- 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
re: Tiger may not have been 2 yards back like he said
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:38 am to bamafan425
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:38 am to bamafan425
quote:
I feel like intending to gain a competitive advantage is a violation of the spirit of the rule in any instance. That goes against the integrity that is expected in this game.
dude, he thought he was within the rules to do it. he was not and got penalized for it.
2
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:38 am to bamafan425
quote:
I feel like intending to gain a competitive advantage is a violation of the spirit of the rule in any instance. That goes against the integrity that is expected in this game.
Within the rules, I completely agree.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:39 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
USGA official saw him do this but did not call a penalty because the rules official did not know the rule. It was discovered after the round what happened and that Lee should have been penalized. usga did not penalize him because the official missed it.
This is my biggest problem with all of this. They knew what he did, they analyzed it and determined it was o.k. They even admit that he was very candid and they concluded he thought he was within the rule and so did they. Then several hours after the round they revisit it, hadn't even made a decision by the next morning, and then pop him.
For all the DQ vocalists, you do realize that what your arguing for essentially means every single time a RULES OFFICIAL gets a decision wrong and the player signs his card based on that RULES OFFICIAL's determination, that means the player gets DQ'd because his scorecard is "wrong." That's just stupid.
Also, for the conspiracy theorists who think the only reason he was not DQ's is cause he's Tiger, why did they penalize him at all if their intent was to keep him in the hunt? Noone in the world said boo prior to Saturday morning and they could have ignored the whole thing and said they had already looked at it and the no-foul ruling was made if they were trying to protect Tiger.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 9:44 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:39 am to lsugolf1105
quote:uh, every player every week tries to gain a competitive advantage. The rules of golf allow for a golfer to decide between several different drops. The golfer always picks the one that he feels give him the competitive advantage in that situation. That's all Tiger did. He just failed to drop the ball as close to his original shot as possible.
I feel like intending to gain a competitive advantage is a violation of the spirit of the rule in any instance.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:39 am to threeputt
quote:
I did learn of that while researching our question last night
they cut the guy off so i don't know if the USGA cited a rule or not for not penalizing him. did they?
and i assume you hate lee janzen now.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:40 am to unbeWEAVEable
So hypothetically let's say Rory McIlroy lands in a divot. Hits shot in the water.
He determines his best option is to drop nearest his last shot. He drops and it is outside the divot. Later says, "Well I had to take a drop near my last shot. I didn't wanna end up in a divot again so I stepped to the side and luckily it worked out."
That would be the same?
I'm not trying to argue by the way. Just genuinely trying to better understand the game and the rules.
He determines his best option is to drop nearest his last shot. He drops and it is outside the divot. Later says, "Well I had to take a drop near my last shot. I didn't wanna end up in a divot again so I stepped to the side and luckily it worked out."
That would be the same?
I'm not trying to argue by the way. Just genuinely trying to better understand the game and the rules.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:41 am to Putty
quote:
For all the DQ vocalists, you do realize that what your arguing for essentially means every single time a RULES OFFICIAL gets a decision wrong and the player signs his card based on that RULES OFFICIAL's determination, that means the player gets DQ'd because his scorecard is "wrong." That's just stupid.
Umm, no.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:41 am to bamafan425
quote:
So hypothetically let's say Rory McIlroy lands in a divot. Hits shot in the water.
He determines his best option is to drop nearest his last shot. He drops and it is outside the divot. Later says, "Well I had to take a drop near my last shot. I didn't wanna end up in a divot again so I stepped to the side and luckily it worked out."
That would be the same?
I'm not trying to argue by the way. Just genuinely trying to better understand the game and the rules.
exactly what i am wondering.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:41 am to lsugolf1105
Dude. I'm not trying to argue. I'm trying to better understand the game and the rules. Stop being so defensive.
Weave has been able to answer without being defensive. Try it.
Weave has been able to answer without being defensive. Try it.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:41 am to hashtag
quote:
go read the link i provided on the other thread. nothing you are saying matters.
Wrong.
quote:
the ruling was to protect the player when it is determined that he had no reasonable way of knowing the facts that broke a rule. If Tiger had no reasonable way of knowing he did not drop as close to his original shot as possible, why did he say he dropped further back.
He thought he was within the rules. A.K.A. he had no knowledge that he broke any rules.
quote:
You think they created this rule to give them some gray area to protect the player when the Committee screws up.
That rule has 0 to do with that. It in no way allows for that.
Wrong. On both accounts. The rule was to protect the player and allows the committee to waive a DQ if they consider such an action warranted. Clearly they did in this case.
In no way am I saying "the rule was made so they could fix their mistake." It was simply made to protect the player. And in this case, the committee used the rule and determined the player was protected because of their actions (of first saying okay then later assessing a penalty).
The only "reason" the rule was created was to protect the player. Any number of scenarios can bring about the rule (you've quoted several, for example).
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:42 am to Newbomb Turk
quote:
They were all over the TV saying that "everyone knows that rule" YET, we have all of these former pro golfer on the air who watched it 20-something times -- AND NOT A ONE PICKED IT UP.
Exactly, if they all knew the rules, then why didn't they say something when it happened.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:43 am to Putty
quote:The problem is that there is no rule to allow for a makeup call in golf. The rule they cited as for why Tiger was given a 2 stroke penalty instead of DQ, did not allow for that decision. If this rule had been created with the intent to allow the Committee to fix mistakes, that would be one thing. But, they essentially went out and found a rule and purposefully misinterpreted it to fix their mistake.
For all the DQ vocalists, you do realize that what your arguing for essentially means every single time a RULES OFFICIAL gets a decision wrong and the player signs his card based on that RULES OFFICIAL's determination, that means the player gets DQ'd because his scorecard is "wrong." That's just stupid.
That bring into question the integrity and prestige of professional golf. If a 14 year old gets a penalty stroke because a time rule is a time rule and they have to call it by the book 100% of the time, why was this bogus call made?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:44 am to bamafan425
quote:
Dude. I'm not trying to argue. I'm trying to better understand the game and the rules. Stop being so defensive.
Weave has been able to answer without being defensive. Try it.
misunderstood you.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:44 am to lsugolf1105
I understood that they penalized him after he signed his card (costing him making the cut) & did not dq him. Pretty much the same thing that happened here. Dont agree with that either. Either its a penalty and they signed incorrect card thus DQ or no penalty
And no rule was cited .. They just did it .. usga going to usga
And no rule was cited .. They just did it .. usga going to usga
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 9:47 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:44 am to lsugolf1105
I've never heard of someone intentionally dropping in their own divot. So, I assume "as near as possible" gives enough leeway to the player to avoid dropping in the divot. Personally, I think the rule should be rewritten to read "drop within a club length" instead of "as near as possible."
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:44 am to threeputt
quote:
You are not understanding the rule. Yes it protects the player if he could not have reasonably known that he broke the rule without replay and did not take a penalty then signed an incorrect card.
Tiger meant to use the rule to his advantage by dropping farther back, but he did not take into account the angle in which the ball bounced off the flag. tiger could have reasonably known what angle the ball went in the water without the aide of replay. THE ONLY WAY THAT THE RULE WOULD BE CORRECTLY USED IN THIS CASE IS IF TIGER'S VIEW (& PLAYING PARTNERS) WAS OBSTRUCTED AND HE PLAYED FROM THE INCORRECT SPOT.
No, I understand it just fine. You and slack disagree with their use of the rule, and I (along with the Augusta Committee, the PGA, the USGA, etc.) am saying that their interpretation was correct.
And I'll reiterate this point...had the committee not initially reviewed the situation, and instead first reviewed it after seeing Tiger's interview, then the result would've been an incorrectly signed card and a DQ. But that's not what happened.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:46 am to lsugolf1105
No problem.
I am interested in the rules. Would be just as interested if this happened to almost any other player.
I feel like you could find somewhere that someone admitted they dropped with the intention of gaining a competitive advantage similar to Tiger. I just have no clue how to even search for that.
I am interested in the rules. Would be just as interested if this happened to almost any other player.
I feel like you could find somewhere that someone admitted they dropped with the intention of gaining a competitive advantage similar to Tiger. I just have no clue how to even search for that.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:46 am to threeputt
quote:
I understood that they penalized him after he signed his card (costing him making the cut) & did not dq him. Pretty much the same thing that happened here. Dont agree with that either. Either its a penalty and they signed incorrect card thus DQ or no penalty
curious as to why they did it? if they did it then it must be allowable. right?
so rule 33-7 didn't even need to be used. they could have given him the 2 shot penalty and no DQ even without 33-7. right?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:46 am to CocomoLSU
quote:seriously? did you read the freakin' link I posted. The rule was to protect a player who had no way of knowing the facts. Tiger knew, he stated as much. Go read the rule and the explanation. You can say protect the player 50x times. It was to protect the player when he had no way of knowing the facts of what happened. It specifically states that it doesn't protect the players from not knowing the rules.
The rule was to protect the player and allows the committee to waive a DQ if they consider such an action warranted.
Whether Tiger knew he broke a rule does not matter. He knew of the facts that broke the rules.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:46 am to Newbomb Turk
quote:
And, I lost A LOT of respect for Nick Faldo and Brendel Chamblee. They were all over the TV saying that "everyone knows that rule" YET, we have all of these former pro golfer on the air who watched it 20-something times -- AND NOT A ONE PICKED IT UP.
To be fair, Faldo recanted later in the day said that once he had all the facts and was explained the rule, he agreed that Tiger should've not been DQ'd and that he was basing his remarks on an "old school golf" knowledge base.
Page 11 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News