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

[krupa]

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.

I'm hardly "shooting the messenger".  I'm reading his piece critically and commenting on it.  I'm not calling for his dismissal... I didn't even insult the guy, I just said that he seems to be ignoring a lot of details around Wood's "rules problems" (his words.)

[Valleygolfer]

Bamberger sounds just like my slimey ex's equally slimey lawyer nit picking out and molding words from documents to support his agenda. If you want the playing field leveled Bamberger, I guess we need ten cameras on every player at all times to be sure we can see any slight movement of a p¢$$√ hair on every player.

[Phil McGleno]

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/80825/an-idiots-guide-to-the-tiger-woods-brandel-chamblee-feud [QUOTE]And this is why Tiger is such a pain in the ass. He's unbelievably dynamic on the course, to the point that we root for him against our own better judgment, but his arrogance is boundless. In this case, he really believes Chamblee should be fired by the Golf Channel for a single dumb comment, and he has no problem using his own status to pressure them into it. And sure, it would suck to be called a cheater, especially when it wasn't true. But the way he behaves gives you a pretty gross feeling, doesn't it? Why is the greatest golfer on the planet so thin-skinned? Why doesn't he react with Jordan-esque ferocity instead of backbiting? I'd rather see him get angry. I'd rather see him blow up and wrestle Chamblee in a sand trap. Or break down and cry on TV. Anything human, please. Anything but these passive-aggressive power plays masquerading as "high ground."[/QUOTE] Jordans hall of fame speech says he wasnt what this guy thinks he was either.-More like Tiger. Tiger's a prick yes.-Doesnt make him a cheater or make it right for someone to call him one.

[phan52]

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.

You have stated how I feel very well. And the fact that this thread now has close to 600 posts makes it pretty clear that it deserves discussion. Chamblee did a poor job of jumpstarting it; stating that he felt Tiger was cavalier with the rules would have been enough to stimulate response. I think Bamberger's piece does a much better job of explaining how some some people in the golf community feel about it (specifically BMW) but he also has to put in a caveat about how this kind of thing can bring the fury of some who think the writer has sinister motives. Bamberger's piece is more nuanced, but look what it has already brought here in just a few posts.

But hey, I hate Tiger, so what would I know.

[Ernest Jones]

And the fact that this thread now has close to 600 posts makes it pretty clear that it deserves discussion.

I'll take quality over quantity, a fair amount of those 600 posts were poo-flinging. There was a lot of good debate as well but I wouldn't take the quantity of posts as a great indicator of anything really. I seen some threads generate a hell of a lot more than 600 posts and they were pretty vapid as far as substance goes.

[iacas]

I'll take quality over quantity, a fair amount of those 600 posts were poo-flinging. There was a lot of good debate as well but I wouldn't take the quantity of posts as a great indicator of anything really. I seen some threads generate a hell of a lot more than 600 posts and they were pretty vapid as far as substance goes.

QFT.

[Golfingdad]

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/80825/an-idiots-guide-to-the-tiger-woods-brandel-chamblee-feud

I think that is a great article, but I think that @ShaneRyan is off base when he says that "There was no cheating.  Period."  He can't know that any better than Chamblee could know that there WAS cheating.  His next line though ... "To call it cheating is kind of a dick move" is dead on accurate.

Overall, a good article that sums up the whole issue pretty well.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go "crouch ruggedly on some rocks as the sun sets behind" me. ;)

You have stated how I feel very well. And the fact that this thread now has close to 600 posts makes it pretty clear that it deserves discussion. Chamblee did a poor job of jumpstarting it; stating that he felt Tiger was cavalier with the rules would have been enough to stimulate response. I think Bamberger's piece does a much better job of explaining how some some people in the golf community feel about it (specifically BMW) but he also has to put in a caveat about how this kind of thing can bring the fury of some who think the writer has sinister motives. Bamberger's piece is more nuanced, but look what it has already brought here in just a few posts.

But hey, I hate Tiger, so what would I know.

Yay ... we agree on something. ;)

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

Bamberger sounds just like my slimey ex's equally slimey lawyer nit picking out and molding words from documents to support his agenda.

If you want the playing field leveled Bamberger, I guess we need ten cameras on every player at all times to be sure we can see any slight movement of a p¢$$√ hair on every player.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/80825/an-idiots-guide-to-the-tiger-woods-brandel-chamblee-feud

Quote:

And this is why Tiger is such a pain in the ass. He's unbelievably dynamic on the course, to the point that we root for him against our own better judgment, but his arrogance is boundless. In this case, he really believes Chamblee should be fired by the Golf Channel for a single dumb comment, and he has no problem using his own status to pressure them into it. And sure, it would suck to be called a cheater, especially when it wasn't true. But the way he behaves gives you a pretty gross feeling, doesn't it? Why is the greatest golfer on the planet so thin-skinned? Why doesn't he react with Jordan-esque ferocity instead of backbiting? I'd rather see him get angry. I'd rather see him blow up and wrestle Chamblee in a sand trap. Or break down and cry on TV. Anything human, please. Anything but these passive-aggressive power plays masquerading as "high ground."

Jordans hall of fame speech says he wasnt what this guy thinks he was either.-More like Tiger.

Tiger's a prick yes.-Doesnt make him a cheater or make it right for someone to call him one.

Then add this:

Quote:

...the game's often complicated and sometimes ridiculous rules

And you get some idea of where Bamberger sits.  He's into sensationalism, not reportage.  The way he uses the stage to make comments like the one above which has no real bearing on his rant makes it appear to me that he is trolling for a reaction, going for support from readers who feel as he does about the rules in general, regardless of their opinions about Tiger and Chamblee.

[iacas]

I think that is a great article, but I think that @ShaneRyan is off base when he says that "There was no cheating.  Period."  He can't know that any better than Chamblee could know that there WAS cheating.  His next line though ... "To call it cheating is kind of a dick move" is dead on accurate.

I liked the comments on the article @ShaneRyan wrote (linked above). They seem to present both sides, as does the article.

Either way, I also agree that Tiger comes off like a dick in all of this. He could have just let the Internet be his voice of support, and behind the scenes if he wanted to cut off Golf Channel for post-round interviews, etc. then he could have done that, too. Instead Tiger gets what likely would have happened AND comes off as a bit more of a prick by talking than if he'd just let the Internet kick up a storm.

I disagree that they necessarily wanted BC fired, too. Perhaps they wanted something more like an actual apology, not one as weak as BC's "I apologize for the debate" one.

[phan52]

Then add this:

Quote:

...the game's often complicated and sometimes ridiculous rules

And you get some idea of where Bamberger sits.  He's into sensationalism, not reportage.  The way he uses the stage to make comments like the one above which has no real bearing on his rant makes it appear to me that he is trolling for a reaction, going for support from readers who feel as he does about the rules in general, regardless of their opinions about Tiger and Chamblee.

I think the vast majority of people who play golf would agree that golf has "sometimes ridiculous rules". The whole "rub of the green" thing can be interpreted as being unfair. It is the only game I have ever played where a good play can be penalized (i.e. hitting it in an unreplaced divot when you hit a perfect shot right down the middle of the fairway).

But I play by all the rules. It doesn't mean that, sometimes, they aren't ridculous. And apparently Bamberger takes the rules very seriously, as someone else here as already noted with regard to Michelle Wie.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Then add this:

Quote:

...the game's often complicated and sometimes ridiculous rules

And you get some idea of where Bamberger sits.  He's into sensationalism, not reportage.  The way he uses the stage to make comments like the one above which has no real bearing on his rant makes it appear to me that he is trolling for a reaction, going for support from readers who feel as he does about the rules in general, regardless of their opinions about Tiger and Chamblee.

I think the vast majority of people who play golf would agree that golf has "sometimes ridiculous rules". The whole "rub of the green" thing can be interpreted as being unfair. It is the only game I have ever played where a good play can be penalized (i.e. hitting it in an unreplaced divot when you hit a perfect shot right down the middle of the fairway).

But I play by all the rules. It doesn't mean that, sometimes, they aren't ridculous. And apparently Bamberger takes the rules very seriously, as someone else here as already noted with regard to Michelle Wie.

Your first sentence supports my contention that the only reason Bamberger had for making that statement is to get people who feel as you do on his side of the issue.  It had nothing else to do with the article.  Wordsmithing at it's most unscrupulous.

By the way, rub of the green has nothing to do with unreplaced divots ( ...or, as I think you might be referring to, divot holes.  The divot is the piece of turf which was removed from the hole), unless the ball hit a divot lying on the fairway and was deflected by it.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

I think the vast majority of people who play golf would agree that golf has "sometimes ridiculous rules". The whole "rub of the green" thing can be interpreted as being unfair. It is the only game I have ever played where a good play can be penalized (i.e. hitting it in an unreplaced divot when you hit a perfect shot right down the

middle of the fairway).

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Your first sentence supports my contention that the only reason Bamberger had for making that statement is to get people who feel as you do on his side of the issue.  It had nothing else to do with the article.  Wordsmithing at it's most unscrupulous.

By the way, rub of the green has nothing to do with unreplaced divots ( ...or, as I think you might be referring to, divot holes.  The divot is the piece of turf which was removed from the hole), unless the ball hit a divot lying on the fairway and was deflected by it.

Dude, seriously. That may be the definition of nt-picking. I'm fairly certain that everybody here knows what I was talking about. That's along the same lines as disregarding somebody's point because of poor spelling.

And sorry. Golf has "sometimes ridiculous rules". Ask Brian Davis about whether he gained an advantage when he started his swing in the hazard at the Heritage. But he called it on himself because it is a rule. It just happens to be a ridiculous one.

[Valleygolfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Then add this:

Quote:

...the game's often complicated and sometimes ridiculous rules

And you get some idea of where Bamberger sits.  He's into sensationalism, not reportage.  The way he uses the stage to make comments like the one above which has no real bearing on his rant makes it appear to me that he is trolling for a reaction, going for support from readers who feel as he does about the rules in general, regardless of their opinions about Tiger and Chamblee.

I think the vast majority of people who play golf would agree that golf has "sometimes ridiculous rules". The whole "rub of the green" thing can be interpreted as being unfair. It is the only game I have ever played where a good play can be penalized (i.e. hitting it in an unreplaced divot when you hit a perfect shot right down the middle of the fairway).

But I play by all the rules. It doesn't mean that, sometimes, they aren't ridculous. And apparently Bamberger takes the rules very seriously, as someone else here as already noted with regard to Michelle Wie.

I find this hard to believe at all.

[boogielicious]

I don't get why the "Tiger cheated" crowd still thinks that being penalized for a rule violation is cheating.  I guess that you would then agree that every time an o-lineman in football get called for holding, they cheated.  They purposely held a defensive player to stop them.  They got caught cheating I guess.  Pass interference?  Cheating.  A foul in basketball?  Cheating.  How about a balk in baseball?  cheating.  Handball in soccer?  cheating.  High sticking in hockey?  etc.

They are all rules violations in their respective sport.  If an O-lineman is shown in slow motion hi-def video to be holding and not get caught, I guess its cheating.  It is just ridiculous.

[iacas]

Dude, seriously. That may be the definition of nt-picking. I'm fairly certain that everybody here knows what I was talking about. That's along the same lines as disregarding somebody's point because of poor spelling.

It's not nit-picking. You chose a phrase (and mis-used a phrase) that's quite literally part of the Rules of Golf. It would be no more "nit picking" to point out that a "loose impediment" is not the same thing as an "obstruction."

Anyway, this kind of stuff is WAY , so it ends here. Discussion of whether the rules are "ridiculous" is most likely OT as well.

[Golfingdad]

I don't get why the "Tiger cheated" crowd still thinks that being penalized for a rule violation is cheating.  I guess that you would then agree that every time an o-lineman in football get called for holding, they cheated.  They purposely held a defensive player to stop them.  They got caught cheating I guess.  Pass interference?  Cheating.  A foul in basketball?  Cheating.  How about a balk in baseball?  cheating.  Handball in soccer?  cheating.  High sticking in hockey?  etc.

They are all rules violations in their respective sport.  If an O-lineman is shown in slow motion hi-def video to be holding and not get caught, I guess its cheating.  It is just ridiculous.

First of all, I'm still not clear who the "Tiger cheated" crowd is at this point.  Is it just @birlyshirly at this point?

Secondly, nobody thinks he cheated because he violated a rule.  It's way more nuanced than that.  It's based on the idea that they believe he knew, or perhaps should have at least had some doubt, that he may have violated a rule, yet proceeded without calling the penalty.

[birlyshirly]

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.

I'm not "in the golf world". I'm a fan, and an avid consumer of news and journalism. Since you are so sure that my argument on journalistic freedom is coloured by something so relatively trivial as whether or not Tiger cheated, let me point out some other facts.

From the published articles linked from this thread - there's absolutely NO consensus in the wider media that Tiger DIDN'T cheat.

Bamburger says "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." The implication is clear - and there is no benefit of the doubt that Woods' infraction could have been unwitting.

Doyel says " Tiger Woods plays dirty, but then, we already knew that. And Brandel Chamblee wrote it." He also says "facts are facts, and the facts would be Chamblee's defense in a slander lawsuit" That's a much stronger statement on the libel point than I've ever made. He's saying that Brandel was accurate in calling Woods a cheat - not just exercising a right of fair comment.

That's evidence that, whoever might disagree with their conclusions, Woods' cheating is really debateable - and not being dismissed out of hand. And if there's a debate to be had, then it's hard to argue that there wasn't a public interest in BC putting his original thoughts into print.

Lastly, this is where you said I was banging the drum on the libel point, despite the fact that I'd said nothing on that point in dozens of posts. It's also where you say there's no debate about Tiger - and that's clearly false too.

Not everything that's wrong to say is libel or illegal-That doesnt make it the right thing to say.-You keep hammering on that point and its been said many times that the guy might be legally ok to say something but it still might not be smart to say it.-Thats what @turtleback's point was. There doesnt need to have been a debate, and the debate is actually over whether Brandel is a tool or not-Not about Tiger. Thats what the debate is about, so good for you girlyshirly you got your debate-But its about thew rong guy.

[Phil McGleno]

Read the comments on the article-They almost all point out how much weight the word "cheater" carries. Brandel shot from the hip and later admitted he didn't have the evidence necessary to support the claim-But by then the damage was done and he gets to say "well I apologized". Shoot a guy and apologize later and the guy's still shot. Either way I'm done talking to you-You have your mind made up and I have mine.-We're just wasitng each others time talking about it. You think Tiger is a cheater I think he didn't chat and Brandel stepped over the line..[quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/576#post_916607"] I'm not "in the golf world". I'm a fan, and an avid consumer of news and journalism. Since you are so sure that my argument on journalistic freedom is coloured by something so relatively trivial as whether or not Tiger cheated, let me point out some other facts.[/quote]