- 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 8:38 am to CWilken21
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:38 am to CWilken21
So he would have lost by less. Let's move along.
I played competitive golf for years and have been DQ'd for less. The rules of golf don't bend. Once Tiger admitted that he was trying to drop near he previous spot it showed he didn't realize it was an illegal drop. He did it all way to fast and didn't bring-in a rules official that could have been there in seconds.
It's a very minor violation, but there are even more minor violations. That is golf.
I played competitive golf for years and have been DQ'd for less. The rules of golf don't bend. Once Tiger admitted that he was trying to drop near he previous spot it showed he didn't realize it was an illegal drop. He did it all way to fast and didn't bring-in a rules official that could have been there in seconds.
It's a very minor violation, but there are even more minor violations. That is golf.
1
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:38 am to unbeWEAVEable
quote:
Your object should be to drop it very close, if not in it.
and which one is it? very close to the divot or in the divot? seems like tiger is not the only one doesn't know the rule. i surely don't know now.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:43 am to AtlantaLSUfan
quote:obviously that is not true. they bent the "tv rule" in order to not disqualify Tiger out of a sense of "fairness".
The rules of golf don't bend.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:44 am to lsugolf1105
All this controversy could have been avoided if those annoying Tigerites would have just yelled, "IN THE HOLE", a little louder when he hit the pin.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:45 am to lsugolf1105
@slackhouse & lsugolf1105
The distance is determined with reasonability. The reason it gives a little leeway is so you don't drop in your own divot. When dropping up near a hazard, yes it gives a specific distance within what you have to drop, but do you really think its possible to drop on the exact line between you, the spot it entered the hazard, and the hole?
What violates this rule is mal-intent or mal-practice. Though Tiger may not have intentionally done it, he subconsciously dropped with mal-intent and should be penalized for it. He knows it.
It's all about reasonability. If the rules committee determines that he didn't make a reasonable drop (which they said was reasonable, though I don't think it was), it would be mal-practice. What occurred as we have seen was mal-intent, even if subconscious. He's lucky the rules committee gave him leniency and didn't DQ him.
You may not agree with these, but the rules are the rules and golf is golf. Hitting shots and making putts doesn't make golf the sport it is, it's the minute rules and the style of play that separates it from other sports and completes the picture of what golf is. Being more traditional in my approach to golf and having played in many tournaments and served on plenty rules committees, I completely agree with everything in the rulebook. It's what makes golf...well...golf.
The distance is determined with reasonability. The reason it gives a little leeway is so you don't drop in your own divot. When dropping up near a hazard, yes it gives a specific distance within what you have to drop, but do you really think its possible to drop on the exact line between you, the spot it entered the hazard, and the hole?
What violates this rule is mal-intent or mal-practice. Though Tiger may not have intentionally done it, he subconsciously dropped with mal-intent and should be penalized for it. He knows it.
It's all about reasonability. If the rules committee determines that he didn't make a reasonable drop (which they said was reasonable, though I don't think it was), it would be mal-practice. What occurred as we have seen was mal-intent, even if subconscious. He's lucky the rules committee gave him leniency and didn't DQ him.
You may not agree with these, but the rules are the rules and golf is golf. Hitting shots and making putts doesn't make golf the sport it is, it's the minute rules and the style of play that separates it from other sports and completes the picture of what golf is. Being more traditional in my approach to golf and having played in many tournaments and served on plenty rules committees, I completely agree with everything in the rulebook. It's what makes golf...well...golf.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:47 am to lsugolf1105
Read my post above. There is a reason the rule is worded this way. Again, it's all about intent and reasonability.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:48 am to unbeWEAVEable
quote:and he chose the leeway behind original divot, non-issue IMO
The distance is determined with reasonability. The reason it gives a little leeway is so you don't drop in your own divot.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:49 am to hashtag
quote:
obviously that is not true. they bent the "tv rule" in order to not disqualify Tiger out of a sense of "fairness".
In all honesty, I'm pretty sure you can't find that in the rulebook. I believe that is a PGA or other organizations "local rule" (not sure though, cause it keeps changing)
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:49 am to unbeWEAVEable
quote:
What violates this rule is mal-intent or mal-practice.
so my question is it is ok to try to avoid the divot when dropping? because clearly you are intending to get a better lie by intentionally dropping outside the divot. the divot is the nearest spot possible to where you last played so technically you should try to drop in the divot. right? and if you don't try to drop in the divot, you are cheating. right?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:51 am to unbeWEAVEable
So if intent matters, wouldn't it matter if you intend to drop it in your divot or close to your divot?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:51 am to Ford Frenzy
quote:
and he chose the leeway behind original divot, non-issue IMO
Yes, but outside of intent. You could argue that he definitely could have dropped closer to his divot. He moved back to gain a competitive advantage.
He wasn't penalize for the drop, he was penalized for the intent.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:52 am to hashtag
quote:
obviously that is not true. they bent the "tv rule" in order to not disqualify Tiger out of a sense of "fairness".
Wrong. There is no TV rule. 33-7, per USGA's website:
quote:
33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion
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.
In this case, they waived teh DQ because they had already ruled that his drop was legal.
I'm pretty sure, had they not initially reviewed it prior to him signing the card, and later got a call and decided to review it, then Tiger would've been DQ'd for signing an incorrect card. But because they did review it the first time (which he was still on the course), and cleared it, his card was not incorrect. So when they later go back and decide to assess a penalty based on other information, he is protected by 33-7.
But it has nothing to do with TV or HD in the way that it's written.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:54 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
so my question is it is ok to try to avoid the divot when dropping? because clearly you are intending to get a better lie by intentionally dropping outside the divot. the divot is the nearest spot possible to where you last played so technically you should try to drop in the divot. right? and if you don't try to drop in the divot, you are cheating. right?
No. It's not reasonable to drop in a man made alteration to the playing surface. Moving back (not on your line) to get to a distance that better suits you is illegal. They ruled that he had dropped reasonably, until he stated that he did it for his own yardage advantage. If he wanted to drop further back, he needed to get on the correct line.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:56 am to bamafan425
quote:
So if intent matters, wouldn't it matter if you intend to drop it in your divot or close to your divot?
What? Y'all are getting way to in to this and it's convoluting it. No, it doesn't matter because you are trying to drop as near to your last hit shot as possible. Yes it matters because you are intending on not trying to gain a competitive advantage.
Your statement really doesn't make sense, to be honest.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:56 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
so my question is it is ok to try to avoid the divot when dropping? because clearly you are intending to get a better lie by intentionally dropping outside the divot. the divot is the nearest spot possible to where you last played so technically you should try to drop in the divot. right? and if you don't try to drop in the divot, you are cheating. right?
The thing I feel like people are missing is that there are often times several different things you can do to gain an advantage that are well-within the rules.
shite, on Tiger's shot he had basically 4 options.
1. He could play the ball where it lies (which was underwater, so not likely...but he could have).
2. He could take a drop in the drop zone.
3. He could play it from where he hit previously.
4. He could play it from the angle that it entered the hazard (and as far back as he wanted to)
All of those are within the rules. And I'm not talking about Tiger's shot specifically, just using it as an example of how there are many different things he could choose to gain an advantage, all of which are within the rules.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:57 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
In this case, they waived teh DQ because they had already ruled that his drop was legal.
I'm pretty sure, had they not initially reviewed it prior to him signing the card, and later got a call and decided to review it, then Tiger would've been DQ'd for signing an incorrect card. But because they did review it the first time (which he was still on the course), and cleared it, his card was not incorrect. So when they later go back and decide to assess a penalty based on other information, he is protected by 33-7.
Spot on.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:58 am to CocomoLSU
quote:Here is what the USGA posted on their website explaining the revision for rule 33-7.
he is protected by 33-7.
quote:Tiger knew that he dropped 2 yards behind his original spot. The USGA's own explanation of this revision does not allow for Tiger to be accessed the 2 stroke penalty. If he did not know he had done it, that would be one thing. But, Tiger was well aware of what he did. And, that alone should have been enough for them to disqualify him. They misinterpreted this rule on purpose because they screwed up in their initial assessment.
This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the Committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying Rule, but is not disqualified.
The revision does not allow for them "fixing" a mistake they made. It allows for a situation where a golfer could not have reasonably known he did something wrong prior to signing his score card. Tiger knew.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 8:59 am
Posted on 4/15/13 at 8:59 am to unbeWEAVEable
quote:
No. It's not reasonable to drop in a man made alteration to the playing surface. Moving back (not on your line) to get to a distance that better suits you is illegal. They ruled that he had dropped reasonably, until he stated that he did it for his own yardage advantage. If he wanted to drop further back, he needed to get on the correct line.
makes sense. my question really had nothing to do with tiger's situation, i was just curious about the divot situation.
i guess the only gray area could possibly be if your ball was in a divot and you fatted it in the water, where should you drop?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:02 am to hashtag
quote:
Tiger knew that he dropped 2 yards behind his original spot.
Tiger thought he dropped 2 yards behind but didn't.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:03 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
makes sense. my question really had nothing to do with tiger's situation, i was just curious about the divot situation. i guess the only gray area could possibly be if your ball was in a divot and you fatted it in the water, where should you drop?
I see.
To be honest, I rarely hit from my original spot. If I have the option to change position, I do. If your ball was in a divot, and you fatted it, I would always drop up by the water. But rules have it to where you drop as closer to your original spot, within reason. You can call it grey area, but its really not. It's intentional. That's why I call it leeway.
ETA: grey area would insinuate that something was not foreseen or intended, leeway would insinuate that something was foreseen and intended...just to be clear.
This post was edited on 4/15/13 at 9:05 am
Page 8 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News