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

[iacas]

  phan52 said:

Is there anybody else on the PGA Tour who has been penalized three times this year but did not call a single one on himself? Just sayin'....

There are four others.

Think I'm wrong? The point is you didn't hear about them because they're not Tiger Woods.

[phan52]

  phan52 said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Is there anybody else on the PGA Tour who has been penalized three times this year but did not call a single one on himself? Just sayin'....

Originally Posted by iacas

There are four others.

Think I'm wrong? The point is you didn't hear about them because they're not Tiger Woods.

That's too bad. So there are four other guys who lack the requisite integrity.

But I also wonder how many of those guys would have got the platinum treatment Tiger got at the Masters.

[MEfree]

  iacas said:

There are four others.

Think I'm wrong? The point is you didn't hear about them because they're not Tiger Woods.

I agree with your point, but think you are wrong.  Who are the four?

[Meltdwhiskey]

  iacas said:

Discussed already.

Forgive me for not seeing this.  I just read back through and saw a bunch of folks ask how it could be replaced, but I didn't see any real answers.  The closest I saw was your quote - 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."

However, I'm not sure it answers the question under the rules.  If T had called an official over and said he though it moved, how would they have gone about putting it in a position closer to the original position that it was already sitting?

[ghalfaire]

To the original point of should a player be accountable for not being able to see that the ball had moved.  Awhile back when this happened to Harrington I argued they should not be penalized for something they couldn't possibly see.  I guess, while I am a Harrington fan and not a Tiger fan, I still feel the same way.  But I accept there is an argument that says a violation is a violation and should be penalized.  Otherwise who decided what one can see or not see.  But I still feel that the fairness of having someone call in over a ball that moves so little that the human eye cannot detect it is questionable.

[phan52]

  ghalfaire said:

To the original point of should a player be accountable for not being able to see that the ball had moved.  Awhile back when this happened to Harrington I argued they should not be penalized for something they couldn't possibly see.  I guess, while I am a Harrington fan and not a Tiger fan, I still feel the same way.  But I accept there is an argument that says a violation is a violation and should be penalized.  Otherwise who decided what one can see or not see.  But I still feel that the fairness of having someone call in over a ball that moves so little that the human eye cannot detect it is questionable.

The point, IMO, is that Tiger most probably saw the ball move. High def cameras aside, Tiger had the very best view of the ball when it moved (and it DID move). Otherwise, why would he stop trying to move the stick? Why? Because he saw the ball move.

When they first confronted him, he denied that it moved. When they showed it to him, he still said he didn't see anything. Then he said he thought it oscillated. Did he think it oscillated when it first happened? If so, why didn't he say that when they first confronted him with it?

Circumstantial, I know. I can't know what he was thinking. But we've been here before with Tiger. And it's not like his life story is full of integrity anyway. I gave him the benefit of the doubt at the Masters (although I thought a player with real integrity would have DQed himself instead of taking their profferred out). I feel sorry for him that this stuff happens as the result of him being under a microscope, but nobody should know that better than him. IMO, he figured he was far away from any cameras in this instance, n the woods, but he should know better. He can't get away with anything, so he shouldn't even try. And, in the end, the point is that the ball MOVED! Call it, take the penalty and move on.

[bridiefree]

Oh no, the ball moved a 1/4", and the lie wasn't improved.  Obviously he lied, but there was no advantage.  This is a stupid rule in golf and I can't really fault anyone for not calling the penalty on himself.

[phan52]

  bridiefree said:

Oh no, the ball moved a 1/4", and the lie wasn't improved.  Obviously he lied, but there was no advantage.  This is a stupid rule in golf and I can't really fault anyone for not calling the penalty on himself.

Remind me to avoid you when I am putting together my next game.

[RonTheSavage]

Peter Kostis has the best take on it. He tweeted: "If HD slo-mo were used on replacing balls on the green I say 98% of the time the ball is not in the same position. Is that always cheating?"

[luu5]

  RonTheSavage said:

Peter Kostis has the best take on it. He tweeted: "If HD slo-mo were used on replacing balls on the green I say 98% of the time the ball is not in the same position. Is that always cheating?"

No, because in replacing the ball "absolute precision" is not required.

[RonTheSavage]

  luu5 said:

I get that but why not? The closer you get to the hole the more relaxed the rules get? Oh yeah golf is truly a game of opposites. :)

[Golfingdad]

  luu5 said:

No, because in replacing the ball "absolute precision" is not required.

Which is why I think the second stroke added to Tiger's penalty is a bit silly.  How can it be a penalty for not replacing something when the chances are extremely high that once you touch the ball, not only are you not getting it closer to its original position, but there is a high chance that you are going to be "replacing" it farther away from the original location than it currently sits.

I think Erik's call earlier is right on ... something about the second stroke being a de facto "shame on you" for missing the original penalty.

[Meltdwhiskey]

  Golfingdad said:

Which is why I think the second stroke added to Tiger's penalty is a bit silly.  How can it be a penalty for not replacing something when the chances are extremely high that once you touch the ball, not only are you not getting it closer to its original position, but there is a high chance that you are going to be "replacing" it farther away from the original location than it currently sits.

I think Erik's call earlier is right on ... something about the second stroke being a de facto "shame on you" for missing the original penalty.

I think I've come to agree with your 'silly' assessment.  If you can't replace it closer - then why would you replace it?  I get the concept of the 'shame on you', but am still curious about the actual rule on it.  Suppose he would have said it moved.  What would have happened then?

[iacas]

  phan52 said:

The point, IMO, is that Tiger most probably saw the ball move. High def cameras aside, Tiger had the very best view of the ball when it moved (and it DID move). Otherwise, why would he stop trying to move the stick? Why? Because he saw the ball oscillate.

FTFY.

And that "fixed" answer is just as likely (or more so, since that's what he said) as your previous answer.

[phan52]

  phan52 said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

The point, IMO, is that Tiger most probably saw the ball move. High def cameras aside, Tiger had the very best view of the ball when it moved (and it DID move). Otherwise, why would he stop trying to move the stick? Why? Because he saw the ball oscillate.

Originally Posted by iacas

FTFY.

And that "fixed" answer is just as likely (or more so, since that's what he said) as your previous answer.

If you would quote my whole post instead of cherry-picking it (and then editing it to fit your narrative), you would see that I addressed that.

[Golfingdad]

  phan52 said:

The point, IMO, is that Tiger most probably saw the ball move. High def cameras aside, Tiger had the very best view of the ball when it moved (and it DID move). Otherwise, why would he stop trying to move the stick? Why? Because he saw the ball move.

When they first confronted him, he denied that it moved. When they showed it to him, he still said he didn't see anything. Then he said he thought it oscillated. Did he think it oscillated when it first happened? If so, why didn't he say that when they first confronted him with it?

Circumstantial, I know. I can't know what he was thinking. But we've been here before with Tiger. And it's not like his life story is full of integrity anyway. I gave him the benefit of the doubt at the Masters (although I thought a player with real integrity would have DQed himself instead of taking their profferred out). I feel sorry for him that this stuff happens as the result of him being under a microscope, but nobody should know that better than him. IMO, he figured he was far away from any cameras in this instance, n the woods, but he should know better. He can't get away with anything, so he shouldn't even try. And, in the end, the point is that the ball MOVED! Call it, take the penalty and move on.

  phan52 said:

If you would quote my whole post instead of cherry-picking it (and then editing it to fit your narrative), you would see that I addressed that.

No you didn't.  You went on to justify why your opinion is fact.  You say he saw the ball move.  That is your opinion.  But, wait, no its not, because Tiger doesn't have integrity!  He's trying "to get away with something"  See, "proof" that Tiger saw it move, not oscillate.

Erik actually helped your case by leaving the second paragraph out of the quote because it shows your bias. ;)

[iacas]

  Golfingdad said:

No you didn't.

QFT.

If you already hate Tiger, you'll see this whole thing one way.

[phan52]

  Golfingdad said:

No you didn't.  You went on to justify why your opinion is fact.  You say he saw the ball move.  That is your opinion.  But, wait, no its not, because Tiger doesn't have integrity!  He's trying "to get away with something"  See, "proof" that Tiger saw it move, not oscillate.

Erik actually helped your case by leaving the second paragraph out of the quote because it shows your bias. ;)

What part of "IMO" don't you understand? What part of "circumstantial" don't you understand?

And it is based on the evidence that he initially said he saw nothing when he was confronted, and later amended it to say he thought it oscillated. Why did he stop moving the stick? It is my OPINION that it is more likely that he had to see it when it moved. He had the best seat in the house.

And it's not a stretch to think Tiger is trying ot get away with something. Ask Elin about that.