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

[iacas]

The retro active enforcement of rules is ridiculous and should be stopped. Once the round is over and the cards have been signed that's it. The scores cannot be changed after the round. In the NBA, NFL, NHL etc. when there is a blown call, the league simply issues a statement admitting yes the mistake was made. They don't go back and change the score and manipulate the outcome. If he knew that the penalty had been assessed during the round perhaps he would have taken a completely different strategy and his score would have reflected that as well.

If he was caught or turned himself in while the round was going on then that's one thing, but for him to wake up the next morning and see that he was assessed a two stroke penalty is dumb.

See above.

References to other sports don't work.

[krupa]

I don't think TW needed any special equipment to observer that the ball did not stay still.  He used his own eyes and says he thought it oscillated.  And it seems pretty clear in the video to me that when the ball moved, he immediately reacted to it and stopped touching stuff.

I can't seem to load the video now to look at it again, I remember seeing ball jiggle, but wasn't sure that it changed position.  Presumably, even if the ball just oscillates he'd stop touching stuff because movement is imminent.

I'm not trying to defend TW (I already stated in an earlier post that he probably shouldn't have touched anything) so much as argue against the general use of high-technology to catch rule infractions that would not otherwise be observable .  ( And for the record, I hate instant replay in baseball.)

[kw purp]

See above.

References to other sports don't work.

How do you figure they don't work? In tennis, another individual sport, if a ball hit the line and the call is blown, then blown call is played on sportscenter after the match and we all see it was blown, the tournament committees don't go back and reverse the call. What's done is done.

Is every round going to have every second of it video reviewed after the round for penalties? Can I go back and watch the tape of Tiger's 3rd round in the masters and if I find a penalty that wasn't enforced I can call in and have his green jacket removed? No of course not, so why should it be any different after a tournament round.

Once the card is in and the score is posted it should be final. You and your opponent both had to sign to it's authenticity. It's not like someone else wasn't watching you during the round.

[Zeph]

How is this as an outcome from these kind of events?

Whenever a player (most likely one in the spotlight) is in a tricky situation and doesn't really know if he broke a rule or not. The oscillating ball is a good example. Without the camera, we only got Tiger's word for it. Next time he does something like this, would he stop playing and ask to see a replay of it, to determine if it moved or oscillated? If he thinks it oscillated, but is afraid of having the same thing happen again, he would want to find out about it before proceeding. If he plays on, assuming it only oscillated, and video evidence after the round shows it actually moved, he'll be penalized to shots. Tiger knows this, so he demands to see all relevant video footage before proceeding. If video shows the ball moved, he will be able to replace it and only suffer one penalty shot.

The second he hits his second shot without having replaced the ball, he's lost two shots. So, if the evidence present itself well after the situation, he has no option to redo the event and avoid the second penalty shot.

The USGA has made decisions concerning video evidence that the player is unlikely to have been able to spot, which protects the player from being disqualified from the tournament. The player will still be penalized two shots for playing from the wrong place, even though he wasn't able to tell from the situation if it moved or not. Doesn't have to be him moving the ball either, could be wind or something else, out of his control.

[Meltdwhiskey]

I can't seem to load the video now to look at it again, I remember seeing ball jiggle, but wasn't sure that it changed position.  Presumably, even if the ball just oscillates he'd stop touching stuff because movement is imminent.

I'm not trying to defend TW (I already stated in an earlier post that he probably shouldn't have touched anything) so much as argue against the general use of high-technology to catch rule infractions that would not otherwise be observable.  (And for the record, I hate instant replay in baseball.)

Yeah, I can see what you are saying about needed special equipment.  But what I'm saying is - weather it was an oscillation or it simply moved, he was able to notice the motion with his own eyes.  You can tell by his reaction and his explanation.

But even if not, the NFL refs use the same equipment when they aren't able to discern what happened the first time around.

[iacas]

How do you figure they don't work?

Clearly asking you to "see above" was too complicated and/or difficult for you.

The scorer isn't watching your every move.

The Rules clearly state that penalties can't be assessed after the tournament has concluded, so your example about stripping a Masters title away is just as silly as your comparisons to the NFL.

[DannyG]

One of the problems with this situation is Tiger's view of the ball, from above looking down, is totally different from a camera at ground level with a telephoto lens. Two different perspectives of the same object could easily give different results. It is very possible that from Tiger's view the ball did not seem to move but only by close scrutiny at a different angle could the move be seen. Bottom line, in no way did it improve his lie. This was a stupid call. After all, if the ball couldn't be identified as his, he could have picked it up to identify and placed it back as close as possible to where it was. I have no doubts that the replaced ball would have "moved" more than what was shown in the video. But as long as it did not improve his lie, no penalty.

[krupa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey

Yeah, I can see what you are saying about needed special equipment.  But what I'm saying is - weather it was an oscillation or it simply moved, he was able to notice the motion with his own eyes.  You can tell by his reaction and his explanation.

I understand what you are saying but I don't understand the point you are making.

According to the USGA, the definition of "moved" is:

Quote:

Move Or Moved

A ball is deemed to have “ moved ’’ if it leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place.

If the ball only oscillated, it has not "moved" according to the USGA.

That the ball moved (oscillated or changed position) was clear without any technology.  The offending movement (as defined by the USGA) was --to my eyes-- only discernible through the replay.

As for the NFL, I don't like football but if I did, I would be opposed to the replay/review rules they have.  Sometimes the refs will get it wrong and I accept that.  It gives us something to argue about later.

[Golfingdad]

Another problem I see is that this (outside spectators calling penalties after the fact) only works one way.  For arguments sake, lets say that Tiger is 95% confident that it only oscillated, but just as a precaution, he decides to call the penalty on himself.  Then, a couple of hours later, somebody else gets ahold of the high speed, HD video and is able to determine that Tiger's first hunch was absolutely correct.  Is there any possibility at all that a rules official would walk up to Tiger before he signs his card and notify him that his ball did, in fact, only oscillate, and he can take that stroke penalty off his score for that hole?  I assume not.

And the more and more I think about it, the more I'm starting to feel that there should be some middle ground concession involved here.  "Sorry, buddy, I know you thought that your ball didn't move, but after reviewing the video zoomed in and on slow motion 5 or 6 times, we were able to determine that it did move.  So we have to give you a 1-stroke penalty for that.  But because we are reasonable people, we recognize that it is perfectly reasonable for you to have not seen it, and further, we also recognize that it isn't even feasible for you to have been able to replace it anyway, seeing as how it's only moved about a millimeter down, so we are not going to assess you the second penalty stroke."

[k-troop]

GD I agree with your last paragraph; see my two comments at posts #48 & #50. I'd be in favor of a rule change that eliminates the need to replace the ball when it has moved so slightly that trying to "replace" it would be infeasible and the player has recieved no apparent advantage from the new ball position.

[Shorty]

Article raises a few good points about Tiger and his rules "issues" in 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/sep/16/tiger-woods-penalty-drop-golf-rules

[k-troop]

Article raises a few good points about Tiger and his rules "issues" in 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/sep/16/tiger-woods-penalty-drop-golf-rules

Good find and thanks for posting.  I disagree with the author's conclusory statement that "the ball move was blatant", which seems added for sensation.  Many folks here have reviewed the tape/stills and while it's clear that the ball moves, it's not clear that it came to rest in a different place and thus "moved" under the rules.  It also seems clear that a lot of folks don't understand that a ball doesn't have to remain completely still at all times when moving an impediment--there is only a penalty if it comes to rest in a different position.

Still, interesting read and I agree that Tiger's seeming lack of knowledge of the rules this year is curious.  I've posted before that the mistake at Augusta was inexcusable.  The Abu Dhabi drop was very fact specific, and many golfers have made the same mistake--some losing a tournament because of it, and others winning under questionable circumstances when using the rules to their full advantage.  The "oscillation incident" is again fact specific and I think a very subjective call.  The Player's drop was a non-issue, as both Tiger's playing partner, the rules official, and the broadcast crew all agreed that the ball crossed more or less where Tiger dropped.  But, I think the combination of Abu Dhabi and Masters mistakes (which were not subjective and both perfectly avoidable) have cast the two later situations in a different light.

[Golfingdad]

Article raises a few good points about Tiger and his rules "issues" in 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/sep/16/tiger-woods-penalty-drop-golf-rules

Good find and thanks for posting.  I disagree with the author's conclusory statement that "the ball move was blatant", which seems added for sensation.  Many folks here have reviewed the tape/stills and while it's clear that the ball moves, it's not clear that it came to rest in a different place and thus "moved" under the rules.  It also seems clear that a lot of folks don't understand that a ball doesn't have to remain completely still at all times when moving an impediment--there is only a penalty if it comes to rest in a different position.

Still, interesting read and I agree that Tiger's seeming lack of knowledge of the rules this year is curious.  I've posted before that the mistake at Augusta was inexcusable.  The Abu Dhabi drop was very fact specific, and many golfers have made the same mistake--some losing a tournament because of it, and others winning under questionable circumstances when using the rules to their full advantage.  The "oscillation incident" is again fact specific and I think a very subjective call.  The Player's drop was a non-issue, as both Tiger's playing partner, the rules official, and the broadcast crew all agreed that the ball crossed more or less where Tiger dropped.  But, I think the combination of Abu Dhabi and Masters mistakes (which were not subjective and both perfectly avoidable) have cast the two later situations in a different light.

Yeah, I agree that it is pretty curious that he had the 3 incidents that he had this year.  Adding the "controversy" from the Player's is nonsense, and completely disingenuous, though.  There was nothing controversial about that ... unless you count a stupid announcer jumping to an incorrect conclusion based on his lack of understanding of perspective as controversy.  But the other 3? ...  Yeah, they are each "excusable" in the sense that everybody makes mistakes once in awhile.  But the same guy to have these 3 issues all in the same year?  "Curious" is definitely the right word.

[Shorty]

And when yoiu go back and look at things like the moving of the boulder ( or loose impediment) incident, it speaks volumes about his integrity, or lack theroef. Seriously, sometimes because something may appear to be legal, you wouldn't consider doing it. By that I mean enlisting spectators to move something that isn't really supposed to move.

Ragrding the incident the other day, I think he saw the ball move and though "Uh oh....did anyone else see that?....hmmm...hope not."

But only Tiger knows, and this issue won't be resolved here, especially when some people say they didn't even see it move when it clearly did.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

Is it ok in this thread to discuss Tigers unwise decision to even attempt to start moving things away from his ball in this situation to begin with? I haven't been able to watch the video yet, but it seems to me that there are situations where attempting to move loose impediments out from under your ball is a horrible idea. If there is any chance the position of the ball is going to move, just leave it alone and hit the shot at it lies.

[Golfingdad]

Is it ok in this thread to discuss Tigers unwise decision to even attempt to start moving things away from his ball in this situation to begin with? I haven't been able to watch the video yet, but it seems to me that there are situations where attempting to move loose impediments out from under your ball is a horrible idea. If there is any chance the position of the ball is going to move, just leave it alone and hit the shot at it lies.

Of course!  And now I know what Colin should buy his buddy for Christmas:

Practice makes perfect!!

[MEfree]

Is it ok in this thread to discuss Tigers unwise decision to even attempt to start moving things away from his ball in this situation to begin with? I haven't been able to watch the video yet, but it seems to me that there are situations where attempting to move loose impediments out from under your ball is a horrible idea. If there is any chance the position of the ball is going to move, just leave it alone and hit the shot at it lies.

I hear what you are saying...there have been times I have left a pine cone or stick immediately behind or in front of my ball because I thought moving it would cause the ball to move.  OTOH, Tiger is a pretty experienced player and had the best view of things, so one can only hope that he thought he could move the stuff without causing the ball to move.

Of course, if he took the chance to move the stuff because he didn't think he would get called for a penalty even if the ball did move- then my opinion of him would drop.  Really no way to know for sure.

[MS256]

For Tiger to have been intentionally cheating he would have to be the worst cheater in the history of cheaters because he didn't move the obstruction.

I know plenty of cheaters and I've seen them in action and they would have certainly moved the pine cone (whether the ball moved or not) if they thought nobody was watching.