Skip to comments.Woods Penalized but Can Still Play
Posted on 04/13/2013 10:20:07 AM PDT by Perdogg
click here to read article
Hazard drops vary by course. On 15 at Augusta, you can A: drop in a drop zone that is pre marked, and you have wide latitude on where in that zone you can drop, but no closer to the hole than the forward drop line. B: drop in a line where the ball entered the hazard, but no closer to the hole, or C: from the area where you hit the original shot, but no closer to the hole. As you can see, the one common element is “no closer to the hole.” Woods did not do that. Nor did he “improve his lie” by moving from rough to fairway. He was in the fairway to begin with. This rule is an art, not a science.
It’s not a hard break of a fast rule - it’s more like he pushed the limits of it a tad because he wanted a slightly longer shot. It deserves a penalty, but the rule is not so clear cut and the violation not so clear cut as to deserve DQ.
Because the rules forbidding grounding your club in a hazard are so well-known and clearcut I suspect there would be a DQ. I think what the committee is really saying in this case is that the particular rule that was broken is a bit legalistic and as a result they're willing to give a competitor a pass if they followed the intent rather than the letter of the law. Okay by me, but it feels like more of an emotion-based rather than logic-based decision.
Very interesting thoughts, and I think sums up what is important about this debate way above and beyond Woods, golf, or sports. I totally agree with your assessment that the intent of the law was followed. What confuses me is that you consider this an "emotional" decision - whereas I believe that intent being followed over the letter is actually the essence of "logic." Following the letter of the law, when the letter abuses the intent of the law, is by definition tyranny.
There is another factor here too. The "authorities" - the Masters - have decided not to have rules stewards following each group the way some tournaments do. So they are in a way acknowleding their part in the malfeasance being committed, and conclude, in a perfectly logical way, that the most severe penalty possible is not within the intent or spirit of the game in such a situation.
You can repeat it until the cows come home but you are wrong. In some drop situations you can go back as far as you want to, but not when you are replaying the shot from the original position. Golfers often have to play from their divot in these situations. Why would they risk that if they could go back 2 yards?
Let me guess, you are not a golfer, right?
that is absurd, and patently not true. You are NEVER required to drop your ball into your divot, or anyone elses. It may happen on a given drop, but is NEVER required. Players always try for a favorable drop...as they should. You are always given some latitude in a drop situation.
Besides, you miss the point: the penalty for improper drop WAS applied, after his round, two shots. So he did pay that price.
Hope this helps:
“The divot hole precisely marks the spot from which he played his previous stroke, so he must try to drop the ball where it first struck the ground as near as possible to the divot hole.”
I don’t think Tiger “cheated” - he just made a mistake.
Two club lengths is the standard. No one, and I mean NO ONE, in a pro tournament, has EVER dropped their ball back into their divot. Puh leeze.
And besides, he was penalized two shots for this infraction. If you think he tried to “sneak one in” in front of 100 million viewers, please send me your banking info so Ican wire you money from my dead uncle’s nigerian account.
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.