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

[ghalfaire]

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.

I have to agree that part of the issue is Tiger's integrity and that is no one's fault but Tiger's.  I can still remember my Dad telling me "if a man will cheat on his wife he will cheat you too".  Of course people can learn and change but once you break the trust there is always that little doubt.

[Valleygolfer]

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 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.

I have to agree that part of the issue is Tiger's integrity and that is no one's fault but Tiger's.  I can still remember my Dad telling me "if a man will cheat on his wife he will cheat you too".  Of course people can learn and change but once you break the trust there is always that little doubt.

Anyone can turn on anyone if the value of the outcome overrides the relationship. I would imagine almost everyone has had something happen that they evaluate the importance or effect a situation and deem it not worth mentioning due to the minute nature of the incident. However those miniscule incidents often get blown up, some out of proportion. Why people cheat on spouses is such an elaborate subject. One thing I will say, from experience, is that spouses will portray themselves one way until married, pregnant or connected in some other sort of way and then gradually change to WHO THEY REALLY ARE.

Ball may have moved. When asked if moved and Tiger said "yes", assess the correct penalty. Tiger says oscillates, unless there is complete conclusive evidence contrary, you have to go by what he saw from above the ball. I am not saying it moved or not, we just AGAIN cannot rely on a camera angle.

[iacas]

The point is he kept changing his story

No, he didn't. Not necessarily.

"It didn't move."

"It just oscillated."

Those two could be saying the same exact thing (if he is using the definitions in the Rules of Golf).

He could have just as easily said them in reverse. "It only oscillated, it didn't move."

[k-troop]

I have to agree that part of the issue is Tiger's integrity and that is no one's fault but Tiger's.  I can still remember my Dad telling me "if a man will cheat on his wife he will cheat you too".  Of course people can learn and change but once you break the trust there is always that little doubt.

Nothing against your dad, but I think we've already established that Tiger's marital indiscretions are irrelevant to the discussion of whether he saw his ball move.

[ghalfaire]

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.

Well the rules are the rules and if you don't like them then you should lobby to get them changed to something you would deem more reasonable.  I don't personally know if Tiger could see the ball move or not.  But if you play the game for the amount of money these guys play for then everyone needs to be playing the same game.  Although I agree the rules can be "unfair" at times.  Maybe some would deem being able to get 5 guys to help you move a boulder of several hundred pounds that is a "loose impediment" is just as unfair as having a ball move after you address it and it was the wind/slope/green speed that caused it.

Anyone can turn on anyone if the value of the outcome overrides the relationship. I would imagine almost everyone has had something happen that they evaluate the importance or effect a situation and deem it not worth mentioning due to the minute nature of the incident. However those miniscule incidents often get blown up, some out of proportion. Why people cheat on spouses is such an elaborate subject. One thing I will say, from experience, is that spouses will portray themselves one way until married, pregnant or connected in some other sort of way and then gradually change to WHO THEY REALLY ARE.

Ball may have moved. When asked if moved and Tiger said "yes", assess the correct penalty. Tiger says oscillates, unless there is complete conclusive evidence contrary, you have to go by what he saw from above the ball. I am not saying it moved or not, we just AGAIN cannot rely on a camera angle.

I agree that relationships between spouse are complex and not always acceptable to one of the parties.   However there is this little matter that both agreed to "keep themselves" for the other only.  So it would seem more "upfront & honest" if the relationship is unacceptable to one of the parties that they end the relationship prior to starting other relationships.  I believe my father would have called this keeping your word.  So my comment wasn't that Tiger deliberately cheated or lied.  He may well have not seen the ball "move".  But I still believe because he has shown in other parts of his life a disregard for the "rules" that there is some doubt in my mind if Tiger doesn't agree with "birdiefree" that it is a stupid rule and the ball only moved a little and certainly didn't enhance his ability to make the putt.  My last comment on this subject.

[iacas]

However there is this little matter that both agreed to "keep themselves" for the other only.

a) You don't know that -and-

b) This thread isn't about stuff that happened five+ years ago.

[bluecollar01]

Time to play what if –

If Tiger had called a rules official over and told the official that the ball oscillated but did not move but he still wanted a ruling.  The rules official then says you're good - no penalty.  Later this "video evidence" comes to light which indicates it moved vs oscillated.  Does Tiger still get the two-stroke penalty?

Just curious.

[Golfingdad]

Time to play what if –

If Tiger had called a rules official over and told the official that the ball oscillated but did not move but he still wanted a ruling.  The rules official then says you're good - no penalty.  Later this "video evidence" comes to light which indicates it moved vs oscillated.  Does Tiger still get the two-stroke penalty?

Just curious.

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.

[phan52]

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

Originally Posted by newtogolf

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.

No, it didn't. That is quite obvious and that is why he was assessed the penalty.

[9iron]

No, he didn't. Not necessarily.

"It didn't move."

"It just oscillated."

Those two could be saying the same exact thing (if he is using the definitions in the Rules of Golf).

He could have just as easily said them in reverse. "It only oscillated, it didn't move."

Erik, The Golf Channel reported that when Slugger White showed Tiger the video that his first response was "I don't see anything". White shows him the video a 2nd time and his response, again, is "I still don't see anything". White tells him the ball moved and Tiger then says something to effect of "fine, just assess the penalty". I know a prior report that stated that Tiger spoke about the ball oscillating, but it is unclear to me when he said that. Taking into account only the words Tiger spoke to White, do you interpret those words as essentially meaning the same thing as "It only oscillated, it didn't move"?

[bluecollar01]

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.

Thanks for the reply.  I was just curious as it seemed that the rule(s) could be applied differently in the same situation, which is disconcerting.  I think the variance in "judgement" is what usually causes the debates over these types of infractions.

Definitely appreciated the feedback!

[phan52]

Erik, The Golf Channel reported that when Slugger White showed Tiger the video that his first response was "I don't see anything". White shows him the video a 2nd time and his response, again, is "I still don't see anything". White tells him the ball moved and Tiger then says something to effect of "fine, just assess the penalty". I know a prior report that stated that Tiger spoke about the ball oscillating, but it is unclear to me when he said that. Taking into account only the words Tiger spoke to White, do you interpret those words as essentially meaning the same thing as "It only oscillated, it didn't move"?

I read the same thing about his conversation with Slugger (which I related earlier when I posited that Tiger was changing his story). He brought up the idea that it oscillated in his interviews after the round.

I think the two statements you have to compare is  "I don't see anything" to "it oscillated". They don't mean the same thing.

And to those who just assume that I hate Tiger because of my position on this, I think it sucks that this happens to him more than others because of the unrelenting scrutiny that he is under, and I think it puts a lot of extra pressure on him that has to affect his game. But he just should have come clean when he was confronted with an obvious foul, instead of equivocating. It doesn't look good.

[RonTheSavage]

Thank you Troop.

[9iron]

Interesting that someone brought up the incident with Tiger asking his fans to move the boulder at TPC Scottsdale. It seems obvious that Tiger received a benefit not available to other players. Frankly, I don't think many others would even consider doing what Tiger did there. Ken Venturi broadcasted at the time that "if they can do that then this is a stupid rule". I think what was going thru Venturi's mind was that Tiger should not have taken an advantage over the field. Someone else commented that if the boulder was a loose impediment then  the Egyptian Pyramids could also be deemed loose impediments. Funny stuff.

Not sure if the rule has ever been changed, but it should be changed such that if the player can't move the impediment then it isn't really loose after all. Tiger's actions there provide a contrast between a player that would do something he knew gave him an advantage over the field, and would do so in broad daylight laughing heartily as he did it, and a player like Brian Davis who calls a penalty on himself over something that, at the time he called it, no one knew an infraction had transpired AND, which effectively, cost him the chance at a tournament win.

[iacas]

Interesting that someone brought up the incident with Tiger asking his fans to move the boulder at TPC Scottsdale. It seems obvious that Tiger received a benefit not available to other players. Frankly, I don't think many others would even consider doing what Tiger did there. Ken Venturi broadcasted at the time that "if they can do that then this is a stupid rule". I think what was going thru Venturi's mind was that Tiger should not have taken an advantage over the field. Someone else commented that if the boulder was a loose impediment then  the Egyptian Pyramids could also be deemed loose impediments. Funny stuff.

Not sure if the rule has ever been changed, but it should be changed such that if the player can't move the impediment then it isn't really loose after all. Tiger's actions there provide a contrast between a player that would do something he knew gave him an advantage over the field, and would do so in broad daylight laughing heartily as he did it, and a player like Brian Davis who calls a penalty on himself over something that, at the time he called it, no one knew an infraction had transpired AND, which effectively, cost him the chance at a tournament win.

I, among many, count that as evidence that Tiger (at that time, anyway) knew the Rules quite well.

But the rule was changed, and that's not the topic here.

[9iron]

Nothing against your dad, but I think we've already established that Tiger's marital indiscretions are irrelevant to the discussion of whether he saw his ball move.

Tiger's marital infidelities, numerous as they were, may have no bearing on whether Tiger saw his ball move, but they do say something about him. Assuming he did see his ball move, and it is easy to see how and why some people believe he saw exactly that (even if it can not be proved in a court of law, as if that should be the standard by which we view this incident), then it may be connected to how he acted afterwards. Much has been written about the connection between how people play golf and live life..........

“Golf is said to be a humbling game, but it is surprising how many people are either not aware of their weaknesses or else reckless of consequences.” – Bobby Jones

“Golf is the closest game to the game we call life. You get bad breaks from good shots; you get good breaks from bad shots, but you have to play the ball where it lies.” – Bobby Jones

The two above seem quite appropriate to the incident at hand, but here is my personal favorite ...

“If you want to observe how someone’s integrity holds up under adversity… put a golf club in their hands.”

[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.

[9iron]

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?