- 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 9:56 am to unbeWEAVEable
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:56 am to unbeWEAVEable
Then I disagree with the rule. Lie is just as important as yardage at times.
1
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:57 am to unbeWEAVEable
quote:
...within the rules.
Jesus.
rule states nearest to the previous spot as possible. that would be in the divot. right?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:57 am to bamafan425
and it was deemed he dropped "as close" to his original spot was neeeded within the rules
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:58 am to lsugolf1105
quote:yes. IMO, the only way to not break the rule is for the player to raise his hand as closely above his divot as possible and drop. Chances are it won't go in anyway. But, if the player tries to drop the ball in any place other than directly on top of where he just hit it, he is not trying to drop it as close as possible.
rule states nearest to the previous spot as possible. that would be in the divot. right?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:59 am to lsugolf1105
Technically the committe can do whatever the frick they want to.
As was stated here there has been precedance before in the janzen ordeal. I just think it bs imho to penalize after the card is signed ..
As far as intent goes, I got response from my guy but he said he had to defer to the people at the usga golf house and it may take up to a week to get an answer. But he did say that HE would defer to what the player says. So un the golf ball example you gave, the player would be penalized. In my example where the players intent was to ground his club but did not - my contact is a little uncertain. He feels if its certain that he did not ground the club then no penalty but if there is a question about him grounding, he would be penalized due to him stating hus intension to ground the club. But he is not certain on either and is awaiting an answer
As was stated here there has been precedance before in the janzen ordeal. I just think it bs imho to penalize after the card is signed ..
As far as intent goes, I got response from my guy but he said he had to defer to the people at the usga golf house and it may take up to a week to get an answer. But he did say that HE would defer to what the player says. So un the golf ball example you gave, the player would be penalized. In my example where the players intent was to ground his club but did not - my contact is a little uncertain. He feels if its certain that he did not ground the club then no penalty but if there is a question about him grounding, he would be penalized due to him stating hus intension to ground the club. But he is not certain on either and is awaiting an answer
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:00 am to hashtag
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.
You keep pointing to hypotheticals. I am pointing literally to the words of 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.
If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.
That is Rule 33-7 in its entirety. Spare me your hypotheticals, because it clearly says that the Committee can waive a DQ if it feels such action is warranted. And based on THEIR actions on Friday, and subsequent actions on Saturday, they felt it was warranted. Who it is and what the infraction was are all but irrelevant...if the Committee feels it warranted to waive the DQ, they have the legal (within the rules) right to do so. And they did:
- They felt waiving the DQ was warranted
- They did not waive or modify the "penalty less than DQ," which was the two strokes
- They didn't condier Tiger to be in serious breach of etiquette
And I agree that they acted correctly. And so does basically every other ruling body in golf.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:00 am to medtiger
quote:
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."
that wording is there to protect you if you had no idea of where you played previously from. you would then go back to where you thought you played it from. now if there was a huge divot, you know exactly where you played it from. you should then drop it in the divot?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:00 am to bamafan425
quote:
An advantage is an advantage. A lie might be more important in one situation. While yardage might be more important in another.
Within the rules.
I think everyone is miss construing what "intent" means in this situation.
He intended to act under one part of the rules, and he acted in another. The rules officials wouldn't have known his intent until he said it. Since they ruled the drop legal, it was a non-issue - under that particular subsection. When he stated his intent, he acted under a different subsection - which made it an issue. His intent didn't line up within the rules.
That's as clear as I can state that, I don't know what else to say
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:02 am to threeputt
threeputt, thanks.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:03 am to CocomoLSU
quote:those aren't my hypotheticals. Those are the hypotheticals provided by the USGA to further explain the rule they changed. It isn't like I made those up. They created those as the explanation for the intent of the rule. Sure, the Committee can do whatever they want. But, it doesn't mean that the rule that you are citing gives them the authority to do so. It does not. They did it because they screwed up.
That is Rule 33-7 in its entirety. Spare me your hypotheticals,
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:04 am to unbeWEAVEable
So his intent to act under one part of the rules but in fact follow another part of the rules is what did him in?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:04 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
rule states nearest to the previous spot as possible. that would be in the divot. right?
It's exact location, yes.
As possible are the key words.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:06 am to bamafan425
quote:
So his intent to act under one part of the rules but in fact follow another part of the rules is what did him in?
In one interpretation, yes. When you act under one subsection of the rules, it waives the other subsections from use. Because he used one subsection, and was given the all clear in the other, is IMO why he was still assessed the penalty.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:06 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 did. And I'm not saying it was specifically created for this situation, but that this situation falls under it. The way the rule is worded, the Committee acted completely within the rules. You disagree.
ETA: And your argument that Tiger knew what he was doing comes down to your interpretation of obscure golf language. Which is another reason they should make it crystal clear (like "within __ club lenghts" or whatever).
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 10:09 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:07 am to threeputt
quote:
But he did say that HE would defer to what the player says
one more thing.
players says he hit 2 types of balls, rules guy says you broke a rule. player then says, oh wait let me double check. players digs in his bag and finds out he actually played 1 type of ball. his intent was always to play 2 but he says he did both (said he played 2 but after he looked in his bag, he says he played 1 type).
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:07 am to CocomoLSU
I believe the ruling was fair and just. They options changed because of the ball crossing over the hazard and then going back into the hazard. It crossed the hazard line twice. therefore he confused the two points of entry in my mind. just like Jim Furyk if the ball never would have hit the green and just gone in the water you can keep that point of entry in line with the flag and go back as far as you want, but with tiger the second time it crossed the hazard line it changed the point of entry
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:08 am to unbeWEAVEable
This makes sense. It wasn't his intent to cheat, it was his intent to follow the rules but not follow the right rule.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:09 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
now if there was a huge divot, you know exactly where you played it from. you should then drop it in the divot?
Assuming I hit the shot fat because we already addressed the divot being closer to the hole issue, then I would go stand next to my divot and drop the ball near the divot hoping it didn't go in the divot. If someone asked me what my intent was, I would tell them I was trying to drop it as close to the original spot as possible.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:10 am to medtiger
But technically you weren't. Thus, violating the integrity of the game.
ETA: I guess hoping doesn't necessarily mean intent. Never mind .
ETA: I guess hoping doesn't necessarily mean intent. Never mind .
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 10:11 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:10 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
That isn't the same. If you tell him it moved...but it really didn't...you SHOULDN'T have a penalty.
But you are penalized. It is exactly the same.
Page 13 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News