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

[bplewis24]

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

You don't know the half .  Don't let a guy start wincing from a back injury.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

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.

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

You know this How? 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?

So what you are saying is that Eger would have been watching the Masters and saw somebody else do it and wouldn't have reacted? 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 you'll stretch what is knowable or truth rather than just being whatever You Think it is in order to push your point?

[Ernest Jones]

[Phil McGleno]

Way to miss the point @phan52 - @Ernest Jones gets it. Good response EJ-This clown cant even see why his post is bad and his Response is even worse. [quote name="phan52" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/288#post_913612"] So what you are saying is that Eger would have been watching the Masters and saw somebody else do it and wouldn't have reacted? 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 you'll stretch what is knowable or truth rather than just being whatever You Think it is in order to push your point? [/quote]

[phan52]

Way to miss the point @phan52-@Ernest Jones gets it. Good response EJ-This clown cant even see why his post is bad and his Response is even worse.

No, the point is that Golfingdad's opinion is just that. An opinion. Based on his belief that David Eger would not have reacted the way he did if it was another player. And he knows that...how?

David Eger has been a rules official before and he knows what he saw. He reacted to a player taking an improper drop per Rule 26-1(a). Why would it matter to him that it was Tiger?

Talk about missing the point. Clown, indeed....

[Golfingdad]

... 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.  ....

This is the problem Phil is pointing out ...

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?

... and Phil's point is valid ...

So what you are saying is that Eger would have been watching the Masters and saw somebody else do it and wouldn't have reacted? 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 you'll stretch what is knowable or truth rather than just being whatever You Think it is in order to push your point?

... No, he isn't saying anything.  He's pointing out that you base your opinion on false conclusions.  Look at the portion of your post that I quoted above.  You say that Eger didn't react with bias in regards to Tiger, yet Ridley did.  How the heck do you know that???  The only facts of the case are that Eger saw something and made a phone call, and that Ridley received a phone call and made a decision.  You have every right to criticize the decision, but you don't get to base that criticism on stuff you make up.  Check that.  Yes you do.  However, if you want anybody to take your opinions seriously, then you have to be more consistent than that.

[Golfingdad]

No, the point is that Golfingdad's opinion is just that. An opinion. Based on his belief that David Eger would not have reacted the way he did if it was another player. And he knows that...how?

David Eger has been a rules official before and he knows what he saw. He reacted to a player taking an improper drop per Rule 26-1(a). Why would it matter to him that it was Tiger?

Talk about missing the point. Clown, indeed....

That is absolutely incorrect.  You are the one who is making assumptions on what you think another person is thinking and what his agenda is.  All I'm saying is that another player is less likely to be on the TV, and that its less likely for Eger to have even seen the violation.  It is a fact that Tiger is on TV more than others and that Tiger is scrutinized by cameras and press more than others.  That is all I'm basing my opinion on.  I'm making no assumptions about what the guy would do with that information, because I don't even know who the heck he is!!

----------------------------

Boy, was I preposition-at-the-end-of-a-sentence-happy there. ;)

[Phil McGleno]

Plus Eger had to care enough that it was Tiger to rewind the tape and see how he got from -5 to -4 or whatever his score was-If it had been another player he may not have rewound to see what he did-And then he wouldnt have seen the error. My point was @phan52 has no way of knwoing what Eger was thinking-But talks as if he knows exactly what he was thinkng. [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/306#post_913644"]That is absolutely incorrect.  You are the one who is making assumptions on what you think another person is thinking and what his agenda is.  All I'm saying is that another player is less likely to be on the TV, and that its less likely for Eger to have even seen the violation.  It is a fact that Tiger is on TV more than others and that Tiger is scrutinized by cameras and press more than others.  That is all I'm basing my opinion on.  I'm making no assumptions about what the guy would do with that information, because I don't even know who the heck he is!! ---------------------------- Boy, was I preposition-at-the-end-of-a-sentence-happy there. ;) [/quote]

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

No, the point is that Golfingdad's opinion is just that. An opinion. Based on his belief that David Eger would not have reacted the way he did if it was another player. And he knows that...how?

David Eger has been a rules official before and he knows what he saw. He reacted to a player taking an improper drop per Rule 26-1(a). Why would it matter to him that it was Tiger?

Talk about missing the point. Clown, indeed....

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

That is absolutely incorrect.  You are the one who is making assumptions on what you think another person is thinking and what his agenda is.  All I'm saying is that another player is less likely to be on the TV, and that its less likely for Eger to have even seen the violation.  It is a fact that Tiger is on TV more than others and that Tiger is scrutinized by cameras and press more than others.  That is all I'm basing my opinion on.  I'm making no assumptions about what the guy would do with that information, because I don't even know who the heck he is!!

----------------------------

Boy, was I preposition-at-the-end-of-a-sentence-happy there. ;)

And if you paid attention you would know that I totally agree with that. Eger had to see it to react. But I see no reason why he wouldn't have reacted in the same manner if it was another player.

But Ridley is the one who made the poor decisions by not scrutinizing it further. He has said as much.

[phan52]

Plus Eger had to care enough that it was Tiger to rewind the tape and see how he got from -5 to -4 or whatever his score was-If it had been another player he may not have rewound to see what he did-And then he wouldnt have seen the error.

My point was @phan52 has no way of knwoing what Eger was thinking-But talks as if he knows exactly what he was thinkng.

That is irrelevent. I have said multiple times now that the chances of him seeing Tiger do it is far greater than any other player. So lets do this again. You are saying that you don't think Eger would have reacted the way he did if he saw another player do it?

[Phil McGleno]

I am saying YOU-You there- @phan52 -have no way of knowing-Yet you say things like "Eger didn't react the way he did because it was Tiger'. You dont know that.[quote name="phan52" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/306#post_913654"] That is irrelevent. I have said multiple times now that the chances of him seeing Tiger do it is far greater than any other player. So lets do this again. You are saying that you don't think Eger would have reacted the way he did if he saw another player do it? [/quote]

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

That is irrelevent. I have said multiple times now that the chances of him seeing Tiger do it is far greater than any other player. So lets do this again. You are saying that you don't think Eger would have reacted the way he did if he saw another player do it?

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

I am saying YOU-You there-@phan52-have no way of knowing-Yet you say things like "Eger didn't react the way he did because it was Tiger'. You dont know that.

I base my opinion on this...

Eger had a long career as a tournament director with both the PGA Tour and the USGA. Along with Mark Russell of the PGA Tour and Kerry Haigh of the PGA of America, Eger is one of the most experienced tournament officials in U.S. golf and an expert on the rules.

Read more: http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-drop-masters-2013-inside-story#ixzz2j8ons8OL

I think it's fair to say that if he saw another player apply Rule 26-1(a) improperly, he would have reacted in the same manner.

[Phil McGleno]

You dont know that. Your crackpot theory hinges on you Absolutly knowing the mindsets of two different people-Ridley and Eger. Ridley has "had a long career" in the Rules too.-Why is he not afforded the same "fair to say" as Eger? Ooh-caught you there. Im done.-With you and Your crackpot theories.[quote name="phan52" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/306#post_913669"] I base my opinion on this... Eger had a long career as a tournament director with both the PGA Tour and the USGA. Along with Mark Russell of the PGA Tour and Kerry Haigh of the PGA of America, Eger is one of the most experienced tournament officials in U.S. golf and an expert on the rules. Read more: [COLOR=003399][URL=http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-drop-masters-2013-inside-story#ixzz2j8ons8OL][U]http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-drop-masters-2013-inside-story#ixzz2j8ons8OL[/U][/URL][/COLOR] I think it's fair to say that if he saw another player apply Rule 26-1(a) improperly, he would have reacted in the same manner. [/quote]

[Ernest Jones]

This thread has lost all value at this point, probably right around post 309.

[iacas]

This thread has lost all value at this point, probably right around post 309.

Agreed.

I'll open it up again tomorrow, perhaps, but it's time for a few people to cool off.

[boogielicious]

All is quiet on the Western Front.

This thread has been going around in many circles.  It is feeding the ego that is Brandel Chamblee.  I have no respect for the man and usually change channels when he is on.  His opinion is worthless to me.

But I would pay to see him and Bob Costas in a cage match to the death.

[dsc123]

And Rory weighs in....

Quote:

"Yeah, I think Brandel was completely wrong," McIlroy said, according to several outlets, including the UK's Daily Mail. "I don't think he has the authority to say anything like that about Tiger Woods. People wouldn't know who Brandel Chamblee was if it wasn't for Tiger Woods, so I am completely against what he said and I think he should be dealt with in the right way."

http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/9902554/rory-mcilroy-comes-defense-tiger-woods

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

You dont know that. Your crackpot theory hinges on you Absolutly knowing the mindsets of two different people-Ridley and Eger. Ridley has "had a long career" in the Rules too.-Why is he not afforded the same "fair to say" as Eger? Ooh-caught you there. Im done.-With you and Your crackpot theories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

I base my opinion on this...

Eger had a long career as a tournament director with both the PGA Tour and the USGA. Along with Mark Russell of the PGA Tour and Kerry Haigh of the PGA of America, Eger is one of the most experienced tournament officials in U.S. golf and an expert on the rules.


Read more: http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-drop-masters-2013-inside-story#ixzz2j8ons8OL

I think it's fair to say that if he saw another player apply Rule 26-1(a) improperly, he would have reacted in the same manner.

Well, since Ridley blew the call when he was supposed to be on the job, he loses a level of consideration in my book over Eger, who was not working the tournament and had no motivation but the desire to see the rules correctly applied.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

And Rory weighs in....

Quote:

"Yeah, I think Brandel was completely wrong," McIlroy said, according to several outlets, including the UK's Daily Mail. "I don't think he has the authority to say anything like that about Tiger Woods. People wouldn't know who Brandel Chamblee was if it wasn't for Tiger Woods, so I am completely against what he said and I think he should be dealt with in the right way."

http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/9902554/rory-mcilroy-comes-defense-tiger-woods

Not too surprising, since Tiger and Rory seem have a good relationship.  I like it that Rory isn't afraid to speak up in support of a friend.