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

[newtogolf]

If Tiger didn't give that interview or said what he said, imo he wouldn't have received any penalty.  The fallout from his statement forced them to look at it again and assess a penalty because it was clear that he intentionally dropped in the wrong spot to provide himself an advantage on the next shot.

[Pablo68]

Originally Posted by 3putter

I assume you have trouble reading with those blinders on. It really isn't that hard to comprehend a sentence, so take the time to understand a statement before you resort to degenerate level responses. Objectivity isn't infatuation.

Level response by first telling me I have blinders on? You threw the first rock pal. Take it like you give it.

Go back and reread your own post. You stated "As the officials saw it during life play, it was the correct spot."  Again, telling me I need to work on comprehending such statements as 'life play'? Lulz at the hypocrisy.

Back to the debate; no, it wasn't the correct spot. Had it been the correct spot, again we wouldn't be debating this.

It was a drop at an incorrect spot followed by an incorrect ruling. Only after Tiger's statement did they decide there was more to it and reviewed it further. That is an absolute fact that only the most ardent Tiger Woods fan fail to comprehend.

So the failed comprehension is yours. A wrong spot is the wrong spot regardless of when it is announced or who spots it.

Keep trying..............perhaps the light bulb will come on.

[atb5079]

Originally Posted by eich41

Fair enough, but you can see why despite what the committee ruled, there are going to be differing opinions on this.  It would have been much different if Tiger had been incorrectly informed by an official that there was no infraction.

I said from the beginning, I understand people have their own opinions, and are entitled to them. This isnt Nazi Germany. But I believe someone on here stated I was making shit up and refused to believe the committee itself didnt consider the penalty until a viewer had to notify them. If the rule makers/enforcers dont/cant distinguish a rule being broken, then why must a player be DQed for it? They shouldn't, which is why the 2 stroke penalty was indeed warranted and that is all.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by eich41

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but again, the press conference I saw earlier today with Fred Ridley, he stated that they did not say anything to Tiger prior to him signing his card.  They received a call from a viewer, and investigated the incident while Tiger was still on the course on 18 (as stated in the press release) and found nothing wrong (which of course was incorrect).  Then it never came up again until his post round interview, which was after he signed his card.

If you go back to our original exchange on page 41 that's what I was asking you.  And you'll see that my post says that if it had came up and he was incorrectly informed that it was okay, then the two stroke penalty would be the right call.  If it never came up, then he should be DQ'd because the onus is on the player to make sure that his score is accurate.  That's why I asked you where you had heard that he was informed of it before his signing.

That's the key point to this whole thing, is whether Tiger was incorrectly informed or not.  If he never even asked, and it never came up with Tiger, than by rule he should have been DQ'd.  What Ridley was saying is that they missed it and it's not Tiger's fault.  What I'm saying is that Tiger never made a proper effort to ensure it was correct as he should have.  It was an honest mistake, but guys are DQ'd all the time for the same thing.  Three guys have been DQ'd already this year for the same thing, why didn't they get the pass?

EDIT: I also heard one of the commentators mention that if the viewer had called in an hour later, Tiger would have been DQ'd as he only avoided the DQ because the rules committee screwed the pooch when they had a chance to get it right before he signed and failed to even discuss it with him.  So in a way, the viewer calling when they did ended up saving him.

This would be correct if the committee did not rule before Tiger signed his card .....but they did.  The fact that Tiger did not initiate, or become a part of that initial decision is irrelevant.  What Ridley is saying is the committee initially ruled incorrectly, if they had ruled correctly, they would have told Tiger about it before he signed his card.  The penalty would have been added before he signed his card and there would be no DQ.  Because they did not do this, it would not be fair to DQ a player because the committee made a mistake with the initial ruling.

I guess this is a subtle point that is difficult to understand in a rather confusing day.  Think about this for a minute.  You have some of the best rules officials in the world trying to rule correctly.   Yeah, they made a mistake.  But after they realized that, you can bet that they did not want to compound that by making another bad ruling.

Yes the first caller saved Tiger from being DQ'd.  If they hadn't, the committee would not have ruled before he finished.  In that case, when the 10PM or second phone call was made (someone saw Tiger's  interview), the committee would have had no other choice but to DQ Tiger.

Yes it's a break for Tiger, but it's correct under the rules.

I'll add, I do think the initial ruling was an avoidable mistake.  Just looking at the video, which they made their decision by, I'm having trouble understanding how they felt he dropped in the correct place.  It gave me enough doubt that I would have at least talked to the player about it.

Also, given the advent of a million arm chair rules officials calling in, I think the Masters should seriously consider walking referees with each group.

[eich41]

Originally Posted by atb5079

I said from the beginning, I understand people have their own opinions, and are entitled to them. This isnt Nazi Germany. But I believe someone on here stated I was making shit up and refused to believe the committee itself didnt consider the penalty until a viewer had to notify them. If the rule makers/enforcers dont/cant distinguish a rule being broken, then why must a player be DQed for it? They shouldn't, which is why the 2 stroke penalty was indeed warranted and that is all.

And IMO it's ultimately up to the player to both know the rules, and ensure that their scorecard is correct before signing it.  And I feel that because Tiger never brought it up (not that he was aware of the infraction, but that's irrelevant) he didn't make the proper effort.  At the end of the day, it is the player's responsibility, and while it would have been an unfortunate and honest mistake, it warranted DQ.

Fortunately for TW, it was brought to the committees attention before he signed and they incorrectly wrote it off.  It's the fact that they didn't at least discuss it with him prior to signing that allowed him to avoid the DQ.  Had that call came in an hour later, he'd be gone.

[iacas]

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but again, the press conference I saw earlier today with Fred Ridley, he stated that they did not say anything to Tiger prior to him signing his card.  They received a call from a viewer, and investigated the incident while Tiger was still on the course on 18 (as stated in the press release) and found nothing wrong (which of course was incorrect).  Then it never came up again until his post round interview, which was after he signed his card.  If you go back to our original exchange on page 41 that's what I was asking you.  And you'll see that my post says that if it had came up and he was incorrectly informed that it was okay, then the two stroke penalty would be the right call.  If it never came up, then he should be DQ'd because the onus is on the player to make sure that his score is accurate.  That's why I asked you where you had heard that he was informed of it before his signing.  That's the key point to this whole thing, is whether Tiger was incorrectly informed or not.  If he never even asked, and it never came up with Tiger, than by rule he should have been DQ'd.  What Ridley was saying is that they missed it and it's not Tiger's fault.  What I'm saying is that Tiger never made a proper effort to ensure it was correct as he should have.  It was an honest mistake, but guys are DQ'd all the time for the same thing.  Three guys have been DQ'd already this year for the same thing, why didn't they get the pass? EDIT: I also heard one of the commentators mention that if the viewer had called in an hour later, Tiger would have been DQ'd as he only avoided the DQ because the rules committee screwed the pooch when they had a chance to get it right before he signed and failed to even discuss it with him.  So in a way, the viewer calling when they did ended up saving him.

Pretty sure there was no "caller" here. They were alerted based on his interview.

[eich41]

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

This would be correct if the committee did not rule before Tiger signed his card.....but they did.  The fact that Tiger did not initiate, or become a part of that initial decision is irrelevant.  What Ridley is saying is the committee initially ruled incorrectly, if they had ruled correctly, they would have told Tiger about it before he signed his card.  The penalty would have been added before he signed his card and there would be no DQ.  Because they did not do this, it would not be fair to DQ a player because the committee made a mistake with the initial ruling.

I guess this is a subtle point that is difficult to understand in a rather confusing day.  Think about this for a minute.  You have some of the best rules officials in the world trying to rule correctly.   Yeah, they made a mistake.  But after they realized that, you can bet that they did not want to compound that by making another bad ruling.

Yes the first caller saved Tiger from being DQ'd.  If they hadn't, the committee would not have ruled before he finished.  In that case, when the 10PM or second phone call was made, the committee would have had no other choice but to DQ Tiger.

Yes it's a break for Tiger, but it's correct under the rules.

Again I understand your position, but I disagree with it.  Tiger did not know that they had ruled that it was not an infraction (incorrectly) before he signed.  I understand that they didn't bring it up with him before he signed because of this, but where our positions diverge, is that I believe that it's ultimately the player's responsibility to ensure that his card is correct, not the rules committee.  By not asking for verification (at which point they would have either told him they reviewed it and he was fine (incorrectly) or they would have talked to him about it and got it right), he didn't make the proper effort and should have been DQ'd.  At this point it doesn't really matter anymore unless he makes a big run tomorrow (which isn't out of the question).

[eich41]

Originally Posted by iacas

Pretty sure there was no "caller" here. They were alerted based on his interview.

Are you implying that it was a conspiracy to keep him in it?

[atb5079]

Originally Posted by eich41

And IMO it's ultimately up to the player to both know the rules, and ensure that their scorecard is correct before signing it.  And I feel that because Tiger never brought it up (not that he was aware of the infraction, but that's irrelevant) he didn't make the proper effort.  At the end of the day, it is the player's responsibility, and while it would have been an unfortunate and honest mistake, it warranted DQ.

Fortunately for TW, it was brought to the committees attention before he signed and they incorrectly wrote it off.  It's the fact that they didn't at least discuss it with him prior to signing that allowed him to avoid the DQ.  Had that call came in an hour later, he'd be gone.

Heres the thing though. DJ made his shot then was informed when he was in the clubhouse at Whistling Straits. Tiger made his shot and was not informed. It wasnt his fault. It wouldnt have been DJ's fault had he signed an incorrect card without the committee notifying them. Its the player's responsibility to play golf and know the rules. Its the rules committee to know the rules and enforce them. They did not know them in this case until after the fact.

The thing that blows my mind more than anything is I knew this rule. I watched him drop that and said out loud Tiger that is not right. But then I blew it off because I figured TW knew a lot better than myself, as well as the committee. I would have assumed on a hole like that when, in that circumstance, and especially when there is a drop area (which is not all too common on the PGA tour), that someone would have caught that. But they didnt. It was a viewer like us that had to bring it their attention. That right there is a joke.

[Golfingdad]

Pretty sure there was no "caller" here. They were alerted based on his interview.

TGC actually mentioned two callers this morning, one supposedly alerting them during his round of the infraction, and another later after his interview. Whether or not its accurate, I have no idea, but they definitely said that this morning. (Pretty sure it was Steve sands right at the beginning of "live from" when they finally announced the penalty, iirc) To be honest, the whole thing was surreal to me for awhile and I was fearing they would say the info came from an Internet chat room ... Or twitter or Facebook. ;)

[David in FL]

Pretty sure there was no "caller" here. They were alerted based on his interview.

You're saying what I think you are?

[Dormie1360]

If I remember correctly, (I saw two Ridley interviews),  the second call came from someone who called a rules official directly at Augusta.  This caller had seen the Tiger post round interview when it re-aired on the Golf Channel later that night.

Not sure if I would "invent" that story.  The sh#t didn't start hitting the fan until after that phone call.

[walk18]

I hope tiger wins tomorrow.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Pablo68

I just watched the clip of him again, describing why he did drop there. So it was into the grain where he would have to drop so he went two yards away to give himself a better shot? Yep......that's cheating folks.

If you think he should still be playing right now, you are not a fan of the game; you're a fan of Tiger who gives him a pass no matter what.

What a shame if he wins this. What else is he doing to gain advantages on?

As was already pointed out you are wrong on the facts here.  But I doubt you care since you have already shown your true "colors" with your minority crack.  And for the record I am so lily white that people have to put on sunglasses when I wear shorts.

Originally Posted by eich41

He admitted to it when he said he dropped a few yards back from his original spot.  Now he may not have known he was breaking the rule, but that's admitting it.

If you think that 33-7 applies here, then nobody should ever be DQ'd for signing an incorrect score card again, unless you can prove that they did it purposefully.

You are missing the point that when he signed his scorecard there was an actual committee ruing in effect saying he did not incur a penalty.  he is entitled to rely on that ruling EVEN IF HE DOESN'T KNOW IT OCCURRED.

Originally Posted by tbax6

Not saying Tiger was trying to gain advantage. He apparently did not remember a fairly basic rule about proper drops. When he realized he signed an incorrect card, he should WD as Feinstein said. As a prominent player said about the Chinese kids penalty, " rules are rules". Oh yeh, that was Tiger

So we are supposed to respect the committee decision when it is to penalize but we do not respect the committee's decision when it is to not DQ.  Sobasically we are supposed to pick and choose which committee decisions we are supposed to respect??

Originally Posted by Pablo68

If it was the correct spot, then why the 2 stroke penalty?

I'd rather have blinders on than kneepads; i.e. TW infatuation.

Yet again your classy answer reveals more about you than you probably would want people to know,

Originally Posted by atb5079

It wasnt the correct spot. And the 2 stroke penalty was indeed justified. The fact that the committee reviewed it and advised TW BEFORE he signed his card is the reason he wasnt DQ. They reviewed it late last night and gave TW a chance to explain himself. They then notified him it was not the correct spot and a 2 stroke penalty was the call.

Actually the committee did NOT advise Tiger before he signed his card but that is really irrelevant.  When he signed his card their ruling was in effect whether he knew about it or not.  And he is entitled to rely on that ruling, whether he knows about it or not.

Originally Posted by atb5079

Heres the thing though. DJ made his shot then was informed when he was in the clubhouse at Whistling Straits. Tiger made his shot and was not informed. It wasnt his fault. It wouldnt have been DJ's fault had he signed an incorrect card without the committee notifying them. Its the player's responsibility to play golf and know the rules. Its the rules committee to know the rules and enforce them. They did not know them in this case until after the fact.

The situations are not analogous.  If a rules official had seen Dustin did, and before he signed his card the committee met and determined that he did not ground his club and that there was no penalty and then in an interview Dustin said he grounded his club THEN the situations would be analogous.  Committee rulings have force and effect.  When Tiger signed his scorecard there was a committee ruling in effect that he had not violated the rules.  Therefore when he signed his scorecard it WAS CORRECT.  Subsequently the committee changed their ruling.  Under the decision that was already quoted in this thread, when that happens the penalty is applied by the DQ is NOT.

[M2R]

Not taking it nearly far enough. I hope he loses in a two man playoff then is subsequently declared the winner when it is found his competitor made and illegal drop (after having returned his card) and is DQed. The only really fitting ending for this Masters IMO.

Originally Posted by walk18

I hope tiger wins tomorrow.

[Kingkat1954]

I have never like the fact that viewers can "call" rules infractions on players. But I like the HD Rule. Makes sense.

I hope Tiger wins tomorrow too.

Just watched the Faldo "enlightened" reappraisal of the incident.  I think he was sorry for his statement............

Still waiting for Chamblee to admit his mistake.

[Malango]

My first post. I just registered simply so I could weigh in on this controversy.

It it absolutely clear to me that Tiger should have been DQed and should DQ himself. I half expect him to do so at a press conference Sunday morning. (Well... maybe not half .)

One of the key rules here is Rule 6.1: "The player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the Rules." Tiger knew, as his (innocent) interview admission makes obvious, that he wasn't dropping as "close as possible". He was responsible for knowing how to drop. THAT is the real basis for the DQ. What some committee discussed a mile away and didn't tell him about makes absolutely no difference. The facts of this case are really quite simple.

As for the new rule allowing the committee some discretion to waive the DQ "in exceptional individual cases", one has to go beyond the rule to the "Decisions of Golf" HERE to learn that this case is clearly NOT one where they have the discretion to waive the disqualification. Tiger was very probably not aware of the wording of the Decision when he met with the Committee this AM, and so he went and played his third round believing himself justified in doing so. But I say that after his round today he'd be remiss if he failed to learn all the facts, and thus learn that the Committee made a mistake (or whatever you want to call it - a separate but quite interesting issue). He should DQ himself for the good of the game and to help rehabilitate his own image of somewhat lacking certain virtues. I say that despite being a huge Tiger fan. I tried to stop cheering for him after his personal-life dirt was revealed, but still cheer anyway.

Please excuse me for not reading 50+ pages of comments above. I just wanted to cast my vote - say my peace.

[14ledo81]

Here is a thought that I have not seen yet. The committees initial ruling was made with out all of the facts. They did not know Tiger intentionally dropped in a way that would be more advatageous until the interview ocurred. At the time of the scorecard signing though, Tiger certainly would have known.