Posted on 04/12/2013 11:09:13 PM PDT by FlJoePa
If you take your own personal bias against Woods out of the equation, you will find that everything worked out fairly for both the officials and Woods.
The officials saw the tape, they saw the divot and they saw where he dropped the ball, just like the rest of the world did. Based on what they saw, they told Woods before he signed the scorecard that was no rules infraction. Had they said there was and assessed him the two stroke penalty, Woods would have signed a correct scorecard and we would never be having this discussion..
THEY SCREWED UP
Actually the divot is closer to the hole than where the ball originally was, so the player would drop it again or place it after a failed 2nd drop...
This “sport” is about signing a correct scorecard. Is the speed of signing measured, or height?
I agree but the rule doesn't say "drop" the ball. It says "play" the ball -- "play the ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played."
The nearest spot is not where the ball comes to rest after a drop but where your divot was. The divot marks the nearest spot.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
There is some confusion. Now they’re saying he wasn’t advised by the committee before he signed the score card. It’s Tiger... he’ll have a different set of rules and expectations.
Forwarded upon receipt to Mr. Algonquin J. Calhoun, Esq.
CC:
The Very Reverend Al Sharpton
The Extremely Reverend Jesse Jackson
The rules guy just said on ESPN that they didn’t advise Tiger his drop was legal before he signed the score card. I like Nick Faldo’s opinion. Ultimately... its your score card and you’re suppose to know the rules and follow the rules. Its black and white and if he continues to play it will be a stain on his career. (as if his career doesn’t already have a stain or two)
I disagree. The HD tv rule explanation, from the USGA’s website, is below:
“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.”
According to the USGA, the rule only applies if the player is not aware of certain facts. What fact was Tiger not aware of here? Ignorance of the rule is not an excuse. He took the drop, he deliberately dropped two yards away. That is a rule violation. How is he saved by the HD TV rule? That explanation makes no sense.
Please advise as to the pay scale, locations, and schedule for the riots and demonstrations.
And... he admitted he dropped 2 yards back to gain an advantage. Now if he hit a wedge like I do two yards wouldn’t make a difference :)
In fact, the illustration of why this is a wrong decision comes from the USGA’s website. As an explanation for the rules, the USGA gives the following example:
As a players 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.
This is precisely the situation here. Woods was aware of the facts of his violation and he didn’t take the penalty. He should have been DQ’d. It seems pretty apparent that they are ignoring the rules to keep woods in the field. That’s embarrassing.
This is BS!
That is what the committee must have seized upon -- gaining an advantage from a penalty.
But the fact that he did it so casually at the Masters and was so open about it in the postmatch interview tells me that he has been doing that for quite a while and so have all the other golfers.
That is true and I was mistaken on that point. However, he also went on to say that the reason he did not speak with Woods was because he and the rules committee, after reviewing the drop on video while Woods was still playing, determined that no infraction had occured.......meaning of course, there was no need to discuss anything with Woods.
While he didn't specifically say so, he certainly implied that if they had determined that Woods had made an improper drop, they would have brought it to his attention so he could take the two stroke penalty and change the scorecard accordingly before it was eventually signed.
As far as knowing the rules and following the rules, that's what the tournament rules committee and on course judges are for when rules issues arise. So fault the committee, not Woods.......
I don’t agree. This is Tiger’s fault. Where I fault the committee is they didn’t have the guts to penalize Tiger Woods until people started emailing them and tweeting about it. Tiger is the one who took the illegal drop to gain an advantage.
In a perfect world he’ll shoot 78 to day and we won’t see him on television :) I’m semi-retired and play 5 days a week btw. But you won’t see me on television either :)
You're now letting your personal bias against Tiger distort your view of the facts........
Not at all... if you’re watching the news unfold... they stated that once they started getting emails and tweets about the illegal drop they went back and looked again and gave him the two stroke penalty.
Wrong. He was not aware. Not only that but the Masters made the decision that there was NOT a violation BEFORE he finished his round. Absolutely everyone believed at the time he signed his scorecard that it was correct. Fred Ridley in the interview with Jim Nantz said that precisely because the committee ruled that there was no violation is exactly why a DQ was never in question. Watch the interview. It’s exceptionally clear why they made the correct decision.
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.