- 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 9:07 am to unbeWEAVEable
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:07 am to unbeWEAVEable
So basically, Tiger is bad at cheating. He meant to cheat, he just did a terrible job.
2
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:08 am to bamafan425
quote:
He meant to cheat,
come on. i can understand the outrage for the committee using rule 33 for this situation but saying he cheated on purpose is retarded.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:09 am to bamafan425
No.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:09 am to hashtag
quote:
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.
You don't know what he knew. Even what you're quoting him on isn't accurate since it wasn't "two yards back."
But it's exactly made for something like this where they "fix" their "mistake." It's to protect the player when signing his score card. Like Riley said, whether it happened because of a call or if they randomly decided to change their mind, Tiger was protected. And had they not initially reviewed the situation, he likely would've been DQ'd for an incorrect card.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:12 am to lsugolf1105
Isn't that what is being said?
He intended purposely to gain a competitive advantage by dropping to correct his yardage.
I'm a Tiger fan, but if that's not what is being said then I don't know how he cheated.
He intended purposely to gain a competitive advantage by dropping to correct his yardage.
I'm a Tiger fan, but if that's not what is being said then I don't know how he cheated.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:12 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
my question is it is ok to try to avoid the divot when dropping?
Tiger dropping (swidt?
) in his divot actually would've been illegal too. His divot is in front of the original ball position. So, a drop in his divot would've been closer to the hole than his original shot. Can't do that.Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:17 am to unbeWEAVEable
quote:
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.
i would too. i am just throwing a situation out there. let's say that was by far your best option (hitting from same spot). would you drop around the divot or in the divot, if your original ball was in a divot and you hit it fat.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:17 am to medtiger
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:18 am to CocomoLSU
quote:go show me something any where prior to this weekend where this rule was used to fix a mistake by the Committee. It has nothing to do with that.
But it's exactly made for something like this where they "fix" their "mistake."
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:19 am to medtiger
quote:
in his divot actually would've been illegal too. His divot is in front of the original ball position. So, a drop in his divot would've been closer to the hole than his original shot. Can't do that.
i know that. i am not referring to the tiger situation. this entire thing just made me think of a situation in which you hit it fat. the divot would not be closer to the hole. where would you drop? weave explained that you would not have to drop in the divot.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:21 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
i would too. i am just throwing a situation out there. let's say that was by far your best option (hitting from same spot). would you drop around the divot or in the divot, if your original ball was in a divot and you hit it fat.
If I have to drop at a place I just hit from, I take a small step to the side I am hitting from and drop next to the divot.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:22 am to unbeWEAVEable
How is that not the case?
You said his mal-intent is the reason for the penalty, not the drop.
So he intended to gain a competitive advantage, but he didn't (as ruled by the committee). Thus he tried to cheat by dropping illegally, but didn't succeed in doing so.
You said his mal-intent is the reason for the penalty, not the drop.
So he intended to gain a competitive advantage, but he didn't (as ruled by the committee). Thus he tried to cheat by dropping illegally, but didn't succeed in doing so.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:22 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
weave explained that you would not have to drop in the divot.
Within reason...
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:23 am to bamafan425
so you think he purposely cheated? why the hell would he go on air and tell everyone? he thought he dropped correctly.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:24 am to bamafan425
quote:
So he intended to gain a competitive advantage, but he didn't (as ruled by the committee). Thus he tried to cheat by dropping illegally, but didn't succeed in doing so.
I believe it's the other way around
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:24 am to lsugolf1105
Then what's the problem? If his INTENT was to drop legally, why was he penalized?
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:25 am to unbeWEAVEable
Pardon me, it's an early Monday morning. But I don't follow what you're saying.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:25 am to hashtag
quote:
go show me something any where prior to this weekend where this rule was used to fix a mistake by the Committee. It has nothing to do with that.
Just because it hasn't happened yet has no bearing on it being within the rules.
And what I mean by fixing their mistake (and why those are in quotes) is that the rule is made to protect the player from DQ, which in this instance would've come from incorrect score card signage. The committee fricked up when they didn't talk with Tiger the first time...they reviewed things and said "Okay." Once they did that, Tiger was signing a correct score card (that's the important part). So at that point, everything was gravy.
Then, later, they determined that they needed to investigate further and needed to meet with him Saturday morning. Once that happened, they determined that there was a penalty to be assessed and did so (the two strokes). And under normal circumstances that would've resulted in Tiger signing an incorrect score card and he would've been DQ'd. However, under rule 33-7, "the Committee considered the action of waiving a DQ warranted because of their initial ruling and Tiger's signing of a 'correct score card.'" They used the rule that was modified to protect the player to....protect the player.
Again, the reason I call it "fixing their mistake" is because they are the ones who gave the all-clear before he signed his card for Friday. Had they not done that, he could've been DQ'd. Because they did that, he was protected under the new rule.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:26 am to unbeWEAVEable
quote:
If I have to drop at a place I just hit from, I take a small step to the side I am hitting from and drop next to the divot.
that is what i do too. but technically you are gaining an advantage by not having to hit out of a divot which you had to on the original shot.
Posted on 4/15/13 at 9:26 am to bamafan425
quote:because his drop was deemed to not be as close to the original shot as possible. It isn't about intent. The two resident failed Pro golfers are 100% wrong and just plain stupid.
Then what's the problem? If his INTENT was to drop legally, why was he penalized?
Page 9 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News