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
Poor analogy. This is golf, with it’s own rules. Every player is obliged to know those rules. If he is unsure he can always consult a rules official, which is done quite often. Tiger chose not to, and took the liberty of improving his situation by an incorrect ball drop. He admits all of this in his post round interview.
Yup, you are right.
Under Rule 26-1, Woods had three options at the yellow-staked (not lateral) hazard, which is a pond that fronts the green:
He could have played from a designated drop area, which he chose not to do because he did not like the lie.
He could drop the ball, keeping the point where it last crossed the margin of the water between the hole and the spot on which the ball would be dropped. Since the ball entered the water well left of Woods’ position from the fairway, Woods did not choose this option which would have allowed him to drop on a straight line as far back as he wanted.
Or, he could return to the original spot from which he played, and drop “as nearly as possible,’’ from where he played the third shot.
No, I never make poor analogies. I make a ton of mistakes, but sorry ,anlaogies are just not among them. Mine is totally pure here, and actually, your retort PROVES it - though I doubt you’ll get it.
Because a lot of golf's rules are antiquated, and in deference to the tradition of the game, they softened some of these absurd (now) rules but did not remove them totally. The scorecard rule is the main one affected.
“But he was under the impression that the rules committee had okayed his drop interpretation.”
I think you are wrong about that, they determined there was no violation but did not tell Tiger (because it was a non-issue). So he did not rely on the rules committee when he signed his card.
“He though the ruling was that his drop was okay when he signed the card.”
No, he did not know about the ruling when he signed his card.
1: The drop, as seen by the rules commitee after the fact; one could easily imagine that the player, having hit his ball into the hazard, looked at the three options available and decided to return to the spot from which the original stroke was taken. Without the player having left a marker (tee etc.), the rules officials made the correct decision that the player made his best effort to drop his ball as close as possible to where the original stroke was taken; and the replay did not prove otherwise.
After all, there may have been multiple divots in the approximate area and the rules committee would assume that a professional player would make the best effort to hit from the same spot. No infraction, no additional penalty
2) The player, after having looked at the 3 options available, decided to drop from the same spot that the original shot was taken and then decided that he could move further back on the same line using the available remedy in what would be option 2(in a line where the ball last crossed the hazard no lcoser to the hole etc.); thereby confusing two options.
Now let's examine option 2, what really happened, if we change one little fact. Put the original lie 2' - 3' down the edge of a downslope on the fairway. Moving back 3' puts replay on a flat area. For the average golfer, that 3' back is the difference between a low screamer and an easy lob. Not so much for a professional, but we all play under the same rules. Moving the ball in the imaginary case I have described is a reason for a DQ.
Had Tiger kept his mouth shut and said he played from where he thought his shot was, then the committee's decision would seem prescient. However, moving the drop spot to improve your chance of making a good shot is a violation of the rules that any professional player or caddy should never allow.
Frankly, when I got in last night and saw the interview, I was shocked that the number one player in the world thought he could improve his lie on a penalty shot, because that's exactly what he did, no question about it. The rules committee made an awful ruling after they knew about the violation. They sould have asked him to withdraw and if he declined, then DQ'd him (and sent him back to Q school to learn the rules)
“As for the scorecard rule in the first place, its outdated and no longer necessary.” - CEW
But the rule is still there. I happen to disagree - not nearly all USGA events are fully spectated or televised.
On 33 - I see that the rules committee has leeway now, but I’m not a fan of this judgement. The player has a responsibility to know his score, and record it properly. If there is any question in the players mind if he is following the rules there are 2 possibilities - ask for a ruling on the spot, or play an additional ball. Woods failed to comply with rule 26 - his fault. He played from a wrong place - his fault. He signed a card with a lower score than he actually incurred including penalties - his fault. (my thoughts)
Side note - I know a USGA rules official. They said the there should not have been a DQ (he concurs with you), but that Woods should have withdrawn at that point. (citing boon ruling)
Enjoy the golf...
yeah...kinda like the 1st and 2nd Amendment..../s
Compare what? The officials, after reviewing the drop on the 15th hole, saw no problem nor penalty. If they had, they would have confronted Woods and he would then have changed his scorecard to reflect the additional 2 stroke penalty, signed it and turned it in.......End of problem!
So to demand that Woods DQ himself for a decision by the tournament rules committee that allowed him to sign a bad scorecard is absolutely ridiculous!
After all was said and done, Woods ended up with the 2 stroke penalty that he deserved............Why do you have a problem with that?
cute - not at all relevant, but cute.
A case can be made for Woods withdrawing I suppose, but as your USGA friend said, the case for DQ is not there. I don’t think Jack would have withdrawn, certainly not Sam Snead or Player either. And sure has heck not Trevino.
Because certain Freeprs hate Wood more than they like logic.
How about posting some of the tweets or twitters from the PGA members who support Woods?
I disagree, but I appreciate your well thought out analysis. I think, however, you are confusing illegally improving ones lie with the notion that every golfer on the planet owes it to himself and his competitors to get as good a drop as possible on any drop situation. And as you demonstrated, there are myriad of rules regarding his three options of drop areas.
You've now personalized this which is a clear example of argument fail...............
Try sticking to the statement from the rules committee and the facts.............
Which supports my case....was he to assume, to “divine” a penatly ruling?
The case for a DQ is absolutely there. The committee used rule 33 to make an exception for to a mandatory DQ.
It was clearly a judgement call. It was within the rules to make an exception for Tiger in this case, but absolutely not mandatory.
What you say is technically correct, but you miss one big point about rule 33; it was made for precisely this situation. Therefore, it compelled the committee to use the rule when the very situation it was designed for comes up, even though, as you say, technically a DQ was avalable too.
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.