The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

[zeg]

I think a more detailed explanation would be helpful, in terms of how much attention the committee would have to give a possible infraction before their inaction would constitute grounds for waiving the DQ.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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.

Yep.  I'm absolutely assuming that the competition committee at the Masters could/would have access, if they asked, to the same TV feeds that we see in order to review a possible infraction of one of the competitors.  I also assume that they would have the ability to have a rules official walk out to the spot and look at the two divots that shouldn't be too hard to identify with the help of the available video and the assembled patrons.

If they didn't have that kind of access/ability, that's fine, but then they should explain so, because right now it looks like those who conducted that review, completely blew it.  Again, it's the one real question I haven't heard answered yet.  Unfortunately, until it gets answered, it's one point that the conspiracy theory nuts will hang their hats on...

Originally Posted by zeg

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.)

They conducted the review on the basis of a call they received alerting them to the improper drop.  It turns out that the drop was clearly improper, yet their review missed it.

[Mordan]

I think a more detailed explanation would be helpful, in terms of how much attention the committee would have to give a possible infraction before their inaction would constitute grounds for waiving the DQ.

The committee made a ruling. How much attention they paid to that decision isn't relevant, although you'd hope that it would be more than cursory in most cases. Inaction to me would mean they didn't rule, but if the committee failed to act on information they had received which caused circumstances to the detriment if the player then that may also be grounds for waiving the DQ under 33-7.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by Mordan

The committee made a ruling. How much attention they paid to that decision isn't relevant

It's not relevant to this particular outcome .

It's certainly relevant to anyone with more than a passing interest in the rules and how they are applied.  I'm not looking to assign blame.  I think it's fair to assume that the competition committee at the Masters is pretty damn good at their job (understatement).  I'm wondering how they came to a decision that was a) wrong, and b) pretty obvious to everyone at first glance to be wrong.  I imagine they're interested in finding that out too, so as to prevent anything like this from happening again.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordan

The committee made a ruling. How much attention they paid to that decision isn't relevant

It's not relevant to this particular outcome.

It's certainly relevant to anyone with more than a passing interest in the rules and how they are applied.  I'm not looking to assign blame.  I think it's fair to assume that the competition committee at the Masters is pretty damn good at their job (understatement).  I'm wondering how they came to a decision that was a) wrong, and b) pretty obvious to everyone at first glance to be wrong.  I imagine they're interested in finding that out too, so as to prevent anything like this from happening again.

The thing is that it doesn't really matter that they missed it because the ultimate result is the same - a two stroke penalty for Tiger.  They correctly applied Rule 33-7 and waived the disqualification because of the exceptional circumstance of the committee having missed the call.  If they hadn't missed the call, the penalty would have been applied before Tiger returned his card, so same end result.

Originally Posted by 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.

You just don't get it do you.  Or more correctly you don't want to get it because you are fixated on the wrong thing and won't let it go.  There is no DECISION which applies to this case.  33-7/4.5 is not applicable.  It was added solely to cover call in observations from viewers which were received after the player had returned his card .  It has nothing to do with the committee's ruling.   In this case the call was made before the player finished his round, a hasty investigation did not show sufficient evidence of an infraction, and the player (Tiger) was not even aware that any of this was happening.  The committee should have discussed it with him, but they didn't. That single inaction was the exceptional circumstance in this case which warranted waiving the disqualification penalty.  The committee's ruling was timely, (it occurred before Tiger returned his card), and it was their their failure to initiate a discussion with Tiger which put the DQ penalty in the equation, not the viewer notification.  That is why 33-7/4.5 does not apply.

I'm not excusing Tiger.  He made a rather silly mistake during a very simple process.  If it hadn't been for the fact that the committee had the information and opportunity to prevent him from signing an incorrect card, then I would agree that the should have been disqualified.  It was the committee's inaction which made it necessary to mitigate the penalty to just the 2 strokes which he would have received had the committee acted in a timely fashion before his card was returned.

So the only thing you have entrenched is an incorrect conclusion based on an irrelevant decision.  You are wrong, and I no longer care whither you can see it or not.  This issue has been pretty much beaten to death, and it's only the haters who really care any more anyway.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

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.

This is the part that gets a little swampy for me.  Not that the overall outcome wasn't correct , but how they got there.

If the committee ruled on the drop before the card was returned, technically did Woods return an incorrect score card?   It would seem that it only became a wrong card later, after further review from the committee.  If in a similar the case, the committee had actually talked to the player before signing the card but still got the ruling wrong, what would the status of the player be if later information proved that the initial ruling was wrong.  (We're assuming no knowledge of the breach by the player.)   Would you say the player was still DQ'd unless the committee used 33-7?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

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.

This is the part that gets a little swampy for me.  Not that the overall outcome wasn't correct , but how they got there.

If the committee ruled on the drop before the card was returned, technically did Woods return an incorrect score card?   It would seem that it only became a wrong card later, after further review from the committee.  If in a similar the case, the committee had actually talked to the player before signing the card but still got the ruling wrong, what would the status of the player be if later information proved that the initial ruling was wrong.  (We're assuming no knowledge of the breach by the player.)   Would you say the player was still DQ'd unless the committee used 33-7?

It would have to be the same.  Such a breach is still within the statute of limitation until the competitions is closed.  If the committee's error in your specific case is not discovered until after the competition is closed, then the results stand.  If it's found out at any point before the close of the competition, then the stroke adjustment would be made, but the disqualification should be waived.

[460CompMark]

has this new rule been enforced on anyone else on tour yet?

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The thing is that it doesn't really matter that they missed it because the ultimate result is the same - a two stroke penalty for Tiger.  They correctly applied Rule 33-7 and waived the disqualification because of the exceptional circumstance of the committee having missed the call.  If they hadn't missed the call, the penalty would have been applied before Tiger returned his card, so same end result.

I'm not arguing the result at all.  It's 100% correct.

My question isn't rules related, it's committee/process related.  How did a committee (presumably an extraordinarily qualified and experienced committee) come to blow what should have been a relatively simple review and ruling when the initial infraction was brought to their attention?  None of us seem to know that answer, because the question doesn't appear to have been asked.

[zeg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

They conducted the review on the basis of a call they received alerting them to the improper drop.  It turns out that the drop was clearly improper, yet their review missed it.

I had thought the call came after the round, I wasn't aware that there was a call during the round. It changes things at most slightly, though.

Without the statement from Woods, it's harder to conclude that he violated the rule. He was near to the original spot and there's not a requirement that you know the actual exact spot of your previous stroke, just that you make a reasonable and honest estimate of that spot and once you've done so, do your best to drop on it. The evidence would have had to show that his drop was clearly unreasonable enough to overcome the general presumption that the golfer is acting in good faith. In this case, yes, it was close enough that they probably ought to have asked him about that, and that's a point in Woods's favor with regard to waiving the DQ.

Once Woods made a statement confirming that he knowingly dropped in a wrong place (even if he did not know that it was a wrong place, it was factually a wrong place under the rule), it was unquestionable that he incurred a penalty. The committee's earlier decision was wrong, and probably "negligently" so.  My earlier statements explain why that probably happened---it's much easier to dissect this once it's a big story than when it's just one of many things to get through. That doesn't make it ok, they blew it. So they enforce the penalty and waive the DQ, thereby not unfairly penalizing a golfer for their oversight.

Quote:

The committee made a ruling. How much attention they paid to that decision isn't relevant, although you'd hope that it would be more than cursory in most cases.

Yeah, I would hope so. What I really meant was how formal their investigation / ruling needs to be, and what factors led to their conclusion. For example, I suspect that the fact that it's usual practice to notify a competitor of a likely rules violation prior to signing his card is the basis for this waiver. I don't think that would apply in a club tournament where, somehow, the committee discussed an event, came to a wrong conclusion, but didn't stop the competitor from signing his card. In that case (which, I admit, is somewhat contrived) I don't think this decision would apply because the competitor had no reasonable expectation that the committee would review and rule on an event unless he specifically requested a ruling. But the vague nature of their explanation leaves me wondering I'm wrong, and it's some other line of reasoning.

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

This issue has been pretty much beaten to death, and it's only the haters who really care any more anyway.

Are you assuming?  I don't consider myself a hater (in fact I pull for Tiger to win) , but I still find this conversation interesting.  

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I'm not arguing the result at all.  It's 100% correct.

My question isn't rules related, it's committee/process related.  How did a committee (presumably an extraordinarily qualified and experienced committee) come to blow what should have been a relatively simple review and ruling when the initial infraction was brought to their attention?  None of us seem to know that answer, because the question doesn't appear to have been asked.

Maybe the truth is...gasp.... they actually did not review it before the end of the round????

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

Maybe the truth is...gasp.... they actually did not review it before the end of the round????

I am NOT a conspiracy theorist.  But until the question is answered, there will be a lot of people asking this very question, and that would be a shame.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

I'm not arguing the result at all.  It's 100% correct.

My question isn't rules related, it's committee/process related.  How did a committee (presumably an extraordinarily qualified and experienced committee) come to blow what should have been a relatively simple review and ruling when the initial infraction was brought to their attention?  None of us seem to know that answer, because the question doesn't appear to have been asked.

Maybe the truth is...gasp.... they actually did not review it before the end of the round????

Have you read the Fred Ridley interview?  It explains the entire process, and seems to indicate that the video which they had to review was not as conclusive as David insists that it had to be. Since none of us was involved, I have to believe that Ridley knows more about it than we do.

Here is the link in case you missed it: Ridley interview

[460CompMark]

so do any of you have actual proof other than Tiger saying he dropped it a couple feet further back?  was there actually someone out on the course that can confirm that his divots were too far apart?  a freaking viewer called in and said he thought Tiger dropped too far apart.  give me a freaking break.  this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard.  the committee penalized him based on what he SAID, not on proof of what he actually did.  if you don't have proof other than what he said, this is ludacris.

[3 Putt Again]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

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, it is easy to lose the thread when there so many postings.  You I are in complete agreement.  To understand what I was saying in #45 the postings that you need to look at are 1, 2, 4, & 5.   In #2 someone suggested that a committee could decided not to enforce a rule.   In #4, I said that was incorrect.  In #5, I was asked what specifically was incorrect and I responded in #45 that it was  incorrect that a committee could choose not to enforce a rule.  I was not suggesting that this committee had not enforced a rule.

[3 Putt Again]

Originally Posted by 460CompMark

so do any of you have actual proof other than Tiger saying he dropped it a couple feet further back?  was there actually someone out on the course that can confirm that his divots were too far apart?  a freaking viewer called in and said he thought Tiger dropped too far apart.  give me a freaking break.  this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard.  the committee penalized him based on what he SAID, not on proof of what he actually did.  if you don't have proof other than what he said, this is ludacris.

Tiger did not say he "thought" he dropped too far apart.  He said that he dropped two yards away and reaffirmed this when questioned by the committee.  If a player says he did not take a proper drops, there is no need for other evidence.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Have you read the Fred Ridley interview?  It explains the entire process, and seems to indicate that the video which they had to review was not as conclusive as David insists that it had to be. Since none of us was involved, I have to believe that Ridley knows more about it than we do.

Here is the link in case you missed it:   Ridley interview

A viewer called and said that based on what he saw on TV, the drop was inappropriate.  What video do you think the committee was shown?  I'm guessing (betting my house) that it was exactly what was shown on TV.

Everyone here has seen that video and I haven't heard anyone say that they think that the drop was appropriate.  Erik immediately tweeted that it appeared to be an inappropriate drop.  It was easy to gain some depth perspective in the difference between the first divot and the drop by looking at Tiger's feet and his stance.  Tiger ultimately confirmed (inadvertently) what we could all see pretty easily, that the drop was actually a couple of yards back from the original shot.  Now the question is, how could the committee see something completely different in watching that video?

Ridley needs to answer that, or there are going to continue to be conspiracy nuts that are going to claim that there never was a call and review prior to Tiger signing his card.  Let's be clear, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT.  If the answer is "hey, we were all drunk and just blew it", that's fine.  If it's "hey, we didn't get (or think to ask for) the video of what the guy who called saw on TV and we blew it", that's fine.  But this whole, "what we looked at looked fine" response doesn't pass the smell test.

I know and share your passion for the rules.   I'm struggling to understand why you're not curious as to how this particular committee could have arrived at a clearly bad decision.  Again, I'm not trying to blame anyone.  But the old adage applies......those that do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.