DQ Brandel Chamblee from the Golf Channel

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

Do you believe that if is was any other golfer in the field the committee would have made the same decision?  Somehow I think it had more to do with ratings than with golf.  It was the first time in my memory that someone has signed an incorrect score card and not received a DQ penalty.  I just don't see how this situation was different to warrant a lesser penalty.

To believe this is to believe that the whole rules establishment of golf is irretrievably corrupt.  Which is patently absurd.

The Committee screwed up, but their mistake (not talking to Tiger before he signed his card - which is the standard procedure on call-ins according to David Fay), just like Tiger's, was an honest one.  And there is not the slightest shred of evidence to the contrary, just the ravings of conspiracy theorists.  Don't put yourself in that camp.

Listen to this is you want to hear the real story.  It is David Fay being interviewed by famous Tiger detractor John Feinstein about this situation.  Despite the flack from Feinstein, Fay makes a convincing case.

http://jimrome.com/audio/1723-the-john-feinstein-show/

[club ho]

Originally Posted by turtleback

To believe this is to believe that the whole rules establishment of golf is irretrievably corrupt.  Which is patently absurd.

The Committee screwed up, but their mistake (not talking to Tiger before he signed his card - which is the standard procedure on call-ins according to David Fay), just like Tiger's, was an honest one.  And there is not the slightest shred of evidence to the contrary, just the ravings of conspiracy theorists.  Don't put yourself in that camp.

Listen to this is you want to hear the real story.  It is David Fay being interviewed by famous Tiger detractor John Feinstein about this situation.  Despite the flack from Feinstein, Fay makes a convincing case.

http://jimrome.com/audio/1723-the-john-feinstein-show/

Thank you for posting this interview. As I have said before Tiger abided by the the rules committee decision. The Tiger haters of the world will not change there opinions and that is there right however rabid  it gets. Case in point the Rabid Brandel Chamlee on last Saturday morning.

[SamCreamer]

Brandel is the number one Tiger hater in the known universe. He wasn`t too bad last week, but over the last 18 months I`ve noticed that he never really has anything nice to say and he usually is just criticizing Tiger`s game. Maybe because he had such a mediocre career himself

EDIT: When I woke up this morning I thought about making this thread, he is so awful in my opinion

[iacas]

Originally Posted by SamCreamer

Brandel is the number one Tiger hater in the known universe. He wasn`t too bad last week, but over the last 18 months I`ve noticed that he never really has anything nice to say and he usually is just criticizing Tiger`s game. Maybe because he had such a mediocre career himself

I think if you actually listen to what he says - for example, during Tiger's three wins this year - you'd be surprised at how many positive things Brandel says about Tiger Woods.

But far be it from me to suggest you change your glasses.

[club ho]

I think as with most forum debates no one was able to change anyone  else's opinion. If Brandel Chamblee did not have such a "sanctimonious personality" as was very well stated by a previous poster he would be much more tolerable. I just can not stand listening to him when he is acting normal. This weekend was infuriating. He needs a job so I will just flick the channel when he comes on the GC.

[gwlee7]

I changed my mind about it as I understood the rule, the events, and the decision better.  I started out thinking he should have been DQ'd.  I confused one of the "decisions" concerning the rule with the rule itself.  Ultimately, to me, the committee made the right call.

[zwlee12]

Chamblee wouldn't have dq'd himself if he was Tiger. No room to make comments like that

[sixonezero]

Fantastic article on this topic:

http://espn.go.com/golf/notebook/_/page/birdiesandbogeys130416/time-closer-look-rules-golf

[iacas]

Fantastic article on this topic: [URL=http://espn.go.com/golf/notebook/_/page/birdiesandbogeys130416/time-closer-look-rules-golf]http://espn.go.com/golf/notebook/_/page/birdiesandbogeys130416/time-closer-look-rules-golf[/URL]

I disagree. It first says anyone else would have been DQed. Then it goes into the tired old "let's get rid of scorecards altogether."

[sixonezero]

Quote:

Then it goes into the tired old "let's get rid of scorecards altogether."

Scorecards in tournament tour golf in 2013?  Don't you think that's a little ridiculous?  And worse, that someone could actually be DQ'ed about one?

[iacas]

Scorecards in tournament tour golf in 2013?  Don't you think that's a little ridiculous?  And worse, that someone could actually be DQ'ed about one?

No. I think they're like a firm handshake. They're practical, efficient, traditional, and a bit like a contract.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by iacas

No. I think they're like a firm handshake. They're practical, efficient, traditional, and a bit like a contract.

Agreed. They may, at first, seem antiquated given the technology we now have, but consider the nature of the game - played in an 'arena' of a couple hundred acres, oftentimes in front of no one. The only spectators (and cameras) a player has are the competitors in his group.

So whether it's 2013 or 1913, it's really the only way to assure uniformity of scoring.

[Zeph]

I don't mind scorecards, but I think some of the DQ rules are too harsh.

[sixonezero]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Agreed. They may, at first, seem antiquated given the technology we now have, but consider the nature of the game - played in an 'arena' of a couple hundred acres, oftentimes in front of no one. The only spectators (and cameras) a player has are the competitors in his group.

So whether it's 2013 or 1913, it's really the only way to assure uniformity of scoring.

Not my point

Originally Posted by iacas

No. I think they're like a firm handshake. They're practical, efficient, traditional, and a bit like a contract.

Of course they are in the vast majority of golf rounds played across the world on a daily basis. No argument there.  But in professional tournament play, under the eyes of millions, it is pretty ridiculous that someone can get DQ'ed over a paper scorecard in this day and age.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sixonezero

Of course they are in the vast majority of golf rounds played across the world on a daily basis. No argument there.  But in professional tournament play, under the eyes of millions, it is pretty ridiculous that someone can get DQ'ed over a paper scorecard in this day and age.

Okay, since that seems to be how you want to make your point, I'll do it the same way: nuh uh! In other words, you gave no real foundation for your opinion. You just shared your opinion with some bad facts as the basis.

Now, unlike you, I'll give some reasons.

1. Paper scorecards are like documents or contracts. They state - with a signature - that "I attest to this scorecard."
2. Paper scorecards are something the player can directly control during the round. They can't operate the scoring computer during the round. It speaks to the personal responsibility of each player.
3. Electronic scoring could lead to mistakes, and if a computer makes a mistake, we wouldn't know who to blame OR what was correct. The player may be unavailable, etc.
4. Paper scorecards are simple, and effective.
5. "The eyes of millions" don't even apply to every shot hit by the leaders, let alone the tens or hundreds of golfers who play without even a crowd early Thursday mornings, early Sunday mornings, etc.
6. Paper scorecards are traditional.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Agreed. They may, at first, seem antiquated given the technology we now have, but consider the nature of the game - played in an 'arena' of a couple hundred acres, oftentimes in front of no one. The only spectators (and cameras) a player has are the competitors in his group.

So whether it's 2013 or 1913, it's really the only way to assure uniformity of scoring.

Originally Posted by iacas

"The eyes of millions" don't even apply to every shot hit by the leaders, let alone the tens or hundreds of golfers who play without even a crowd early Thursday mornings, early Sunday mornings, etc.

I would like to agree that it seems like at the professional level, scorecards are silly and antequated, however, for these reasons above, I don't agree.  Zip and Erik are right.  Not even close to every shot played in even the biggest tournaments are shown on TV, let alone in the regular tournaments, so scorecards are the only way that makes sense.

If you go on Thursday or Friday and watch the groups with the Monday qualifiers, or the 175th in the Fedex Cup that just barely squeezed in as an alternate, when you are on holes 2 through 15, you will be the only person following that group that isn't related to one of them.  Same thing is true about Saturday and Sunday for the guys without big names who make the cut on the number.

Although, Erik, I'm kinda surprised you put #6 in there as one of your reasons. ;)  Isn't that just a more succinct way of saying "because that's how we've always done it?" :)

[zipazoid]

This may be considering expanding the point a bit, but it goes to this point about keeping & signing your scorecard -

Everyone lauds how golf is the only sport that 'self-polices'. That is, there are no referees or umpires; it's the player's integrity, the willingness to call penalties on himself, that set the game apart from the others.

Certainly true.

But before we break our arms patting ourselves on the back over this, it's due to the nature of how the game is played. Again, our "playing field" is 200 acres of nature. Our "opponent" (or at least the pro's in a stroke play tournament) is 150 other people spread out amongst those 200 acres. If we didn't police ourselves you couldn't have fair competition. Simply put, we are honorable because logistics demands us to be.

I'll probably get reamed for that comment, but before you hit the Submit key, think about every other sport - the competitors are always trying to get an edge, skirt (or even break) the rules. We don't in golf. And I don't think it's because we are constructed of some kind of superior moral fiber.

We are honorable because we cannot have a fair competition otherwise.

[Henny Bogan]

Originally Posted by club ho

This guy is too much. He made it his personal crusade to blast Tiger Woods every chance he gets. Now I just watched him claim that he is a huge fan of Tiger Woods but he feels tiger should DQ himself. Chamblee is a total hypocrite. My question is  why does Chamblee have such an ax to grind with Tiger Woods? Hit the road Chamblee you are too nauseating. Take your wanna be lawyer three piece suits and get a job on a soap opera.

Sorry for getting a late start in this and some other threads,  but I felt like his comments about the issue on Saturday morning were very unprofessional and really cast him in a very bad light.  It seemed to me (just my opinion), that he allowed his personal feelings to overshadow the technical parts of what actually happened with regard to the ruling of the committee at ANGC, and made it look like this issue was more of a personal issue he has with Tiger, instead of his examining the facts as an analyst and remaining impartial to that analysis.

In the end, the decision was handled properly by all parties concerned and we move on.