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

quote:

---

I fricking hate the PGA

---

The PGA doesn't make the rules tard arse

Examples of Rule 33 being applied:

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would be justified in waiving the disqualification penalty:

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.

· 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.

· 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.

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 realising 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)



Now tell me which situations Tiger sounds more like...

LINK

The rule was changed because just like every major governing body in sports, rules need to be added and changed to help make "progress" into the future of the sport. The Dustin Johnson DQ a couple of years back was so pety and awful because of the way the rules were worded that they had to punish him even if it was viewed by many to be "way over the top" to DQ someone for a penalty he didnt knowingly commit. Because of that specific incident and a few other like it the rule was changed to avoid similar situations that were too harshly punished. Hence progress has been made.

Don't tell that to the Golf Righteousness Army, all the greats would DQ themselves in this same situation. shite is old.

quote:

---

then it is certainly reasonable for Tiger to think he didn't break a rule.

---

Not when he knows something the committee does not.


Example: Backswing I graze the bunker....committee reviews and says it was accidental and you didnt know about it mid round....

postround interview i say oh i knew about it...

DQ not ok in your mind?

So much BS in golf. Integrity of the game at stake a lot of you say. If the ball doesn't hit that damn pin it's nowhere in the water. Change the damn rule like they are capable off and speculate where these balls would land if not for obstacles. Instead of having Sergio Garcia hit out of a damn tree and this, ridiculous. The man goes from leader to skunk now.

They need to rewrite the rule at a minimum whether you agree with the decision or not.

How come sometimes the rules are very specific that you get two club lengths (which it appears tiger was within) while this rule says a vague "near the original spot". They need to better define that and make it maybe within a few balls length or one club length of the original spot so there is no doubt of the rule.

quote:

---

eta: Even though I did not make contact, I still have to count the stroke because the intent was there

---

No

quote:

---

The Dustin Johnson DQ a couple of years back was so pety and awful because of the way the rules were worded that they had to punish him even if it was viewed by many to be "way over the top" to DQ someone for a penalty he didnt knowingly commit

---

he wasn't dq'd, just missed the playoff because of the 2-stroke penalty. And that was the right call.

"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."

Why doesn't this part of the new rule apply?

"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."

Why doesn't this part of the new rule apply?