- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Tiger may not have been 2 yards back like he said
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:16 pm
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:16 pm
Intersting point from the Augusta Chronicle:
LINK
quote:
@ScottMichaux Based on these pictures from fixed point (fixed markers circled) seems Tiger should not have been penalized at all.
LINK
14
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:17 pm to CWilken21
if tiger had kept his mouth shut hie would be fine.
the rule reads "as near as possible" to the first shot and within a few feet is within the spirit of the rule. that is why the committee didn't penalize hime during the round.
the rule reads "as near as possible" to the first shot and within a few feet is within the spirit of the rule. that is why the committee didn't penalize hime during the round.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:17 pm to CWilken21
should have been DQ'd
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:17 pm to CWilken21
He said it himself. Stupid thread.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:18 pm to CWilken21
This whole situation is fricked up.
It's crazy that if Tiger didn't hit a perfect shot none of this would have happened.
It's crazy that if Tiger didn't hit a perfect shot none of this would have happened.
This post was edited on 4/14/13 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:18 pm to CWilken21
Oh great. Another Tiger thread.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:20 pm to CWilken21
First of all 2D cameras suck at capturing this type of thing ...
But, man there are some uninformed people out there ITS THE INTENT .. If he intended to do it its a penalty ..
Just like if I intend to hit a shot and totally miss the ball, I have to count the stroke because I intended to hit it. Or if on the tee I hit the ball on my practice swing, I do not count the stoke because I did not intend to hit he ball.
For those two reasons alone, for a newspaper to publish this is laughable.
But, man there are some uninformed people out there ITS THE INTENT .. If he intended to do it its a penalty ..
Just like if I intend to hit a shot and totally miss the ball, I have to count the stroke because I intended to hit it. Or if on the tee I hit the ball on my practice swing, I do not count the stoke because I did not intend to hit he ball.
For those two reasons alone, for a newspaper to publish this is laughable.
This post was edited on 4/14/13 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:20 pm to CWilken21
I said it then, he was inches away. . It was a bad penalty. this photo analysis should have been used but instead they based it off of video and the wrong divot.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:21 pm to tiger2012
quote:
It was a bad penalty.
yes it was . Should have been DQed
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:22 pm to tiger2012
So the rules officials were right when they initially said it was cool. Go figure.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:22 pm to threeputt
I intended for all my balls to go in the hole. Recorded an official 18 last round I played.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:23 pm to tiger2012
I never looked at it close but when ESPN kept showing it.. it always looked like that big divot they thought was Tiger's was there on his first shot.
I thought maybe I was just seeing things. Maybe I wasn't.
I thought maybe I was just seeing things. Maybe I wasn't.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:28 pm to threeputt
quote:
yes it was . Should have been DQed
The only person who should be DQ'ed is you
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:29 pm to Cosmo
quote:
if tiger had kept his mouth shut he would be fine
you should hold that, tiger
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:30 pm to Na Mean
You can never have too many Tiger threads on tigerdroppings
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:30 pm to CP3LSU25
quote:
The only person who should be DQ'ed is you
No shite. Verlander and Peej wrapped into one
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:36 pm to threeputt
quote:
yes it was . Should have been DQed
So, even though the rule was changed to prevent call in rules violations to be DQs, we should ignore that rule? So are we just picking and choosing which rules to enforce now?
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:40 pm to LSUSOBEAST1
I've said it before but here I go again
People saying that Tiger was unjustly punished and didn't do anything wrong are just as bad as the ones saying he should have been DQ or withdrawn from the Masters.
2 stroke penalty was the right decision.
People saying that Tiger was unjustly punished and didn't do anything wrong are just as bad as the ones saying he should have been DQ or withdrawn from the Masters.
2 stroke penalty was the right decision.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:43 pm to Bho
quote:
So, even though the rule was changed to prevent call in rules violations to be DQs, we should ignore that rule? So are we just picking and choosing which rules to enforce now?
Rule was changed to keep up with the technology that people would have no possible knowledge of in real time. It was not changed to prevent ignorance of the rule and specifically says that. This case is the latter not the former
This post was edited on 4/14/13 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 4/14/13 at 4:46 pm to Bho
quote:
So, even though the rule was changed to prevent call in rules violations to be DQs, we should ignore that rule?
Foe the umpteenth time, That rule was made for replay where TV is needed to determine if a violation has occurred when a player could not possibly known that they broke a rule. IT DOES NOT APPLY HERE ... Not even close .. You do not need a camera to see where that ball bounced off of the pin
Page 1 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News