Posted on 04/13/2013 10:20:07 AM PDT by Perdogg
Tiger Woods was three strokes off the lead in the Masters when he completed the second round at Augusta National Golf Club on Friday. But he began his third round five strokes behind the leader Jason Day after being assessed a two-stroke penalty on Saturday for an illegal drop on the 15th hole of the second round.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It was encouraging to hear Woods say without hesitation that he agrees with and accepts the ruling, absolutely. It is very possible that he was confusing two circumstances and acted incorrectly. If one has followed Tiger’s career, there have been other times when he assessed himself a penalty for moving a ball by grounding his club causing the ball to move prior to hitting it. I do not doubt that Woods respects the game, the pagentry, and the rules. Is he arrogant? Yeah, many of the best in their filed are arrogant and even condescending.
The rule is not “close to where” it is as close as possible, the penalty had nothing to do with his thoughts, it was because he admitted he dropped two yards behind where he should have, not acceptable no matter what he was thinking.
And you are tiger's (bitch)
And he was penalized two shots for that when it was discovered which was proper under 20-5
He’s why he was not DQ’d from the USGA
http://www.pga.com/masters/news/usga-rule-regarding-tiger-woods-ball-drop
THE RATIONALE
33-7/4.5. Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified
Q. A competitor returns his score card. It later transpires that the score for one hole is lower than actually taken due to his failure to include a penalty stroke(s) which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered before the competition has closed.
Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7, in waiving or modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule 6-6d?
—Generally, the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.
However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.
“...could not reasonably have known...”
It is assumed that the player knows the rules, so he reasonably should have known that he broke one of them.
One can make the same argument about any ex-famous hollywood libtard who chooses to step into the limelight and make their totally irrelevant but yet publicized comment about any conservative politician.......
Who cares what Faldo says, both the Masters rules committee and the PGA support the 2 stroke penalty against Tiger Woods and any other argument is pretty much irrelevant and sour grapes........
Get over it
As a side note, The Golf Channel this afternoon quoted several current players who initially thought that Woods should be DQ'd but after seeing and hearing all the facts, they stand by Woods........
He said he didn’t know he had violated the rule Couple that with the fact that the Rules Committee reviewed it while he was still playing and said there was no violation, thereby issuing a ruling, it was unknown by anyone when play concluded that there was a rules violation making and incorrect scorecard possible.
They ultimately got the ruling exactly right. Two shot penalty assessed on 15.
Exactly. Even Brandel Chamblee who was livid Woods wasn’t DQ’d absolutely didn’t want to talk about it after today’s round. Faldo also said that they got it “correct”. As you said, anything else is sour grapes.
I do disagree with the rules makers and would bet real money that if an average player on the tour pulled this off at one of the Euro Tour events and bragged about it, he'd be DQ'd faster than you could possibly imagine. "Superstars" get special considerations, but if Tiger wins there will be many who will not acknowledge the victory. I will be one of those, not that he will either know or care.
Ridley also addressed the issue that ignorance of the rule does not excuse it. He said that that issue didn’t apply as the Rules Committee ruled that there was no violation while he was still playing. If they had ruled it was a penalty he would have been told prior to his signing his card and he would have taken the penalty then. It was precisely because they made a ruling that there was no violation that this becomes irrelevant.
Have yet to see any, but if I come across them I won’t post them because I disagree with them. My old golf coach played on the tour in the old days with men like Nelson and Hogan and young Palmer. He preached respect for the game, that we were to always do what was necessary to honor and protect the integrity of the game, even if it hurt our team.
No, it's not, but the ball is not in play either. Your divot is closer to the hole than your original ball placement, so if it settles in the divot, you must redrop. Two more drops closer to the hole and you place the ball as close to the original position as possible, not closer to the hole.
You are not helping your argument with statements like these.
Including Faldo, but not Brandle Chamblee
And, sorry, but it is entirely possible that you land in your own divot not closer to the hole and the ball is in play. That was exactly the point of many of the commentators before the decision was rendered.
Well, it would certainly be possible for me to make a divot that is not closer to the hole, but pros don’t do that. The club strikes the ball first and then continues its downward arc creating a divot forward of the original ball placement. Of course, if your drop settles in someone else’s divot, play on. Certainly a hardship when that happens, but striking the pin and seeing your ball careen into the drink is no picnic either. Cruel game.
sounds like you'd be more comfortable heading up the “Thought Police” rather then the “Rules Committee”
Real logic as applied to Rules is devoid of “feelings”
LOL...That's just part of the low hanging fruit
as I said before...that “logic” only makes sense to the “Chief of the Thought Police”......Rules?....We don't need no hard and fast rules, or honor either...Whats honor got to do with great golf skills?.......
Lets just let someone with “compassionate logic” pick the winners and losers....What could go wrong?
LMAO...Ouch!!!...thats gonna leave a mark!
Ahhh good...Now lets Cut to the chase....THE PROBLEM >>”the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules,”
The fact Tiger said on national TV he moved back 2 yards to enhance his chances of hitting the same shot is proof positive he didn't understand the rule that he unequivocally violated and further attested to it by signing his bogus card!....
Hence his only defense is: I didn't understand the rule!!!
The “Committee”, in it's ruling has said, in effect,
>>>the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules,” (essentially agreeing with his defense of not understanding the very basic rule that governed his drop, which he clearly violated)and thus did NOT disqualify him...
We now have precedence for not Disqualifying ANYONE for lack of knowledge of the rules....
Obviously anyone in the future that is DQ’d could safely use this precedence as a valid defense.(from here on out referred to as the “Tiger Rule”)
“A player must NOT be disqualified for lack of knowledge or understanding of basic golf rules”
IMHO It's sad, for Tiger but more importantly Golf that the RULE of “unintended consequence's” has not been violated but will change the honor and traditions of golf forever...
P.S. if any Pro in the future gets DQ’d for lack of understanding the rules of golf I would nominate Tiger's defense attorney on this thread C Edmond Wright to defend him....C. Edmond understands this logic and is very good at knowing what everyone else is thinking....*W*
....
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.