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

[jshots]

Can someone explain to me why rule 20-7 doesn't apply?

Quote:

20-7 . Playing From Wrong Place

a . General

A player has played from a wrong place if he makes a stroke at his ball in play :

(i) on a part of the course where the Rules do not permit a stroke to be made or a ball to be dropped or placed; or

And then goes on to say.

Quote:

c . Stroke Play

If a competitor makes a stroke from a wrong place, he incurs a penalty of two strokes under the applicable Rule . He must play out the hole with the ball played from the wrong place, without correcting his error, provided he has not committed a serious breach (see Note 1).

Note 1: A competitor is deemed to have committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule if the Committee considers he has gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong place.

I guess the issue is just whether or not the committee brought it up before he signed the score.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by rehmwa

Sure.  But:

1 - it's a game, not a crime

2 - the issue is there isn't proper officiating - not that some CBS viewer posted a tweet......  You have realistic referees, and then you can define the rule of WHO can notify the ref of a foul.  I think the player, any caddie, the other players, and the officiators.  Not the gallery of any kind.  Look at this website at how many people are rabid fans, or anti-fans - it's a circus

each group should have an official that keeps the rules, that the players can consult, and that also keeps score - simplify it

Nothing you said addresses the fact that anyone calling in or a spectator or a caddie on another hole or anyone can see something that is FACT, or REALITY, and that we should always strive to attain the most accurate we can, not just letting things slide because of who happened to see it - that's not likely to produce the results closest to reality.

It's a game, but violating the rules is still "theft" or a "crime" against the integrity of the competition.

[HOT IRISH]

He said he was wrong by saying he dropped the ball 2 yards away to get a better lie, that's 100% wrong no matter who he spoke to afterwards. It's clear cut & he shouldn't be out there. If he wins how is the runner up gonna feel about it?

[luu5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jshots

Can someone explain to me why rule 20-7 doesn't apply?

Decision 1-4/15

Quote:

The competitor has breached two Rules as a result of a single act. In accordance with the second principle in Decision 1-4/12, the competitor only incurs a single penalty. However, in this case, the Rules that have been breached by the competitor give different penalties (i.e. Rule 18-2a carries a one stroke penalty and Rule 13-2 carries a two stroke penalty). In such circumstances, in equity (Rule 1-4), the more severe of the two penalties must be applied and, therefore, the competitor is penalised two strokes under Rule 13-2.

If the same circumstances arose in match play, the player would lose the hole for the breach of Rule 13-2.

[luu5]

Originally Posted by HOT IRISH

He said he was wrong by saying he dropped the ball 2 yards away to get a better lie, that's 100% wrong no matter who he spoke to afterwards. It's clear cut & he shouldn't be out there. If he wins how is the runner up gonna feel about it?

He was penalized for the wrong drop according to the rules.

[tbax6]

I think rule 33-7 is great in certain situations such as a tv viewer sees a players ball on green moved by wind. Player plays from wrong spot. Should not be DQ as he had no idea rule was broken. Tiger admitted to a rule violation and if committee wants to give him a pass, he should DQ himself.

[3putter]

Originally Posted by tbax6

I think rule 33-7 is great in certain situations such as a tv viewer sees a players ball on green moved by wind. Player plays from wrong spot. Should not be DQ as he had no idea rule was broken. Tiger admitted to a rule violation and if committee wants to give him a pass, he should DQ himself.

When did he admit to breaking rule?

[Dave H]

I think 33.7 is a sensible rule that can help ensure scores are correct and get rid of DQs when rules are innocently broken. Who thinks golf is in a better position by DQ'ing players for innocent mistakes in favor of using modern technology to get scores right?

[eich41]

Originally Posted by 3putter

Edit: Breaking a rule*

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.

[Dave H]

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.

Wouldn't it be better just to get the scores right? Why would this be a bad thing? There are already documented cases of a player unintentionally breaking a rule and being notified of it before signing their card.

[tbax6]

When he was playing the "as near as possible to original shot " option on his drop and then took 2 steps farther back. Even I ( a relative hacker) knows that rule.Tiger had a brain fart and will apparently never admit it. I would love to know what Jack or Arnold think.

[Dave H]

Then nobody should ever be DQ'd again.  All they have to do is say "I didn't know", and they must be forgiven unless you can prove otherwise.  Especially considering how basic of a rule this is.

But it's not as if they're not still going to be assessed the penalty. Add a stroke for missing it in the round to keep people from making it a habit.

[3putter]

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.

What's the point of "admitting" to something that was never in doubt? No one ever said he didn't drop it 2 yards back, and that's not the point of contention here. Most of the golfing world saw him drop it. A relatively proper question would be "Did he or the officiating committee think he broke any rules during that round"? That is why 33-7 came into play. It was discovered afterwards. Even the so called analysts saw nothing wrong with it at the time it happened

[luu5]

Originally Posted by tbax6

When he was playing the "as near as possible to original shot " option on his drop and then took 2 steps farther back. Even I ( a relative hacker) knows that rule.Tiger had a brain fart and will apparently never admit it. I would love to know what Jack or Arnold think.

What does TW never admit? I was under impression he admitted dropping the ball in wrong place.

[tbax6]

He should admit he broke a rule, signed an incorrect card and DQ himself. NFL players try to break some rules every play. Golf is not the same.

[Vermeer]

This article by John Feinstein sums it up.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/john-feinstein/no-need-for-woods-to-withdraw/ http://www.golfchannel.com/news/john-feinstein/no-need-for-woods-to-withdraw

[Wallstreet]

You guys are nuts.  He didn't admit to breaking a rule.  He admitted to moving the ball back 2 yards like it was no big deal.  If he intentionally broke a rule to gain an advantage, do you really think he would talk about it so nonchalantly?  Absolutely not.  He was obviously playing under 26-1, keeping the line from the hole to the water...he obviously confused the rule.  He didn't lie and say he was trying to play the ball as close as possible to the original spot.  He signed the correct card according to the rules officials...it wasn't until after the round was over and he had his interview that they "changed their minds" and got the call right.  At the time of card signing he signed the correct card....there is no way he should be DQ'ed with the new rule and no way should he DQ himself.

Scenario:  It's the NCAA championship basketball game.  A player is fouled during a shot attempt with 1 second left and his team is down by one.  NO call is made, game over......should they review it after the game is over and call a foul.......then have him come back on the court, make both free throws and change the winner?

He made a mistake....it wasn't done maliciously and he has been punished greatly for it....More than I feel, personally, given how it all played out.

Please get off your high horses and stop asking for him to "DQ" himself.

And I think a lot of the commentators like Nick Faldo are showing very low class when asking for Tiger's head over this.

[luu5]

Originally Posted by Wallstreet

And I think a lot of the commentators like Nick Faldo are showing very low class when asking for Tiger's head over this.

Many (I guess Faldo included) changed their mind on this after it was announced that Committee had made already a ruling stating there was no ill play. That changed everything regarding the final ruling.