Posted on 09/13/2013 4:58:18 PM PDT by FlJoePa
The penalty was applied in response to Tiger's remarks. The drops are observed by officials in the first place, and no infraction was noted. It would seem then that they took Tiger at his word that he had dropped illegally, and it is a mere footnote that ex post facto analysis showed that he hadn't actually done so.
After watching the video, I agree that it was a close call and that the position of the ball was not improved. As was said earlier, the ball just seemed to rotate about a quarter inch (at most!) without actually moving to another spot. But I don’t think the rule says that ball can move just a little with no penalty. I think it’s either it does move or it doesn’t move, and how much doesn’t matter.
The Nike swoosh on tigers golf ball clearly changed position and stayed in the changed position.
I believe oscillation means the ball returns to its original position.
The golf ball changed position.
I think Woods is a cheat on so many levels.
He’s def not the same player since the PGA started drug testing.
Nothing ever takes away a 59 by a 43 y/o, or from any of the six guys that have done it on the tour.
Later on it was found out that a former rules official saw the bad drop on TV and called a rules official he knew at the Masters. It wasn't just Tiger's comment.
Watching the video again and reading up on the USGA rules in more depth, yea the ball moved (I would say a lot less than a ¼ inch FWIW) but it did move, if only ever so slightly. But I will still say that didn’t change position relative to the original lie. But, yes, technically it moved so he should have assessed himself a one stroke penalty.
But my point was that contrary to what was described in the first posts and from the article, one might have thought the ball rolled several inches or even feet closer to the hole. The ball didn’t move when he removed the twig behind the ball and he only tried to remove the twig in front but stopped as soon as the ball ever so slightly moved. Then he played it as lied. If he had never touched the twig in front, it would have IMO made no difference as he ended up not removing the twig and the ball was in the same exact position relative to the hole as it was before. Yes, technically the ball moved. But if anything, the ball sank a bit lower, so his action had the opposite effect of improving the lie. That might not be in the spirit or strict interpretation of the rules but I can see why perhaps he thought the very, ever so slight movement wasn’t an issue. And I bet that Tiger isn’t the only golfer, professional or amateur to get away or try to get away with this sort of thing when it is, as you said, a very close call. But yes, I think he should have done the right thing.
Golf is supposed to be a gentlemen’s or in my case a “gentlewoman’s” sport.
Once I was playing in a match play tournament and my ball was in a bunker, a very playable lie and I was shooting for a possible birdie or par on a par 3. I lined up my shot and took a few practice swings, well above the sand and then waggled my wedge over and behind the ball. But on the last waggle, I got very close to the sand and might have brushed the sand behind the ball. And I say “might” have - I wasn’t sure, it didn’t feel like I made contact, certainly not hard contact but then I saw some sand move so I stood back and announced to my playing partners and opposing team that I had “grounded my club” and was taking a two stroke penalty. My playing partners wanted to kill me as we were up two strokes in match play. Even one of the women in the foursome we were playing against said that she didn’t’ think I grounded but in my opinion and since I wasn’t sure and her playing partners all agreed that I did, I took the penalty. My team lost by one stroke and I paid the price for my honesty and integrity because none of my foursome nor anyone in my league wanted me on their team again after that.
FWIW, I much preferred playing golf with men rather than women. The women I played with were a lot more cut throat and competitive and were very quick to pull out the rules book and contest and argue any and everything they could to gain an advantage. I like playing golf and I follow the rules but then I’m also not competing professionally and I’m trying to have fun. And getting into long and heated arguments over very minor rules infractions and losing friends over it is not my idea of having fun.
But then again those in the PGA or LPGA are not playing for the fun of it. I know this because I was a volunteer marshal at several LPGA tournaments.
Here is an extensive description of the affair, which I will not question. It does not mention the analysis that I recall being described which determined the location of the drop. It does say that the original observer that reported the infraction thought that the original divot was "maybe three or four feet in front" of his drop. This was reported and an official reviewed it. As per the link:
At 7:30 p.m., 10 minutes after Woods completed his round, Ridley responded by text to Bradley. Regarding Eger's estimate of three to four feet, Ridley wrote that Woods "was closer than that." To look at it closer, he wrote, would be "splitting hairs." Ridley determined that Woods had done nothing wrong, so there was no point in asking him about the drop.
Then came Tiger's interview comments. So it remains true that it was his own statements that caused the penalty and the threat of disqualification to be incurred.
From that article it looks like Tiger did himself in, even if Eger had never called. It also looks like a Ridley was willing to let Tiger break the rule.
Tiger is such a Cheetah....in all ways.
“And one of Tigers balls just oscillated.”
Which caused a tingle up his leg.
Now — we are starting to get the complete picture.
You “play” golf and that’s the operative word. Get a life go play golf
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.