The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

[Jim1]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim1

Intention is irrelevant in the USGA Rules of Golf. The only thing that matters in the USGA Rules of Golf is action.

Absolutely wrong. There are many cases within the Rules where intent is a consideration. Look no further than the very definition of a "stroke".

The USGA Rules of Golf do not require the Tournament Committee to read minds.

In Rule 20-7c, a serious breach of the Rules is whatever GAINS a significant advantage for a competitor, as judged by the Committee.

Whether or not the competitor INTENDS to gain a significant advantage is irrelevant.

If the competitor UN-intentionally GAINS a significant advantage by breaching the Rules, then that competitor has committed a serious breach (as judged by the Committee). The fact that the competitor did not mean to gain a significant advantage is irrelevant. The fact remains that the competitor DID GAIN a significant advantage (as judged by the Committee). That is all that matters.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Jim1

The USGA Rules of Golf do not require the Tournament Committee to read minds.

They don't have to. You're wrong about "intent" not existing in the rules, though, and that's all he's pointing out about that.

[Jim1]

USGA Rule 20-3c:

… If it is impossible to determine the spot where the ball is to be placed or replaced: (i) THROUGH THE GREEN , the ball must be DROPPED AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO the place where it lay but not in a hazard or on a putting green ; (ii) IN A HAZARD , the ball must be DROPPED in the hazard AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO the place where it lay.

Jim (previous message):

Therefore, Rule 34-3 requires the Tournament Committee to decide what the phrase "as near as possible to" in Rules 20-2b and 20-3c means. It means whatever the Tournament Committee says it means (such as within two club lengths of the original spot, or within a yard, or within a foot, or within an inch).

Iacas (responding in post #214):

20-3c concerns placing, so it's irrelevant.

Jim (this message):

You are making my point for me.

Just as you DO NOT SEE the word “DROPPING” in Rule 20-3c, likewise, when you take the position that the phrase “as nearly as possible at” in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a means on or next to the original spot, as opposed to meaning within two club lengths (or more) of the original spot, as clarified in Rule 20-5, you DO NOT SEE the phrase “SEE RULE 20-5” in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Jim1

… If it is impossible to determine the spot where the ball is to be placed or replaced

You do realize that you're citing a ruling about PLACING the golf ball, right? Rule 20-3 - the entire rule - is not relevant to Tiger's DROP in the Masters. 20-3 is called "Placing and Replacing" and so DOES NOT APPLY.

And "if it is impossible" does not apply here - there's a divot, there's a caddie that never moves, and Tiger knew exactly from where he'd hit his previous shot.

Originally Posted by Jim1

You are making my point for me.

Just as you DO NOT SEE the word “DROPPING” in Rule 20-3c, likewise, when you take the position that the phrase “as nearly as possible at” in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a means on or next to the original spot, as opposed to meaning within two club lengths (or more) of the original spot, as clarified in Rule 20-5, you DO NOT SEE the phrase “SEE RULE 20-5” in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a.

You're clearly an idiot.

26-1a applies, and refers people to 27-1 and to 20-5. 27-1 refers people again to 20-5.

20-3 does not apply.

27-1 . Stroke And Distance; Ball Out Of Bounds; Ball Not Found Within Five Minutes

a . Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance

At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke , play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5 ), i.e., proceed under penalty of stroke and distance.

Except as otherwise provided in the Rules , if a player makes a stroke at a ball from the spot at which the original ball was last played, he is deemed to have proceeded under penalty of stroke and distance .

Furthermore, nothing in 20-3 mentions two clublengths.

P.S. Learn to quote properly. And again, you're still dangerously close to being restricted from this thread.

[luu5]

I am now in lost what is Jim1's purpose of starting this barrage of posts.

I think we all understand that "as near as possible" is not defined in the rules exactly. But the rule 20-5 subject says 20-5 - Making Next Stroke from Where Previous Stroke Made, and to me that is quite a good reference.

Of course, if Committee makes a ruling then that stands, but they can also correct their own errors ruling. This process is also described in rules.

[Jim1]

The USGA Rules of Golf:

20-2b. Where to Drop. When a ball is to be DROPPED AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO a specific spot, it must be dropped NOT NEARER THE HOLE than the specific spot … A ball when dropped MUST FIRST STRIKE A PART OF THE COURSE WHERE THE applicable RULE REQUIRES it to be dropped. …

20-3c. … If it is impossible to determine the spot where the ball is to be placed or replaced: (i) THROUGH THE GREEN, the ball must be DROPPED AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO … (ii) IN A HAZARD, the ball must be DROPPED … AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO …

34-3. … In the absence of a referee, ANY DISPUTE OR DOUBTFUL POINT ON THE RULES MUST BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE, whose decision is final.

Jim (post #211):

The Rules in the USGA Rules of Golf that discuss where to DROP a second ball relative to the original spot are Rules 20-2b and 20-3c. Those Rules refer to a second ball being DROPPED (first striking the ground) "as near as possible to" the original spot either through the green or in a hazard.

However, those Rules to NOT specifically direct the reader to any other Rule for the explanation of what the phrase "as near as possible to" means regarding where a second ball is to be DROPPED (is to first strike the ground).

Therefore, Rule 34-3 requires the Tournament Committee to decide what the phrase "as near as possible to" in Rules 20-2b and 20-3c means. It means whatever the Tournament Committee says it means (such as within two club lengths of the original spot, or within a yard, or within a foot, or within an inch).

Iacas (responding in post #214):

20-3c concerns placing, so it's irrelevant.

Jim (responding in post #219):

Just as you DO NOT SEE the word “DROPPING” in Rule 20-3c, likewise, when you take the position that the phrase “as nearly as possible at” in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a means on or next to the original spot, as opposed to meaning within two club lengths (or more) of the original spot, as clarified in Rule 20-5, you DO NOT SEE the phrase “SEE RULE 20-5” in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a.

Iacas (responding in post #220):

You're clearly an idiot.

26-1a applies, and refers people to 27-1 and to 20-5. 27-1 refers people again to 20-5.

20-3 does not apply.

Jim (this post):

Apparently, the rules of etiquette for this discussion forum do not apply to the administrator.

My point is that if one wishes the phrase “as nearly as possible at” in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a to mean that a second ball must be played on or next to the original spot, then one has to remove the qualifying phrase “see Rule 20-5” from Rules 26-1a and 27-1a.

Merely ignoring the phrase “see Rule 20-5” in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a is not good enough. The USGA has to be petitioned to actually remove that phrase from those Rules.

Until the USGA actually removes the qualifying phrase “see Rules 20-5” from Rules 26-1a and 27-1a, the phrase “as nearly as possible at” in Rules 26-1a and 27-1a will always be qualified by (and thus limited by) the phrase “see Rule 20-5” in those Rules.

However, the USGA cannot remove the phrase “see Rule 20-5” from Rules 26-1a and 27-1a without rewriting Rule 20-5, because Rule 20-5 does not require a second ball to be played on or next to the original spot either on the teeing ground or through the green.

If the qualifying phrase “see Rule 20-5” is removed from Rules 26-1a and 27-1a without Rule 20-5 being rewritten to require a second ball to be played on or next to the original spot, then Rules 26-1a and 27-1a end up contradicting Rule 20-5.

The reason that Rules 26-1a and 27-1a direct the reader to Rule 20-5 is that all three Rules say the same thing, despite the fact that they do not all use the same words to say the same thing.

Therefore, when Rule 20-5a states that a second ball does not have to be played on or next to the original spot on the teeing ground, that is what Rules 26-1a and 27-1a mean as well.

Likewise, when Rules 20-2c and 20-5b states that a second ball does not have to be played on or next to the original spot through the green, that is what Rules 26-1a and 27-1a mean as well.

[Rulesman]

I can see what Jim1 is getting at.

26-1a/27-1a specifies a spot from where the ball is to be played. ie at the spot from which the original ball was last played

It does not mention a spot for dropping.

20-5 simply says the ball must first strike a part of the course through the green .

It does not mention a spot.

20-2 says a ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course where the applicable Rule requires it to be dropped.

26-1a does not mention a spot for dropping

It also says w hen a ball is to be dropped as near as possible to a specific spot, it must be dropped not nearer the hole than the specific spot which, if it is not precisely known to the player, must be estimated.

But as yet no spot for dropping has been specified.

The flaw in this argument is that dropping with no thought as to where the ball may ultimately played from is not consistent with the absolute requirement to play from 'as near as possible'.

If Jim1 is correct, the ball may be dropped 100 yards away but it is self evident that the ball will not be played from as near as possible to the original position.

[Jim1]

Originally Posted by luu5

I am now in lost what is Jim1's purpose of starting this barrage of posts.

I think we all understand that "as near as possible" is not defined in the rules exactly. But the rule 20-5 subject says 20-5 - Making Next Stroke from Where Previous Stroke Made, and to me that is quite a good reference.

Of course, if Committee makes a ruling then that stands, but they can also correct their own errors ruling. This process is also described in rules.

I added one initial post (post #202) to this thread. All of my subsequent posts have been responses to posts addressed to me.

My purpose has been to call attention to the fact that what Rule 26-1a actually says and what the Masters Committee (on April 13th) and the USGA (on May 1st) interpreted it to mean are two different things.

My purpose has been to call attention to the fact that Tiger Woods did not violate Rule 26-1a, contrary to what the Masters Committee (on April 13th) and the USGA (on May 1st) incorrectly claimed.

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by Jim1

I added one initial post (post #202) to this thread. All of my subsequent posts have been responses to posts addressed to me.

My purpose has been to call attention to the fact that what Rule 26-1a actually says and what the Masters Committee (on April 13th) and the USGA (on May 1st) interpreted it to mean are two different things.

My purpose has been to call attention to the fact that Tiger Woods did not violate Rule 26-1a, contrary to what the Masters Committee (on April 13th) and the USGA (on May 1st) incorrectly claimed.

What you're missing though Jim is that it is very intentional that the rules do not define a distance when referring to "as nearly as possible".

If a player does not know the exact location of where they played their previous shot from, let's say they walked up to look for their ball before realising it must have gone in the water and had to walk back, then they must make their best guess as to where they played from previously and drop a ball as nearly as possible on that spot. So as long as they've made their best guess it's entirely possible that they could drop more than two club lengths from the previous spot and it would be entirely legal. This is why the distance isn't defined, which is causing you confusion.

In Tiger's case, he knew exactly where he hit from because his caddie was still standing there. The definition of "as nearly as possible" then becomes pretty straight forward. Tiger needed to make his best effort to drop as close as he could to where he played from previously. Tiger clearly didn't because as he himself admitted later in the TV interview he chose to go back about 2 yards because he thought that was a better yardage.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Jim1

My purpose has been to call attention to the fact that Tiger Woods did not violate Rule 26-1a, contrary to what the Masters Committee (on April 13th) and the USGA (on May 1st) incorrectly claimed.

Yes, he did.

He neither dropped NOR played from a point "as nearly as possible," and there is NO "two clublength" allowance for that point.

And with that, we're done here.

[Rulesman]

http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2013-10/my-shot-david-eger

[David in FL]

Interesting back story.  I've always said, whoever called it in kept Tiger from getting DQ'd.  I kind of assumed it was someone with a grudge against Tiger, looking to hurt him and it backfired on him.   Sounds like it was the complete opposite.

[Fourputt]

Interesting back story.  I've always said, whoever called it in kept Tiger from getting DQ'd.  I kind of assumed it was someone with a grudge against Tiger, looking to hurt him and it backfired on him.   Sounds like it was the complete opposite.

I especially liked his comments on Fred Ridley's lack of rules expertise. What it this guy doing working the Masters if he's that clueless, and apparently would even let an old grudge interfere with doing his job?

[bkuehn1952]

I especially liked his comments on Fred Ridley's lack of rules expertise.    What it this guy doing working the Masters if he's that clueless, and apparently would even let an old grudge interfere with doing his job?

I did not like his comments about Fred Ridley.  Eger received a national platform and spent too much time trying to ruin another person's reputation.  He could have told his story and pointed out where he disagreed with the handling of the "Tiger Drop" without digging up all his prior disagreements with Ridley.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I especially liked his comments on Fred Ridley's lack of rules expertise.    What it this guy doing working the Masters if he's that clueless, and apparently would even let an old grudge interfere with doing his job?

I did not like his comments about Fred Ridley.  Eger received a national platform and spent too much time trying to ruin another person's reputation.  He could have told his story and pointed out where he disagreed with the handling of the "Tiger Drop" without digging up all his prior disagreements with Ridley.

Then why would Ridley have blown off his explanation of the reason for the call and done nothing?  If not for Tiger's statement in his interview nothing would have been done, even though all of the necessary information was available.  As Eger said, when such a question arises it's Rules 101 to interview the player as soon as possible.  What it amounted to is that Ridley just blew it off when he found out who it was coming from (or maybe he didn't want to penalize Tiger for some reason? - just speculating), and the prior history between them was apparently the reason for that.  It was entirely appropriate to mention that as part of the explanation.

[iacas]

WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if I hadn't phoned Mickey? I think someone else would have noticed before play ended on Sunday, and Tiger would have been disqualified. It would have been an even bigger mess. The thing my call did, ultimately, was give the Masters a chance to make a mess of things, which in turn provided a basis to penalize Tiger only two strokes instead of DQing him.

No shit David Eger. I tweeted within seconds of Tiger saying what he said in his post-round interview… and that's all I'll say about that. I'm comfortable with the history here, and the timeline. :)

[mvmac]

No shit David Eger. I tweeted within seconds of Tiger saying what he said in his post-round interview… and that's all I'll say about that. I'm comfortable with the history here, and the timeline. :)

The real question is what would have happened if Erik hadn't tweeted?  Master Gate 2013

[iacas]

My role (and phone call) isn't mentioned. 😉