- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 7:24 am to CocomoLSU
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:24 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Or if on the tee I hit the ball on my practice swing, I do not count the stoke because I did not intend to hit he ball.
But that's only on the teebox. If the ball is in the fairway and you take a practice swing and accidentally hit the ball, it's a stroke even though you didn't INTEND to hit it. So you're wrong, it's not just about intent.
quote:
Foe the umpteenth time, That rule was made for replay where TV is needed to determine if a violation has occurred when a player could not possibly known that they broke a rule. IT DOES NOT APPLY HERE ... Not even close .. You do not need a camera to see where that ball bounced off of the pin
Per that Fred WHatshisname dude, it's exactly what the rule was made for. It's not just "for TV." He said that even if there had been no call-in to the committee and they had simply changed their mind and reviewed it and decided to assess the penalty, Tiger still would've been protected (because they had already ruled that he was within the rules).
Also, you brought up intent before...Tiger intended to get a better shot, but he was trying to do that with what he thought was within the rules. That's the kicker...he thought he was within the rules, and so did the committee (until later). So his INTENT was to not break the rules. Once it was brought to his attention, he acknowledged that he had made a mistake and accepted the penalty that he was assessed. According to the rules, he was allowed to stay in the tournament. Even Nick Faldo acknowledged this later on in the coverage and admitted that once the rule (33-7) had been properly explained to him, he agreed that Tiger was rightfully still playing.
3
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:31 am to Golfer
Also, I keep seeing comments like this:
Can someone explain that?
quote:
it wasn't a PGA or USGA sanctioned event.
Can someone explain that?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:33 am to CocomoLSU
Jesus there is so much butthurt in this thread
I can't believe anyone actually believes that this TV viewer is the reason this penalty was called. The only reason there was a penalty is because Tiger himself said that he was trying to get an advantage.
As for the intent part, in a rule with as much grey area as this one, (what is considered "near" the original spot?) yeah, I'm sure intent plays a large role. Tiger said he wanted to move further back to give himself an advantage. According to the rule made last year, he thought his shot was ok so he shouldn't be DQ'd. The ruling was correct IMO, and if this was anyone other than Tiger, we wouldn't be takling about this anymore
I can't believe anyone actually believes that this TV viewer is the reason this penalty was called. The only reason there was a penalty is because Tiger himself said that he was trying to get an advantage.
As for the intent part, in a rule with as much grey area as this one, (what is considered "near" the original spot?) yeah, I'm sure intent plays a large role. Tiger said he wanted to move further back to give himself an advantage. According to the rule made last year, he thought his shot was ok so he shouldn't be DQ'd. The ruling was correct IMO, and if this was anyone other than Tiger, we wouldn't be takling about this anymore
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:37 am to Cap Crunch
quote:
I can't believe anyone actually believes that this TV viewer is the reason this penalty was called. The only reason there was a penalty is because Tiger himself said that he was trying to get an advantage.
The Fred Riley dude said that someone called in originally about the drop, and that someone later called in after Tiger's interview, and that's what had led them to review both. So unless he was full out lying, a viewer calling in was exactly what caused all of this.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:38 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
But that's only on the teebox. If the ball is in the fairway and you take a practice swing and accidentally hit the ball, it's a stroke even though you didn't INTEND to hit it. So you're wrong, it's not just about intent.
Well in that case the ball is already IN PLAY and the rules state that you can not touch the ball .. PERIOD ...
Look, I have a call and an email into a USGA rules official that I meet a few years ago regarding intent in the rules of the game. I am pretty certain that he will respond and when he does I will post it here. EVEN IF I AM WRONG
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:45 am to threeputt
You golf geeks let me know if this is correct...Steve Czaban, who is a huge golf fan, just said on his radio show that you can certainly make the argument that Tiger would not have been penalized had he not done the interview, BUT...right before he signed his scorecard, he meets with officials, and he should have been asked about the drop then. Rules officials told Czaban it was the one thing that happened in Tiger's round they should have asked him about and they pussed out. I do understand that by not asking anything, that tends to support the argument that Tiger did nothing wrong.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 7:47 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:45 am to threeputt
quote:
Well in that case the ball is already IN PLAY and the rules state that you can not touch the ball .. PERIOD ...
Right, but that was your example when you said it was about INTENT (you even said it in all caps). And it's not always about intent, because once the ball is in play, contact is contact and any contact to the ball results in a stroke whether it was itnentional or not. So, bad example by you I guess.
And on the previous page, there it is again:
quote:
Well this isn't a PGA or USGA sanctioned event...
Why do people keep saying this...everything I am seeing (searching on google) says that the Masters is definitely PGA-sanctioned and governed by USGA rules. WTF am I missing?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:46 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
The Fred Riley dude said that someone called in originally about the drop, and that someone later called in after Tiger's interview, and that's what had led them to review both. So unless he was full out lying, a viewer calling in was exactly what caused all of this.
Even if that is the case (which I am not sure about) it still should not invoke the HD Camera rule. IMHO FWIW
I would not be so pissed if the committee decided not to penalize Tiger but when they decided to do so then invoked this HD Camera rule, that is when I lose my shite ..
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:47 am to Cap Crunch
The penalty that he got was for playing from in wrong location.
According to the best evidence available, he played in the right location.
Something stinky happened at ANGC headquarters because the narrative that ensued was laughable.
"TW cheated to gain an advantage (so he wouldnt the stick again) in front of thousands on course and millions on tv. But since he didnt know he was cheating, he can still play." Makes no sense.
According to the best evidence available, he played in the right location.
Something stinky happened at ANGC headquarters because the narrative that ensued was laughable.
"TW cheated to gain an advantage (so he wouldnt the stick again) in front of thousands on course and millions on tv. But since he didnt know he was cheating, he can still play." Makes no sense.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:49 am to CWilken21
First of all, whoever wrote the article is a dumbass or a troll. But that's not the point.
Secondly, he wasn't necessarily penalized for the drop he made. The rules committee had already determined before Tiger finished his round that he had taken a legal drop. What incurred him the 2 stroke penalty was his intent for dropping, which caused it to be illegal. If he had kept his mouth shut, nothing would have happened. However, he admitted to try to gain a competitive advantage.
Secondly, he wasn't necessarily penalized for the drop he made. The rules committee had already determined before Tiger finished his round that he had taken a legal drop. What incurred him the 2 stroke penalty was his intent for dropping, which caused it to be illegal. If he had kept his mouth shut, nothing would have happened. However, he admitted to try to gain a competitive advantage.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:51 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Why do people keep saying this...everything I am seeing (searching on google) says that the Masters is definitely PGA-sanctioned and governed by USGA rules. WTF am I missing?
For lack of a better explanation, the Masters basically governs itself, but uses USGA rules. It IS a PGA tour event, by the PGA tour does not specifically govern the event.
ETA: Someone with Better knowledge could more accurately describe it.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 7:53 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:52 am to threeputt
quote:
Even if that is the case (which I am not sure about) it still should not invoke the HD Camera rule. IMHO FWIW
I would not be so pissed if the committee decided not to penalize Tiger but when they decided to do so then invoked this HD Camera rule, that is when I lose my shite ..
For the record, there is no "HD Camera rule." The rule change is based on new technology, but its ultimate purpose is to prevent unnecessary DQ of a player. And that's exactly what it did (and why it was there to begin with). This isn't some "Let's make this shite up for Tiger" situation...it's there to protect all golfers. And according to all of the rules that are in place, everything was followed and Tiger rightfully continued play. And that was also confirmed by numerous other golf bodies. Yet you still disagree and think you are interpreting the rules correctly. You're not. You're wrong. Why can't you understand that?
Also:
quote:
Even if that is the case (which I am not sure about)
So you're calling Fred Riley a liar? Because that's exactly what he said happened.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:55 am to tiger2012
quote:
"TW cheated to gain an advantage (so he wouldnt the stick again) in front of thousands on course and millions on tv. But since he didnt know he was cheating, he can still play." Makes no sense.
But he wasn't trying to cheat...he was trying to get his best advantage within the rules (as he thought). He thought he was within the rule, and the committee ruled in favor of that. Then later, after saying what he was thinking, they went back and decided that he was breaking the rule. They explained it to him, he accepted it and admitted that he was mistaken, and play moved forward.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:55 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Right, but that was your example when you said it was about INTENT (you even said it in all caps). And it's not always about intent, because once the ball is in play, contact is contact and any contact to the ball results in a stroke whether it was itnentional or not. So, bad example by you I guess.
Not really, because in Tigers situation the ball was not in play SO intent matters
I honestly do not know the correct answer that is why I have emailed an expert. If you put a gun to my head and asked my to vote on why or another, I would say that intent matters ...
quote:
WTF am I missing?
Well the Masters run this event (Not the PGA Tour or the USGA). They do play under USGA rules and the PGA Tour does count the money won in its official standings. But you will not hear the commissioner of the PGA Tour or the President of the USGA come out and claim that they or their organizations have anything to do with the Masters.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:58 am to texastiger38
You pretty much nailed it. The primary difference between the Masters and most other Tour events is that the Masters is an invitational. They have a criteria for who they invite, eg, past champions.
They also pretty much dictate the course setup and other behind the scenes standards.
And of course we all know how they dictate TV coverage.
They also pretty much dictate the course setup and other behind the scenes standards.
And of course we all know how they dictate TV coverage.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:58 am to texastiger38
quote:
For lack of a better explanation, the Masters basically governs itself, but uses USGA rules. It IS a PGA tour event, by the PGA tour does not specifically govern the event.
They need to stop saying it's not PGA-sanctioned then. Because it definitely is.
Also, what do you mean "govern" the event? ALL professional events are governed by USGA rules (see this article). That article could be complete bullshite I guess, but it explains it pretty well.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 7:58 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
So you're calling Fred Riley a liar? Because that's exactly what he said happened.
Maybe
I think that they were in a CYA mood. quote:
The rule change is based on new technology, but its ultimate purpose is to prevent unnecessary DQ of a player. And that's exactly what it did (and why it was there to begin with
DUE to circumstances where a Camera replay would show that a player was in breach of a rule when that player had NO CHNACE to realize that the breach occurred without help of the camera replay. This was not the case here. Tiger did not need a camera relay to know that he took a bad drop.
Here you go from the rule:
quote:
A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.
For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:
· As a player’s ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the player was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.
· A player's ball lies in a water hazard. In making his backswing for the stroke, the player is aware that his club touched a branch in the hazard. Not realising at the time that the branch was detached, the player did not include the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4 in his score for the hole. As the player could have reasonably determined the status of the branch prior to signing and returning his score card, the player should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4. (Revised) .
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 8:05 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:01 am to threeputt
quote:
Well the Masters run this event (Not the PGA Tour or the USGA). They do play under USGA rules and the PGA Tour does count the money won in its official standings. But you will not hear the commissioner of the PGA Tour or the President of the USGA come out and claim that they or their organizations have anything to do with the Masters.
I kinda get that. But apparently the only major run by the PGA of America is the PGA Championship. The only one run by the USGA is the US Open. The Masters is run by Augusta. And The Open/Open is run by the R&A Club of St. Andrews.
So basically, what people are saying about the Masters can also apply for every other major as well.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:01 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Also, what do you mean "govern" the event?
The PGA tour has no input on how the Augusta National executives run the tournament. ANGC, plays the event under USGA rules, but Augusta National controls the entire event, like COTiger said, from the people invited, how it is set up, and yes TV coverage.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:03 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
So basically, what people are saying about the Masters can also apply for every other major as well.
Yeah basically.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 8:04 am
Page 6 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News