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

[phan52]

And for everyone accusing Brandel of a lack of stones, you must think it would have been braver of him to say nothing. I'm not saying he wasn't perhaps cynical in airing his views, but hardly cowardly, compared to the other commentators who think Tiger took a few liberties this year but kept quiet.

I totally agree. There are a lot of people in the media, specifically the golf media, who would never take a controversial position on anything related to the top players, and especially Tiger.

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

As for how clearly Brandel stated his conclusion - you don't think his media outlets vetted and dictated just how close to an outright accusation of cheating he could go? That's just naive.

He even said as much in the article I posted yesterday. And as far as his apology is concerned, it doesn't strike me a particularly sincere. He said, "I want to apologize to Tiger for this incited debate." Really? I'm pretty sure the "incited debate" was his intent. He's not just an obscure analyst on the Golf Channel anymore. This was on the all-news radio station that I listen to on my way to work every morning.

[dsc123]

Here it is.

1. brandel chamblee ‏ @chambleebrandel 13h

   My intention was to note Tiger's rules infractions this year, but comparing that to cheating in grade school went too far.

   Expand
2. brandel chamblee ‏ @chambleebrandel 13h

   And no - I was not asked to apologize

   Expand
3. brandel chamblee ‏ @chambleebrandel 13h

   Golf is a gentleman's game and I'm not proud of this debate. I want to apologize to Tiger for this incited discourse.

   Expand
4. brandel chamblee ‏ @chambleebrandel 13h

   What brought me here was the realization that my comments inflamed an audience on two sides of an issue.

   Expand

He just realized that his comments were inflammatory?  Come on, he was trolling from the start.

[ghalfaire]

I read in the local paper this morning of Brandel's apology.  That's a good thing and I glad to see he did as I like Brandel and have always thought him interesting and at times provocative.  But this time I thought Brandel was unjust in implying Tiger cheated although I do think Tiger was cavalier with the rules and unlike fourputt I don't believe being cavalier requires intent, just an attitude.  But in concession I'd agree that "careless" might have been a better choice of descriptors than "cavalier" for Brandel to have used in the article.  But my faith is restored with Brandel's public apology as it shows he has more character than most of this thread gives him credit for.  Such public apologies for a public mistake are difficult to make.  So maybe Tiger made some mistakes and Brandel did too, makes them both human I would guess.

[krupa]

Quote:

And no - I was not asked to apologize

I believe that... If the boss says, "You will make a public apology", he's not asking.

For the record, I have no proof that he was told to apologize but the way he originally responded to the furor tells me that his apology was not voluntary.

[misty_mountainhop]

Big deal. He apologised? Wow. Damage done. He's like the barrister in the legal drama making a point which the judge immediately says is inadmissable and that the jury should disregard. Too late, the idea is already in those jurors minds.

If he apologised and meant it, great. I don't think that absolves him from facing any (possible) consequences though and nor should it.

[ghalfaire]

Big deal. He apologised? Wow. Damage done. He's like the barrister in the legal drama making a point which the judge immediately says is inadmissable and that the jury should disregard. Too late, the idea is already in those jurors minds.

If he apologised and meant it, great. I don't think that absolves him from facing any (possible) consequences though and nor should it.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this.  I would not question the sincerity of the apology so don't like the analogy of an attorney in court which seems to imply the apology was insincere.  I'd also say from having read most of the posts on this thread over the last week or so that Brandel did himself more damage than Tiger.  However he owed Tiger an apology and I'm glad to see he was man enough to admit a mistake and apologize and to do it publicly.

[link3220]

I'm by no means a Tiger apologist, but I'm going to sound like one now. For everyone who's mentioned that he was 'cavalier' with the rules, or that he didn't understand them well enough... Tiger probably knows the rules better than the people who wrote them. At Augusta, if his ball had gone across the water, hit the bank, and rolled back into the water, I'm sure he would have played from the correct spot. But hitting the flag stick and ricocheting back? Obviously his mind went where most of ours would have gone - what awful luck to get when you're playing one of the most important tournaments of the year. If it was so cut and dried why didn't the officials say anything until after everyone had gone home?

When he moved the twig and his ball moved a fraction of an inch? We all had the help of a very expensive zoom lens camera, and instant replay to watch over and over. Tiger had one chance to watch if his ball moved, and do it while he tries to move the branch. As soon as he saw he couldn't lift it without his ball changing position, he stopped. But to call a penalty on yourself because your ball MIGHT have moved 1/2 a millimeter, and you're not even sure if you saw it move or just the potential of it moving?

Tiger's not stupid, he knows the cameras are on him all the time. He owned up to the wrong placement at Augusta, and took the penalty he was given with no argument. I believe at the very worst, he wasn't sure if his ball had moved at the BMW, and gave himself the benefit of the doubt. And at the best, he truly believed it hadn't changed positions.

[Lihu]

I'm by no means a Tiger apologist, but I'm going to sound like one now. For everyone who's mentioned that he was 'cavalier' with the rules, or that he didn't understand them well enough... Tiger probably knows the rules better than the people who wrote them. At Augusta, if his ball had gone across the water, hit the bank, and rolled back into the water, I'm sure he would have played from the correct spot. But hitting the flag stick and ricocheting back? Obviously his mind went where most of ours would have gone - what awful luck to get when you're playing one of the most important tournaments of the year. If it was so cut and dried why didn't the officials say anything until after everyone had gone home?

When he moved the twig and his ball moved a fraction of an inch? We all had the help of a very expensive zoom lens camera, and instant replay to watch over and over. Tiger had one chance to watch if his ball moved, and do it while he tries to move the branch. As soon as he saw he couldn't lift it without his ball changing position, he stopped. But to call a penalty on yourself because your ball MIGHT have moved 1/2 a millimeter, and you're not even sure if you saw it move or just the potential of it moving?

Tiger's not stupid, he knows the cameras are on him all the time. He owned up to the wrong placement at Augusta, and took the penalty he was given with no argument. I believe at the very worst, he wasn't sure if his ball had moved at the BMW, and gave himself the benefit of the doubt. And at the best, he truly believed it hadn't changed positions.

I was also thinking this ^^^^^.

Another question comes up, why is it important if the ball moved 1mm? I can see if it is buried and pulling it up 1 mm might put it past some horizon line.

Technology will continue to improve and we will be able to see smaller and smaller levels of movement. Do we continue to extend this ball movement rule to absurd resolutions? What is the modern reasoning behind these rules? Not sure if this was the intent of the original rules or not.

[3putter]

I'm by no means a Tiger apologist, but I'm going to sound like one now. For everyone who's mentioned that he was 'cavalier' with the rules, or that he didn't understand them well enough... Tiger probably knows the rules better than the people who wrote them. At Augusta, if his ball had gone across the water, hit the bank, and rolled back into the water, I'm sure he would have played from the correct spot. But hitting the flag stick and ricocheting back? Obviously his mind went where most of ours would have gone - what awful luck to get when you're playing one of the most important tournaments of the year. If it was so cut and dried why didn't the officials say anything until after everyone had gone home?

When he moved the twig and his ball moved a fraction of an inch? We all had the help of a very expensive zoom lens camera, and instant replay to watch over and over. Tiger had one chance to watch if his ball moved, and do it while he tries to move the branch. As soon as he saw he couldn't lift it without his ball changing position, he stopped. But to call a penalty on yourself because your ball MIGHT have moved 1/2 a millimeter, and you're not even sure if you saw it move or just the potential of it moving?

Tiger's not stupid, he knows the cameras are on him all the time. He owned up to the wrong placement at Augusta, and took the penalty he was given with no argument. I believe at the very worst, he wasn't sure if his ball had moved at the BMW, and gave himself the benefit of the doubt. And at the best, he truly believed it hadn't changed positions.

Well stated. If Chamblee is as smart as he tries to come off, I believe a similar thought process should have crossed his mind. However, writing a balanced non-controversial article doesn't sell well. It's a shame he doesn't realize he can be much better by being a detailed, data-oriented commentator in golf, there aren't many of those on TV. Poop-flinging articles should be left to gossip columnists. I hope he realizes that he did quite a bit of damage to his own reputation.

Lastly, I'm glad Tiger isn't giving this joker the attention or platform he wants.

[Fourputt]

Another question comes up, why is it important if the ball moved 1mm? I can see if it is buried and pulling it up 1 mm might put it past some horizon line.

Technology will continue to improve and we will be able to see smaller and smaller levels of movement. Do we continue to extend this ball movement rule to absurd resolutions? What is the modern reasoning behind these rules? Not sure if this was the intent of the original rules or not.

The intent is for the rule to be black and white.  Either the ball moved (as defined in the rules), or it didn't.  That is the determination which the rule requires us to make.  For most of us, that decision is going to be made from the evidence of our own eyes, or possibly of a fellow competitor standing nearby.  In this way, a ball moving one millimeter would be virtually indistinguishable from a ball just oscillating.  It is up to the player to honestly determine what happened in each individual case.

In Tiger's case, it would have been more within the spirit of the rules to have called the penalty on himself and just get on with it.  In such cases, especially when moving a loose impediment is involved, any doubt should be resolved against the player.  In this case he should have called in a rules official, explained exactly what happened, and taken whatever action the RO suggested.  Even for such a tiny movement, the rule requires the player to replace the ball.  However, in reality, for a ball in such a lie as Tiger had, trying to replace it for a small movement would be nearly impossible.  Despite that, an attempt must be made to satisfy that part of the rule.  Once the RO says that the ball is in play, the player has at least incurred only a one stroke penalty under 18-2, and saved himself the additional stroke assessed for a breach for not replacing the ball.

[mvmac]

[Spitfisher]

I read in the local paper this morning of Brandel's apology.  That's a good thing and I glad to see he did as I like Brandel and have always thought him interesting and at times provocative.  But this time I thought Brandel was unjust in implying Tiger cheated although I do think Tiger was cavalier with the rules and unlike fourputt I don't believe being cavalier requires intent, just an attitude.  But in concession I'd agree that "careless" might have been a better choice of descriptors than "cavalier" for Brandel to have used in the article.  But my faith is restored with Brandel's public apology as it shows he has more character than most of this thread gives him credit for.  Such public apologies for a public mistake are difficult to make.  So maybe Tiger made some mistakes and Brandel did too, makes them both human I would guess.

You know, I agree maybe in hind site he should have just left the assumption of cheating up in the air  to the reader. However and journalist, reporter, commentator on any medium are there to sell interest, viewership, advertising and dialog.  BC succeeded.

BTW I feel he didn't cheat at the masters- just made a mistake, a dumb one. Caught up in the moment. The dubia bad drop- again a little stupidity and ignorance, he took his appearance money and left, Thank you very much. The Oscilating golf ball debacle. I think he got caught, bad judgment, thought he could get away with it. Looking at the video and his related hand and gesture actions during the stick move, where he was on the course, the nearby vegetation, lack of spectators near by, his likely club change and shot change. I believe he did cheat by not recording and accurate score as a result of the ball moving- including his anger when confronted by the authorities.   He's no angel, poor people skill,  he has lied and cheated publically before, that's the way it goes!

[dsc123]

However and journalist, reporter, commentator on any medium are there to sell interest, viewership, advertising and dialog.  BC succeeded.

I'm surprised so many people have said this.  Its very machiavellian.

[ghalfaire]

I'm surprised so many people have said this.  Its very machiavellian.

I suppose that depends upon whether you believe Brandel just made a mistake in judgment or deliberately libeled Tiger.  I think he just made a mistake, like Tiger did a few times this year in playing within the rules.  If all of those who called for Brandel to lose his job because of the article are unwilling to give him benefit of the doubt why are you so willing to give Tiger the benefit if the doubt?  Sort of hypocritical in my estimation.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

I'm surprised so many people have said this.  Its very machiavellian.

I suppose that depends upon whether you believe Brandel just made a mistake in judgment or deliberately libeled Tiger.  I think he just made a mistake, like Tiger did a few times this year in playing within the rules.  If all of those who called for Brandel to lose his job because of the article are unwilling to give him benefit of the doubt why are you so willing to give Tiger the benefit if the doubt?  Sort of hypocritical in my estimation.

Completely different situations.   Chamblee was trying to stir up controversy, Tiger never has done so with intent.

[dsc123]

I suppose that depends upon whether you believe Brandel just made a mistake in judgment or deliberately libeled Tiger.  I think he just made a mistake, like Tiger did a few times this year in playing within the rules.  If all of those who called for Brandel to lose his job because of the article are unwilling to give him benefit of the doubt why are you so willing to give Tiger the benefit if the doubt?  Sort of hypocritical in my estimation.

Because Tiger's mistake in judgment wasn't intended to take down another human being.

[Golfingdad]

I suppose that depends upon whether you believe Brandel just made a mistake in judgment or deliberately libeled Tiger.  I think he just made a mistake, like Tiger did a few times this year in playing within the rules.  If all of those who called for Brandel to lose his job because of the article are unwilling to give him benefit of the doubt why are you so willing to give Tiger the benefit if the doubt?  Sort of hypocritical in my estimation.

Completely different situations.   Chamblee was trying to stir up controversy, Tiger never has done so with intent.

Because Tiger's mistake in judgment wasn't intended to take down another human being.

Actually, I think ghalfaire makes a pretty good point.  We all agree (if you don't agree then that simply means I'm not talking to you) that we have no idea what Tiger was thinking when we said he didn't see the ball move, but we take him at his word.  If Brandel says he didn't intend to hurt anybody, why shouldn't we also take him at his word?  The type of mistakes are different, sure, but that doesn't preclude them from both potentially being mistakes.

If we're going to make the assumption that Brandel intended to hurt Tiger, then everybody who has the assumption that Tiger intentionally cheated gets to have that opinion validated.

Is it possible that Brandel's article was calculated from the start to stir up this controversy and that it was not a mistake, and his apology is not sincere?  Of course.  But it is also possible that Tiger did see his ball move, yet hoped nobody else did, and played dumb when he was caught.  We can't have one and not the other.

[Mr. Desmond]

Actually, I think ghalfaire makes a pretty good point.  We all agree (if you don't agree then that simply means I'm not talking to you) that we have no idea what Tiger was thinking when we said he didn't see the ball move, but we take him at his word.  If Brandel says he didn't intend to hurt anybody, why shouldn't we also take him at his word?  The type of mistakes are different, sure, but that doesn't preclude them from both potentially being mistakes.

If we're going to make the assumption that Brandel intended to hurt Tiger, then everybody who has the assumption that Tiger intentionally cheated gets to have that opinion validated.

Is it possible that Brandel's article was calculated from the start to stir up this controversy and that it was not a mistake, and his apology is not sincere?  Of course.  But it is also possible that Tiger did see his ball move, yet hoped nobody else did, and played dumb when he was caught.  We can't have one and not the other.

Agree.

It is tough to judge intent, and therefore it's best not to judge it, and instead look at actions. Still, it is a fuzzy task.

Do we take Tiger's word that he did not intend to be "cavalier" with the rules?

Do we take Chamblee's word that he meant no ill will?

I think Chamblee could have avoided the problems and could have still stirred the pot if he had given Tiger an "Incomplete" Grade. He could have said, "Sure, Tiger won 5 Tournaments, but he fell apart on the weekends in Majors, his putter was inconsistent, his driving in Majors was ill-directioned or non-existent (he did not use driver at times), and he SEEMED to have a cavalier take on enforcing the rules against himself." And then cite the examples.

The story about him cheating as a kid and tying it to Tiger? Poor taste and I had a tough time with that comparison - wasn't a good analogy in my book.

I think it's best to judge actions over a period of time - you can't point to one act and say "ah-ha, got'cha!" But if we have several questionable actions, it does create doubt.

Look at Vijay ... early eraser mark with his score and suspension tainted him, he gained a reputation as mistreating caddies, he used moose antler spray to gain an edge... that's consistency over 20 years in one aspect of his life - golf. Is it enough to create that he intended to violate the rules? Depends on the evidence.

The evidence on Tiger "can" be put down to carelessness - there is enough doubt in these situations, I think, to say, "these things happen to the #1 player who is constantly watched by zoom lenses."