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

[Golfingdad]

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.

I wish this were true only of sports reporters.  However, nowadays, it seems to reflect the climate of "serious" journalism as well.  (Except the part about them all being ex-jocks ;))

[bplewis24]

I agree that Tiger doesn't have much to win here.  I understand he and his agent are pissed, and IMO rightfully so, but I don't see much good coming from a lawsuit.

I haven't read any of the user-comments from ESPN today, but my guess is that there are tons of guys saying that Tiger is trying to "buy" silence in the form of a lawsuit getting Chamblee to shut up.  Wouldn't surprise me if people equated it with Lance Armstrong bullying people (with money and lawsuits) into shutting up or backing off their claims.

Neither of those viewpoints may be credible, but nobody ever said the court of public opinion was a rational one.  There are lots and lots of vocal Tiger haters out there.

All told, I wish he'd not pursue legal measures against the golf channel.  Having said all of that, I find Chamblee coming off as a weasel of a man.  I've never formed a strong opinion of him even though a lot of folks dislike him on this forum.  But I find his act pretty cowardly in this situation.  He is very clearly equating Woods to an intentional cheater, but is now using the "well I never said those exact words" defense.  Going further, he's also trying to pretend like he simply did the honorable thing in "generating the discussion on both sides", and only apologizes for something vague and unimportant.  It is incredibly cowardly, and I'd prefer it if he simply stood by his opinion or flat out apologized.

[newtogolf]

I wish this were true only of sports reporters.  However, nowadays, it seems to reflect the climate of "serious" journalism as well.  (Except the part about them all being ex-jocks ;))

Serious journalism has become an oxymoron.  Almost every news article written today is more an op-ed rather than simply reporting the facts as they happened.  CNN and FOX don't report facts, they interpret the facts and spin them to appease their viewers.

In terms of sports, it seems that golf has an abundance of stalkers like BC, Miceli,  who never miss taking a cheap shot at Tiger.  These sort of hatchet jobs aren't as common in other sports, except for guys like ARod, most likely because the players stick together and will make it tough on a reporter that attacks someone that's liked on their team.

[Hoganwoods]

Nothing will come of this.  Tiger won't boycott the GC and the GC will not fire Chamblee.  Tiger is putting a leash on him, that's all.  If he messes up again, the GC will have no choice to get rid of him and Tiger will not be the bad guy.  Just IMO obviously...

I'll tell you who has to be loving this though... Nobilo. That guy takes more crap from Chamblee than anyone! How dare Frank Nobilo challenge the mighty Brandel and his dictionary of notes!

[turtleback]

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.

Lee Janzen in 2001. http://lubbockonline.com/stories/061701/pro_0617010092.shtml

The difference between Tiger's case and Padraig's , which you refuse to acknowledge, is that in Tiger's case the Committee had knowledge, before he signed his card, that there was a potential problem and did not talk to him.  Had they done their job and followed normal rules administration procedures, what David Fay called Rules administration 101, they would have talked to him, and assessed the 2 strokes and THEN he would have signed the card. No such circumstances existed in Padraig's case.

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.

The 2012 ruling had nothing to do with the waiver of DQ at the Masters.  The committee has had that authority for a long time.  The 2012 ruling just spelled out a situation where that authority could be used.  It was not an exclusive exposition of all of the situations in which that authority could be exercised.  The USGA statement made this clear as they specifically said the 2012 (actually 2011) decision had nothing to do with the DQ waiver.

http://www.usga.org/news/2013/May/Statement-on-Tiger-Woods-Ruling-at-Masters/

[krupa]

After following this thread for a while, I'm reminded of a passage from Dashiell Hammett.

Quote:

Thinking's a dizzy business, a matter of catching as many of those foggy glimpses as you can and fitting them together as best you can.  That's why people hang on so tight to their beliefs and opinions; because compared to the haphazard way in which they're arrived at, even the goofiest opinion seems wonderfully clear, sane, and self-evident.  And if you let it get away from you then you've got to dive back into that foggy muddle to wangle yourself out another to take its place.

[ghalfaire]

Just too many to quote and respond individually to here that responded to my comment that I thought it unfair that Tiger was not DQ'ed at the Masters considering Padraig (and many others were) were DQ'ed for signing an incorrect score card.  So I apologize for that and being late with a response (I was on the course yesterday).  My only response is that I don't know of another case where a player was not disqualified for an incorrect score card and instead was assessed the penalty for the infraction and yes the committee, I believe, has always had the power to do that if they felt the circumstances warranted it.  So unless someone knows of a PGA player signing an incorrect score card and not being DQ'ed, other than Tiger, I would like to hear about.  I have tired to find such an event but have not been successful but a lot of you out there are better informed than I am and maybe know of one.  But unless there was such case I remain convinced that Tiger got a break because of his place in the game that that other touring PGA professionals who were equally innocent of intent to cheat but just made a mistake were denied.

I am not one of the Tiger haters and if the role of Tiger and Padraig were reversed I'd feel the same way about different outcomes for same infractions.  The fact that the committee knew and didn't respond doesn't relieve Tiger or anyone else from the consequences of their mistakes. It is the golfer's responsibility for the their actions and not the committee's.

[Fourputt]

Just too many to quote and respond individually to here that responded to my comment that I thought it unfair that Tiger was not DQ'ed at the Masters considering Padraig (and many others were) were DQ'ed for signing an incorrect score card.  So I apologize for that and being late with a response (I was on the course yesterday).  My only response is that I don't know of another case where a player was not disqualified for an incorrect score card and instead was assessed the penalty for the infraction and yes the committee, I believe, has always had the power to do that if they felt the circumstances warranted it.  So unless someone knows of a PGA player signing an incorrect score card and not being DQ'ed, other than Tiger, I would like to hear about.  I have tired to find such an event but have not been successful but a lot of you out there are better informed than I am and maybe know of one.  But unless there was such case I remain convinced that Tiger got a break because of his place in the game that that other touring PGA professionals who were equally innocent of intent to cheat but just made a mistake were denied.

I am not one of the Tiger haters and if the role of Tiger and Padraig were reversed I'd feel the same way about different outcomes for same infractions.  The fact that the committee knew and didn't respond doesn't relieve Tiger or anyone else from the consequences of their mistakes. It is the golfer's responsibility for the their actions and not the committee's.

Why does it matter if there have been no other instances, or at least none well publicized?  In Tiger's case, there were clearly extenuating circumstances which required such a decision.  There would have been no DQ option if the committee had done its job, thus it would have been patently unfair to disqualify a player for the committee's negligence.  Tiger didn't "get away with it because he is Tiger", he was treated fairly and impartially by the committee.  It is purely a timing issue.  If the committee had not been apprised of the issue before Tiger returned his card, then he would have been disqualified, just like any other player.

[iacas]

So unless someone knows of a PGA player signing an incorrect score card and not being DQ'ed, other than Tiger, I would like to hear about.

@ghalfaire , look two posts above yours. @turtleback even quoted and responded to you. I posted that bit a long time ago when it was being discussed (http://thesandtrap.com/t/66225/the-2013-masters-tiger-drop-penalty-and-fallout/90#post_833969).

I also agree with what @Fourputt just said - there doesn't need to be a prior example. It just so happens that there was one (but there may not have been prior to Lee Janzen's).

[birlyshirly]

So, is there any relationship in terms of shared ownership between Golf Channel and Sports Illustrated/Golf.com to justify Woods' camp taking their retaliation to the Golf Channel?

If they have a beef with Chamblee, then take it up with him.

If they have a beef with Chamblee having been allowed to state an opinion that they think is slanderous or otherwise damaging, then take that up with the publishers and editors who allowed it air.

If there's no link, then I think the above posters are correct. This looks like bullying and press manipulation, rather than seeking legitimate (however heavy-handed) redress.

[phan52]

Why does it matter if there have been no other instances, or at least none well publicized?  In Tiger's case, there were clearly extenuating circumstances which required such a decision.  There would have been no DQ option if the committee had done its job, thus it would have been patently unfair to disqualify a player for the committee's negligence.  Tiger didn't "get away with it because he is Tiger", he was treated fairly and impartially by the committee.  It is purely a timing issue.  If the committee had not been apprised of the issue before Tiger returned his card, then he would have been disqualified, just like any other player.

Here is where I diverge from what you are saying, and central to my opinion that Tiger is treated differently. If it had been someone else, I think they would have looked at it closer and acted differently, at the very least talking to the player when he came off the golf course. Instead, Ridley said they were "splitting hairs" and it wasn't worth further attention. Tiger was lucky that he had a backup rule in order to stay qualified because the rules chairman was delinquent.

The Rules of Golf are pretty back-and-white and there is no room for "splitting hairs". Did Tiger apply rule 26-1(a) properly? No he did not, and Eger recognizd it immediately. But IMO, Ridley gave Tiger a pass and it bit him in the butt.

Now this Chamblee thing has reached the next level and it will be interesting to see if the Golf Channel bows to Tiger's tactic.

[krupa]

Here is where I diverge from what you are saying, and central to my opinion that Tiger is treated differently. If it had been someone else, I think they would have looked at it closer and acted differently, at the very least talking to the player when he came off the golf course. Instead, Ridley said they were "splitting hairs" and it wasn't worth further attention. Tiger was lucky that he had a backup rule in order to stay qualified because the rules chairman was delinquent.

The Rules of Golf are pretty back-and-white and there is no room for "splitting hairs". Did Tiger apply rule 26-1(a) properly? No he did not, and Eger recognizd it immediately. But IMO, Ridley gave Tiger a pass and it bit him in the butt.

Now this Chamblee thing has reached the next level and it will be interesting to see if the Golf Channel bows to Tiger's tactic.

That's how you form an opinion?  Assumptions about how people would act in a hypothetical situation?

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Here is where I diverge from what you are saying, and central to my opinion that Tiger is treated differently. If it had been someone else, I think they would have looked at it closer and acted differently, at the very least talking to the player when he came off the golf course. Instead, Ridley said they were "splitting hairs" and it wasn't worth further attention. Tiger was lucky that he had a backup rule in order to stay qualified because the rules chairman was delinquent.

The Rules of Golf are pretty back-and-white and there is no room for "splitting hairs". Did Tiger apply rule 26-1(a) properly? No he did not, and Eger recognizd it immediately. But IMO, Ridley gave Tiger a pass and it bit him in the butt.

Now this Chamblee thing has reached the next level and it will be interesting to see if the Golf Channel bows to Tiger's tactic.

Originally Posted by krupa

That's how you form an opinion?  Assumptions about how people would act in a hypothetical situation?

Golf rules officials are not in the practice of "splitting hairs". They are pretty tough when it comes to assessing potential rules violations, as we see all the time. Eger and Russell both had concerns that should have been addressed, but Ridley blew them off, IMO, because it was Tiger.

[Golfingdad]

Just too many to quote and respond individually to here that responded to my comment that I thought it unfair that Tiger was not DQ'ed at the Masters considering Padraig (and many others were) were DQ'ed for signing an incorrect score card.  So I apologize for that and being late with a response (I was on the course yesterday).  My only response is that I don't know of another case where a player was not disqualified for an incorrect score card and instead was assessed the penalty for the infraction and yes the committee, I believe, has always had the power to do that if they felt the circumstances warranted it.  So unless someone knows of a PGA player signing an incorrect score card and not being DQ'ed, other than Tiger, I would like to hear about.  I have tired to find such an event but have not been successful but a lot of you out there are better informed than I am and maybe know of one.  But unless there was such case I remain convinced that Tiger got a break because of his place in the game that that other touring PGA professionals who were equally innocent of intent to cheat but just made a mistake were denied.

I am not one of the Tiger haters and if the role of Tiger and Padraig were reversed I'd feel the same way about different outcomes for same infractions.  The fact that the committee knew and didn't respond doesn't relieve Tiger or anyone else from the consequences of their mistakes. It is the golfer's responsibility for the their actions and not the committee's.

Iacas and turtleback have provided some examples, I believe, where this has happened before, and also pointed out that just because something hasn't happened before doesn't preclude it from ever happening.  There always has to be a first time, right?

But in Tiger's case, I would actually argue that the bold portion of your statement is incorrect.  It's a grey area, so I realize that there is no right or wrong, but one could argue that since the committee made a ruling (without discussing it with Tiger, which is the problem) that there was no infraction, then, he did not, in fact, sign an incorrect scorecard.

Here is where I diverge from what you are saying, and central to my opinion that Tiger is treated differently. If it had been someone else, I think they would have looked at it closer and acted differently, at the very least talking to the player when he came off the golf course. Instead, Ridley said they were "splitting hairs" and it wasn't worth further attention. Tiger was lucky that he had a backup rule in order to stay qualified because the rules chairman was delinquent.

The Rules of Golf are pretty back-and-white and there is no room for "splitting hairs". Did Tiger apply rule 26-1(a) properly? No he did not, and Eger recognizd it immediately. But IMO, Ridley gave Tiger a pass and it bit him in the butt.

Now this Chamblee thing has reached the next level and it will be interesting to see if the Golf Channel bows to Tiger's tactic.

I think it's a big leap to assume that another player would be treated differently.  First off, other players aren't paid nearly the same amount of attention, so it's possible, and even likely, that nobody would even notice.

But for arguments sake, lets say everything went exactly as you propose.  I think its entirely possible that anybody, including Tiger, could have escaped with NO penalty if they had come talked to him prior to his signing the card.  That would have given him the chance to think clearly about what had happened and what he had done and why he had done it prior to his incriminating interview.  Everybody knows the rule, and when they're thinking clearly, how easy would it be for anybody to just nod and say yes when asked if they dropped as nearly as possible to the previous spot?

As far as your last sentence regarding BC ... I agree, and I hope that TGC does not "bow to Tiger's tactic."  That won't look good for anybody.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Here is where I diverge from what you are saying, and central to my opinion that Tiger is treated differently. If it had been someone else, I think they would have looked at it closer and acted differently, at the very least talking to the player when he came off the golf course. Instead, Ridley said they were "splitting hairs" and it wasn't worth further attention. Tiger was lucky that he had a backup rule in order to stay qualified because the rules chairman was delinquent.

The Rules of Golf are pretty back-and-white and there is no room for "splitting hairs". Did Tiger apply rule 26-1(a) properly? No he did not, and Eger recognizd it immediately. But IMO, Ridley gave Tiger a pass and it bit him in the butt.

Now this Chamblee thing has reached the next level and it will be interesting to see if the Golf Channel bows to Tiger's tactic.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I think it's a big leap to assume that another player would be treated differently.  First off, other players aren't paid nearly the same amount of attention, so it's possible, and even likely, that nobody would even notice.

But for arguments sake, lets say everything went exactly as you propose.  I think its entirely possible that anybody, including Tiger, could have escaped with NO penalty if they had come talked to him prior to his signing the card.  That would have given him the chance to think clearly about what had happened and what he had done and why he had done it prior to his incriminating interview.  Everybody knows the rule, and when they're thinking clearly, how easy would it be for anybody to just nod and say yes when asked if they dropped as nearly as possible to the previous spot?

As far as your last sentence regarding BC ... I agree, and I hope that TGC does not "bow to Tiger's tactic."  That won't look good for anybody.

Of course, it would have required that somebody actually saw it and Tiger is certainly under more scrutiny, particularly by the networks when he is on the golf course. But Eger didn't react the way he did because it was Tiger. He saw a potential violation by a player and, being a guy with connections to the rules staff, he called somebody. It is my opinion that Ridley is the one who reacted the way he did because it was Tiger. Ridley served on the USGA Executive Committee for many years, was involved in competition committees when Tiger was winning all those amateur titles. He knows Tiger well, I assume they are friendly and he respects Tiger greatly, and he didn't do his due diligence in finding out what happened. C'mon it's Tiger, Eger, and you're splitting hairs. JMO.

But everybody, including Tiger, agreed in the end that there was a violation and they should have caught it. I find it amazing that the incident avoided closer scrutiny at the time.

[ghalfaire]

@ghalfaire, look two posts above yours. @turtleback even quoted and responded to you. I posted that bit a long time ago when it was being discussed (http://thesandtrap.com/t/66225/the-2013-masters-tiger-drop-penalty-and-fallout/90#post_833969).

I also agree with what @Fourputt just said - there doesn't need to be a prior example. It just so happens that there was one (but there may not have been prior to Lee Janzen's).

You're right there was an earlier incident of someone not getting disqualified for an incorrect score card and I had not found that (wrong Google question I guess).  I missed both your and turtelback's earlier posts although I did try to keep up this thread as it has obviously created a lot of interest because Tiger does indeed move the needle.  But I guess I just missed the posts.  So I was wrong that there was a least one instance and maybe Tiger didn't get special consideration. Like you and fourputt I'm not sure that is important to my opinion of the committee waiving disqualification.

In the USGA explanation of the decision it references the fact that the player is responsible for knowing and correctly applying the rules and that ignorance isn't a reason to waive disqualification (I am paraphrasing).  Then later in the explanation (again I'll paraphrase for brevity sake) they say because the committee knew there was a problem with the drop but didn't inform Tiger until after he had signed and submitted his score card, they were waiving disqualification.  Somehow those two statements don't fit together very well for me.  The golfer is either responsible for their action or not and I would have, before this anyway, thought that true regardless of action or inaction on the part of the committee.  But it is what it is and I'll just concede I'm in the minority with that opinion and say I am probably out to touch with how others feel.  But time will tell if it was a good decision or not on the committee's part as they did set a, or follow an earlier, precedent.  But I do understand the argument for what the committee did and respect their right to do it and other's opinions believing it was the right thing to do, I just don't agree.

[Phil McGleno]

You know this How? You are capable of reading minds and at that exact moment in time you were reading David Egers?-Or is this just another example of the lengths to which youll stretch what is knowable or truth rather than just being whatever You Think it is in order to push your point?[quote name="phan52" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/288#post_913612"] Of course, it would have required that somebody actually saw it and Tiger is certainly under more scrutiny, particularly by the networks when he is on the golf course. But Eger didn't react the way he did because it was Tiger. He saw a potential violation by a player and, being a guy with connections to the rules staff, he called somebody. It is my opinion that Ridley is the one who reacted the way he did because it was Tiger. Ridley served on the USGA Executive Committee for many years, was involved in competition committees when Tiger was winning all those amateur titles. He knows Tiger well, I assume they are friendly and he respects Tiger greatly, and he didn't do his due diligence in finding out what happened. C'mon it's Tiger, Eger, and you're splitting hairs. JMO. But everybody, including Tiger, agreed in the end that there was a violation and they should have caught it. I find it amazing that the incident avoided closer scrutiny at the time. [/quote]

[iacas]

But time will tell if it was a good decision or not on the committee's part as they did set a, or follow an earlier, precedent.

They followed the Rules of Golf. There's no need for "precedent."

In the future, I imagine they'll be more careful about discussing with players possible rules infractions. Had they done so, Tiger would have gotten two strokes Friday evening rather than Saturday morning. Same end result (except less controversy, which was their own creation ).