3 Masters Predictions

[turtleback]

1) Within a year or two they will go to walking rules officials with each group.  There is no shortage of willing and qualified rules officials for them to draw on, since the other majors have many more groups because the fields are quite a bit larger and they have no trouble getting enough rules officials.  Heck, for a rules official getting to be an official at the Masters would be just as big as qualifying to play in the Masters is to a player.

2) Within a year or two the Masters will have a new Chairman of the Competition Committee.  The whole incident has given the Masters a black eye.  Not because they did not DQ Tiger, but because the initial review of his drop was completely botched.  The initial ruling that his drop was appropriate was extremely questionable, given the rule (as near as possible) and the fact tat his drop was a good yard away from the original position.  Either they interpreted "as near as possible) in a ridiculously expansive way or they completely misunderstood which provision Tiger was operating under.  Either way, no ruling should have been made without talking to Tiger before he signed his card.  PARTICULARLY because it involved the guy with the highest profile and most scrutiny by the golfing public.

3)  The USGA and the R&A; will issue a Decision making clear that if a Committee makes a ruling before a player signs his scorecard, whether or not that ruling is communicated to the player, and subsequently changes its ruling retroactively due to something other than dishonesty on the part of the player, and the change in the ruling results in the player having signed for a wrong score, disqualification will automatically be waived.  The basis of the Decision will be that when the player signed the scorecard it was a correct scorecard under the initial ruling, and that while the changed ruling will be enforced to the extent of adding the appropriate number of penalty strokes, no wrong scorecard had been signed and therefore no disqualification should occur.

[iacas]

1. Agree. 2. Disagree. Do you know who Ridley is? 3. Disagree. No need. They already have that option.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by turtleback

The whole incident has given the Masters a black eye.  Not because they did not DQ Tiger, but because the initial review of his drop was completely botched.  The initial ruling that his drop was appropriate was extremely questionable, given the rule (as near as possible) and the fact tat his drop was a good yard away from the original position.  Either they interpreted "as near as possible) in a ridiculously expansive way or they completely misunderstood which provision Tiger was operating under.  Either way, no ruling should have been made without talking to Tiger before he signed his card.  PARTICULARLY because it involved the guy with the highest profile and most scrutiny by the golfing public.

I disagree here ... I don't believe the review was botched.  Remember that "as nearly as possible" is there to protect the player who doesn't know exactly where he last played from.  Tiger didn't stick a tee or ball marker in the ground so when they reviewed it originally it's perfectly reasonable to expect that they would conclude that it was a legal drop.  Based on either A) it looked to them like it was very close, or B) there was no reason for them to suspect that Tiger knew EXACTLY where he last played from.  It was not until after they were made aware of Tiger's interview that it was clear Tiger did know exactly where he last played from.

(I'm thinking this through as I'm typing so forgive me if this sounds like I'm changing my mind)  I guess you could consider it botched if you are referring to the fact that they didn't bring Tiger in to discuss the drop before they made their decision.  That seems like it would have been pretty easy to do if they were making the decision while he was on 18.  "Well, he's going to be in here in 5 minutes, lets just ask him."  But that is still Monday morning quarterbacking, and very easy to say knowing what we know now.  Without Tiger's interview, not only is there not an extra penalty on Tiger, but we never even find out that the committee took an extra look at his drop and questioned it.  It isn't even remotely close to being news.

Related Side Note:  During our chat Friday, Erik mentioned the possibility of a penalty or DQ for Tiger immediately upon hearing him give his post round interview.  However, neither he, nor anybody else thought anything of the drop until that point (or at least didn't mention it)  and I'm betting that if one of us did bring it up, the rest of us would have come to the exact same conclusion as the committee.  It was a complete non-issue until Tiger gave his incriminating interview.

[boogielicious]

The players and rules officials are all human.  Unless we want the Masters to have drones with cameras follow each player from above, then we will always have interpretation incidents happen.  Even with rules officials accompanying each group, they are still going to make judgement calls that someone will have issues with (most likely Brandel Chamblee).

We have to live with the imperfect world.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I disagree here ... I don't believe the review was botched.  Remember that "as nearly as possible" is there to protect the player who doesn't know exactly where he last played from.  Tiger didn't stick a tee or ball marker in the ground so when they reviewed it originally it's perfectly reasonable to expect that they would conclude that it was a legal drop.  Based on either A) it looked to them like it was very close, or B) there was no reason for them to suspect that Tiger knew EXACTLY where he last played from.  It was not until after they were made aware of Tiger's interview that it was clear Tiger did know exactly where he last played from.

(I'm thinking this through as I'm typing so forgive me if this sounds like I'm changing my mind)  I guess you could consider it botched if you are referring to the fact that they didn't bring Tiger in to discuss the drop before they made their decision.  That seems like it would have been pretty easy to do if they were making the decision while he was on 18.  "Well, he's going to be in here in 5 minutes, lets just ask him."  But that is still Monday morning quarterbacking, and very easy to say knowing what we know now.  Without Tiger's interview, not only is there not an extra penalty on Tiger, but we never even find out that the committee took an extra look at his drop and questioned it.  It isn't even remotely close to being news.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying their determination that the drop satisfied the "as close as possible" criterion was a botch.  The part of the initial ruling that was botched was the failure to consult with Tiger before making that ruling.  They know there are millions of eyes on him and that he is a lightening rod for a lot of hate and disdain and is the single most famous person out there.  When you make a ruling about him you have to do everything possible to make SURE that it is a correct ruling.  Not speaking to him before making the ruling was a botch.

Even David Fay said, on the radio this morning (on John Feinstein's show) that the Committee's initial ruling was sloppy.  I don't think the Masters will tolerate sloppy.  Yes I know who Fred Ridley is, but I also know who David Fay is.  If Fay says it is sloppy then it is sloppy.  And the responsibility rests with Fred Ridley and his Committee.  Among other things, Fay said that once they get a call in and the player is on the course what they are supposed to do is alert the people in the scoring tent not to allow the player to sign their card until someone from the Committee comes down and talks to them.  You can listen to David Fay himself, right here:

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

Among other things Fay said:

1) the Committee was sloppy,

2) they badly fumbled the situation

3)  the whole responsibility for the problem on the Committee and Fred Ridley and says he believes that Ridley knows they blew it.

4) Mistake 1 was their failure to talk to Tiger.

5) the DQ waiver was NOT based on the Decision, it was based on the Rule 33-7 - people wrongly ASSUMED it was the Decision but it wasn't.

6) the Committee did screw up and admitted they screwed up.

7) The onus goes on the Committee

8) rules procedure 101 says you check with the player (my addition: so it is hardly Monday Morning quarterbacking when such an obvious and usual step was not done)

9) If it had been another player (Oleson was the example) the same result would have occurred.

10) Tiger was correct to play and not DQ himself or WD because under rule 34-3 the Committee's decision is final

Feinstein fought him all the way but Fay was very definite about why the final result was correct and the problem was created by the Committee botching the whole situation by not talking to Tiger.

It is a great explanation of everything surrounding this situation.  Fay obviously likes Ridley a lot - Ridley has been rules chair for US Opens.  But he also is very clear that Ridley and his Committee screwed up.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Just to clarify, I'm not saying their determination that the drop satisfied the "as close as possible" criterion was a botch.  The part of the initial ruling that was botched was the failure to consult with Tiger before making that ruling.  They know there are millions of eyes on him and that he is a lightening rod for a lot of hate and disdain and is the single most famous person out there.  When you make a ruling about him you have to do everything possible to make SURE that it is a correct ruling.  Not speaking to him before making the ruling was a botch.

That's fair.  (As you probably guessed I'd say since I already mentioned it in my last post) ;)

Originally Posted by turtleback

5) the DQ waiver was NOT based on the Decision, it was based on the Rule 33-7 - people wrongly ASSUMED it was the Decision but it wasn't.

According to the transcript from Fred Ridley's interview (posted by rulesman here: http://thesandtrap.com/t/66225/the-2013-masters-tiger-drop-penalty-and-fallout/0_30#post_832925 ) those are one in the same.  According to him, Rule 33-7 is there to protect the player when the committee makes a decision.  So I think David Fay might be wrong about that one.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Feinstein fought him all the way but Fay was very definite about why the final result was correct and the problem was created by the Committee botching the whole situation by not talking to Tiger.

Big surprise there.

I agree that the committee goofed, but in the end, they got it right. Two strokes was proper (and, frankly, stupid of Tiger to have caused the penalty - that's twice this year when I'm not sure he's ever been penalized before).

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

That's fair.  (As you probably guessed I'd say since I already mentioned it in my last post) ;)

According to the transcript from Fred Ridley's interview (posted by rulesman here: http://thesandtrap.com/t/66225/the-2013-masters-tiger-drop-penalty-and-fallout/0_30#post_832925 ) those are one in the same.  According to him, Rule 33-7 is there to protect the player when the committee makes a decision.  So I think David Fay might be wrong about that one.

Huh?  Nowhere in the transcript does it way the the DQ waiver was based on that new decision.  He makes it clear that it was the rule, 33-7.

[Golfingdad]

Huh?  Nowhere in the transcript does it way the the DQ waiver was based on that new decision.  He makes it clear that it was the rule, 33-7.

Ok sorry ... I may be getting confused by the multiple meanings of the word 'decision.' I thought you meant the committees decision but now I think you're talking about a decision in the rule book? My mistake. (This stuff is complicated!) :)

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Ok sorry ... I may be getting confused by the multiple meanings of the word 'decision.' I thought you meant the committees decision but now I think you're talking about a decision in the rule book? My mistake. (This stuff is complicated!) :)

I'm sorry too.  I could have been a lot clearer.  I try to use the word ruling for what the Committee did, and decision for 33-7/4.5,  But how could you know that was what was in my mind?