Brandel Gives Tiger an F/ Tiger's Agent Hints at Legal Action Against Chamblee

[k-troop]

I personally believe that Brandel was trying to say Tiger had a great season, 5 wins and POY, but also had this mysterious problem with the rules that you would not expect from Tiger which distracted from his performance.  He didn't say it very well and implied something I am sure he regrets, but it was a mistake and he apologized.

That's a pretty charitable view of Brandel's comments. You could also interpret them as saying Tiger turned in a perfect "score" on the season but gets no credit for it because he's shown himself to be a cheater.

[newtogolf]

I.don't think so. I defy anyone to watch the video and see oscillation. So what else can 'nothing' mean?

No. I dislike how he's acted here. And I think he has discredited himself. As for the video, you don't seriously think that the rules officials who acted on it were in any doubt as to what it showed, do you?

Can you say with 100% certainty, without the benefit of lines marking position, that you could tell if the ball moved in position or if it just slightly rotated in place?

[birlyshirly]

Can you say with 100% certainty, without the benefit of lines marking position, that you could tell if the ball moved in position or if it just slightly rotated in place?

I've not seen the video with reference lines, and the answer' s yes. Which is neither here nor there, given that the rules officials were clearly sure of what the video showed.

[iacas]

I've not seen the video with reference lines, and the answer' s yes. Which is neither here nor there, given that the rules officials were clearly sure of what the video showed.

The camera was at an entirely different angle than Tiger's POV. It was also zoomed in to occupy half of the TV screen, while a golf ball occupies significantly smaller in your field of vision unless it's a few inches from your nose.

I don't know what he saw, but it's perfectly reasonable to take him at his word that he didn't see "movement" (per the rules' definition of "move").

[Jakester23]

I saw the video of the ball without lines and didn't see the ball move. I thought it wiggled until I saw the slow motion video with the lines then you can see it did move. What Erik said above is well put. I've been in deep rough and grounded my club and thought the ball moved. I stopped bent down and looked at it and couldn't tell what happened. I understand Tiger was bent down and had a better view in that situation but its reasonable to think that he didn't see such a small amount of movement.

[MS256]

I'm not really sure where my focus would be when removing a stick from beside the ball in the woods. Probably should know because I've spent as much time in the woods as anybody.

If my focus was on the stick and only had the ball in peripheral vision I would say the chances are good that it could move and only appear to have oscillated.

I've more than likely done the same thing Tiger did and never knew it.

[krupa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

On the other hand Brandel made one mistake (the article).  Tiger made three mistakes in a single season.  That's a lot for a golfer of Tiger's stature and experience.  What does that say, if anything, about Tiger's concern with adhering to the rules?  I personally believe that Brandel was trying to say Tiger had a great season, 5 wins and POY, but also had this mysterious problem with the rules that you would not expect from Tiger which distracted from his performance.  He didn't say it very well and implied something I am sure he regrets, but it was a mistake and he apologized.

I would argue that Brandel made three as well:  1) Writing the article, 2) defending the article, 3) apologizing on twitter .

I think, looking back at reports about these rule problems that I'm even more inclined to cut Tiger some slack.  Regarding the drop at the Masters (the emphasis is mine):

Quote:

"After being prompted by a television viewer, the Rules Committee reviewed a video of the shot while he was playing the 18th hole," Ridley said in the statement. " At that moment, based on the evidence, the committee determined he had complied with the rules.

http://espn.go.com/golf/masters13/story/_/id/9167230/2013-masters-tiger-penalized-2-strokes-ball-drop-15

Even the Rules Committee got it wrong at first, but they had the freedom to review it a bit more and get a more input.

Also from the same article:

Quote:

Woods also had an issue with an improper drop earlier this year at the Abu Dhabi HSBC Championship, where a two-stroke penalty caused him to miss the cut.

Woods mistakenly thought he could take relief from an imbedded lie on the fifth hole, and had even sought fellow player Martin Kaymer to ask his opinion. Kaymer agreed, so Woods took a drop.

But later a rules official determined that it was a sandy area, meaning Woods was not entitled to a drop; he should have played it or taken an unplayable lie, a one-stroke penalty.

Another player got it wrong here as well. It wasn't just Tiger who made the wrong call.

I'm not a Tiger fan but I'm really inclined to just accept that he had a bad year regarding rules.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krupa

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

On the other hand Brandel made one mistake (the article).  Tiger made three mistakes in a single season.  That's a lot for a golfer of Tiger's stature and experience.  What does that say, if anything, about Tiger's concern with adhering to the rules?  I personally believe that Brandel was trying to say Tiger had a great season, 5 wins and POY, but also had this mysterious problem with the rules that you would not expect from Tiger which distracted from his performance.  He didn't say it very well and implied something I am sure he regrets, but it was a mistake and he apologized.

I would argue that Brandel made three as well:  1) Writing the article, 2) defending the article, 3) apologizing on twitter .

I think, looking back at reports about these rule problems that I'm even more inclined to cut Tiger some slack.  Regarding the drop at the Masters (the emphasis is mine):

Quote:

"After being prompted by a television viewer, the Rules Committee reviewed a video of the shot while he was playing the 18th hole," Ridley said in the statement. " At that moment, based on the evidence, the committee determined he had complied with the rules.

http://espn.go.com/golf/masters13/story/_/id/9167230/2013-masters-tiger-penalized-2-strokes-ball-drop-15

Even the Rules Committee got it wrong at first, but they had the freedom to review it a bit more and get a more input.

Also from the same article:

Quote:

Woods also had an issue with an improper drop earlier this year at the Abu Dhabi HSBC Championship, where a two-stroke penalty caused him to miss the cut.

Woods mistakenly thought he could take relief from an imbedded lie on the fifth hole, and had even sought fellow player Martin Kaymer to ask his opinion. Kaymer agreed, so Woods took a drop.

But later a rules official determined that it was a sandy area, meaning Woods was not entitled to a drop; he should have played it or taken an unplayable lie, a one-stroke penalty.

Another player got it wrong here as well. It wasn't just Tiger who made the wrong call.

I'm not a Tiger fan but I'm really inclined to just accept that he had a bad year regarding rules.

No matter how it's presented,  the Tiger bashers will never see the reality of it, despite the fact that put in the same situations, they would likely have done no better than Tiger did.  It's just too easy to pass judgement after the fact when you have access to slow motion video zoomed in with high definition, especially when one is already predisposed to seeking wrongdoing.

[turtleback]

It was 6 hours between Brandel doubling down on his original statement and his apology.  Does anyone seriously believe that he was not sat down by someone who regularly writes him a check and read the riot act?  So much for his ethics and integrity.  He accused Tiger of cheating without using the words.  Then he crawfished to save his own job.

[Lihu]

It was 6 hours between Brandel doubling down on his original statement and his apology.  Does anyone seriously believe that he was not sat down by someone who regularly writes him a check and read the riot act?  So much for his ethics and integrity.  He accused Tiger of cheating without using the words.  Then he crawfished to save his own job.

Agreed, in principle. I would hate to be a paid critic, and be put in a predicament like this. The problem is he went a little over the line, and should have retracted earlier.

[newtogolf]

Agreed, in principle.

I would hate to be a paid critic, and be put in a predicament like this.

The problem is he went a little over the line, and should have retracted earlier.

He went way over the line.  He tried to be subtle or clever but the implied message was clear, he gave Tiger an F because he believed Tiger cheated just as his teacher gave him an F when she thought he cheated as a kid.

You don't call any pro golfer, no less the most powerful media figure in golf, a cheater unless you have proof.  I also think he's lying about being told to apologize, but the fact he did shows that even he acknowledges he was in the wrong.

[birlyshirly]

The camera was at an entirely different angle than Tiger's POV. It was also zoomed in to occupy half of the TV screen, while a golf ball occupies significantly smaller in your field of vision unless it's a few inches from your nose.

I don't know what he saw, but it's perfectly reasonable to take him at his word that he didn't see "movement" (per the rules' definition of "move").

That's beside the point. My argument was about Tiger's reaction to being shown the video.

However, to address your different points, I don't find that line of argument credible in the slightest. I've watched that video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueXaH1wfawA full screen on an 11" laptop screen. The movement is obvious - but the ball isn't blown up, it's about 3/4 inch diameter so actually less than half actual size.

Moving a stick beside his ball, Tiger had the best seat in the house to see any movement. He would have been no further from the real ball than I am from my laptop screen.

The ball doesn't translate (as defined in mechanical terms http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/translate?s=t ) it rotates. There is therefore no PoV from which the movement would not have been visible. There's even a swoosh mark on the top of the ball that, from Woods PoV, would have shown the movement particularly well.

It's perfectly reasonable, based on that video, to infer that the movement of the ball was clearly visible to Woods at the time.

This discussion, including Chamblee's comments, aren't criminal proceedings. There's no requirement to prove anything beyond all reasonable doubt. There's no sanction hanging over Woods. He won't lose a cent of prizemoney over the debate. A simple balance of probabilities is fine. The movement that is clearly visible on video was probably seen by Woods. I haven't seen any credible argument to overturn the probability that Woods saw it and didn't call it.

Hypothetically speaking - if you accepted that he did see the ball move, would that make him a cheat in your eyes?

I saw the video of the ball without lines and didn't see the ball move. I thought it wiggled until I saw the slow motion video with the lines then you can see it did move. What Erik said above is well put. I've been in deep rough and grounded my club and thought the ball moved. I stopped bent down and looked at it and couldn't tell what happened. I understand Tiger was bent down and had a better view in that situation but its reasonable to think that he didn't see such a small amount of movement.

See video link above. 5 - 7 seconds in. No slow motion. No reference lines. Clear and unambiguous movement. No wiggling or oscillation. Tell me if you can't see it.

I'm not really sure where my focus would be when removing a stick from beside the ball in the woods. Probably should know because I've spent as much time in the woods as anybody.

If my focus was on the stick and only had the ball in peripheral vision I would say the chances are good that it could move and only appear to have oscillated.

I've more than likely done the same thing Tiger did and never knew it.

Seriously? If you know that you're subject to a 1 shot penalty if your ball moves, and you're not focussed on whether your ball moves as you remove a loose impediment from beside the ball, then you're guilty of wilful blindness. Now don't take this personally, because if you're playing for giggles with your pals then worse things happen. But if you're playing competitively, never mind professionally, I'd call that a reckless disregard for the rules. Which is close enough to deliberate cheating as makes no difference.

Actually, I would bet that the next time you're in a similar situation, you'll notice just how closely you're focussed on the ball. It's instinctive.

[iacas]

birly, you've got your mind made up and that's fine. It's a different PoV and the angle could be quite different to where it simply looked like rotation IMO. You said nothing that convinces me otherwise. You can't. You don't have a camera anywhere near Tiger's eyes or know what he was looking at. You're just guessing based on what you think. Your ball has probably moved unbeknownst to you. Everyone's probably has, even if it was like Padraig's a few years ago. I'm not answering your hypothetical because there's simply no way of knowing what he saw or knew.

[Fourputt]

Birly, you are letting your obvious and clear dislike for Tiger filter what you are seeing.  I just watched that video several times, and the the fact that the ball twitched was clear, but that it "moved" as defined by the rules was most definitely not clear, even with the luxury of slow motion and repeated viewing.  You need to give it up.  All you do is make yourself look as petty as Chamblee by making unfounded and clearly biased accusations.

[ghalfaire]

I guess I'll be done after this one. I don't know of a single PGA or LPGA professional that was penalized three time in a single season (by officials and not by calling the penalty on themselves) and signed an incorrect score card and was not disqualified for it, other than Tiger.  I am not a fan of Tiger but I'm not a critic of his either.  He is a great golfer and maybe (arguably) the best ever. But the three in one year incidents was an uncommon occurrence and not expected and therefore noteworthy.  It might have been just bad luck but it also could be indicative of an attitude that Tiger has at times publicly displayed about the game and his place in it.  I also believe it did detract from his overall achievements of reclaiming #1, POY, and 5 wins this year.  I have already said (a couple of three times now I believe) that Brandel should not have implied Tiger might have cheated.  But he did imply it, and he publicly apologized for it and he says he will personally apologize to Tiger and I hope he does. There are always consequences resulting from mistakes, innocent or not, and I'm sure Brandel will suffer his as a result of the mistake.  I am not sure what all the consequences will be but I am sure this thread is one of them.  So I believe I have posted all I have to say on this subject.

[newtogolf]

I guess I'll be done after this one. I don't know of a single PGA or LPGA professional that was penalized three time in a single season (by officials and not by calling the penalty on themselves) and signed an incorrect score card and was not disqualified for it, other than Tiger.  I am not a fan of Tiger but I'm not a critic of his either.  He is a great golfer and maybe (arguably) the best ever. But the three in one year incidents was an uncommon occurrence and not expected and therefore noteworthy.  It might have been just bad luck but it also could be indicative of an attitude that Tiger has at times publicly displayed about the game and his place in it.  I also believe it did detract from his overall achievements of reclaiming #1, POY, and 5 wins this year.  I have already said (a couple of three times now I believe) that Brandel should not have implied Tiger might have cheated.  But he did imply it, and he publicly apologized for it and he says he will personally apologize to Tiger and I hope he does. There are always consequences resulting from mistakes, innocent or not, and I'm sure Brandel will suffer his as a result of the mistake.  I am not sure what all the consequences will be but I am sure this thread is one of them.  So I believe I have posted all I have to say on this subject.

Your point is well taken, Tiger did have three incidents where his handling of the situation resulted in penalty.  Is three a high number or a low number on Tour?  It seems not a lot gets written about other golfers being assessed penalties that aren't named Tiger or in the top 10 on a given week.

[Fourputt]

I have just a few points to reiterate.

1)  The first incident with the embedded ball:  Tiger's ball was embedded in sand through the green, not in a bunker.  The PGA and Euro Tours both invoke the local rule allowing relief for an embedded ball through the green .  Tiger took relief, unaware of the obscure addition to that rule prohibiting such relief if the ball is embedded in a sandy area.  I had never heard of it before, and Kaymer was apparently unaware of it.  I would bet that not one percent of the players on Tour could have quoted that point.  The assumption goes to Tiger that it was an honest mistake.

2)  The drop at the Masters:  Tiger should have known the rule, no excuses there.  However, in his defense, how many times has a player had to retrace his steps and estimate the actual location for the drop?  And how far off might the estimate have been?  Two clublenths?  4 clublengths?  It's pretty easy to form the wrong conclusion that the rules allow some latitude when taking that drop.  As I see it, that is all that Tiger did.  No intent to cheat, only to use the rule, as we all have used rules, to legally get the best out of an unfortunate situation.  In this case he was wrong, and ultimately paid the proper price for his mistake.

3)  The breach of Rule 18-2:  How many of you have seen the ball twitch when you tried to move a loose impediment in a similar situation?  How many of you immediately made the assumption that the ball just oscillated, not moved. and played on?  I have trouble believing that anyone can honestly say they have never done that.  How many of you then had someone accost you with video evidence that you were wrong?  None?  So you got away with your assumption, never being questioned regardless of whether it was correct or not.  Tiger didn't.  No intent to cheat, just another weird mistake.

That sums up my feelings on the subject.  If those incidents had happened to another player, or to 3 different players, it wouldn't even be worth examining, and my explanations would be accepted without question.  The only reason that Chamblee made a big deal of it was because it was Tiger, and that just further fueled the fires for all of the other Tiger bashers out there.  It doesn't matter that he was wrong, and no matter that he made that wishy-washy apology on Twitter, his rant just lends support and credence to the generally negative attitude that those people have.

[k-troop]

2)  The drop at the Masters:  Tiger should have known the rule, no excuses there.  However, in his defense, how many times has a player had to retrace his steps and estimate the actual location for the drop?  And how far off might the estimate have been?  Two clublenths?  4 clublengths?  It's pretty easy to form the wrong conclusion that the rules allow some latitude when taking that drop.  As I see it, that is all that Tiger did.  No intent to cheat, only to use the rule, as we all have used rules, to legally get the best out of an unfortunate situation.  In this case he was wrong, and ultimately paid the proper price for his mistake.

Umm, no--I disagree. It's not easy to "form the conclusion that the rules allow some latitude" about where to drop. The rule is clear about where to drop. What's not always clear is where the ball entered. At the Player's, Tiger took his two club lengths from the point of entry, as near as he, his caddy, and his playing partner could tell. Did they get the spot exactly right? Hard to say--it's hard to really pinpoint a ball that enters over a tree at an oblique angle 250 yards away. They did the best they could to identify the proper spot, and proceeded from there. At the Masters, Tiger saw the ball go in. It was 50 yards in front of him. He saw the ball disappear and then saw ripples from the water. There is no question where it went in, and, properly applied, the rule is clear about where to drop. Completely different situation.