]

This is a complete embarassment. Augusta is a joke. Elitist ****s. You know, I've given TW a lot a shit over the years, as much as I root for him at the same time. But Augusta makes me sick at this moment. Absolute joke.

[clarkeycats]

The decision was made before TW finished his round apparently, using the following rule: http://bit.ly/118JvBw

[Mordan]

I just dont get it. If the committee at the time confirmed TW did indeed comply with the rules, then TW signs his card and all is well. Then all of a sudden the committee gets to review everything and even after he finishes his round, then they assess the penalty and consider a DQ. Gimme a ****ing break everyone. So TW gets all the flack, but the committee gets a break b/c they get to review everything and make sure they make the right call, but TW is the ******* b/c he didnt? **** that

The committee do not "review everything". The score posted is the competitors responsibility. I've seen lots of crap about scorecards being "approved" etc but that isn't the case at all.

[eich41]

Originally Posted by atb5079

I just dont get it. If the committee at the time confirmed TW did indeed comply with the rules, then TW signs his card and all is well. Then all of a sudden the committee gets to review everything and even after he finishes his round, then they assess the penalty and consider a DQ. Gimme a ****ing break everyone. So TW gets all the flack, but the committee gets a break b/c they get to review everything and make sure they make the right call, but TW is the ******* b/c he didnt? **** that

It's both.  The ruling is pathetic as it was made just to keep the biggest name on the course.  If this was Brendan Grace, HE GONE!  The reason that TW is getting flack is because despite what the committee does, he can do the right thing and DQ himself.  It's the right thing to do.  He has a chance to get a lot of respect, or completely lose it as well.

[clutchshot]

It's pretty disgusting that the rule committee gave him a pass because he's Tiger.  I'm not sure how 33-7 could apply when he openly admitted in the post round interview, that he moved the ball back two yards for the second approach shot.  Tiger has a chance to gain a lot of respect, or completely lose it.  It's up to him to do the right thing and disqualify himself.

He took his 2 stroke penalty... He didn't know he had broke a rule when he signed the scorecard... The committee ruled that he did not break a rule before he signed a scorecard. And WHAT advantage did he gain? He took 2 strokes for moving the ball back 2 feet? Think he would have preferred to just take a stroke and play it from the divot.

[Zeph]

I'm not sure about that. He should abide by the decision of the committee in the same way that he should if he didn't like the decision. This will reflect badly on those who made the decision, not Tiger. That said I really hope he doesn't win now as there would always be a question mark over it should he do so.

Nobody even knows who the committee is, nor do they care. Tiger is the person in focus here. I don't understand how they could make such a decision, based on the rule. In a parallel universe, it would've been interesting to see if this would've happen to a no-name player out of contention on a regular tour event.

[atb5079]

Originally Posted by clarkeycats

The decision was made before TW finished his round apparently, using the following rule:

http://bit.ly/118JvBw

Wrong. They reviewed everything while he was finishing his round, but made the decision after he signed his card. Todd Lewis read the 4 paragraphs message.

[laconic517]

why didnt the committee go and ask him about the drop before he signed his card instead of just deeming it not an infraction?  That was pretty stupid if you ask me.

[Zeph]

The decision was made before TW finished his round apparently, using the following rule: http://bit.ly/118JvBw

That makes no sense. If they were aware of this before he finished his round, they would've talked to him about it and most likely made him put down a different number on the scorecard to avoid the entire rule of signing an incorrect scorecard.

[laconic517]

Originally Posted by atb5079

Wrong. They reviewed everything while he was finishing his round, but made the decision after he signed his card. Todd Lewis read the 4 paragraphs message.

No,

it sounded like they reviewed everything before he finished his round -> determined no infraction occured (without apparently consulting Tiger, wtf?) -> more people start talking about it -> they review AGAIN and determine there was in fact an infraction and they were wrong but use this rule to cover themselves for being lazy and not consulting Tiger before he signed his card.

And they completely are mis-using the rule if you go by the rules wording.  It clearly says you cannot "not" disqualify someone because of ignorance.  The examples for where the rule wouldn't/would apply clearly show that the committee wouldn't be justified in waiving the DQ.

[Rick Martin]

Originally Posted by iacas

If you think "that doesn't look like much" consider how wide his feet look - TV compresses things. That's 2-3 yards.

Have to give the mod huge props/credit for initially bringing this to surface last night before it became common knowledge in today's media. I don't know if you picked up on this when it happened or someone else triggered/brought it to your attention, but it was definitely a great pick up.

[eich41]

From Link above:

"This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule b ecause of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. "

The bolded part is the problem with this ruling.  It isn't some miniscule breach of the rules.  And he could have easily figured this out prior to signing his card.  Once he said his card it's over.  He's DQ'd end of story.

[trh98]

But guys, Tiger NEVER gets preferential treatment with regards to the rules. Never. I'm actually glad this happened, it takes some of the spotlight off of Tianlang and his penalty. Kid didn't need all that.

[atb5079]

Originally Posted by eich41

It's both.  The ruling is pathetic as it was made just to keep the biggest name on the course.  If this was Brendan Grace, HE GONE!  The reason that TW is getting flack is because despite what the committee does, he can do the right thing and DQ himself.  It's the right thing to do.  He has a chance to get a lot of respect, or completely lose it as well.

I'm not arguing with what TW should do. I'm just expressing my hate of Augusta and their elitist bullshit committee that only cares about $$$ and themself. They ****ed up and found a rule to protect themselves and their wallets. And in turn the made it work in their favor. They know that whatever happens this hurts TW but helps them. Thats why I cant fault TW for the situation and the the penalty not DQ. It would be best for him to DQ himself now, but thats not my argument.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by noz11

Surely Tiger signed for the wrong score, the penalty for which is disqualification? I am so annoyed re this that I have tried to Email  Augusta to complain but I am unable to get their address.

Of course you are, but then you don't know the rules or the circumstances, so you are just going off half cocked without a clue as to what is really going on.  You don't even know if the ruling has been made that there was no infraction at all.  The only thing that matters is whether he dropped in a correct place under either option 'a' or 'b' of rule 26-1, even if it was by accident.  If he did then it doesn't matter what you or anyone else "thinks".  All that matters is that when he played, he played from a correct place under the rules.  If not, then he will be penalized like anyone else.

[VOX]

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)
• Unless your name is Eldrick Woods

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

I think you missed the last bullet. It applies to a most Rules.