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

[Golfingdad]

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.

You're confusing "moveMENT" with "moved."  No f**king doy that he saw moveMENT in the ball and that is why he stopped trying to move the stick.  He said as much.  What reasonable person wouldn't stop moving the stick once he saw movement?  After that, we have two choices ... take the man at his word, or ignore what he's telling us and form our own opinion based on the fact that he cheated on his wife several times, seveal years ago.

I'm not going to bother asking you which of those two you think is more reasonable, because I know your answer.

[RonTheSavage]

You do realize your points become less and less valid with all the Ask Elin stuff right? You've made good points here and there but you shoot yourself in the foot with all the holier than thou BS you attach to everything. Sheesh!

[Tee2Trees]

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.

This is false.  WE CAN see it drop on camera because of the ANGLE (side view).  If you are standing DIRECTLY OVER THE BALL as is the position of the golfer in question (top view) you cannot see it drop, only that it may have oscillated.  This insight should be obvious to anyone who is not blind with rage over Tiger's many d'alliances with women who wouldn't give them the time of day.

All this whole episode proves is that the golfers with the most cameras surrounding them are at a disadvantage because the rules state they shall be penalized for infractions they CANNOT see and other golfers not surrounded by cameras may only be penalized for the infractions they CAN see.

[Meltdwhiskey]

You're confusing "moveMENT" with "moved."  No f**king doy that he saw moveMENT in the ball and that is why he stopped trying to move the stick.  He said as much.  What reasonable person wouldn't stop moving the stick once he saw movement?  After that, we have two choices ... take the man at his word, or ignore what he's telling us and form our own opinion based on the fact that he cheated on his wife several times, seveal years ago.

I'm not going to bother asking you which of those two you think is more reasonable, because I know your answer.

I think the crux of what phan is explaining is that at very first - Tiger said there was no moveMENT of any kind.  Then later changed his story to "it oscillated".  Essentially implying at first that he observed no movement, motion, osciallation, moving, etc - but now since I'm caught, I'll say the thing that comes without a penalty.

I don't know if that sequence of events is true or not.  But it is what Phan believed to have happened.  If it is, I think it implies that he either lied when he said there was no moveMENT or he lied later when he said he saw it osciallate.  They can't both be true.

[skuzme210]

If it is, I think it implies that he either lied when he said there was no moveMENT or he lied later when he said he saw it osciallate.  They can't both be true.

I'm glad he pointed out the part about what anyone would do if they saw a ball oscillate . .. stop touching stuff.  Which is what i saw happen until it was zoomed in on.

If all this happened to me, I'm saying it didn't move bc that's the concern; there is NO concern about an oscillation.  However, if they then show me a video of a ball moving, I'm sure I would explain further that i believed it to oscillate.  This is how I would play it, and it's how Tiger played it.  So I see no problem whatsoever.

My only other concern/confusion is: if a ball rotates in the exact same location, basically spinning . . is that oscillation?  When i first saw the zoomed video i was looking at the top and didn't notice that ball moving down in comparison to the twigs in the background.  But everyone is pointing out the relation of the logo to the twigs in the foreground.  I'm sure it's very possible for a ball to simply rotate, but not actually move.  However, when i look up the def of oscillate, it specifically mentioned something going back and forth.  Spinning does not fit that def, but i'm not so sure it's considered to have moved either.

[phan52]

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

People who know me would get a good laugh out of the idea that I hate Tiger.

[skuzme210]

Here's some detective work:

1: pull up the video and put a piece of paper over the logo, so that you can only see the top part of the ball but not the logo.  Replay from that instance over and over and you can't tell when the ball supposedly drops.  Illusion of movement caused by logo/twig/shakey camera vs oscillate?

2: for those of you who think Tiger saw the ball move and then stopped (aka cheated): he squeezes the twig the same moment the ball moves.  when i'm moving debris, i watch my fingers until i secure the debris, then as i move i watch the ball.  for me in this situation, any type of movement of the ball would be in my immediate peripheral vision.  for a ball that supposedly moves 1/16 of an inch in my peripheral, away from my view, there's no way you can convince me it's "moved' without slo-mo zoom replay.

Officially moved or not, you've got to be witch hunting to call Tiger a cheater.  IMO.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

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.

You do realize your points become less and less valid with all the Ask Elin stuff right? You've made good points here and there but you shoot yourself in the foot with all the holier than thou BS you attach to everything. Sheesh!

I don't want to go on a tangent (ed: so I won't. )

[Machmood]

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?"

This isn't about a rule we don't like or a rule tnat should be changed. In your example the player doesn't think he did anything wrong and isn't hiding anything. To me it seems tne argument is about tiger knowing he may have broken a rule tnat would give him a penalty and chose to ignore it and play on instead of do the right thing. It's not about the rule , it's not even about If the ball actually mkved(which it seems it did) its about people's thinking tiger thought he may have broken a rule and ignored it

[460CompMark]

I can guarantee you that every player on tour that has played a ball from bermuda rough has broken the rule.  When the ball is floating on top of thick bermuda, it will almost always move a tad bit if you even come close to touching the grass around it.  Do you think those guys call that on themselves?  No.

The whole grounding your club and the ball moves penalty is a joke and needs to be revised.  Even removing objects from around your ball and the ball moves.  A simple replace the ball to it's original position with no penalty would be the right enforcement in my book.

[3putter]

After watching the video numerous times I think its pretty obvious TIGER THOUGHT THE BALL MOVED. He went to try and move the stick, the second the ball appears to move he freezes then puts the stick back down. If he didnt think it moved he would have comtinued pulling the stick away. At this point as a pga professional its his responsibility to notify someone he believes his ball moved. At the very least I believe he thought the ball may have moved, which he would still have to notify someone. All this talk about it oscillated, moved, blah blah is irrelevant. IT appears pretty obvious tiger knows something happened and he decided to just play on. He got his penalty and life goes on but it def says something about tiger. I like tiger and think sometimes be gets the shrt end of the stick(no pun intended) but I think this situation says a lot about him. He's hidden In the trees, seemingly no one around or looking and this is what he chose to do. I would imagine If this happened out In the open he would have said something. Edit: funny I was gonna use the pickup Stix analogy and just saw the pic. We all know you test out the other sticks by slowly pulling them away and seeing if anything moves. This is exactly what tiger did. The ball moved so he put back the stick. This seems pretty black and white I'm surprised people are taking the "maybe is oscillated, maybe he didn't notice defense etc.

Based on your reasoning, is it possible that he tried to move the twig, observe the ball oscillate, and subsequently stopped? Oscillation isn't a lack of movement, it just means it moved back to its original spot. A movement that small can most definitely be considered oscillation if you stood over the ball and didn't have the luxury of high def slow mo. The penalty was correct, but I have no reason to doubt his version of the story.

[Machmood]

Again we are trying to get inside of tigers head and its impossible. I would think if he thought the ball oscillated and possibly moved he knew the correct thing was to alert an official. First he said it didn't move, then he said it oscillated , just seems a bit fishy. Listen if you think guys do stuff like this all the time and tiger is just being targeted that's fine. It's my opinion this type of negligence and blatant disregard for the rules doesn't happen that often. Even if it did it doesn't make it right. Everyone needs to be held to the same stsndard, obviously tiger is on cmsera more but that doesn't mean he gets a few gimmes on rules violations. I honestly sympathize with tiger because no matter what he does it seems he won't make people happy. Maybe he didn't see the ball move and he feels targeted and if that's the case it's a really sh*tty situation for him. That being said he has a history and eventually you have to realize he is who he is and I think that's where people are at. He no longer hets the benefit of the doubt from name

[iacas]

First he said it didn't move, then he said it oscillated , just seems a bit fishy.

The Rules of Golf define "move". A ball that oscillates doesn't move. The statements are not contradictory.

[luu5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by luu5

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

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. :)

Rules do not get more relaxed, they stay the same or perhaps get even more strict (balls touching, hitting the stick). You are required to replace the ball because otherwise it would make rules more complicated. What if you kicked the ball 2 yards out of bush, just one penalty? Replacing can never be exact science and it is not required to be so, and why would it need to be? You move the ball, you get a penalty, you replace the ball and continue. There are rules which specify how to replace in case of those difficult "hanging lies" etc.

[newtogolf]

The Rules of Golf define "move". A ball that oscillates doesn't move. The statements are not contradictory.

QFT, not to mention that there's no proof the ball did "move" closer to the hole.  The movement of the stick could have allowed the ball to rotate down in place but when Tiger released the stick it went back to it's original position.  The version of the video I saw used a line to record the logo position as proof of movement but the better test would have been to draw a circle around the ball before and after he touched the stick.

[Meltdwhiskey]

The Rules of Golf define "move". A ball that oscillates doesn't move. The statements are not contradictory.

This is absolutely true, but I don't know if it is that simple.  I think what folks here are saying is that Tiger was using a more generic definition of the word "move". A ball that oscillates actually moves twice - once away from the original position and then once back to its original position.  Oscillation is a type of movement in non-golf language.

I don't know what Tiger said or when, but I think what people are saying is that he first implied it never made any changes in space - weather that be moving, oscillating or whatever. That is to say that if he was being clear, he might have thrown in at this time that it didn't move and that it did oscillate.  If I saw my ball oscillate and someone asked me if my ball moved, I'd say something like:

No, it actually oscillated

or

Yeah, but it went back to its original spot.  It just oscillated.

He apparently did not make any clarification like this, but simply denied that it moved.  Then later, when faced with the fact that everyone knew there was some type of motion, he changed his statement to saying it oscillated.

[MEfree]

The Rules of Golf define "move". A ball that oscillates doesn't move. The statements are not contradictory.

True, and I don't know exactly what Tiger said, but if I were asked about a situation where I saw my ball oscillate, but not move, that is the first thing I would say if asked about it.

It is only conjecture on our part and this thread has already made a few laps over the same basic material, so I will leave it at that.

[Machmood]

The Rules of Golf define "move". A ball that oscillates doesn't move. The statements are not contradictory.

The point is he kept changing his story, and again its my opinion but if he saw the ball oscillate I would imagine he thought There's a good chance it moved. In the end everything worked out and he got an extra shot added on then if he would have said something initially and maybe even got no strokes taken away. I'm not a rules guru but if he said something initially and they ruled no penalty, after further review could they change it and penalize him a shot?