DQ Brandel Chamblee from the Golf Channel

[mtsalmela80]

Originally Posted by jetsknicks1

What bothered me about Chamblee was when he said that he wanted To see Tiger make a run at Jack but in the next breath said he didn't want Tiger to get it "Like this" and that Tiger should disqualify himself. Are you kidding me? He broke a rule and was penalized for it, why in the world should he DQ himself? Plus, if he can come Back from this and win, it could be one of the greatest Masters stories ever.

Yeah. What if????

2013 Masters Champion - Tiger Woods *

[mtsalmela80]

Now that I think about it, this so called rule that states that the rules committee has the ability to lessen an otherwise DQable offense is perhaps the WORST rule in golf. Golf rules are black and white, this "open for interpretation" rule ruins everything.

The ruling committee has the ability to choose who gets DQed, based on what? Who they are? That is blasphemy is I ever saw it.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Now that I think about it, this so called rule that states that the rules committee has the ability to lessen an otherwise DQable offense is perhaps the WORST rule in golf. Golf rules are black and white, this "open for interpretation" rule ruins everything.

The ruling committee has the ability to choose who gets DQed, based on what? Who they are? That is blasphemy is I ever saw it.

That's not what the rule does or says.

The proper two-stroke penalty was applied.

But thanks, mt, for coming out of the woodwork once again to write some sort of anti-Tiger post. You're reliable if nothing else.

[juli]

I agree completely!  It's been very refreshing not having to listen to his nasty comments about Tiger. Golf channel would be smart to let him go for good!  I was exhausted with him before the Masters so his agressive attitude towards Tiger before he even knew the sequence of events in that situation.  Grow up and yes, a soap opera would be a good move for him!!

[club ho]

Originally Posted by juli

I agree completely!  It's been very refreshing not having to listen to his nasty comments about Tiger. Golf channel would be smart to let him go for good!  I was exhausted with him before the Masters so his agressive attitude towards Tiger before he even knew the sequence of events in that situation.  Grow up and yes, a soap opera would be a good move for him!!

Just when you thought the golf channel got the message I turn on the GC and see Brandel Chamblee doing commentary.

[Jim1]

Chamblee has is own personal interpretation of the USGA Rules of Golf. Whenever anyone follows the USGA Rules of Golf as they are actually written, which differ from Chamblee's personal interpretation, Chamblee equates that to cheating, hence his accusations of cheating.

No one cheated.

Rule 26-1b states that a competitor can drop a second ball as far back as he or she wishes on a line that extends from the hole through the point at which the original ball LAST crossed the margin (border) of the water hazard.

Since the original ball usually LAST crosses the margin of the water hazard on the original line of flight, a competitor usually drops a second ball as far back as he or she wishes on the original line of flight.

That is what Tiger Woods did on the 33rd hole when he dropped the second ball two yards behind the original spot.

However, the original ball LAST crossed the margin of the water hazard to the LEFT of the original line of flight. Therefore, by dropping on the original line of flight, Tiger violated Rule 26-1b.

Nevertheless, by dropping and playing the second ball within two club lengths of the original spot, Tiger accidentally complied with (1) the phrase “as near as possible to” in Rules 20-2b and 20-3c regarding where a second ball can be DROPPED (can first strike the ground) relative to the original spot and with (2) the phrase “as nearly as possible at” in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a regarding where a second ball can be PLAYED relative to the original spot.

Rules 20-2c, 20-5a and 20-5b state that the phrase “as nearly as possible at” Rules 26-1a and 27-1a means that the distance from the original spot within which a second ball can be PLAYED either on the teeing ground (Rule 20-5a) or through the green (Rules 20-2c and 20-5b) is two club lengths (or more).

The USGA Rules of Golf do not state what the phrase “as near as possible to” in Rules 20-2b and 20-3c means regarding the distance from the original spot within which a second ball can be DROPPED (can first strike the ground) either through the green or in a hazard.

Therefore, Rule 34-3 requires the Tournament Committee to decide what distance from the original spot is meant by the phrase “as near as possible to” in Rules 20-2b and 20-3c. It is whatever the Committee says it is.

Since the distance from the original spot that is meant by the phrase “as nearly as possible at” in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a is two club lengths (or more), as stated in Rules 20-2c, 20-5a and 20-5b, it would be reasonable for the Tournament Committee to decide (Rule 34-3) that the distance from the original spot that is meant by the phrase “as near as possible to” in Rules 20-2b and 20-3c is the same distance (two club lengths).

By dropping within two club lengths of the original spot, Tiger accidentally complied with the phrase “as near as possible to” in Rules 20-2b and 20-3c, as determined by the Tournament Committee (Rule 34-3), that is, if the Tournament Committee decided that that was what that phrase meant.

By playing within two club lengths of the original spot, Tiger accidentally complied with the phrase “as nearly as possible at” in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a, as stated in Rules 20-2c, 20-5a and 20-5b.

While Tiger played the 36th hole, the Tournament Committee reviewed a video recording of Tiger’s play on the 33rd hole and correctly determined that Tiger’s play on the 33rd hole complied with the USGA Rules of Golf.

After completing the 36th hole, Tiger signed and returned a correct scorecard for the second round.

Up to that point, everything had been done correctly according to the USGA Rules of Golf. If the Committee had stopped there, then everything would have been OK.

On the next day, the Committee reversed itself and decided that dropping within two club lengths of the original spot was a violation of the phrase “as near as possible to” in Rules 20-2b and 20-3c.

Since what Tiger is seen doing on the video recording of his play on the 33rd hole is the same thing that he is heard describing in his interview with ESPN, I have no idea why the Committee reversed itself. The first Committee decision (that Tiger had done nothing wrong) was correct, and the second Committee decision (that Tiger had dropped incorrectly) was incorrect.

If the Committee had told the competitors at the beginning of the Tournament that the phrase “as near as possible to” in Rules 20-2b and 20-3c meant that a second ball must be dropped (must first strike the ground) within a yard of the original spot, then the fact that Tiger dropped the second ball two yards away from the original spot would be a violation of that phrase.

However, the Committee never told the competitors what that phrase meant. Therefore, that phrase did not mean anything during the Tournament, and consequently neither Tiger Woods nor any other competitor could violate it, because it is logically impossible to violate a phrase that has no meaning.

The Committee cannot reasonably (fairly) wait until after a competitor has dropped a second ball to decide what the phrase “as near as possible to” in Rules 20-2b and 20-3c means, because then the Committee can tailor its definition of that phrase to produce whatever outcome the Committee wishes.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about the fairness (or unfairness) of the April 13th decision (the second decision), since neither Tiger Woods nor any other competitor could possibly have known what that phrase meant due to the fact that the Committee never told anyone what it meant, USGA Decision 33-7 / 4.5 therefore applied. Not even slow motion HD television could detect the Committee’s definition of that phrase.

We still don’t know what the Committee’s definition of that phrase was or would have been. In its April 13th decision, the Committee told Tiger what that phrase did NOT mean (within two yards), but the Committee never told Tiger or anyone else what that phrase DID mean (such as within a yard, or within a foot, or within an inch).

Competitors: How near the original spot is near enough to drop a second ball?

Committee: You don't need to know that.

Competitors: But how will we know when the drop is not near enough?

Committee: You will know when we penalize you.

There is nothing fair about that.

If the Committee wants to be able to penalize competitors for violating the phrase "as near as possible to" in Rules 20-2b and 20-3c, then the Committee should tell the competitors what that phrase means (such as within two club lengths, or within a yard, or within a foot, or within an inch) at the beginning of the Tournament.

If the Committee does not want to tell the competitors what that phrase means, then the Committee should not penalize the competitors for not knowing what it means.

[Jim1]

USGA (May 3, 2013):

… The Rules do not define “as nearly as possible” in terms of a specific measured distance, because the conditions unique to each situation can affect how near to the original spot it is possible to drop a ball and because dropping a ball is an imprecise act. But in this type of situation … “as nearly as possible” means that the player must attempt to drop the ball on or next to (but not nearer the hole than) that spot. … Although the precise distance away was not determined, [Tiger Woods] clearly dropped the ball a significant distance away from that spot and did not satisfy the “as nearly as possible” requirement in these circumstances. … contrary to what some have suggested, the decision of the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty for Woods was not and could not have been based on Decision 33-7/4.5 … that permits waiver of disqualification where “the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules.” … which relates generally to use of high-definition or slow-motion video to identify facts not reasonably visible to the naked eye … The Committee promptly reviewed an available video and determined that Woods had dropped and played correctly under Rule 26-1a and therefore had not incurred a penalty. … The following morning, after additional questions had been raised about the incident in a television interview, the Committee discussed the incident with Woods, reviewed the video with him and reversed its decision, ruling that Woods had dropped in and played from a wrong place. … the Committee reasonably exercised its discretion under Rule 33-7 to waive the penalty of disqualification under Rule 6-6d, while still penalizing Woods two strokes under Rules 26-1a and 20-7c for playing from a wrong place. … the Rules of Golf Committees of the USGA and The R&A; will … determine whether any adjustment to the Rules and/or the Decisions is appropriate.

http://vsga.org/news/golfs-governing-bodies-issue-statement-on-tiger-ruling-at-the-masters/

Jim:

How can the players be expected to know the USGA Rules of Golf when the Tournament Committee does not know them? And how can the Tournament Committee be expected to know the USGA Rules of golf when the USGA itself does not know them, as demonstrated in the above quote?

No, USGA, Rules 26-1a and 27-1a do NOT describe where to DROP the second ball. They describe where to PLAY the second ball.

No, USGA, the phrase "AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE AT" in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a does NOT MEAN what it SAYS. If the original spot is located on the teeing ground, then that phrase MEANS that the second ball can be PLAYED anywhere on the teeing ground (Rule 20-5a), which means that it can be PLAYED MORE THAN TWO CLUB LENGTHS AWAY FROM the original spot on the teeing ground. If the original spot is located through the green, then that phrase MEANS that the second ball can be PLAYED MORE THAN TWO CLUB LENGTHS AWAY FROM the original spot through the green (Rules 20-2c and 20-5b).

If the phrase "AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE AT" in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a regarding where a second ball can be PLAYED does NOT MEAN what it SAYS, which it does NOT, then why should anyone think that the phrase "AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO" in Rules 20-2b and 20-3d regarding where a second ball can be DROPPED (can first strike the ground) MEANS what it SAYS? The answer is that there is no reason for anyone to think that.

[mtsalmela80]

Originally Posted by iacas

That's not what the rule does or says.

The proper two-stroke penalty was applied.

But thanks, mt, for coming out of the woodwork once again to write some sort of anti-Tiger post. You're reliable if nothing else.

So it is your argument that he never signed an incorrect score card. OK.

[saturday]

Originally Posted by Rick Martin

He's speaking as a golf professional. Sounds like he has more credibility than any of the non-players broadcasting or writing on the subject.  Integrity of the game. No player is above the rules.

Well said.

He's just giving his two cents, because he gets paid to. He'd say the same whether it was someone 500th on the money list or first.

[lenman73]

It cracks me up all over golf forums how it is alright for people to blast BC and call for him being fired and such.  But if someone says something against there hero, their idol, the immortal TW then all hell will break loose.  Givin a chance to go grab a beer with either BC or TW I would choose BC everyday day of the week and twice on saturday and sunday.  While on the golf course TW is a force I do not respect him as a person nor do I give him such hero status as some on here do.  While it is your right to have your feelings of him, others should be afforded the same right to feel the opposite without being torn apart.  Some can respect the golf and not respect the person.

[mtsalmela80]

Originally Posted by lenman73

It cracks me up all over golf forums how it is alright for people to blast BC and call for him being fired and such.  But if someone says something against there hero, their idol, the immortal TW then all hell will break loose.  Givin a chance to go grab a beer with either BC or TW I would choose BC everyday day of the week and twice on saturday and sunday.  While on the golf course TW is a force I do not respect him as a person nor do I give him such hero status as some on here do.  While it is your right to have your feelings of him, others should be afforded the same right to feel the opposite without being torn apart.  Some can respect the golf and not respect the person.

Well put. Some comments on here are almost creepy when it comes to letting everyone know how much they love Tiger.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by lenman73

It cracks me up all over golf forums how it is alright for people to blast BC and call for him being fired and such.  But if someone says something against there hero, their idol, the immortal TW then all hell will break loose.  Givin a chance to go grab a beer with either BC or TW I would choose BC everyday day of the week and twice on saturday and sunday.  While on the golf course TW is a force I do not respect him as a person nor do I give him such hero status as some on here do.  While it is your right to have your feelings of him, others should be afforded the same right to feel the opposite without being torn apart.  Some can respect the golf and not respect the person.

Turn it around.  It is OK for the Tiger detractors to tear him apart largely for things he did in his personal life yet they think it is off-limits for people to criticize an obviously biased commentator for things he does in the course of his professional duties.

[lenman73]

I dont need to turn anything around.  If you take what I wrote and change the names in it to whom ever you want the same still applies.  People have just as much right to love Tiger( or whoever) as others have the right to not love him.  But it seems that the people who express their dislike of the man get put out onto hot coals alot more.  While I personally do not like Tiger I will acknowledge his accomplishments on the golf course.  I can admit he is a great player without particulary liking him.  Nor do I come on here or any other forum and berate those who do happen to like them.  But now its out there that I don't care for him so flame away and prove me right.

I would like to add that not every post on the subject is offensive on either side of the spectrum but some tend to get a little too emotional and I will let you decide which ones those are.  Both camps are guilty of this as well.

[Jim1]

Chamblee said that when Sergio’s two golf balls went into the water on the 71st hole at the Players, the gallery clapped and cheered both times. Chamblee's point was that that was the gallery's negative reaction to Sergio's comments about Tiger. But when the Golf Channel showed the recording of that event at the 71st hole, all I saw and heard was the gallery cheering for each golf ball to go into the hole and groaning when it went into the water. I did not see or hear any negativity against Sergio at all. I'm beginning to think that Chamblee simply makes stuff up because he thinks that it's more interesting than reality. I think that he did the same kind of thing regarding Tiger's drop at the Masters. He made a huge deal out nothing because he thought that it was more interesting than reality. If Chamblee is simply trying to generate attention for himself, then it's working. In the future, whenever Chamblee says something that generates attention for himself, I'm not going to assume that what he is saying is true, because there will be a very good chance that it is not true at all.

[club ho]

Originally Posted by Jim1

Chamblee said that when Sergio’s two golf balls went into the water on the 71st hole at the Players, the gallery clapped and cheered both times. Chamblee's point was that that was the gallery's negative reaction to Sergio's comments about Tiger. But when the Golf Channel showed the recording of that event at the 71st hole, all I saw and heard was the gallery cheering for each golf ball to go into the hole and groaning when it went into the water. I did not see or hear any negativity against Sergio at all. I'm beginning to think that Chamblee simply makes stuff up because he thinks that it's more interesting than reality. I think that he did the same kind of thing regarding Tiger's drop at the Masters. He made a huge deal out nothing because he thought that it was more interesting than reality. If Chamblee is simply trying to generate attention for himself, then it's working. In the future, whenever Chamblee says something that generates attention for himself, I'm not going to assume that what he is saying is true, because there will be a very good chance that it is not true at all.

I did not see Chamblee's comments in regards to the crowd cheering Sergio's water balls but I just watched the replay of the shots themselves. I did not notice any signs of the crowd jeering Sergio. It may have happened from a few fans but I believe the 17th hole has developed into a similar crowd as the 16th hole in the Phoenix Open. So for Chamblee to insinuate  a vendetta against Sergio for his negative comments against Tiger would be twisted thinking by Chamblee assuming that is what he said.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by club ho

I did not see Chamblee's comments in regards to the crowd cheering Sergio's water balls but I just watched the replay of the shots themselves. I did not notice any signs of the crowd jeering Sergio. It may have happened from a few fans but I believe the 17th hole has developed into a similar crowd as the 16th hole in the Phoenix Open. So for Chamblee to insinuate  a vendetta against Sergio for his negative comments against Tiger would be twisted thinking by Chamblee assuming that is what he said.

At the time it happened my first reaction was that the crowds reaction was definitely different than it would have been for anybody else.  But not "cheering" so much as it was a mixture.  Some body like Tiger or Phil that everybody is rooting for, the crowd pretty much acts as one entity and its 100% clear that they are "groaning" as a whole.  Sergio's reaction had some of that (me included - I sooooooooooooooooooo wanted to see a Tiger-Sergio playoff ;)) mixed with some definite cheers.

[M2R]

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Now that I think about it, this so called rule that states that the rules committee has the ability to lessen an otherwise DQable offense is perhaps the WORST rule in golf. Golf rules are black and white, this "open for interpretation" rule ruins everything.

The ruling committee has the ability to choose who gets DQed, based on what? Who they are? That is blasphemy is I ever saw it.

Didn't happen to be around in 1958 when Palmer won his first Masters by any chance?  Committee ruled that his second ball score on the 12th hole was valid and changed a 5 to a 3 even though it appears he did not play the second ball correctly according to procedure. Palmer went on to win by one stroke. Absolutely NO precedent or decisions that I can find to support that decision. They likely proceeded under what they considered equity and that has always been and always will be (I hope) the overriding principal. FWIW Palmer wasn't Palmer in 1958 (not completely unknown either) ... might not seem relevant but is one data point refuting the idea that "If it were anyone else but Tiger ... ".

John Morrissett, the director of rules of golf for the United States Golf Association, said he believes Palmer originally got a poor ruling, and perhaps the committee was trying to make up for that when it allowed the second ball to stand. According to Morrissett, it does not appear that Palmer played the second ball correctly.

"Before playing a stroke with either ball, the competitor must announce his intention and must announce which ball he wants to score with," Morrissett said. "Should the competitor fail to announce in advance his procedure or selection, the score with the second ball shall be his score if played in accordance with the rules.

I don't have any issues with what I have seen on network TV from BC. But full disclosure, I mostly don't pay attention to any of that either ... mute button in effect.

[lenman73]

IIRC the Palmer deal had something to do with the ball plugging by the 12th green or something. But he knew of a local rule there so he played the second ball hence the 2 scores. the comittee went with the local rule and gave him the three instead of the five.  Ask Ken Venturi about it, he is still pissed to this day feeling the masters was robbed from him.