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

[k-troop]

Like MS256, we are equating that with not seeing any breach.  Big difference, and perfectly reasonable.   As in " I see nothing to be penalized for."

Okay right. But that is not the only REASONABLE interpretation. Neither is obviously correct.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Like MS256, we are equating that with not seeing any breach.  Big difference, and perfectly reasonable.   As in "I see nothing to be penalized for."

Okay right. But that is not the only REASONABLE interpretation. Neither is obviously correct.

Tell you what.  You continue to believe what you want, and I'll continue to believe what's right.

[k-troop]

Tell you what.  You continue to believe what you want, and I'll continue to believe what's right.  :smartass:

You believe your interpretations and opinions are facts and truth. That's not right. If "I don't see anything" = "I see no breach", then you must believe that what Tiger saw with his eyes was either "no movement" or "oscillation only." There are no other options. The fact that Tiger abruptly stopped pulling on the twig is also strong evidence that he saw some motion with the ball. So, essentially, you're saying that "I see nothing" meant "I see oscillation." That's a reasonable interpretation. It's just as reasonable to conclude that Tiger wasn't sure whether the ball moved or oscillated when he was pulling on the twig. "I see nothing" was a defensive stance taken when he was confronted with video evidence that he may have moved his ball in play. At the very least it is a self-serving statement. Again, we don't know. But it's dishonest to say that neither is possible or that your opinion is inherently superior to another opinion when both are based on equally imperfect information.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Tell you what.  You continue to believe what you want, and I'll continue to believe what's right.

You believe your interpretations and opinions are facts and truth. That's not right.

If "I don't see anything" = "I see no breach", then you must believe that what Tiger saw with his eyes was either "no movement" or "oscillation only." There are no other options.

The fact that Tiger abruptly stopped pulling on the twig is also strong evidence that he saw some motion with the ball.

So, essentially, you're saying that "I see nothing" meant "I see oscillation." That's a reasonable interpretation.

It's just as reasonable to conclude that Tiger wasn't sure whether the ball moved or oscillated when he was pulling on the twig. "I see nothing" was a defensive stance taken when he was confronted with video evidence that he may have moved his ball in play.

Again, we don't know. But it's dishonest to say that neither is possible or that your opinion is inherently superior to another opinion when both are based on equally imperfect information.

You keep saying the same thing over and over without ever acknowledging that I've already responded to it.  Of course he quit pulling when he saw the ball wiggle.  He'd have to be an idiot to keep yanking after that.

I've done the same thing.  Virtually anyone who has ever played the game for any length of time has done the same thing.

That doesn't mean that Tiger saw the ball move as it is defined in the rules.  All it means is that he saw it wiggle, or twitch, or oscillate, and immediately desisted.  You are the one who seems to think that the only possible explanation is that he knew it moved and tried to cover it up.  I say you are wrong.  I believe that it was an honest mistake based on his angle of observation at the time of the occurrence. Even from the much lower angle of the camera it isn't immediately obvious.  In real time such movement would be indistinguishable from a wiggle.

This is the last time I'm going to repeat myself, so I hope you read it.

[k-troop]

You are the one who seems to think that the only possible explanation is that he knew it moved and tried to cover it up.  I say you are wrong.

Where have I said that is the only possible explanation? Where? WHERE???

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You are the one who seems to think that the only possible explanation is that he knew it moved and tried to cover it up.  I say you are wrong.

Where have I said that is the only possible explanation? Where? WHERE???

What the hell else are you arguing for then?  You have now lost me completely.  I've explained my position as clearly as it's possible, so I'm done here.  Broncos and Redskins are about to start.  Bye now.

[mvmac]

All it means is that he saw it wiggle, or twitch, or oscillate, and immediately desisted.

Agree with that, he stopped to avoid the ball from moving, it did change positions but he thought it just oscillated.  Again, the fact that we need to zoom in, draw lines and watch the playback a few times means it wasn't obvious the ball had moved.  I think if he clearly saw it move he would have called the penalty on himself.

[birlyshirly]

The other instances have nothing to do with telling the truth. They were simply penalties.

I'm not sure how narrowly you mean that. But if you mean that there has been no debate about Tiger's honesty and integrity arising from the earlier events, I think that's demonstrably false.

More like a video of a car swerving slightly and touching the center line and the police watching the video with the subject and asking him if he should be given a ticket.

"I don't see anything" when looking for violations is a common expression. It doesn't mean that we literally don't see anything. Just that we don't see anything that constitutes a violation.

It doesn't make sense that you can't at least cede that, no matter how badly you hate Tiger.

Well, I'm not a road traffic lawyer, but I'd say that situation invites at least a few words of explanation beyond "I see nothing." I think the same thing about Woods being showed the video footage. However, if "I don't see anything" is an American colloquialism for "I think I can argue my innocence at greater length, but I'm trying to be brief" then I suppose I could be mistaken.

I suppose I may be influenced too by the unattributed reports that Woods' behaviour with officials was less than cordial.

If the person showing you the footage also prepped the video by saying "we believe you injured somebody here" then I believe that would be a reasonable comment. Tiger was likely being shown the video as proof that he deserved a penalty, so I think that would be a fair analogy, and thus, his response wouldn't be totally unreasonable. If he was shown the same slow motion, zoomed in video we saw, then I don't know how he could think that, but maybe that cut hadn't been prepared yet. I don't know.

I'll be quite frank. Everything I've posted on this thread is based on the assumption that he was shown the zoomed-in footage that I linked to further up.

[jamo]

I'm not sure how narrowly you mean that. But if you mean that there has been no debate about Tiger's honesty and integrity arising from the earlier events, I think that's demonstrably false.

Big difference between "has been no debate" and "should not have been debate."

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

If the person showing you the footage also prepped the video by saying "we believe you injured somebody here" then I believe that would be a reasonable comment. Tiger was likely being shown the video as proof that he deserved a penalty, so I think that would be a fair analogy, and thus, his response wouldn't be totally unreasonable. If he was shown the same slow motion, zoomed in video we saw, then I don't know how he could think that, but maybe that cut hadn't been prepared yet. I don't know.

I'll be quite frank. Everything I've posted on this thread is based on the assumption that he was shown the zoomed-in footage that I linked to further up.

Now I understand.  You are assuming. Since an assumption means nothing more than that you are believing what you want to believe, I guess this discussion is over.  You have formed an opinion on what you assumed happened, with absolutely no evidence that it actually did happen.  Then argued it to its illogical conclusion.  Good job.

[birlyshirly]

Now I understand.  You are assuming.  Since an assumption means nothing more than that you are believing what you want to believe, I guess this discussion is over.  You have formed an opinion on what you assumed happened, with absolutely no evidence that it actually did happen.  Then argued it to its illogical conclusion.  Good job.

I'm making an assumption here that you wrote that whole post without the help of a dictionary to look up "assumption", "evidence" or "logical".

However, if you think that it's entirely unreasonable of me to assume that THE PGA TOUR might have shown Tiger the same footage as they uploaded to youtube - then that certainly puts your other contributions to this thread into context.

[iacas]

I'm not sure how narrowly you mean that. But if you mean that there has been no debate about Tiger's honesty and integrity arising from the earlier events, I think that's demonstrably false.

I meant exactly what I said - the two earlier penalties (the one in Dubai, the one at Augusta National) had NOTHING to do with "honesty." They were simply penalties. If anything, his honesty COST him the penalty at Augusta National. There was debate, but not about Tiger's honesty. He was penalized, but there was no real discussion of his honesty ("telling the truth"). It's pretty ridiculous of you to suggest otherwise.

[k-troop]

I think if he clearly saw it move he would have called the penalty on himself.

mvmac, not picking on you or your post, but I think there is a lot in this short excerpt from your post that illustrates the tone of the debate in this thread.

I think :  people are expressing opinions about what they think Tiger actually saw, or would have done had he seen the ball actually move as that word is defined in the rules.  It's just an opinion.  No one knows what Tiger saw or would have done.  Some are making an assumption based on the belief that Tiger is generally honest and of good character with respect to the rules.  Some other people probably think Tiger has poor character.  In some cases that is based on his personal life choices.  In other cases it may be based on his overall demeanor on the golf course, specific incidents (like the Sergio incident) where his sportsmanship has been questioned, and the FOUR rules "questions" that he has encountered this year.  (I say FOUR because a lot of people believe Tiger made an improper drop at the Player's).  But however you believe, and whatever you base it on, no one is required to give Tiger the benefit of the doubt.

if he clearly saw it move he would have called the penalty:  some folks might think Tiger should have called the penalty unless it was clear that the ball didn't move.  If there was any doubt, he should have called the penalty given that he clearly saw some motion (oscillation, wiggling, whatever).  Right or wrong, I think this is consistent with the romantic mystique some folks associate with the greats of the game calling penalties on themselves even when those violations weren't apparent to anyone else.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

I think if he clearly saw it move he would have called the penalty on himself.

mvmac, not picking on you or your post, but I think there is a lot in this short excerpt from your post that illustrates the tone of the debate in this thread.

I think:  people are expressing opinions about what they think Tiger actually saw, or would have done had he seen the ball actually move as that word is defined in the rules.  It's just an opinion.  No one knows what Tiger saw or would have done.  Some are making an assumption based on the belief that Tiger is generally honest and of good character with respect to the rules.  Some other people probably think Tiger has poor character.  In some cases that is based on his personal life choices.  In other cases it may be based on his overall demeanor on the golf course, specific incidents (like the Sergio incident) where his sportsmanship has been questioned, and the FOUR rules "questions" that he has encountered this year.  (I say FOUR because a lot of people believe Tiger made an improper drop at the Player's).  But however you believe, and whatever you base it on, no one is required to give Tiger the benefit of the doubt.

if he clearly saw it move he would have called the penalty:  some folks might think Tiger should have called the penalty unless it was clear that the ball didn't move.  If there was any doubt, he should have called the penalty given that he clearly saw some motion (oscillation, wiggling, whatever).  Right or wrong, I think this is consistent with the romantic mystique some folks associate with the greats of the game calling penalties on themselves even when those violations weren't apparent to anyone else.

Romantic mystique.  Legend.  May or may not be exactly as believed.  The one that is most often mentioned in that regard is Bobby Jones.  For all we know, he really did see the ball move, not just wiggle, but we have to assume that he didn't penalize himself just to ensure his legend.  That argument is no more convincing than any other you have put forth.

Tiger has said over and over that all he saw was an oscillation.  I believe him.  I have absolutely no reason not to.  I don't equate a single off course issue with an overreaching character flaw.  I feel that the game of golf, and his place in the history of the game, is too important to him.  That is what he lives for.  I don't see him risking that for anything.

[birlyshirly]

I meant exactly what I said - the two earlier penalties (the one in Dubai, the one at Augusta National) had NOTHING to do with "honesty." They were simply penalties. If anything, his honesty COST him the penalty at Augusta National. There was debate, but not about Tiger's honesty. He was penalized, but there was no real discussion of his honesty ("telling the truth"). It's pretty ridiculous of you to suggest otherwise.

Umm yeah - totally ridiculous to suggest that those events gave rise to any debate about his honesty

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls;=en&q;=tiger+cheat+golf+2013&ie;=UTF-8&oe;=UTF-8&gws;_rd=cr&ei;=HqdtUoavCLOZ0QXC54DYCA#q=tiger+cheat+golf+2013+-chamblee+-vonn&rls;=en

I understand what your views on the matter are. To an extent, I agree. But to suggest that there hasn't been discussion...?

[iacas]

Umm yeah - totally ridiculous to suggest that those events gave rise to any debate about his honesty

Look, birly with all respect due, you're clearly missing the point. The previous two events were rules infractions that did not involve a choice between being honest or untruthful. He simply broke the rules. That's it. It's bizarre to entertain anything else. You don't call people over or give post-round self-incriminating interviews if you're being dishonest. I'm done now. Don't quote or respond to me. This has gone beyond silly.

[mvmac]

mvmac, not picking on you or your post, but I think there is a lot in this short excerpt from your post that illustrates the tone of the debate in this thread.

No prob

I think:  people are expressing opinions about what they think Tiger actually saw, or would have done had he seen the ball actually move as that word is defined in the rules.  It's just an opinion.  No one knows what Tiger saw or would have done.  Some are making an assumption based on the belief that Tiger is generally honest and of good character with respect to the rules.  Some other people probably think Tiger has poor character.

Well yeah none of us know what Tiger saw so I'm willing to take him at his word.  He hasn't given us a reason to believe he's dishonest on the golf course.

if he clearly saw it move he would have called the penalty:  some folks might think Tiger should have called the penalty unless it was clear that the ball didn't move.  If there was any doubt, he should have called the penalty given that he clearly saw some motion (oscillation, wiggling, whatever).  Right or wrong, I think this is consistent with the romantic mystique some folks associate with the greats of the game calling penalties on themselves even when those violations weren't apparent to anyone else.

I think romantic mystique is a great way of putting it.

[ghalfaire]

Umm yeah - totally ridiculous to suggest that those events gave rise to any debate about his honesty

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls;=en&q;=tiger+cheat+golf+2013&ie;=UTF-8&oe;=UTF-8&gws;_rd=cr&ei;=HqdtUoavCLOZ0QXC54DYCA#q=tiger+cheat+golf+2013+-chamblee+-vonn&rls;=en

I understand what your views on the matter are. To an extent, I agree. But to suggest that there hasn't been discussion...?

I know I said I would not comment anymore but I can't help myself.

I don't remember on this forum anyone accusing Tiger of dishonesty relating to the first two infractions (I might have missed it however) until the last infraction (ball moved) the discussion was whether Tiger was treated different than other golfers given the same situation.  Well I don't know the answer to that but I suspect he was because "he moves the needle".  I don't know in recent times anyone signing an incorrect score card and not being disqualified.  This situation is one of the few rules where the committee has some latitude it can exercise.  When the infraction of the ball drop occurred (The Masters) I personally felt Tiger got special consideration given the penalty others had received for signing an incorrect score card.  Here is an example I recall that was similar to Tiger's ball movement in that the movement was so small that Padraig didn't realize it had happened.  He was disqualified for basically the same infraction Tiger was.

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=6044348 It is unfair I think that Tiger gets a break and Padraig (and several others if you look) gets disqualified.  I can't think of any reason for the difference other than Tiger "moves the needle" (read Sponsor $$).

As I said in another thread I believe the rules of golf need to be absolute and precise, but more important is that they are applied equally to all.  Otherwise PGA golf is no different than MLB, NFL or NBA as best I can tell.