The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

[zeg]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

If Tiger's post round interview was not the irrefutable evidence that he didn't drop as near as possible to his last shot, then what was? I mean, I'll retract the "irrefutable" if that's what you object to, but my point remains: His interview was the evidence that forced them to rule the drop illegal and waive the resulting DQ.

3 people have said I'm making valid points and good arguments. So why *can't* we discuss this? Other than your posts calling my hypotheticals "silly" and trying to stifle debate, I think everyone has been civil and constructive, and if you read my latest posts you'll see I've softened my stance, thanks to the intelligent debate.

The video itself was actually, well, not irrefutable, but sufficient evidence to draw the correct conclusion. That's at the heart of why the DQ was waived! (Had the video been inconclusive, then the committee would not have erred in their ruling, and the post-round interview would probably have been enough to lead to a DQ.)

I'm in favor of the discussion, but I do think we're running out of things to argue constructively about. A lot of the leads are falling to personal opinions about how things should be. I'd think those would be long in a separate thread.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

If Tiger's post round interview was not the irrefutable evidence that he didn't drop as near as possible to his last shot, then what was? I mean, I'll retract the "irrefutable" if that's what you object to, but my point remains: His interview was the evidence that forced them to rule the drop illegal.

So if he had said he dropped it right beside the hole, and then murdered Adam Scott (who was later found to be alive when he put on a green jacket a day or two later), that would be "irrefutable evidence"?

It's definitely not "irrefutable" and it's not even, IMO, "evidence." It's simply something that raises suspicions, or is cause for further investigation.

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

3 people have said I'm making valid points and good arguments. So why *can't* we discuss this? Other than your posts calling my hypotheticals "silly" and trying to stifle debate, I think everyone has been civil and constructive, and if you read my latest posts you'll see I've softened my stance, thanks to the intelligent debate.

Because all of the silly* hypotheticals have been answered, and now we're discussing what the definition of "irrefutable evidence" is.

I call them silly because if you know and understand the rules, the answers are fairly obvious. I'm not stifling "debate," I'm trying to keep it on topic. This no longer is. The hypotheticals are NOT what happened at "The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout."

P.S. I looked quickly, but in the previous 72 posts the only person to use the words "valid" and "good" is you. And that takes us all the way back to your response to my post of the Lee Janzen thing.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Not sure exactly what stance you're taking, but Woods' case was different because irrefutable evidence came to light (his post round interview) that he had committed a violation, so something had to be done. Presumably the same actions would've been taken if it was anybody else.

There was no irrefutable evidence before Woods submitted his card. The committee made a decision there was no breach so did not interview him at that time. They later found their decision to be wrong

My point is that the committee also decided (during play or when they were reviewed) there was no breach as a result of other call-ins. They did not interview those players either.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

There was no irrefutable evidence before Woods submitted his card. The committee made a decision there was no breach so did not interview him at that time. They later found their decision to be wrong

My point is that the committee also decided (during play or when they were reviewed) there was no breach as a result of other call-ins. They did not interview those players either.

Right.

In other words, there are call-ins all the time, and most of the time the players aren't even made aware of it because the committee decides that no infraction occurred.

Woods not being alerted is far less rare than some seem to think. It's just the one time that the committee's original ruling was wrong.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Not sure exactly what stance you're taking, but Woods' case was different because irrefutable evidence came to light (his post round interview) that he had committed a violation, so something had to be done. Presumably the same actions would've been taken if it was anybody else.

There was no irrefutable evidence before Woods submitted his card. The committee made a decision there was no breach so did not interview him at that time. They later found their decision to be wrong

My point is that the committee also decided (during play or when they were reviewed) there was no breach as a result of other call-ins. They did not interview those players either.

And I'm not arguing with you or anyone else about any of that. I just answered your simple question with a simple answer. Sorry, I just don't see what you're getting at.

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

If Tiger's post round interview was not the irrefutable evidence that he didn't drop as near as possible to his last shot, then what was? I mean, I'll retract the "irrefutable" if that's what you object to, but my point remains: His interview was the evidence that forced them to rule the drop illegal.

So if he had said he dropped it right beside the hole, and then murdered Adam Scott (who was later found to be alive when he put on a green jacket a day or two later), that would be "irrefutable evidence"?

It's definitely not "irrefutable" and it's not even, IMO, "evidence." It's simply something that raises suspicions, or is cause for further investigation.

Look, we're only down this path because Rulesman said: "No doubt all of them [the call-ins] resulted in the committee deciding no action was needed. So they never spoke to the player. Why would Woods' case be different? Just because it was Woods?"  So I answered, "Woods case is different because of the interview he gave where he stated he dropped incorrectly".   Is that wrong? Maybe I could've given an answer you would have preferred if I understood what Rulesman was getting at. Like I said above, I still don't.

Yes, calls come in all the time that are reviewed and ruled on and nothing is done. Usually that's because there is no violation. The difference in Wood's case is the ruling was wrong, because there *was* a violation. None of this is in dispute, so I don't understand the sudden fixation on it.

Originally Posted by iacas

P.S. I looked quickly, but in the previous 72 posts the only person to use the words "valid" and "good" is you. And that takes us all the way back to your response to my post of the Lee Janzen thing.

Check the thumbs up. Also I was including Zeg's post because he said he understood where I was coming from, and went through a period where he agreed with what I'm saying.

But don't worry, I'm done.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

There was no irrefutable evidence before Woods submitted his card. The committee made a decision there was no breach so did not interview him at that time. They later found their decision to be wrong

Maybe I misunderstand, but I thought that the video was enough that they *should* have been able to make the right decision (or, at the least, inquire further). As I understand the ruling, that's why they made an error.

I hate to introduce another hypothetical, but I think it might help with a subtle point. Had the video not been as clear as it was (at least when given full attention), would the ruling have been different?

I think yes, because then the committee would not have erred. The error was missing evidence that they did have. At least that's my read, but if I'm incorrect, then I've missed something (and should therefore be DQed).

[14ledo81]

Maybe I misunderstand, but I thought that the video was enough that they *should* have been able to make the right decision (or, at the least, inquire further). As I understand the ruling, that's why they made an error. I hate to introduce another hypothetical, but I think it might help with a subtle point. Had the video not been as clear as it was (at least when given full attention), would the ruling have been different? I think yes, because then the committee would not have erred. The error was missing evidence that they did have. At least that's my read, but if I'm incorrect, then I've missed something (and should therefore be DQed).

I may be wrong, but I thought the video was inconclusive. The rule states "as near as possible", and based on the video there was no reason to believe Tiger did otherwise. It was what he said in the interview that "proved" he violated the rule. The committee made an "error" because they made a ruling without all of the evidence.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Not sure exactly what stance you're taking, but Woods' case was different because irrefutable evidence came to light (his post round interview) that he had committed a violation, so something had to be done. Presumably the same actions would've been taken if it was anybody else.

His post-round interview is not "irrefutable evidence."

Why are we still discussing this, Bill? You've had every permutation of your hypothetical scenarios (which you seem to want to keep tying back to Tiger and the Masters even though they don't) answered.

And players already ask for too many rulings. I'm against almost anything that has them asking for more. They can be DQed or suffer penalties - that's their incentive to follow the rules. Tiger was given the appropriate penalty - the only issue was the fact that it was delayed a day rather than being assessed before he signed his card.

That's all there is to it.

If Tiger's post round interview was not the irrefutable evidence that he didn't drop as near as possible to his last shot, then what was? I mean, I'll retract the "irrefutable" if that's what you object to, but my point remains: His interview was the evidence that forced them to rule the drop illegal.

3 people have said I'm making valid points and good arguments. So why *can't* we discuss this? Other than your posts calling my hypotheticals "silly" and trying to stifle debate, I think everyone has been civil and constructive, and if you read my latest posts you'll see I've softened my stance, thanks to the intelligent debate.

No, the interview did nothing more than inspire them to take a closer look at the drop and to discuss the incident with Tiger.   His interview statement was just a clue that they hadn't done their due diligence.  A player could say just about anything in a TV interview and it would be meaningless unless supported by further investigation.

[bplewis24]

I wonder if Lee Janzen's thread was this long?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I wonder if Lee Janzen's thread was this long?

Probably not.  He didn't have near the number of detractors to keep bringing up irrelevancies and ignoring facts, like Tiger has.  Plus in Lee's case the waived DQ was just the difference between being out of the event as a MC or being out of the event as a DQ.  Either was he was out of the event.

[iacas]

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-drop-masters-2013-inside-story

[Rulesman]

Statement from the R&A; and USGA

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2013/May/Rules-Statement.aspx

[Rulesman]

And before

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/blogs/local-knowledge/2013/04/tiger-woods-ruling-recalls-dow-finsterwalds-fate-in-1960-mas.html

[Mordan]

And even after that statement you still get major newspapers getting it wrong. It's even worse because the article references but doesn't link to the R&A;/USGA statement so it's difficult for a reader to get the correct info.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/may/01/tiger-woods-augusta-masters-drop

Quote:

Aided by a recently amended rule, Woods was not disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard because his infringement was based on TV evidence.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Mordan

And even after that statement you still get major newspapers getting it wrong. It's even worse because the article references but doesn't link to the R&A;/USGA statement so it's difficult for a reader to get the correct info.

Though to be really pedantic, the rule WAS "recently amended." It's Rule 33-7. It was amended in a way that's irrelevant, but it was amended.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by iacas

Though to be really pedantic, the rule WAS "recently amended." It's Rule 33-7. It was amended in a way that's irrelevant, but it was amended.

To be even MORE pedantic, the Rule was not amended, a Decision under the Rule was.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by turtleback

To be even MORE pedantic, the Rule was not amended, a Decision under the Rule was.

Yes, but I'm not willing to split that hair since many consider the Decisions "part of" the Rules (despite their name "Decisions ON the Rules of Golf").

[Rulesman]

Rule Or Rules

The term “ Rule ’’ includes:

a. The Rules of Golf and their interpretations as contained in “Decisions on the Rules of Golf”;

b. Any Conditions of Competition established by the Committee under Rule 33-1 and Appendix I ;

c. Any Local Rules established by the Committee under Rule 33-8a and Appendix I ; and

d. The specifications on:

(i) clubs and the ball in Appendices II and III and their interpretations as contained in “A Guide to the Rules on Clubs and Balls”; and

(ii) devices and other equipment in Appendix IV .