The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by iacas

Here's something that may put a bowtie on the the point I and others have been making...

BAM.

Ah, precedence! Good find.

But was the rule that gives the committee discretion to waive such a DQ in existence back in 2001?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

But was the rule that gives the committee discretion to waive such a DQ in existence back in 2001?

Yes.

1984: http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules1984.html

33-7. Modification of Penalty

The Committee has no power to waive a Rule of Golf. A penalty of disqualification, however, may, in exceptional individual cases, be waived or be modified or be imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.

1954: http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules1954.html

5. Modification of Penalty
The Committee has no power to waive a Rule of Golf. A penalty of disqualification, however, may, in exceptional individual cases, be waived or be modified if the Committee consider such action warranted.

[bplewis24]

Clearly, they were just bending the rules in favor of Lee Janzen, because of his immense popularity.  Where is the consistency?!?

[geoffmangum]

Decision 33-7/4.5 was written and announced at Augusta National in April 2011, and it clearly indicates that Fred Ridley doesn't know the Rules.

Decision 33-7/4.5 was drafted by USGA Rules Chairman Glen Nager with the R&A; in reaction to the DQ of Padraig Harrington after a ball moved in the wind and he didn't see it and wasn't deemed capable of having seen the movement, but "high-definition" television made it possible for a tv spectator to see it and call in. Harrington had already signed his score, and the ruling that his card score was too low resulted in DQ. This didn't sit well with the USGA and R&A.;

However, Decision 33-7/4.5 was explicitly drafted to authorize WAIVER of the DQ ONLY WHEN THE PLAYER COULD NOT HAVE PERCEIVED THE PROBLEM. The Decision says exactly this, and Mike Davis explained the narrowness of the cases when the DQ can be waived when announcing the new decision at Augusta National in April 2011. Here is what Davis said, as transcribed here:

http://www.asapsports.com/show_conference.php?id=70471

" So with that, I guess what I would say is the key to this, in terms of when a committee can actually use this discretion to waive a disqualification penalty, is that there had to be facts arise after the scorecard had been returned, that the player either couldn't possibly have known about, or, in the committee's judgment, couldn't have reasonably known before he returned the scorecard.

That's the key here. We are dealing with fact-based issues. It's not issues dealing with not knowing the rules. It's not knowing the facts; and therefore, you couldn't apply the penalty, and then all of a sudden, these facts arise after the scorecard's returned."

"It's a very narrowly-interpreted decision. It's meant to be that. I think that the number of committees that will actually utilize this, and it is an existing decision that we have revised. But the number of committees that will actually be able to utilize this are going to be very, very small. And if you've read through the decision, you'll see in there that the examples we give, every single one of them are talking about High Definition TV, slow-motion video and the likes."

"As I say, it's dealing with facts that the players simply could not have known before, or in the estimation of the respective committee, it's not reasonable that the player could have figured that out before he returned his scorecard."

The gist of the new Decision is that the player's DQ can be waived ONLY when he could not reasonably be expected to have seen the problem, and also says he did not know there was a problem. Then, if someone sees what the player could not have seen (because the spectator has High-definition television that zooms in, or the like, to make visible something the player himself could not have seen) and the player also did not in fact know that was a violation, and this is not caught in time to prevent the player signing for a wrong score, the penalty stands but the DQ can be waived. Other than that narrow case, the Decision says flatly that the Committee has no authority to waive the DQ. Specifically, the DQ is not to be waived simply because the player was ignorant of the correct rule, and cannot be waived if he in fact was aware of what he did that violated the rule. He does not have to be aware of the correct rule or of the fact that he is violating the rule, and the violation need not be intentional -- the player's DQ cannot be waived if he should have been aware of whatever he did that was wrong (or if he in fact was aware). If Tiger was aware of the location he dropped, and this location was not "as near as possible" to the original position, and this is not known or addressed before he signs for a wrong score, the DQ applies and cannot be waived.

Fred Ridley waived the DQ in violation of Decision 33-7/4.5. This is what Fred Ridley said was his decision:

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

Ridley is a bit vague and appears in fact disingenuous about his basis for his weird ruling. On the one hand, he appears to deliberately avoid discussing the April 2011 Decision. Surely he was present when Mike Davis explained the decision, so he is not likely in fact ignorant of Decision 33-7/4.5, but chooses not to try to square his ruling with this Decision. Instead, Ridley rather cagily suggests his ruling was justified by the "older" version of the Rule 33-7, not the recent Decision. he appears deliberately vague about this, since it is indefensible to do that. Under the "old" Rule 33-7, Ridley appears to rely upon some Decisions that apply when the Rules referee has told the player he did no NOT violate the rule or tells the player that how the player acts is fine under the Rules, but later the Committee reviews the situation and decides the referee was wrong. In those case, if the player has already signed for a wrong score in reliance upon the official ruling that gets reversed, he is penalized but not DQ'd.

So, Ridley is side-stepping the full force of the NEW Decision that denies him authority to waive the DQ, and uses old Decisions. And the OLD DECISIONS are also misapplied ignorantly by Ridley. The old Decisions apply only when the player has been misled by the officials before he signs his card. Ridley IGNORES this and struggles to get around this problem by repeating that others support his waiver. That's just peachy, except the Rules of Golf as written don't support Ridley's waiver.

The tape of the drop is clear to the world that Tiger's drop was not at the original location. Ridley rather lamely attempts to justify his earlier mistake in not calling this a violation and talking to Tiger before he signed for a wrong score by claiming that Tiger's drop was "close enough" and that the definition of where the drop has to be in the Rule 26-1 is not really clear. In fact, the Rule 26-1 IS clear, and says the drop has to be "as near as possible" to the original location. The drop tape showed the drop clearly a number of feet back from the original spot, so Ridley is playing games here.

Ridley also plays loose with the fact that Tiger said he was seeking an advantage and got one. Ridley dodges this question, when it is clear that he knew this from Tiger's ESPN tape. Ridley makes it sound like he thereafter interviewed Tiger and understood from Tiger that Tiger thought what he did was okay under the Rules. Ridley makes it sound like Ridley's earlier review of the drop showed Tiger complied with the Rule and dropped "close enough" that there was no reason to talk to him about it before he signed his card, and then after Tiger admitted on ESPN that he dropped 2 yards back to get and advantage, Ridley interviewed him and understood Tiger thought his drop complied with the Rules. That's really CYA talk from Ridley --  obviously dodgy and disingenuous.

Thus, the Masters folk made a stupid call to ignore the TV spectator when they should have talked to Tiger before he signed his card; then when Tiger said he intentionally dropped back in violation of the Rule to get an advantage, Ridley interviewed Tiger and made it sound like Tiger thought he was dropping correctly and did not mean to violate the rules when  he clearly intended to drop in an improper location for an advantage.

There is NO AUTHORITY under the Rules of Golf to waive the DQ when the player was aware of what he was doing and that he was dropping in a spot NOT nearest the original position. NONE, according to the Decision explained to Ridley in April 2011. And there is also NO AUTHORITY under the "old" Decisions to waive the DQ because officials affirmatively misled the player into signing for a wrong score. And Ridley whitewashed the fact that Tiger was seeking an advantage and the fact that Tiger's interview really showed just how stupid it was for tyhe Committee and Ridley to have chosen not to talk to Tiger before he signed his card.

It's not about Tiger (or any player). It's about the false and rather disingenuous suggestion that Ridley's ruling to waive the DQ comports with the new Decision. It doesn't. Ridley's claiming that his waiver is blessed by others is especially stupid and harmful to golf, because that says the USGA wrote the new rule and now blesses the Masters in not following the new Decision. That sure ain't no honest way to run a railroad, folks. It's just the rules of Kindergarten honesty.

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by geoffmangum

Decision 33-7/4.5 was written and announced at Augusta National in April 2011, and it clearly indicates that Fred Ridley doesn't know the Rules.

That's a whole lot of writing, it's a pity you didn't do a bit more reading.

Decision 33-7/4.5 has nothing to do with Tiger's drop. It was not used by the committee in determining the correct course of action.

[geoffmangum]

I like what I wrote a lot better than what you wrote. What you say is the Masters did not base the waiver on Decision 33-7/4.5. Well, yes, that's right -- but they are required to do so, and didn't.

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by geoffmangum

I like what I wrote a lot better than what you wrote. What you say is the Masters did not base the waiver on Decision 33-7/4.5. Well, yes, that's right -- but they are required to do so, and didn't.

No they're not. They based it on Rule 33-7, which gives the committee the discretion to waive the DQ in exceptional circumstances.

The same rule they used to waive Lee Janzen's DQ at the 2001 US Open when his infraction was observed by a rules official who failed to recognise it and act, thus he received his 2 stroke penalty but no DQ as the committee likewise only realised their mistake after he signed his card.

Decision 33-7/4.5 was added in 2011 to give guidance in situations where information came to light that the player could not have reasonably determined before signing their card, ie. stuff that can only be seen on HDTV. In this case there was nothing that Tiger could not reasonably have determined however you're making the mistake of thinking that the decision limits the whole rule to that scenario. It does not.

[Zeph]

Yeah. Decision 33-7/4.5 does not apply here. There is no decision in the rules of golf which directly explains this situation. I hope they will add one now though.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by geoffmangum

I like what I wrote a lot better than what you wrote. What you say is the Masters did not base the waiver on Decision 33-7/4.5. Well, yes, that's right -- but they are required to do so, and didn't.

John Morrissett (Former Director, Rules of Golf for the USGA)

Contrary to what some reported, Decision 33-7/4.5, which was significantly revised two years ago, played no role whatsoever in the Saturday ruling at Augusta National.

From the R&A; Website

Contrary to some reports, Decision 33-7/4.5 (Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified) was not applicable in this case.

[14ledo81]

Not sure if anybody else saw this.  Stevie thinks Tiger should have been DQ'd.

Steve Williams, who was on Woods' bag for a 12-year span that included 72 victories worldwide and 13 major championships, told 3 News in his native New Zealand that he didn't think Woods was "trying to gain anything on the field" but he should have been DQ'd nevertheless.

"From what I can gather, he took an illegal drop, signed a scorecard and left the course," Williams told the television station. "Under most circumstances that would result in disqualification. ... If the rules of golf are upheld, I believe he should have been disqualified."

[David in FL]

Not sure if anybody else saw this.  Stevie thinks Tiger should have been DQ'd.  Steve Williams, who was on Woods' bag for a 12-year span that included 72 victories worldwide and 13 major championships, told 3 News in his native New Zealand that he didn't think Woods was "trying to gain anything on the field" but he should have been DQ'd nevertheless.

"From what I can gather, he took an illegal drop, signed a scorecard and left the course," Williams told the television station. "Under most circumstances that would result in disqualification. ... If the rules of golf are upheld, I believe he should have been disqualified."

Steve Williams is either talking out of his ass with incomplete facts, or he has a poor understanding of the rules. I wouldn't discount the possibility of both.....

[szaino]

So boiling all this down- 33-7/4.5 really has no bearing on this issue. The facts are very simple and the committee's decision is supported by the rules.

1. The "Committee" reviewed the drop and determined there was no penalty prior to Tiger signing the card. Whether they informed Tiger of this or not, is irrelevant under the rules.

2. Had they made the correct determination by either better video review or simply asking Tiger prior to signing the card, Then Tiger would have been assessed the 2 stroke penalty, signed the card, and continued with the tournament.

3. Had the committee not reviewed this drop prior to signing the card and then the facts came out as they did where Tiger essentially admitted to an improper drop, then, in all likelihood he would have been DQ'd.

4. Like Stevie Williams said, Tiger should have known the rules and probably should have been DQ'd. But because the "committee" had reviewed it prior to signing the card, that gave Tiger a "get out of jail free card". The "committee" ultimately put the situation back to point 2 above, because they felt responsible for the initial incorrect determination.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by szaino

4. Like Stevie Williams said, Tiger should have known the rules and probably should have been DQ'd. But because the "committee" had reviewed it prior to signing the card, that gave Tiger a "get out of jail free card". The "committee" ultimately put the situation back to point 2 above, because they felt responsible for the initial incorrect determination.

And, importantly the Janzen incident over a decade ago demonstrates that this isn't a unique ruling designed to protect Woods.

(and I'm not sure why anyone would care what a jackass with a grudge thinks about the rules)

[mtsalmela80]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Steve Williams is either talking out of his ass with incomplete facts, or he has a poor understanding of the rules.

I wouldn't discount the possibility of both.....

Really? Steve Williams has a poor understanding of the rules? That's saying a lot for the most famous caddie on tour. Are there any other caddies that can say they won majors with more than one player?

This was a brand new rule, effectively, because they had never utilized it before, and my guess is its going to be quite a while before its enforced again, unless Tiger signs another bad score card anytime soon in the future.

Face it, the masters head honchos made this decision because they knew it would be bad for the tournament not to have Tiger playing the weekend. End of story.

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Really? Steve Williams has a poor understanding of the rules? That's saying a lot for the most famous caddie on tour. Are there any other caddies that can say they won majors with more than one player?

This was a brand new rule, effectively, because they had never utilized it before, and my guess is its going to be quite a while before its enforced again, unless Tiger signs another bad score card anytime soon in the future.

Face it, the masters head honchos made this decision because they knew it would be bad for the tournament not to have Tiger playing the weekend. End of story.

I believe Erik proved that this statement is not true.  See Lee Janzen comments.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by geoffmangum

Decision 33-7/4.5 was written and announced at Augusta National in April 2011, and it clearly indicates that Fred Ridley doesn't know the Rules.

Decision 33-7/4.5 was drafted by USGA Rules Chairman Glen Nager with the R&A; in reaction to the DQ of Padraig Harrington after a ball moved in the wind and he didn't see it and wasn't deemed capable of having seen the movement, but "high-definition" television made it possible for a tv spectator to see it and call in. Harrington had already signed his score, and the ruling that his card score was too low resulted in DQ. This didn't sit well with the USGA and R&A.;

You are a day late and a dollar short.  It has long since been discussed and determined on this and other golf forums that Decision 33-7/4.5 had nothing to do with the situation or with the committee's ruling.  The only applicable rules are 26-1, 20-2, 20-7, and 33-7.

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

Not sure if anybody else saw this.  Stevie thinks Tiger should have been DQ'd.

Steve Williams, who was on Woods' bag for a 12-year span that included 72 victories worldwide and 13 major championships, told 3 News in his native New Zealand that he didn't think Woods was "trying to gain anything on the field" but he should have been DQ'd nevertheless.

"From what I can gather, he took an illegal drop, signed a scorecard and left the course," Williams told the television station. "Under most circumstances that would result in disqualification. ... If the rules of golf are upheld, I believe he should have been disqualified."

No ax to grind here....

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

Steve Williams is either talking out of his ass with incomplete facts, or he has a poor understanding of the rules.

I wouldn't discount the possibility of both.....

Really? Steve Williams has a poor understanding of the rules? That's saying a lot for the most famous caddie on tour. Are there any other caddies that can say they won majors with more than one player?

This was a brand new rule, effectively, because they had never utilized it before, and my guess is its going to be quite a while before its enforced again, unless Tiger signs another bad score card anytime soon in the future.

Face it, the masters head honchos made this decision because they knew it would be bad for the tournament not to have Tiger playing the weekend. End of story.

It is NOT a new rule.  It's been on the books since the 1950's at least.

[geoffmangum]

Okay, the Masters rules guys did not follow Decision 33-7/4.5, which says waiver of the DQ is only when the golfer could not have reasonably been aware of what he did that violated the rules. Instead, you guys claim the Masters rules folk had authority under the Rules to waive the DQ because they did not mislead Tiger, or because they should have gotten the penalty assessed before he signed his card, and hence he would have been saved from signing for a wrong score.

With all due respect, that's just silly. The existing Decisions when the rules folk screw up and later reverse themselves all involve the case where the first mistaken ruling misleads the player and causes the player innocently to sign for a wrong score. (Read them if you doubt this.) NO Decision authorizes waiver when the rules folk failed to mislead the player and the player was NOT signing a wrong score in reliance upon the mistaken ruling that later gets reversed.

That means the above rationale is total bunk. Decision 33-7/4.5 applies and says explicitly that waiver cannot be given, and ALSO the existing Decisions say that waiver is not available UNLESS the rules people actively CAUSED the player to sign for an incorrect score.

If you follow the non-logic of this claimed justification for waiver, waiver of the DQ is given whenever the rules folk mistakenly rule no violation occurs and the player in fact violated the rules and signs for a wrong score and then the rules folk reverse themselves to say quite rightly that they got things wrong and the player in fact violated the Rules and signed for an incorrect score, and THEREFORE it is "unfair" to the golfer to apply the usual rule of DQ for signing for a wrong score. That means DQ as required by Rule 6-6 will never apply unless the rules folk didn't know anything about the violation before the player signed the card. That's just stupid, since the player is responsible for his score on every hole AND for making sure he follows the rules.

The Masters precedent now means that DQ will NEVER be applied if the rules official heard anything about the violation before the player signs his card. Never. And that is clearly NOT the way the Rules are written. If the rules official correctly rules a violation occurs and informs the player, the player will not sign for an incorrect card. If the rules official determines incorrectly that no violation occurs and informs the player of this ruling, the rules official causes the player to sign for a wrong score, so no DQ will be appropriate. But as here, if the rules official determines incorrectly that no violation occurs and FAILS to inform the player of this ruling, any DQ is waived also because the rules people COULD HAVE helped the player not sign for a wrong score but failed to do so.

If that's the precedent, shame on these folk. If the rules folk had not learned of any possible violation before a player signs the card, THAT PLAYER gets DQ'd. But if the rules people screw up, THAT PLAYER does not get DQ'd. I find that position illogical, unfair, corrosive to the integrity of the game, undercutting the sanctity of the Rules, stupid, and shameful.

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by geoffmangum

The Masters precedent now means that DQ will NEVER be applied if the rules official heard anything about the violation before the player signs his card. Never. And that is clearly NOT the way the Rules are written. If the rules official correctly rules a violation occurs and informs the player, the player will not sign for an incorrect card. If the rules official determines incorrectly that no violation occurs and informs the player of this ruling, the rules official causes the player to sign for a wrong score, so no DQ will be appropriate. But as here, if the rules official determines incorrectly that no violation occurs and FAILS to inform the player of this ruling, any DQ is waived also because the rules people COULD HAVE helped the player not sign for a wrong score but failed to do so.

If that's the precedent, shame on these folk. If the rules folk had not learned of any possible violation before a player signs the card, THAT PLAYER gets DQ'd. But if the rules people screw up, THAT PLAYER does not get DQ'd. I find that position illogical, unfair, corrosive to the integrity of the game, undercutting the sanctity of the Rules, stupid, and shameful.

Geoff you've pretty much got the logic of it (although you're calling it non-logic). The committee became involved prior to Tiger signing his card, and if they hadn't made a mistake he would have added the penalty before signing his card and there wouldn't have been an issue. The principle they're operating under is that the player should not be penalised for the committee's mistake. Do you really believe that the deciding factor between whether Tiger receives a 2 shot penalty or is DQed should be the actions of the committee?

Where you still haven't quite caught on is that this isn't a precedent, Lee Janzen received the same ruling at the US Open in 2001. The decision 33-7/4.5 didn't exist then, and isn't relevant now to this particular issue. It may read that way if you take that one paragraph out of the context of the entire decision, but read the whole decision and it's pretty clear what is meant and why it doesn't apply to Tiger's case.