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

[M2R]

Originally Posted by dave67az

... The rules committee screwed up.  Simple as that.

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 afterwards.  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.

- Dave

COMMITTEE'S DECISION

34-3/1

Correction of Incorrect Ruling in Stroke Play

Q. During the first round of a 36-hole stroke-play competition, a competitor plays a wrong ball from a bunker at the 6th hole and the ball comes to rest on the green. He then realizes that he has played a wrong ball and corrects his mistake. The competitor reports the facts to the Committee before returning his card and is incorrectly advised that he has incurred no penalty since the wrong ball was played from a hazard.

During the second round the Committee realizes that it made a mistake and retrospectively adds to the competitor's first-round score two penalty strokes at the 6th hole, but does not disqualify the competitor under Rule 6-6d .

The competitor objects on the ground that the Committee reached a decision on the matter the previous day and that, as Rule 34-3 states that the Committee's decision is final, it cannot now impose a penalty.

Was the Committee's procedure correct?

A. Yes. Under Rule 34-3 , a Committee's decision is final in that the competitor has no right to appeal. However, Rule 34-3 does not prevent a Committee from correcting an incorrect ruling and imposing or rescinding a penalty provided that no penalty is imposed or rescinded after the competition is closed, except in the circumstances set forth in Rule 34-1b .

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by M2R

COMMITTEE'S DECISION

34-3/1

Correction of Incorrect Ruling in Stroke Play

Q.During the first round of a 36-hole stroke-play competition, a competitor plays a wrong ball from a bunker at the 6th hole and the ball comes to rest on the green. He then realizes that he has played a wrong ball and corrects his mistake. The competitor reports the facts to the Committee before returning his card and is incorrectly advised that he has incurred no penalty since the wrong ball was played from a hazard.

During the second round the Committee realizes that it made a mistake and retrospectively adds to the competitor's first-round score two penalty strokes at the 6th hole, but does not disqualify the competitor under Rule 6-6d.

The competitor objects on the ground that the Committee reached a decision on the matter the previous day and that, as Rule 34-3 states that the Committee's decision is final, it cannot now impose a penalty.

Was the Committee's procedure correct?

A.Yes. Under Rule 34-3, a Committee's decision is final in that the competitor has no right to appeal. However, Rule 34-3 does not prevent a Committee from correcting an incorrect ruling and imposing or rescinding a penalty provided that no penalty is imposed or rescinded after the competition is closed, except in the circumstances set forth in Rule 34-1b.

Does anyone know when this Decision was promulgated?  I know there is a website detailing the history of rule changes but is there something similar for the history of decisions?

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by M2R

COMMITTEE'S DECISION

34-3/1

Correction of Incorrect Ruling in Stroke Play

Q.During the first round of a 36-hole stroke-play competition, a competitor plays a wrong ball from a bunker at the 6th hole and the ball comes to rest on the green. He then realizes that he has played a wrong ball and corrects his mistake. The competitor reports the facts to the Committee before returning his card and is incorrectly advised that he has incurred no penalty since the wrong ball was played from a hazard.

During the second round the Committee realizes that it made a mistake and retrospectively adds to the competitor's first-round score two penalty strokes at the 6th hole, but does not disqualify the competitor under Rule 6-6d.

The competitor objects on the ground that the Committee reached a decision on the matter the previous day and that, as Rule 34-3 states that the Committee's decision is final, it cannot now impose a penalty.

Was the Committee's procedure correct?

A.Yes. Under Rule 34-3, a Committee's decision is final in that the competitor has no right to appeal. However, Rule 34-3 does not prevent a Committee from correcting an incorrect ruling and imposing or rescinding a penalty provided that no penalty is imposed or rescinded after the competition is closed, except in the circumstances set forth in Rule 34-1b.

Excellent, exactly what I was looking for.  I suspected they couldn't change their minds AFTER a tourney, but wasn't sure.  Thanks boss!

At least we can rest assured that they won't change their minds any more after Sunday.

[Zeph]

Last round scores of the last 12 winners of the Masters:

B. Watson	68
C. Schwartzel	66
P. Mickelson	67
A. Cabrera	71
T. Immelman	75
Z. Johnson	69
P. Mickelson	69
T. Woods	71
P. Mickelson	69
M. Weir	68
T. Woods	71
T. Woods	68
V. Singh	69

If one of the top five shoots this kind of score, the winner will be around -9/-10. Tiger will need to shoot 64-66 to have a chance in that event. Tiger has shot 65 twice and 66 six times during his 18 years at Augusta. My prediction is that he must rely on the other players making mistakes to win this.

[clarkeycats]

Missed the end of it yesterday, what happened to Rory?! Just seen he is +5....!

[14ledo81]

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

You raise some interesting points. Maybe the committee did not contact Tiger before he signed because they hoped it would just go away. Tiger in the lead or closer to the lead is probably better for ratings.

[Zeph]

You raise some interesting points. Maybe the committee did not contact Tiger before he signed because they hoped it would just go away. Tiger in the lead or closer to the lead is probably better for ratings.

They probably didn't because they didn't consider it a significant rule violation. Based on their footage, they must have assumed he just forgot where he last hit, or forgot to drop near it. The rule says you must drop as near as possible, which for all they knew might have been true. When he said during the interview that it was intentional, they had to take action. Which obviously is after he signed his card.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by cheetahpilot

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.

I just want to mention something here that I think many may not understand....including some media types.   Under Rule 20-5, which covers where a player must drop when playing from his previous spot, the ball when dropped must strike the ground by the previous spot, in this case the divot.

The ball does not have to stay there, however.  It can roll up to 2 club lengths away from where it struck the ground.  (no closer to the hole.)  R20-2c.  The ball could lay 6 - 7 feet from the original spot and still be a legal drop.

So looking at a static picture, in of itself, does not necessarily give a definitive answer to the question of whether or not a drop was correct.

(I've got a couple of hours in a cheetah..........long, long time ago).

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

You raise some interesting points. Maybe the committee did not contact Tiger before he signed because they hoped it would just go away. Tiger in the lead or closer to the lead is probably better for ratings.

Poppycock!!  They didn't contact him immediately after the round because they didn't see a foul when they reviewed the shot.  Since the committee had the information in a timely manner and chose not to pursue the case, it would be very poor form to impose the disqualification penalty. It was only after Tiger stated that he had dropped 2 clublengths back (but not certain whether that was an improper drop) that they investigated it further, much too late to prevent him from returning his card, so assessing him 2 strokes was the proper action.

[Yukari]

Fourputt is correct.  Since the rules committee has DECIDED there was no rules violation prior to Tiger signing his scorecard, Tiger in fact did NOT sign an incorrect scorecard.  Therefore, DQ'ing for signing an improper scorecard is NOT an option for the rules committee.

What people seem to forget is that the most important fact about this case is that the rules committee has DECIDED prior to Tiger signing his scorecard that there was no rules violation.  It doesn't matter whether they told Tiger that or not.  The rules committee had already DECIDED.  End of story.

[colin007]

It'll probably be Sneds or El Pato... I think Tigs is too far behind...

[Yukari]

I would like to see Jason Day win.

Great for down under.

[cheetahpilot]

Dormie1360 wrote:

Quote:

So looking at a static picture, in of itself, does not necessarily give a definitive answer to the question of whether or not a drop was correct.

This is true.  Although they would have viewed the actual footage as well.  In this instance, dropping the ball in that area would have resulted in the ball moving forward, however, not back.  That said, the video cannot reveal what is in the player's mind.  He could have simply said he dropped as near as he could remember to where he hit the original shot.  BUt Tiger knew precisely where he hit the original shot.  And he calculated an advantage he believed was within the rules.  He was wrong.

And John, go to groundspeedrecords.com for a pic of my cheetah (single engine-grumman) and story about how I hold the record at 247 knots.  Yes, I cheated!

Bob

[iacas]

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."

The article is clearly talking about while Tiger was PLAYING the second hole. How else would Steinberg have a copy of the transcript? People were on the course at the time. C'mon.

Originally Posted by dave67az

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.

I started mentioning it - and the rules official on the grounds at Augusta National was sent messages - at 7:35 and about 8:15 eastern time. They weren't alerted until about 10pm. So that's plenty of time.

Originally Posted by dave67az

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.

That misunderstands things. They already RULED that there was no infraction. As Ridley said, whether or not they told Tiger there was no infraction was irrelevant.

Originally Posted by dave67az

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.

No, they didn't. They, acting on the information they had at the time, assessed no further penalty. When more information became available later, they assessed the appropriate penalty, and waived the DQ because the penalty was not of a significant nature.

Originally Posted by dave67az

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.

The difference is easily seen: both committees made the best decision with the available information. In Stacy's case it was on the sixth hole IIRC, and the committee could see all they needed on the tape.

In the case of the Masters, only after he'd signed his card and gave a post-round interview did more information come to light. Rules officials can only know what they know - they don't possess extra-sensory perception to know more than is available to them.

Originally Posted by dave67az

I also had a question, from someone who knows the rules better than me.  According to the ROG, decisions from the committee are "final".

Addressed in the decision above. Read it.

Originally Posted by dave67az

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.

Tiger knows the rules better than virtually all golfers - PGA Tour or otherwise. I don't know about you, but I imagine there's a lot to think about in these high-level competitions. I've caddied in a few, too - it's easy to see how little things like this can simply go unnoticed.

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

You raise some interesting points. Maybe the committee did not contact Tiger before he signed because they hoped it would just go away. Tiger in the lead or closer to the lead is probably better for ratings.

Others responded to you already, but to assume that it has to do with "ratings" is silly. Augusta National doesn't care about ratings.

Originally Posted by Zeph

They probably didn't because they didn't consider it a significant rule violation. Based on their footage, they must have assumed he just forgot where he last hit, or forgot to drop near it. The rule says you must drop as near as possible, which for all they knew might have been true. When he said during the interview that it was intentional, they had to take action. Which obviously is after he signed his card.

Yup. Joey hadn't moved, so Tiger was reasonably sure where his ball was. He could have - prior to the press conference - be seen as playing from as close as possible to where he thought he hit the previous shot, and the Committee saw no problem.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Zeph

Last round scores of the last 12 winners of the Masters:

B. Watson

68

C. Schwartzel

66

P. Mickelson

67

A. Cabrera

71

T. Immelman

75

Z. Johnson

69

P. Mickelson

69

T. Woods

71

P. Mickelson

69

M. Weir

68

T. Woods

71

T. Woods

68

V. Singh

69

If one of the top five shoots this kind of score, the winner will be around -9/-10. Tiger will need to shoot 64-66 to have a chance in that event. Tiger has shot 65 twice and 66 six times during his 18 years at Augusta. My prediction is that he must rely on the other players making mistakes to win this.

Agree.  Tiger has no realistic shot unless he shoots 65-ish, and even then a lot of folks would have to struggle ahead of him.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Poppycock!!  They didn't contact him immediately after the round because they didn't see a foul when they reviewed the shot.  Since the committee had the information in a timely manner and chose not to pursue the case, it would be very poor form to impose the disqualification penalty. It was only after Tiger stated that he had dropped 2 clublengths back (but not certain whether that was an improper drop) that they investigated it further, much too late to prevent him from returning his card, so assessing him 2 strokes was the proper action.

Agree.  Kudos to the Masters (and the USGA/R&A;) for properly instituting this new rule and implementing it.  The rule itself illustrates just why no observer on TV should ever be able to disqualify a player: it's biased against players in the lead or with large popularity.  Those suggesting "it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't Tiger Woods" are correct, but in a sense they aren't intending: if this happened to Michael Thompson, we most likely would have been watching Tiger or Phil putt while Thompson was dropping and it wouldn't have been shown on TV.  Nobody would have called in, and then nobody interviews him afterwards about it.

Like it or not, one of the takeaways from all of this is that Tiger will be less specific in his post-round interviews.

[Zeph]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Agree.  Kudos to the Masters (and the USGA/R&A;) for properly instituting this new rule and implementing it.  The rule itself illustrates just why no observer on TV should ever be able to disqualify a player: it's biased against players in the lead or with large popularity.  Those suggesting "it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't Tiger Woods" are correct, but in a sense they aren't intending: if this happened to Michael Thompson, we most likely would have been watching Tiger or Phil putt while Thompson was dropping and it wouldn't have been shown on TV.  Nobody would have called in, and then nobody interviews him afterwards about it.

Yep. A cynical viewer might wait until a player has finished his round before calling in the infraction, in hope of the player being disqualified. How is that fair to whoever is in the spotlight all the time?

[clutchshot]

Didn't want to quote that long scoreboard one above, but I disagree, I think the score that wins it will be -6 or -7. A lot of those guys up there had 1 good day and have been around even the rest of the time, I don't expect them to go low today. Regarding Tiger: if it wasn't for hole 15, he would be at -9 already (was at -6, change that boogie into a birdie, -7, minus 2 yesterday = -9). He has consistantly scored under pat every day and could possible reach that -6, -7 mark today.

[Motown88]

Originally Posted by clutchshot

Didn't want to quote that long scoreboard one above, but I disagree, I think the score that wins it will be -6 or -7. A lot of those guys up there had 1 good day and have been around even the rest of the time, I don't expect them to go low today.

Regarding Tiger: if it wasn't for hole 15, he would be at -9 already (was at -6, change that boogie into a birdie, -7, minus 2 yesterday = -9). He has consistantly scored under pat every day and could possible reach that -6, -7 mark today.

I agree that Tiger could potentially reach that -6 or -7 mark, but that's assuming all the rest of the guys shoot around par.  One of them is bound to have a decent round and get to at least -8 in my opinion.  I'd love to see Tiger win another major, but with the events that transpired on hole 15 on Friday I don't see it happening.  The pin screwed him, big time!!!