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

[Phil McGleno]

So you think tiger cheated- Giving brandel the right in all senses of the word to post this stuff.-Yes? The "right to pulbish" was listed here as a one of the original straw men-For you to pass it off as my straw man is wrong.-I have only ever responded to claims that some of us are saying he had no right to publish that crap.[quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/540#post_916364"]I think the debate about whether Tiger cheated ended because each side could see that the other wasn't going to change its view.  You'd be getting upset if we were still raking over those coals, so don't get upset just because we let it die. BC's right to publish? I don't know when I last made a point about the strict legality of it. You need to go back a page to post 531, then you'll see that I'm talking about a point raised by K-troop and disputed by Iacas - and it has nothing to do with legal process. Carrying on with your "nobody disputes his RIGHT to do it" - is just your own version of a straw man. I'm well past any interest in dragging that out.  As above - go back to post 531. You're confusing dressing up with commentary. Well off-topic IMO. [/quote]

[birlyshirly]

So you think tiger cheated

Yes - but let's not go back there again.

Giving brandel the right in all senses of the word to post this stuff.-Yes?

Actually no. I don't want to confuse whether he ought to have written it with the issue of whether or not I agree with his argument.

The "right to pulbish" was listed here as a one of the original straw men

Where?

[Phil McGleno]

http://thesandtrap.com/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/360#post_914195-You said free press as if others were not in favor of a free press. You think Tiger cheated but youve yet to prove that to anyone.-This colors your PoV on brandels article. [quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/558#post_916382"] Where? [/quote]

[phan52]

This time from the respected Michael Bamberger...

If you want to do something ridiculously unpopular, take on Tiger Woods. You'll be called a racist, a moron and, worst of all, a hack. Brandel Chamblee, who won one PGA Tour event in a 15-year playing career, learned that lesson the hard way.

Chamblee is an insightful, articulate, stat-wielding analyst for Golf Channel who for a decade now has been both lavish in his praise of Woods' golfing accomplishments and (at times) almost comically critical of his ever-evolving swing. This year Woods has given him a bunch of fresh material.

Woods has had a series of brushes with the rule book in 2013. At the BMW Championship outside Chicago in September, a Tour official penalized Woods two shots when a high-def video close-up showed that he had caused his ball to move fractionally when he started to remove a twig that the ball was leaning against.

In his professional life Woods -- whose personal life was turned upside down by prying cameras -- is under constant surveillance, and he doesn't like it. He was hot and profane in the scorer's trailer. When he emerged, he was dismissive of the ruling and, by extension, the respected official who had made it. Woods could have withdrawn in protest. Instead he played on.

Chamblee recently called Woods "duplicitous" on Golf Channel. That's a nervy thing to say because the cable network has a high-stakes business relationship with the PGA Tour. The Tour and Golf Channel share a star attraction. Good talkers, like Chamblee, learn to choose their words carefully, and live to talk another day.

Chamblee has another outlet for his thoughts about the game, writing at Golf Magazine and at Golf.com, which are part of the Sports Illustrated Golf Group. In a short, blunt Golf.com piece posted Oct.15, Chamblee gave end-of-season grades to various players. He gave Woods, despite five wins, an F, for being a little cavalier with the rules. Chamblee prefaced that remark by describing his own experience as a cheater on a fourth-grade math test. He never called Woods a cheater, but the implication was clear.

Internet posters went crazy, telling Chamblee that he was a Tiger-hater, a bigot, an idiot and a failed player. To the non-orthodox, golf's rules seem persnickety. But others in the game, both its high priests and those toiling in its vineyards, understand that without strict adherence to the game's often complicated and sometimes ridiculous rules, competitive golf unravels. The messenger -- Chamblee -- was shot repeatedly.

Mark Steinberg, Woods' agent, talked about legal action. Woods said, "The ball really is in the court of the Golf Channel and what they are prepared to do." Woods and Steinberg have immense power, and they wielded it. They made this thing about Chamblee and his commentary and not about Woods and his rules problems.

Tour HQ in Ponte Vedra Beach and GC HQ in Orlando had urgent talks. High-priced corporate talent pondered weird scenarios. Woods dates Lindsey Vonn, who is likely to star again at the Winter Olympics, in February, broadcast by NBC. Golf Channel is a division of NBC. What if Woods stops giving interviews to Golf Channel? What if Vonn refuses to do fireside chats with Bob Costas? All because of some quickie Internet column? Somebody was going to have to make this right.

And that somebody was Brandel Chamblee. He gave up his Golf and Golf.com gigs. He went on Twitter and Golf Channel and apologized not for his views but for the rancor his words caused. "Golf is a gentleman's game and I'm not proud of this debate," he tweeted. "My intention was to note Tiger's rules infractions, but comparing that to cheating in grade school went too far." As mea culpas go, these were skimmed milk on Raisin Bran. He did not, notably, back off his original statement.

The corollary questions are staggering. Is Woods distracted? Is he desperate? Will he ever win another major? Are the games traditional values -- fairness and grace -- in jeopardy?

Any serious player will tell you that you stop lifting a twig for one main reason: The ball has started to move. Innumerable golfers have penalized themselves for minor ball movements. You know why this episode matters so much? It tells you what's in the golfer's heart.

Back in the day, Woods didn't have to do anything special to win, so superior was his talent. Those days are gone, even though he remains golf's best player and most important figure. Chamblee wants what everyone who cares about golf wants. We want Woods to follow in the footsteps of Jones and Nicklaus and every slave-to-the-rules journeyman who has ever called a penalty on himself. We want Woods to put other players -- and the game that made him -- ahead of himself. The truth is, the ball's in his court.

Read more: http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-public-row-brandel-chamblee-raises-many-questions-about-woods-well-future-#ixzz2jt2w3EkB

[Phil McGleno]

It's a stretch to call Bamberger respected-Ask Michelle Wie how she feels about Bamberger's understanding of rules related issues and his respect. Bamberger is just baiting trolls for eyeballs.-Yawn.

[krupa]

This time from the respected Michael Bamberger...

If you want to do something ridiculously unpopular, take on Tiger Woods. You'll be called a racist, a moron and, worst of all, a hack. Brandel Chamblee, who won one PGA Tour event in a 15-year playing career, learned that lesson the hard way.

Chamblee is an insightful, articulate, stat-wielding analyst for Golf Channel who for a decade now has been both lavish in his praise of Woods' golfing accomplishments and (at times) almost comically critical of his ever-evolving swing. This year Woods has given him a bunch of fresh material.

Woods has had a series of brushes with the rule book in 2013. At the BMW Championship outside Chicago in September, a Tour official penalized Woods two shots when a high-def video close-up showed that he had caused his ball to move fractionally when he started to remove a twig that the ball was leaning against.

In his professional life Woods -- whose personal life was turned upside down by prying cameras -- is under constant surveillance, and he doesn't like it. He was hot and profane in the scorer's trailer. When he emerged, he was dismissive of the ruling and, by extension, the respected official who had made it. Woods could have withdrawn in protest. Instead he played on.

Chamblee recently called Woods "duplicitous" on Golf Channel. That's a nervy thing to say because the cable network has a high-stakes business relationship with the PGA Tour. The Tour and Golf Channel share a star attraction. Good talkers, like Chamblee, learn to choose their words carefully, and live to talk another day.

Chamblee has another outlet for his thoughts about the game, writing at Golf Magazine and at Golf.com, which are part of the Sports Illustrated Golf Group. In a short, blunt Golf.com piece posted Oct.15, Chamblee gave end-of-season grades to various players. He gave Woods, despite five wins, an F, for being a little cavalier with the rules. Chamblee prefaced that remark by describing his own experience as a cheater on a fourth-grade math test. He never called Woods a cheater, but the implication was clear.

Internet posters went crazy, telling Chamblee that he was a Tiger-hater, a bigot, an idiot and a failed player. To the non-orthodox, golf's rules seem persnickety. But others in the game, both its high priests and those toiling in its vineyards, understand that without strict adherence to the game's often complicated and sometimes ridiculous rules, competitive golf unravels. The messenger -- Chamblee -- was shot repeatedly.

Mark Steinberg, Woods' agent, talked about legal action. Woods said, "The ball really is in the court of the Golf Channel and what they are prepared to do." Woods and Steinberg have immense power, and they wielded it. They made this thing about Chamblee and his commentary and not about Woods and his rules problems.

Tour HQ in Ponte Vedra Beach and GC HQ in Orlando had urgent talks. High-priced corporate talent pondered weird scenarios. Woods dates Lindsey Vonn, who is likely to star again at the Winter Olympics, in February, broadcast by NBC. Golf Channel is a division of NBC. What if Woods stops giving interviews to Golf Channel? What if Vonn refuses to do fireside chats with Bob Costas? All because of some quickie Internet column? Somebody was going to have to make this right.

And that somebody was Brandel Chamblee. He gave up his Golf and Golf.com gigs. He went on Twitter and Golf Channel and apologized not for his views but for the rancor his words caused. "Golf is a gentleman's game and I'm not proud of this debate," he tweeted. "My intention was to note Tiger's rules infractions, but comparing that to cheating in grade school went too far." As mea culpas go, these were skimmed milk on Raisin Bran. He did not, notably, back off his original statement.

The corollary questions are staggering. Is Woods distracted? Is he desperate? Will he ever win another major? Are the games traditional values -- fairness and grace -- in jeopardy?

Any serious player will tell you that you stop lifting a twig for one main reason: The ball has started to move. Innumerable golfers have penalized themselves for minor ball movements. You know why this episode matters so much? It tells you what's in the golfer's heart.

Back in the day, Woods didn't have to do anything special to win, so superior was his talent. Those days are gone, even though he remains golf's best player and most important figure. Chamblee wants what everyone who cares about golf wants. We want Woods to follow in the footsteps of Jones and Nicklaus and every slave-to-the-rules journeyman who has ever called a penalty on himself. We want Woods to put other players -- and the game that made him -- ahead of himself. The truth is, the ball's in his court.

Read more: http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-public-row-brandel-chamblee-raises-many-questions-about-woods-well-future-#ixzz2jt2w3EkB

It seems this guy's viewpoint is also focused only on the end result (a rule violation) and not the details leading to those violations:

• Tiger consulted a player partner if his relief was permitted  (the player partner was also mistaken),
• the rules committee initially ruled Tiger's drop to be "good" but then reviewed it some more (a luxury Tiger does not have) and decided it was "not good."
• And finally, the proof that the ball moved at the BMW required high-definition replay from a side angle.

I don't know Bamberger from Adam and am only basing my comment on what I read here.

[3putter]

This time from the respected Michael Bamberger...

If you want to do something ridiculously unpopular, take on Tiger Woods. You'll be called a racist, a moron and, worst of all, a hack. Brandel Chamblee, who won one PGA Tour event in a 15-year playing career, learned that lesson the hard way.

Chamblee is an insightful, articulate, stat-wielding analyst for Golf Channel who for a decade now has been both lavish in his praise of Woods' golfing accomplishments and (at times) almost comically critical of his ever-evolving swing. This year Woods has given him a bunch of fresh material.

Woods has had a series of brushes with the rule book in 2013. At the BMW Championship outside Chicago in September, a Tour official penalized Woods two shots when a high-def video close-up showed that he had caused his ball to move fractionally when he started to remove a twig that the ball was leaning against.

In his professional life Woods -- whose personal life was turned upside down by prying cameras -- is under constant surveillance, and he doesn't like it. He was hot and profane in the scorer's trailer. When he emerged, he was dismissive of the ruling and, by extension, the respected official who had made it. Woods could have withdrawn in protest. Instead he played on.

Chamblee recently called Woods "duplicitous" on Golf Channel. That's a nervy thing to say because the cable network has a high-stakes business relationship with the PGA Tour. The Tour and Golf Channel share a star attraction. Good talkers, like Chamblee, learn to choose their words carefully, and live to talk another day.

Chamblee has another outlet for his thoughts about the game, writing at Golf Magazine and at Golf.com, which are part of the Sports Illustrated Golf Group. In a short, blunt Golf.com piece posted Oct.15, Chamblee gave end-of-season grades to various players. He gave Woods, despite five wins, an F, for being a little cavalier with the rules. Chamblee prefaced that remark by describing his own experience as a cheater on a fourth-grade math test. He never called Woods a cheater, but the implication was clear.

Internet posters went crazy, telling Chamblee that he was a Tiger-hater, a bigot, an idiot and a failed player. To the non-orthodox, golf's rules seem persnickety. But others in the game, both its high priests and those toiling in its vineyards, understand that without strict adherence to the game's often complicated and sometimes ridiculous rules, competitive golf unravels. The messenger -- Chamblee -- was shot repeatedly.

Mark Steinberg, Woods' agent, talked about legal action. Woods said, "The ball really is in the court of the Golf Channel and what they are prepared to do." Woods and Steinberg have immense power, and they wielded it. They made this thing about Chamblee and his commentary and not about Woods and his rules problems.

Tour HQ in Ponte Vedra Beach and GC HQ in Orlando had urgent talks. High-priced corporate talent pondered weird scenarios. Woods dates Lindsey Vonn, who is likely to star again at the Winter Olympics, in February, broadcast by NBC. Golf Channel is a division of NBC. What if Woods stops giving interviews to Golf Channel? What if Vonn refuses to do fireside chats with Bob Costas? All because of some quickie Internet column? Somebody was going to have to make this right.

And that somebody was Brandel Chamblee. He gave up his Golf and Golf.com gigs. He went on Twitter and Golf Channel and apologized not for his views but for the rancor his words caused. "Golf is a gentleman's game and I'm not proud of this debate," he tweeted. "My intention was to note Tiger's rules infractions, but comparing that to cheating in grade school went too far." As mea culpas go, these were skimmed milk on Raisin Bran. He did not, notably, back off his original statement.

The corollary questions are staggering. Is Woods distracted? Is he desperate? Will he ever win another major? Are the games traditional values -- fairness and grace -- in jeopardy?

Any serious player will tell you that you stop lifting a twig for one main reason: The ball has started to move. Innumerable golfers have penalized themselves for minor ball movements. You know why this episode matters so much? It tells you what's in the golfer's heart.

Back in the day, Woods didn't have to do anything special to win, so superior was his talent. Those days are gone, even though he remains golf's best player and most important figure. Chamblee wants what everyone who cares about golf wants. We want Woods to follow in the footsteps of Jones and Nicklaus and every slave-to-the-rules journeyman who has ever called a penalty on himself. We want Woods to put other players -- and the game that made him -- ahead of himself. The truth is, the ball's in his court.

Read more: http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-public-row-brandel-chamblee-raises-many-questions-about-woods-well-future-#ixzz2jt2w3EkB

Lmao! Respected? I think that's a very liberal use of the term, but that's just my opinion.

[birlyshirly]

You said free press as if others were not in favor of a free press.

Sure I did... once, 11 pages ago. That's hardly continuing to beat the drum. Beside, I don't mean "free press" simply in terms of legal regulation or libel laws - it involves issues of ownership and finance and freedom from outside influence. In other words, a functionally free press with enough diversity to report and comment from a number of different angles - not just one free from legal restriction. Again, let's not dwell on that.

You think Tiger cheated but youve yet to prove that to anyone.-This colors your PoV on brandels article.

At this point in the debate, so what? I'm beyond caring whether I convince anyone of Tiger's guilt. And if you want to discount an argument about how press reporting works on the basis of who my favourite golfers are (and aren't), then we're so far off being on the same page there's really no point. I've said repeatedly why I don't think the consequences for TW of BC's article are quite so grave as are made out. I think the issue of press reporting is much more important than a marginal swing in Tiger's popularity, or whether he wins another major, or another endorsement contract. The latter would no more influence the former than I'd let Tiger or Rory influence my next set of irons.

[phan52]

It seems this guy's viewpoint is also focused only on the end result (a rule violation) and not the details leading to those violations:

Tiger consulted a player partner if his relief was permitted  (the player partner was also mistaken),

the rules committee initially ruled Tiger's drop to be "good" but then reviewed it some more (a luxury Tiger does not have) and decided it was "not good."

And finally, the proof that the ball moved at the BMW required high-definition replay from a side angle.

I don't know Bamberger from Adam and am only basing my comment on what I read here.

Actually the guy's viewpoint is focused on what happened at the BMW. You are the one conflating his point with other violations. Maybe you should read it again.

[Phil McGleno]

Putting words in my mouth to say I said you said beating the drum.-I said you said it, you asked Where?-I answered. I'll dwell if I like.-You dont want to dwell because its a point you tried to make and lost. You dont think theyre grave because youre not in the golf world.-You think calling Tiger a cheater is calling a spade a spade-Youd feel differently if you didnt think Tiger "cheated". The majority of tour level golfers dont think Tiger cheated so thats why BC went well beyond what was reasonable in calling Tiger a cheater.-YOu dont do that in golf and as a former player he should have known that. You keep arguing as if you have a factual basis-You do not. YOu think Tiger cheated and is a cheater and a liar so you think BC is right to call him one. Whether Tiger is a cheater is directly relevant to the topic, so "at this point in the debate, so what?"- that's why. Its still relevant. You disagree but keep posting because you think the rest of us are imbeciles if we disagree with either of your opinions.-Thats fine if you want to have the last word -And clearly you do-Please Be My Guest because Ive had enough of this thread and you too.[quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/558#post_916445"] Sure I did... once, 11 pages ago. That's hardly continuing to beat the drum. Beside, I don't mean "free press" simply in terms of legal regulation or libel laws - it involves issues of ownership and finance and freedom from outside influence. In other words, a functionally free press with enough diversity to report and comment from a number of different angles - not just one free from legal restriction. Again, let's not dwell on that. At this point in the debate, so what? I'm beyond caring whether I convince anyone of Tiger's guilt. And if you want to discount an argument about how press reporting works on the basis of who my favourite golfers are (and aren't), then we're so far off being on the same page there's really no point. I've said repeatedly why I don't think the consequences for TW of BC's article are quite so grave as are made out. I think the issue of press reporting is much more important than a marginal swing in Tiger's popularity, or whether he wins another major, or another endorsement contract. The latter would no more influence the former than I'd let Tiger or Rory influence my next set of irons. [/quote]

[phan52]

It's a stretch to call Bamberger respected-Ask Michelle Wie how she feels about Bamberger's understanding of rules related issues and his respect.

Bamberger is just baiting trolls for eyeballs.-Yawn.

Michelle Wie? Really? The person who doesn't know to sign a scorecard? And BTW, was Wie found to be in violation of the rule?

[Phil McGleno]

Yes really. Many found him to be a douche after that-He waited until THE NEXT DAY then inserted himself into the situation even though he was a writer.-She was found to have made a bad drop (but no actual proof-Theres no video or something we could all see) but a day later who knows-It was by inches, and nobody at the time, including her playing partners, caddies, the Rules official,e tc. had any problem with her Drop- Only a day later did he "come forth" to question it and they DQed her for possibly being wrong by a few inches. MANY people lost what little resepect they had for Bamburger then. Many think he waited a day so he could get her Dqed instead of just penalized.[quote name="phan52" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/558#post_916465"] Michelle Wie? Really? The person who doesn't know to sign a scorecard? And BTW, was Wie found to be in violation of the rule? [/quote]

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

Michelle Wie? Really? The person who doesn't know to sign a scorecard? And BTW, was Wie found to be in violation of the rule?

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

Yes really. Many found him to be a douche after that-He waited until THE NEXT DAY then inserted himself into the situation even though he was a writer.-She was found to have made a bad drop (but no actual proof-Theres no video or something we could all see) but a day later who knows-It was by inches, and nobody at the time, including her playing partners, caddies, the Rules official,e tc. had any problem with her Drop- Only a day later did he "come forth" to question it and they DQed her for possibly being wrong by a few inches. MANY people lost what little resepect they had for Bamburger then. Many think he waited a day so he could get her Dqed instead of just penalized.

Yeah, I am sure that was his intent. And you know this...how? And BTW, he did her a favor that day. She has admitted that she frequently took drops without consulting a rules official and she will never do that again.

But you are way off topic. Start another thread if you want to make it about Michelle Wie.

[Golfingdad]

Actually the guy's viewpoint is focused on what happened at the BMW. You are the one conflating his point with other violations. Maybe you should read it again.

That's right.  Other than this one sentence ... "Woods has had a series of brushes with the rule book in 2013." ... this guy never makes mention of anything but the incident at the BMW.  Good for him.  Those who, like Chamblee, tried to use Tigers other rules issues to score points actually, IMO, weaken their own arguments.  They're just grasping at straws in those other cases.

Look, I'm not willing to call Tiger a cheater, but I cannot help but wonder what the heck was going through his mind when he let go of that stick.  He has no (meaning zero, nada, zilch) history of any impropriety whatsoever, so for that reason alone, he gets the benefit of the doubt from me.  (Just like Simon Dyson, to my knowledge so far, has no history, therefore he gets the benefit as well)

But the more and more I think about it ... the more I can't help but start to lean towards the side of thinking that I'm just plain disappointed in Tiger over this.  I've argued on this and the other threads that it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that Tiger stopped moving the stick because he saw the ball start to move, but when he let go of the stick he thought it only oscillated.  Perfectly reasonable.  However, when I try and put myself in that exact position, try to imagine that I am Tiger, I don't get the jump from the moment of dropping the stick (where you obviously saw something) to the moment of defiance in the scorer's tent.  It seems like you wouldn't at all be surprised when the rules officials came up to tell you that your ball did, in fact, move.  I imagine you'd be kicking yourself for not being cautious and assessing the penalty.

So, while it's still perfectly reasonable for me to say that Tiger concluded that his ball only oscillated, I would also add that I feel that Tiger should have known, deep down, that it was also possible for his ball to have moved.  Wouldn't a lot of other golfers thought processes be something like "Man, I'm pretty sure that ball only oscillated, however, there is a possibility, 0.0001%, that it could have dropped straight down, and since I'm looking from directly above, I wouldn't have been able to see that?"  And, wouldn't that teeny, tiny shred of doubt be enough for a lot of tour pros to go ahead and assess the penalty?

Anyways ... disappointed.  That's about where I stand currently.

[krupa]

Actually the guy's viewpoint is focused on what happened at the BMW. You are the one conflating his point with other violations. Maybe you should read it again.

OK...

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

This time from the respected Michael Bamberger...

If you want to do something ridiculously unpopular, take on Tiger Woods. You'll be called a racist, a moron and, worst of all, a hack. Brandel Chamblee, who won one PGA Tour event in a 15-year playing career, learned that lesson the hard way.

Chamblee is an insightful, articulate, stat-wielding analyst for Golf Channel who for a decade now has been both lavish in his praise of Woods' golfing accomplishments and (at times) almost comically critical of his ever-evolving swing. This year Woods has given him a bunch of fresh material.

Woods has had a series of brushes with the rule book in 2013. At the BMW Championship outside Chicago in September, a Tour official penalized Woods two shots when a high-def video close-up showed that he had caused his ball to move fractionally when he started to remove a twig that the ball was leaning against.

In his professional life Woods -- whose personal life was turned upside down by prying cameras -- is under constant surveillance, and he doesn't like it. He was hot and profane in the scorer's trailer. When he emerged, he was dismissive of the ruling and, by extension, the respected official who had made it. Woods could have withdrawn in protest. Instead he played on.

Chamblee recently called Woods "duplicitous" on Golf Channel. That's a nervy thing to say because the cable network has a high-stakes business relationship with the PGA Tour. The Tour and Golf Channel share a star attraction. Good talkers, like Chamblee, learn to choose their words carefully, and live to talk another day.

Chamblee has another outlet for his thoughts about the game, writing at Golf Magazine and at Golf.com, which are part of the Sports Illustrated Golf Group. In a short, blunt Golf.com piece posted Oct.15, Chamblee gave end-of-season grades to various players. He gave Woods, despite five wins, an F, for being a little cavalier with the rules. Chamblee prefaced that remark by describing his own experience as a cheater on a fourth-grade math test. He never called Woods a cheater, but the implication was clear.

Internet posters went crazy, telling Chamblee that he was a Tiger-hater, a bigot, an idiot and a failed player. To the non-orthodox, golf's rules seem persnickety. But others in the game, both its high priests and those toiling in its vineyards, understand that without strict adherence to the game's often complicated and sometimes ridiculous rules, competitive golf unravels. The messenger -- Chamblee -- was shot repeatedly.

Mark Steinberg, Woods' agent, talked about legal action. Woods said, "The ball really is in the court of the Golf Channel and what they are prepared to do." Woods and Steinberg have immense power, and they wielded it. They made this thing about Chamblee and his commentary and not about Woods and his rules problems.

Tour HQ in Ponte Vedra Beach and GC HQ in Orlando had urgent talks. High-priced corporate talent pondered weird scenarios. Woods dates Lindsey Vonn, who is likely to star again at the Winter Olympics, in February, broadcast by NBC. Golf Channel is a division of NBC. What if Woods stops giving interviews to Golf Channel? What if Vonn refuses to do fireside chats with Bob Costas? All because of some quickie Internet column? Somebody was going to have to make this right.

And that somebody was Brandel Chamblee. He gave up his Golf and Golf.com gigs. He went on Twitter and Golf Channel and apologized not for his views but for the rancor his words caused. "Golf is a gentleman's game and I'm not proud of this debate," he tweeted. "My intention was to note Tiger's rules infractions, but comparing that to cheating in grade school went too far." As mea culpas go, these were skimmed milk on Raisin Bran. He did not, notably, back off his original statement.

The corollary questions are staggering. Is Woods distracted? Is he desperate? Will he ever win another major? Are the games traditional values -- fairness and grace -- in jeopardy?

Any serious player will tell you that you stop lifting a twig for one main reason: The ball has started to move. Innumerable golfers have penalized themselves for minor ball movements. You know why this episode matters so much? It tells you what's in the golfer's heart.

Back in the day, Woods didn't have to do anything special to win, so superior was his talent. Those days are gone, even though he remains golf's best player and most important figure. Chamblee wants what everyone who cares about golf wants. We want Woods to follow in the footsteps of Jones and Nicklaus and every slave-to-the-rules journeyman who has ever called a penalty on himself. We want Woods to put other players -- and the game that made him -- ahead of himself. The truth is, the ball's in his court.

Read more: http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-public-row-brandel-chamblee-raises-many-questions-about-woods-well-future-#ixzz2jt2w3EkB

[Phil McGleno]

The same way you know the intent and thoughts of Eger and Ridley. Besides I never said thatsw hat I thought-Just that others had said it. You made this on topic when you posted the article and called him respectable. He is not. If it's off Topic i expect the moderators will do what they must. Until then don't tell me what to do. Bamberger did her a favor, ha ha ha ha.-Okay pal. Perfectly on Topic stuff: Bamberger is not a respectable journalist.[quote name="phan52" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/558#post_916487"] Yeah, I am sure that was his intent. And you know this...how? And BTW, he did her a favor that day. She has admitted that she frequently took drops without consulting a rules official and she will never do that again. But you are way off topic. Start another thread if you want to make it about Michelle Wie. [/quote] P.S. Krupa, give it up. Its just one sentence.-You cant say he's focused on it because of one sentence.

[phan52]

Just because he only used details from the BMW doesn't mean he wasn't thinking about them all.

You are not going to get anybody to agree with you on that. At least, anybody who reads the piece. But keep shooting the messenger. You are doing a pretty good job of making his other point with respect to Chamblee.

[krupa]

P.S. Krupa, give it up. Its just one sentence.-You cant say he's focused on it because of one sentence.

It seems this guy's viewpoint is focused only on the end result (a rule violation) of one violation and not the details leading to that single violation:

• the proof that the ball moved at the BMW required high-definition replay from a side angle.

It's the details that matter, in my opinion, and in the BMW case, there's enough grey area that talking about Tiger being cavalier is out of place.  If he... I don't know... flattened a spike mark on his line of putt, for example... I could see a better case for using one violation as evidence of "cavalier".