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

[sacm3bill]

The question of move, didn't move, resulting penalty, what ever. That is in the rules of golf and at that level must be followed without question. The part that burns my backside worse than a three foot flame is all the outside intervention. That should be stopped. It's not allowed in any other sport...

Other sports have referees and judges constantly watching all the action. Professional golf tournaments have something like 1 rules official every 3 holes.

Maybe you'd prefer that rules violations go unnoticed, but I guarantee the rest of the field would not be cool with that.

[Hooterlew]

I do not condone intentional cheating. However, the game of golf is on your honor and it depends on the players policing themselves. I think they do a pretty good job of that as a whole. I personally don't believe Tiger was trying to cheat and a lot of my opinion is based again on the fact it is a sport of honor and I believe he is a person of honor out of respect for the sport. I also think anyone can make a bad call, which was apparently the case with Tiger, but it also happens in those sports that have all the referees, judges, monitors and the like. It's being human and humans make mistakes in judgement. We need to live with it and play the game the way it was intended to be played.

[newtogolf]

I do not condone intentional cheating. However, the game of golf is on your honor and it depends on the players policing themselves. I think they do a pretty good job of that as a whole. I personally don't believe Tiger was trying to cheat and a lot of my opinion is based again on the fact it is a sport of honor and I believe he is a person of honor out of respect for the sport. I also think anyone can make a bad call, which was apparently the case with Tiger, but it also happens in those sports that have all the referees, judges, monitors and the like. It's being human and humans make mistakes in judgement. We need to live with it and play the game the way it was intended to be played.

I think Tiger is a great golfer and if you check my other posts you'll see I defend him most of the time.  That said, I don't know that I'd call Tiger a person of honor, given he cheated on his wife and mother of his kids.  Did he see the ball move, he says he saw it oscillate, granted it didn't move much, but given there was a possibility it did, he could have called a 1 shot penalty on himself and asked for a ruling on placement, instead he chose to ignore it.

We've seen other golfers call less obvious infractions on themselves so maybe it's good viewers and other camera crews are around just to make everyone is playing by the same rules.

[rkim291968]

So you don't believe that a ball that's moved in violation of the rules should be replaced?

No, that's not where I was going.  I think you are putting words in my mouth.  I am just pointing out that some golf rules seem to be harsh and don't fit the crime. If the rule says the ball needs to be replaced, it should be.   The rules are there to follow.   I am advocating that the rules need to be modified in the future.   If the ball didn't move enough to make any difference, and official and playing partner agree, how about changing the rule so that the ball does not have to move and there is no penalty stroke?  That is all I am saying.

[Golfingdad]

Hooter, or anyone else who is against anyone pointing out penalties, I have but one simple question to ask you:

Why does it matter WHO sees the infraction if an infraction occurs?

Other sports aren't self-officiated. When that fails… then what?

When you ask the question like this, the answer is obvious ... it doesn't matter who sees it.  The only problem with this line of thinking, though, is that it's not equitable.  Yes, it's good to have the penalty called on Tiger when Tiger deserves it, no matter who makes the call, but if it's not called equally on everybody, then, well, that isn't really fair, is it?  What I mean by that is simply that Tiger, and to almost the same extent, Rory, Phil, and a handful of others are under a microscope, with virtually every shot of theirs on television.  Ken Duke?  Not so much.

If this exact same scenario played out Friday with 30, 40 or maybe even 50 or more of the other players who are barely shown on TV then nobody would bat an eye (because nobody would have seen it).  They would have "gotten away with it" so to speak.  So I don't really see it as "protecting the field" when there are only 15-20, maybe 25% of the guys in the tournament who the field is being protected from.

I know it's a little bit of a silly analogy but ... Imagine if they played a tournament where for whatever reason they had no TV coverage.  Let's just say that the tournament got rained out and pushed back a day to Monday and the network had to pack up and move on to get ready for the big major the next week.  So in the morning they have a players meeting and they inform them that there are no TV cameras, and that there are 6 rules officials on site.  But instead of having them scattered throughout the course like normal, they are each going to only follow one of the marquee players for the entire round, watch them like a hawk, and make sure they don't screw up.  The rest of the field is on the honor system.

Anyways, that said, I'm not really against it per se, but I can appreciate the view of those that are.

[rkim291968]

When you ask the question like this, the answer is obvious ... it doesn't matter who sees it.  The only problem with this line of thinking, though, is that it's not equitable.  Yes, it's good to have the penalty called on Tiger when Tiger deserves it, no matter who makes the call, but if it's not called equally on everybody, then, well, that isn't really fair, is it?  What I mean by that is simply that Tiger, and to almost the same extent, Rory, Phil, and a handful of others are under a microscope, with virtually every shot of theirs on television.  Ken Duke?  Not so much.

If this exact same scenario played out Friday with 30, 40 or maybe even 50 or more of the other players who are barely shown on TV then nobody would bat an eye (because nobody would have seen it).  They would have "gotten away with it" so to speak.  So I don't really see it as "protecting the field" when there are only 15-20, maybe 25% of the guys in the tournament who the field is being protected from.

I know it's a little bit of a silly analogy but ... Imagine if they played a tournament where for whatever reason they had no TV coverage.  Let's just say that the tournament got rained out and pushed back a day to Monday and the network had to pack up and move on to get ready for the big major the next week.  So in the morning they have a players meeting and they inform them that there are no TV cameras, and that there are 6 rules officials on site.  But instead of having them scattered throughout the course like normal, they are each going to only follow one of the marquee players for the entire round, watch them like a hawk, and make sure they don't screw up.  The rest of the field is on the honor system.

Anyways, that said, I'm not really against it per se, but I can appreciate the view of those that areI

Well said.

BTW, golf on TV is no longer a self officiating game.   Any one of millions of viewers can call in for a rule infraction.   That amplifies inequity aforementioned.

[sacm3bill]

...Anyways, that said, I'm not really against it per se, but I can appreciate the view of those that are.

Yeah, but that view is: "Since we can't police every player, no player should be accountable for any rules infractions".  I think that's worse than the current situation, where some players are a bit more in the spotlight than others. After all, they know they're in the spotlight, so should know to be more careful. And all they need to do is know the rules and play by them, and we'd never even hear about rules violations.

Plus, there are perks to being in the spotlight that make up for the heightened scrutiny, such as fewer lost balls, and help with moving those 2-ton loose impediments. (I'm referring to the Tiger boulder incident.)

[Golfingdad]

Anyways, that said, I'm not really against it per se, but I can appreciate the view of those that are.

Yeah, but that view is: "Since we can't police every player, no player should be accountable for any rules infractions".  I think that's worse than the current situation, where some players are a bit more in the spotlight than others. After all, they know they're in the spotlight, so should know to be more careful. And all they need to do is know the rules and play by them, and we'd never even hear about rules violations.

Plus, there are perks to being in the spotlight that make up for the heightened scrutiny, such as fewer lost balls, and help with moving those 2-ton loose impediments. (I'm referring to the Tiger boulder incident.)

Which is basically why I said I'm not against it.  I am against it in the sense that I, personally, would never call in to report an infraction.  But I'm not against the idea of them (to use the language they use in football and baseball when discussion instant replay) "getting it right."

Also, good point about the inequities (boulder removal services) in Tiger's favor.

---------------------------------

Kind of amused to hear Tiger steadfast in his opinion that his ball only oscillated.  I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it's because he has never watched the video and is still basing his opinion on the incident from only his point of view.  I'd be quite surprised at anybody who actually sees the video and yet still claims the ball didn't move.

[luu5]

I don't think so.....

18-2. By Player, Partner, Caddie Or Equipment

a. General

Except as permitted by the Rules, when a player’s ball is in play, if

(i) the player, his partner or either of their caddies:

• lifts or moves the ball,

• touches it purposely (except with a club in the act of addressing the ball), or

• causes the ball to move, or

(ii) the equipment of the player or his partner causes the ball to move,

the player incurs a penalty of one stroke.

If the ball is moved, it must be replaced, unless the movement of the ball occurs after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of the club for the stroke and the stroke is made.

Please read to the end of the rule 18-2:

*PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE:

Match play - Loss of hole; Stroke play - Two strokes.

*If a player who is required to replace a ball fails to do so, or if he makes a stroke at a ball substituted under Rule 18 when such substitution is not permitted, he incurs the general penalty for breach of Rule 18, but there is no additional penalty under this Rule.

[Zeph]

Obviously, replacing the ball in such a situation isn't that important. When it moves a few millimeters, you can probably not get it in the exact same place again in this situation. What matters is that you acknowledge the ball moving, give yourself a penalty and at least try to replace it.

If the ball moved 30 cm, it would be easier to replace it, and the move would make more of a difference, but how would you differentiate this in the rules? How do you legalize a small move? You are already "allowed" to move the ball a little, as long as it doesn't oscillate, meaning it moves, but falls back in it's original spot.

It is "unfair" that the most popular players are prone to be more exposed than others, but a broken rule is a broken rule. If it's spotted, good. If other players also "cheat" (on purpose or not), it's not a good thing, but they can't have surveillance cameras on them all.

I'm also disappointed with Tiger. As Erik mentioned, Tiger has had a lot of rules issues this year, and he has always seemed as one of the more knowledgeable on the topic. Moving a twig lying that close to your ball is always a risk. This stuff has hurt Tiger this year. He may have given away a chance at The Masters and BMW. Without the penalties, he would've been two behind the leader.

[iacas]

However, the game of golf is on your honor and it depends on the players policing themselves. I think they do a pretty good job of that as a whole.

And when they fail, then what? And we're talking about a situation in which they didn't do a pretty good job of that.

I personally don't believe Tiger was trying to cheat and a lot of my opinion is based again on the fact it is a sport of honor and I believe he is a person of honor out of respect for the sport.

"Cheating" is not really the same as violating the rules. "Cheating" has the connotation of TRYING to break the rules and get away with it. Tiger incurred a rules violation; he didn't really "cheat."

The only problem with this line of thinking, though, is that it's not equitable.

The world's not equitable. I'm sure golfers are aware of this. :-)

Additionally, the leaders on the weekend are typically televised. It's not right (it's not particularly wrong either), but it's not terrible if someone who was going to finish T42 accidentally gets away with something and finishes T39 instead.

but if it's not called equally on everybody, then, well, that isn't really fair, is it?

I would say it's more fair than letting known offenses go without penalty.

Anyways, that said, I'm not really against it per se, but I can appreciate the view of those that are.

I've yet to be swayed to even see much of the other side. The "other sports" analogy falls on deaf ears to me for several reasons (I believe listed above), and the "but it's not fair" one does as well.

[k-troop]

I think most would agree with this: when the ball moves so minimally that reasonable people can disagree about whether it moved at all, even after reviewing close-up film in slow motion, assessing an additional penalty for failing to "replace" the ball is absurd.

[iacas]

I think most would agree with this: when the ball moves so minimally that reasonable people can disagree about whether it moved at all, even after reviewing close-up film in slow motion, assessing an additional penalty for failing to "replace" the ball is absurd.

I don't, because I've yet to see a rule written in such a way. If the ball moves half an inch, does it need replaced? What about a quarter of an inch? How do you measure that?

As it is, you could consider the extra stroke penalty almost a sort of "shame on you for not calling the original penalty on yourself."

P.S. I could consider a blanket two-shot penalty for causing your ball to move, and you play it where it lies, but I said "could consider" because I haven't given it much thought, and it too may be full of holes and possible issues. For example, picking up your ball and chucking it out of a hazard is "causing your ball to move" too. In other words, the "plays from a wrong place" rule is still important. So see, I've already talked myself out of it. :)

[k-troop]

I don't, because I've yet to see a rule written in such a way. If the ball moves half an inch, does it need replaced? What about a quarter of an inch? How do you measure that? As it is, you could consider the extra stroke penalty almost a sort of "shame on you for not calling the original penalty on yourself." P.S. I could consider a blanket two-shot penalty for causing your ball to move, and you play it where it lies, but I said "could consider" because I haven't given it much thought, and it too may be full of holes and possible issues. For example, picking up your ball and chucking it out of a hazard is "causing your ball to move" too. In other words, the "plays from a wrong place" rule is still important. So see, I've already talked myself out of it. :)

It takes human judgment, of course. It took human judgment to determine that Tiger's ball moved, even when reasonable people looking at the same evidence could disagree. Those same people could determine that "the ball moved so slightly that it could not accurately be replaced and the player has received no apparent advantage from the new ball position."

[Parker0065]

I agree with the penalty and to my eyes it definitely changes positions.

I do not think in any way that Tiger is a cheater but he has had some interesting situations this year with the Masters Drop and now this. I'm not a Tiger fan so I found the whole Masters drop rather funny with Tiger throwing himself under the bus, and that was clearly a situation where he didn't know or remember the rule.

On this situation I'll also give Tiger a pass(I must be feeling charitable today) because the ball did just barely move maybe 1cm or less and viewing it on camera is much easier than seeing it happen once in real time.

I get it that Tiger is on camera more than anyone but there are many, many more self imposed penalties taken that never make it on camera. I can't say that there is absolutely no cheating ever on the PGA Tour but I think it's pretty rare over all! This is their livelihood and their careers. At my job our rules and regulations are about 10 times thicker than the rules of golf booklet and in our industry there is zero tolerance for violations followed by heavy financial penalties and government investigations. When it's your career on the line whether it's operating the power grid or playing on the PGA Tour you are going to do everything in your power to protect yourself by following the rules. I think the PGA Tour players do a great job over all and most penalties handed out are either from the player not knowing/understanding the rule, or something that may be difficult to see without slow motion camera's. Just like the situation with C. Peterson a few years ago at the PGA when he brushed a leaf on his backswing in a hazard. Most players would not have noticed that in the course of making a shot!

[skywaterbanjo]

I, too, think sometimes the rules are harsh but, they are there for a reason.  If not enforced across the board, there is too much room for interpretation.  These rules, I believe, have been developed over many years and many experiences.

I believe the penalty is appropriate.

[k-troop]

I do not think in any way that Tiger is a cheater but he has had some interesting situations this year with the Masters Drop and now this.

Somewhat OT, but Tiger's improper drop at the Masters was inexcusable.  That is a simple rule that just about every golfer knows; a professional with nearly 80 Tour wins and 14 majors, playing in a Major Championship, should never make that mistake.  In that situation it should almost be presumed that the player intentionally or recklessly disregarded the rules.  I'm not saying Tiger tried to cheat to improve his position, but the rules for what constitutes a proper drop are so simple and invoked so frequently that failure to follow them out of "ignorance" seems incredible.

[luu5]

Somewhat OT, but Tiger's improper drop at the Masters was inexcusable.  That is a simple rule that just about every golfer knows; a professional with nearly 80 Tour wins and 14 majors, playing in a Major Championship, should never make that mistake.

The same rule was also broken by European team and rules officials (who should know the rules) at Solheim cup. I am not saying it is very difficult rule, but for some reason it happened again.