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

[ghalfaire]

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.

Me 2.

[Golfingdad]

That's evidence that, whoever might disagree with their conclusions, Woods' cheating is really debateable - and not being dismissed out of hand.

The problem here is, though, that even if some people fall on both sides of this fence, it's still not really debatable.  It boils down to:

"I think he cheated and I have absolutely zero evidence to prove it."

vs.

"Well, I think he didn't cheat and I also have absolutely zero evidence to prove it."

That's not really a debate.

However, I think you're probably just suggesting that it's not a foregone conclusion that Woods didn't cheat, and on that I'd have to agree.

[newtogolf]

Woody Austin, Jeff Overton, Stacy Lewis and Michael Allen all had rules violations in 2013, why isn't BC writing articles about them being cheaters?

A rules violation doesn't mean you're a cheater and the fact anyone feels it's necessary for Tiger to prove he's not a cheater in order to make it wrong for BC to call him one doesn't understand how things work in this country.

[birlyshirly]

The problem here is, though, that even if some people fall on both sides of this fence, it's still not really debatable.  It boils down to:

"I think he cheated and I have absolutely zero evidence to prove it."

vs.

"Well, I think he didn't cheat and I also have absolutely zero evidence to prove it."

That's not really a debate.

However, I think you're probably just suggesting that it's not a foregone conclusion that Woods didn't cheat, and on that I'd have to agree.

Well yes. If there are people on both sides of the fence that Brandel put up, then it could be said that he's helped to define the issue and where people stand. On that basis, I think that writing and publishing the article can be defended even if you don't necessarily share his conclusions.

The ironic thing of course is that Brandel's tweeted apology was for "inflaming the debate on both sides"!

[Golfingdad]

Woody Austin, Jeff Overton, Stacy Lewis and Michael Allen all had rules violations in 2013, why isn't BC writing articles about them being cheaters?

A rules violation doesn't mean you're a cheater ...

Your first question is obviously rhetorical, seing as how the simple answer is "How many people are interested in reading an article about Woody Austin or Jeff Overton?"

And in answer to your second sentence ... nobody thinks that.  And I think you know that.  The people that think Tiger cheated think that he knowingly violated the rule and chose not to call himself on it.  It's not the "violated the rule" part that makes him a cheater in their eyes, it's the "knowingly" and "chose not to call himself on it" parts that make him a cheater.

[Fourputt]

Tiger really brought this whole debate on himself by his boorish reaction to the last penalty he incurred.  All of the rest can be just chalked up to a weird year for him, but arguing and apparently really going off on the officials who informed him of the penalty was not going to make him any fans.  Much as I believe his side of the story, he makes it very hard to support his side of the debate.  Chamblee was wrong to make his accusation, Tiger was wrong to throw down the gauntlet.  Tiger needs to find someone who can give him good advice that he will accept and listen to.

I find it hard to believe after all of his issues this year that he still hasn't learned to call in an RO if there is even the tiniest doubt that he is in the right.  Or even if he is certain.  He can't afford any more of these problems taking his attention away from just playing the game.

[phan52]

Tiger really brought this whole debate on himself by his boorish reaction to the last penalty he incurred.  All of the rest can be just chalked up to a weird year for him, but arguing and apparently really going off on the officials who informed him of the penalty was not going to make him any fans.  Much as I believe his side of the story, he makes it very hard to support his side of the debate.  Chamblee was wrong to make his accusation, Tiger was wrong to throw down the gauntlet.  Tiger needs to find someone who can give him good advice that he will accept and listen to.   I find it hard to believe after all of his issues this year that he still hasn't learned to call in an RO if there is even the tiniest doubt that he is in the right.  Or even if he is certain.  He can't afford any more of these problems taking his attention away from just playing the game.

I find it quite ironic that you have come to this conclusion when Bamberger was pretty much saying the same thing yet, when he said it, it was a disjointed rant and he was being a troll. You cherry picked the term " sometimes ridiculous rules", but maybe you would be better served to read the whole sentence... "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." You are asking Tiger to be accountable. So is Bamberger.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Tiger really brought this whole debate on himself by his boorish reaction to the last penalty he incurred.  All of the rest can be just chalked up to a weird year for him, but arguing and apparently really going off on the officials who informed him of the penalty was not going to make him any fans.  Much as I believe his side of the story, he makes it very hard to support his side of the debate.  Chamblee was wrong to make his accusation, Tiger was wrong to throw down the gauntlet.  Tiger needs to find someone who can give him good advice that he will accept and listen to.

I find it hard to believe after all of his issues this year that he still hasn't learned to call in an RO if there is even the tiniest doubt that he is in the right.  Or even if he is certain.  He can't afford any more of these problems taking his attention away from just playing the game.

I find it quite ironic that you have come to this conclusion when Bamberger was pretty much saying the same thing yet, when he said it, it was a disjointed rant and he was being a troll. You cherry picked the term " sometimes ridiculous rules", but maybe you would be better served to read the whole sentence...

"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."

You are asking Tiger to be accountable. So is Bamberger.

He could have made his point about Tiger without the snide opinion on the rules.

[Lihu]

It seems odd that Tiger argued about the rules. He is normally a perfectly composed person. Hopefully, he will have a rules official nearby every shot. If I were in his shoes I would make them give me one.

[Spitfisher]

It seems odd that Tiger argued about the rules. He is normally a perfectly composed person. Hopefully, he will have a rules official nearby every shot. If I were in his shoes I would make them give me one.

one fact that seems to be lost here is, what role does the caddy play or should play, could he have been a second set of eyes on that ball moving?   he seems to have been standing around in these instances playing pocket pool- step it up!

[Lihu]

one fact that seems to be lost here is, what role does the caddy play or should play, could he have been a second set of eyes on that ball moving?   he seems to have been standing around in these instances playing pocket pool- step it up!

Yes, I was also thinking the same thing. The caddy should be beyond all reproach, and should be like a rules official for better or worse.

[Spitfisher]

Yes, I was also thinking the same thing. The caddy should be beyond all reproach, and should be like a rules official for better or worse.

If they were smart, and I am not convinced Tiger is real smart, he would  be investing in training of the rules for his caddy right now, in fact they all should. I don't want rules officials on every shot, lie the owness has to be on the player and his caddy only. Otherwise these 5 hour rounds will be 6+ in heart beat.

But the point is what good is a caddy just standing around handing you a club, most of these guys are ex-players themselves to the game.

[Lihu]

If they were smart, and I am not convinced Tiger is real smart, he would  be investing in training of the rules for his caddy right now, in fact they all should. I don't want rules officials on every shot, lie the owness has to be on the player and his caddy only. Otherwise these 5 hour rounds will be 6+ in heart beat. But the point is what good is a caddy just standing around handing you a club, most of these guys are ex-players themselves to the game.

Agree 100%, with the caddie part that is...

[turtleback]

The problem here is, though, that even if some people fall on both sides of this fence, it's still not really debatable.  It boils down to:

"I think he cheated and I have absolutely zero evidence to prove it."

vs.

"Well, I think he didn't cheat and I also have absolutely zero evidence to prove it."

That's not really a debate.

However, I think you're probably just suggesting that it's not a foregone conclusion that Woods didn't cheat, and on that I'd have to agree.

There is no moral equivalence in those two views in my opinion.  If you have no evidence that someone cheated then it is absolutely wrong to call them a cheater.

[Golfingdad]

The problem here is, though, that even if some people fall on both sides of this fence, it's still not really debatable.  It boils down to:

"I think he cheated and I have absolutely zero evidence to prove it."

vs.

"Well, I think he didn't cheat and I also have absolutely zero evidence to prove it."

That's not really a debate.

However, I think you're probably just suggesting that it's not a foregone conclusion that Woods didn't cheat, and on that I'd have to agree.

There is no moral equivalence in those two views in my opinion.  If you have no evidence that someone cheated then it is absolutely wrong to call them a cheater.

Yes and no.  I think you are absolutely right about this in Brandel's case.  It's infinitely more wrong to call somebody a cheater without any evidence to back it up than it is to simply not call them a cheater without evidence.

However, as far as the "views" go - as in, simply what you THINK, not what you SAY, and especially not what you say if you have Brandel's platform - I think that they are equals.  If somebody thinks that "Tiger is definitely a cheater" and somebody else thinks that "Tiger is NOT a cheater," then I'd rule that both of those views hold the same amount of weight.  (None)

[birlyshirly]

Anyone got a bus to throw John Huggan under? Does this count as "respected journalist" or "golf insider"? He dances much more carefully around the C-word than Brandel, Doyel or Bamburger - but has no problem calling the succession of issues "increasingly disturbing" and "that will surely damage his reputation with the public and, more importantly, his fellow professionals". More debate surely prompted by BC. [URL=http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/john-huggan-questions-grow-over-woods-ethics-1-3105921]http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/john-huggan-questions-grow-over-woods-ethics-1-3105921[/URL]

[Phil McGleno]

You never seem to get that Id fully support Brandel's article if he hadnt called Tiger a "cheater"-Thats where it went across the line. That word made the discussion as much-OR MORE-About Brandel as it was about Tiger and the rules-You said so yourself when was the last time we talked about Tiger and the rules themselves? You seem like a smart guy-So get that into your head.-Its mostly about the "cheater" word. Got no problems with journalists offering opinions.-Just when they cross thel ine it gets bad. This debate isn't "surely" prompted by BC. Others have written articles too and you act like nobody would have thought to write an article about Tiger Woods and his rules stuff if BC hadnt done it first.-I know you cant prove a negative but you REALLY cant prove that. Nor can you prove that theyd not have written articles if BC had left out the "cheater" crap and written a better article that focused solely on Tiger and not Dufner's wife and Vijay's deer antler spray.[quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/594#post_916863"]Anyone got a bus to throw John Huggan under? Does this count as "respected journalist" or "golf insider"? He dances much more carefully around the C-word than Brandel, Doyel or Bamburger - but has no problem calling the succession of issues "increasingly disturbing" and "that will surely damage his reputation with the public and, more importantly, his fellow professionals". More debate surely prompted by BC. [URL=http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/john-huggan-questions-grow-over-woods-ethics-1-3105921]http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/john-huggan-questions-grow-over-woods-ethics-1-3105921[/URL][/quote]

[newtogolf]

Anyone got a bus to throw John Huggan under? Does this count as "respected journalist" or "golf insider"?

He dances much more carefully around the C-word than Brandel, Doyel or Bamburger - but has no problem calling the succession of issues "increasingly disturbing" and "that will surely damage his reputation with the public and, more importantly, his fellow professionals". More debate surely prompted by BC.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/john-huggan-questions-grow-over-woods-ethics-1-3105921

This is just another writer trying to gain some readers by jumping on the bandwagon that BC is driving.