Posted on 04/12/2013 11:09:13 PM PDT by FlJoePa
Did Tiger Woods' actions after he drenched his third shot on No. 15 Friday at Augusta result in him signing an incorrect scorecard, which would result in his automatic disqualification from the Masters?
There was no definitive answer and a lot of speculation late Friday. So, while a conclusion has yet to be reached, let's walk through the events in question.
After his round Woods said about his shot into the water on No. 15:
"I went down to the drop area, that wasn't going to be a good spot, because obviously it's into the grain and it was a little bit wet."
“So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards farther back and I tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit."
Two yards farther back.
Woods had just dunked his third shot in the water in front of the green, walked to the edge of the water, walked back to the spot where he hit the shot, and dropped his ball two yards behind the original shot.
He then hit that shot (his fifth) 3 feet from the pin and tapped in for bogey.
So why might he be disqualified?
It has to do with the drop, per USGA rule 26-1:
It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke:
a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or
b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or
Woods apparently didn't choose "a" because two yards (as he said in his post-round interview) isn't "as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played." Although I admit "as nearly as possible" is incredibly vague so I suppose this is still an option for what Woods did.
And the second choice "b" is in question as well (there is a "c" but it doesn't apply here).
According to this explanation by the USGA regarding "b," when a player's ball crosses a hazard three times (which Woods' did -- the front of the water, the back of the water, and the roll into the water after the ball careened off the pin) this is how the drop is supposed to play out:
If a ball last crossed the margin of a water hazard as described in the situation above, it appears that the ball crossed the margin of the hazard three times (e.g., first, the initial time it crossed; second, when it crossed over the hazard onto land; and third, when the ball rolled back into the hazard). So when the Rule states that the ball must be dropped “keeping the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is to be dropped,” it is referring to the third (final) time. It is the reference point for the 26-1b option only.
Did Woods keep the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard "directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball was dropped?" It's hard to tell. It looked on TV like the ball shot off to the left, not between where Woods dropped and the hole.
If Woods played an incorrect ball, according to rule 20-7 he should be penalized 2 strokes and would have, theoretically, incorrectly signed his scorecard -- an automatic disqualification.
Whether Woods did anything wrong has sparked enough chatter about his possible disqualification to make us get very familiar with this portion of the rule book.
Absolutely fantastic interview with Fred Ridley at the beginning of the CBS broadcast. Surprisingly to me Nantz asked all the tough and right questions. Ridley methodically went through the process the competition committee went through. It’s very clear why he was not DQ’d and also why the two stroke penalty was imposed. Really a great interview by Nantz.
So what's your point?
Nobody, especially me, is arguing against the issuing of the two penalty strokes, that discussion was never held by Fred Ridley and the tournament rules committee until after the 10:00 p.m. phone call from CBS........Here's the transcript.
Master rules chief Fred Ridley tries to explain complicated Tiger Woods penalty
"Ridley said the committee looked at the video while Woods was still on the course but initially decided there had been no rules violation. But when Woods was interviewed by CBS after his round, he admitted that he had made his drop “about 2 yards” behind the original spot, which violated Rule 26-1 regarding playing from the wrong spot. Ridley said he got a call from CBS officials at about 10 p.m. Friday informing of Woods’ comments."
The point I'm trying to make here, and I think I have done it very well, is that prior to the end of Woods's round, the rules committee had determined that his drop was within the rules and thus they had no reason to discuss his action with him and allowed him to submit his card without any penalty.
Who the hell cares about tweets and twitters and emails, they have nothing to do with the lack of action on the part of the rules committee at the time they determined Woods had not violated any rules.
And as I said before, had the rules committee determined from the video that Woods had committed a penalty, they would have told him and Woods would have changed his card accordingly..........and we wouldn't even be discussing this.
Please stand by for a few days as this has driven me back to my law books. Before any street action, we must decide whether Tiger should go home with the Swedish cutie or the skier gal.
or Rory McIlroy’s girlfriend??? It all has to be by the book.
Dennis Miller: “To think the Masters has turned into the Warren Commission over a couch potato in his undies bitching about a foot and a half is hilarious.”
Jotto, I do not think you are taking this grave situation respectfully. Why a fortnight has not passed since our POTUS and Reggie were with Mr. Woods, giving this ball drop international significance.
I'll bet they were!
Thats a shame too, because it bounced OFF THE PIN!!! on the shot before
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.