re: If Tiger had an ounce of integrity he would DQ himself from the Masters

I'm going to pull the plug and let it die.

The horse is dead. Quit beating it.

quote:

---

It's ok to say that they got it wrong.

---

they could be wrong or they could actual have some exceptions to some rules. maybe threeputt can ask his USGA buddy if they got the janzen ruling incorrect.

Different thread. There were multiple ones.

But you have to admit, most of the stuff that was being written Saturday AM provided some much needed laughter.

quote:

---

Lsugolf1105

---

Got an answer back about a players intent re: the rules from the USGA. If you remember the question was that a player goes into a hazard and informs his playing partner that he intends to ground his club in the playing of the shot. In fact while playing the shot, the player does not actually ground his club.

I stated that since his intension was to ground his club, he should be penalized (no matter if he actually grounded the club or not). You were not so sure.

The explanation from the usga is pretty long and im on my phone driving and cant copy and paste the email but long story shory: if he did not ground the club then he incurs NO penalty.

From the email: "please note that it is irrelevant what the player stated his intent was"

I was wrong and now have done a complete 180 on the tiger situation. Since his intent is irrelevant it does not matter what he was trying to do with that drop. I think that the drop can be classified "as near as possible" to the original position (as evidence by no official saying antthing at the time) and he should not have been penalized.

I do still think it bs that the comittee, agreeing that a penalty occured (which now I do not agree with) did not dq tiger (or lee janzen in your example).

:beatdeadhorse:

I am very grateful to you for looking that up.

Very great explanation. I think we all (the people actually discussing in this thread, not just flaming) learned a great deal about the rules. I know I did.

quote:

---

I was wrong and now have done a complete 180 on the tiger situation. Since his intent is irrelevant it does not matter what he was trying to do with that drop. I think that the drop can be classified "as near as possible" to the original position (as evidence by no official saying antthing at the time) and he should not have been penalized.

---

I guess I have to change tune as well if this is the USGA's position.

quote:

---

I do still think it bs that the comittee, agreeing that a penalty occured (which now I do not agree with) did not dq tiger (or lee janzen in your example).

---

I agree with this too. I still think the committee erred by using rule 33-7.

Just coming in to that this thread is still going

If anyone is interested, Kendra Graham former USGA director of women's competitions, explains the ruling.

LINK

Some Highlights..

quote:

---

Rule 33-7 is not new; it has been in the book, according to my research, since 1952. Rule 33 (The Committee) outlines all of the responsibilities of the Committee in charge of a competition and is one of the longest Rules in the book. Its counterpart is Rule 6 (The Player), which highlights all of the player’s responsibilities. There is a relatively new Decision 33-7/4.5 (went into effect in 2011 and was revised in 2012), which often was mentioned in connection with this ruling. It really had very little, if any, bearing on the decision made by this Committee.

---

quote:

---

In this case, the Committee felt justified in using Rule 33-7 to waive the penalty of disqualification because they knew of the player’s possible breach before he signed his scorecard. They do not have to “fit” their reason into one of the scenarios listed in Decision 33-7/4.5.

---