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

[Golfingdad]

Yeah, I kept seeing it either on the sidebar of this thread or on the front page as the teaser pic for this thread, or something like that ... but I can't find it now.

Yeah, I kept seeing it either on the sidebar of this thread or on the front page as the teaser pic for this thread, or something like that ... but I can't find it now.

;)

[Golfingdad]

Point taken - although the OP was simply "here's a link to Brandel's grades for the tour this year". And so much of this discussion has been about Brandel's character and agenda, rather than the argument that he made specific to Tiger. If there's a separate thread entitled "Nevermind Tiger's F, how about Dufner's (wife's) A++" then I missed it.

http://thesandtrap.com/newsearch?search=dufner%27s+wife+chamblee

Your point is taken as well.  After having been reading a thread for ahwile, it's easy to just know it by it's title only.  But, yeah, the OP implies more than just what the title states, so ... you're not really as OT as I was thinking.  ;)

For the record, though, Dufner's wife IS quite hot. ;)

[phan52]

I don't think it does.

Here's my opinion on the Tiger thing:  I watched the video repeatedly and barely saw that the ball moved (as defined by the Rules of Golf.)  I totally saw it jiggle.  Many people in the thread about the incident did not realize that a ball that oscillates and comes to rest in its original position has not moved as defined by the RoG.

So Tiger says the ball didn't move.  Which definition of "move" is he using?  I realize I'm splitting hairs a little here, but unlike the definition of "is", we're talking about a word that has multiple meanings.  So I can't really make up my mind if Tiger was claiming that the ball didn't do anything (which I think his hesitancy when moving the twig shows he knew it jiggled) or that he was asserting that the ball didn't move as the RoG defines it.  I didn't see it move and people had to use a lot of technology to show that it did.

The other difference is that Chamblee had a lot of time to consider what he was writing and then more time to consider how to react to the public's reaction to his writing, etc,  Tiger was challenged after the round and had to answer for it right then and there.  I don't really know how it affects my point, but with Chamblee, anyway, he had plenty of time to think about what he was writing before letting it out to the public and he still originally chose to defend his article.

The ball moved. If you saw the video, and if you are honest with yourself, you know the ball moved. If there was any question about whether the ball moved or if it instead oscillated, the officials would have considered that and found it hard to apply the penalty. I don't think they meant to have a debate; they were showing him the reason why he was being given a penalty. Slugger White: "There was a little stick of some kind next to his ball, and when he rolled that, the ball in fact moved. He knew there was movement there, but he was very adamant that is oscillated and it stayed there. But this video was at the site, and the ball did in fact move."

The problem is that Tiger refused to admit that the ball moved, even when offered the evidence by the officials.  He apparently knew something happened WHEN it happened, otherwise he would not have hesitated the way he did when the ball moved. Yet, he did nothing at the time. Why? That is a fair question. And his recalcitrant behavior when he was shown the clear evidence is questionable as well, and that goes to the core of what Chamblee saw as questionable behavior. Why didn't he just take the penalty and move on in the face of irrefutable evdence? A little guilt, maybe?

Just speculating on a hypothesis....

[birlyshirly]

golf.com posts so much of that sort of thing.  they don't even try to make it seem legit, sometimes they just post photos of golfer's wives or even golfers and openly discuss them being hot.

Can't say I'm a regular reader. Do they also have the occasional soul searching editorial and comment pieces on how to grow the game beyond it's traditional, dwindling constituency?

[Lihu]

So, the real question. Did this thread convince Chamblee to apologize, or not? :-P

[mvmac]

Tiger's been in some situations where other golfers would've disqualified themselves, no questions asked, just due to the cloud of suspicion surrounding the event, regardless of whether the golfer believed they were within the strictness of the rules, the rules officials got it wrong, what some machine shows, etc.  Their own consciences and the call of the game was to a higher standard than just what's written in the book or decided by a committee or recorded by a camera.

Don't agree with that.  I'm assuming you're talking about the Masters where DQ was never an option, for any player .

So Tiger says the ball didn't move.  Which definition of "move" is he using?  I realize I'm splitting hairs a little here, but unlike the definition of "is", we're talking about a word that has multiple meanings.  So I can't really make up my mind if Tiger was claiming that the ball didn't do anything (which I think his hesitancy when moving the twig shows he knew it jiggled) or that he was asserting that the ball didn't move as the RoG defines it.  I didn't see it move and people had to use a lot of technology to show that it did.

When Tigers says "move" he means changed position, which the ball did.  I don't think Tiger was lying or trying to get away with anything, we don't know exactly what he saw and the movement was slight.  Could have easily been confused with oscillation.  And I'm not a big fan of Tiger

Yeah, I kept seeing it either on the sidebar of this thread or on the front page as the teaser pic for this thread, or something like that ... but I can't find it now.

Yeah, I kept seeing it either on the sidebar of this thread or on the front page as the teaser pic for this thread, or something like that ... but I can't find it now.

;)

LOL yeah did some updates this morning, before I saw the thread

[Golfingdad]

The ball moved. If you saw the video, and if you are honest with yourself, you know the ball moved. If there was any question about whether the ball moved or if it instead oscillated, the officials would have considered that and found it hard to apply the penalty. I don't think they meant to have a debate; they were showing him the reason why he was being given a penalty. Slugger White: "There was a little stick of some kind next to his ball, and when he rolled that, the ball in fact moved. He knew there was movement there, but he was very adamant that is oscillated and it stayed there. But this video was at the site, and the ball did in fact move."

The problem is that Tiger refused to admit that the ball moved, even when offered the evidence by the officials.  He apparently knew something happened WHEN it happened, otherwise he would not have hesitated the way he did when the ball moved. Yet, he did nothing at the time. Why? That is a fair question. And his recalcitrant behavior when he was shown the clear evidence is questionable as well, and that goes to the core of what Chamblee saw as questionable behavior. Why didn't he just take the penalty and move on in the face of irrefutable evdence? A little guilt, maybe?

Just speculating on a hypothesis....

It's easy for me to believe Tiger when he says he didn't think it moved at the time.  Yes, he stopped trying to move the stick, so its obvious he saw something, but it's perfectly reasonable to think that that something was oscillation, and his reason for dropping the stick was to prevent actual movement.  (This is the point where it gets grey.  He obviously saw something, and no part of him wondered enough to call in a rules official?  No part of him wanted to side with caution - like @wannabe pointed out - and just accept the penalty to remove all doubt and move on?  Hmmm)

Where I agree with you is when people (Tiger specifically) are shown the video and then still say they didn't see movement.  You can certainly use the video to understand why you think Tiger wouldn't have seen movement live, but you can't watch the video with good eyes and and an unbiased mind and still say that the ball did not move.

[Golfingdad]

Don't agree with that.  I'm assuming you're talking about the Masters where DQ was never an option, for any player.

I think some people say DQ when they simply mean WD.  Tiger certainly could have WD'd at the Masters.

Again, sorry for another double post.  I keep writing stuff and then when I post it, somebody else has written something else I want to respond to. :)  And one thing I'm not good at is adding another quote into a post I'm editting.  I should probably learn how to do that correctly, eh? ;)

[krupa]

The ball moved. If you saw the video, and if you are honest with yourself, you know the ball moved. If there was any question about whether the ball moved or if it instead oscillated, the officials would have considered that and found it hard to apply the penalty. I don't think they meant to have a debate; they were showing him the reason why he was being given a penalty. Slugger White: "There was a little stick of some kind next to his ball, and when he rolled that, the ball in fact moved. He knew there was movement there, but he was very adamant that is oscillated and it stayed there. But this video was at the site, and the ball did in fact move."

The problem is that Tiger refused to admit that the ball moved, even when offered the evidence by the officials.  He apparently knew something happened WHEN it happened, otherwise he would not have hesitated the way he did when the ball moved. Yet, he did nothing at the time. Why? That is a fair question. And his recalcitrant behavior when he was shown the clear evidence is questionable as well, and that goes to the core of what Chamblee saw as questionable behavior. Why didn't he just take the penalty and move on in the face of irrefutable evdence? A little guilt, maybe?

Just speculating on a hypothesis....

I didn't express it very well at all, but my point was that Chamblee had plenty of time to consider exactly what he wanted to write, both for his article, his defense of the article, and then finally his apology.   And that is why I don't see giving him any leeway when it comes to thinking, "well maybe he really didn't mean any harm."

At this point, I see the whole Tiger incident as being a very tiring tempest in a teacup.  It's not like he's been given a license to cheat; if anything he'll have even more scrutiny and even if he beats every record ever, I have the feeling that he's going to be treated more like Barry Bonds than Palmer or Nicklaus.  (And for the record, I am honest with myself. I had to put my nose to my monitor and see how other people drew lines on screenshots to see that the ball moved... you're talking like the damn thing rolled 6 inches back onto the fairway.)

[k-troop]

Chamblee had plenty of time to consider exactly  what he wanted to write, both for his article, his defense of the article, and then finally his apology.   And that is why I don't see giving him any leeway when it comes to thinking, "well maybe he really didn't mean any harm."

I have to say I agree with this.  He said Tiger cheated, and he knew what he was doing.  He even admitted that he chose his words carefully (though he said that as a way of copping out that he carefully avoided calling Tiger a cheater explicitly).

Whether Tiger knowingly cheated is really a separate issue for me.  That's up in the air, and I'm not sure where I stand.  Each individual event can be explained away, but it is a troubling pattern.  And there's really very little excuse for Tiger not knowing the rule about dropping on the point-of-entry line after he dunked his ball at the Masters, as that's a pretty basic rule and required no interpretation of vague facts.

But there is absolutely no question in my mind that Chamblee called Tiger a cheater, and knew exactly what he was doing when he did it.  I'll further add that I really don't have any problem with Chamblee stating his opinion that Tiger cheated, so long as he does it like a man.  (Which of course means while wearing Levi's jeans.)

[bplewis24]

Actually, I think ghalfaire makes a pretty good point.  We all agree (if you don't agree then that simply means I'm not talking to you) that we have no idea what Tiger was thinking when we said he didn't see the ball move, but we take him at his word.  If Brandel says he didn't intend to hurt anybody, why shouldn't we also take him at his word?  The type of mistakes are different, sure, but that doesn't preclude them from both potentially being mistakes.

If we're going to make the assumption that Brandel intended to hurt Tiger, then everybody who has the assumption that Tiger intentionally cheated gets to have that opinion validated.

Is it possible that Brandel's article was calculated from the start to stir up this controversy and that it was not a mistake, and his apology is not sincere?  Of course.  But it is also possible that Tiger did see his ball move, yet hoped nobody else did, and played dumb when he was caught.  We can't have one and not the other.

Disagree.  There is no correlation between the two situations.

Tiger's incident was a reaction to a set of circumstances, and you're judging whether or not he knew a particular circumstance transpired.  It is possible he didn't.

Brandel's "incident" was not a reaction.  It was a prepared statement.  Unless you believe the material isn't discussed before the program airs, he knew what he was going to say before he said it.  There is a much, much lower likelihood for him to not have intended to say what he said as opposed to Tiger not having intended to cheat.

Lastly, people should be clear about which action they are referring to with respect to "intent."  Tiger clearly didn't intend for his ball to move, but Brandel clearly intended to say what he did.  The only real question up for dispute is whether Tiger intentionally cheated (read: he knew the ball moved and didn't report it).  Even if you assume he did intentionally cheat, it can not be assumed that when he was moving the sticks around, he knew that he would be cheating if the ball moved.  However, it is very likely that Brandel knew the consequences of his words before he spoke them.  And it is my humble opinion that that is the exact reason why he spoke them.  That makes a huge distinction between the two situations.

[Fourputt]

Haven't read all of the thread, so pardon if I'm being redundant, but here's my take on this whole discussion.

Seems like what Brandel's calling Tiger out for is more about spirit than technicality.  In golf, there's a tradition that favors the integrity of the game beyond any doubt about scores and results.

Over and over again throughout the life of the sport, golfers are revered for disqualifying themselves, calling penalties on themselves, etc.  My understanding is that even for those situations where the was even the shadow of doubt about rule infraction, the good golfer was the golfer who fell on the sword and DQ'd himself.  Golf has a noble air about it, and this is why.  Brandel is calling Tiger to this higher view of the game and his actions within the spotlight of this great sport.

Tiger's been in some situations where other golfers would've disqualified themselves, no questions asked, just due to the cloud of suspicion surrounding the event, regardless of whether the golfer believed they were within the strictness of the rules, the rules officials got it wrong, what some machine shows, etc.  Their own consciences and the call of the game was to a higher standard than just what's written in the book or decided by a committee or recorded by a camera.

Brandel may be calling him a cheater, but I think he's actually aiming for something that is supposed to be worse in golf: he's calling him a man of low character.  With this -- and for Tiger, who has told us all along that winning is all he cares about -- I agree.

If Tiger can bend the rules in his favor to get the win, he will.  That's not the way golfers are supposed to do it.

You have a misconception about how the rules are applied.  No player can disqualify himself, only a serious breach of certain rules can do that.  Nothing that has happened to Tiger since Dubai falls into that category.

I really don't have any idea how you manage to jump from some odd rules situations to the accusation that Tiger is intentionally bending the rules.  I haven't seen it, and I'm as much a stickler for the rules as anyone on this forum (as most anyone here will tell you).  I have seen instances many times in real life where a player tried to move a loose impediment, and when the ball oscillated, he immediately desisted.  There was no way to know from real time observation whether the ball merely oscillated or actually moved a microscopic amount.  Pretty much like Tiger, I'm not calling a penalty on myself that I don't even think actually happened.  In my opinion, the rule itself is at fault for allowing such doubt to creep into the mix.  If the definition of "moved" was amended to mean any movement at all, then it would be more in keeping with the bulk of the rules, making such a determination black and white, with no gray area to put the seed of doubt in the picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by krupa

I don't think it does.

Here's my opinion on the Tiger thing:  I watched the video repeatedly and barely saw that the ball moved (as defined by the Rules of Golf.)  I totally saw it jiggle.  Many people in the thread about the incident did not realize that a ball that oscillates and comes to rest in its original position has not moved as defined by the RoG.

So Tiger says the ball didn't move.  Which definition of "move" is he using?  I realize I'm splitting hairs a little here, but unlike the definition of "is", we're talking about a word that has multiple meanings.  So I can't really make up my mind if Tiger was claiming that the ball didn't do anything (which I think his hesitancy when moving the twig shows he knew it jiggled) or that he was asserting that the ball didn't move as the RoG defines it.  I didn't see it move and people had to use a lot of technology to show that it did.

The other difference is that Chamblee had a lot of time to consider what he was writing and then more time to consider how to react to the public's reaction to his writing, etc,  Tiger was challenged after the round and had to answer for it right then and there.  I don't really know how it affects my point, but with Chamblee, anyway, he had plenty of time to think about what he was writing before letting it out to the public and he still originally chose to defend his article.

The ball moved. If you saw the video, and if you are honest with yourself, you know the ball moved. If there was any question about whether the ball moved or if it instead oscillated, the officials would have considered that and found it hard to apply the penalty. I don't think they meant to have a debate; they were showing him the reason why he was being given a penalty. Slugger White: "There was a little stick of some kind next to his ball, and when he rolled that, the ball in fact moved. He knew there was movement there, but he was very adamant that is oscillated and it stayed there. But this video was at the site, and the ball did in fact move."

The problem is that Tiger refused to admit that the ball moved, even when offered the evidence by the officials.  He apparently knew something happened WHEN it happened, otherwise he would not have hesitated the way he did when the ball moved. Yet, he did nothing at the time. Why? That is a fair question. And his recalcitrant behavior when he was shown the clear evidence is questionable as well, and that goes to the core of what Chamblee saw as questionable behavior. Why didn't he just take the penalty and move on in the face of irrefutable evdence? A little guilt, maybe?

Just speculating on a hypothesis....

Was Tiger shown the video evidence, or was he just told?  How vehemently did he dispute it?  I didn't see it, so I'm in the dark here.

Also, what was he supposed to do at the time of the incident.  I realize that we all automatically think that he should call in an official to make a ruling, but in a case like this, in real time, all the official can do is take Tiger's word for what he saw, which was the ball oscillating.  Even if the official says that he has to take the one stroke penalty and replace the ball, all he's really doing is making a gesture, since nobody actually knows if the ball really moved and with that lie, how do you "replace" it for such a minuscule shift.  It is a bad situation all the way around.

I'll grant you that he shouldn't have argued the ruling, but I've been in the same situation, working as a rules official and having my ruling disputed by the player.  In that case, the player also didn't think that he had done anything wrong, and like Tiger, the committee ultimately ruled against him.  When you have a very competitive individual who is certain of his own rightness, it can be a very difficult thing for him to accept what he sees as an unjust penalty.

[bplewis24]

Was Tiger shown the video evidence, or was he just told?  How vehemently did he dispute it?  I didn't see it, so I'm in the dark here.

According to a few sources, he was shown the video and asked his thoughts.  He said he didn't see anything.  Shown again, same result.  Then after a third time, the official (I forget his name) said, "the ball moved."  Tiger responded "fine" or something like that.

It should be remembered that several people (including Johnny Miller and myself) didn't think anything of the video until seeing it blown up in high definition.  The first few times I saw it, I thought it was possible it only oscillated, and Johnny Miller (who was very critical of Tiger) said the same thing.  His quote was something about having watched it 5 times on his iPhone and not seeing anything wrong with it.

[birlyshirly]

I'll tell you what. I'm having the hardest time taking someone seriously who says:

"I see nothing."

"I see nothing."

"Oh, I see the ball move, but then it reverses back into its original place. "

I mean oscillation is the only possible defence where a ball clearly moves and you haven't called the penalty. It's the only thing that Tiger could say to the press without implicitly acknowledging that he tried to get away with an infraction that he'd thought had gone unnoticed. But it seems utterly threadbare to me - the more so if after each of his first two viewings of the video he was trying to argue that he saw no movement at all.

[bplewis24]

But it seems utterly threadbare to me - the more so if after each of his first two viewings of the video he was trying to argue that he saw no movement at all.

You're either twisting or misinterpreting his words.  It was pretty clear to me that when he said "I see nothing" he was saying that he saw no infraction, not that the ball didn't move at all.  I guess it's possible he meant that he saw no movement whatsoever, but I think that's pretty unlikely and that never entered my mind when I read/heard the transcript.

[newtogolf]

I'll tell you what. I'm having the hardest time taking someone seriously who says:

"I see nothing."

"I see nothing."

"Oh, I see the ball move, but then it reverses back into its original place."

I mean oscillation is the only possible defence where a ball clearly moves and you haven't called the penalty. It's the only thing that Tiger could say to the press without implicitly acknowledging that he tried to get away with an infraction that he'd thought had gone unnoticed. But it seems utterly threadbare to me - the more so if after each of his first two viewings of the video he was trying to argue that he saw no movement at all.

You clearly dislike Tiger and wish to see things in a way that discredits him.  The slow motion, high definition video shows the ball moved / rotated slightly after a reference line is added.  At real speed you or I can't say with any certainty we'd notice it rotated or oscillated.  Even with the benefit of the slow motion high definition video I can't say with certainty that it moved or just rotated in place.

Depending on which version of the video he was shown (which I doubt we know) it's quite possible that it wasn't obvious if you didn't concentrate on the position of the logo when the ball was at rest and where the logo was after he moved the branch.  He might have not paid attention to the logo and instead just focused on the overall ball position.  After the third time they asked him to look at it, he probably figured the were going to penalize him so he accepted it.  Maybe they pointed out what to focus on so he'd see what they saw.

The ball either moved or rotated in place at most a few centimeters.

[ghalfaire]

I didn't express it very well at all, but my point was that Chamblee had plenty of time to consider exactly  what he wanted to write, both for his article, his defense of the article, and then finally his apology.   And that is why I don't see giving him any leeway when it comes to thinking, "well maybe he really didn't mean any harm."

On the other hand Brandel made one mistake (the article).  Tiger made three mistakes in a single season.  That's a lot for a golfer of Tiger's stature and experience.  What does that say, if anything, about Tiger's concern with adhering to the rules?  I personally believe that Brandel was trying to say Tiger had a great season, 5 wins and POY, but also had this mysterious problem with the rules that you would not expect from Tiger which distracted from his performance.  He didn't say it very well and implied something I am sure he regrets, but it was a mistake and he apologized.

[birlyshirly]

You're either twisting or misinterpreting his words.  It was pretty clear to me that when he said "I see nothing" he was saying that he saw no infraction, not that the ball didn't move at all.

I.don't think so. I defy anyone to watch the video and see oscillation. So what else can 'nothing' mean? [quote name="newtogolf" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/180#post_912540"]You clearly dislike Tiger and wish to see things in a way that discredits him.  The slow motion, high definition video shows the ball moved / rotated slightly after a reference line is added.  At real speed you or I can't say with any certainty we'd notice it rotated or oscillated.  Even with the benefit of the slow motion high definition video I can't say with certainty that it moved or just rotated in place. [/quote] No. I dislike how he's acted here. And I think he has discredited himself. As for the video, you don't seriously think that the rules officials who acted on it were in any doubt as to what it showed, do you?