The Masters Tournament

[GAVol]

I've actually taken and passed the USGA test and I can confirm that you are wrong.

I can't imagine it happening at a professional event or big amateur event. I will say though that I've seen an official step in once in a state amateur event when a guy was about to do something absent minded in a bunker well away from his ball as he walked in. The official just happened to be there and basically just said "Whoa. You don't want to do that."

 

[Orange_Crush]

No they didn't but they discussed it & at that time deemed there was no wrong doing.

Which is a red herring to the conversation.

 

[volfanbill]

Thanks for your help!!

obviously it hasn't helped. CC is right no matter what the USGA Rule Book says. You're welcome though.

 

[GAVol]

Which is a red herring to the conversation.

I'm not following you're logic here. The reason he wasn't DQ'd seems pretty cut and dried.

USGA: 2011 News Archive

 

[govols/cc]

obviously it hasn't helped. CC is right no matter what the USGA Rule Book says. You're welcome though.

Based on yours & tweedle dums assessment the usga doesn't know what they're doing anyway.

 

[Pin High]

..

 

[volfanbill]

Based on yours & tweedle dums assessment the usga doesn't know what they're doing anyway.

Where have I ever said that?

 

[Orange_Crush]

You do realize the USGA was called to ensure the rules were properly applied correct?

So are u implying the USGA applied their own rules incorrectly?

Further clarity as to the rule change for 33-7, from the USGA/R&A:

“This is a logical and important step in our re-evaluation of the impact of high-definition video on the game,” said Mike Davis, executive director of the USGA. “We collectively believe that this revised decision addresses many video-related issues never contemplated by the Rules of Golf.”

In other words, HDTV and slow-mo video catches things that the player and officials may not have known happened-- like clipping grass or ball mobement. You can't hold a player responsible when they don't know they committed an act.

It was not intended to cover things that a player knew they did, but was ignorant of the consequences. That is plainly stated in their discussion of the appropriate exercise of the rule.

 

[govols/cc]

So what's the penalty for an improper drop?

 

[Vols520]

Further clarity as to the rule change for 33-7, from the USGA/R&A:



In other words, HDTV and slow-mo video catches things that the player and officials may not have known happened-- like clipping grass or ball mobement. You can't hold a player responsible when they don't know they committed an act.

It was not intended to cover things that a player knew they did, but was ignorant of the consequences. That is plainly stated in their discussion of the appropriate exercise of the rule.

So essentially in your eyes the USGA and officials are corrupt and playing favorites?

This is just simply not true. It's a new rule and some don't like it.

 

[volfanbill]

So what's the penalty for an improper drop?

under what circumstances?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm not following you're logic here. The reason he wasn't DQ'd seems pretty cut and dried.

USGA: 2011 News Archive

From the link:

In revising the decision, The R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognizing that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach.

A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:

As a player’s ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the player was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.

A player's ball lies in a water hazard. In making his backswing for the stroke, the player is aware that his club touched a branch in the hazard. Not realizing at the time that the branch was detached, the player did not include the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4 in his score for the hole. As the player could have reasonably determined the status of the branch prior to signing and returning his score card, the player should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4. (Revised)

TW knew the facts that led to the penalty strokes. He knew that he had dropped the ball 3-6 feet behind his previous shot. Heck, he stated in the media session that he did it on purpose, for a reason. He just (apparently) didn't know that it was a violation.

The USGA's definition of the rule, and description of its exercise, specifically states that it was not designed for this situation.

 

[GAVol]

You"re in a real gray area there though when it comes to dropping near the spot of a previous shot. For one thing, the ball can't end up nearer to the hole than where it was originally played from. On the 15th fairway in the layup zone at Augusta Natl, that requires a drop on the uphill side behind the spot. So where do you drop it? A foot away? 6 inches away? 3 feet away?

We all know that he was pushing the envelope to get the yardage he wanted, but is that really an out of the ordinary action in that circumstance given the lie?

 

[Orange_Crush]

So essentially in your eyes the USGA and officials are corrupt and playing favorites?

This is just simply not true. It's a new rule and some don't like it.

I've posted the rule verbatim, as well as the interpretation by the USGA/R&A, as to when it's appropriate to implement the exception. Both are diametrically opposed to this implementation. As a matter of fact, their description of when it is NOT appropriate to exercise is almost exactly the same as the TW situation.

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:
As a player’s ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the player was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.

"This simply is not true..." rings hollow.

Now, I don't think the USGA set out to be corrupt. I really don't. Remember, they didn't make the ruling. They just have to comment on it afterward, during the Masters. It's a bad situation for them. (And it's opened up a precedent that they'll live with for a long time, because it'll turn the rule into something they've expressly stated it wasn't intended to be.)

 

[Orange_Crush]

You're in a real gray area there though when it comes to dropping near the spot of a previous shot.

Not when it's 3-6 feet, and the player says in the presser that he dropped a couple of yards back, on purpose, so that he had less chance of hitting the flag stick and going in the water again.

Not gray at all.

 

[Vols520]

I've posted the rule verbatim, as well as the interpretation by the USGA/R&A, as to when it's appropriate to implement the exception. Both are diametrically opposed to this implementation. As a matter of fact, their description of when it is NOT appropriate to exercise is almost exactly the same as the TW situation.



"This simply is not true..." rings hollow.

Now, I don't think the USGA set out to be corrupt. I really don't. Remember, they didn't make the ruling. They just have to comment on it afterward, during the Masters. It's a bad situation for them. (And it's opened up a precedent that they'll live with for a long time, because it'll turn the rule into something they've expressly stated it wasn't intended to be.)

You are wrong. The USGA was contacted before a final determination was made. They confirmed the rule was being applied correctly.

This has been confirmed.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You"re in a real gray area there though when it comes to dropping near the spot of a previous shot. For one thing, the ball can't end up nearer to the hole than where it was originally played from. On the 15th fairway in the layup zone at Augusta Natl, that requires a drop on the uphill side behind the spot. So where do you drop it? A foot away? 6 inches away? 3 feet away?

We all know that he was pushing the envelope to get the yardage he wanted, but is that really an out of the ordinary action in that circumstance given the lie?

Besides, the rule violation is not in question. It was black and white enough that he got the penalty strokes. What is in question is whether he should be DQed for signing an incorrect score card. The quotes from the USGA state that he should have been DQed.

 

[GAVol]

Not when it's 3-6 feet, and the player says in the presser that he dropped a couple of yards back, on purpose, so that he had less chance of hitting the flag stick and going in the water again.

Not gray at all.

The interview answer is problematic. But the 3-6 feet thing is crazy. You and I both know that stroke and distance drops are an inexact science and a few feet either way is something nobody would give a second thought to if not for the interview.

I just have a hard time penalizing somebody based on their ego about wedge distance control in an interview.

 

[Vols520]

Besides, the rule violation is not in question. It was black and white enough that he got the penalty strokes. What is in question is whether he should be DQed for signing an incorrect score card. The quotes from the USGA state that he should have been DQed.

U are ignoring the fact the USGA was contacted before a final ruling was made. USGA agreed the rule was being applied properly.

Not sure why this is an issue.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You are wrong. The USGA was contacted before a final determination was made. They confirmed the rule was being applied correctly.

This has been confirmed.

Then they are worse in this than I gave them credit for. From their own words, before it was The Masters and TW involved.

A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:

As a player’s ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the player was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.

Truly sad.

 

[Orange_Crush]

U are ignoring the fact the USGA was contacted before a final ruling was made. USGA agreed the rule was being applied properly.

Not sure why this is an issue.

You just told me.

I'll ignore it no longer.

See my post above, quoting their own description of proper exercising of the rule.

I'll say again... If they signed off before it was applied, it's even sadder.

 

[Vols520]

Then they are worse in this than I gave them credit for. From their own words, before it was The Masters and TW involved.



Truly sad.

Lol.

 

[doozer]

This thread is horrible.

 

[GAVol]

Besides, the rule violation is not in question. It was black and white enough that he got the penalty strokes. What is in question is whether he should be DQed for signing an incorrect score card. The quotes from the USGA state that he should have been DQed.

That's a complete joke. If it was black and white, they'd have called it on the spot and not reviewed it, said it was OK, then reviewed it again that night, and decided to penalize.

 

[GAVol]

This thread is horrible.

It really is. We've got the greatest tournament on earth going on and we're talking about a ball drop.