The Masters Tournament

[Orange_Crush]

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.

He stated intent and knowledge. That makes it a breech of the rules. Again though... The drop is not in question. The DQ is. It's sad that the Masters and USGA went against their own definition of the rule to save TW from being DQed from the Masters after he signed an incorrect score card.

 

[Orange_Crush]

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.

The facts:

It was black and white enough that he has the penalty strokes.

That makes the card that he signed an incorrect score card.

The USGA gave almost an exact duplicate of this situation as an example of which the 33-7 revisions are inappropriate to apply.

Yet it was applied.

Now, to follow red herrings, if they had decided that the drop was legal and applied no penalty, it would have been a gray area. But they didn't, so it's a huge black eye on the Masters and USGA.

 

[GAVol]

Have you ever by chance had a sister that worked as a waitress at a Perkins restaurant?

 

[govols/cc]

The facts:

It was black and white enough that he has the penalty strokes.

That makes the card that he signed an incorrect score card.

The USGA gave almost an exact duplicate of this situation as an example of which the 33-7 revisions are inappropriate to apply.

Yet it was applied.

Now, to follow red herrings, if they had decided that the drop was legal and applied no penalty, it would have been a gray area. But they didn't, so it's a huge black eye on the Masters and USGA.

Are you really so stupid as not to realize the rules have actually changed? It's not like he even actually signed an incorrect scorecard.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Lol.

Again:

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.

Are you laughing out loud because that's all you can respond with? You've done everything but do away with the facts I'm presenting.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Are you really so stupid as not to realize the rules have actually changed? It's not like he even actually signed an incorrect scorecard.

I'm quoting from the current USGA rules, and their explanation of them. Are you reading them?

Again... (This is getting tiring)

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.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Have you ever by chance had a sister that worked as a waitress at a Perkins restaurant?

Not that I know of, but I'll ask.

Have I missed anything in presenting the facts, minus the red herrings?

 

[volfanbill]

as GA points out, the problem is Tiger description of why he dropped it where he did. It boils down to whether or not you believe that gave him an unfair advantage. As I have posted in here already, if he simply tells Renaldi "I took my drop, took a little off and saved bogey," we would be talking about Tiger being in the hunt and the great rounds by Cabrera and Sneds today. And the fact that an Aussie has never won at Augusta. In case y'all hadn't heard, an Aussie has never at Augusta. It's kinda an obscure Masters fact.

 

[GAVol]

as GA points out, the problem is Tiger description of why he dropped it where he did. It boils down to whether or not you believe that gave him an unfair advantage. As I have posted in here already, if he simply tells Renaldi "I took my drop, took a little off and saved bogey," we would be talking about Tiger being in the hunt and the great rounds by Cabrera and Sneds today. And the fact that an Aussie has never won at Augusta. In case y'all hadn't heard, an Aussie has never at Augusta. It's kinda an obscure Masters fact.

Ever notice that Aussies tend to be headcases for some reason?

 

[volfanbill]

Ever notice that Aussies tend to be headcases for some reason?

I just know that I picked Adam Scott like three years in a row as my pick to win the Masters and he screwed it up every time, that Norman's meltdown in '96 is still one of the most painful things I've ever watched on TV and I got so tired of hearing Jim Nantz talk about the Tiger deal and the fact that an Aussie has never won that I gave up watching and went and waxed my car for the leaders' middle 9 holes.

 

[Pin High]

..

 

[volfanbill]

I think Tiger knowingly took the advantage. To me, with Tiger's vast knowledge of not only how to play the game but the rules themselves, there's no way he didn't know he was bending the rules. Had he kept quiet, nothing happens. But since he blabbed about it, I think by my interpretation of the rules (and keep in mind it was 6 years ago that I passed the USGA test and served as a rules official, so the new rule wasn't even thought of then) that he knowingly signed an incorrect score card. The committee jointly decided otherwise and I can see the case for the decision made. I personally have faith in the decision making of USGA officials, so I'll accept it, but again, I would have voted otherwise.

 

[Pin High]

..

 

[volfanbill]

and ultimately, it's a gentleman's game. You trust the player to be honest and after that you fall in line with the view of his playing partners. If Tiger (and possibly his playing partners) claim that Tiger was following the rules as he understood them, my opinion doesn't matter. You have to simply assess the two stroke penalty so, yeah, I'm ok with it. I just don't believe Tiger honestly.

 

[GAVol]

No matter how screwy this escapade seems, it's still just competing for the second craziest rules situation at the Masters.

Forty years later, De Vicenzo's gaffe remains unbelievable - Golf - ESPN

 

[Vols520]

and ultimately, it's a gentleman's game. You trust the player to be honest and after that you fall in line with the view of his playing partners. If Tiger (and possibly his playing partners) claim that Tiger was following the rules as he understood them, my opinion doesn't matter. You have to simply assess the two stroke penalty so, yeah, I'm ok with it. I just don't believe Tiger honestly.

There was a poll taken by caddies where the majority said they had witnessed their players bending rules to their advantage.

I don't think tiger logically thought I am going to break a rule and not get caught.

He def was trying to gain an advantage but I think he felt at the time it was within the rules.

 

[volfanbill]

I will also add that while I have absolutely no idea how to go about doing it, I think it's awesome that fans can call in and report violations. I simply worked the junior circuit, but I know we had spectators trying and sometimes succeeding in reporting violations constantly. I remember one instance where a mom tried to accuse her son's opponent of cheating, but the son took his opponent's side so I couldn't do anything.

 

[Pin High]

..

 

[volfanbill]

Biggest issue I have is the committee wasn't gonna do anything until they heard what was said in interview. Hearing someone's intentions should never be a factor in applying a rule. The intentions were not know when they actually happened. The new scorecard rule was put in place for someone that unknowingly made a mistake. For some to confess that they moved the ball back to try & gain a better position, that is known situation. There is more to this that what we are hearing

I disagree there. From simply watching it on video it really doesn't appear anything out of the ordinary is going on with his drop. While it wasn't as close as possible, it was definitely in the gray area. When Tiger then goes on to tell Tom Renaldi that he did it purposefully, that's why it was a problem. I believe they got that part right.

 

[govols/cc]

I will also add that while I have absolutely no idea how to go about doing it, I think it's awesome that fans can call in and report violations. I simply worked the junior circuit, but I know we had spectators trying and sometimes succeeding in reporting violations constantly. I remember one instance where a mom tried to accuse her son's opponent of cheating, but the son took his opponent's side so I couldn't do anything.

It's dumb as hell fans can call in to report anything. Hell the tour players are in just as much amazement that people have this "number" to call that they have no clue about.

 

[Pin High]

..

 

[GAVol]

Biggest issue I have is the committee wasn't gonna do anything until they heard what was said in interview. Hearing someone's intentions should never be a factor in applying a rule. The intentions were not know when they actually happened. The new scorecard rule was put in place for someone that unknowingly made a mistake. For some to confess that they moved the ball back to try & gain a better position, that is known situation. There is more to this that what we are hearing

I couldnt agree more about intent, but it's exactly what they did. It's silly for them to act like "well, now that we know what he was thinking, it's a penalty ". Everybody that's ever played competitively drops the ball strategically in that situation even if its nothing more than guarding against a bad lie by dropping a few inches this way or that way and everybody knows it.

 

[Pin High]

..

 

[volfanbill]

I couldnt agree more about intent, but it's exactly what they did. It's silly for them to act like "well, now that we know what he was thinking, it's a penalty ". Everybody that's ever played competitively drops the ball strategically in that situation even if its nothing more than guarding against a bad lie by dropping a few inches this way or that way and everybody knows it.

It would have been unprecedented to call it a penalty for the proximity of the drop until he admitted his actions for the drop. I truly believe that. This could however alter the grey area around rules like this forever.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

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.

Wow...real common sense instead of stick up your a$$ priggishness. Good post. I was thinking the same thing earlier. Basically Tiger is getting penalized because he wanted to brag about his distance control. What is the penalty for saying "a couple of yards" When in reality it was barely 2 feet?.....Losing the freakin Masters.