- 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
0
Posted on 4/16/13 at 9:12 am to mcgriff
nm
This post was edited on 4/16/13 at 9:13 am
Posted on 4/16/13 at 3:12 pm to KT70
"Two-time U.S. Open champion Lee Janzen belatedly missed the cut at the 101st U.S. Open when he was assessed a two-stroke penalty Saturday morning for a violation observed early Friday morning.
Janzen went to bed Friday night believing his 5-over 145 score was good enough to make the cut, but he was informed 17 minutes before his scheduled 10:02 tee time that he violated Rule 13-2 in the Rules of Golf. The two-stroke penalty pushed him to 7 over, a shot above the cut.
Before resuming his rain-suspended first round Friday morning, Janzen used a towel to wipe the dew where he had marked his ball in the ninth fairway. He replaced the ball and played. A USGA rules official saw it but did not recognize it immediately as a violation.
The rules official reported the incident before the start of the third round. Janzen said the dew was swept around every spot but his marked ball. He was disturbed the official didn't say something immediately. "I certainly wasn't trying to break any rules," Janzen said.
Initially, the USGA reported Janzen was disqualified. They issued a corrected release stating he missed the cut because of the penalty.
"Ordinarily, when a player fails to include a penalty and signs for a score lower than should have been recorded, the result is disqualification," said Reed Mackenzie, the USGA vice president and chairman of the Rules Golf Committee. "But since the committee man observed the violation and failed to notify the player of the penalty, the penalty of disqualification is waived. However, the penalty strokes must still be added to his score."
looks like the USGA agrees with the Tiger penalty based on their ruling at the 2001 US Open. interesting.
any of you who thought he should have withdrawn have a different opinion now?
Janzen went to bed Friday night believing his 5-over 145 score was good enough to make the cut, but he was informed 17 minutes before his scheduled 10:02 tee time that he violated Rule 13-2 in the Rules of Golf. The two-stroke penalty pushed him to 7 over, a shot above the cut.
Before resuming his rain-suspended first round Friday morning, Janzen used a towel to wipe the dew where he had marked his ball in the ninth fairway. He replaced the ball and played. A USGA rules official saw it but did not recognize it immediately as a violation.
The rules official reported the incident before the start of the third round. Janzen said the dew was swept around every spot but his marked ball. He was disturbed the official didn't say something immediately. "I certainly wasn't trying to break any rules," Janzen said.
Initially, the USGA reported Janzen was disqualified. They issued a corrected release stating he missed the cut because of the penalty.
"Ordinarily, when a player fails to include a penalty and signs for a score lower than should have been recorded, the result is disqualification," said Reed Mackenzie, the USGA vice president and chairman of the Rules Golf Committee. "But since the committee man observed the violation and failed to notify the player of the penalty, the penalty of disqualification is waived. However, the penalty strokes must still be added to his score."
looks like the USGA agrees with the Tiger penalty based on their ruling at the 2001 US Open. interesting.
any of you who thought he should have withdrawn have a different opinion now?
Posted on 4/16/13 at 3:21 pm to lsugolf1105
These situations are different, IMO, because in the Janzen situation:
In Tiger's situation, the committee said there was no rules violation based on what they saw. However, what they saw on a video replay wasn't what actually happened. Based on the video, they saw Tiger drop his ball close to his original spot. But they got new info when Tiger admitted to dropping further back than it looked on the video. I think those pictures that were posted on Sunday proved that the video didn't do the situation justice.
ETA: I think Tiger should've been DQ'd once the committee got new info. They definitely erred in using rule 33-7.
quote:
the committee man observed the violation and failed to notify the player
In Tiger's situation, the committee said there was no rules violation based on what they saw. However, what they saw on a video replay wasn't what actually happened. Based on the video, they saw Tiger drop his ball close to his original spot. But they got new info when Tiger admitted to dropping further back than it looked on the video. I think those pictures that were posted on Sunday proved that the video didn't do the situation justice.
ETA: I think Tiger should've been DQ'd once the committee got new info. They definitely erred in using rule 33-7.
This post was edited on 4/16/13 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 4/16/13 at 3:27 pm to medtiger
quote:
In Tiger's situation, the committee said there was no rules violation based on what they saw. However, what they saw on a video replay wasn't what actually happened. Based on the video, they saw Tiger drop his ball close to his original spot. But they got new info when Tiger admitted to dropping further back than it looked on the video. I think those pictures that were posted on Sunday proved that the video didn't do the situation justice.
ETA: I think Tiger should've been DQ'd once the committee got new info. They definitely erred in using rule 33-7.
I think they bent the rules to avoid disqualifying him. It would have been harsh given that it was Tiger's admission that led to the disqualification though
Posted on 4/16/13 at 3:28 pm to molsusports
quote:
It would have been harsh given that it was Tiger's admission that led to the disqualification though
I think that makes it easier. In that case, they can say, "Tiger, you screwed up. You should know you can't drop further back on a line other than where the ball last crossed the hazard margin."
Posted on 4/16/13 at 3:37 pm to medtiger
Not being able to see from one camera angle is no excuse for the rules committee. They should have taken the time to look at this further, yet they failed to report the infraction.
This post was edited on 4/16/13 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 4/16/13 at 3:39 pm to medtiger
quote:
In that case, they can say, "Tiger, you screwed up. You should know you can't drop further back on a line other than where the ball last crossed the hazard margin."
but they didn't do this to janzen. do you think lee should have been DQ'ed?
at the end of the day, they both broke a rule that they should have known. in both cases the committee knew of the possible infraction before the player finished and did nothing about it. that is why both were and should have been treated the same.
Posted on 4/16/13 at 4:03 pm to lsugolf1105
What about Tigers caddie? He's been caddying for over 15 years, and yet he doesn't know the rules either, or is getting paid to keep his mouth shut and give yardages clubs and the like. He should have been told to incur a 2 shot penalty before he signed his card, and move on. If not, dq. This is the Masters fault, Tigers fault and nobody else's. Would someone have been added to the field if Tiger was dq'd?
Posted on 4/16/13 at 4:05 pm to VernonPLSUfan
quote:
This is the Masters fault, Tigers fault and nobody else's. Would someone have been added to the field if Tiger was dq'd?
Didn't you just say it was also his caddies fault?
And no. Why would they add someone to the field?
Posted on 4/16/13 at 4:06 pm to bamafan425
Wasn't it like top 50 or 60 and ties.
Posted on 4/16/13 at 4:09 pm to VernonPLSUfan
quote:
Tigers fault
how is this tiger's fault? he is the one to blame for the committee waiving the DQ?
Posted on 4/16/13 at 4:11 pm to VernonPLSUfan
His absence would have had no effect on the cut line or number of players cut.
Posted on 4/16/13 at 4:15 pm to lsugolf1105
quote:
in both cases the committee knew of the possible infraction before the player finished
No, in Janzen's case the committee did not know about the infraction because the rules official didn't report it. In Tiger's case, the committee made a mistake in failing to recognize an infraction indeed took place. There's a difference there.
Either way, players are supposed to know the rules themselves. Rules officials are there to confirm that indeed the correct rule is being applied. If you sign a score card for a lower score than you shoot, you should be DQ'd by the current rules (unless 33-7 comes into play, which it clearly shouldn't in either of these scenarios).
This post was edited on 4/16/13 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 4/16/13 at 4:23 pm to medtiger
quote:
Either way, players are supposed to know the rules themselves. Rules officials are there to confirm that indeed the correct rule is being applied. If you sign a score card for a lower score than you shoot, you should be DQ'd by the current rules (unless 33-7 comes into play, which it clearly shouldn't in either of these scenarios).
apparently not according to the USGA. they did not DQ Janzen. so there must be some grey area here. that is why calling for tiger to WD on saturday morning was ludicrous.
Posted on 4/16/13 at 4:51 pm to lsugolf1105
Ignorance of the rule doesn't give you an excuse. Dustin Johnson was DQ'd because he didn't believe he was in a trap and grounded his club. I'm not certain of it but I believe we could call 33-7 the DJ rule from this infamous play. But the big difference between the two was DJ didn't know a rules violation occurred. Tiger was operating under the knowledge that he was in a water hazard, and that means you need to know the rules on how to take relief and play your next shot. Within this context he did not take proper relief. It should have been a DQ.
This is now water under the bridge. I am glad for Tiger's sake he did not win because this would have been a major stain. Golf now needs to move forward. I hope they address this, not as it pertains to Tiger, but how this should have been handled. 33-7 was crafted in good faith but I fully expect it's going to open a can of worms.
This is now water under the bridge. I am glad for Tiger's sake he did not win because this would have been a major stain. Golf now needs to move forward. I hope they address this, not as it pertains to Tiger, but how this should have been handled. 33-7 was crafted in good faith but I fully expect it's going to open a can of worms.
Posted on 4/16/13 at 4:57 pm to lsugolf1105
quote:IMO, both rulings were incorrect. The rules do not exist to allow the officials to fix errors they made. The officials are there as consultants, not referees. The players in both situations both broke the rules. It was there fault alone and should have been self reported. They did not and signed an incorrect scorecard.
apparently not according to the USGA. they did not DQ Janzen. so there must be some grey area here. that is why calling for tiger to WD on saturday morning was ludicrous.
By rule, both should have been DQ'd.
Posted on 4/16/13 at 5:23 pm to CWilken21
DJ was not disqualified.
Read the above ruling about janzen. He was ignorant about the rule and was not DQ'ed according to the USGA. Apparently there are certain situations where ignorance is an acceptable excuse.
Read the above ruling about janzen. He was ignorant about the rule and was not DQ'ed according to the USGA. Apparently there are certain situations where ignorance is an acceptable excuse.
Posted on 4/16/13 at 8:21 pm to lsugolf1105
quote:you write that as if the USGA is infallible. That decision flies in the face of their own rules. It's ok to say that they got it wrong.
Read the above ruling about janzen. He was ignorant about the rule and was not DQ'ed according to the USGA. Apparently there are certain situations where ignorance is an acceptable excuse.
Posted on 4/16/13 at 8:26 pm to CWilken21
quote:This so wrong.
Dustin Johnson was DQ'd because he didn't believe he was in a trap and grounded his club. I'm not certain of it but I believe we could call 33-7 the DJ rule from this infamous play. But the big difference between the two was DJ didn't know a rules violation occurred
DJ was not DQ because he hadn't signed his scorecard.
Page 15 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News