The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

[zeg]

Interesting info re: DQ for an illegal drop, Fourputt. I don't think I agree with that policy, though: I think any sort of willful attempt to abuse the rules should be dealt with harshly. But I don't get to make the rules.

Sacm3bill, I understand where you're coming from, and went through a period where I agreed with what you're saying. I changed my mind, though. The reason is that I don't think the equitability of the DQ waiver needs to be considered in any context except in the specific competition in question. In that context, all I think they're saying is that their ordinary practice in a scenario identical except that they had reached a correct initial ruling would have led to an intervention before the scorecard was signed. Since they made an error that prevented that from happening, Woods would be at a disadvantage relative to the hypothetical golfer who had been alerted before he reached the scorer's tent.

Also, this doesn't create any obligation to police every play. If the committee had not made a ruling, the DQ would have stood. Yes, there's an element of chance there, but in this case a ruling did happen, and it's thus part of the scenario. As long as the mechanisms by which these rulings are triggered are impartial, the random element might be annoying, but it's perfectly equitable. You wrote, "The DQ was waived based on an `implicit' ruling that existed because the improper drop was observed but the player was not told they had done something wrong." That is not accurate: the DQ was not waived because the drop was observed, but because the committee made a formal ruling after reviewing it. That's an important distinction, and it is why this decision doesn't imply that the rules officials are now referees.

I think what you're saying has merit, and I don't believe the official ruling is the only logical one. It comes down to a judgment call about what is most equitable, and what best protects the principles of the rules and the interests of the competition. My feeling is that in ambiguous cases, trying to avoid a DQ if the rules and their principles permit it is probably the best approach.

Another question here, of course, is whether the practice of issuing rulings in this manner is a good one. That's a tricky question. It did lead to this flap, but this is an extraordinarily rare situation. It probably far more often "works" by correctly identifying a violation and getting word to the player in time. If one thinks that's a good thing, that benefit might outweigh the occasional controversy. It's not obvious to me which way is better, but it seems that the powers that be prefer to prevent DQs if they can. Most fans probably appreciate this, even if they aren't aware of what's going on behind the scenes---nobody likes to see their favorite golfer DQed.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Mordan

In the Janzen case the rules official clearly witnessed Janzen wiping the grass (altering his stance or lie) but failed to recognise that it was a rules violation.

As the official had all the information to make the correct ruling at the time but failed to do so the committee decided it met the requirement for 33-7.

If there is an official with the group but he does not witness the incident in such a way as for him to have the information required to make a correct ruling and the player does not request a ruling then it will be a DQ.

The use of 33-7 in both the Janzen and Tiger cases is to ensure that mistakes by the committee or officials do not affect the outcome of the event.

Right, so it all depends on whether the official witnessed the incident "in such a way as for him to have the information required to make a correct ruling".  In Janzen's case it was clear that the official did that, but that won't always be true. I can imagine cases where an official didn't see a violation, a player is DQ'd because the violation comes to light after signing, and the player argues that the official "should have" seen it. It would depend on several different parties' definition of whether the official "should have" seen it. That kind of gray area could get ugly.

Originally Posted by Mordan

When the committee is alerted that there may be an issue they will look at where the player is on the course and if there won't be time to look into it before the player reaches the scorers hut then they will call the scorers and ask them to hold the player.

That will take maybe 1 minute. It's a pretty small window in which the committee will hear of an issue but not be able to stop the player leaving the scorers hut. How often is that going to happen?

Even if it *never* happens, my problem is this: If the committee is alerted before that small window, no DQ. If after, DQ.  So DQ depends on the randomness of how long it takes for some TV viewer to see the violation and how long it then takes for their call to get propogated up to the committee.  Is it better for the DQ to depend on that randomness, or on the simple fact that the player did or did not commit the violation? It seems the latter is more clear-cut and equitable for all.

Edit: @Zeg: Valid points. The only comment I'll make is this:

Originally Posted by zeg

You wrote, "The DQ was waived based on an `implicit' ruling that existed because the improper drop was observed but the player was not told they had done something wrong." That is not accurate: the DQ was not waived because the drop was observed, but because the committee made a formal ruling after reviewing it. That's an important distinction, and it is why this decision doesn't imply that the rules officials are now referees.

It must not have been clear, but the bolded part is exactly what I'm saying. The committee made a ruling after observing the footage of the improper drop and deeming it proper. I called it "implicit' because it was not in response to a request by Tiger, and because he was never made aware of it. I.e., by not explicitly telling Tiger it's ok, they are implicitly saying it's ok. And I guess the root of my argument is an "implicit" ruling shouldn't get anybody off the hook.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by 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.

You might want to actually read the rules before posting on them in a rules forum.  There were no assumptions involved, there was the straightforward application of the Rules of Golf.  And the waiver of DQ under the application of Rule 33-7 was the straightforward application of a long established precedent most recently applied in the 2001 US Open when an official observed Lee Janzen violating the rules but didn't realize that is what he saw. He did nothing and let Janzen sign his card.  A day later he realized there was a violation.  Janzen was retroactively charged the 2 strokes a day or so later, but the DQ penalty was waived under 33-7.  In that case it didn't matter because the 2 strokes caused Lee to miss the cut, but his result in that event was MC, not DQ.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I've been asking a question in the latest Thrash Talk article but no one has yet ventured an answer. Perhaps this thread is a better place, both for on-topicness and since I think it'll get more visibility.

With respect to Tiger's drop, I'd like to know what the ruling would be in a slightly different scenario. Let's say the committee decided upon viewing the drop that there *had* been a violation. They decide they want to speak with Tiger about it before he signs his card. However they were not not alerted to the issue and/or were unable to view the footage until Tiger was walking up the steps to the scorer's table. As a result they are unable to reach Tiger before he signs his card.

DQ or no DQ?

P.S. If any mods think this is off topic I'll gladly start a new thread. It just seems very closely related to the ruling Tiger got.

According to David Fay, once the committee is alerted that there may be a problem, standard procedure is to alert the scoring tent to not allow the player to sign his card until they figure out whether penalty strokes should be charged.  They have radios so this takes almost no time at all.  So in your scenario they would have still prevented the signing of the card before thrashing it out with the committee.  So no DQ.  Yes there is an element of randomness.  Just as there is an element of randomness in a lot of aspects of golf.  So what?  It is golf.  If it was some relatively unknown player instead of Tiger then there is no telecast of the drop, there is no post round interview and no penalty strokes would have been charged at all because no one would have ever realized there had been a violation.  That is a different aspect of the element of randomness.  Anyone who expects perfect fairness or perfect equity just fundamentally misunderstands the nature and spirit of golf, IMO.

ps:  Sorry for not multi-quoting - my bad.

[Mordan]

Right, so it all depends on whether the official witnessed the incident "in such a way as for him to have the information required to make a correct ruling".  In Janzen's case it was clear that the official did that, but that won't always be true. I can imagine cases where an official didn't see a violation, a player is DQ'd because the violation comes to light after signing, and the player argues that the official "should have" seen it. It would depend on several different parties' definition of whether the official "should have" seen it. That kind of gray area could get ugly. Even if it *never* happens, my problem is this: If the committee is alerted before that small window, no DQ. If after, DQ.  So DQ depends on the randomness of how long it takes for some TV viewer to see the violation and how long it then takes for their call to get propogated up to the committee.  Is it better for the DQ to depend on that randomness, or on the simple fact that the player did or did not commit the violation? It seems the latter is more clear-cut and equitable for all.

I guess I just can't see a situation turning ugly with a golfer saying that a rules official should have saved him from a DQ by seeing something that he didn't see. The officials even when walking with a group are not there to "umpire". They observe and make themselves available for rulings as and when required. Remember that Tiger was penalised for the violation he committed. Nothing was going to save him from the 2 shot penalty. You seem to be advocating a situation where if someone called in before the golfer signed their scorecard that everyone should just sit back and watch as they sign for an incorrect score and get DQed!? What a about if it was a fellow competitor who noticed, should he be allowed to say something? If so, isn't that "random" too as to whether or not he sees it? That seems to go very much against the spirit of the game to me. If someone notices something awry then all effort should be made to allow the player to correct their score for the hole (remember they are still paying the penalty for their mistake). Yes it's chance, or luck, or some other word for a random factor as to whether someone notices in time, and that can be the difference between a DQ and no DQ.

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Yes there is an element of randomness.  Just as there is an element of randomness in a lot of aspects of golf.  So what?  It is golf.  If it was some relatively unknown player instead of Tiger then there is no telecast of the drop, there is no post round interview and no penalty strokes would have been charged at all because no one would have ever realized there had been a violation.  That is a different aspect of the element of randomness.  Anyone who expects perfect fairness or perfect equity just fundamentally misunderstands the nature and spirit of golf, IMO.

Certainly there is randomness in golf. I just think this is a case where the randomness *could* be eliminated, and therefore should be eliminated.  (The randomness in this case being whether a rules official saw or didn't see a violation, in the specific case where the violation was only discovered after the scorecard was signed.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordan

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Right, so it all depends on whether the official witnessed the incident "in such a way as for him to have the information required to make a correct ruling".  In Janzen's case it was clear that the official did that, but that won't always be true. I can imagine cases where an official didn't see a violation, a player is DQ'd because the violation comes to light after signing, and the player argues that the official "should have" seen it. It would depend on several different parties' definition of whether the official "should have" seen it. That kind of gray area could get ugly.

I guess I just can't see a situation turning ugly with a golfer saying that a rules official should have saved him from a DQ by seeing something that he didn't see. The officials even when walking with a group are not there to "umpire". They observe and make themselves available for rulings as and when required.

Ah, but it's not a matter of whether the official saw it or not, it's a matter of whether they *should have* seen it when they did not. And I firmly believe that when it's a matter of being DQ'd versus potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in prize money, you can bet a lot of golfers would feel justified in making the argument that an official who didn't see it "should have" seen it, and like I say that's a gray area.

Quote:

Remember that Tiger was penalised for the violation he committed. Nothing was going to save him from the 2 shot penalty. You seem to be advocating a situation where if someone called in before the golfer signed their scorecard that everyone should just sit back and watch as they sign for an incorrect score and get DQed!?

Not at all. If a violation is noticed, every attempt should be made to stop the player from signing the card before it can be straightened out. Sometimes they'll catch the player in time, sometimes not. I can accept that.

That isn't what happened here though. What happened here was it wasn't apparent to the committee that there had been a violation until *after* the player has signed. (That was the case for both Janzen and Tiger). What I'm advocating is that the DQ should *not* be waived in those cases, where the only reason to do so is that a rules official may or may not have had the opportunity to make a ruling that was not in the presence of the player.

But fair point - I may be muddying the waters by talking about the "window of opportunity" on when the violation was discovered and whether there's time to alert the player.  I started talking about the "opportunity' aspect in response to someone in the Thrash Talk thread who used the fact that the committee had the "opportunity" to talk to Tiger but did not. I admit I got off on a tangent there.

Quote:

Yes it's chance, or luck, or some other word for a random factor as to whether someone notices in time, and that can be the difference between a DQ and no DQ.

See my comment to turtleback above. The real random factor is whether a rules official sees or doesn't see the violation. If they used a policy where that was not taken into account, there would be no chance or luck involved, and I think that would be better.

(Btw, good discussion all, thank you. I'm definitely understanding the other points of view better.)

[Mordan]

There are only two cases of a DQ being waived like this that I'm aware of. In both cases the committee or official made an error based on the facts in front of them. Whether or not something was seen is a matter of fact and pretty simple to rule on. I don't see any grey area here at all. I find it hard to understand why you're not happy for chance to affect the outcome as to whether or not it's reported but you're happy for whether or not the committee makes a mistake to affect things? I'd much prefer human error to be eliminated from the equation making it true chance that dictates the outcome.

[iacas]

sac, the problem with your position is that the proper penalty was applied and you want to DQ a player for a mistake not made by them. DQs would still be applied for serious breaches, and not when a committee makes a mistake. If the committee had talked to Tiger or Lee, they'd have gotten their two stroke penalties, and signed that card. It's all very simple and you don't need to make up silly hypotheticals to think about it.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

But why is that? Because an attempt was made to contact the player even though it was not successful? If so, then how do you make the determination as to when the attempt would be too late? Is it when the committee is not alerted until after the player has signed? (There are certainly rules and precedence requiring a DQ in that case). If so, then the committee needs to somehow correlate the instant they were alerted (or the instant at which they made a ruling, if you want to do it that way), with the instant the player signed the card. So you're still getting into cases where not only do those instants need to be accurately known, but where random timing still comes into play. Do you think that's acceptable?

Originally Posted by Mordan

When the committee is alerted that there may be an issue they will look at where the player is on the course and if there won't be time to look into it before the player reaches the scorers hut then they will call the scorers and ask them to hold the player.

That will take maybe 1 minute. It's a pretty small window in which the committee will hear of an issue but not be able to stop the player leaving the scorers hut. How often is that going to happen?

Responding to Sam, but including Mordan's quote for context...

Sam, the reason I believe it wouldn't be a clear ruling for a DQ is because some of the key elements remain the same:

1) Tiger is still "unaware" that he violated a rule until after he signs his card.

2) Some rather unique circumstances prevented the committee from alerting the player before he signed the card.

Now, the biggest difference is that the committee made the ruling before he signed the card, which most would likely assume would be the determining differentiator.  They may be right.  However, as Mordan suggests, it shouldn't be that difficult to make the decision and hold the player before he signs the card in order to alert him.  So if very specific set of circumstances prevented that from happening until moments after the card was signed, I believe the committee would take that into consideration.

Remember, the social policy of the rule, if you will, appears to be that in cases where the player could not have known of the committee's decision until after the card was signed, they have the discretion to consider those circumstances and give the player the benefit of the doubt and assess the penalty after-the-fact.  It's possible there is an element that differentiates the two situations that trumps this policy, but I'd like to be presented an analogous case before I'm swayed on it.

[Dormie1360]

Hi guys,

I'm surprised this thread still has this much traction.  Tiger's ruling, and the subsequent explanation by the committee is fairly simple.  Whether you agree with it is another matter.....but from what I can tell most, if not all, knowledgeable rules people agree with it.   As far as sacm3bill hypothetical, if I understand correctly, Tiger turned in a signed card with a lower score than he had made on a hole. The committee knew about the error before the competition closed.  Actually they knew about it before he turned in his card, but that is irrelevant.  He's disqualified under R6-6b.  Yes, this would probably never happen because the committee would most likely have been able to talk to the player before he signed his card, but again, whether they did or not is irrelevant.  He breached R6-6b if he turned in a card with a score on a hole lower than he had made.

Now, if you are going to ask "but that's what Tiger did at the Masters", then you're still not understanding, or agreeing, with the original ruling.  And I don't know what else can be said.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Mordan

There are only two cases of a DQ being waived like this that I'm aware of. In both cases the committee or official made an error based on the facts in front of them.

Whether or not something was seen is a matter of fact and pretty simple to rule on. I don't see any grey area here at all.

That's true, but the gray area I'm referring to is not whether a violation was seen or not seen. The gray area lies in whether a rules official or committee could reasonably have been expected to witness and/or be aware of a potential violation, to the extent that addressing the player was warranted. That's quite a bit different from "Did they see it or not see it".

For example, let's say in some future tournament some player does exactly what Tiger did.  Suppose there is no TV viewer call-in, but there is a walking official standing directly behind the player, 20 yards back, when he makes the illegal drop. There are other players in the group so the official is not 100% focused on the player taking the drop.  Since he's directly behind that player, he doesn't notice that the player is actually 2 yards behind where he played his last shot.  The player finishes the round, signs his card, then admits in an interview he didn't drop as near as possible. The committee decides they need to DQ him, per the rules. The player says, "Now wait a minute, there was an official out there looking right at me when I made the drop, and he didn't say anything. He should've brought the illegal drop to my attention but didn't. Based on the precedence of Janzen and TIger, you can't DQ me."

Is he right? I think it depends on whether the official could be reasonably expected to have noticed that the player was a few yards behind where his last shot was. It also depends on whether the official could be reasonably expected to have noticed the ball went into the hazard slightly left of the line of the original shot. These are the gray areas I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by iacas

sac, the problem with your position is that the proper penalty was applied and you want to DQ a player for a mistake not made by them. DQs would still be applied for serious breaches, and not when a committee makes a mistake.

If the committee had talked to Tiger or Lee, they'd have gotten their two stroke penalties, and signed that card.

It's all very simple and you don't need to make up silly hypotheticals to think about it.

Please, call me Bill. Actually I want to DQ Tiger for a mistake made by Tiger: Signing an incorrect scorecard. (Personally I'm not a big fan of that rule btw, but it's the way things currently are, so...)

If the rules committee had *not* been made aware of the potential issue with the drop before Tiger signed his card, he would've been DQ'd for signing an incorrect card when he accidentally incriminated himself in the interview.  So you're saying that in that hypothetical (but clearly possible) case he deserves the DQ, but in the actual case he does not. Yet Tiger performed the exact same actions either way, and the only difference is something that happened externally to him.

You and others think that should matter, and I understand and respect those views. I just happen to take the opposite view, and will agree to disagree.

The point of the hypotheticals I'm bringing up (such as the one above where it might *not* be clear whether a rules official "should have" seen a violation), is that at some point those hypotheticals are going to occur.  I'm not sure why you are against discussing them, both here and in the Thrash Talk comments. I'd like to consider the ramifications of them now as opposed to waiting till they actually occur.  Because, those ramifications are that there might be cases where much more of a judgement call will be needed (with respect to "Did the rules officials have sufficient evidence of a violation to warrant talking to a player?"), than has been needed in the two cases that have happened so far. IMO, judgement calls should be avoided, which is why I lean towards simply putting the onus on the player for getting their scorecard right, and not having DQs depend on whether an official may or may not have witnessed a rules violation, prior to signing, that the player didn't realize they'd committed, but committed nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

I'm surprised this thread still has this much traction.  Tiger's ruling, and the subsequent explanation by the committee is fairly simple.  Whether you agree with it is another matter.....

The bolded part is obviously why it still has traction.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

The bolded part is obviously why it still has traction.

Can't argue that.

IMO with your last hypo, the official not seeing the infraction ( or actually seeing it for that matter), and not saying anything is different than the official being asked to make a ruling on what was done and not seeing an infraction.  This is a subtle but important distinction.    An official observing, but not being asked to make a ruling or help the player with a procedure,  does get the player off the hook if he does something wrong just because an RO was watching.

What complicates or causes a lot of these "problems" nowadays is phone-in officiating.  I'm not taking a stance on this, but it does change things.

On the plus side it is getting folks to talk about the rules, which I always think is a good thing.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

IMO with your last hypo, the official not seeing the infraction ( or actually seeing it for that matter), and not saying anything is different than the official being asked to make a ruling on what was done and not seeing an infraction.  This is a subtle but important distinction.

Good point, the rules committee was asked to make a ruling. You're right, there is a difference.

But should there also be a difference between the player himself asking for the ruling (in which case they would be in the clear, as they should be), vs a call-in viewer asking for a ruling? I've been arguing from the standpoint that there should be, but FWIW I'm not certain whether I still believe that.

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

An official observing, but not being asked to make a ruling or help the player with a procedure,  does get the player off the hook if he does something wrong just because an RO was watching.

Just checking - from the context it seems you might have meant to say "does not get the player off the hook" there... true?

[Rulesman]

Ridley said that they got dozens of 'call ins'.

No doubt all of them 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?

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Good point, the rules committee was asked to make a ruling. You're right, there is a difference.

But should there also be a difference between the player himself asking for the ruling (in which case they would be in the clear, as they should be), vs a call-in viewer asking for a ruling? I've been arguing from the standpoint that there should be, but FWIW I'm not certain whether I still believe that.

Just checking - from the context it seems you might have meant to say "does not get the player off the hook" there... true?

Yeah thanks, my bad.

As to your other question.....I guess the bottom line is the committee did make a ruling.  Should there be a difference based on why they made a ruling?  Boy, not sure how that would work.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Ridley said that they got dozens of 'call ins'.

No doubt all of them 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?

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.

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Good point, the rules committee was asked to make a ruling. You're right, there is a difference.

But should there also be a difference between the player himself asking for the ruling (in which case they would be in the clear, as they should be), vs a call-in viewer asking for a ruling? I've been arguing from the standpoint that there should be, but FWIW I'm not certain whether I still believe that.

....I guess the bottom line is the committee did make a ruling.  Should there be a difference based on why they made a ruling?  Boy, not sure how that would work.

Well, assuming for the sake of discussion that there *should* be a difference, I would like to see it defined as "Did the player ask for the ruling".  That's got a clear cut yes or no answer, and puts the onus on the player to get it right, not a TV viewer or anyone else.

[iacas]

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.

[sacm3bill]

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.