Posted on 04/13/2013 10:20:07 AM PDT by Perdogg
What you don’t understand is that dropping a ball further away from the pin is absolutely acceptable in most drop situations, including in two of the three drop options he had on this shot. Let me repeat, dropping a ball two yards further away from the pin in most golf drop situations is acceptable. Do I need to repeat this again?
Your analysis is totally flawed because you have constructed the fantasy in your mind that Woods got off penalty free here, He did not. Following the rules does not mean getting the death penalty for each infraction...but I do hope that you get the maximum penalty for your next speeding ticket, parking ticket, or IRS infraction. You seem to live for maximum penalties....hope you get to enjoy some.
zzzzz
Your inability to follow the logic here is just breathtaking. I mean, in the context of the debate, your comments are infantile and meaningless and don’t even make sense or follow at all.
Did you mention snarky?
Since the comment was directed towards Tiger, I thought it superfluous. I’d have thought that Tiger would have known better, but I’ve been wrong before and will be again.
I realized that post de posto.......got it. No harm, no foul.
You said “for a rules misinterpretation he has paid a net 4 shot penalty”.
He was only penalized 2 strokes for the rules violation. The rest was his own doing for hitting the ball into the water. Sorry, but all golfers experience unlucky bounces, and they can’t factor those out of their score.
OK, so your arguments against a DQ are:
1) He already got a “4 shot” penalty...isn’t that enough punishment?
2) The incorrect scorecard rule is outdated anyway and shouldn’t exist.
3) Tiger’s drop would have been in accordance with the rules in “most” situations.
I would have been OK with either ruling, but to me these are not convincing arguments.
I fully understand that, but allow me two points:
FIRST: your statement that it “was his own fault for hitting it in the water” is remarkable in its lack of understanding of what happened. He did not flub a shot into the water. He hit a shot that was almost accurate beyond what golf pin equipment is designed to take, and it bounced hard off the pin back into the water.
SECOND: given that he did not “flub” a shot, and by virture, should have had a 4 on the hole and not an 8 - except for the bad luck = it was a NET 4 stroke penalty while yes, it was only a GROSS 2 stroke penalty. You either didn’t see the shot or don’t understand the game - or both. If you did, my connotation would have been obvious.
Ces't la vie.....
So let me get this straight: you are in favor of the max penalty assessment in all situations. Are you going to take that stance the next time you have a run in with an ordinance of some kind? You know, IRS, speeding, homeowners association, etc? You are going to volunteer to take the most severe penalty available? I guess so.
My point is, his infraction was so nuanced that even the Masters Committee wasn’t sure it was an infraction for a couple of hours - and such an infraction should be penalized - but I don’t think the electric chair (the DQ equivalent in a golf tournament) is the appropriate penalty. Moreover, in the US Open, the PGA, or the British Open, there would have been a rules official with every group. The Masters chooses not to do that to keep the inside the rope area less populated for image purposes - therefore, they believe that they share some culpability here in the event.
I’m getting a little sick of your condescension toward anyone who disagrees with you.
We agree that it was an unlucky bounce, but the fact remains the ball went into the water. The consequences of that situation apply equally to everyone, and shouldn’t be viewed as part of the punishment for the separate rules violation.
The Masters is just a game. Woods, or the event, is not the issue to me at all, which is where I am different here. To me, this is a celebration of bureaucratic exercise over common sense and liberty. A free society MUST HAVE RULES - but it is not free unless the RULES ARE MINIMAL and only enforced such that they speak to the essence of the activity. Any rule that is beyond the essence of the activity is by definition bureaucratic control of ones life. Thses faux conservatives on FR who suddenly love "the rules are the rules" are ignoring how this will, or can, be applied to their life. Forget golf for just a moment...golf is merely the medium for this very critical discussion.
The scorecard signing ritual was at one time the very essence of golf, a sport played in lonely confines and one that required the utmost honor. It is no longer that at all. The signing is now just a ritual. And if golf wants to keep it in the sport to honor the tradition, that is great, but it is way beyond needing a total DQ for a mistake on this. To me, this has nothing to do with Woods, or even golf. This is about the slip sliding of our culture, even among conservatives, into an acceptance of rules for rules sake. Rules for rules sake is merely another term for tyranny. This is just like giving up your 3.2 ounce shampoo bottle at the airport - a rule that accomplishes nothing except giving a non participant power over a participant....and that is rarely a good thing in any walk of life.
Once again, the Rules Committee said that a DQ was not possible because THEY MADE A RULING DURING THE ROUND THAT THERE WAS NO RULES VIOLATION. Not because he didn’t know the rule. They explicitly said that if he didn’t know the rule that would not protect him. Because they made a ruling DURING THE ROUND then, according to everyone involved, he could not have signed an incorrect scorecard. Furthermore, if they had made the correct ruling during the round he would have received the exact same penalty he received. A two stroke penalty under 20-5 hitting a ball from the wrong spot.
When did I say I was in favor of the max penalty assessment in all situations? I clearly said I would have been OK with either outcome -they exercised the discretion allowed under the new rule. People are free to agree or disagree with that decision.
I was simply pointing out that I found your arguments to be unconvincing.
Actually, the condescension is only towards absurd arguments or willful misinterpretation of what I am saying - I’ve had many very polite debates on this thread. You willfully misinterpreted my stroke analysis - either that, or you don’t understand the game. In other words, if a football team loses an 80 yard touchdown due to a 5 yard penalty, it is a 5 yard penalty GROSS, but it is an 85 yard, 7 point, penalty net. That was my point on the four stroke net penalty, and it was rather obvious in context. The same analogy can be made for any penalty in sports, government, lawsuits, etc...there is a fine and there is a net cost....and actually, both are worth contemplating.
Look up the word “implication” or “implied” - and then read 134....
Actually, all of those 3 points support the conclusion that was reached...maybe not any single one by itself, but they do all point to reasonable mitigation.
That is what I have not understood.
I did not know that you could take a couple steps and drop it there. I have only played a little golf but I thought you had to stand in the same spot.
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.