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

[iacas]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

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.

Are you guys new to watching tournament golf or something? What makes you think Tiger couldn't shoot one of those 68s to win?

I think -9 has a 50/50 shot of playing off versus winning outright.

What has the lead been at the end of each day?

-6

-6

-7

Not exactly a lot of movement. A 66 from Tiger gets him to -9. A measly 66. Heck, if Tiger shoots 65, I think he's way better than 50/50 to win outright. A 66 is at least a 30% chance.

Leaders tend to struggle. Who was the last guy who separated himself from the pack at Augusta National? The course requires absolutely incredible play to shoot a low score - if you're playing it safe you'll make the occasional birdie on a par five, but you'll get out of position on a par four or three and take a few bogeys, too.

That's what makes the tournament so great. The line between 65 and 75 is so thin. Leaders rarely need to play it close to that line, so they shoot scores of about 70. If the two leaders do that, that's -9.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

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.

I completely disagree, but this isn't the thread for that.

Originally Posted by clutchshot

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.

The 15th cost him four shots. It turned a bogey into a birdie, and the two shot penalty.

So I don't know where you get -9 - he'd be at -7 if he had missed the flagstick, possibly only -6 if he missed the birdie putt.

---

BTW, here's our live chat, starting when CBS coverage begins:

http://thesandtrap.com/b/pga/2013_masters_final_round_chat

If you enjoy these chats at the majors, consider sending a buck or two via PayPal to erik@thesandtrap.com . Your contribution will be noted. :)

[achadha7]

If the chineese 14 yr can get a 1 stroke penalty for slow play, tiger should be dq'ed, rules are rules

[waldo]

How does Booby Jones at the 1925 US Open fit this story at the Masters? Is it irrelevant or does it provide perspective?

Jones was not only a consummately skilled golfer but exemplified the principles of sportsmanship and fair play. In the first round of the 1925 U.S. Open at the Worcester Country Club near Boston, his approach shot to the 11th hole's elevated green fell short into the deep rough of the embankment. As he took his stance to pitch onto the green, the head of his club brushed the grass and caused a slight movement of the ball. He took the shot, then informed his playing partner Walter Hagen and the USGA official covering their match that he was calling a penalty on himself. Hagen was unable to talk him out of it, and they continued play. After the round and before he signed his scorecard, officials argued with Jones but he insisted that he had violated Rule 18 , moving a ball at rest after address, and took a 77 instead of the 76 he otherwise would have carded. Jones' self-imposed one-stroke penalty eventually cost him winning the Open by a stroke in regulation, necessitating a playoff he then lost. Although praised by many sports writers for his gesture, Jones was reported to have said, "You may as well praise a man for not robbing a bank."

[iacas]

Originally Posted by achadha7

If the chineese 14 yr can get a 1 stroke penalty for slow play, tiger should be dq'ed, rules are rules

The rules were properly applied in both scenarios.

Read the many, many posts above before posting stuff that has a high potential to make you look dumb.

[Motown88]

Originally Posted by waldo

How does Booby Jones at the 1925 US Open fit his story at the Masters? Is it irrelevant or does it provide perspective?

Jones was not only a consummately skilled golfer but exemplified the principles of sportsmanship and fair play. In the first round of the 1925 U.S. Open at the Worcester Country Club near Boston, his approach shot to the 11th hole's elevated green fell short into the deep rough of the embankment. As he took his stance to pitch onto the green, the head of his club brushed the grass and caused a slight movement of the ball. He took the shot, then informed his playing partner Walter Hagen and the USGA official covering their match that he was calling a penalty on himself. Hagen was unable to talk him out of it, and they continued play. After the round and before he signed his scorecard, officials argued with Jones but he insisted that he had violated Rule 18, moving a ball at rest after address, and took a 77 instead of the 76 he otherwise would have carded. Jones' self-imposed one-stroke penalty eventually cost him winning the Open by a stroke in regulation, necessitating a playoff he then lost. Although praised by many sports writers for his gesture, Jones was reported to have said, "You may as well praise a man for not robbing a bank."

The difference is Tiger may have honestly thought he was in no violation of the rule.  We all know he was in violation of it, and it was clear that he illegaly dropped but at the time no one knows what Tiger or his Caddy were thinking.  Because of that fact and the fact the committee ruled no infraction occured this is a different scenario.

[Ping]

Originally Posted by Motown88

The difference is Tiger may have honestly thought he was in no violation of the rule.  We all know he was in violation of it, and it was clear that he illegally dropped but at the time no one knows what Tiger or his Caddy were thinking.  Because of that fact and the fact the committee ruled no infraction occur ed this is a different scenario.

Eldrick knew exactly what he was doing..he admitted that he moved two yards back in order to "dial in" his next shot. Whether the Committee was right or wrong is irrelevant. There was a clear rules violation in that act. Had he DQ'd himself, he would have demonstrated a modicum of integrity, but since he has none..he didn't.  As a result of this fiasco, the question of "who's the best golfer of all time" has been answered..Jack Nicklaus.

[Yukari]

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Tiger knew he was 2 yards back, but he also believed it was within the rules.

Originally Posted by Ping

Eldrick knew exactly what he was doing..he admitted that he moved two yards back in order to "dial in" his next shot. Whether the Committee was right or wrong is irrelevant. There was a clear rules violation in that act. Had he DQ'd himself, he would have demonstrated a modicum of integrity, but since he has none..he didn't.  As a result of this fiasco, the question of "who's the best golfer of all time" has been answered..Jack Nicklaus.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ping

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motown88

The difference is Tiger may have honestly thought he was in no violation of the rule.  We all know he was in violation of it, and it was clear that he illegally dropped but at the time no one knows what Tiger or his Caddy were thinking.  Because of that fact and the fact the committee ruled no infraction occur ed this is a different scenario.

Eldrick knew exactly what he was doing..he admitted that he moved two yards back in order to "dial in" his next shot. Whether the Committee was right or wrong is irrelevant. There was a clear rules violation in that act. Had he DQ'd himself, he would have demonstrated a modicum of integrity, but since he has none..he didn't.  As a result of this fiasco, the question of "who's the best golfer of all time" has been answered..Jack Nicklaus.

But he thought that he was allowed that 2 yards (within 2 clublengths).  He was wrong, but that still doesn't make it intentional.

[Chilli Dipper]

The big mover among the early starters so far is Ryan Moore, who shot 33 on the outward nine. Too bad he had that 81 yesterday, or else he'd be right in the thick of things.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Yukari

Tiger knew he was 2 yards back, but he also believed it was within the rules.

Yup.

[dave67az]

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.

Really.  So in the Stacy Lewis case, why did they contact Stacy and ASK her and Travis whether they had violated the rule?  Consistent application of standards is pretty important.

Originally Posted by 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.

Now that's poppycock.  I'm sorry but if a player's statements/intent would be enough to change the committee's decision on a ruling, then they owe it to everyone involved to get that statement BEFORE they make a freaking decision, Just like the Stacy Lewis case. Anyone looking at the tape can see Tiger didn't drop it "as nearly as possible" to his previous spot because the divot is plainly seen.  So the only question was whether he did it on purpose or whether he thought he was in the right spot.  This could have been determined by simply asking him before he signed the card (just like they asked Stacy and Travis if they were testing the surface of the bunker).  To make a decision before all the facts are known was irresponsible, just as they would have been in the Stacy Lewis case.

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

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.

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.

Yes, they had already ruled.  But they should NOT have ruled until they got all the information.

You make it sound like the information they got later wasn't available earlier.  It most certainly was, and all they had to do to get the information was ASK TIGER what he was doing, because he had that information from the moment he made the drop.  The failure to GET all the information when it was easily available (just like the Stacy Lewis case) is a failure to act consistently in both cases.

You say that in the Lewis case "the committee could see all they needed on the tape" as though we're supposed to pretend they didn't approach her and ASK her whether she and Travis were testing the surface.  I could just as easily cop out and say that you can see all the evidence you need on tape in Tiger's case, but I'm not willing to use different standards just because they're different tournaments.  Both are supposed to be judged by the same standards.  They didn't just inform Stacy that she was being penalized.  They asked her what she and Travis were doing before they penalized her because the tape doesn't show as must as you say it does.  They didn't wait until her press conferences after the round to see if she said something about it.

- Dave

[Rick Martin]

why did Ryo Ishikawa get a special invitation (again)?  This is just another reason why this "championship" is diluted and not as significant, imo, than the US Open and the Open.  There have got to be more deserving players out there  - wish Charlie Beljan was in this field, for instance.

Ryo's Recent tournaments		Position	Total	To Par	Winnings
Jan 17	Humana Challenge	CUT	213	–	$0
Jan 24	Farmers Insurance	CUT	147	–	$0
Jan 31	Phoenix Open	CUT	145	–	$0
Feb 14	Northern Trust	T61	289	+5	$13,992
Feb 28	Honda Classic	CUT	148	–	$0
Mar 7	Puerto Rico Open	T39	278	-10	$12,294.54
Mar 14	TB Champ	CUT	148	–	$0
Mar 21	Arnold Palmer	T65	294	+6	$12,834
Mar 28	Houston Open	CUT	149	–	$0
Apr 11	The Masters	T50	224	+7	–

[onephenom]

Maybe the guys on top really like him. Doesn't a special invitation mean it's not important how well you play before?

[Yukari]

Sandy Lyle's putter face appears to be a size of a pancake!

[Rick Martin]

Originally Posted by onephenom

Maybe the guys on top really like him. Doesn't a special invitation mean it's not important how well you play before?

Yet they dissed Ernie last season  - great player like that deserves special invite if anyone does.

[Rick Martin]

Love Masters.com stream ----watching Guan now.  Still playing great. Four over going into 13th. Just flew the green in two on 13....short chip shot back to the pin.

[onephenom]

Originally Posted by Rick Martin

Yet they dissed Ernie last season  - great player like that deserves special invite if anyone does.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think he should have been invited. Maybe because Ryo is international? Probably trying to get more interest from abroad. Most everyone here who likes Ernie is still going to follow the tournament.

[Rick Martin]

Originally Posted by onephenom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Martin

Yet they dissed Ernie last season  - great player like that deserves special invite if anyone does.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think he should have been invited. Maybe because Ryo is international? Probably trying to get more interest from abroad. Most everyone here who likes Ernie is still going to follow the tournament.

I believe you're right. Part of appeasing the Asian fans - probably are a few Augusta National members from that part of the world as well.