Midpack said:If there is anything better in golf, I can't imagine what it would be. Truly the pinnacle IMO.
Ban the bellyputter!
Ban the bellyputter!
And DQ Tiger.
No reason he should get an eraser for his scoring pencil to avoid DQ after publicly admitting to violating common Rule to his advantage (where to drop after hitting into water hazard) but not adding the appropriate 2 shot penalty to his day's score.......until after he got caught
But that should not overshadow the great drama by Scott & Cabrera down the stretch.
Darn shame either one had to lose. But good to see Scott come back after his collapse at the British Open.
Except that he might not have even deserved a two stroke penalty....
Y! SPORTS
The Augusta Chronicle on Sunday printed two photos by staffer Michael Holahan of Woods' two chip shots from the 15th fairway. The first hit the flagstick and rolled into the water, forcing Woods to take a one-stroke penalty and then drop his ball "as nearly as possible" to his original location.
The Chronicle circled various divots in the 15th fairway to show Woods' second shot was in almost the exact same location as the first.
While the photos may not be conclusive evidence and they will no doubt be picked apart, Tiger does appear to be standing within inches of where he took his first shot, not the two yards that he himself thought he had moved.
ERhoosier said:Except that he (Tiger) clearly said he moved back 2 yds for his drop in direct violation of Rule 26-1a. That he did so is backed up by fact his caddy stayed back near his original sport while Tiger surveyed the drop area, and CBS photo of his next shot.
Tiger Woods assessed two-stroke penalty for drop on No. 15 Friday - CBSSports.com
I'm no forensic expert, but I find CBS photo more convincing that those from Masters' hometown newspaper.
In any event, I find it impossible to believe that these pros who play 100's of rounds/yr could not know this Rule (water hazard drop procedures) cold. Someone hits in the water somewhere during most rounds. Makes one wonder how many other times over the yrs that pro golfers (inc Tiger) have conveniently mis-interpreted common Rules in their own favor.
Golf-the game of honor
Because of his honesty and the fact he brought it up on tv was the only reason he was penalized as the committee had already determined after a viewer call in that he in deed did not violate the rule.
FinanceDude said:There were several factors that caused all the controversy:
1)Unlike most PGA tour events, there are not officials on the course. Tiger probably would have called one over if wasn't sure. Most courses do not play yellow stakes. Tiger still could have asked for an official, but did not.
2)Gotta love golf. Some guy calls in from his easy chair and tells the Masters folks of the rule violation. Heck, if its that easy to get through to the MAsters clubhouse, I'm going to make a tee time today........
3)When Tiger signed the scorecard, the Masters officials accepted it as a good scorecard. Only later did they review some video and see the error. That was why they did the 2-stroke and not a DQ.........
4)I don't put a lot of weight into camera angles at golf tournaments. Those cameras are high up in towers and have strong telephoto lenses that distort the view.......
5)Tiger could have still DQ'd himself, as some pros called in and said. If this would happen at the PGA Championship, Tiger would have DQ'd, under PGA tour rules. However, the rules as the British Open (Royal Ancient rules) and the Masters don't necessarily follow all rules to the letter.........
I'll be we will see rules officials on the course at the MAsters next year AND NO yellow stakes..........
I disagree with your contention that the only people who think Tiger should have been DQed are "old school guys" who either don't know or don't agree with the new rule 33-7. I support rule 33-7 but also think that it clearly indicates that Tiger should have been DQed. In my opinion the Masters improperly used the discretion to waive the DQ, apparently for the selfish reason to keep a wildly popular superstar in contention on the weekend.5) Yes, he could have DQ'd himself, but the new rule instituted 2 years actually protects him from this. This rule is in the rules of golf, section 33. This rule is in effect at all tournaments. He would not have had to DQ'd himself in the PGA under the exact circumstances that occurred at Masters. It appears he was catching the "flak" from the old school guys, but that is the equivalent of saying Hank Aaron's 755 HR's shouldn't count compared to Babe Ruth because Babe didn't get an opportunity to DH, in my opinion anyways. Even Faldo finally said later us old guys need to except the fact the times have changed and the rules have too. Major champions Curtis Strange, Paul Azinger, and Andy North had a round table discussion on this on an ESPN link yesterday which still may be there explaining the whole process. They were all in agreement the situation was handled correctly and Tiger should not have DQ'd himself.
In revising the decision, The R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognising that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach.
karluk said:I disagree with your contention that the only people who think Tiger should have been DQed are "old school guys" who either don't know or don't agree with the new rule 33-7. I support rule 33-7 but also think that it clearly indicates that Tiger should have been DQed. In my opinion the Masters improperly used the discretion to waive the DQ, apparently for the selfish reason to keep a wildly popular superstar in contention on the weekend.
The reason I think 33-7 clearly mandates a DQ for Tiger comes from links such as the following. Tiger was ignorant of one of the rules of golf, or perhaps forgot it in the heat of the moment. Too bad for him, but both the USGA and R&A clearly say that the DQ penalty applies in his situation. The Masters committee chose to ignore this directive from golf's governing bodies and give Tiger a break. It turned out to be a popular decision, both with the general public and professional golfers, but decisions like this shouldn't be made based on popular opinion.
The relevant passage is
The R&A - R&A and USGA announce new Score Card Rules interpretation
1)
I found the link and here it is below. If you have 6 minutes you will find it very informative explaining better than how I wrote it.
Breaking Down The Tiger Ruling - ESPN Video - ESPN
When Tiger mentioned that he dropped two yards back from his original
spot, didn't he know this was wrong? Every golfer has to know this rule regarding proper and improper drops.