The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

[iacas]

This was a brand new rule, effectively, because they had never utilized it before, and my guess is its going to be quite a while before its enforced again, unless Tiger signs another bad score card anytime soon in the future.

Wrong. Old rule. Cited it back to 1954 and cited a case involving Janzen quite awhile back.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by geoffmangum

Okay, the Masters rules guys did not follow Decision 33-7/4.5, which says waiver of the DQ is only when the golfer could not have reasonably been aware of what he did that violated the rules. Instead, you guys claim the Masters rules folk had authority under the Rules to waive the DQ because they did not mislead Tiger, or because they should have gotten the penalty assessed before he signed his card, and hence he would have been saved from signing for a wrong score.

With all due respect, that's just silly. The existing Decisions when the rules folk screw up and later reverse themselves all involve the case where the first mistaken ruling misleads the player and causes the player innocently to sign for a wrong score. (Read them if you doubt this.) NO Decision authorizes waiver when the rules folk failed to mislead the player and the player was NOT signing a wrong score in reliance upon the mistaken ruling that later gets reversed.

That means the above rationale is total bunk. Decision 33-7/4.5 applies and says explicitly that waiver cannot be given, and ALSO the existing Decisions say that waiver is not available UNLESS the rules people actively CAUSED the player to sign for an incorrect score.

If you follow the non-logic of this claimed justification for waiver, waiver of the DQ is given whenever the rules folk mistakenly rule no violation occurs and the player in fact violated the rules and signs for a wrong score and then the rules folk reverse themselves to say quite rightly that they got things wrong and the player in fact violated the Rules and signed for an incorrect score, and THEREFORE it is "unfair" to the golfer to apply the usual rule of DQ for signing for a wrong score. That means DQ as required by Rule 6-6 will never apply unless the rules folk didn't know anything about the violation before the player signed the card. That's just stupid, since the player is responsible for his score on every hole AND for making sure he follows the rules.

The Masters precedent now means that DQ will NEVER be applied if the rules official heard anything about the violation before the player signs his card. Never. And that is clearly NOT the way the Rules are written. If the rules official correctly rules a violation occurs and informs the player, the player will not sign for an incorrect card. If the rules official determines incorrectly that no violation occurs and informs the player of this ruling, the rules official causes the player to sign for a wrong score, so no DQ will be appropriate. But as here, if the rules official determines incorrectly that no violation occurs and FAILS to inform the player of this ruling, any DQ is waived also because the rules people COULD HAVE helped the player not sign for a wrong score but failed to do so.

If that's the precedent, shame on these folk. If the rules folk had not learned of any possible violation before a player signs the card, THAT PLAYER gets DQ'd. But if the rules people screw up, THAT PLAYER does not get DQ'd. I find that position illogical, unfair, corrosive to the integrity of the game, undercutting the sanctity of the Rules, stupid, and shameful.

Wow.  Three strikes and you are out.  You don't know the rules.  You don't know the effect of a decisions.  And you don;t now the precedents.  Other than that (i.e., other than EVERYTHING) you are right on.

Originally Posted by iacas

Wrong. Old rule. Cited it back to 1954 and cited a case involving Janzen quite awhile back.

Yup.  I tracked it down and as far as I could tell, a rule allowing waiver of DQ was added in 1952.  After the renumbering of 1984 it has been Rule 33-7.  Prior to the renumbering it was Rule 36.5.

I can't find any analogous rule in the 1950 rules, hence my conclusion that it was added in 1952.

[boogielicious]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Wow.  Three strikes and you are out.  You don't know the rules.  You don't know the effect of a decisions.  And you don;t now the precedents.  Other than that (i.e., other than EVERYTHING) you are right on.

Yup.  I tracked it down and as far as I could tell, a rule allowing waiver of DQ was added in 1952.  After the renumbering of 1984 it has been Rule 33-7.  Prior to the renumbering it was Rule 36.5.

I can't find any analogous rule in the 1950 rules, hence my conclusion that it was added in 1952.

But he did use a bigger font , so that makes it right, correct?

[Mr. Desmond]

News regarding the 15th Hole Drop and 2 stroke Penalty:

Listening to David Price, a PGA Rules Official who was at Augusta, on THETICKET golf radio show (Dallas) -- He says there were 3 Rules Officials on the 15th hole who thought the drop was legal - they thought he'd dropped within 4 feet of his spot - which he claims was fine.

It was only when Tiger held the press conference that the issue came up again.

If Tiger had kept his mouth shut -- no two stroke penalty.

Price was waiting for Tiger to be disqualified on Saturday morning. He said Tiger was ignorant of the rule - he seemed to get two rules mixed up.

If Tiger had knowingly violated a rule, the Committee could DQ him at any time, including after the tournament.

Price says that Tiger was actually allowed to remain in the tournament by application of Rule ? something (?), citing error by the Masters Rules Committee. He says it was unfortunate that the media reported it incorrectly.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by geoffmangum

Instead, you guys claim the Masters rules folk had authority under the Rules to waive the DQ because they did not mislead Tiger, or because they should have gotten the penalty assessed before he signed his card, and hence he would have been saved from signing for a wrong score.

Us guys aren't making that claim. The Masters committee did so, and the rules very clearly give them rather broad authority to waive DQ in the interest of equity, fair play, etc. While I am no fan of the powers-that-be behind the Masters, when it comes to rules enforcement, I think it's unwise to be as disrespectful as you're being in your post. It doesn't make your arguments any more convincing.

Originally Posted by geoffmangum

That means the above rationale is total bunk. Decision 33-7/4.5 applies and says explicitly that waiver cannot be given, and ALSO the existing Decisions say that waiver is not available UNLESS the rules people actively CAUSED the player to sign for an incorrect score.

They do not, in fact, say this. The Decisions do not constitute an exhaustive list of the conceivable situations that may arise. Circumstances not considered in existing Decisions may be important, and in this case that is what happened.

Originally Posted by geoffmangum

If you follow the non-logic of this claimed justification for waiver, waiver of the DQ is given whenever the rules folk mistakenly rule no violation occurs and the player in fact violated the rules and signs for a wrong score and then the rules folk reverse themselves to say quite rightly that they got things wrong and the player in fact violated the Rules and signed for an incorrect score, and THEREFORE it is "unfair" to the golfer to apply the usual rule of DQ for signing for a wrong score. That means DQ as required by Rule 6-6 will never apply unless the rules folk didn't know anything about the violation before the player signed the card. That's just stupid, since the player is responsible for his score on every hole AND for making sure he follows the rules.

You are writing off as irrelevant that the committee made a ruling on this matter. That doesn't just mean that a couple guys glanced up and said, "Nah, it's ok." A ruling requires that the entire committee reach a decision. If they don't do this, then it's a DQ. But they did. And in pro tournaments, they apparently routinely review and rule on situations without being asked to do so by the competitor, and if they find a violation or suspect one, they customarily contact him to warn and interview him before he signs his card. Because of their error, they did not do this, and that placed him at a disadvantage relative to another (hypothetical) competitor who had made the same violation, but in which case they ruled correctly and approached him. That is a line of reasoning that could warrant waiving the DQ.

It may also be the case that a committee ruling, simply by being made, is considered in force, invoking the protection against a penalty due to an incorrect ruling. I find that less appealing, but there are some signs that this is the intepretation they're using.

Originally Posted by geoffmangum

If that's the precedent, shame on these folk. If the rules folk had not learned of any possible violation before a player signs the card, THAT PLAYER gets DQ'd. But if the rules people screw up, THAT PLAYER does not get DQ'd. I find that position illogical, unfair, corrosive to the integrity of the game, undercutting the sanctity of the Rules, stupid, and shameful.

The general principle you describe has very intentionally been in force for decades. The player is responsible for following the rules, but with assistance, guidance, and final decision-making by the rules committee. Contrary to your assertion, this is not "corrosive to the integrity of the game," it is essential to it. Situations where the facts, or even the rules, are unclear will arise, and a mechanism for providing certainty is needed. That is what this provides. The committee is presumed to be neutral, so any error it makes is an honest one. A DQ for following its rulings, later found incorrect, would be patently unfair.

In this case, there is the quirk that the competitor was not aware of the committee's ruling. That is certainly unusual, but because negative rulings are customarily communicated to the competitors prior to card signing, the requirement of extenuating circumstances under which a waiver of the DQ is justifiable.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

News regarding the 15th Hole Drop and 2 stroke Penalty:

Listening to David Price, a PGA Rules Official who was at Augusta, on THETICKET golf radio show (Dallas) -- He says there were 3 Rules Officials on the 15th hole who thought the drop was legal - they thought he'd dropped within 4 feet of his spot - which he claims was fine.

It was only when Tiger held the press conference that the issue came up again.

If Tiger had kept his mouth shut -- no two stroke penalty.

Price was waiting for Tiger to be disqualified on Saturday morning. He said Tiger was ignorant of the rule - he seemed to get two rules mixed up.

If Tiger had knowingly violated a rule, the Committee could DQ him at any time, including after the tournament.

Price says that Tiger was actually allowed to remain in the tournament by application of Rule ? something (?), citing error by the Masters Rules Committee. He says it was unfortunate that the media reported it incorrectly.

Is there a transcript or podcast of this interview, because as summarized above it really makes almost no sense at all (not the summary, Price's comments).

If three rules officials thought 4 feet satisfied the close as possible requirement then either Tiger was NOT ignorant of the rules or the 3 rules officials WERE ignorant of the rules.  IOW, Tiger did it and these 3 rules officials thought it was fine.  So their knowledge or ignorance of the rules is identical.

And when he was waiting for the DQ on Saturday morning, was that before or after he knew the Committee had already made a ruling approving the drop?  It makes a big difference.

And if he said they applied the Rule citing something else (i.e., used Rule 33-7 something did he mean Decision 33-7/4.5??) We already know the ruling was based on the text of 33-7 alone - AND that there is precedence.  So the moment someone cites DEcision 33-7/4.5 at this point simply demonstrates that they don't know what really happened.  So I'd like to know if he did this or not.  It is also not clear whether at this point, with all the facts in, Price agreed or disagreed with the DQ waiver.  Because PGA rules official or not, I'm going to go with David Fay over David Price.

So the summary of the interview raises more questions than anything else.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

He says there were 3 Rules Officials on the 15th hole who thought the drop was legal - they thought he'd dropped within 4 feet of his spot - which he claims was fine.

The Masters has two static (ie not walking with the players) referees per hole. They are required to remain outside the ropes. The nearest was in the trees behind the green with a fore shortened view.

No referees contacted the committee.

The 3 committee members who made the ruling did so from a video. They have made no mention, that I am aware of or can find, of what they thought the distance was.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Is there a transcript or podcast of this interview, because as summarized above it really makes almost no sense at all (not the summary, Price's comments).

So the summary of the interview raises more questions than anything else.

Not really.

In a nutshell

1. Tiger screwed up but didn't know it.

2. The Committee screwed up by thinking the drop was fine and said nothing to Tiger, who signed his scorecard, thinking everything was okay

3. Tiger talks about his mindset in presser

4. After viewing Tiger's comments, Committee gives Tiger two shot penalty and allows him to stay in tourney because it was the Committee's error as to their initial judgment of the drop

C'est tout.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Not really.

In a nutshell

1. Tiger screwed up but didn't know it.

2. The Committee screwed up by thinking the drop was fine and said nothing to Tiger, who signed his scorecard, thinking everything was okay

3. Tiger talks about his mindset in presser

4. After viewing Tiger's comments, Committee gives Tiger two shot penalty and allows him to stay in tourney because it was the Committee's error as to their initial judgment of the drop

C'est tout.

Then I am confused.  Since we knew all this before, what is the significance of the interview with David Price?

[Rulesman]

Price's interview (as 'summarised' here) is of no significance.

[Mr. Desmond]

Price's interview (as 'summarised' here) is of no significance.

Are you always an a-hole or does it take practice? Maybe an art you have perfected?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Are you always an a-hole or does it take practice?

Maybe an art you have perfected?

Maybe you could explain what the significance of the Price interview was, instead of calling names?  Did he say anything we didn't already know?  What is his opinion of the final ruling now that all the facts seen to be known?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Are you always an a-hole or does it take practice?

Maybe an art you have perfected?

Maybe you could explain what the significance of the Price interview was, instead of calling names?  Did he say anything we didn't already know?  What is his opinion of the final ruling now that all the facts seen to be known?

I agree, nothing new here.

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

A question. Back to Tiger and the 2 stroke penalty: I apologize if this has come up before, but am too lazy to go back over 66 pages to see if anyone posed this question before. My problem with the penalty versus disqualification is this: assuming Tiger dropped his ball a couple of yards behind where he ought to have dropped -- and there are photos indicating he may have been wrong when he said he dropped in a different place -- then we theoretically have no idea what Tiger's score would have been on the hole if he dropped correctly! If he dropped in the same place he could have hit the ball in the drink again, and again. He could have ended up with a 10 on the hole sans penalty. But we will never know, because he departed from the rules. If he had played a provisional ball, then sure, we'd know how many strokes Tiger had on that hole. But there was no provisional ball and we don't know. Point being that IN THEORY Tiger's score for that hole was and will ever be unknown and we cannot say with certainty what his finishing score was or how much prize money he should have received. We cannot say for sure where he placed among the leaders at the finish, because his true score under the rules was unknown. Is this view correct under the rules? Added: I think 33-7 was not intended to apply to this situation, but rather to the situation where Mark Roe signed Jesper's scorecard.

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by Ole_Tom_Morris

A question. Back to Tiger and the 2 stroke penalty: I apologize if this has come up before, but am too lazy to go back over 66 pages to see if anyone posed this question before. My problem with the penalty versus disqualification is this: assuming Tiger dropped his ball a couple of yards behind where he ought to have dropped -- and there are photos indicating he may have been wrong when he said he dropped in a different place -- then we theoretically have no idea what Tiger's score would have been on the hole if he dropped correctly! If he dropped in the same place he could have hit the ball in the drink again, and again. He could have ended up with a 10 on the hole sans penalty. But we will never know, because he departed from the rules. If he had played a provisional ball, then sure, we'd know how many strokes Tiger had on that hole. But there was no provisional ball and we don't know. Point being that IN THEORY Tiger's score for that hole was and will ever be unknown and we cannot say with certainty what his finishing score was or how much prize money he should have received. We cannot say for sure where he placed among the leaders at the finish, because his true score under the rules was unknown. Is this view correct under the rules?

Maybe they should have him go back and redo from the proper position.  Maybe he dunks it???

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by Ole_Tom_Morris

A question. Back to Tiger and the 2 stroke penalty: I apologize if this has come up before, but am too lazy to go back over 66 pages to see if anyone posed this question before. My problem with the penalty versus disqualification is this: assuming Tiger dropped his ball a couple of yards behind where he ought to have dropped -- and there are photos indicating he may have been wrong when he said he dropped in a different place -- then we theoretically have no idea what Tiger's score would have been on the hole if he dropped correctly! If he dropped in the same place he could have hit the ball in the drink again, and again. He could have ended up with a 10 on the hole sans penalty. But we will never know, because he departed from the rules. If he had played a provisional ball, then sure, we'd know how many strokes Tiger had on that hole. But there was no provisional ball and we don't know. Point being that IN THEORY Tiger's score for that hole was and will ever be unknown and we cannot say with certainty what his finishing score was or how much prize money he should have received. We cannot say for sure where he placed among the leaders at the finish, because his true score under the rules was unknown. Is this view correct under the rules?

No, it's not correct "under the rules".

-  "Under the rules", Tiger played from an incorrect place.

-  "Under the rules", he was assessed a two stroke penalty for having done so.

-  "Under the rules", whatever score he woulda/coulda/shoulda had if he had not played from the incorrect place is completely irrelevant.

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

Not likely but POSSIBLE, and there's the problem. All is based on the assumpton that the score on that hole off a mis-dropped ball was a correct score except for the 2 stroke penalty for the misdrop. Remember also that Tiger's first shot was overclubbed by about 6 feet; if he dropped the ball 6 feet behind his divot, then he was correcting for the earlier shot, which is another aspect of the problem.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Ole_Tom_Morris

A question. Back to Tiger and the 2 stroke penalty: I apologize if this has come up before, but am too lazy to go back over 66 pages to see if anyone posed this question before. My problem with the penalty versus disqualification is this: assuming Tiger dropped his ball a couple of yards behind where he ought to have dropped -- and there are photos indicating he may have been wrong when he said he dropped in a different place -- then we theoretically have no idea what Tiger's score would have been on the hole if he dropped correctly! If he dropped in the same place he could have hit the ball in the drink again, and again. He could have ended up with a 10 on the hole sans penalty. But we will never know, because he departed from the rules. If he had played a provisional ball, then sure, we'd know how many strokes Tiger had on that hole. But there was no provisional ball and we don't know. Point being that IN THEORY Tiger's score for that hole was and will ever be unknown and we cannot say with certainty what his finishing score was or how much prize money he should have received. We cannot say for sure where he placed among the leaders at the finish, because his true score under the rules was unknown. Is this view correct under the rules? Added: I think 33-7 was not intended to apply to this situation, but rather to the situation where Mark Roe signed Jesper's scorecard.

You aren't allowed to play a provisional when you're ball goes into a hazard, so I'm not sure why you'd mention this.  It makes no sense.  Point is, Tiger's score "under the rules" is very well known for that hole and will always be known ... he got an 8.

Originally Posted by David in FL

No, it's not correct "under the rules".

-  "Under the rules", Tiger played from an incorrect place.

-  "Under the rules", he was assessed a two stroke penalty for having done so.

-  "Under the rules", whatever score he woulda/coulda/shoulda had if he had not played from the incorrect place is completely irrelevant.

Exactly.