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

[k-troop]

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.   [URL=http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=6044348]http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=6044348[/URL]     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 $$).

There is another explanation: the rule requiring DQ in that situation was modified in 2012 to give the committee latitude where a penalty is assessed after the player turns in their card.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

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 $$).

There is another explanation: the rule requiring DQ in that situation was modified in 2012 to give the committee latitude where a penalty is assessed after the player turns in their card.

Also, the Master case was a completely different situation, as the committee was informed of the issue well before Tiger finished his round, but they chose not to act on what they saw.  By not disqualifying Tiger, the committee acknowledged their error in not acting in a timely fashion.  It had nothing to do with anything else.

In the ball moving incident, Harrington signed and returned his card before the infraction was known, and there was no safety net at the time.   The rule has been changed, in part due to the Harrington incident, to eliminate the DQ penalty if the infraction was something that the player could not have known of at the time it occurred.  Had that rule been in force at the time, Harrington would not have been DQ'd either.  No special treatment for Tiger as so many try to say, just a new rule.

[Valleygolfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

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.

I'm sorry but Golf has to go with times too. All the tv coverage and money that is affected by a slight rift in play, you cannot ignore the circumstances and fallout from missed calls in golf. The PGA is entertainment based when it comes to the tour. You would ignorant to think otherwise.

[bplewis24]

That's like being shown video footage by the police of your car swerving all over the road - and thinking that a reasonable comment is that you don't see "anything" on the basis that no-one was hurt.

Actually, it's completely unlike that.  Swerving all over the road constitutes reckless driving and is against the law.  The ball oscillating in place without coming to rest in a different place is not against the rules of golf and wouldn't warrant an infraction.  Also, a car swerving all over the road is very easy to distinguish.

The fact that you can't grasp these things means that I'm done with this particular topic.  Carry on believing what you want so strongly to believe.

Why do you think that's an unreasonable interpretation? Aren't you (or some others) equating "I see nothing" to "I see an oscillation". Maybe I'm missing something but neither interpretation seems more reasonable than the other just on the plain meaning of the words used.

It's unreasonable to assume that is the only interpretation.  If you look at the discussion history between billy and I on this specific subject, you'll see that he believes the only way you can interpret that quote is as if Tiger was saying he did not see the ball move at all.  Maybe he has backed off of that somewhat, but it is unreasonable to assume that is the only interpretation.  And I definitely disagree with you that neither "I see no movement at all" or "I see no infraction" seems more reasonable based on the context and the words used.  One is definitely more likely.

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.

But that wasn't the discussion.  The discussion was whether Tiger meant "I see no movement at all" when he said "I see nothing."

But it seems utterly threadbare to me - the more so if after each of his first two viewings of the video he was trying to argue that he saw no movement at all.

Given the fact that Tiger said publicly that he thought he saw an oscillation only, it would be difficult to make any reasonable argument that when he said "i see nothing" he was saying he saw no movement at all as opposed to saying he saw no reason to be penalized.

[birlyshirly]

Actually, it's completely unlike that.  Swerving all over the road constitutes reckless driving and is against the law.  The ball oscillating in place without coming to rest in a different place is not against the rules of golf and wouldn't warrant an infraction.  Also, a car swerving all over the road is very easy to distinguish.

The fact that you can't grasp these things means that I'm done with this particular topic.  Carry on believing what you want so strongly to believe.

Or you were overtaking, or trying to avoid somebody else's stupidity, or you suffered a mechanical, or your wife was in labour. Alex Ferguson, the manager of Man U, once got off a speeding charge on the basis that he was trying to get home before a chronic dose of diarrhoea got the better of him. The point you miss, both in terms of the analogy and in terms of whether I'm biased against Tiger, is that there are numerous possible explanations - some of which are innocent. I just think that some sort of explanation is required once apparently dodgy-looking events occur - and "nothing to see here" does not do it for me.

Your argument doesn't seem to be any more than that Tiger doesn't have to explain himself - because he wouldn't do anything dodgy.

It's unreasonable to assume that is the only interpretation.  If you look at the discussion history between billy and I on this specific subject, you'll see that he believes the only way you can interpret that quote is as if Tiger was saying he did not see the ball move at all.  Maybe he has backed off of that somewhat, but it is unreasonable to assume that is the only interpretation.  And I definitely disagree with you that neither "I see no movement at all" or "I see no infraction" seems more reasonable based on the context and the words used.  One is definitely more likely.

But that wasn't the discussion.  The discussion was whether Tiger meant "I see no movement at all" when he said "I see nothing."

Given the fact that Tiger said publicly that he thought he saw an oscillation only, it would be difficult to make any reasonable argument that when he said "i see nothing" he was saying he saw no movement at all as opposed to saying he saw no reason to be penalized.

I'm a plain english kind of guy. If I thought I wasn't due a penalty because my ball has oscillated, I'd say so. I wouldn't just say that nothing had happened. Per the car analogy above - give an explanation that might take people with you.

[Golfingdad]

I'm a plain english kind of guy. If I thought I wasn't due a penalty because my ball has oscillated, I'd say so. I wouldn't just say that nothing had happened. Per the car analogy above - give an explanation that might take people with you.

Yes, but the whole point of him being shown the video in the first place is under the pretext that they believe that his ball moved.  That is already what is under question, so he doesn't need to restate the entirety of the charge, so to speak.  Plus, you have no idea what was said by the guy showing the video.

Rules guys:  "See, Tiger, here is where we see your ball move."

Tiger: "I don't see anything."

Rules guy: "Right here, right when you touch the stick."

Tiger: "Still don't see it."

Rules guy: "You sure?  One more time, right there?"

Tiger: "Nope, still don't see it."

How does that not seem reasonable to you?  Or does it have to be:

"Tiger, here is where we see your ball move."

"Sir, I do not see my ball move.  I see that it oscillates though."

"Right here, right when you touch the stick."

"No, I don't see any movement, per the rules of golf, but, yes, I do see oscillation, per the rules of golf."

"You sure?  One more time, right here."

"No, I do not see any evidence that my ball moved from one place to another.  I only see that it moved slightly, not the rules of golf definition of moved, but normal definition of moved, and then I see that it moves back to where it was previously, and therefore, that is why I believe that it only oscillated."

Who talks like that?  Who would expect anybody else to talk like that?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

I'm a plain english kind of guy. If I thought I wasn't due a penalty because my ball has oscillated, I'd say so. I wouldn't just say that nothing had happened. Per the car analogy above - give an explanation that might take people with you.

Yes, but the whole point of him being shown the video in the first place is under the pretext that they believe that his ball moved.  That is already what is under question, so he doesn't need to restate the entirety of the charge, so to speak.  Plus, you have no idea what was said by the guy showing the video.

Rules guys:  "See, Tiger, here is where we see your ball move."

Tiger: "I don't see anything."

Rules guy: "Right here, right when you touch the stick."

Tiger: "Still don't see it."

Rules guy: "You sure?  One more time, right there?"

Tiger: "Nope, still don't see it."

How does that not seem reasonable to you?  Or does it have to be:

"Tiger, here is where we see your ball move."

"Sir, I do not see my ball move.  I see that it oscillates though."

"Right here, right when you touch the stick."

"No, I don't see any movement, per the rules of golf, but, yes, I do see oscillation, per the rules of golf."

"You sure?  One more time, right here."

"No, I do not see any evidence that my ball moved from one place to another.  I only see that it moved slightly, not the rules of golf definition of moved, but normal definition of moved, and then I see that it moves back to where it was previously, and therefore, that is why I believe that it only oscillated."

Who talks like that?  Who would expect anybody else to talk like that?

Apparently birlyshirly does.  He must be one of the few people in the world who doesn't use any shortcuts when he talks.  Every time he speaks, he makes every point in agonizing detail.

[birlyshirly]

Golfingdad - that is very much my point.

Your first dialogue would be reasonable if Tiger really could not see any movement at all.* But I don't think it's consistent with a sincere belief on his part that the video shows oscillation.

Scenario 2 is clearly, and I realise intentionally, ridiculous. That is a point I have tried to make already in this thread. I'm curious whether you don't think my post no. 194 and the replies to it are basically hashing out the same issue that you've hightlighted here - and that you and I basically agree.

*Obviously though, I don't think that's a credible position to maintain in the face of the video evidence that we've seen.

[Golfingdad]

Golfingdad - that is very much my point.

Your first dialogue would be reasonable if Tiger really could not see any movement at all.* But I don't think it's consistent with a sincere belief on his part that the video shows oscillation.

Scenario 2 is clearly, and I realise intentionally, ridiculous. That is a point I have tried to make already in this thread. I'm curious whether you don't think my post no. 194 and the replies to it are basically hashing out the same issue that you've hightlighted here - and that you and I basically agree.

*Obviously though, I don't think that's a credible position to maintain in the face of the video evidence that we've seen.

No, I don't agree with that at all, I think that your post 194 assumes too much.  You're making up what you believe the conversation to have been, and ignoring the possiblility that there are a million other ways for it to have gone.  You are saying there is no way that a conversation could have occured where Tiger could have uttered phrases like "I don't see anything" and it could be understood that that means he doesn't see an infraction.  You've been given a jillion examples and reasons why you are wrong, but refuse to look at it any other way.

But this is a silly side point anyway ... I've forgotten what it has to do with Brandel Chamblee at this point. ;)

[birlyshirly]

Apparently birlyshirly does.  He must be one of the few people in the world who doesn't use any shortcuts when he talks.  Every time he speaks, he makes every point in agonizing detail.

I'm sorry you find detail agonizing. K-troop's logic seems to have had you in painful contortions too.

[birlyshirly]

No, I don't agree with that at all, I think that your post 194 assumes too much.  You're making up what you believe the conversation to have been, and ignoring the possiblility that there are a million other ways for it to have gone.  You are saying there is no way that a conversation could have occured where Tiger could have uttered phrases like "I don't see anything" and it could be understood that that means he doesn't see an infraction.  You've been given a jillion examples and reasons why you are wrong, but refuse to look at it any other way.

But this is a silly side point anyway ... I've forgotten what it has to do with Brandel Chamblee at this point. ;)

Fair enough. I honestly thought your post was saying the same thing.

Yes - the conversation with rules officials could have been anything - but I surely the Woods side of it boils down to only 2 possibilities. No visible movement - or oscillation. If you really think that the reported "I don't see anything" is an adequate way to cover either argument - then I suppose I really have to accept that at face value. You seem reasonable in most other respects.

[dsc123]

So when Tiger says:

Quote:

"All I am going to say is that I know I am going forward," Woods said before his exhibition match with Rory McIlroy at Mission Hills. "But then, I don't know what the Golf Channel is going to do or not. But then that's up to them. The whole issue has been very disappointing, as he didn't really apologize and he sort of reignited the whole situation.

"So the ball really is in the court of the Golf Channel and what they are prepared to do."

He's calling for BC to be fired, right?  Or at least demand that he issue an apology?

Its sort of a lose-lose situation for Tiger.  There's really nothing worse than being called a cheat.  So I get why he wouldn't just blow it off.  But if BC gets canned, it will look bad for Tiger--the stain remains but now you've got the new one that anyone who crosses Tiger gets canned.  If that happens, then the public will never be able to trust the media when it comes to Tiger.  As hard as it would be, it would have been better for him to blow it off, which is something he usually does extremely well.

[birlyshirly]

So when Tiger says:

He's calling for BC to be fired, right?  Or at least demand that he issue an apology?

Its sort of a lose-lose situation for Tiger.  There's really nothing worse than being called a cheat.  So I get why he wouldn't just blow it off.  But if BC gets canned, it will look bad for Tiger--the stain remains but now you've got the new one that anyone who crosses Tiger gets canned.  If that happens, then the public will never be able to trust the media when it comes to Tiger.  As hard as it would be, it would have been better for him to blow it off, which is something he usually does extremely well.

I understand your reasoning. But you're maybe being a tad harsh on Tiger.

There might be more people than you think willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - and interpret his remarks as a call for BC to be handsomely rewarded for his willingness to tell it like it is, without fear or favour. The things is, as I've learned on this thread, there's no way of knowing what was going through Tiger's mind as he said those words.

[Golfingdad]

So when Tiger says:

He's calling for BC to be fired, right?  Or at least demand that he issue an apology?

Its sort of a lose-lose situation for Tiger.  There's really nothing worse than being called a cheat.  So I get why he wouldn't just blow it off.  But if BC gets canned, it will look bad for Tiger--the stain remains but now you've got the new one that anyone who crosses Tiger gets canned.  If that happens, then the public will never be able to trust the media when it comes to Tiger.  As hard as it would be, it would have been better for him to blow it off, which is something he usually does extremely well.

I'm guessing that TGC knows what he wants of them.  And, even though birly is just being a smart-alec ;), he is technically right that we have no idea what Tiger means here.  But, your two options are the most reasonable.  And I totally agree that there is no good outcome now, unless Tiger just drops it.

Assuming he means he wants BC fired:

They comply, and like you said, now the public will trust the media even less than they already do when it comes to Tiger.

They don't, and then what?  He refuses to do interviews with Steve Sands after rounds?  He won't talk to Frank Nobilo during the week of majors?  All just to punish TGC?  That'll just make him look petty.

Assuming he wants an apology:

They comply, and again, it looks just like the media is kow-towing to his whims to keep him happy ... seeing as how Brandel already attempted an apology, this one will be looked at as likely being completely insincere.

They don't, and then the same scenario as above could play out.

Everybody should probably just let this drop.**

**Oh yes ... I see the irony ;) ... but I have work to avoid, and no other good way to kill the time.  What else would you have me do?? ;)

[dsc123]

I understand your reasoning. But you're maybe being a tad harsh on Tiger. There might be more people than you think willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - and interpret his remarks as a call for BC to be handsomely rewarded for his willingness to tell it like it is, without fear or favour. The things is, as I've learned on this thread, there's no way of knowing what was going through Tiger's mind as he said those words.

I'm not criticizing him, I totally get it. In fact, I think it's remarkable how often he takes the high road. It won't change anyone's mind if Chamblee I scanned , so in the court of public opinion he has nothing to gain.

[newtogolf]

Tiger is in a no win situation.  His best option is to let the story die so he gives his critics less ammo to use against him.

The fact that anyone would feel sorry for BC after he called a professional golfer a cheater is the tragedy here.  Calling a golfer "a cheater" to his face would typically result in a punch to the face or gut but BC hides behind his press pass and keyboard.  He's a coward and looks even worse after his pathetic attempt at an apology.

[birlyshirly]

I'm guessing that TGC knows what he wants of them.  And, even though birly is just being a smart-alec ;), he is technically right that we have no idea what Tiger means here.  But, your two options are the most reasonable.  And I totally agree that there is no good outcome now, unless Tiger just drops it.

hey - not just being a smart-alec! I want the credit for pointing out with my first post on this thread the dangers of Tiger being seen to try and bully the press.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I'm guessing that TGC knows what he wants of them.  And, even though birly is just being a smart-alec ;), he is technically right that we have no idea what Tiger means here.  But, your two options are the most reasonable.  And I totally agree that there is no good outcome now, unless Tiger just drops it.

hey - not just being a smart-alec! I want the credit for pointing out with my first post on this thread the dangers of Tiger being seen to try and bully the press.

There is a difference between actual press reporting and commentary.  Too few sports commentators these days have any real clue what it's supposed to mean to be a reporter.  They are mostly ex-jocks with no background in journalism, and thus with little or no training in the ethics which are supposed to guide true reporters.