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

[Lihu]

The anti-Tigers will always say that he couldn't help but see the ball move.

The pro-Tigers will say it never moved at all.

The sensible observers with any sort of good judgement (which includes most of us) will say yes the ball moved, but it probably was not apparent to Tiger in the heat of battle.  He should have called in an official after he saw the ball wiggle and this discussion would not be happening.  He shouldn't have gone off on the official when the penalty was assessed against him.  This is how I see it and how most sensible people see it.

No argument there. Once he was told it moved, he should have just said "Okay, it moved."

[phan52]

The anti-Tigers will always say that he couldn't help but see the ball move.

The pro-Tigers will say it never moved at all.

The sensible observers with any sort of good judgement (which includes most of us) will say yes the ball moved, but it probably was not apparent to Tiger in the heat of battle.  He should have called in an official after he saw the ball wiggle and this discussion would not be happening.  He shouldn't have gone off on the official when the penalty was assessed against him.  This is how I see it and how most sensible people see it.

Slugger White, the RO who Tiger dressed down, said, "He knew there was movement there, but he was very adamant that is oscillated and it stayed there." so apparently, in their discussion, Tiger agreed there was movement. That doesn't tell us whether Tiger knew there was movement at the moment it happened or after he watched the video. But there is this: Tiger had to know there was "movement' of some kind at the moment because he immeduately stopped trying to move the impediment.

I know, in my experience, when this happens I always say to my playing partners, "Hey guys, the ball just moved." There is really no other ethical way to go about it, especially in a medal situation where you have to protect the field. But that's just me; I am not in a tournament with 7 figures on the line.

And I agree that it was poor judgement to go off on Slugger White. He is a well liked, well respected member of the PGA Tour family with no axe to grind. I honestly think that this is what may have set off some of the guys in the media like Chamblee and Bamberger.

[Lihu]

And I agree that it was poor judgement to go off on Slugger White. He is a well liked, well respected member of the PGA Tour family with no axe to grind. I honestly think that this is what may have set off some of the guys in the media like Chamblee and Bamberger.

If this is the actual motive, I agree with the editorial. It would be like going off on a cop after running a red light. Not such a hot idea.

He probably thought that he caught it in time, and he didn't. So, I still disagree with the cheating part.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Slugger White, the RO who Tiger dressed down, said, "He knew there was movement there, but he was very adamant that is oscillated and it stayed there." so apparently, in their discussion, Tiger agreed there was movement. That doesn't tell us whether Tiger knew there was movement at the moment it happened or after he watched the video. But there is this: Tiger had to know there was "movement' of some kind at the moment because he immeduately stopped trying to move the impediment.

I know, in my experience, when this happens I always say to my playing partners, "Hey guys, the ball just moved." There is really no other ethical way to go about it, especially in a medal situation where you have to protect the field. But that's just me; I am not in a tournament with 7 figures on the line.

And I agree that it was poor judgement to go off on Slugger White. He is a well liked, well respected member of the PGA Tour family with no axe to grind. I honestly think that this is what may have set off some of the guys in the media like Chamblee and Bamberger.

Originally Posted by Lihu

If this is the actual motive, I agree with the editorial. It would be like going off on a cop after running a red light. Not such a hot idea.

He probably thought that he caught it in time, and he didn't. So, I still disagree with the cheating part.

I didn't say it was cheating. Let's call it an unfortunate judgement call. Cavalier, as some may say...

[birlyshirly]

Brandel couldn't prove that Tiger saw it move, so it would be dumb to write that too.-I meant what I said above-My problem is almost 100% because he went to the "cheater" word-Not a problem with questioning TIger and the rules infractions (THREE) this year.

See, the "cheater" word isn't such a big deal for me. Not because I don't think it's a serious accusation within the golf world, but because dressing up the same basic opinion in any sort of "Tiger's got some explaining to do" or "Tiger's got an attitude problem with the rules" language just amounts, IMO, to the same thing. It's implying that he did something conscious - but with an element of evasion that is disingenuous.

For me - the correct standard for any commentator would be this. If you don't think he saw the ball move, then by all means come right out and say there was no question of cheating, and no issue of damage to reputation etc. One of the other arguments linked from here did just that. The only issue left for Tiger to deal with his whether he's managed the PR side of things wisely.

But if you want to talk about collateral damage, reputation, trust, integrity and so forth - then I think you have to be saying that out of a belief that he DID or SHOULD HAVE seen the ball move. And that kind of talk is tantamount to calling him a cheat, whatever words are used.

Slugger White, the RO who Tiger dressed down, said, "He knew there was movement there, but he was very adamant that is oscillated and it stayed there." so apparently, in their discussion, Tiger agreed there was movement. That doesn't tell us whether Tiger knew there was movement at the moment it happened or after he watched the video. But there is this: Tiger had to know there was "movement' of some kind at the moment because he immeduately stopped trying to move the impediment.

I know, in my experience, when this happens I always say to my playing partners, "Hey guys, the ball just moved." There is really no other ethical way to go about it, especially in a medal situation where you have to protect the field. But that's just me; I am not in a tournament with 7 figures on the line.

And I agree that it was poor judgement to go off on Slugger White. He is a well liked, well respected member of the PGA Tour family with no axe to grind. I honestly think that this is what may have set off some of the guys in the media like Chamblee and Bamberger.

I think Tiger's reaction to, and treatment of, Slugger White is part of the reason I don't trust him on this. I know that there was a 2 shot penalty at stake, but I think if Tiger has accepted the officials' judgement with better grace, I'd have a much easier time giving him the benefit of the doubt on the original violation.

[Phil McGleno]

Nope-He could have seen it oscillate and stopped before it "moved" (Rules of Golf definition). PErfetctly reasonable to think that.[quote name="phan52" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/630#post_916989"] But there is this: Tiger had to know there was "movement' of some kind at the moment because he immeduately stopped trying to move the impediment. [/quote] They're not the same shirly.-Tell yourself that all you want the Tour guys Ive talked to all say you dont call someone a cheater on the PGA Tour. Guys wont even put the label on Gary Player and Colin and Vijay and theres a LOT more evidence that they out and out cheated than there is to Tiger.-Cheat implies willful violation of the rules not just accidental. Not the same thing.-But youre not in golf so you have an uninformed opinion of the weight it truly carries. Brandel doesnt. [quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/630#post_917005"]See, the "cheater" word isn't such a big deal for me. Not because I don't think it's a serious accusation within the golf world, but because dressing up the same basic opinion in any sort of "Tiger's got some explaining to do" or "Tiger's got an attitude problem with the rules" language just amounts, IMO, to the same thing. It's implying that he did something conscious - but with an element of evasion that is disingenuous. [/quote]

[birlyshirly]

They're not the same shirly.-Tell yourself that all you want the Tour guys Ive talked to all say you dont call someone a cheater on the PGA Tour. Guys wont even put the label on Gary Player and Colin and Vijay and theres a LOT more evidence that they out and out cheated than there is to Tiger.-Cheat implies willful violation of the rules not just accidental.

Not the same thing.-But youre not in golf so you have an uninformed opinion of the weight it truly carries. Brandel doesnt.

OK. If you're saying that there's an unwritten rule that applies to players, and to Brandel specifically because he's a former player, then I can accept that.

I've looked at this as BC as a journalist, and judging him as a journalist, I think what he wrote was legitimate comment.

But if you want to argue that his comment carries extra weight because of his status as an ex-tour player, and that therefore "player rules" rather than "hack rules" apply, then I can at least see the logic of that.

[Phil McGleno]

Good we can agree on that-Itd be one thing for Rich Lerner to say it, it is another for a 15-year vet to say it. And even tho his article was lousy otherwise the cheater part is the only part that done pissed me off and crossed the line.[quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/630#post_917053"]OK. If you're saying that there's an unwritten rule that applies to players, and to Brandel specifically because he's a former player, then I can accept that. I've looked at this as BC as a journalist, and judging him as a journalist, I think what he wrote was legitimate comment. But if you want to argue that his comment carries extra weight because of his status as an ex-tour player, and that therefore "player rules" rather than "hack rules" apply, then I can at least see the logic of that. [/quote]

[birlyshirly]

Do you think this will negatively impact BC then (putting aside the more extreme sanctions like his being sacked by the Golf Channel)?

I have never seen him broadcast, so I don't really understand his commentary role that well.

Does he depend on having access/good relations with current players? And would you expect this be affected by a loss of goodwill?  Or can he continue to get by, sitting in a booth and harking back to his previous job, and being controversial?

[newtogolf]

Do you think this will negatively impact BC then (putting aside the more extreme sanctions like his being sacked by the Golf Channel)?

I have never seen him broadcast, so I don't really understand his commentary role that well.

Does he depend on having access/good relations with current players? And would you expect this be affected by a loss of goodwill?  Or can he continue to get by, sitting in a booth and harking back to his previous job, and being controversial?

He's an analyst as such he's likely seen as an idiot by those he critiques frequently and liked by those he's more complimentary of.   Short term, some (those that dislike him calling Tiger a cheater) may be less accessible to him or less forthcoming with information.  Overall this will all pass and will have zero impact on BC long term, unless he get's fired.

[Fourputt]

Golfingdad and fourputt - I hear what you're saying about consulting with a RO, but in the BMW situation, what can Tiger possibly say? The RO can only ask Tiger, do you think your ball moved or not? If the answer's no - then there's nothing to talk about. If the answer's yes, then there's a penalty and a replace. I don't think Tiger can hedge his bets by saying "I don't THINK it moved, but if video evidence turns up that proves me wrong, then at least I've flagged it." The whole "call-ins" issue is designed to take us away from that sort of scenario, and let decisions be made on the ground.

There's no way for Tiger to subcontract the original factual question of whether the ball moved, in the same way as he can (legitimately) where there's a question of how a rule should be interpreted.

It would have covered any second guessing.  The RO's ruling is final if he has all of the facts known at the time.  He may well have told Tiger that under Rule 18, any doubt is resolved against the player, so Tiger would have been required to go through the motions of trying to "replace" the ball under just a one stroke penalty.  Any doubt would have been eliminated and we would have had to find something else to entertain ourselves with for the last 36 pages.

[turtleback]

Do you think this will negatively impact BC then (putting aside the more extreme sanctions like his being sacked by the Golf Channel)?

I have never seen him broadcast, so I don't really understand his commentary role that well.

Does he depend on having access/good relations with current players? And would you expect this be affected by a loss of goodwill?  Or can he continue to get by, sitting in a booth and harking back to his previous job, and being controversial?

Maybe THIS is a part of the difference in perception between you and most of the folks on this thread who HAVE seen Brandel broadcast for years and HAVE seen his constant attacks on Tiger's decision regarding his attempts to improve his game.  According to Brandel Tiger never should have changed his swing after 2000.  And he has been relentlessly critical of Tiger's decisions all along the way.  If Tiger wins a tournament he will be looking at the stats and say that he really didn't play well because his approach shot from 75-125 yards weren't that good, or some other it-picky point.  So when he calls Tiger a cheater it is not in a vacuum, it is in the context of someone who hasn't really tried to hide (despite his "the lady doth protest too much" claims that he likes Tiger) his dislike of Tiger and his need to find any basis to criticize his game and his decisions.

[birlyshirly]

It would have covered any second guessing.  The RO's ruling is final if he has all of the facts known at the time.  He may well have told Tiger that under Rule 18, any doubt is resolved against the player, so Tiger would have been required to go through the motions of trying to "replace" the ball under just a one stroke penalty.  Any doubt would have been eliminated and we would have had to find something else to entertain ourselves with for the last 36 pages.

Agreed. There would have been no debate in that situation - although there would have been the interesting spectacle (which we now know would probably have been captured on camera) of trying to replace a ball and recreate a fractionally altered lie amongst loose impediments. We might also then have had "hidden camera" footage showing Tiger calling a penalty on himself which would otherwise never have been picked up. Imagine the positive PR of a video being released showing "Look - here's Tiger in the bushes where he thinks no-one else can see him. But nevertheless, he's calling a penalty on himself - and look how tiny the movement of his ball was."

However that scenario still requires the player to have first declared that his ball has moved. I don't think there's any scope for a player to discuss whether he has caused the ball to move - unless the player wants to argue that any movement was caused by an outside agency rather than the player himself.

Maybe THIS is a part of the difference in perception between you and most of the folks on this thread who HAVE seen Brandel broadcast for years and HAVE seen his constant attacks on Tiger's decision regarding his attempts to improve his game.  According to Brandel Tiger never should have changed his swing after 2000.  And he has been relentlessly critical of Tiger's decisions all along the way.  If Tiger wins a tournament he will be looking at the stats and say that he really didn't play well because his approach shot from 75-125 yards weren't that good, or some other it-picky point.  So when he calls Tiger a cheater it is not in a vacuum, it is in the context of someone who hasn't really tried to hide (despite his "the lady doth protest too much" claims that he likes Tiger) his dislike of Tiger and his need to find any basis to criticize his game and his decisions.

Sure that's fair comment. I was pretty clear early on that I wasn't familiar with BC's CV - and that I was taking that article at face value. I can see that BC's history might undermine the credibility of his opinions. Equally though, I'd argue that credibility and accuracy don't always walk hand in hand. And lastly, I just happen to think that attacking someone's argument by attacking their motives or good faith is a relatively weak (and often disreputable) tactic. However, it's not always irrelevant, and it's sometimes necessary.

Off-topic I know - but for what it's worth and borderline relevant to the "Tiger hater" tag I've acquired, I think that Tiger's willingness to rework and rebuild is one of his most admirable traits. It's harder to talk about him these days as a role model - but in this sense, I'd go there quite happily. Whether it has served him well is another debate - but the intent is good IMO.

[Perfect Slicer]

Agreed. There would have been no debate in that situation - although there would have been the interesting spectacle (which we now know would probably have been captured on camera) of trying to replace a ball and recreate a fractionally altered lie amongst loose impediments. We might also then have had "hidden camera" footage showing Tiger calling a penalty on himself which would otherwise never have been picked up. Imagine the positive PR of a video being released showing "Look - here's Tiger in the bushes where he thinks no-one else can see him. But nevertheless, he's calling a penalty on himself - and look how tiny the movement of his ball was."

I'd agree with this, but the (second) bolded part is unnecessary.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It would have covered any second guessing.  The RO's ruling is final if he has all of the facts known at the time.  He may well have told Tiger that under Rule 18, any doubt is resolved against the player, so Tiger would have been required to go through the motions of trying to "replace" the ball under just a one stroke penalty.  Any doubt would have been eliminated and we would have had to find something else to entertain ourselves with for the last 36 pages.

Agreed. There would have been no debate in that situation - although there would have been the interesting spectacle (which we now know would probably have been captured on camera) of trying to replace a ball and recreate a fractionally altered lie amongst loose impediments. We might also then have had "hidden camera" footage showing Tiger calling a penalty on himself which would otherwise never have been picked up. Imagine the positive PR of a video being released showing "Look - here's Tiger in the bushes where he thinks no-one else can see him. But nevertheless, he's calling a penalty on himself - and look how tiny the movement of his ball was."

However that scenario still requires the player to have first declared that his ball has moved. I don't think there's any scope for a player to discuss whether he has caused the ball to move - unless the player wants to argue that any movement was caused by an outside agency rather than the player himself.

I slightly disagree with the two phrases I put in bold.  He may not be calling a penalty on himself, his intent may be nothing more than just wanting to be certain of the rule, to know exactly how he should proceed.   He may still be just as certain that the ball only oscillated.

You don't have to be certain of anything to call in a rules official.  We are there to help the players with information on the rules, to explain any options.  Then it is up to them to make their own decisions.  In such a case, if he has issues with the ruling, the player can still play a second ball under Rule 3-3 and he and the RO and any other witnesses can take the dispute to the committee and let them make the ruling.  Many times the pros will call in an official just because he is easily available, to be sure that they cover all the angles.

[birlyshirly]

I'd agree with this, but the (second) bolded part is unnecessary.

It's not necessary - but isn't honesty even a little more admirable in circumstances where you're not under scrutiny? Many sports seem to operate on the tacit understanding that if the referee doesn't see it, it didn't happen. Golf is obviously different in that regard.

I slightly disagree with the two phrases I put in bold.  He may not be calling a penalty on himself, his intent may be nothing more than just wanting to be certain of the rule, to know exactly how he should proceed.   He may still be just as certain that the ball only oscillated.

You don't have to be certain of anything to call in a rules official.  We are there to help the players with information on the rules, to explain any options.  Then it is up to them to make their own decisions.  In such a case, if he has issues with the ruling, the player can still play a second ball under Rule 3-3 and he and the RO and any other witnesses can take the dispute to the committee and let them make the ruling.  Many times the pros will call in an official just because he is easily available, to be sure that they cover all the angles.

OK. I see what you're saying, and agree - especially with the part about RO providing options, and the player being responsible for the decision making.

[phan52]

Maybe THIS is a part of the difference in perception between you and most of the folks on this thread who HAVE seen Brandel broadcast for years and HAVE seen his constant attacks on Tiger's decision regarding his attempts to improve his game.  According to Brandel Tiger never should have changed his swing after 2000.  And he has been relentlessly critical of Tiger's decisions all along the way.  If Tiger wins a tournament he will be looking at the stats and say that he really didn't play well because his approach shot from 75-125 yards weren't that good, or some other it-picky point.  So when he calls Tiger a cheater it is not in a vacuum, it is in the context of someone who hasn't really tried to hide (despite his "the lady doth protest too much" claims that he likes Tiger) his dislike of Tiger and his need to find any basis to criticize his game and his decisions.

I just will never understand why you assume that he "dislikes" Tiger because he is critical of his approach. It is his job to analyze what he sees on the PGA Tour. Tiger is the biggest draw on the PGA Tour, hence he gets the most attention, including by Chamblee. Chamblee has constantly stated that he thinks Tiger is the best player who ever teed it up, and he just thinks that he should have stayed with the swings that gave him his biggest runs of success.  I see nothing wrong or hateful about that, it is his opinion, and I don't see why it means that he "dislikes" him. It is always about Tiger and rightly so, so Chamblee (and everybody else) happens to focus on Tiger and his world more than anything else (read: ratings).

I believe that the reason he is currently being critical about the rules violations is because he is disappointed in the World #1 player's approach to what happened at the BMW. Chamblee made a huge mistake with the way he presented it, and has said as much, but I give him credit for not walking back his points because of the pressure from the Tiger camp. He thinks it was dubious and, if so, it is his job to say as much.

JMO.

[Golfingdad]

Maybe THIS is a part of the difference in perception between you and most of the folks on this thread who HAVE seen Brandel broadcast for years and HAVE seen his constant attacks on Tiger's decision regarding his attempts to improve his game.  According to Brandel Tiger never should have changed his swing after 2000.  And he has been relentlessly critical of Tiger's decisions all along the way.  If Tiger wins a tournament he will be looking at the stats and say that he really didn't play well because his approach shot from 75-125 yards weren't that good, or some other it-picky point.  So when he calls Tiger a cheater it is not in a vacuum, it is in the context of someone who hasn't really tried to hide (despite his "the lady doth protest too much" claims that he likes Tiger) his dislike of Tiger and his need to find any basis to criticize his game and his decisions.

I just will never understand why you assume that he "dislikes" Tiger because he is critical of his approach. It is his job to analyze what he sees on the PGA Tour. Tiger is the biggest draw on the PGA Tour, hence he gets the most attention, including by Chamblee. Chamblee has constantly stated that he thinks Tiger is the best player who ever teed it up, and he just thinks that he should have stayed with the swings that gave him his biggest runs of success.  I see nothing wrong or hateful about that, it is his opinion, and I don't see why it means that he "dislikes" him. It is always about Tiger and rightly so, so Chamblee (and everybody else) happens to focus on Tiger and his world more than anything else (read: ratings).

I believe that the reason he is currently being critical about the rules violations is because he is disappointed in the World #1 player's approach to what happened at the BMW. Chamblee made a huge mistake with the way he presented it, and has said as much, but I give him credit for not walking back his points because of the pressure from the Tiger camp. He thinks it was dubious and, if so, it is his job to say as much.

JMO.

I agree with Phan on this.  Prior to this issue, I've always viewed Brandel as simply very critical of Tiger, and I've said this a couple of times ... He comes across, to me, as a teacher or father disappointed in his star pupil or son because he thinks he's been underacheiving.  He strongly believes that had Tiger done things his way, he'd be much more successful.  That doesn't at all mean that he dislikes Tiger.

Now a lot of people, including myself, strongly disagree with Brandel's opinion on this, but I still don't agree that that opinion equates to a "dislike."  It's possible he disliked him, but I don't think he did.  (He may now though ;))

Heck, I don't even think that the article points to a dislike of Tiger either.  More like his big fat ego got in the way of his better judgment, and he was too arrogant to consider the consequences of his actions.  (OK, wait, am I talking about Brandel or Tiger there??? I forgot ;))