- 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
2
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:39 am to bamafan425
quote:
That's not what the rule states.
As close as possible.
Exactly. 6 inches is close. 72 inches is not.
Again, he also stated that he wanted it two yards back to give him an advantage to not hit the pin again.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 10:41 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:40 am to bamafan425
I'm still lost as to why intentionally not dropping as near as possible to avoid it going in your divot (following a chunk) is not trying to gain a competetive advantage?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:40 am to threeputt
quote:
No. his intent here was two drop it farther back than his original shot which was illegal in this case.
i'm still curious if it is legal to intend to drop out of a divot if you originally played from a divot. and is it gaining a competitive advantage?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:40 am to Ford Frenzy
No. he couldnt drop farther back period .. Its a two shot penalty no matter why he did it.
My issuse is that he stated he dropped farther back to gain an advantage. In the rule if yoy play from a incorrect spot to gain advantage its a dq. Not a penalty but a dq
My issuse is that he stated he dropped farther back to gain an advantage. In the rule if yoy play from a incorrect spot to gain advantage its a dq. Not a penalty but a dq
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:41 am to Golfer
As close as possible is about effort and intent. Not where it actually ends up.
And his wasn't 72 inches back anyways.
And his wasn't 72 inches back anyways.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:42 am to CWilken21
photo is shopped
He was about 4 ft....Nobody has a 4 ft club except morons who bought a long tom. Think Tiger's longest is 43 or 44. He was not inside a club length....rule will be reworded to that Im guessing
He was about 4 ft....Nobody has a 4 ft club except morons who bought a long tom. Think Tiger's longest is 43 or 44. He was not inside a club length....rule will be reworded to that Im guessing
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 10:43 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:42 am to bamafan425
I'm just curious, have you played in a tournament before?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:42 am to CocomoLSU
quote:i just can't believe that you think that they would create a generic rule that could be applied to a generic scenario. That makes no sense to me. They created this rule with a specific intent. And, that intent has nothing to do with what happened this weekend. If they wanted to create a rule that gave the committee the blanket authority to overrule the DQ rules, they would have done so. We'll never agree on this. You obviously think that these committees are infallible. I think there actions bring into question the integrity of all of professional golf.
However, there's no way that the few hypotheticals they give completely encompass every scenario in which the rule could come into play. So just because the main reason for the rule is technology, that doesn't mean there aren't other ways it can come into play. Thus why it's not a "HD/TV rule." There's more to it than just that.
The USGA, PGA, and Augusta National lost some of their luster and integrity this week.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:43 am to lsugolf1105
quote:according to these guys only intentionally altering yardage is an illegal form of trying to gain an advantage
i'm still curious if it is legal to intend to drop out of a divot if you originally played from a divot. and is it gaining a competitive advantage?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:43 am to Golfer
No I haven't. Most of what I'm saying is based on a previous discussion with Weave in this thread.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:43 am to Golfer
quote:that's like, your opinion man. IMO, 50 yards is not close, but 2 yards is.
Exactly. 6 inches is close. 72 inches is not.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:46 am to threeputt
quote:my issue isn't even this. my issue is that the Committee cited a rule that does not give them the authority to not DQ him. The intent of the rule is clearly stated on the USGA's website. And, they completely ignored that and made a terrible decision.
My issuse is that he stated he dropped farther back to gain an advantage. In the rule if yoy play from a incorrect spot to gain advantage its a dq. Not a penalty but a dq
If they would have come out and just said, "we screwed up. we gave Tiger the go ahead and told him it was clear and then changed our minds after he signed his scorecard. Due to this, we are giving him a 2 stroke penalty instead of DQing him." I'd be more happy with this than them pretending like a rule applies that doesn't.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:46 am to hashtag
quote:
that's like, your opinion man. IMO, 50 yards is not close, but 2 yards is.
Think of it like this: you are supposed to stand in the same position as your feet were for the previous shot and drop the ball arm fully extended. Where it lands is fine within the rules.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:46 am to VegasPro
quote:
Photo is shopped
Could be. but 2d cameras or TERRIBLE at getting this like this correct. I can make the same image look to be in a different spot basef solely on camarea angle
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:47 am to threeputt
quote:
My issuse is that he stated he dropped farther back to gain an advantage. In the rule if yoy play from a incorrect spot to gain advantage its a dq. Not a penalty but a dq
rule says - A competitor is deemed to have committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule if the Committee considers he has gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong place.
don't think that happened here.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:48 am to Golfer
It's not fine if you have the intention of it not being as close as possible.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:48 am to lsugolf1105
quote:which is why intentionally avoiding a divot is a penalty
rule says - A competitor is deemed to have committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule if the Committee considers he has gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong place.
don't think that happened here.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:48 am to Golfer
quote:it says this in the rules? it says, "as close as possible". the word "close" is ambiguous and allows for interpretation. In your opinion, that means that your feet should be in almost the same spot. IMO, it just means you need to be within a reasonable distance (within 4-5 feet). Prior to this weekend, if you took a poll of every PGA Golfer and every rules' official, you'd probably have 100s of different answers.
Think of it like this: you are supposed to stand in the same position as your feet were for the previous shot and drop the ball arm fully extended. Where it lands is fine within the rules.
That is a problem.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 10:50 am to bamafan425
quote:
It's not fine if you have the intention of it not being as close as possible.
How is standing where your feet were previously, extending your arm and dropping the ball not as close as possible?
Page 16 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News