The 2013 Masters/Tiger Drop Penalty and Fallout

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

So the rules do not contemplate anyone obtaining an advantage of more than one stroke from playing a ball from the wrong place? Have to say that for me the advantage in playing from the wrong place can be 3+ strokes.

[David in FL]

So the rules do not contemplate anyone obtaining an advantage of more than one stroke from playing a ball from the wrong place? Have to say that for me the advantage in playing from the wrong place can be 3+ strokes.

In which case you may very well be found to be in serious breach and could be subject to disqualification. Time to break out the rule book and spend a little time with it Tom...... ;-)

[Ernest Jones]

So the rules do not contemplate anyone obtaining an advantage of more than one stroke from playing a ball from the wrong place? Have to say that for me the advantage in playing from the wrong place can be 3+ strokes.

Playing from the fringe instead of the tee?

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

Time to break out the rule book and spend a little time with it Tom......

:)

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ole_Tom_Morris

So the rules do not contemplate anyone obtaining an advantage of more than one stroke from playing a ball from the wrong place? Have to say that for me the advantage in playing from the wrong place can be 3+ strokes.

Only the committee can determine whether a serious breach has been committed.  Then the player must have corrected his mistake before playing from the next tee or he is disqualified.  In this case a couple of yards is not a serious breach.  That clause is intended to be used if the player gains a significant advantage by dropping well ahead of his correct spot, or takes a tree or other difficult situation out of the shot with his incorrect drop.  In most cases, the 2 stroke penalty is sufficient to balance the mistake.  This was actually discussed during my last USGA Rules Workshop and what Tiger did would never be considered as a serious breach.

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

Well, say the ball was on a hillside lie and was hit into the pond. Say anywhere you drop the ball close behind the original divot was also on a hillside. Say a golfer drops 10 feet back where the ground is more level. The golfer obtains a better lie and may save several strokes, since the second shot played from the right place could find the pond again, or another hazard -- whereas the penalty is only 2 strokes for dropping on level ground. Not a situation Tiger would be in -- he can do fine on hillsides, etc.-- but some of us in ordinary non-tournament play? Btw, my copy of the Rules is from 1990. Rule 20-7 has been reworded since then and is now clearer about the 2 stroke penalty.

[Mordan]

Well, say the ball was on a hillside lie and was hit into the pond. Say anywhere you drop the ball close behind the original divot was also on a hillside. Say a golfer drops 10 feet back where the ground is more level. The golfer obtains a better lie and may save several strokes, since the second shot played from the right place could find the pond again, or another hazard -- whereas the penalty is only 2 strokes for dropping on level ground. Not a situation Tiger would be in -- he can do fine on hillsides, etc.-- but some of us in ordinary non-tournament play? Btw, my copy of the Rules is from 1990. Rule 20-7 has been reworded since then and is now clearer about the 2 stroke penalty.

Golfer A could take the correct drop, bunt the ball back 10 feet to the flat ground and still be one shot better off than Golfer B who dropped in the wrong place and took a 2 shot penalty. So I think it's pretty hard to argue that Golfer B has gained an advantage over Golfer A due to his incorrect drop once he's been penalised two strokes.

[zeg]

There's no reason to bring these hypotheticals into play here, because that doesn't describe what happened. Tiger did not gain a major advantage by dropping in the wrong place, so it doesn't matter what would have happened if he had.

Mordan is probably right that you'd be better off with the bunt, but I think a committee would still be justified in finding that dropping in the wrong place conferred a DQ-able advantage. The rule doesn't specify that it has to have been a greater than 2-stroke advantage, just that it has to be a serious breach. Intentionally dropping in a wrong place to obtain a significantly better lie is pretty inarguably a serious breach.

But that's OT here. As was correctly stated above, the final score was recorded fully according to the rules. A hole played with an improper drop, together with the associated penalty strokes, is a hole that was played according to the rules. No reason to get metaphysical.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by zeg

There's no reason to bring these hypotheticals into play here, because that doesn't describe what happened. Tiger did not gain a major advantage by dropping in the wrong place, so it doesn't matter what would have happened if he had.

Mordan is probably right that you'd be better off with the bunt, but I think a committee would still be justified in finding that dropping in the wrong place conferred a DQ-able advantage. The rule doesn't specify that it has to have been a greater than 2-stroke advantage, just that it has to be a serious breach. Intentionally dropping in a wrong place to obtain a significantly better lie is pretty inarguably a serious breach.

I think you'd be surprised at the answer to that.  It takes a major screw-up to be considered a significant breach.   That is straight from the USGA instructor at a rules workshop.  You have to gain a huge advantage from your breach to have the committee call it a DQ-able offense.  The 2 stroke penalty covers just about any normally conceivable advantage from dropping incorrectly.  The intent behind the rule is to cover the scenario where the player fails to carry a 150 yard pond (or rolls back in at a point marked with yellow stakes), then drops on the green side instead of going back across, or some such similar gross advantage of distance gained by the improper drop.  It is specifically not aimed at additionally penalizing a lie improvement.

[Dormie1360]

Here is some more guidance on a Serious Breach.

28/10

Ball Dropped Outside Bunker Under Option Requiring Drop in Bunker

Q. In stroke play, a competitor deems his ball unplayable in a bunker and, purporting to proceed under Rule 28b or 28c , drops a ball outside the bunker and plays it. What is the ruling?

A. In this case, Rules 28b and 28c require that a ball be dropped in and played from the bunker. Generally, if the ball is played from outside the bunker, the penalty should be disqualification for a serious breach of Rule 28 , unless rectified under Rule 20-7c . However, if the position of the ball after it is dropped out of the bunker is not substantially different from what it would have been if the competitor had invoked the stroke-and-distance option under Rule 28a , he incurs the penalty stroke prescribed by Rule 28 and an additional penalty of two strokes for a breach of that Rule, rather than disqualification

Also, what is a SB in stroke play may not always be a SB in Match Play.  In match play your advantage is limited to winning one hole against one person.  In stroke play your advantage could be multiple strokes against the entire field.

1-2/0.5

Serious Breach of Rule 1-2

Q. Should the standard for determining whether a serious breach of Rule 1-2 has occurred be the same in match play and stroke play?

A. In deciding whether a player has committed a serious breach of Rule 1-2 , the Committee should consider all aspects of the incident. Given the different impact on players in match play and stroke play, it is possible for the same act to constitute a serious breach of Rule 1-2 in stroke play but not in match play. In many cases in match play (e.g., a player who intentionally stops his ball from entering a water hazard), a penalty of loss of hole is sufficient while in stroke play the player should be disqualified for a serious breach. In some cases (e.g., the purposeful act of damaging the line of putt referred to in Decision 1-2/1 ), a penalty of disqualification in match play may be appropriate. (Revised)

[sacm3bill]

I've been asking a question in the latest Thrash Talk article but no one has yet ventured an answer. Perhaps this thread is a better place, both for on-topicness and since I think it'll get more visibility.

With respect to Tiger's drop, I'd like to know what the ruling would be in a slightly different scenario. Let's say the committee decided upon viewing the drop that there *had* been a violation. They decide they want to speak with Tiger about it before he signs his card. However they were not not alerted to the issue and/or were unable to view the footage until Tiger was walking up the steps to the scorer's table. As a result they are unable to reach Tiger before he signs his card.

DQ or no DQ?

P.S. If any mods think this is off topic I'll gladly start a new thread. It just seems very closely related to the ruling Tiger got.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I've been asking a question in the latest Thrash Talk article but no one has yet ventured an answer. Perhaps this thread is a better place, both for on-topicness and since I think it'll get more visibility.

With respect to Tiger's drop, I'd like to know what the ruling would be in a slightly different scenario. Let's say the committee decided upon viewing the drop that there *had* been a violation. They decide they want to speak with Tiger about it before he signs his card. However they were not not alerted to the issue and/or were unable to view the footage until Tiger was walking up the steps to the scorer's table. As a result they are unable to reach Tiger before he signs his card.

DQ or no DQ?

P.S. If any mods think this is off topic I'll gladly start a new thread. It just seems very closely related to the ruling Tiger got.

I'm not one of the rules experts here, but I will venture a guess.  (Well, actually two).  Since the waiving of the DQ was based on the fact they made their ruling prior to him signing without talking to him, and in this case, surely they have made no ruling ... then I think it would certainly warrant a DQ.

Of course, they would presumably get to him BEFORE he gives his incriminating interview so he might realize what they're asking of him and downplay it.  All he'd have to say is "I dropped where I thought I'd last played from" and that would be the end of it.  No penalty, no controversy.

[Dormie1360]

In your case DQ if he signed his card and it was turned in. 33-7 would not be used.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

... I think it would certainly warrant a DQ.

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

In your case DQ if he signed his card and it was turned in. 33-7 would not be used.

Yeah, I agree with you guys, and that's why I have a problem with the rationale used to waive the DQ in both Janzen's and Tiger's cases. I don't think there should ever be the possibility of a DQ hinging solely on random timing factors like how fast someone can review footage and make a radio call, and/or sprint to stop a player from signing.

Furthermore, using the rationale of the ruling that was made for Tiger, the implication is that if a walking rules official had been with Tiger's group, and saw no issue with Tiger's drop (reasonable, since the rules committee initially did not), then that walking official would've been in the same position as the rules committee, who reviewed the footage and saw no issue. Thus, Tiger's DQ would've still been waived for the same reason (rules official saw it and had a chance to address it but did not). Which means we're now making walking rules officials responsible for seeing and catching every violation any player in the group might potentially make.  Do we really want that?

Certainly if a player calls an official over to make a ruling , they are in the clear from then on regardless of whether the ruling was correct or not. But the above hypothetical is different than that (just as what actually happened is different), in that Tiger never asked for a ruling. The DQ was waived based on an "implicit" ruling that existed because the improper drop was observed but the player was not told they had done something wrong.  Again, is it the responsibility of an official to catch any and all violations? That has not been the case before, and for good reason: A walking rules official can't possibly see everything, so in the absence of a rules official telling a player "You're good", in response to a direct question asked by the player, the ultimate responsibility for following the rules lies on the player.

So, IMO it would be better (in that it takes all the random timing factors out of the equation, and also does not make rules officials responsible for the impossible task of catching *every* infraction that *any* player might make), if the players were ultimately responsible for knowing whether they committed a violation, regardless of a rules committee that may or may not be alerted to it, and who may or may not have the opportunity to address it with the player before the instant they sign their card.

(Unless the player had no way of knowing they committed a violation... i.e., something only visible in hi-def  - but of course there is a rule that covers that, which does not apply here.)

[bplewis24]

For what it's worth, I disagree that the hypothetical situation would result in a DQ.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

For what it's worth, I disagree that the hypothetical situation would result in a DQ.

But why is that? Because an attempt was made to contact the player even though it was not successful? If so, then how do you make the determination as to when the attempt would be too late? Is it when the committee is not alerted until after the player has signed? (There are certainly rules and precedence requiring a DQ in that case). If so, then the committee needs to somehow correlate the instant they were alerted (or the instant at which they made a ruling, if you want to do it that way), with the instant the player signed the card. So you're still getting into cases where not only do those instants need to be accurately known, but where random timing still comes into play. Do you think that's acceptable?

[Mordan]

In the Janzen case the rules official clearly witnessed Janzen wiping the grass (altering his stance or lie) but failed to recognise that it was a rules violation. As the official had all the information to make the correct ruling at the time but failed to do so the committee decided it met the requirement for 33-7. If there is an official with the group but he does not witness the incident in such a way as for him to have the information required to make a correct ruling and the player does not request a ruling then it will be a DQ. The use of 33-7 in both the Janzen and Tiger cases is to ensure that mistakes by the committee or officials do not affect the outcome of the event.

[Mordan]

But why is that? Because an attempt was made to contact the player even though it was not successful? If so, then how do you make the determination as to when the attempt would be too late? Is it when the committee is not alerted until after the player has signed? (There are certainly rules and precedence requiring a DQ in that case). If so, then the committee needs to somehow correlate the instant they were alerted (or the instant at which they made a ruling, if you want to do it that way), with the instant the player signed the card. So you're still getting into cases where not only do those instants need to be accurately known, but where random timing still comes into play. Do you think that's acceptable?

When the committee is alerted that there may be an issue they will look at where the player is on the course and if there won't be time to look into it before the player reaches the scorers hut then they will call the scorers and ask them to hold the player. That will take maybe 1 minute. It's a pretty small window in which the committee will hear of an issue but not be able to stop the player leaving the scorers hut. How often is that going to happen?