The Masters Tournament

[Orange_Crush]

I don't think its quite that simple. There's a difference between trying to cheat and using the rules to your advantage.

That's cool.

But when you try to use the rules to your advantage, but break them, then you call the penalty on yourself. That's my point.

 

[vol_in_ar]

Tiger handled that round of questioning well

 

[Orange_Crush]

You realize that rule changed too?

Then one would not have to call it on himself.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

I haven't belittled anyone's integrity.

I did state that I feel as though we are approaching the situation from differing perspectives. I also stated that that's alright.

I absolutely do not think it is okay to cheat as long as you get away with it. He got a two stroke penalty that will probably cost him the tournament. That is most definitely not getting away with it.

 

[GAVol]

That's cool.

But when you try to use the rules to your advantage, but break them, then you call the penalty on yourself. That's my point.

But what if you don't realize you've made a mistake AND officials tell you that you're ok?

 

[govols/cc]

Then one would not have to call it on himself.

What's to call? You state the ball moved & place it back where it was as best you can no penalty. Of course there's always the chance somebody will call in & say it was 1/128th of an inch from its original spot.

 

[Pin High]

..

 

[Orange_Crush]

I absolutely do not think it is okay to cheat as long as you get away with it. He got a two stroke penalty that will probably cost him the tournament. That is most definitely not getting away with it.

OK. My intent wasn't to make anyone feel attacked.

:hi:

 

[govols/cc]

You have no clue what your talking about. Rule official will never tell a player they about to mess up. If player has doubt, then they will ask.

The official can step in at any point & tell a player he's about to break a rule. Whether he does or not is up to him.

 

[volfanbill]

An official can make his presence known but can't without being asked give a decision. A fellow player can at any time give a fellow player information about rules and any other information that can be considered common knowledge.

 

[Pin High]

..

 

[Orange_Crush]

But what if you don't realize you've made a mistake AND officials tell you that you're ok?

Knowledge of the rule doesn't make a difference.

The officials admitted they made their decision without all the information.

The facts of the matter are that the card he signed does not match the card that is on record now.

The rules are pretty cut and dry. If they weren't, the tournament officials would not have had to mis-apply another rule to keep from DQing him.

My point is that this looks horrible for a person with previous, very public, character issues. He could have done himself a lot of good-- and didn't.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What's to call? You state the ball moved & place it back where it was as best you can no penalty. Of course there's always the chance somebody will call in & say it was 1/128th of an inch from its original spot.

That was my point-- thus the smiley face.

 

[govols/cc]

Knowledge of the rule doesn't make a difference.

The officials admitted they made their decision without all the information.

The facts of the matter are that the card he signed does not match the card that is on record now.

The rules are pretty cut and dry. If they weren't, the tournament officials would not have had to mis-apply another rule to keep from DQing him.

My point is that this looks horrible for a person with previous, very public, character issues. He could have done himself a lot of good-- and didn't.

Lol. Not sure what's hard to comprehend. You're told to sign a card by officials so there's no way you could be punished for that. It wasn't knowledge of a rule that's even an issue it was a misapplication of one. They deemed it an illegal drop well after he was told he was good to go & he was good to sign his card. It's a 2 shot penalty. Again based on a rule change & the scorecard can always be changed, they have erasers on the pencil.

 

[GAVol]

Knowledge of the rule doesn't make a difference.

The officials admitted they made their decision without all the information.

The facts of the matter are that the card he signed does not match the card that is on record now.

The rules are pretty cut and dry. If they weren't, the tournament officials would not have had to mis-apply another rule to keep from DQing him.

My point is that this looks horrible for a person with previous, very public, character issues. He could have done himself a lot of good-- and didn't.

I think you're kidding yourself. Withdrawing wouldn't have made a difference in how he's viewed by anyone. The haters would still hate.

 

[govols/cc]

I think you're kidding yourself. Withdrawing wouldn't have made a difference in how he's viewed by anyone. The haters would still hate.

Yea if he had withdrew the haters would be on the opposite side of the debate saying he's a quitter when things go bad.

 

[govols/cc]

I didn't think Freddy had lost much distance, Day must be killing it.

 

[vol_in_ar]

Lol. Not sure what's hard to comprehend. You're told to sign a card by officials so there's no way you could be punished for that. It wasn't knowledge of a rule that's even an issue it was a misapplication of one. They deemed it an illegal drop well after he was told he was good to go & he was good to sign his card. It's a 2 shot penalty. Again based on a rule change & the scorecard can always be changed, they have erasers on the pencil.

just to clear it up, he was never told he was "good to go"...the rules committee did review the drop while he was still on 18, and they deemed it wasn't an infraction, so they didn't say anything to him..

then later CBS called Fred Ridley, and told him there could be an issue with Tiger's drop, when it was viewed in light of what Tiger has said in the interview, after the round..

So Fred and some other rules officails went in and reviewed the inteview and the drop again..(Fred said it was around 10pm when they went back in and looked at it...Then they called to have Tiger meet them this morning

 

[Orange_Crush]

Lol. Not sure what's hard to comprehend. You're told to sign a card by officials so there's no way you could be punished for that. It wasn't knowledge of a rule that's even an issue it was a misapplication of one. They deemed it an illegal drop well after he was told he was good to go & he was good to sign his card. It's a 2 shot penalty. Again based on a rule change & the scorecard can always be changed, they have erasers on the pencil.

lol. Not sure what's hard to comprehend. If it wasn't an issue, they would not have had to misapply a separate rule to keep from DQing him.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

lol. Not sure what's hard to comprehend. If it wasn't an issue, they would not have had to misapply a separate rule to keep from DQing him.

I don't think you understand that some of us don't think the rule was "misapplied". And I am not just trying to be argumentative. I watched the Ridley press conference too. It makes perfect sense to me. If it is not against the rules for Tiger to play. Then he should play.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Anyway Tiger isn't going to win, so back to the Masters. Who do you savants think is going to win? I have a bad feeling that Cabrera is going to win. 269th in the world...are you kidding me? I would rather Day or Sneds win.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't think you understand that some of us don't think the rule was "misapplied". And I am not just trying to be argumentative. I watched the Ridley press conference too. It makes perfect sense to me. If it is not against the rules for Tiger to play. Then he should play.

33-7 states:

If the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed…

In other words: If the competitor could not have reasonably known that they had performed the action that resulted in a breach of the rules, the committee can choose to waive the DQ.

This rule was created for the player that brushes a blade of grass while in a hazard, but didn't know he had brushed the blade of grass... Or for one that didn't see a ball change position. Etc... And yet, due to HD, slow-motion replay, the action that resulted in the penalty is discovered and the penalty assessed.

It was not created for the player that either doesn't know a rule, or ignores it, and yet knows that they committed the action that broke the rule.

TW knew full well that he had dropped his ball 3-6 feet behind his original spot. As a tour professional, number 1 in the world, he should have known the simple rules associated with dropping his ball. But that's beside the point. He knew that he had dropped the ball where he dropped it. Whether he knew that had broken a rule was beside the point.

The committee mis-applied a rule to keep a ratings-cow playing on the weekend.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

33-7 states:



In other words: If the competitor could not have reasonably known that they had performed the action that resulted in a breach of the rules, the committee can choose to waive the DQ.

This rule was created for the player that brushes a blade of grass while in a hazard, but didn't know he had brushed the blade of grass... Or for one that didn't see a ball change position. Etc... And yet, due to HD, slow-motion replay, the action that resulted in the penalty is discovered and the penalty assessed.

It was not created for the player that either doesn't know a rule, or ignores it, and yet knows that they committed the action that broke the rule.

TW knew full well that he had dropped his ball 3-6 feet behind his original spot. As a tour professional, number 1 in the world, he should have known the simple rules associated with dropping his ball. But that's beside the point. He knew that he had dropped the ball where he dropped it. Whether he knew that had broken a rule was beside the point.

The committee mis-applied a rule to keep a ratings-cow playing on the weekend.

OK...well he is playing, so I guess they are all cheaters then. Not just Tiger.

 

[Orange_Crush]

OK...well he is playing, so I guess they are all cheaters then. Not just Tiger.

I laid out the facts. :hi:

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

I laid out the facts. :hi:

As you see them. He is playing, that is also a fact. And folks who are way more knowledgeable about rules applications than you or me both made that happen. It is your opinion, not fact that it is because he is a "cash cow". :hi: I am really not trying to sound like a smartaleck. I just disagree with your "facts".