I'd like to hear what Dr Rice has to say about this...
but we'll probably only hear from Bob Costas.
Posted on 04/12/2013 11:09:13 PM PDT by FlJoePa
Did Tiger Woods' actions after he drenched his third shot on No. 15 Friday at Augusta result in him signing an incorrect scorecard, which would result in his automatic disqualification from the Masters?
There was no definitive answer and a lot of speculation late Friday. So, while a conclusion has yet to be reached, let's walk through the events in question.
After his round Woods said about his shot into the water on No. 15:
"I went down to the drop area, that wasn't going to be a good spot, because obviously it's into the grain and it was a little bit wet."
“So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards farther back and I tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit."
Two yards farther back.
Woods had just dunked his third shot in the water in front of the green, walked to the edge of the water, walked back to the spot where he hit the shot, and dropped his ball two yards behind the original shot.
He then hit that shot (his fifth) 3 feet from the pin and tapped in for bogey.
So why might he be disqualified?
It has to do with the drop, per USGA rule 26-1:
It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke:
a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or
b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or
Woods apparently didn't choose "a" because two yards (as he said in his post-round interview) isn't "as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played." Although I admit "as nearly as possible" is incredibly vague so I suppose this is still an option for what Woods did.
And the second choice "b" is in question as well (there is a "c" but it doesn't apply here).
According to this explanation by the USGA regarding "b," when a player's ball crosses a hazard three times (which Woods' did -- the front of the water, the back of the water, and the roll into the water after the ball careened off the pin) this is how the drop is supposed to play out:
If a ball last crossed the margin of a water hazard as described in the situation above, it appears that the ball crossed the margin of the hazard three times (e.g., first, the initial time it crossed; second, when it crossed over the hazard onto land; and third, when the ball rolled back into the hazard). So when the Rule states that the ball must be dropped “keeping the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is to be dropped,” it is referring to the third (final) time. It is the reference point for the 26-1b option only.
Did Woods keep the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard "directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball was dropped?" It's hard to tell. It looked on TV like the ball shot off to the left, not between where Woods dropped and the hole.
If Woods played an incorrect ball, according to rule 20-7 he should be penalized 2 strokes and would have, theoretically, incorrectly signed his scorecard -- an automatic disqualification.
Whether Woods did anything wrong has sparked enough chatter about his possible disqualification to make us get very familiar with this portion of the rule book.
You’ve easy made your point !!!
April 13, 2013 - 10:40 am
By Chris Gay | Staff WriterAugusta National Golf Club's statement from Fred Ridley, chairman of the competition committees, on Tiger Woods this morning:
"Yesterday afternoon, the Rules Committee was made aware of a possible Rules violation that involved a drop by Tiger Woods on the 15th hole.
"In preparation for his fifth shot, the player dropped his ball in close proximity to where he had played his third shot in apparent conformance with Rule 26. After being prompted by a television viewer, the Rules Committee reviewed a video of the shot while he was playing the 18th hole. At that moment and based on that evidence, the Committee determined he had complied with the Rules.
"After he signed his scorecard, and in a television interview subsequent to the round, the player stated that he played further from the point than where he had played his third shot. Such action would constitute playing from the wrong place.
"The subsequent information provided by the player's interview after he had completed play warranted further review and discussion with him this morning. After meeting with the player, it was determined that he had violated Rule 26, and he was assessed a two stroke penalty. The penalty of disqualification was waived by the Committee under Rule 33 as the Committee had previously reviewed the information and made its initial determination prior to the finish of the player's round."
Woods needs to appeal this decision as a violation of his 5th Amendment rights that protect him against double jeopardy and being a witness against himself. Did anyone before that post match interview read him his rights???
Then Tiger signed his scorecard.
Officials said he was allowed to stay in the tournament under a new rule that keeps players from being disqualified based on television evidence.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/woods-penalty-drop-under-review-124339119—golf.html
Tis statement provides a lot of information that people are ignoring. I originally thought he should be DQ’d but after reading the statement it’s clear they made he right decision and applied the rules properly. Tiger was saved by the “HD Replay” rule.
Exactly. This nullifies the “incorrect scorecard” rule and brings the HD Replay rule into effect.
No way. He’s worth too much to the fortunes of the PGA.
No question this would be the right thing to do.
I think the 2 stroke penalty is fair - that is what he would have gotten if they told him at 18 that he had incurred a penalty. He would have then dropped the 2 strokes from his score and signed for the -1.
By not disqualifying himself, Woods has chosen money and self-interest over honor and integrity (both of which he is in desperate need of)
But then done in by the "post-match television interview" rule.
Right. The rules committee told him after he got off 18 that they reviewed his drop and it was legal.
************
Where are you getting that info. No where have I seen they talked to him after the round and before his signing his card. The committee reviewed the tapes while Woods was playing the 18th and made a decision everything was okay and that didn’t require meeting with Woods.
It was only after turning in the scorecard and while in his interview with the media that he indicated he dropped some two yards behind his original lie. After hearing that the rules committee began another review and met with Woods this morning.
Or that is my understanding.
sounds like Woods definitely dropped too far back
(not trying to break the rules just doing the wrong thing)
but the committee reviewed video evidence before he finished and decided the drop was “eh, close enough”.
but then they hear him describe his intent on TV
and at this point the assess a penalty?
so he’s getting punished for TRYING to violate a rule that the committee already decided he didn’t violate.
I'd like to hear what Dr Rice has to say about this...
but we'll probably only hear from Bob Costas.
In preparation for his fifth shot, the player dropped his ball in close proximity to where he had played his third shot in apparent conformance with Rule 26. After being prompted by a television viewer, the Rules Committee reviewed a video of the shot while he was playing the 18th hole. At that moment and based on that evidence, the Committee determined he had complied with the Rules.
After he signed his scorecard, and in a television interview subsequent to the round, the player stated that he played farther from the point than where he had played his third shot. Such action would constitute playing from the wrong place.
On the other hand if they or Tiger thought it was illegal he would have not signed the scorecard.
Just my opinion of course.
"Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played."
Since the nearest possible place in all cases is the divot left by the previous shot, how many golfers then go back, drop the ball in the divot and play it form there???
No where have I seen they met or talked to Woods after he got off 18. In fact Woods says they met this morning not yesterday.
Seriesly, Woods would do well to DQ himself and honor the Rule of Golf. Be a leader, Tiger, not an obamaroid (the rules aren't for me but for thee).
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.