The Masters Tournament

#1,176
#1,176
Ulysees E. McGill said:
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".
Click to expand...

Probably wouldn't bother opening the gates tomorrow if he got DQd.
 
#1,177
#1,177
govols/cc said:
Probably wouldn't bother opening the gates tomorrow if he got DQd.
Click to expand...

Nah... The patrons don't go just to watch Tiger. TV on the other hand...Nobody is going to spend 5 hours watching number 269 in the OWGR win a green jacket....Well I would just because I love the Masters, but not very many others.
 
#1,178
#1,178
Ulysees E. McGill said:
Nah... The patrons don't go just to watch Tiger. TV on the other hand...Nobody is going to spend 5 hours watching number 269 in the OWGR win a green jacket....Well I would just because I love the Masters, but not very many others.
Click to expand...

Not even close. The Masters is much larger than Tiger.
 
#1,179
#1,179
Ulysees E. McGill said:
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".
Click to expand...

It really doesn't take a lot of expertise to read. I'm not being a smart allek either, but the rule is posted right in this thread.

People who know more about the rules than I do are/were up in arms when this came out this morning. It's not just me.

So, again... The rules are written down for a reason. They are easily legible.

The drop rule is easily legible and TW clearly broke it.

37-7 is clearly legible, and TW clearly knew the "facts that resulted in his breach of the Rules". Heck, he bragged that he did it on purpose to get an advantage on the shot.

What is in dispute? Your disagreement with facts does not change the facts.

:hi:
 
#1,183
#1,183
Orange_Crush said:
It really doesn't take a lot of expertise to read. I'm not being a smart allek either, but the rule is posted right in this thread.

People who know more about the rules than I do are/were up in arms when this came out this morning. It's not just me.

So, again... The rules are written down for a reason. They are easily legible.

The drop rule is easily legible and TW clearly broke it.

37-7 is clearly legible, and TW clearly knew the "facts that resulted in his breach of the Rules". Heck, he bragged that he did it on purpose to get an advantage on the shot.

What is in dispute? Your disagreement with facts does not change the facts.

:hi:
Click to expand...

Lol. Yea those 2 steps back were a huge advantage. Get over it. The rules have changed & he's playing.
 
#1,184
#1,184
This really shouldn't be a story. He got a 3 stroke penalty.

If people are upset it should be at the rules officials.
 
#1,185
#1,185
Orange_Crush said:
It really doesn't take a lot of expertise to read. I'm not being a smart allek either, but the rule is posted right in this thread.

People who know more about the rules than I do are/were up in arms when this came out this morning. It's not just me.

So, again... The rules are written down for a reason. They are easily legible.

The drop rule is easily legible and TW clearly broke it.

37-7 is clearly legible, and TW clearly knew the "facts that resulted in his breach of the Rules". Heck, he bragged that he did it on purpose to get an advantage on the shot.

What is in dispute? Your disagreement with facts does not change the facts.

:hi:
Click to expand...

Allright then. I am not arguing with you anymore, he is playing, and nothing you or I do, or think is going to change that. You have a point, I have one too. Yours is probably better. I wish the DQ rule would be changed or tweaked somehow so that things like this would not happen again.
 
#1,187
#1,187
govols/cc said:
Lol. Yea those 2 steps back were a huge advantage. Get over it. The rules have changed & he's playing.
Click to expand...

Those two steps were against the current rules. That's why he was assessed a 2-stroke penalty, and it's why 33-7 came in to keep him from being DQed.

I've posted 33-7, as currently written. When TW said in the press conference that he purposely dropped back "a couple of yards" to have the ball land a couple of yards further back, instead of potentially hitting the flag again, he was admitting that he didn't just "know the facts that resulted in the breach of rules, he PLANNED the "facts that resulted in the breach of the rules". That admission was the very reason that the committee looked at the situation again.

So, TW performed an illegal drop. He knew that he had dropped 3-6 feet behind where he should have. The committee knew that he knew it. Yet, they did not DQ him for signing an illegal score card, just like dozens of pros have been DQed in the past.

Thus... 33-7 was mis-applied.

Those are all facts.

You can respond with "well, it's really not a big deal". Or, "well, everyone's doing it", or whatever else you like. But those are the facts.
 
#1,189
#1,189
The USGA also said the drop rule is confusing as well.

But this dude isn't biased. He had better reading comprehension than all of us.
 
#1,190
#1,190
Vols520 said:
The rule was not mis applied. It was confirmed by usga
Click to expand...

I wonder if it would have been confirmed for Lee Janzen, Padraig Harrington, etc, et al...

When the whole golf community is abuzz with the question of whether TW is back... When PGA television rating soar with TW in the field as opposed to when he's not... It couldn't be about $$$ could it?

But, yah. The rule is plainly written. They're just not applying it as it's written.
 
#1,191
#1,191
Vols520 said:
The USGA also said the drop rule is confusing as well.

But this dude isn't biased. He had better reading comprehension than all of us.
Click to expand...

I'm not biased. I never said I have better reading comprehension.

But I have said the rule is pretty plain. TW knew the facts that led to the breach of the rule. Period. Would you disagree that he knew the facts that led to the breach of the rule? He's on tape, you know...

I'm done. Better things to do and all.
 
#1,192
#1,192
Do I think tiger knowingly cheated? Absolutely not. It was a bad drop and he got penalized.

There are multiple options and he got too creative in what he thought was within the rules.

The whole character integrity card is a bunch of bs.

Masters is getting great ratings and a cash cow either way.
 
#1,194
#1,194
@ThomasVonn: No problem Masters tournament happy to call in and help. You always have to keep an eye on those cheaters ;)


Lulz. Lindsey's ex.
 
#1,195
#1,195
There is a part of rule 33-7 that a member of this board conveniently isn't posting:

A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the committee considers such action warranted."

Convenient he left this off but he isn't biased.
 
#1,196
#1,196
Vols520 said:
There is a part of rule 33-7 that a member of this board conveniently isn't posting:

A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the committee considers such action warranted."

Convenient he left this off but he isn't biased.
Click to expand...

That had already been posted in this thread and acknowledged. I just posted the other part of the rule (that explains the above), which had... conveniently been left out.

Again-- I posted the part that explains the part you posted.

No bias here, just posting the rule.
 
#1,197
#1,197
If Sneds shots another Bogey free round, I think he wins...

It will be tough staying with his game plan, and not get into a free wheeling go for broke shoot out with Cabrera
 
#1,198
#1,198
Orange_Crush said:
That had already been posted in this thread and acknowledged. I just posted the other part of the rule (that explains the above), which had... conveniently been left out.

Again-- I posted the part that explains the part you posted.

No bias here, just posting the rule.
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed it was already posted.
 
#1,200
#1,200
Vols520 said:
Sorry I missed it was already posted.
Click to expand...

No worries. :)

My main intent in posting that section was just that that section defines the "exceptional individual cases".

I'm really not here to argue. I'm not living or dying by this event. It is little more than a cultural blip in my opinion. But, from the facts available, it certainly appears that the application of the rule was for an exceptional individual. lol

I'm out.

:hi:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top