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

[Mordan]

One possible argument against a DQ is that the Masters is supposed to be about historical traditions. Historically, you wouldn't have people at home carefully reviewing video and interview transcripts to conclude that Tiger should be DQ'd.

If that's the best argument against DQ then Tiger is as good as gone. You're really clutching at straws with that one. Imagine if Tiger had gone 2 yards sideways to get around a tree or a better line past a bunker, that would be a blatant infraction but as far as the rule goes I can't see a difference between that and improving his yardage. He needed to drop as closely as he could to his previous spot and he knowingly didn't.

[Mac62]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac62

Whether anybody else has ever done it and gotten away with it is irrelevant - it's a rule violation.  If it is, in fact, ruled as an illegal drop, he should be DQ'ed - although I sincerely doubt it will happen because I don't think the PGA has the guts to DQ the #1 player and media darling of the tournament when he's in contention, golfing well and making a charge for the win.

Just picking nits here because it doesn't change your sentiment, however, the PGA has no authority here.

Point taken, my error.  It will be interesting to see which way it goes - there are going to be some very strong, heated opinions either way.

[onephenom]

Originally Posted by Mordan

If that's the best argument against DQ then Tiger is as good as gone. You're really clutching at straws with that one.

Imagine if Tiger had gone 2 yards sideways to get around a tree or a better line past a bunker, that would be a blatant infraction but as far as the rule goes I can't see a difference between that and improving his yardage. He needed to drop as closely as he could to his previous spot and he knowingly didn't.

Yes, and not only did he go 2 yards back, he went to the left some unknown distance... which means he's more than two yards from original shot.

Also... anyone else hear that Kobe may have just torn his achilles? Imagine if Tiger and Kobe lost out on the two most important parts of their sports in one day (kobe not playing the playoffs..)

[mvmac]

In other news, just saw Freddy say that if he won he'd retire from golf and just play the Masters every year.

Originally Posted by narmno

One possible argument against a DQ is that the Masters is supposed to be about historical traditions. Historically, you wouldn't have people at home carefully reviewing video and interview transcripts to conclude that Tiger should be DQ'd.

This is really blowing up on Twitter. Hank Haney is worried (Haney thinks Tiger will win if he doesn't get disqualified). Bob Estes says it was a clear infraction. The list goes on and on.

I hope he doesn't get DQ'ed but like the 14 year old kid said, a rule is a rule.

In terms of historical traditions, Augusta re-does their greens every year, they laser map the greens and underneath the course is a SubAir system, which is an aeration and moisture removal system.  In 2002 Augusta National officials lengthened nine holes to increase the overall distance from 6,985 yards to 7,270 yards, and extended more tees in 2006 to bring the modern total to 7,435 yards.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2007/04/below_the_hole.html

" But while the Masters brass has carefully cultivated a technology-hating image, all this Luddism is a façade. Beneath the club's manicured greenery lies an arsenal of technological wonders that keeps the course looking timeless and pristine. Indeed, take a deep enough divot at Augusta National and you'll unearth the most technologically advanced setup in golf."

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Brandel must be sporting a woody...

Oh yeah...

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

Well, the Tiger DQ possibility is certainly gaining momentum as the night goes on. It's 2:40am Eastern Time, and ESPN, Sporting News and others are starting to report it on their websites.

[BallStriker]

Fehrety on record that it was a bad drop....holy shit.

[Zeph]

That certainly spiced things up a bit. I think he'll be disqualified. Perhaps especially after Guan got his penalty for slow play. Interesting thing will be to see if he DQ himself. There is no way this topic will just fade under the stars. Personally, I think it's silly that you have to drop into the divot. You already had a bad shot, then you get penalized for dropping perfectly into your own divot hole. While those that aim slightly off will get a perfect lie. You should be able to pick it out of the hole and put it next to it. [quote]Kevin hits an iron shot from the fairway and it goes out of bounds. He takes his stroke-and-distance penalty and drops the ball so it lands about a foot away from the divot hole he just made. Has he proceeded correctly? No. When a player elects, or is required, to play his next stroke from where a previous stroke was played in an area through the green, he must drop the ball as near as possible to the spot (Rule 20-5). The divot hole precisely marks the spot from which he played his previous stroke, so he must try to drop the ball so it lands in the divot hole. Since he is dropping the ball from shoulder height, a player's aim might not be precise. If the ball lands within two or three inches of the divot hole, an official would rule it a proper drop. But if it lands farther from the divot hole, he clearly wasn't aiming for the divot hole and it's an illegal drop. If he plays the ball, he incurs a penalty for playing from the wrong place (two strokes in stroke play, or loss of hole in match play). If the dropped ball ends up in the divot hole after being dropped properly, it must be played as it lies. There is no provision under Rule 20-2c for a re-drop from a divot hole.[/quote] [quote name="iacas" url="/t/65568/2013-masters-discussion-thread-update-with-possible-illegal-drop-from-tiger-post-343/378#post_831232"] If it rolled into the divot, since he's a pro and his divot is on the target side of the golf ball, that would be closer to the hole and thus require a re-drop. :D That's my point. [/quote] That is a good point. Have to make note of that one. My divots used to start behind the ball, so I've always been able to drop into it. :-P

[Beachcomber]

Wow.  Tiger is gonna be DQ'd.

http://espn.go.com/golf/blog/_/name/golf/id/9166946/tiger-woods-taken-illegal-drop-15th-hole-augusta-national-golf

[BallStriker]

Zeph, is that an official interpretation?  If it is, I think things are settled....DQ

[Mordan]

The more I think about this, the more it seems like just such a brain fart by Tiger. The rules for a drop from a hazard is hardly an obscure rule, it's one that comes into play many times each tournament. He must know the rule.

What was he thinking?

[BallStriker]

Almost 1 am where I am at and I can't go to sleep on this story........just keeps picking up steam and it does not look good for Tiger.....one thing that could save him is if there was a rules official nearby that confirmed a good drop and declared in play somehow, someway.....

[Zeph]

Zeph, is that an official interpretation?  If it is, I think things are settled....DQ

No, it's from some Internet site. I thinks it's a proper interpretation though. http://www.intotherough.co.uk/golf-rules-q-anda/where-do-you-drop-when-a-divot-hole-marks-the-previous-spot-/

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by Zeph

Personally, I think it's silly that you have to drop into the divot. You already had a bad shot, then you get penalized for dropping perfectly into your own divot hole. While those that aim slightly off will get a perfect lie. You should be able to pick it out of the hole and put it next to it.

If you drop and your ball ends up in your original divot - then the ball would have moved closer to the hole.  As you hit the ball first, ground second - divot follows.  So under the rules of golf, you should be able to re-drop as the ball moved closer to the hole.

With that being said, I believe Tiger may have dug his own grave, which will force the DQ issue.  He specifically says that he went 2 yards further back to ensure he didn't hit the pin again.

[Zwick]

Woah now that are bad news to read after waking up. But if he really dropped 2 yards behind the divot, he will get DQed.

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by Mordan

The more I think about this, the more it seems like just such a brain fart by Tiger. The rules for a drop from a hazard is hardly an obscure rule, it's one that comes into play many times each tournament. He must know the rule.

What was he thinking?

It's a tough break.  I think a lot of us break the rules without even knowing we are breaking them.  Unfortunately, the rules are written such that there are some difficulties knowing if you are in breach of a rule or not.  Playing a ball 'as nearly as possible' at the spot from the original ball was last played can be difficult to find the 'exact' spot.  So is 2 yards fair?  Some would say it's not an issue.  Especially if it wasn't closer to the hole.  Some (here and elsewhere) agree that it is a clear rules violation.

Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

It's a tough break.  I think a lot of us break the rules without even knowing we are breaking them.  Unfortunately, the rules are written such that there are some difficulties knowing if you are in breach of a rule or not.  Playing a ball 'as nearly as possible' at the spot from the original ball was last played can be difficult to find the 'exact' spot.  So is 2 yards fair?  Some would say it's not an issue.  Especially if it wasn't closer to the hole.  Some (here and elsewhere) agree that it is a clear rules violation.

Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played

I think it's a well written rule.

The question to the golfer after they've taken the drop is, did you drop it as near as possible to where you played your previous shot?

A weekend golfer who hit his shot, went to find it, couldn't and had to walk back and pick a spot would say "well I think it was one of these three divots, I have the same yardage I remember playing from and my two playing partners seemed to think I had it about right". To me that would be him playing from as nearly as possible the spot he hit his last. How could he do better based on the information available to him?

But Tiger would say no, I didn't because it would be very easy for me to have dropped closer to the divot that I know was mine.

If the wording was more strict, it might penalise the first golfer despite the fact that he has acted in good faith and done the best he could without rules officials, TV or something else around to tell him where to hit from. It's simple, you must make your best effort to play from a spot as close as you can based on what you know, and your ability to drop accurately etc. Tiger clearly didn't.

[turtleback]

I don't think he used the 26-1a, replay the last shot, option.  He said he moved back and to the left.  I don't think the ball rebounded as far left as people seem to think.  It is almost impossible to get a real idea of the actual angle from TV.  From where he was it probably looked like it rebounded almost directly back at him, just slightly to the left of his original flight line.  So under 26-1b he moved slightly left and back as far as he wanted to.

The reason I think this is the case is because he specifically said that he moved to the left.  Even if he was somehow conflating the relief options under 26-1a and 26-1b, as some are claiming, moving left would not have fit.  The only way moving left fits is if he did so to put the last point where the ball crossed the margin of the hazard between the flagstick and the drop.

And IF that is the case then he is fine and there is no penalty EVEN IF it is later proven to have been a drop in the wrong place.  That is because of Decision 26-1/17.  If the player made an honest judgement of where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard and plays his ball he is held harmless if it is subsequently discovered that he played from a wrong place:

Decision 26-1/17

Q. In the circumstances described in Decision 26-1/16 , what is the ruling if A, having dropped a ball in a wrong place, plays it before his error is discovered?

A. A must continue play with the ball played from a wrong place, without penalty. Applying a penalty under Rule 26-1 for playing from a wrong place (see Rule 20-7 ) is not appropriate. Otherwise, a competitor would risk incurring a penalty every time he makes an honest judgment as to the point where his ball last crosses a water-hazard margin and that judgment subsequently proves incorrect. (emphasis added)

While the decision deals specifically with a drop from a lateral hazard, the principle should apply to any drop from a water hazard and, in fact, the bolded portion refers to water margin hazards in general, not just laterals.

For context, Decision 26-1/16, which is referred to in the above decision says:

Q. In stroke play, A's ball goes into a lateral water hazard and is not found. A uses his best judgment in determining the point where the ball last crossed the hazard margin. B, A's marker and a fellow-competitor, agrees with that judgment and A drops a ball in accordance with Rule 26-1c , using the agreed point on the margin as the reference point. Before A makes his next stroke, C, another fellow-competitor, says that A's ball last crossed the hazard margin 20 yards beyond the point judged by A to be the point where the ball last crossed. A's ball is then found where C said it would be. What is the ruling?

A. When A dropped the ball under Rule 26-1 , it was known or virtually certain that his original ball lay in the lateral water hazard. Therefore, Rule 26-1 was the applicable Rule and the player proceeded correctly in that he was permitted to put a ball into play under that Rule. However, as he dropped his ball in a wrong place, A must correct the error under Rule 20-6 . He must proceed in accordance with any of the applicable options under Rule 26-1 with respect to the correct reference point (see Decision 20-6/2 ). A is precluded from playing the original ball from the hazard.

[BallStriker]

Great counter-point turtle.....Tiger would be wise to plead this case tomorrow..