OK golfers. Should Woods be disqualified for the drop ?
- Thread starter thatsbaseball
- Start date
Just watching now and the rule seems to actually contradict itself. Gonna be interesting and cast a shadow over the tournament either way.
I'm not sure. I know he said in the post-round interview that he had 87 yards and dropped a couple yards behind that. I was wondering if that was legal according to the rules, but decided I didn't know. And the announcer (might have been Feherety) didn't know either ... he got the options mixed up when he was discussing red and yellow markings, then corrected himself (I think).
Is the drop a point of contention this morning? I don't even know if he'd be disqualified or assessed a penalty if the drop was incorrect. But the rule, whatever it is, should be enforced, just like the slow play rule was enforced on the Chinese kid.
Is the drop a point of contention this morning? I don't even know if he'd be disqualified or assessed a penalty if the drop was incorrect. But the rule, whatever it is, should be enforced, just like the slow play rule was enforced on the Chinese kid.
If it gave him an unfair advantage or he turned in an incorrect score, yes. I really don't see how it did either. I saw another golfer do the same thing on the same hole earlier and there is no talk about that one.
From what I saw he took the drop behind his original divot, which to me means he is not getting any advantage. Golf has some strange rules. Even if they don't disqualify him it will probably throw his game off and make a lot of folks happy.
From what I saw he took the drop behind his original divot, which to me means he is not getting any advantage. Golf has some strange rules. Even if they don't disqualify him it will probably throw his game off and make a lot of folks happy.
Irony.
When asked about Guan's penalty after his round Friday, Woods issued what could be a prophetic statement. He said the decision to penalize Guan was "unfortunate," but "rules are rules."
When asked about Guan's penalty after his round Friday, Woods issued what could be a prophetic statement. He said the decision to penalize Guan was "unfortunate," but "rules are rules."
Not sure what will be done on this one.
He had a choice of three places to drop. His choice was to are to drop a ball as close as "possible" from where he played his last shot and count it as a stroke.
There is no defined distance or line of sight etc..
He stated in the interview afterward that he dropped the ball a couple yards behind his last shot. That is not as close as possible but when he I see the shot on TV, it's not that far away but there is a angle on the camera. It could have been closer, so is it not as close as possible? Maybe not, but he did follow the spirit of the rule and there is no defined distance.
Problem, he did not call a rules official over to approve the drop because he assumed he knew what to do there and didn't want to wait. That would take time and all the slow play was already getting frustrating.
I would have a hard time disqualifying him over this because he gained no advantage but more importantly, there is no defined distance in the rule. Whose opinion do you follow if that was dropped as close as possible to the last shot. A few feet seems plausible to me but is it plausible to everyone? I don't know. No defined distance? Then you have to let him pass in my opinion.
He had a choice of three places to drop. His choice was to are to drop a ball as close as "possible" from where he played his last shot and count it as a stroke.
There is no defined distance or line of sight etc..
He stated in the interview afterward that he dropped the ball a couple yards behind his last shot. That is not as close as possible but when he I see the shot on TV, it's not that far away but there is a angle on the camera. It could have been closer, so is it not as close as possible? Maybe not, but he did follow the spirit of the rule and there is no defined distance.
Problem, he did not call a rules official over to approve the drop because he assumed he knew what to do there and didn't want to wait. That would take time and all the slow play was already getting frustrating.
I would have a hard time disqualifying him over this because he gained no advantage but more importantly, there is no defined distance in the rule. Whose opinion do you follow if that was dropped as close as possible to the last shot. A few feet seems plausible to me but is it plausible to everyone? I don't know. No defined distance? Then you have to let him pass in my opinion.
Last edited:
He should've called in a rules official, but he didn't. Seems to me like he should be assessed a penalty ... it's clearly (to me) that he violated the drop rule.
Who was the other player? Furyk? His should be reviewed too, if for no other reason to be equitable. If he did it, then he should get a penalty too.
Best answer yet. He should have called in a rules official before he took his drop.
I still don't see how he gained any advantage, but like he said - rules are rules and he gets a two shot penalty.
I still don't see how he gained any advantage, but like he said - rules are rules and he gets a two shot penalty.
2 yards is clearly not close as possible. If he did drop 2 yards back, it was an illegal drop. He took away the possibility of rolling back into the divot. He signed an incorrect scorecard. He should be disqualified. The Masters just decided a 2 stroke penalty only.
The rule was changed in 2012 for a situation just like this where if the player made such a mistake it would not DQ them.
Now you have to wonder what if this had happened to some no name player 8 strokes back who meant absolute nothing to TV ratings.... if the same ruling would have been made.
Didnt know that, thanks. Good rule in my opinion. I never did like the old rule, thought it was a bit harsh. I remember years ago Craig Stadler was DQ'd in some tourney for signing an incorrect score card. He had placed a towel down on the ground because he had to get on his knees to hit a ball from under a tree. That constituted "improving his lie", and he didnt assess himself a stroke penalty. Would've won the tourney.
I agree with what they have done.
I think several rules of Golf are overboard.
I will say that Tiger has taken a liberty of two, Like having fans help him move a 750 lb. boulder, and call it a lose impediment.
Carry on.
I think several rules of Golf are overboard.
I will say that Tiger has taken a liberty of two, Like having fans help him move a 750 lb. boulder, and call it a lose impediment.
Carry on.
This decision is 100% due to the player involved. Just like when they allowed the fans to move a boulder for him. The ruling then was the boulder was not imbedded. Nick Faldo says he should be DQ.
Rules are rules. The golf world is nutsy. It is the only sport where
there is a legion of rules nuts who will watch yesterday's play and look it over and over again for someone breaking a rule... somewhere, anywhere and get someone penalized the day AFTER the play. Could you imagine the shitstorm if football, basketball or baseball was like this and a game could be changed the next day because they missed a holding penalty?
there is a legion of rules nuts who will watch yesterday's play and look it over and over again for someone breaking a rule... somewhere, anywhere and get someone penalized the day AFTER the play. Could you imagine the shitstorm if football, basketball or baseball was like this and a game could be changed the next day because they missed a holding penalty?
They just spent 20 minutes on SC explaining it. And Rinaldi just read the rule out, WHICH WAS AMENDED IN 2012, that in short "if the player unknowingly(determined by the officials) broke a rule then signs the card, the amendment holds the right to waive the DQ rule".
Except Woods knew he was violating the rule. He said he was dropping it 2 yards back. It would be different if, for example, he saw a different divot close to where he played and thought that was where he was.
But hasn`t "knowing the rules" always been a cornerstone of the game of golf itself. This really does smell like a Mike Slive type ruling to me.
In Tiger's own explanation, he said he chose to drop where he did FOR an advantage. He said he dropped 2 yards back, so that he could hit the same shot and have it (ideally) land 2 yards short, instead of on the pin. Faldo and another talking head are pretty adamant that he should DQ himself due the fact that he intentionally gave himself an advantage, even if he didn't know that was wrong.
Last edited:
Yeah, now I admit that's where the grey area is because it says it has to be "close as possible" or something to that effect. But I guess it's the rules official call to interpret whether he knew or not. Regardless, a 2 stroke penalty is very severe, so the punishment I believe fits the crime by what the rules say now.
And for the record there are way to many of these ridiculous rules.
And for the record there are way to many of these ridiculous rules.
No, no, no... obviously the golfing rules committee knew Tiger would do this last year and made the rule just for him.
I am watching Golf Channel and they are almost 100% for DQ. Tiger intentionally dropped illegally and gained an advantage. The drop rule is common and well known to pro golfers
I am pulling for Fred Couples but I would love to see Tiger win now.
Just to read the page long hatefest that would ensue here on this board of golf purists.
Just to read the page long hatefest that would ensue here on this board of golf purists.
This is the interesting point
He states clearly in the interview what he was doing and why. He did not say "I dropped as close as possible to my divot to stay within the rules."
The rules change last year appears to be terrible. Knowing the rules is a major part of the sport regardless if they have too many rules.
He states clearly in the interview what he was doing and why. He did not say "I dropped as close as possible to my divot to stay within the rules."
The rules change last year appears to be terrible. Knowing the rules is a major part of the sport regardless if they have too many rules.
I don't think Furyk's ball ever made it across the water
so, where it entered the hazard, was his line up point. He could take that point, line up with the pin, and go as far back as he wanted.
Basically on the same line.
Tigers shot entered the hazard from an entirely differnt angle.
so, where it entered the hazard, was his line up point. He could take that point, line up with the pin, and go as far back as he wanted.
Basically on the same line.
Tigers shot entered the hazard from an entirely differnt angle.
Hunter Mahan said it best. If you think 2 stroke penalty was right then you are not wrong. If you think DQ is right then you are not wrong.