- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: Golf Call-in Infractions only penalize the popular players...
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:55 am to CocomoLSU
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:55 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
I guess it all comes down to if you believe them or not. Riley said they get dozens of calls every year from viewers and that it's not uncommon at all for that to happen. He also went on to say that they review all of the calls and take action if necessary.
you misunderstand me. Golf LOVES the fact that everyone out there has a hard on for the integrity of the game. They want fans in Nowheresville, Kentucky to feel like they are an important piece of the golf community. They encourage this because it feeds golf's particular fetish towards honor and gentlemanly play. It's one of their primary lines of marketing.
But they also don't want to alienate the guy who makes them millions upon millions of dollars. I think shifting blame to the call-in fans feeds the Golf Myth and like all good lies, is at least partly true. But the "smoking gun" was Tiger's press conference. He admitted a rules violation, so he got assessed a penalty.
I fail to see how this is a big deal. He admitted he broke the rules, he got a reasonable penalty. Life moves on. I do think a DQ would've been absurd.
2
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:58 am to Baloo
quote:
I fail to see how this is a big deal. He admitted he broke the rules, he got a reasonable penalty. Life moves on. I do think a DQ would've been absurd
Agreed.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:58 am to hashtag
There's a lot of gray area there. Tiger didn't say "I broke the rules to give myself an advantage." If he had, then I agree that he should have been DQ'd. But he only said that he tried to give himself an advantage which he could have done while still being "near the ball" and within the rules. So its possible that he broke the rules without knowing he did, and the correct call was made.
This isn't a black and white rule so there's no way of knowing Tiger's true intent, unless he actually comes out and admits to knowingly breaking the rules to give himself an advantage.
This isn't a black and white rule so there's no way of knowing Tiger's true intent, unless he actually comes out and admits to knowingly breaking the rules to give himself an advantage.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:59 am to Baloo
quote:
I fail to see how this is a big deal. He admitted he broke the rules, he got a reasonable penalty. Life moves on. I do think a DQ would've been absurd
If this were anyone other than Tiger, we'd have forgotten about it by now
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:00 am to STEVED00
quote:
What bothers me is that he wasn't penalized for distance from original spot but intent of why he dropped where he dropped. That is totally ridiculous and nit picky. If the distance is acceptable then how is this even an argument.
Agreed. Obviously he chose that because he felt it advantageous...just like any other golfer would. It's not trying to cheat or break rules, and once they informed him of their decision, he admitted his mistake and had no problem with his penalty.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:01 am to Cap Crunch
quote:It's not about whether he knew he broke the rules. It's whether he knew the facts of what he did. He knew for a fact that he dropped it 2 yards behind his original shot. Whether he knew that was a penalty does not matter. At least not for the rule that they used as justification for not disqualifying him.
So its possible that he broke the rules without knowing he did, and the correct call was made.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:03 am to hashtag
quote:
Tiger clearly knew he dropped the ball 2 yards behind his original shot. This revision should not have allowed Tiger to not be disqualified. They ruled incorrectly.
We disagree on that.
For one, even based on the original divot comparison, it wasn't "two yards"; not to mention that the new pictures coming out show it was MUCH closer than that (although who knows what is correct at this point?). He did not know that he broke a rule, and it was actually reviewed anyway based on a call and was determined to be legal. And it wasn't until later that it was determined to be a violation.
They ruled correctly and exactly according to the rule:
quote:
A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.
Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.
First part: They considered it warranted because they had already reviewed it and found it okay...thus he had not signed an incorrect score card, meaning no DQ. Second part: the "penalty less than DQ" was two strokes and it was not waived or modified.
This kind of situation is exactly what that rule was amended for. And they followed it exactly to the letter IMO.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 9:06 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:04 am to noonan
I said they reviewed and they were ok with what he did.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:07 am to hashtag
He knew what he did, but he thought it was within the rules. That seems to be enough reason for him to not be DQ'd.
I don't understand how you can DQ a player if he believed that there was no penalty and when he talked to officials after the round it was never brought up
I don't understand how you can DQ a player if he believed that there was no penalty and when he talked to officials after the round it was never brought up
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:09 am to CocomoLSU
quote:let me quote some more from the USGA website for you:
They followed it exactly to the letter IMO.
quote:
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.
quote:This rule gives no leeway for the Committee making a mistake. It clearly gives examples that if the player has knowledge of the facts which broke the rule (even if he doesn't know it broke the rule), then the player is to be disqualified. It is extremely clear.
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)
The facts that caused Tiger to have a 2 stroke penalty would have been that he dropped it not close to his original shot. Tiger was 100% aware that he did not drop it close to the original spot. Whether he knew that was a penalty or the Committee ruling incorrectly does not matter. This rule should not have given them the ability to keep him on the course.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:11 am to hashtag
In that case, when is it ever OK to add a penalty after the round? It seems like most people know the facts around every shot that they hit
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:11 am to Cap Crunch
quote:because rules are rules. They used a newly changed rule to assess the 2 stroke penalty instead of DQing him. If you read the USGA's explanation of what would allow the Committee to give the 2 stroke penalty instead of DQing, it does not make sense.
I don't understand how you can DQ a player if he believed that there was no penalty and when he talked to officials after the round it was never brought up
In order to not DQ him, it would have had to be reasonable for Tiger to not know the facts that broke the rule. The fact that broke the rule: Tiger did not drop his ball as close to the original spot as possible. And, Tiger was 100% aware of that fact. Therefore, this revision should not have been used.
They used it because they messed up the originally ruling and didn't think it was "fair" to DQ him for their mistake. But, that isn't covered under this revision.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:13 am to Cap Crunch
quote:These are the examples given on the USGA website:
In that case, when is it ever OK to add a penalty after the round? It seems like most people know the facts around every shot that they hit
quote:
A player makes a short chip from the greenside rough. At the time, he and his fellow-competitors have no reason to suspect that the player has double-hit his ball in breach of Rule 14-4. After the competitor has signed and returned his score card, a close-up, super-slow-motion video replay reveals that the competitor struck his ball twice during the course of the stroke. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the one-stroke penalty under Rule 14-4 to the player’s score at the hole in question.
quote:
After a competitor has signed and returned his score card, it becomes known, through the use of a high-definition video replay, that the player unknowingly touched a few grains of sand with his club at the top of his backswing on a wall of the bunker. The touching of the sand was so light that, at the time, it was reasonable for the player to have been unaware that he had breached Rule 13-4. It would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the two-stroke penalty to the player’s score at the hole in question.
quote:The entire intent of this rule is if the player had NO WAY of reasonably knowing the facts of what he did. If you look at these two comparisons, it is clear that Tiger's falls into the camp of being DQed.
A competitor moves his ball on the putting green with his finger in the act of removing his ball-marker. The competitor sees the ball move slightly forward but is certain that it has returned to the original spot, and he plays the ball as it lies. After the competitor signs and returns his score card, video footage is brought to the attention of the Committee that reveals that the ball did not precisely return to its original spot. When questioned by the Committee, the competitor cites the fact that the position of the logo on the ball appeared to be in exactly the same position as it was when he replaced the ball and this was the reason for him believing that the ball returned to the original spot. As it was reasonable in these circumstances for the player to have no doubt that the ball had returned to the original spot, and because the player could not himself have reasonably discovered otherwise prior to signing and returning his score card, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty. The two-stroke penalty under Rule 20-3a for playing from a wrong place would, however, be applied to the player’s score at the hole in question.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 9:15 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:14 am to hashtag
quote:
This rule gives no leeway for the Committee making a mistake. It clearly gives examples that if the player has knowledge of the facts which broke the rule (even if he doesn't know it broke the rule), then the player is to be disqualified. It is extremely clear.
The facts that caused Tiger to have a 2 stroke penalty would have been that he dropped it not close to his original shot. Tiger was 100% aware that he did not drop it close to the original spot. Whether he knew that was a penalty or the Committee ruling incorrectly does not matter. This rule should not have given them the ability to keep him on the course.
I don't know what else to say, but you're simply wrong on both accounts, and you're assuming things that Tiger knew or didn't know.
He knew he dropped it behind his divot. But still within the range of being legal. And the committee reviewed that and agreed. Thus he signed his score card and it was correct. Then later they changed their minds and it was determined that a penalty was necessary, so they assessed two strokes on that hole. But because they had previously reviewed it and said okay, he was protected from being DQ'd for an incorrect card because of the rule.
Not to mention you're bolding quotes from EXAMPLES and I'm quoting the exact rule. And I love that we're literally having the exact same argument in two threads.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:16 am to CocomoLSU
quote:That rule does not apply in this way. It has nothing to do with the committee making a mistake. Go read this entire explanation. I am 100% correct on this. This is the USGA's explanation for their rule. It is extremely clear that the rule does not allow for the Committee to fix a mistake they made. It has nothing to do with them, and everything to do with Tiger knowing the facts.
He knew he dropped it behind his divot. But still within the range of being legal. And the committee reviewed that and agreed. Thus he signed his score card and it was correct. Then later they changed their minds and it was determined that a penalty was necessary, so they assessed two strokes on that hole. But because they had previously reviewed it and said okay, he was protected from being DQ'd for an incorrect card because of the rule.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:36 am to STEVED00
My comment
"If they had stopped him before signing the card and said there was a question about his drop, then there wouldn't be a controversy."
Your response
"Ummm. They did and they cleared him prior to signing his card. Controversy happened after his comments at presser."
Maybe there is some confusion.
"If they had stopped him before signing the card and said there was a question about his drop, then there wouldn't be a controversy."
Your response
"Ummm. They did and they cleared him prior to signing his card. Controversy happened after his comments at presser."
Maybe there is some confusion.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:54 am to noonan
I assume Tiger was made aware that officials reviewed his drop and subsequently cleared him.
Do you see something wrong with the fact that the distance was acceptable but his intent was not?
Do you see something wrong with the fact that the distance was acceptable but his intent was not?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:56 am to STEVED00
quote:i find it more wrong if they cleared him and then later changed their mind. if they cleared him and it was their mistake, then good luck for Tiger. They shouldn't go back and change it once they've screwed up.
Do you see something wrong with the fact that the distance was acceptable but his intent was not?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:07 am to hashtag
Doesnt everyone agree if the rule was just within a certain distance that would be acceptable? U could even add language saying the drop must occur w/in the same cut of grass (fairway, int. rough, etc...)
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:16 am to STEVED00
quote:
I assume Tiger was made aware that officials reviewed his drop and subsequently cleared him.
If the officials went to tiger and told tiger what they were reviewing, and tiger didn't call the penalty on himself then he should have been dq'ed.
I'm assuming this didn't happen, or that means tiger straight up lied to them and now we have a whole different controversy.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News