Started By
Message

re: Tiger may not have been 2 yards back like he said

Posted on 4/15/13 at 12:09 pm to
Posted by hashtag
Comfy, AF
Member since Aug 2005
32799 posts
Posted on 4/15/13 at 12:09 pm to
quote:


It's not cheating. It is defined in the rules.
show me the rule where you can purposefully not drop your ball as close as possible with the intent to improve your standing?
Posted by lsugolf1105
BR
Member since Aug 2008
3443 posts
Posted on 4/15/13 at 12:10 pm to
quote:

It is defined in the rules.


actually it is not and that is why we are discussing it.
Posted by unbeWEAVEable
The Golf Board Godfather
Member since Apr 2010
13637 posts
Posted on 4/15/13 at 12:10 pm to
I understand what you are saying, but that's golf. I didn't make the rules
Posted by bamafan425
Jackson's Hole
Member since Jan 2009
25713 posts
Posted on 4/15/13 at 12:12 pm to
Fair. At least I'm not completely wrong in my logic. I just wanted to make sure my rational was making sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 12:13 pm
Posted by unbeWEAVEable
The Golf Board Godfather
Member since Apr 2010
13637 posts
Posted on 4/15/13 at 12:18 pm to
I apologize, I should have clarified. It is not spelled out in the rules under its own heading, it is an implied rule. The ruling they would reference is here:


Rule 13 - Ball Played As It Lies

13-1. General
The ball must be played as it lies, except as otherwise provided in the Rules.

(Ball at rest moved – see Rule 18)

13-2. Improving Lie, Area Of Intended Stance Or Swing, Or Line Of Play
A player must not improve or allow to be improved:

the position or lie of his ball,
the area of his intended Stance or swing,
his Line Of Play or a reasonable extension of that line beyond the Hole, or
the area in which he is to drop or place a ball,
by any of the following actions:

pressing a club on the ground,
moving, bending or breaking anything growing or fixed (including immovable Obstructions and objects defining Out Of Bounds),
creating or eliminating irregularities of surface,
removing or pressing down sand, loose soil, replaced divots or other cut turf placed in position, or
removing dew, frost or water.
However, the player incurs no penalty if the action occurs:

in grounding the club lightly when Addressing The Ball,
in fairly taking his Stance,
in making a Stroke or the backward movement of his club for a Stroke and the Stroke is made,
in creating or eliminating irregularities of surface within the Teeing Ground or in removing dew, frost or water from the Teeing Ground, or
on the Putting Green in removing sand and loose soil or in repairing damage (Rule 16-1).
Exception: Ball in hazard – see Rule 13-4.

13-3. Building Stance
A player is entitled to place his feet firmly in taking his stance, but he must not build a stance.

13-4. Ball In Hazard; Prohibited Actions
Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or a water hazard) or that, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player must not:

a. Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard;

b. Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club; or

c. Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.

Exceptions:
1. Provided nothing is done that constitutes testing the condition of the hazard or improves the lie of the ball, there is no penalty if the player (a) touches the ground or loose impediments in any hazard or water in a water hazard as a result of or to prevent falling, in removing an obstruction, in measuring or in marking the position of, retrieving, lifting, placing or replacing a ball under any Rule or (b) places his clubs in a hazard.

2. At any time, the player may smooth sand or soil in a hazard provided this is for the sole purpose of caring for the course and nothing is done to breach Rule 13-2 with respect to his next stroke. If a ball played from a hazard is outside the hazard after the stroke, the player may smooth sand or soil in the hazard without restriction.

3. If the player makes a stroke from a hazard and the ball comes to rest in another hazard, Rule 13-4a does not apply to any subsequent actions taken in the hazard from which the stroke was made.

Note: At any time, including at address or in the backward movement for the stroke, the player may touch, with a club or otherwise, any obstruction, any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of the course or any grass, bush, tree or other growing thing.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE:

Match play – Loss of hole; Stroke play – Two strokes.

(Searching for ball – see Rule 12-1)

(Relief for ball in water hazard – see Rule 26)

They will reference this rule after referencing Rule 20. It's too long to post but its here: LINK

Posted by unbeWEAVEable
The Golf Board Godfather
Member since Apr 2010
13637 posts
Posted on 4/15/13 at 12:22 pm to
Look man, I'm just trying to help everyone who is asking questions with the knowledge and experience I have gained. If you want to be a dick about it, I understand. I can't make you understand why the rules are the way they are. Stop trying to argue for argue sake and take everything into consideration.

I'm done for real this time.
Posted by hashtag
Comfy, AF
Member since Aug 2005
32799 posts
Posted on 4/15/13 at 12:27 pm to
quote:

If you want to be a dick about it, I understand. I can't make you understand why the rules are the way they are. Stop trying to argue for argue sake and take everything into consideration.
i'm not arguing for arguments sake. I really don't understand how you can say that purposefully dropping away from a divot is within the rules. Other than the fact that the rules' committee turns a blind eye when players do it. The rule is pretty clear that it should be as close as possible. Purposefully avoiding a divot is not as close as possible. IMO, it is no different than Tiger going back a few yards. Both are done to improve your likelihood of hitting a good shot. And, both are done with the intent of creating a better environment.

If your argument is that the rules' officials allow it, so it isn't illegal, then that's fine. But, that doesn't mean it isn't against the rules. That just means the rules' officials have decided not to enforce that rule.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 12:28 pm
Posted by Brodeur
Member since Feb 2012
4672 posts
Posted on 4/15/13 at 12:41 pm to
I've seen kids get penalized and disqualified for incorrectly moving a spot on the green(less than 4 inches). Tiger should be held to the same standard as an 8 yr old. He is a professional. He is more equipped to handle the situation and should be more inclined to know the rules.

For the people saying its a matter of a few feet, why not just start rolling the ball? It's just a matter of a few feet
Posted by molsusports
Member since Jul 2004
37162 posts
Posted on 4/15/13 at 12:45 pm to
quote:

Purposefully avoiding a divot is not as close as possible. IMO, it is no different than Tiger going back a few yards.



I think there's a good reason to draw a distinction you are not making. An objective (and probably the primary objective) of the rule is to have the player attempt their next shot from the same strategic position their prior shot was taken.

If you drop the ball in a different position to change your angle or distance then you have a new (and presumably better) strategic position compared to your prior shot. If you drop your ball next to the divot then there's no change in your strategic position.

I'm not a rules official or even a passionate golfer anymore so I won't argue whether this logic is clearly written or applied in tournament play - but it seems to me that's the intent of the rule being discussed.
Posted by texastiger38
Member since Sep 2007
27624 posts
Posted on 4/15/13 at 1:18 pm to
This thread is still going?
Posted by tiger2012
bossier city/Los Angeles/Atlanta
Member since Sep 2006
4493 posts
Posted on 4/15/13 at 1:59 pm to
yes and we've come to the conclusion that:

• TW was done wrong with a 2 stroke penalty
• Augusta National made the right initial decision that the drop was good.
• His interview based on the photographic evidence presented later was a "false confession" and/or misspeak.
• There was a concerted effort to get him out of the tournament (tiger haters? gambling interests?).
• AGNC usually shows great resolve in these matters but they rolled over to placate the tiger critics. They may haves used this to deflect from earlier criticism of the slow play penalty of the young kid.
• the question of "intent" and "as near as possible" are not black and white and subject to interpretation and in TW's case - misapplication.
• AGNC rules committee took great liberties with rule 33 to keep him in the tournament if he they really believed that he "intentionally dropped for an unfair advantage".
• The deleterious effects of this scandal will be a black mark on golf.
Posted by dgtiger3
Prairieville
Member since Sep 2005
5703 posts
Posted on 4/15/13 at 2:27 pm to
I check back in a few hours later and this has gone from 7 pages to 21. Can't believe yall are still hashing it out.

But kudos to those in this thread trying to bring reason to why he was penalized, after seeing those pictures I thought this entire thing was pretty botched.

quote:

2. Tiger did not drop within reason to his original location, because he was following another subsection of the rule. Rory's drop would be within reason.


This is an interesting statement, so if he was following one rule of the drop it was definitely within a reasonable distance, but because he suggested he was following another subsection of the rule which did not apply to this particular shot (because the ball richocheted off the flagstick and changed the angle I assume) then he did not correctly follow the rules and should be assessed a two stroke penalty.
Posted by dgtiger3
Prairieville
Member since Sep 2005
5703 posts
Posted on 4/15/13 at 2:29 pm to
quote:

His interview based on the photographic evidence presented later was a "false confession" and/or misspeak.


Damn I thought I was the only one who suggested that.

I mean once the questions came up about it I'm sure he had a clouded memory of the entire situation because of the emotional state he was in following that unbelievably bad break.
Jump to page
Page First 19 20 21
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 21 of 21Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram