- 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: Tiger may not have been 2 yards back like he said
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:47 am to CocomoLSU
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:47 am to CocomoLSU
quote:you seriously need to go read the explanation of the revision of the rule. It was not created for this situation.
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.
3
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:48 am to hashtag
this lee janzen thing really has me believing that 33-7 did not even need to be used. if the usga did this before 33-7, then it is allowable.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:48 am to RedHawk
quote:
Exactly, if they all knew the rules, then why didn't they say something when it happened.
Tiger Woods tied for the lead and playing in front of millions with live featured group camera status, took a routine drop after a shocking ball in the hazard. No one (announcers, rules officials, caddy, or patrons) said anything about a bad drop except for a viewer who called in from watching on television.
the photographic evidence confirms what video didn't capture (because it was shot at different angles), Tiger made a legal drop and played from the right spot.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:48 am to hashtag
quote:
because based on video evidence, they determined that he had dropped farther back away from his ball. it wasn't about intent. it was about evidence. They had video evidence and Tiger's own testimony that he did not drop his ball close to his original shot.
This is contradictive.
It was his intent that got him in trouble. They saw the shot, reviewed it, and gave the okay. Then in his interview, what he said led them to look at it again, and they assessed a penalty. Had he not given that interview, we aren't having this discussion. They had already looked at the "video evidence" and determined that nothing was wrong with it.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:49 am to bamafan425
quote:
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."
Aaaannnddd this is where interpretation comes in, much like Tiger's instance. That's why there is so much confusion around this and why it's so unique.
IMO, Rory would be in the clear, depending on where his ball ended up. He would be dropping as close as possible to his last known point. His intent is to get it as close to the divot as possible, and hoping it doesn't end up there.
What would separate him and Tiger is that without a shadow of a doubt, there is no way Tigers ball would come anywhere close to his divot, where as there is a possibility Rory's might. "Luckily it worked out" is not what Tiger could or would have said, cause he didn't need luck for his ball to stay away from his divot.
Tiger broke a subsection of the rule, thinking he was acting within another. His INTENT was to follow one subsection, when he acted within another.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:50 am to hashtag
quote:
you seriously need to go read the explanation of the revision of the rule. It was not created for this situation.
I agree. The committee misused rule 33-7 in my opinion. It was created to protect players in the event that technology caught something they couldn't see. Like a grain of sand being moved in the bunker during a backswing that is seen on one of those slo-mo HD replays. That is clear on the USGA's website in their explanation of 33-7.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:50 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.
There are ways to gain a competitive advantage that are completely legal and do not violate any part of the game's "spirit." People are automatically assuming that "trying to gain an advantage" = cheating/breaking rules. And that's not true.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:51 am to unbeWEAVEable
That makes sense. Not sure I completely agree with it.
Thanks for the explanation.
Thanks for the explanation.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:51 am to unbeWEAVEable
quote:every golfer who has ever dropped had the intent of dropping in the most favorable looking spot to draw a good lie
He wasn't penalize for the drop, he was penalized for the intent.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:51 am to unbeWEAVEable
quote:
His intent is to get it as close to the divot as possible, and hoping it doesn't end up there.
his intent is to not drop it in the divot. he is clearly trying to gain an advantage.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:52 am to hashtag
quote:
The problem is that there is no rule to allow for a makeup call in golf...But, they essentially went out and found a rule and purposefully misinterpreted it to fix their mistake.
That's sorta what I'm saying. They got the call wrong. They thought the play was right. He thought the play was right. What they should have done was simply say they looked at it, they evaluated it, and they got the call wrong and move on. It happens. If they had some questions about his "intent" they should have approached him after the shot and I believe they would have if they thought the shot was played improperly or from a spot that was materially different so as to call into question whether the drop was intentionally not in the same place.
To go back after the round is kinda bullshite. If they had told him during the round he committed an infraction, he never would have signed the card without taking the penalty.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:52 am to Ford Frenzy
quote:
every golfer who has ever dropped had the intent of dropping in the most favorable looking spot to draw a good lie
Not the issue...Tiger changed his position to get a more favorable yardage. Had nothing to do with his lie.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:52 am to hashtag
quote:
I'm gonna post the entirety of the USGA explanation of the rule used to allow Tiger to stay in the tourney. Read this and tell me if they applied it correctly:
Yes, I feel like they did.
The difference is you and I just disagree that the rule was applied correctly. I'm not saying who's right or wrong, but I have multiple governing bodies of golf on my side and you have threeputt.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:53 am to medtiger
intent to gain an advantage is present in both scenarios
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:53 am to medtiger
quote:which i've posted numerous times. This is the first time in my life I've seen a professional golf committee do what they thought was "fair" instead of what the rules state.
That is clear on the USGA's website in their explanation of 33-7.
I was 100% on the other side of the fence on this yesterday until I read the USGA explanation of this rule revision. It is abundantly clear that they purposefully misinterpreted this rule to fix a prior mistake.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:53 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
but I have multiple governing bodies of golf on my side
yeah, they are going to say they made the wrong call. sure.Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:54 am to Ford Frenzy
That's what I'm thinking.
An advantage is an advantage. A lie might be more important in one situation. While yardage might be more important in another.
An advantage is an advantage. A lie might be more important in one situation. While yardage might be more important in another.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:55 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
his intent is to not drop it in the divot. he is clearly trying to gain an advantage.
...within the rules.
Jesus.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:55 am to Ford Frenzy
quote:
intent to gain an advantage is present in both scenarios
However, there's no clarification in the rules about the lie you can attempt to give yourself with a drop. There is clarifiation about the yardage..."as close to the original as possible."
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:55 am to Ford Frenzy
quote:
every golfer who has ever dropped had the intent of dropping in the most favorable looking spot to draw a good lie
Sure, within the rules. This isn't the issue necessarily though.
Page 12 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News