The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

[szaino]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

If you are going to discuss rules and state absolutes, then at least get it right.  You are not allowed to "redrop without penalty as many times as you have to".  You must drop a second time if the ball comes to rest after the first drop in a place not allowed under the particular procedure.  After the second drop, you must place the ball on the spot where it first touched the course on the drop.  If you have dropped in a wrong place (meaning that you have done something wrong in locating the drop point for the procedure you are following), you are allowed to correct your mistake by redropping without penalty before making a stroke.  There is more to it than that, but that is all that applies to our comment.

If Tiger had been informed before making his stroke that his drop was incorrect, he could have redropped without penalty.  If I had been his caddie, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I could start my reply the same way you started yours, but I won't.

Dropping twice and then placing as you suggest only applies to certain situations, which has nothing to do with this thread. You can in fact "redrop without penalty as many times as you have to" .

Maybe you missed Zach Johnson gaming the system last year with several redrops until he got it just right.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by 460CompMark

sounds like a dumb rule anyways.  he can go back as far as he wants from the point the ball went into the hazard, but the option he took he had to stay in close proximity to his 3rd shot.  makes no sense. .

What doesn't make sense?  I'm not sure you understand his options.  Dropping on an extended line from the flag to where it last crossed the margin of the hazard wouldn't work in his case.  He had no place to drop on this line. He'd be in the bleachers on the left.  The only option he had was to replay the stroke from the previous spot.

[460CompMark]

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

What doesn't make sense?  I'm not sure you understand his options.  Dropping on an extended line from the flag to where it last crossed the margin of the hazard wouldn't work in his case.  He had no place to drop on this line. He'd be in the bleachers on the left.  The only option he had was to replay the stroke from the previous spot.

yes i understand that.  im simply saying one option he can take it as far back as he wants and the other he has to play it nearest his 3rd shot.  what the hell is the difference if he wants to go further back from his 3rd shot?  i know it's the rule, but it seems dumb.

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by iacas

That's upon further reflection and after hearing Tiger's statement. You don't seem to be putting yourself in the "realtime" mode or in a state where you can somehow block out the added information.

I agree with you that it would be difficult to detect in "realtime", but wouldn't you think the officials were not in "realtime" mode?  They would have been actively looking for any possible error.  I also assume the caller would have mentioned the exact issue to explain the reason he was calling.

It seems there was at least enough of a possibility of an issue to warrant a conversation with Tiger.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

That's upon further reflection and after hearing Tiger's statement. You don't seem to be putting yourself in the "realtime" mode or in a state where you can somehow block out the added information.

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

I agree with you that it would be difficult to detect in "realtime", but wouldn't you think the officials were not in "realtime" mode?  They would have been actively looking for any possible error.  I also assume the caller would have mentioned the exact issue to explain the reason he was calling.

It seems there was at least enough of a possibility of an issue to warrant a conversation with Tiger.

That's not what Erik means by "realtime."  (And I'm only speaking for him and am confident in this because I'm thinking the exact same thing - correct me if I'm wrong Erik)

What he means is that you have to basically go back in time to before the Tiger interview.  You have to pretend to not know what he said to view this objectively.  They were certainly in this "realtime" mode because they had yet to hear from him.

Just because that one divot is the only one that is sticking up and is clear to us on video does not mean its the only one there and is clear to Tiger.  Remember, we're looking horizontally through a telephoto lens, and he's looking straight down onto several divots.  It's easy to assume that he picked the one he thought was his, dropped fairly and moved on, case closed.  Once the interview is brought to light, then everything changes ... but not until then.

[rehmwa]

"The golfer must stand up straight and extend his arm at shoulder level, then drop the ball."

tangent to the discussion - so does a short person have an advantage?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by rehmwa

"The golfer must stand up straight and extend his arm at shoulder level, then drop the ball."

tangent to the discussion - so does a short person have an advantage?

LOL ... I guess in the situations where you need to drop in a bunker, a really short person would have a distinct advantage over a really tall person. ;)

I was still a little kid, I think, when the changed the rule, but I vaguely remember that it used to be where you had to face the other direction and drop it back over your shoulder.

[David in FL]

That's not what Erik means by "realtime."  (And I'm only speaking for him and am confident in this because I'm thinking the exact same thing - correct me if I'm wrong Erik) What he means is that you have to basically go back in time to before the Tiger interview.  You have to pretend to not know what he said to view this objectively.  They were certainly in this "realtime" mode because they had yet to hear from him. Just because that one divot is the only one that is sticking up and is clear to us on video does not mean its the only one there and is clear to Tiger.  Remember, we're looking horizontally through a telephoto lens, and he's looking straight down onto several divots.  It's easy to assume that he picked the one he thought was his, dropped fairly and moved on, case closed.  Once the interview is brought to light, then everything changes ... but not until then.

The divot we're looking at 5 feet or so in front of him is his divot. It's been acknowledged as such. It was clear to me the first time I looked at it in the context of a possible improper drop. I just don't understand why people are trying so hard to make excuses for the committee here. I still think they screwed the pooch. No matter. The ruling was correct in the end. Just hope the committee next year has learned something, whether we hear about it or not.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by David in FL

No matter. The ruling was correct in the end. Just hope the committee next year has learned something, whether we hear about it or not.

What are they going to learn?  What happens when Charles Howell makes the same mistake?  If it's not on video what is the committee going to do?  What if there are multiple divots in the frame?  What if the player's caddie didn't stand in the same exact spot to serve as a point of reference?  Worse yet, when nobody calls in about it, what then?

I believe people still fail to appreciate the many distinctive details of this case that made it unique.  Yes, the fact is that the committee was wrong when they reviewed it, but they only know that based on the information that came directly from the golfer after their review.  Then, they could properly put into context everything they saw and heard.

This is still golf, and ideally the golfer will know when he/she has broken the rules and will report it themselves.  Some of these other rules we are discussing apply in non-ideal circumstances.  Those circumstances should be case-by-case IMO.  Why?  Because it's unfair to on one extreme follow one golfer around the course and give millions of people the opportunity to call out every single potential infraction the golfer himself may miss, while on the other extreme allowing the other golfers the convenience of only self-reporting or being caught by their competitors.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by David in FL

The divot we're looking at 5 feet or so in front of him is his divot. It's been acknowledged as such. It was clear to me the first time I looked at it in the context of a possible improper drop. I just don't understand why people are trying so hard to make excuses for the committee here. I still think they screwed the pooch.

I know that ... but you don't know that he knows that until after his interview!  I'll say it again ... we know it's his because we are only looking at this through one lens at one angle, so its the only little piece of turf that is sticking up off the ground.  It's very obvious ... from that angle.  Tiger is not standing 40 feet behind it and looking at it through a telephoto lens, he is standing directly above it looking straight down.  That little piece of turf sticking up probably isn't going to be obvious from that angle, it's just going to look like one of several other divots in the area.  For all we know, he saw a divot that was 4 feet behind the one we're looking at and thought that was his.  And that right there is good enough ... that makes his drop legal.

Just as much as you don't understand why we're "making excuses" for the committee ... I don't understand how you don't see this.

[turtleback]

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.

And if they had we would have ended up in exactly the same place as we ended up.

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.

The Committee never approached Tiger until the next morning, so pretty much everything in the this post is nonsense.

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.

33-7/4.5 is not a Rule it is a Decision.  It does not revise the rule, it provides an explanation of how the rule would apply in certain circumstances.  None of those circumstances occurred in Tiger's case and Decision 33-7/4.5 had nothing to do with the Committee's waiver of DQ.

Quite possibly the 2 most ignorant posts in all of the threads on this topic.

Originally Posted by 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.

In a radio interview David Fay said that the standard procedure when there is a call in or a reason for concern on a potential violation when the player is still on the course is to alert the scoring tent people to not allow the player to sign his card until a member of the Committee has spoken to the player.  Fay described this as rules administration 101.  This is what the Committee failed to do, as we know, and the reason the DQ was waived.  Had the Rules Committee's observed standard procedure Tiger would have signed for 73.  So if the Committee has reason to believe there is a potential problem before a player signs his card and allows the player to sign his card without speaking to him and making an informed ruling then I think the DQ gets waived if they later retroactively penalize him.

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

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?

Isn't this covered by Decision 34-3/1?  Now 34-3/1 never mentions 33-7 but I would imagine that is what the waiver of DQ was based on.  In all the talk of the change 2 years back, namely the extensive Decision under 33-7 some people seem to think that 33-7 is also only a couple of year old.  It has actually been in the rule book in one form or another since at least 1984.

Originally Posted by David in FL

The divot we're looking at 5 feet or so in front of him is his divot. It's been acknowledged as such. It was clear to me the first time I looked at it in the context of a possible improper drop. I just don't understand why people are trying so hard to make excuses for the committee here. I still think they screwed the pooch.

No matter. The ruling was correct in the end. Just hope the committee next year has learned something, whether we hear about it or not.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Isn't this covered by Decision 34-3/1?  Now 34-3/1 never mentions 33-7 but I would imagine that is what the waiver of DQ was based on.  In all the talk of the change 2 years back, namely the extensive Decision under 33-7 some people seem to think that 33-7 is also only a couple of year old.  It has actually been in the rule book in one form or another since at least 1984.

That's my point.  In 34-3/1 R33-7 is not mentioned.  I took that to mean that the DQ under R6-6 is not applicable and therefore 33-7 is not needed.  You can not DQ a player for signing an incorrect score card when the committee said the card wasn't incorrect in the first place.  I will admit the committee at Augusta did not explain the non-DQ in this way, and your assumption could very will be correct.

This is really just a mental exercise on the rules for me.   The committee screwed up and they tried to fix it in the most equitable or fair way that they felt they could under the rules.  I've found that almost all folks in the golf rules business agree.

I mean this as an observation, not a criticism, but many with conspiracy theories, their own golf rule ideas, etc,, just have a  lack of understanding.  Let face it, before this weekend 99% of the golfers in the world never even heard or R33-7, and I doubt most could explain R20-5 or R26-1.

[Rulesman]

The Committee originally ruled that the drop was ok. Although they did not tell Woods (or anyone else for that matter), it was still a ruling.

Subsequently they corrected that ruling and ruled that the drop was not ok, Woods had breached the rule and returned an incorrect score for which the penalty was DQ.

Rule 33-7 is the rule which gives the Committee the authority to rescind a DQ penalty in exceptional circumstances.

Decision 34-3/1 simply confirms that 34-3 (a Committee's decision is final) does not overide 33-7.

[David in FL]

This is really just a mental exercise on the rules for me.   The committee screwed up and they tried to fix it in the most equitable or fair way that they felt they could under the rules.  I've found that almost all folks in the golf rules business agree.

I couldn't agree more. I wonder if Tiger realizes the debt of gratitude he owes to the caller that first alerted the committee to his error..... .....equally, I've got to wonder if that caller is a Tiger hater, who inadvertently kept him from being DQ'd.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I couldn't agree more.

I wonder if Tiger realizes the debt of gratitude he owes to the caller that first alerted the committee to his error.....

.....equally, I've got to wonder if that caller is a Tiger hater, who inadvertently kept him from being DQ'd.

LOL, I was thinking about that too.  And I'd even go one step further ... if the caller was a Tiger hater, they probably think he's unscrupulous as well, and that call not only prevented him from being DQ'd, but it offered him the opportunity to avoid a penalty altogether had the committee talked to him about it.  He's not dumb, and he would probably know right away why they were inquiring about the drop, he could work it out in his head fast enough, and then simply say that he thought that was where he last played from ... no penalty, interview goes differently, end of story.

Had it played out like that, said Tiger hater would have not only prevented the DQ but he would have kept Tiger well in the mix of the tournament all the way, perhaps even helping him to win.  Talk about irony.

That is, of course, if you really believe that there ever was a call at all. (I'm kidding, of course!)

[iacas]

Here's something that may put a bowtie on the the point I and others have been making. I wish I could bold the entire post, but here it is, and I've bolded the two most relevant parts:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-06-17/sports/0106170213_1_two-stroke-penalty-rules-official-penalty-strokes

Two-time U.S. Open champion Lee Janzen belatedly missed the cut at the 101st U.S. Open when he was assessed a two-stroke penalty Saturday morning for a violation observed early Friday morning.

Janzen went to bed Friday night believing his 5-over 145 score was good enough to make the cut, but he was informed 17 minutes before his scheduled 10:02 tee time that he violated Rule 13-2 in the Rules of Golf. The two-stroke penalty pushed him to 7 over, a shot above the cut.

Before resuming his rain-suspended first round Friday morning, Janzen used a towel to wipe the dew where he had marked his ball in the ninth fairway. He replaced the ball and played. A USGA rules official saw it but did not recognize it immediately as a violation.

The rules official reported the incident before the start of the third round. Janzen said the dew was swept around every spot but his marked ball. He was disturbed the official didn't say something immediately.

"I certainly wasn't trying to break any rules," Janzen said.

Initially, the USGA reported Janzen was disqualified. They issued a corrected release stating he missed the cut because of the penalty.

"Ordinarily, when a player fails to include a penalty and signs for a score lower than should have been recorded, the result is disqualification," said Reed Mackenzie, the USGA vice president and chairman of the Rules Golf Committee. "But since the committee man observed the violation and failed to notify the player of the penalty, the penalty of disqualification is waived. However, the penalty strokes must still be added to his score."

Rule 13-2 addresses improving the lie or an area of intended stance or swing.

"The removal of dew or frost from the area immediately behind or to the side of a player's ball is not permitted," according to Decision 13-2/35.

"If I could have got to red numbers, I could have won the tournament," Janzen said. "I was ready to shoot a good score."

BAM.

[RPMPIRE]

Just saw this article on ESPN by Bob Harig. We all know what happened, but he also thinks we should make a change about signing scorecards. I do agree with what he suggests, which basically just either keep the scorecard open for the whole tournament or just do away with the whole signing. Anyone else agree?

http://espn.go.com/golf/notebook/_/page/birdiesandbogeys130416/time-closer-look-rules-golf

Quote:

Which brings us back to the entire scorecard silliness. Golf purists will howl, but haven't we passed the point of having to write down scores in professional golf? At the very least, can't there be a stipulation that the scorecard is kept "open'' (not signed) for the duration of the tournament, thereby allowing for such rules violations to be added afterward? Or, better yet, once a day's play is complete, all is final?

Ten years ago, Mark Roe and Jesper Parnevik played together in the third round of the Open Championship at Royal St. George's. Roe, an Englishman, played his way into contention. He did interviews afterward, discussing his chances at winning the Claret Jug.

It was only at this point that it was learned that Roe and Parnevik had put their scores on the wrong card. Parnevik was to be keeping Roe's card, and vice versa, but somehow they got mixed up and put the other player's scores on their own card. Nobody caught it. They both signed cards that had the other players' scores. Both were disqualified.

There were no rules issues. There was nothing wrong with the scores they wrote down. They simply were on the wrong card, a clerical error.

These kind of rules gaffes are terrible for the game, especially to casual observers who have a hard time staying interested due to such complexities.

In Woods' case, he made a mistake. Admitted it. Got a two-stroke penalty. It took an unusual circumstance, but he was allowed to play on with the penalty he deserved for the infraction. Shouldn't that be enough?

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by iacas

Here's something that may put a bowtie on the the point I and others have been making. I wish I could bold the entire post, but here it is, and I've bolded the two most relevant parts:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-06-17/sports/0106170213_1_two-stroke-penalty-rules-official-penalty-strokes

BAM.

Dang...This certainly lessens the possibility of a conspiracy.