Tiger's Two-Stroke Penalty at 2013 BMW Championship?

[iacas]

Simpson's actions 5 minutes ago stand in contrast to Tiger's actions last week. Isn't it obvious, Erik, that this is what people see? The contrast between how Tiger handled his ball moving and how Simpson handled it?

Sorry to state the obvious, but here goes: Simpson saw his ball move, Tiger didn't.

It's pure conjecture on your part that:

a) Tiger actually saw his ball move but ignored it.

b) Tiger wouldn't call a penalty on himself if he saw his ball move.

[9iron]

You are obviously correct also that I can 't prove Tiger saw his ball move, but I still believe it.

[iacas]

You are obviously correct also that I can 't prove Tiger saw his ball move, but I still believe it.

I'm fine with that. :)

[Valleygolfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

9iron, this discussion is not about things from 5+ years ago. This has been said before, but I'm giving you another chance to see it.

Well enough. Here is something related from 5 minutes ago on the broadcast of the Tour Championship. Webb Simpson's tee shot on hole 7 landed in the right rough. As they showed his approach shot they said "this is shot #3. Apparently Simpson's ball moved, he called a rules official and was assessed a 1 stroke penalty". They did not show the ball move, which I assume means they did not have film of it. So Simpson, with no cameras on him, not knowing one way or another if anyone saw his ball move, personally calls in the rules official and reports the occurrence. The penalty was self reported.

Simpson's actions 5 minutes ago stand in contrast to Tiger's actions last week. Isn't it obvious, Erik, that this is what people see? The contrast between how Tiger handled his ball moving and how Simpson handled it?

Or after seeing last weeks fiasco, he didn't want to chance it or it also shows "meanwhile" there is another golfer on the course, not getting filmed addressing the ball or wiping his ass for that matter.

[mp33 man]

9iron, this discussion is not about things from 5+ years ago. This has been said before, but I'm giving you another chance to see it.

When trying to make an argument or assess someone's actions, integrity or honesty many things are permissible, including past actions, especially actions of the same subject matter (applying the wrong ruling when you obviously have a very good understanding of the rules). I don't exactly think that Tiger is necessarily a man of character but in this case you have to assume that he saw what he said he saw, otherwise our whole system for rule enforcement in the game of golf is bunk. Not to mention that, once again, it took a hi-def slow-mo camera shot to prove that the ball did in fact "move", and even then some people don't believe that it "moved".

[mp33 man]

Or after seeing last weeks fiasco, he didn't want to chance it or it also shows "meanwhile" there is another golfer on the course, not getting filmed addressing the ball or wiping his ass for that matter.

I would maybe agree with you if Webb had never made such a ruling in himself...

[Perfect Slicer]

This was discussed over over ...

http://thesandtrap.com/t/70042/finchem-says-pga-tour-is-studying-call-in-rules-violations/60_30#post_899024

There are a handful of posts that talk about it in that thread (mostly between "rulesman" and "rusty") that at least kinda answer your question.

Personally, it seems to me that the correct decision from a rules official who Tiger calls over AFTER he touches the twig would be to tell him to invoke rule 3-3 and finish the hole out with 2 balls, choose the one he thinks is right, then if evidence comes up later that it isn't, then he'll still get the 1 stroke penalty for moving the ball, but not the other stroke for not replacing it.

If the rules official actually said "you're good - no penalty" then I would hope that Tiger would also still only get the 1 stroke penalty.

Here's where I get lost in the intent of the rules. I am by no means a rules expert and am looking for expert knowledge. I am easily confused, so be kind.

Lets say when a stick was moved, the ball settled 1/16" and rotated a few degrees. Lets also assue the player is being totally honest in his mind and not trying to scam the rules. The player says the ball just oscillated, but wants to play it safe and proceeds as described above. He plays the original ball as it lies, playing as if it just oscillated. The offending stick is still in front of his ball, and the lie is still pretty nasty.  Now, you say he can play a second ball. Here is where I am confused. Is the intent that he places a ball as near as possible to the original spot with a 1 stroke penalty? Now the original spot is totally disrupted by the previous swing. Sticks are gone and there is probably a big divot. Where is the ball placed? Or is it dropped as close as possible. Either way, the lie is nothing like the original lie would be. So now he plays a shot from a cleaner lie with a 1 stroke penalty. This leads me to another 2 questions:

First, lets say that the original shot got dumped in a bunker, and it took 3 more to get in the hole. Double bogey. The second shot with the 1 stroke penalty (and a better lie) ends up 1 ft from the pin. Bogey. Film is reviewed after the round and found that the ball did in fact move. Is the score adjusted -1?

Second, lets say the ball moved, and the player see's it and even though he's not 100% sure it didn't just oscillate, he calls a 1 stroke penalty on himself. Again, being totally honest. He is supposed to replace the ball back to its original position, correct? The stick is still there, and the lie still sucks. He still dumps it in a bunker and takes 3 to get in. Double bogey. Why would he not then want to proceed under the first scenario, and say its possible the ball only oscillated, play 2 balls, and hope for a better outcome with a better lie? He is being honest, but playing within the rules.

[Gripit]

Did the ball move? Tiger: "it oscillated." Oscillate: to swing or MOVE to and fro; to CAUSE TO MOVE to and fro. He moved stuff from around his ball so he could make purer contact. He caused his ball to MOVE by doing that. Penalty.

[Perfect Slicer]

Did the ball move? Tiger: "it oscillated."

Oscillate: to swing or MOVE to and fro; to CAUSE TO MOVE to and fro.

He moved stuff from around his ball so he could make purer contact. He caused his ball to MOVE by doing that.

Penalty.

Um,

Oscillate- ball moves but returns to the original position. According to golf rules- No penalty.

Move- ball moves and ends up in a new position. According to golf rules- Penalty.

[jamo]

Did the ball move? Tiger: "it oscillated." Oscillate: to swing or MOVE to and fro; to CAUSE TO MOVE to and fro. He moved stuff from around his ball so he could make purer contact. He caused his ball to MOVE by doing that. Penalty.

:doh:

[Gripit]

ouch! you mean I've been afraid of improving my chances of making better contact all these years because my ball might move if I removed a leaf, stick, stone, etc? As long as it moves back where it was it's ok? I know the rules about moveable obstructions and replacing a ball to where it was if it moves and the penalties involved. And I know a lot of you guys know the book a lot better than I do. Technically you are right, but I don't think that's really the spirit of the game. At least not in my view. I guess I'm just an old curmudgeon...If my ball moves when I clear stuff from around it I penalize myself. I'd rather play it as it lies if there's a chance it moves any direction...even if it's back and forth.

[iacas]

ouch! you mean I've been afraid of improving my chances of making better contact all these years because my ball might move if I removed a leaf, stick, stone, etc? As long as it moves back where it was it's ok?

I know the rules about moveable obstructions and replacing a ball to where it was if it moves and the penalties involved.

And I know a lot of you guys know the book a lot better than I do. Technically you are right, but I don't think that's really the spirit of the game. At least not in my view.

I guess I'm just an old curmudgeon...If my ball moves when I clear stuff from around it I penalize myself.

I'd rather play it as it lies if there's a chance it moves any direction...even if it's back and forth.

I believe the poster who responded to you was simply pointing out that the definition of "move" does not include oscillation per the Rules of Golf.

[bogeygolfer99]

I think it moved. An oscillation means the ball would have returned to its original position and I don't think it did. I think it's just another case of Woods trying to get away with something and avoid a penalty. It has become a habit with him; Masters drop, PGA Championship drop after hitting into the water from the tee, now this. Let's not forget that he's a confessed cheater. Ask Elin.

[Phil McGleno]

ANOTHER case? Name the first case. The Masters doesnt count because only an idiot would admit to it like he did after-In the press conference. Dubia doesnt count because he and his partners thought he could drop there-So when has he cheated and tried to get away with anything? PGA Championship? [quote name="bogeygolfer99" url="/t/69970/tigers-two-stroke-penalty-at-2013-bmw-championship/162#post_900208"]I think it moved. An oscillation means the ball would have returned to its original position and I don't think it did. I think it's just another case of Woods trying to get away with something and avoid a penalty. It has become a habit with him; Masters drop, PGA Championship drop after hitting into the water from the tee, now this. Let's not forget that he's a confessed cheater. Ask Elin. [/quote]

[k-troop]

I think Ask Elin.

Only four words in that post that matter. It's what he thinks, and why he thinks it.

[Perfect Slicer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perfect Slicer

Um,

Oscillate- ball moves but returns to the original position. According to golf rules- No penalty.

Move- ball moves and ends up in a new position. According to golf rules- Penalty.

ouch! you mean I've been afraid of improving my chances of making better contact all these years because my ball might move if I removed a leaf, stick, stone, etc? As long as it moves back where it was it's ok?

I know the rules about moveable obstructions and replacing a ball to where it was if it moves and the penalties involved.

And I know a lot of you guys know the book a lot better than I do. Technically you are right, but I don't think that's really the spirit of the game. At least not

I guess I'm just an old curmudgeon...If my ball moves when I clear stuff from around it I penalize myself.

I'd rather play it as it lies if there's a chance it moves any direction...even if it's back and forth.

My response didn't have anything to do with the decision to attempt to move obstructions. It only had to do with the results of whatever decision you make.

If you choose to move obstructions, there is a chance the ball will move away from the original position, and you will be penalized. You can take a chance or not. However, within the rules, you are allowed to attempt it, and if the ball does not move, or if the ball oscillates, you get an improved lie out of it. That is fully within the spirit of the game. I'm not sure why you seem so upset about that.

[Golfingdad]

Here's where I get lost in the intent of the rules. I am by no means a rules expert and am looking for expert knowledge. I am easily confused, so be kind.

Lets say when a stick was moved, the ball settled 1/16" and rotated a few degrees. Lets also assue the player is being totally honest in his mind and not trying to scam the rules. The player says the ball just oscillated, but wants to play it safe and proceeds as described above. He plays the original ball as it lies, playing as if it just oscillated. The offending stick is still in front of his ball, and the lie is still pretty nasty.  Now, you say he can play a second ball. Here is where I am confused. Is the intent that he places a ball as near as possible to the original spot with a 1 stroke penalty? Now the original spot is totally disrupted by the previous swing. Sticks are gone and there is probably a big divot. Where is the ball placed? Or is it dropped as close as possible. Either way, the lie is nothing like the original lie would be. So now he plays a shot from a cleaner lie with a 1 stroke penalty. This leads me to another 2 questions:

First, lets say that the original shot got dumped in a bunker, and it took 3 more to get in the hole. Double bogey. The second shot with the 1 stroke penalty (and a better lie) ends up 1 ft from the pin. Bogey. Film is reviewed after the round and found that the ball did in fact move. Is the score adjusted -1?

Second, lets say the ball moved, and the player see's it and even though he's not 100% sure it didn't just oscillate, he calls a 1 stroke penalty on himself. Again, being totally honest. He is supposed to replace the ball back to its original position, correct? The stick is still there, and the lie still sucks. He still dumps it in a bunker and takes 3 to get in. Double bogey. Why would he not then want to proceed under the first scenario, and say its possible the ball only oscillated, play 2 balls, and hope for a better outcome with a better lie? He is being honest, but playing within the rules.

I've asked what I consider to be a related question earlier on this thread (or perhaps the other related thread, I don't remember).  I think, in retrospect, it would be the smart move to play it safe and go with rule 3-3, however, you would still have to make a decision at the time about which you think is "more" correct.  My question was, if a video replay is used to penalize a player, why could it not also be used acquit a player.  If the player isn't sure and decides to play it safe and call the penalty, then the video makes it clear it only oscillated, then why shouldn't he get that stroke back?

Since (at least as far as I know) that option doesn't exist, then when a player feels the need to invoke 3-3, he is ALWAYS going to choose the one that is more beneficial to him at the time.  Meaning, if he's going with rule 3-3, that means he's unsure it moved, and he's always going to choose to play the ball that doesn't include the penalty stroke.  In your scenario, then the player would have saved a stroke, unless the video was unclear, in which case, he'd be stuck with his double.

Hopefully, Tiger (and everybody else, especially those marquee guys who know they are always on TV) learned something from this, which, I believe, will be to (just as a precaution) go with 3-3 in situations like this and eliminate any unnecessary penalty strokes.

[Gripit]

My response didn't have anything to do with the decision to attempt to move obstructions. It only had to do with the results of whatever decision you make.    If you choose to move obstructions, there is a chance the ball will move away from the original position, and you will be penalized. You can take a chance or not. However, within the rules, you are allowed to attempt it, and if the ball does not move, or if the ball oscillates, you get an improved lie out of it. That is fully within the spirit of the game. I'm not sure why you seem so upset about that.

Nope; thanks for clarifying because I must have misunderstood you. I figured if I can't keep it in play, I have to pay the price. Bad lie, tree roots, sticks, etc. You're right; it's your decision to chance it. I'm not a big risk taker.