- 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 10:22 am to hashtag
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:22 am to hashtag
quote:
uh, every player every week tries to gain a competitive advantage.
I agree. I watch A LOT of golf. Ever since I was preteen, I was just one of "those" people who just liked watching golf on TV.
And, I can't tell you how many times a player has taken advantage of some obscure rule that very few of us duffers even know about. They get their ball taken out of some unhittable position and the announcers crow about "gaining an advantage" and getting a clear path to the green because this golfer knows this obscure rule that goes to the eighth point (i.e., Rule 3.26.7.6.1.12.7.101). And, I've always thought "what a crock of sh!t." They use these obscure rules "to gain a competitive advantage."
Here, Tiger moved the ball back two yards because he was going with the most generally understood version of the rule -- like anyone of us would have done without question in our weekend Nassau game.
Also, I think we should really look at the definition of "to gain an advantage." Judge Schmails kicking the ball out of the trees to the fairway is truly "to gain an advantage" (even with "Winter rules"). What Tiger did -- no so much.
2
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:23 am to medtiger
I think we are all on the same page now.
It's almost impossible to enforce. I would love to be able to see previous instances and how a player dropped or their quotes, but don't even know what to google.
It's almost impossible to enforce. I would love to be able to see previous instances and how a player dropped or their quotes, but don't even know what to google.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:23 am to hashtag
quote:
Once the rules' officials on the course gave him the clear to sign his score card the issue should have been resolved. But, once they decided to make a ruling, they should have followed the actual rules and not ignored the intent of the rule.
You and I are in agreement that they fricked up, and had they proceeded correctly in the first place, Tiger would've likely been DQ'd. We disagree that 33-7 allows them to waive teh DQ.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:24 am to Newbomb Turk
quote:
And, I can't tell you how many times a player has taken advantage of some obscure rule that very few of us duffers even know about. They get their ball taken out of some unhittable position and the announcers crow about "gaining an advantage" and getting a clear path to the green because this golfer knows this obscure rule that goes to the eighth point (i.e., Rule 3.26.7.6.1.12.7.101). And, I've always thought "what a crock of sh!t." They use these obscure rules "to gain a competitive advantage."
The hell are you talking about?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:24 am to CocomoLSU
to me the bottom line is...if someone chunks their shot and has to drop, they are never going to intend to try to drop it as near as possible to the original spot (in their divot) thus the 'intent' thing is ridiculous
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:24 am to Newbomb Turk
But he didn't move it back 2 yards.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:25 am to bamafan425
quote:
But he didn't move it back 2 yards.
How many times does this need to be said? It doesn't matter. He said he tried to break the rules. That is a penalty.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 10:26 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:27 am to Golfer
That's not what Weave said.
He tried to follow one rule, but followed another. He didn't intend to break any rule.
Why is everyone so defensive? Trying to have a actual discussion.
He tried to follow one rule, but followed another. He didn't intend to break any rule.
Why is everyone so defensive? Trying to have a actual discussion.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:29 am to bamafan425
His intent was to gain a competitive advantage, no matter what way you spin it. That's what he was penalized for.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:30 am to Golfer
a great one is burrowing animal rule. If you even think there might have been a burrowing animal in the area you can ask for a drop.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 10:31 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:30 am to unbeWEAVEable
quote:
His intent was to gain a competitive advantage
so every drop following a chunk is illegal
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:31 am to Ford Frenzy
quote:
so every drop following a chunk is illegal
No.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:32 am to theBeard
quote:
a great one is burrowing animal rule. If you even think there might have been a burrowing animal in the area you can ask for a drop.
I could ask for a drop on every shot. Doesn't mean I'm going to get approval from a rules official.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:32 am to unbeWEAVEable
Now I'm confused.
He intended to gain a competitive advantage WITHIN one part of the rules. This waived the other part of the rule which he actually followed. Thus he violated the rule because he waived the other option. Not for intending to gain a competitive advantage outside the rules.
He intended to gain a competitive advantage WITHIN one part of the rules. This waived the other part of the rule which he actually followed. Thus he violated the rule because he waived the other option. Not for intending to gain a competitive advantage outside the rules.
quote:
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.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 10:34 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:33 am to Golfer
the player will always intentionally drop the ball further away from his original spot to avoid it going in the divot, thus trying to gain a competetive advantage
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:33 am to Ford Frenzy
No. his intent here was two drop it farther back than his original shot which was illegal in this case.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:34 am to Golfer
That's not a good explanation. Why would they not be?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:35 am to threeputt
so it's really not whether you're trying to gain a competetive advantage then?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:38 am to bamafan425
quote:
That's not a good explanation. Why would they not be?
You are to drop it near where you last played your shot. Two yards is not near. As we've said, pro divots are in front of where the ball was so dropping it right behind the divot is not a penalty.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 10:39 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:38 am to Ford Frenzy
quote:
so every drop following a chunk is illegal
No.
I bow out. This is miserable.
Page 15 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News