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

[mvmac]

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.

Well said.  If you have to zoom in on the ball, play it a couple times to confirm, then "in person" it's not exactly obvious the ball moved.

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.

Exactly, you can't assume to know exactly where he was looking.  I think if Tiger clearly saw his ball move (in any situation) he would call the penalty on himself.

[iacas]

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.

Of course, "where it went in" is completely irrelevant to the option he took to continue his play: playing from where he last played his shot, "as nearly as possible."

[bplewis24]

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?

You either missed the point or ignored it.  "Nothing" absolutely can and most likely would mean "no infraction" by a reasonable person.  You're narrowly defining "I see nothing" in the only way you want to define it so as to make it appear Tiger is either blind or lying about what he witnessed in the interview.

And, yes, I seriously think that many people (including rules officials) were in doubt as to what it showed until they saw repeated viewings, zoomed in and blown up.  The first time I saw it was when mvmac or somebody posted a video that I watched on my 22" monitor and I thought the ball oscillated without necessarily moving.  It wasn't until I watched the Golf Channel's blow-up, high def feed on my 50" TV that I could clearly tell the ball moved.  I'm sure there are some folks who spotted it right away on the first replay, but plenty of people didn't.

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.

Very good points, but I expect them to be ignored by the people with their minds made up.  As to your point #2 though, I still think we are over complicating it.  The clearest indication that Tiger did not intend to cheat were his comments after the round (which ultimately got him in hot water).  If he had the mens rea of a cheater, he would never have said those words.  Either that or he's the dumbest cheater alive.

[k-troop]

Of course, "where it went in" is completely irrelevant to the option he took to continue his play: playing from where he last played his shot, "as nearly as possible."

Well it's hard to say which rule he was proceeding under. He says that he was proceeding under that rule, but also thought he could drop back from that point keeping the spot between his drop and the hole. So he mixed different parts of the two rules. Either way there was no room for confusion or interpretation about where he could legally drop.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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.

Tell me this.  Prior to this incident, would you have remembered the wording of the rule precisely?  Would you have remembered that it said "as near as possible" in the heat of competition?  Have you ever gone forward to see what happened and then had to retrace your steps and been unsure of the exact spot where you hit from?  Did you then estimate the spot to drop in?  How certain are you that you were within 2 clublengths?  3 clublengths?  More?   If you were uncertain of the spot how do you know how much of an error you were making?  It's an easy jump from that to thinking that you have some latitude, especially if you haven't just read the rules and had that point in particular stick in your mind.

Maybe you are perfect in your execution of the rules every time you have a rules situation.  I'm not, so I guess I'm not as good at it as you are.  I try my best, but sometimes my memory is faulty.  That's why I carry a rule book in my bag.

[k-troop]

Tell me this.  Prior to this incident, would you have remembered the wording of the rule precisely?  Would you have remembered that it said "as near as possible" in the heat of competition?  Have you ever gone forward to see what happened and then had to retrace your steps and been unsure of the exact spot where you hit from?  Did you then estimate the spot to drop in?  How certain are you that you were within 2 clublengths?  3 clublengths?  More?   If you were uncertain of the spot how do you know how much of an error you were making?  It's an easy jump from that to thinking that you have some latitude, especially if you haven't just read the rules and had that point in particular stick in your mind.   Maybe you are perfect in your execution of the rules every time you have a rules situation.  I'm not, so I guess I'm not as good at it as you are.  I try my best, but sometimes my memory is faulty.  That's why I carry a rule book in my bag.

1. Doesn't matter what I've done. I'm not Tiger Woods. It's a simple rule. (And yes, I know the rule.) 2. He didn't have to "go forward to see what happened." It happened right in front of him. He hit that shot from like 70 yards. As I stated clearly in the post you quoted, of course there are times when you may be unaware of exactly what the spot is--so you take your best guess. This was not one of those times.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Tell me this.  Prior to this incident, would you have remembered the wording of the rule precisely?  Would you have remembered that it said "as near as possible" in the heat of competition?  Have you ever gone forward to see what happened and then had to retrace your steps and been unsure of the exact spot where you hit from?  Did you then estimate the spot to drop in?  How certain are you that you were within 2 clublengths?  3 clublengths?  More?   If you were uncertain of the spot how do you know how much of an error you were making?  It's an easy jump from that to thinking that you have some latitude, especially if you haven't just read the rules and had that point in particular stick in your mind.

Maybe you are perfect in your execution of the rules every time you have a rules situation.  I'm not, so I guess I'm not as good at it as you are.  I try my best, but sometimes my memory is faulty.  That's why I carry a rule book in my bag.

1. Doesn't matter what I've done. I'm not Tiger Woods. It's a simple rule. (And yes, I know the rule.)

2. He didn't have to "go forward to see what happened." It happened right in front of him. He hit that shot from like 70 yards. As I stated clearly in the post you quoted, of course there are times when you may be unaware of exactly what the spot is--so you take your best guess. This was not one of those times.

He went forward to check the drop zone in front  of the hazard.  It was muddy and unusable, which is why he didn't drop there as most players would have, most of the time.  Then he walked back to where his caddie was waiting.  I never said that he was excused for the mistake, only that it is a mistake that anyone could have, and often would have made.  I'm sorry that we, including Tiger, aren't all as perfect as you are.

[k-troop]

He went forward to check the drop zone in front  of the hazard.  It was muddy and unusable, which is why he didn't drop there as most players would have, most of the time.  Then he walked back to where his caddie was waiting.  I never said that he was excused for the mistake, only that it is a mistake that anyone could have, and often would have made.  I'm sorry that we, including Tiger, aren't all as perfect as you are.

That's not even what happened. He didn't make a mistake about where he played his last shot from. He knew where he played his previous shot from, and intentionally (his own words) dropped two yards back from that spot. He may have misunderstood the rule. The fact that he fully admitted how he arrived at that drop point makes it pretty likely that he misunderstood the rule (rather than intentionally cheated). BUT IT'S A SIMPLE RULE. We're talking about a ball in a water hazard. It's not a rule that comes up once every five years. It happens to nearly every player in every tournament.

[birlyshirly]

You either missed the point or ignored it.  "Nothing" absolutely can and most likely would mean "no infraction" by a reasonable person.  You're narrowly defining "I see nothing" in the only way you want to define it so as to make it appear Tiger is either blind or lying about what he witnessed in the interview.

And, yes, I seriously think that many people (including rules officials) were in doubt as to what it showed until they saw repeated viewings, zoomed in and blown up.  The first time I saw it was when mvmac or somebody posted a video that I watched on my 22" monitor and I thought the ball oscillated without necessarily moving.  It wasn't until I watched the Golf Channel's blow-up, high def feed on my 50" TV that I could clearly tell the ball moved.  I'm sure there are some folks who spotted it right away on the first replay, but plenty of people didn't.

No. With respect, I think you're missing the point. "No infraction" could mean "oscillation". But to qualify as "oscillation" there's a 2 stage test. (First) Does the ball move? (Second) Does it move back again? In other words, all balls that oscillate (incurring no penalty) must first move. But not all balls that move (incurring penalty) oscillate. There is simply no way that any purely logical person can simultaneously entertain both Iacas' benefit of the doubt that maybe Tiger couldn't see any ball movement from his PoV and the idea that he thought he saw oscillation rather than movement out of position. Those excuses are incompatible, and it doesn't make sense to interpret "nothing" as oscillation.

Besides, I think it's a stretch to interpret "I see nothing" as "I see an oscillation, which is an allowable exception to the rule about movement which incurs no penalty."

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.

On the other hand, there's a question here about Chamblee's commentary, and whether he was justified in what he wrote. Obviously, he's been largely slated on this thread. All I'm saying here is that Chamblee made a judgement based on what was clearly evident from the video, coupled with an assumption that what was clearly visible on the video was probably visible to Tiger. That's an utterly mundane presumption that people work off every day. If you didn't, you'd never have the nerve to drive in traffic - or use a pedestrian crossing.

But even if I wouldn't want to hang Tiger out to dry on the basis of what we've seen, I think that Chamblee's analysis and conclusions are reasonable and I've put forward my reasons as to why. It's not incompatible to maintain that Tiger hasn't been proven a cheat (at least from the point of view of bringing sanctions into play), whilst also acknowledging that Chamblee had reasonable grounds for what he wrote. Would you agree or disagree with that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

Well said.  If you have to zoom in on the ball, play it a couple times to confirm, then "in person" it's not exactly obvious the ball moved.

Exactly, you can't assume to know exactly where he was looking.  I think if Tiger clearly saw his ball move (in any situation) he would call the penalty on himself.

As I said before, my problem is as much with Woods apparent reluctance to accept that the video evidence - zoomed in and played a couple of times - showed that his ball had moved.

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.

See, here's my problem with this line of argument. I put forward a bunch of factual and logical arguments - and your defence of Tiger is that I'm just speaking out of bias. You're comparing me to Chamblee - who according to this thread has a whole history of trying to make trolling arguments about Woods. That's hardly a fair comparison - I doubt whether I've ever posted commentary about Tiger prior to this thread. I think I was fairly neutral in my opinions on Tiger prior to this - although by my own admission I think less well of his character now.

As regards the video, if you can see the ball "twitched", and you understand the rule, then you only have to ask yourself whether it "twitched" back. Even if you're not sure - it's clear that the rules officials were - so none of your obfuscation is relevant.

[iacas]

Erik - I respect your wish to avoid making a judgement on Tiger's guilt or innocence. Although I think it's curious that you and others do not seem willing to even entertain the possibility that he was in the wrong.

That's not it at all. He could have been. But I've seen no proof to say he was, and you'd have to conjure up a situation where I could be swayed to at least think there's a reasonable chance to spend my time gauging how I'd feel if he had known and seen things I don't think he has seen.

All I'm saying here is that Chamblee made a judgement based on what was clearly evident from the video, coupled with an assumption that what was clearly visible on the video was probably visible to Tiger. That's an utterly mundane presumption that people work off every day. If you didn't, you'd never have the nerve to drive in traffic - or use a pedestrian crossing.

You got one thing right - he assumed. You know what they say about that.

It's not incompatible to maintain that Tiger hasn't been proven a cheat (at least from the point of view of bringing sanctions into play), whilst also acknowledging that Chamblee had reasonable grounds for what he wrote. Would you agree or disagree with that?

Since Brandel called him a cheat, I don't see how you believe those two can co-exist.

As I said before, my problem is as much with Woods apparent reluctance to accept that the video evidence - zoomed in and played a couple of times - showed that his ball had moved.

Several other people had to watch it several times to see it. That's a "fact" too.

See, here's my problem with this line of argument. I put forward a bunch of factual and logical arguments - and your defence of Tiger is that I'm just speaking out of bias.

What facts? Do you know for certain what Tiger saw? No. And that's the most relevant fact. We can all agree that the ball moved. We can all agree on what's printed about what was said (though it's hearsay). So really, what other facts do you have? Because at the end of the day you're still missing the most relevant one: you have no clue what Tiger saw or thought.

[birlyshirly]

Since Brandel called him a cheat, I don't see how you believe those two can co-exist.

Because I think most people, if they think about it, would accept that there's a higher standard of certainty required in enforcing the rules than there is in making a journalistic comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

What facts? Do you know for certain what Tiger saw? No. And that's the most relevant fact. We can all agree that the ball moved. We can all agree on what's printed about what was said (though it's hearsay). So really, what other facts do you have? Because at the end of the day you're still missing the most relevant one: you have no clue what Tiger saw or thought.

I see what you did there! I said facts and inferences. But we know how you feel about inferences. You even asked us not to use the word.

[iacas]

Because I think most people, if they think about it, would accept that there's a higher standard of certainty required in enforcing the rules than there is in making a journalistic comment.

And I would counter that the word "cheat" has an exceptionally high barrier to clear in the golf world with incredibly large repercussions. This isn't MLB or the NFL.

I see what you did there! I said facts and inferences. But we know how you feel about inferences. You even asked us not to use the word.

Not when you are trying to say "imply."

[Golfingdad]

It's not incompatible to maintain that Tiger hasn't been proven a cheat (at least from the point of view of bringing sanctions into play), whilst also acknowledging that Chamblee had reasonable grounds for what he wrote. Would you agree or disagree with that?

Since Brandel called him a cheat, I don't see how you believe those two can co-exist.

I guess if you get technical about it, I could agree with birly, sort of.  Simply stated, it hasn't been proven that Tiger cheated, but neither has it been proven that he didn't, so absent the proof of either, logically, both opinions have SOME validity.

On the other hand, I'd object to applying the word "reasonable" here.  Because if you are jumping to the conclusion that he is a cheater without enough evidence, you're not using reason.

[k-troop]

I guess if you get technical about it, I could agree with birly, sort of.  Simply stated, it hasn't been proven that Tiger cheated, but neither has it been proven that he didn't, so absent the proof of either, logically, both opinions have SOME validity. On the other hand, I'd object to applying the word "reasonable" here.  Because if you are jumping to the conclusion that he is a cheater without enough evidence, you're not using reason.

I'd say reasonable minds could disagree about whether Tiger cheated. 1. Masters. It was a simple rule, and he should have had no questions about the bounds of a permissible drop. 2. Twig-gate. He stopped tugging on the twig rather abruptly, indicating that he saw the ball wiggle. His comments when first shown the video can be interpreted as minimizing his culpability. 3. The totality of his "cavalierness". If you're inclined to rule against him on 1 and 2, then you're likely to have questions about the sandy drop and the Player's. Even if you're on the fence, you may believe that a lot of smoke usually means there's a fire somewhere. I think there is enough evidence there for a reasonable person to form an opinion. You have to discredit or minimize some other, contrary evidence, but there's enough there that it wouldn't be completely unreasonable.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

It's not incompatible to maintain that Tiger hasn't been proven a cheat (at least from the point of view of bringing sanctions into play), whilst also acknowledging that Chamblee had reasonable grounds for what he wrote. Would you agree or disagree with that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Since Brandel called him a cheat, I don't see how you believe those two can co-exist.

I guess if you get technical about it, I could agree with birly, sort of.  Simply stated, it hasn't been proven that Tiger cheated, but neither has it been proven that he didn't, so absent the proof of either, logically, both opinions have SOME validity.

On the other hand, I'd object to applying the word "reasonable" here.  Because if you are jumping to the conclusion that he is a cheater without enough evidence, you're not using reason.

I thought that this was the United States, where a person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Innuendo, supposition, and assumption is not even close to proof.  I realize that that right has always been ignored by the press, as it has this time by Chamblee, but that has never made it correct, or justifiable.

I'd say reasonable minds could disagree about whether Tiger cheated.

1. Masters. It was a simple rule, and he should have had no questions about the bounds of a permissible drop.

2. Twig-gate. He stopped tugging on the twig rather abruptly, indicating that he saw the ball wiggle. His comments when first shown the video can be interpreted as minimizing his culpability.

3. The totality of his "cavalierness". If you're inclined to rule against him on 1 and 2, then you're likely to have questions about the sandy drop and the Player's. Even if you're on the fence, you may believe that a lot of smoke usually means there's a fire somewhere.

I think there is enough evidence there for a reasonable person to form an opinion. You have to discredit or minimize some other, contrary evidence, but there's enough there that it wouldn't be completely unreasonable.

When you have spent as much time as I have observing players following, or attempting to follow, rules procedures, you realize that nothing of the sort can be assumed.  I've known some very knowledgeable golfers who showed a rather surprising misunderstanding of some rules.  For whatever reason, establishing dropping areas is one of the most violated rules in the book by players at all levels.  Ball moved by player is another (How often have you accidentally tapped your ball while addressing it? - Did it move, or just oscillate?).  The fact that he made a mistake in following a procedure, or failed to observe a minuscule movement in no way adds up to a cheating charge.

[k-troop]

I thought that this was the United States, where a person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Innuendo, supposition, and assumption is not even close to proof.  I realize that that right has always been ignored by the press, as it has this time by Chamblee, but that has never made it correct, or justifiable.

When Tiger is accused of a crime, I have no doubt he will enjoy full Due Process protections.

[ghalfaire]

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.

I don't know but suspect it is unusual to have the rules officials call 3 penalties in a season.  I've tried to find the average number of penalties per season per player called by rules officials but no luck.  Maybe someone out there knows but not me and I'm tried of looking and it isn't likely a recorded statistic.

[myankee]

I don't know but suspect it is unusual to have the rules officials call 3 penalties in a season.  I've tried to find the average number of penalties per season per player called by rules officials but no luck.  Maybe someone out there knows but not me and I'm tried of looking and it isn't likely a recorded statistic.

I thought that this was the United States, where a person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Innuendo, supposition, and assumption is not even close to proof.  I realize that that right has always been ignored by the press, as it has this time by Chamblee, but that has never made it correct, or justifiable.

attorney 35 yrs  .   any  judge   would nt  ever allow  this silly suit by steinberg go to trail.  please someone  with knowledge of contacting  steinberg  do  so n tell  him,although he maybe an  attorney/agent himself, but unlikely