The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Just to be clear on my understanding of the rules. Tiger didn't have the option to DQ himself, only the rules committee can DQ someone.  Tigers only option would be to withdraw, is that correct?

Semantics. A lot pf people thought Tiger should not be playing anymore. Call it a WD or DQ, but either way, they didn't think he should continue.

Somebody on one of the myriad threads about this topic posted a story about a situation where Jeff Sluman WD'd after a "similar" situation because he said he "couldn't live with himself if he won a tournament where he might have broken a rule."  Their opinion was that Tiger was a bad person for not doing the same thing.  It's certainly not black and white, and I don't think any less of Tiger for not WD'ing (and, no, it's not because I think lowly of him now, because I don't) HOWEVER, if he had WD'd, I think he would have gained a ton of goodwill.

Again, not saying he should or shouldn't have - he abided the rules and took his penalty, it was perfectly fair and in his right to keep playing - just that IF he had, he would have gained a lot of respect, praise, and admiration from a lot of people.

Yeah... mostly a lot of people who have no idea what the rule is or anything else except that they think Tiger got a break because he's Tiger.  That couldn't be farther from the truth.  Tiger got a break solely because the committee failed to pursue an investigation when they had information that he may have committed a breach.  As a direct result of that, Tiger returned his score without the penalty added in, and was eligible for disqualification.  The committee rightly felt that they were warranted in waiving the DQ because it was in part due to their negligence.  After a lot of contemplation, this is my thinking on the subject:

Decision 33-7/4.5 is specifically to ensure that a player is not disqualified for a breach which he could not have known about prior to returning his card. It does not apply here. In this case, Tiger was saved for a slightly different reason. He certainly could have known about the breach, because it is a dropping situation under a rule which he should have been completely familiar with. In most cases he would have been disqualified. However, since the information was available to the committee before he finished his round, and since they reviewed it and determined that there was no foul, they are at fault for allowing him to sign his card without any additional investigation. It was stated earlier that Tiger was at the time of the shot uncertain as to his dropping allowance.

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:

Quote:

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.

Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.

If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.

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.

Quote:

Agree completely. They have officials with every group.

No they don't  The reason that it often takes a while to get a ruling is because they usually have maybe 5 or 6 rules officials scattered around the course and they have to be notified and then they have to drive to the location.  They would have to have like 40 or more officials to do what you suggest.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I'm a cynical person by nature.  Having said that, I think you're underestimating how much hatred and dislike there is for Tiger.  Here's what I think would have happened:

1) Rabid Tiger fans would have been pissed and upset.

2) Other Tiger fans would have been disappointed but accepting and possibly garnered a bit more respect for him.

3) Impartial and neutral fans (vast minority) may have gained a bit more respect for him, but likely wouldn't even care enough to remember.

4) Tiger haters would forget about it as they were bluffing when they said they would gain respect for him as they only said that under the assumption that he wouldn't do it.

Remember, the last group already hates him and every perception of him is colored by that view.  The most transparent part of the conversation I heard at the golf course this weekend was when the guy started off with, "I always thought he was a douchebag with no integrity..." and the rest was just his take on the situation through that filter.  Everything he did this weekend was a manifestation of his douchebaggery, in that guy's eyes.

I imagine there is a strong possibility that the most extreme haters would have gone the other way had he DQ'd himself: they would have claimed he was quitting after giving 4 strokes back to the field because he knew he couldn't win.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I agree, there's nothing Tiger can do to satisfy his haters or make them hate him less.  At this point he owes those people nothing and shouldn't care what their opinion is of him.

I agree with both of you about everything above, except I think that you are looking at this only in the short term.  In the long term, several years down the road, as it is it won't be remembered as anything other than another major Tiger didn't win.  Had he WD'd, it is my opinion that it would be something that would go down on his resume on the good side of the ledger.

The radicals on each end of your spectrum probably will keep their same views forever, but nobdy really takes those people seriously anyway, do they?  (At least I hope not)

[460CompMark]

im saying, not.

state your opinion and how you came up with that opinion.

[Zeph]

Is this a debate? He did sign an incorrect scorecard. Why else would we have the big ordeal? He got two shots penalty for the improper drop, after the round.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

The interview with Ridley

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=88444

Nice find Rulesman!  This should shut the argument down, but with all the Tiger haters around, I don't suppose that it will.

[Fourputt]

He didn't sign an incorrect card.  At the time he signed it was ruled to be correct.  That ruling wasn't changed until after 8 AM then next morning.  Essentially, his carded score for the 15th hole became incorrect after the Saturday morning investigation.  If there had been no review and ruling on Friday before he signed the card, then he would have been guilty as charged.  The committee took the blame for not doing a better job of it before he returned his card, and for that they waived the DQ penalty.

[David in FL]

Nice find Rulesman!  This should shut the argument down, but with all the Tiger haters around, I don't suppose that it will.

The one question that's never really been answered is a simple one. How in the HELL could the committee have considered his drop as conforming when they reviewed it initially? They did, and that takes the whole DQ thing off the table, but how they came to that bonehead decision is beyond me.

[David in FL]

What is this......the 4th or 5th thread on the same subject now?

[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.

[Golfingdad]

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.

As has been explained, if you are a professional golfer, your divot is nearer the hole from where you play the shot since you strike the ball first then the ground.  You would be expected to drop it immediately behind that divot.  That is, IF you know exactly where it is.  I would assume, that to ensure you didn't accidentally drop forward of your previous spot that you aim your drop for about 2 inches behind the divot.  After it rolls down the hill forward twice, then you get to place it right there.

Or, you just drop it within a yard or two, don't open your fat mouth and tell everybody that, and then you're fine. :)

[jamo]

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.

Not quite. Good ballstrikers hit the ball first, then the ground, so their divot would be closer to the hole than where they played their last shot from. You'd be dropping closer to the hole.

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by David in FL

The one question that's never really been answered is a simple one. How in the HELL could the committee have considered his drop as conforming when they reviewed it initially? They did, and that takes the whole DQ thing off the table, but how they came to that bonehead decision is beyond me.

Imagine the outcry if they had DQed him. Tiger out of the Masters because the committee didn't do a good job of investigating the incident.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Nice find Rulesman!  This should shut the argument down, but with all the Tiger haters around, I don't suppose that it will.

The one question that's never really been answered is a simple one. How in the HELL could the committee have considered his drop as conforming when they reviewed it initially? They did, and that takes the whole DQ thing off the table, but how they came to that bonehead decision is beyond me.

Did you see the photographs they used to make the ruling?  No way you could tell from them that he was not on the same, exact spot.

[460CompMark]

He didn't sign an incorrect card.  At the time he signed it was ruled to be correct.  That ruling wasn't changed until after 8 AM then next morning.  Essentially, his carded score for the 15th hole became incorrect after the Saturday morning investigation.  If there had been no review and ruling on Friday before he signed the card, then he would have been guilty as charged.  The committee took the blame for not doing a better job of it before he returned his card, and for that they waived the DQ penalty.

Exactly. Im unsure how people think he signed an incorrect scorecard. The scorecard was correct or else they would have notified him immediately after 15. He said in his interview that he brought it back a couple yards which apparently incriminated himself. Does anyone know if that is actually true or or they just going off what he said? Did anyone take down his exact divot of the first pitch? The only reason they assessed him a two stroke penalty is because of what he said in the interview. They felt they had no choice even though they had already looked at the replays and determined it to be legal.

[460CompMark]

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

[14ledo81]

Did you see the photographs they used to make the ruling?  No way you could tell from them that he was not on the same, exact spot.

Do you think the committee only used one camera view?

[David in FL]

Did you see the photographs they used to make the ruling?  No way you could tell from them that he was not on the same, exact spot.

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.

[Mordan]

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.

The thing is that as long as you make an honest effort to drop as close as you can to the point you determine as the spot you played your last shot from it's fine. If Tiger had dropped two yards back because he got confused over which divot was his then that would be ok. An honest attempt to determine the right spot is all he needs to make, he doesn't have to be right.

It's all about what Tiger knew, and how he then decided to proceed. Which makes it so ridiculous that the committee didn't talk to Tiger before he signed his scorecard.