The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

[Mordan]

He must have signed an incorrect scorecard, or else there would have been no DQ penalty for the committee to waive.

[Fourputt]

From Fred Ridley:

But in this particular case, we reviewed the video that had been presented to us of Tiger playing the 15th hole, of course his third shot hit the flagstick, went in the water, and then he dropped to play his shot.

And after reviewing that visual evidence, and based on that only, the Committee decided that Tiger had proceeded appropriately and therefore would not be assessed a penalty.

In this particular case, Tiger at that time was somewhere on the 18th hole, he might have been on the 18th green.  Clearly we wanted to finish that initial review before he finished his round because we wanted to talk to him if we felt like we had a problem, before he signed his scorecard.

Having determined that we did not feel there was a rules violation, we did not talk to Tiger, so he completed his round, signed his scorecard, and the first day was over.

They may very well have not had it from 12 different angles.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by szaino

When taking a drop form the place where you last played your ball, how close to you have to drop in order to have it comply with the "as near as possible" wording?

In the middle of the fairway, no obvious advantages or benefits to where you are dropping, If you find your last divit, and stand a little behind it so as to not drop any nearer the hole, you would be in breach of this rule.

I think what this ruling is saying is, you should be holding the ball "exactly" over your last divit. Holding your ball even a few inches behind the last divit, is not in compliance.

I did some asking on this, how close to the original spot do you need to strike the ground to comply with R20-5..  It comes down to what is the excepted accuracy when dropping a ball at arms length.  4-8 inches is what I was told.  I thought in rules school they said a foot, but don't hold me to that.  I'm not sure.  Also remember, this is how close the ball must strike the ground in reference to the "spot". (no closer to the hole)  After that R20-2c applies, which means the ball could roll up to 2 club lengths away and still be a good drop.

If you don't have a divot you must estimate the spot.  Once you do that the estimated spot is the SPOT.  It's treated like it's the old divot and you must drop with the accuracy previously mentioned.

I am surprised the committee did not talk to Tiger.  Whatever they were looking at obviously convinced them that they didn't need to.  I bet they, and probably other committees from here on out don't make that mistake again.

[David in FL]

From Fred Ridley:

I know what Fred said. I just don't understand how the committee could have failed to note the clear difference between the original shot and the drop. We can all see it. Tiger acknowledged it. Heck, that's what they ultimately penalized him for. How did the committee miss it when they "reviewed" the drop when notified of the possible infraction by the caller?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by 460CompMark

Oh and i started this thread bc i didnt want to read through 300 pages of bs.

You don't get to do that, sorry. It's not cool to everyone else.

[That is Good]

Yes. Because he recorded a lower score for the 15th hole by not including 2 strokes for the improper drop.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

From Fred Ridley:

I know what Fred said. I just don't understand how the committee could have failed to note the clear difference between the original shot and the drop. We can all see it. Tiger acknowledged it. Heck, that's what they ultimately penalized him for. How did the committee miss it when they "reviewed" the drop when notified of the possible infraction by the caller?

How do you know what video they had?????????  You are just assuming that they had all of the views that were shown on TV.  Ridley said they reviewed the video which was presented to them .  It is very common for some angles to be quite indecisive, especially with the compression of a telephoto lens.  You simply have no way to know what they were looking at.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Mistakes were made on both sides, but the error by the committee in not doing a thorough investigation was what took the DQ off the books. Thus Rule 33-7 applies:

[...]

In this specific case, the waiver was warranted because the committee itself is at blame for not pursuing the investigation in a timely manner when it was aware of a possible infraction. It wasn't because he was Tiger, it was a special situation in which Rule 33-7 applies.

Fourputt, I'm glad to see that you have been giving this one some thought. It makes me feel somewhat better because I have been going back and forth on this one as I've been thinking about it in the last day or so.

It seems to me that it's a very difficult case, and it's not helped that none of the media seems to have a clue about Rule 33-7 or the new decisions (or the old ones for that matter). I've seen half a dozen or more different "explanations," each entirely incorrect and pointing to various rules fallacies. It's pretty clear to me that Rule 33-7/4.5 is a complete red herring. It's related only in that it also addresses situations when evidence of a violation is brought to light well after the fact.

Once I realized this, the ruling started to clear up a little bit. The examples in 33-7/4.5 are not an enumeration of all the conceivable circumstances where a committee might be justified in waiving a DQ. On the contrary, they have a pretty wide power under 33-7 to ensure that DQs are equitably applied. There are limits, and a cursory reading of the rules suggests that since 33-7/4.5 specifically excludes cases like this, where it was ignorance of the rule rather than a question about facts. However, there is more to the situation than that, as you and others have pointed out.

As I understand it, and as I think has been confirmed above, the decision rests on the fact that the committee did review the case and (at least informally) ruled that there was no violation and chose not to address the matter with Woods. This makes sense to me given that such a review is common practice at this tournament. Because of that, even though Woods did not specifically ask for a ruling, there was something of an implicit message from the committee in their failure to act. Since they make a concerted effort to warn competitors who are at risk of signing a wrong scorecard, Woods was placed at a disadvantage relative to others in the field who might have been warned if the committee had ruled correctly.

I know it's dangerous to invent concepts like an "implicit ruling," but does that seem like a reasonable way of understanding this? It's the only way I can get it to add up. I've also seen claims along the lines of, "Because the committee had made a ruling, had he asked for a ruling, there would be the same outcome." I don't like these because of the hypothetical nature. Golf doesn't like to conjecture about what-ifs.

Assuming so, I think it's a logically sound decision, but not unique: I think one could reasonably reject the idea that Woods had any promise of assistance with the rules unless he explicitly requests it from a proper official. For the sake of the game, I think that might have been a better decision. The reason is that the decision, at least as I understand it, rests on the fact that the committee, unknown to anyone outside their ranks, made a ruling. Woods had no way to be certain that they'd become aware of the irregular situation, so he didn't really fulfill his obligation to follow the rules. This seems to start to look like the committee is acting as a referee, and if they don't call the foul, there was no foul. It's not there yet: after all, there is no debate from anyone about whether he violated the rules, and he was penalized correctly aside from the DQ. Still, it seems like a different approach from the hard line that has been taken in the past, and it creates a situation that I think perhaps needlessly differentiates professional play from a club tournament.

So, I guess I think they got it right, but perhaps also a little bit wrong. But I'm a bit out of my league on the reasoning, so I'd be very interested to hear whether it makes sense outside of my own head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

I'd imagine they would have access to the same video that we saw. No difficulty telling from that. Something that important, I'd have thought someone could have trotted out to take a look at the divots. Not that difficult, and certainly reasonable given the circumstances.

Yes, but there was nothing special about this case until someone happened to point out the irregularity. There's a lot going on around the golf course, so I don't think they carefully scrutinize every drop. The TV coverage focuses on the headliners and frontrunners, but the committee has to protect the whole field (you may not care who comes in 37th versus 36th, but it affects peoples' careers). Unless you have been tipped off that something was special about this particular drop, it's not so obviously a violation.

(Edit: just saw Ridley's statement, so maybe there was something more obviously special here, though it's not entirely clear how thorough their "initial review" is. He could simply mean that they want to have a look at the video of every drop as a matter of course.)

[3 Putt Again]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Actually, all he did was try answer your question regarding the rule.  He made no mention in his answer of Tiger or whether or not that rule applied to him.  What, exactly, is your basis for saying that he is wrong?

Since my question dealt with Tiger and the applicable rules/decisions, it is reasonable to assume that an explanation of a decision implies that it is relevant.  Even if the only purpose was to explain the decision without suggesting it is relevant to this situation, the explanation is incorrect when it states  "they might decide not to enforce that rule."   The committee is not allowed to decide which rules of golf they will enforce.

[Rudyprimo]

Just my take on it, Tiger purposely dropped 2 yards behind the original spot not realizing he was breaking a rule.  As soon as the rules committee approached and explained what they were looking at Tiger knew he had committed a penalty even though the rules committee(wink, wink) said they couldn't see where Tiger had dropped.  A golfer is supposed to call a penalty on himself when he knows he committed a foul.  Tiger kept his mouth shut and that amounts to cheating, figuring well if the rules committee didn't see it I'm not going to call it on myself even though I know I didn't drop in the original spot.  Everything would have been alright until Tiger opened his mouth while being interviewed and admitted he didn't drop in the original spot.  That sent the rules committee into damage control mode and wonder of wonders they saw the infraction while viewing the video again.

They then invoked the rule even though it does not apply to Tigers situation.  The rule, as explained on the USGA website, is for when a golfer doesn't physically feel an infraction, like double hitting a chip or brushing the back wall of a deep bunker on his backswing.  In those cases, they wouldn't DQ the golfer because the only way it showed up was by watching slow motion replays on TV.  There was no such thing with Tiger, he knew exactly where he dropped it.  He should have called the penalty on himself as soon as the rules committee brought it to his attention.

When Bobby Jones called that famous penalty on himself at the 1925 US Open, his playing partner, Walter Hagen, tried talking him out of it because he didn't see anything.  A USGA official argued with Jones after his round and before he signed his scorecard that they didn't see the penalty and he shouldn't call it.  Jones is an honorable man and did the right thing.  Even though the rules committee said they didn't see an illegal drop Tiger knew where he dropped it and didn't call the penalty on himself.  That amounts to cheating in golf.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Rudyprimo

...As soon as the rules committee approached and explained what they were looking at Tiger knew he had committed a penalty even though the rules committee(wink, wink) said they couldn't see where Tiger had dropped.

Actually that never happened. The committee never talked to Tiger before he signed the scorecard or gave the interview. If they had done that, as you describe, then either Tiger would've got the penalty then and the DQ would've never been on the table, or the committee would've said "you're good" and Tiger would've been completely off the hook for any possible action.  (And if the latter, we'd be having the type of discussion you reference, i.e. "How did Tiger talk his way out of that one?", or "Did Tiger cheat by not acknowledging where he dropped?") .

But since the committee did *not* address the issue with Tiger before he signed his card, we've got this gray area about whether he signed a correct card or not that continues to be debated.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Rudyprimo

Just my take on it, Tiger purposely dropped 2 yards behind the original spot not realizing he was breaking a rule.  As soon as the rules committee approached and explained what they were looking at Tiger knew he had committed a penalty even though the rules committee(wink, wink) said they couldn't see where Tiger had dropped.  A golfer is supposed to call a penalty on himself when he knows he committed a foul.  Tiger kept his mouth shut and that amounts to cheating, figuring well if the rules committee didn't see it I'm not going to call it on myself even though I know I didn't drop in the original spot.  Everything would have been alright until Tiger opened his mouth while being interviewed and admitted he didn't drop in the original spot.  That sent the rules committee into damage control mode and wonder of wonders they saw the infraction while viewing the video again.

They then invoked the rule even though it does not apply to Tigers situation.  The rule, as explained on the USGA website, is for when a golfer doesn't physically feel an infraction, like double hitting a chip or brushing the back wall of a deep bunker on his backswing.  In those cases, they wouldn't DQ the golfer because the only way it showed up was by watching slow motion replays on TV.  There was no such thing with Tiger, he knew exactly where he dropped it.  He should have called the penalty on himself as soon as the rules committee brought it to his attention.

When Bobby Jones called that famous penalty on himself at the 1925 US Open, his playing partner, Walter Hagen, tried talking him out of it because he didn't see anything.  A USGA official argued with Jones after his round and before he signed his scorecard that they didn't see the penalty and he shouldn't call it.  Jones is an honorable man and did the right thing.  Even though the rules committee said they didn't see an illegal drop Tiger knew where he dropped it and didn't call the penalty on himself.  That amounts to cheating in golf.

You are so far off base that you aren't even in the stadium.  Have you actually read anything that's been posted here in the last 3 days?  Bobby Jones is irrelevant.  Decision 33-7/4.5 is irrelevant because it doesn't apply.  If Tiger had kept his mouth shut he would never have been penalized, period.  It was in his own post round interview that he said he had dropped "a couple of yards" back.  He wouldn't have dropped there, nor would he have said it innocently on TV if he thought it was wrong.  The committee had already ruled that the video didn't show sufficient evidence to penalize him whle he was still playing on 18.  If he was trying to cheat, why in Hell would he admit it on international TV?  From the ignorance of your comments, it would appear that Tiger is considerably smarter than you are, so there is no way he'd say that if he was trying to get away with something.

The rule that was applied is Rule 33-7.  That rule states that the committee has the authority to waive disqualification if they feel that the circumstances warrant it.  Since they would have known about the bad drop before he signed his card if they had just interviewed him on Friday after his round, they were in error by ruling that he had made a legal drop and allowing him to sign his card.  That put them partly at fault for him returning an incorrect score.  For that reason they invoked Rule 33-7 and waived the DQ penalty.  Completely proper and equitable.

[Rudyprimo]

Here's a link for the USGA's explanation of rule 33-7, the rule I explained but the one you don"t understand.

http://www.usga.org/news/2011/April/Rule-Revised-On-DQ-For-Incorrect-Card/

It says they can waive the DQ if the player had no way of knowing he broke the rule and signed an incorrect scorecard.  It explains it has to do with modern technology ie.,slow motion HD replay.  There's no need for any replay in Tiger's case, he freely admits he dropped in a different spot.  He didn't realize he was breaking a rule and that is NEVER an excuse for not being penalized.  As soon as the rules committee approached him about the infraction, Tiger knew he committed a penalty.  Just because the committee says they didn't see it doesn't absolve Tiger from calling it on himself.  Exactly like the Bobby Jones incident.

Rule 33-7/4.5 is the revision to rule 33-7 and is the only applicable rule.  When there is a revision to a rule that has to be followed.  They made the revision so a committee couldn't waive the DQ without having a very good reason to apply it.  And I really don't care what you or anyone else wrote on the thread.  Everything I wrote is fact.  Anything else is a cover up.

And yeah, Tiger was pretty stupid for opening his mouth in the interview.  He thought everything was taken care of.  And like I said, when he freely admitted he dropped 2 yards farther back that sent the committee into damage control mode.  Tiger opened his mouth and blew it.

If Tiger would have brought up he dropped farther back when the committee first approached him, what an honorable man would do, he would have taken the penalty and that would have been the end of it.  Instead, the committee lied and tried to give him a break, it's very clear where he dropped it, and Tiger kept his mouth shut and went along with it.  He cheated.  And if you and practically everyone else want to lie and twist things around, go right ahead.

And golf is played on a course, not a stadium, and I'm firmly entrenched in it with my explanation.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Rudyprimo

If Tiger would have brought up he dropped farther back when the committee first approached him...

You are not comprehending what I'm telling you: Again, the committee only approached him once - AFTER he had signed his card and gave the interview. Toger didn't call a penalty on himself because he didn't realize he committed one, not because he was trying to get away with something when the committee "first" approached him. The only time that happened was after he gave the interview, at which point he fully agreed that he played from the wrong spot.

That's the fact you're missing, which makes your entire argument moot.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by 3 Putt Again

The committee is not allowed to decide which rules of golf they will enforce.

The Committee did not 'not enforce a rule'. As soon as Woods returned a wrong score (kmowingly or unknowingly) he was DQd.

The Committee used their discretion under Rule 33-7 to waive the penalty of DQ.

33-7 . Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion

A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by Rudyprimo

Rule 33-7/4.5 is the revision to rule 33-7 and is the only applicable rule.

Decisions are not revisions to Rules. They are clarifications (the USGA's word) of particular points that have arisen. In this case 33-7/4.5 does not describe the Woods' situation.

The Rule which the Committee applied as a result of their action (or inaction) was Rule 33-7. Ridley didn't enen mention the Decision in his interview.

"No, it shouldn't protect him from not knowing the rules, but what it should protect him from, and this is exactly the reason 33‑7 exists.  It is to protect the player when the Committee takes some action, makes some decision.  In this case it was a decision without further action, but nevertheless this was a Committee decision, and it's intended to protect the player from that in the event the Committee were to change its mind".

[Zeph]

There are no decisions which match this rule, so you can't find it worded exactly right. I would be surprised if they didn't add a decision on it after this incident.

[Rulesman]

33-7 is clear enough.

A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.