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

[Motown88]

For everyone that says Tiger "knew" he was in violation of the rule, ask yourself this question.  Is it possible he thought that his original shot was also in the same line as the balls path going into the hazard.  I think that's entirely possible and you have to give a professional golfer the benefit of the doubt.  In addition to that the rules committee reviewed the incident prior to Tiger signing his card and came to the conclusion he did not deserve a penalty.  At the time of signing his card it was clear to him, and the rules committee, that he was in no violation.

Now after the fact it was discovered that he had dropped illegaly.  The reason he did not get DQ'ed is that he signed a "correct" score card at the time of the signing.  As stated above, both him and the rules committe agreed no penalty was worthy.  It wasn't until a "viewer" called in and brought it to club officials that he may have known he violated a rule, which can not be determined.  The Rules Committee, R&A;, and USGA all agreed with the ruling.  It is obsurd to me to think a player would withdraw given that circumstance.

[Motown88]

Originally Posted by 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.

Would he?  As I stated in my above post, is it possible he thought that his original shot was also in line with where the ball went into the hazard.  If he believed his original spot was in that line then I think it's an honest mistake.  Keep in mind he was fuming when he dropped that ball and may not have analyzed it correctly, not saying that is a legit excuse.  The bottom line is the rules committee did not deam it a penalty at the time although video evidence clearly shows he was 2 yards behind is original spot.  Nothing "should" have changed after his interview since what was reviewed should have been clear enough for them.

[Cali Ace]

Originally Posted by 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.

If it's Couples, total hysteria!

[14ledo81]

Would he?  As I stated in my above post, is it possible he thought that his original shot was also in line with where the ball went into the hazard.  If he believed his original spot was in that line then I think it's an honest mistake.  Keep in mind he was fuming when he dropped that ball and may not have analyzed it correctly, not saying that is a legit excuse.  The bottom line is the rules committee did not deam it a penalty at the time although video evidence clearly shows he was 2 yards behind is original spot.  Nothing "should" have changed after his interview since what was reviewed should have been clear enough for them.

I guess I should not have said that he "would have" known, but that is probably irrevelant. He certainly "should have" known. Also, it appears the committee base their ruling on the visual/video, and deemed it fine, when in fact, if they would have known the players intent they would have made a different ruling. I think both Tiger and the committe share blame on this one. Tiger "should have" known the rules better, and the committee "should have" at least questioned him before the scorecard was signed.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by eich41

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).

You don't get to disagree with it. The Committee decided and they imposed the proper penalty. You can dislike the Rules of Golf and lobby for them to be changed, but you can't really disagree that the rules were not enforced properly here.

The outcomes today were:

• 71
• 73
• DQ

Once we learned that the rules officials saw the error and did not act, that took the DQ off the table. It was either 71 or 73 at that point, and it was only because Tiger mentioned the two yards in the post-round interview that they went with the 73.

Straight from Fred Ridley's mouth and perfectly in line with the Rules of Golf.

Originally Posted by eich41

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

I said no such thing, I just wasn't aware that Fred Ridley said anything about a "caller." I didn't remember him saying as much.

Originally Posted by 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.

Honestly, I think that was a friend of mine who called and who knew an official in Augusta. Seriously.

But I thought he texted him. It's public if you know where to look... and I shared a few PMs with this friend. He's a college coach and knows an RO at the Masters.

[Motown88]

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

I guess I should not have said that he "would have" known, but that is probably irrevelant. He certainly "should have" known. Also, it appears the committee base their ruling on the visual/video, and deemed it fine, when in fact, if they would have known the players intent they would have made a different ruling.

I think both Tiger and the committe share blame on this one. Tiger "should have" known the rules better, and the committee "should have" at least questioned him before the scorecard was signed.

I completely agree that the investigation should have been a little better prior to the round officialy ending.  We're all human and everyone makes mistakes.  With how it played out their was no justifiable reason to DQ him, if they had questioned him prior to the end of the round then maybe it would be different.

[tootallonly270]

Ok...so I read a Yahoo article stating that this morning when they called him in to discuss, he ended up putting on #2...however, here in lies a problem. "Before a round or play-off on any day of a stroke-play competition, a competitor must not practice on the competition course or test the surface of any putting green on the course by rolling a ball or roughening or scraping the surface." Here is the article - paragraph 23 http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--tiger-woods-ends-bizarre-day-right-where-he-started-–-sort-of-002014199.html

[Motown88]

Originally Posted by tootallonly270

Ok...so I read a Yahoo article stating that this morning when they called him in to discuss, he ended up putting on #2...however, here in lies a problem.

"Before a round or play-off on any day of a stroke-play competition, a competitor must not practice on the competition course or test the surface of any putting green on the course by rolling a ball or roughening or scraping the surface."

Here is the article - paragraph 23

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--tiger-woods-ends-bizarre-day-right-where-he-started-–-sort-of-002014199.html

What?  I have to assume this is either a typo or him practicing on the par 3 course, which wouldn't make sense but is possible.

[Rudyprimo]

The rules committee and watching the replay shouldn't even figure into this.  Tiger dropped 2 yards behind his original shot.  He said so in the interview.  Whether he knew he was breaking a rule or not doesn't matter either.  Ignorance of a rule is never an excuse for not being penalized.  Tiger should have done the right thing and DQ'd himself.  Instead he let the rules committee muddle everything up.

As soon as the rules committee said they didn't see him take an illegal drop, why didn't Tiger man up and tell them that yeah, I dropped 2 yards behind the original shot?  He admitted that was what he did shortly after talking to the rules committee when he was being interviewed.

Also, this rule 33-7 shouldn't even be applied to this incident.  That's not what it was intended for as explained on the USGA website.  It was intended for a player committing a penalty and not physically knowing it, and the only way you can tell there was a penalty is through the use of super slow motion replay.  They give two examples.  One, a golfer double hits a chip and doesn't know it so he doesn't call a penalty.  He signs his scorecard.  It's then revealed that on the slow motion replay it can be seen that he double hit it.  The committee can then assess him a penalty instead of DQ'ing him for signing an incorrect scorecard.  The player didn't know he double hit it.

The second example is a golfer in a deep bunker barely grazes the wall of the bunker behind him on his backswing.  He doesn't call a penalty because he doesn't know he hit the bunker.  He signs an incorrect scorecard and then it's revealed through the slow motion replay that he hit the sand on his backswing.  Again, the committee can assess him a penalty instead of DQ'ing him.

Tiger's only argument was that he didn't know the rules and that is NEVER an excuse for not being properly penalized.  The USGA rules are adamant about that.  He purposely dropped 2 yards behind the original spot.  He should of been a man of honor and told the rules committee that even though you didn't see it I dropped 2 yards behind the original spot. If that was before signing the scorecard he would have received a two stroke penalty and being DQ'd would have never entered into this.  Once he clammed up and didn't say anything and then signed an incorrect scorecard he should have been DQ'd.

I guess Tiger doesn't think the rules apply to him.

[BallStriker]

Originally Posted by tootallonly270

Ok...so I read a Yahoo article stating that this morning when they called him in to discuss, he ended up putting on #2...however, here in lies a problem.

"Before a round or play-off on any day of a stroke-play competition, a competitor must not practice on the competition course or test the surface of any putting green on the course by rolling a ball or roughening or scraping the surface."

Here is the article - paragraph 23

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--tiger-woods-ends-bizarre-day-right-where-he-started-–-sort-of-002014199.html

Holy sh*tstorm if this is true.....jfc...............I just can't believe he would actually do that -- even I know that rule -- and I just read that article as well

[cheetahpilot]

I have read all 960 posts in this thread.  Summary:

There is no doubt rule 26-1a was chosen by the player and he then broke the rule.

Officials were notified by a viewer that the drop was improper.  They looked at the tape and decided there was no proof of infraction.  Player was on hole 18 when the decision was made, and officials never brought it up.  Player signed incorrect scorecard.

Tiger's own words proved them wrong in a post round interview.

What player did wrong:

Did not know the rule.

Violated the rule.

Signed incorrect scorecard.

What the officials did wrong:

Any reasonable review of the distance between the divot from the original shot, and the divot from the dropped shot would make it clear the rule had been violated.  But rule 26-1a does not require anything other than the player, under his own judgment make his drop "as near as possible".  The two divots and the players own words revealed his mistake, and his violation of the rule.  Unfortunately, this was post round and the card was already signed.

The officials then mis-used rule 33 as badly as the player mis-used rule 26-1a to cover their own rear end.

What the player should have done:

Know the rules of the game.

IF confronted with his infraction before signing his card, assess himself the 2 strokes.  If confronted after signing, assess himself the DQ.

What the officials should have done:

Confront the player in the scoring tent of the dispute.  Have him explain.  If he denies deliberately going back 2 yards, then he is a liar who probably gets away with it.  The sport relies heavily on the integrity of the participants.  Their failure to discuss the dispute in the scoring tent does not absolve the player, and mis-applying rule 33 only makes them look all the more inept.

I would like to think if they had asked him, he would have told the truth.  But this is no Bobby Jones.  He may be the best golfer there ever was, but he is not who you would want your son to grow up to be like, and you would never allow your daughter to be alone with him, much less married to him.

In the end, it was a train wreck.  Not sure anyone should be shocked.

[AmazingWhacker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tootallonly270

Ok...so I read a Yahoo article stating that this morning when they called him in to discuss, he ended up putting on #2...however, here in lies a problem.

"Before a round or play-off on any day of a stroke-play competition, a competitor must not practice on the competition course or test the surface of any putting green on the course by rolling a ball or roughening or scraping the surface."

Here is the article - paragraph 23
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--tiger-woods-ends-bizarre-day-right-where-he-started-–-sort-of-002014199.html

I assume you're referring to this quote:

Quote:

As the confusing, very fluid situation played out, it produced odd scenes such as Tiger putting on the second green as Steinberg stood under a nearby pine tree closely reading a transcript of comments from Fred Ridley, chairman of the Masters Competition Committee.

I think the article is a little unclear . .it doesn't say exactly what time this occurred . .it could well have been during his round.  I think enough people know this rule and the second green is visible enough that there is no practical way he could've putted on the second green before his round.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by AmazingWhacker

I think the article is a little unclear . .it doesn't say exactly what time this occurred . .it could well have been during his round.  I think enough people know this rule and the second green is visible enough that there is no practical way he could've putted on the second green before his round.

That pretty much has to be the case.  How could he be practicing on the 2nd green after Ridley's press conference?  People were playing.

[trh98]

What I don't understand is why the committee even matters. Tiger never asked for a ruling so a rules official/committee should not even come in to play. He kept his own card, put down a score, signed it and turned it in. He broke a rule and was called on it after signing the card. What members determined without Tiger's knowledge should have no bearing on this. He never asked for any rulings or officials so he was responsible for the card, not the committee.

[BallStriker]

Originally Posted by iacas

No article from Feinstein on Tiger is worth reading.

LOL.....so fukkin true...

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by 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.)

Tiger can't DQ himself, only the rules committee can, and they are not.  He can withdraw but unlikely that he will tomorrow since he's T7.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by iacas

I said no such thing, I just wasn't aware that Fred Ridley said anything about a "caller." I didn't remember him saying as much.

Honestly, I think that was a friend of mine who called and who knew an official in Augusta. Seriously.

But I thought he texted him. It's public if you know where to look... and I shared a few PMs with this friend. He's a college coach and knows an RO at the Masters.

In Ridley's press conference this morning, he said he got a call about 10pm last night from CBS about Tiger's interview.  That's not to say your friend didn't text him, but yes Ridley did mention that phone call.

This is my first post on this topic, so I had several things I wanted to say...

To those of you who say that it's not the committee's duty to notify competitors of potential violations that are phoned in to the committee, I disagree because this is exactly what has happened in the past.  It's exactly what happened with the Stacy Lewis bunker penalty.  They were notified, they investigated, they needed clarification from Lewis on what exactly happened to determine if her caddie did commit a penalty, and after talking to her they decided to assess the penalty.  All of this was done BEFORE she signed her card.  CONSISTENCY is important in rules enforcement.  There is absolutely no reason, in my opinion, that the exact same procedure shouldn't have been followed in this situation.  The rules committee screwed up.  Simple as that.

Funny, I don't remember anyone in the Stacy Lewis thread talking about how the rules committee in that case shouldn't have told her about the violation just to see if she'd sign an incorrect score card.  But that's sure what I'm hearing from some on this thread.

I also had a question, from someone who knows the rules better than me.  According to the ROG, decisions from the committee are "final".  Well, they made a decision yesterday but apparently that wasn't final, because then they changed the decision afterward.  So, if they're allowed to change their minds, how much time do they get to do it?  Until the end of the competition?  I can't seem to find a statue of limitations, per se, on rulings that the committee makes.

Tiger clearly violated the rules.  It's pretty sad that golfers like Tiger, and Stacy Lewis, AND their caddies are so ignorant of the rules that they do these kinds of things.  No, I don't think Tiger is dumb enough to do what he did if he thought it was against the rules (I realize some of you Tiger-haters would like to think he was knowingly cheating, but you struggle to explain why he would then do a press-conference and explain exactly what he did).

I do see a problem with this rule, the way it's worded.  By stating that you need to play it as near as possible to the previous spot, and then telling you that a drop is required, it makes it nearly impossible to comply because unless the ball comes to a stop "as near as possible" to where it previously lay, you're technically in violation of the rule.  I believe the word "play" should probably be replaced with "drop".  Would love to hear your thoughts on this, those who know the rules far better than I.

- Dave

[Stretch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BallStriker

LOL.....so fukkin true...

Yeah, it's entirely predictable what Feinstein thinks about it. Although the Sluman anecdote was interesting.

Quote:

In 1998 at Bay Hill, Jeff Sluman remembered a local rule at the 17th hole after he had hit his ball in the water and taken what he thought was a legal drop.

He remembered the rule hours after his round was over. The next morning he asked a rules official to go back to the spot with him to try to determine if his drop had been legal. Neither man was certain. Under the rules, Sluman was entitled to give himself the benefit of the doubt. He was two shots out of the lead at the time.

He withdrew.

“I wouldn’t have been able to sleep if I somehow won and thought I might have made an illegal drop along the way,” he said. “I couldn’t live with the doubt.”