OK golfers. Should Woods be disqualified for the drop ?

[Dawgzilla]

Tiger should disqualify himself at this point....

I am a Tiger fan, and I have a little money bet on him winning this tournament. But if he wins after all of this, the controversy will never ever go away. It will be bad for Tiger, bad for The Masters, and bad for golf. And, since winning is no longer a desirable outcome for him, he should just disqualify himself and walk away the bigger man.

Now, he is well within his rights to go along with the committee ruling and and proceed. In most sports that's what we do; even if a player knows an official blew the call in his favor, you just go along with it.

But golf is different. Tiger clearly broke the rule. I don't think he intentionally broke the rule, but he got confused. He admitted that he broke the rule in order to gain an advantage on his next stroke. I really think he should thank the committee for giving him the opportunity to continue, but just state that its better for everyone if he withdraws.

 

[GTAdawg]

Ha, very good, debate over**

 

[jcdawgman18]

If he wins, there should not be controversy.

If the guy overcomes a four stroke swing on that hole, it should just be impressive, not tainted.

 

[DerHntr]

I'm pulling for Couples as well

As for the golf purists comment, I don't exactly understand how you could like the idea of professional golf not being about the integrity of knowing and staying within the rules. It is the one major difference in the sport from all others. Golfers are expected to govern themselves when no one else is looking. In other many sports it is common to say that you aren't cheating if you don't get caught. You end up with blood doping, steroids, loaded bats, listening in on other coaches head sets, scuffing baseballs, etc.

 

[WhatkindofnameisRFAA?]

I do not think so.

Maybe by the letter of the law he should be but you would have to determine if he intentionally gave himself an advantage and then turned in the scorecard.

He chose not to drop behind the water due to the conditions.

"I went down to the drop area," he said. "That wasn't going to be a good spot, because obviously it's into the grain, it's really grainy there. And it was a little bit wet. So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop."

That is perfectly understandable.

"So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards further back and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit. And that should land me short of the flag and not have it either hit the flag or skip over the back."

The problem is he can't go two yards back from that spot. Had he gone to the drop zone he spoke of in the first sentence, he could have dropped two yards back as long as he was moving away from the hole. Rule 26.1b

He intentionally dropped further back from his original spot. This, to me, means he probably had in mind the option of moving away from the hole but used that in the wrong situation. If he was wanting an real advantage, and was doing so maliciously, he could have dropped two yards to the left or right and called the "as close as possible to the original spot" without being closer to the hole.

I don't think he should be disqualified for "knowingly turning in an incorrect card" because I believe he thought he played it correctly and was turning in a legit scorecard.

Either way, this isn't good for golf. Certainly not after allowing a hardass official to use the rarely called "slow play" rule against a 14 year old who was really no slower than his counterparts. Dan Wetzel had a good article on yahoo explaining why he felt the penalty on Guan was wrong.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--...e-wrong-end-of-a-horrible-call-013057823.html

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Yes, golf is largely based on its rules to keep things fair. I'm just a little fuzzy how dropping further back on the same line is an advantage. If he had changed the angle, then yes he changed the shot for the better. They have showed both divots on ESPN and you can clearly see they are on the same line to the flag.

Tiger's biggest mistake was not calling over a rules official.

My beef is hanging the guy for a television viewer catching this. There was no uproar on here yesterday for the drop. Only after one of these purists watched it over and over and found the foul was this a story. Guys like Tiger have every shot televised. Every step... every breath. How many other rules were bent by other guys that don't have every moved televised and dissected.

If we are going to penalize someone, make it when they make the infraction. To me it is ridiculous to penalize someone the next day when you didn't catch it the first time.

 

[Arnold Babar.sixpack]

Yeah, could also imagine if a player in another sport actually called a penalty on their self? That's what golf expects of it's participants. That's what differentiates golf from any other sport. Say what you want to about the penalty yesterday. Say what you want about the one shot penalty on the young kid as well. They could have called that penalty on 50 guys yesterday. I will say this, guys like Brandle Chamblee and Nick Faldo are saying some stupid ****. "This will cast a shadow over his whole career". Get a 17ing grip Brandle. You're whole career has a shadow of suck over it, that's why your in a chair calling people out. If he knew he was breaking a rule he wouldnt have asked Martin Kaymer about the drop before he dropped it. This is actually not even an issue if Tiger doesn't mentioned it in his interview after the round.

 

[TheBigDA]

Tiger is not going to win anyway. He never comes from behind/out of the field to win. This is why he will never be one of the greats to me.

 

[DerHntr]

They ruled on this prior to him finishing his round

I'd say that golf purist caught it without much need to review over and over.

Plus he did improve his lie. By being further back he was on a flatter surface.

I think he should have called an official over as well.

The officials really screwed up yesterday by assuming he had dropped as close as possible to the original spot. They should have asked him prior to him signing his card. They were looking at it while he was playing and had time. I can see that as Tiger's only real argument here. But it isn't a very good one because he is still supposed to know the rules or call an official over.

 

[Dawg1976]

It will never be looked on that way. A big * will always be by his name. This ruling simply does not pass the smell test. If anyone else had done this, they would have been DQ'ed.

I hope for his sake, he w/d.

 

[tldawg85]

I think it's certainly debatable whether or not he is the greatest golfer of all time, but I have a hard time thinking anyone who is looking at it objectively can say he is not one of​ the greatest.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

He did something that didn't give him an advantage

I don't see any "smell test" issue. If he wins despite a 2 stroke penalty after something that gave him no advantage, that's even more impressive - like he was playing with a handicap.

 

[DerHntr]

The advantage is by being further back and

taking the same swing, he doesn't hit the flag again.

Yes, I know it is far fetched to think it would happen twice, but that is likely the purpose of dropping as close as possible.

 

[olblue.sixpack]

Tiger should disqualify himself at this point....

I am a Tiger fan, and I have a little money bet on him winning this tournament. But if he wins after all of this, the controversy will never ever go away. It will be bad for Tiger, bad for The Masters, and bad for golf. And, since winning is no longer a desirable outcome for him, he should just disqualify himself and walk away the bigger man.

Now, he is well within his rights to go along with the committee ruling and and proceed. In most sports that's what we do; even if a player knows an official blew the call in his favor, you just go along with it.

But golf is different. Tiger clearly broke the rule. I don't think he intentionally broke the rule, but he got confused. He admitted that he broke the rule in order to gain an advantage on his next stroke. I really think he should thank the committee for giving him the opportunity to continue, but just state that its better for everyone if he withdraws.

I am an avid golfer who would lose interest quickly if TW was not involved in a major. I'm not alone and CBS and the PGA is well aware.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

The officials really screwed up yesterday by assuming he had dropped as close as possible to the original spot. They should have asked him prior to him signing his card. They were looking at it while he was playing and had time. I can see that as Tiger's only real argument here. But it isn't a very good one because he is still supposed to know the rules or call an official over.

This pretty much covers it in a nutshell. He should have asked and they should have asked before he signed his card.

For me the two stroke penalty is fair. With all of the hoopla I would think his chances of winning are remote and were before this all came up.

 

[Shmuley]

This. The PGA and CBS are the winners. The folks that like him are happy and watching. The people that hate him are pissed and watching.

 

[DerHntr]

Yep. Both are at fault. I am still surprised they ruled that two wrongs make a right. Very weird.

 

[RocketDawg]

Well, yes it did give him advantage, at least in his own mind. He said so himself ... he moved it 2 yards back, then swung for 2 yards less (to get the first hop, then stop). So unless he thought it was advantage, he wouldn't have moved it back the 2 yards. That said, he didn't intentionally go for an unfair advantage, so I'm OK with the 2 stroke penalty. And that said further ... they should go back and check the drop locations of all other golfers who hit it in the water and make sure their drops were within the rules.

He really should have called a rules official. You'd think he would have learned his lesson in Dubai. Remember when Dustin Johnson grounded his club at Whistling Straits a few years ago? He was in a sand area and did not realize it. But it cost him the tournament, which I think was either the PGA or the US Open.

 

[Dawgzilla]

Sure, no controversy. A guy who should have been DQ'ed winds up winning the tournament. No one will ever mention it again.

 

[goindhoo]

So how close must you drop it to original shot? 1,2, or 3 feet? He was 3-4 feet from original position. Players drop balls in more advantageous spots all the time. They can back up to any yardage they feel comfortable. So why when dropping as near as possible to original position can you not drop a few feet to the left or right or back that is better than original spot. He certainly doesn't want to risk dropping it in his diviot. No penalty should have been given. And if so, then make your ruling and stick with it. Dont change based on a post round interview.

 

[skb124]

Based on the rules, he should be disqualified. That rule is an awful rule, but it is still there.

They do have the new rule, "However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred."

But, Tiger doesn't apply to that rule because: "A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the competitor's failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the competitor could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card."

So, either Tiger cheated and dropped his ball for an unfair advantage (which I don't think happened), or Tiger confused the rules and thus had an "ignorance of the rules" (which I suspect happened). Either way he should be dq'd in that case because he signed the card without assessing the penalty.

 

[Dawgzilla]

It is subjective, but he clearly violated the rule. He did not want his ball to fall into the divot, but he needed to drop somewhere close to the divot. He was clearly making no attempt to drop the ball close to the original spot, and that's an improper drop. A lot of times, there is not a clear divot indicating where the ball was previously, and so the guy making the drop is just guessing, and in those cases he may be a couple yards away from his original spot but there is no penalty. This case was clear. He backed up a least 3 feet, maybe more, and there is no question the drop was improper. The only question is what the proper penalty should be. While disqualification is harsh, there is a long precedent for that being the correct result.

 

[ckDOG]

My thoughts: Committee caved and bailed him out

golf rules blow me away

The committee head said they waived the DQ based on rule 33-7, which they have the option to do but it's weak IMO.

Tiger basically admitted he misapplied the rules based on his statements after the round. Had he not stated he dropped where he said to get the yardage advantage, this wouldn't even be a stroke penalty. The committee even admitted nothing was unreasonable about where he dropped the ball after the round and I would have agreed had Tiger not commented on his thinking. He was pretty close (easily 2 club lengths) and nobody would have thought twice. If his choice was to be close to the original spot, I think it was close enough. But the fact he explicitly stated he took the drop from where he did for the reasons he stated DQs him since he didn't correct this. If I'm understanding correctly, the committee agrees with that line of thinking as well but they chose to waive the DQ part under 33-7 - basically bc they feel like it. Weak sauce.

 

[dawgphd]

Fred Ridley just spun a tale to protect ratings.

Bottom line Woods broke the rules and signed the card.

Whether or not he knew the rule is irrelevant.

 

[ckDOG]

Subjective, but his comments show his intent.

So how close must you drop it to original shot? 1,2, or 3 feet? He was 3-4 feet from original position. Players drop balls in more advantageous spots all the time. They can back up to any yardage they feel comfortable. So why when dropping as near as possible to original position can you not drop a few feet to the left or right or back that is better than original spot. He certainly doesn't want to risk dropping it in his diviot. No penalty should have been given. And if so, then make your ruling and stick with it. Dont change based on a post round interview.

The ability to drop further back is under a different scenario and different rule. He was attempting to apply 26-1a and his comments verify that he wasn't applying it correctly and show that he gained a significant advantage. Had he not commented, he could have easily argued that he was compliant and dropped close to the original spot, but he essentially stated he broke the rule and made his position better based on the spot he chose. That's a DQ since he didn't correct it.

 

[goindhoo]

And obviously the usga doesn't know the rule either because they said no penalty before he signed the card.

Where in the rule does it say that he must drop as close as possible but not anywhere that would be more advantageous? So if he drops 6 inches right of his diviot, it's a penalty because he now has a better angle?

The rule only says as close to original spot. Not close and with even or less advantage.

 

[RocketDawg]

They cited the rule on the Golf Channel earlier this morning but I don't remember the number. I'm pretty sure they quoted the non-advangateous part, but it could have just been their spin and it sounded like a quotation. I haven't looked it up.

 

[goindhoo]

I understand that the drop back is under a different rule, put the point is you can drop in a position that is more advantageous than other drop options under that rule. Why can't you do this under the rule he proceeded under?

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

What I seem to get is he did not sign a wrong card

The USGA looked into it before he finished, and said no penalty, so at that time, his scorecard was correct. Later they heard his comments, talked to him and assessed the penalty. This is exactly why this new rule was put into place. He didn't intentionally break the rule, so in the end everything is as it should be.

PS.. In this day and age with TV keeping your score, I fond the whole scorecard issue silly in general.

 

[ckDOG]

It wasn't deemed a penalty bc he hadn't commented on it at that point.

And obviously the usga doesn't know the rule either because they said no penalty before he signed the card.

Where in the rule does it say that he must drop as close as possible but not anywhere that would be more advantageous? So if he drops 6 inches right of his diviot, it's a penalty because he now has a better angle?

The rule only says as close to original spot. Not close and with even or less advantage.

Tiger stated he dropped in compliance with 26-1a. Had it ended at that we wouldn't be having this discussion today bc, no other things considered, he was close to the original spot in the eyes of the vast majority of people. However, Tiger goes on to state that he chose his drop spot to gain advantage. That is NOT complicit with rule 26-1a by way of the referenced rule 20-5. Breach of 20-5 is outlined in 20-7.

If the competitor has committed a serious breach and has failed to correct it as outlined above, he is disqualified.

A competitor is deemed to have committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule if the Committee considers he has gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong place.

Did Tiger not admit he gained significant advantage by choosing the spot that he did instead of dropping closer to the original spot? His comments clearly show he violated that drop rule and chose a spot that would better benefit him. Penalty is DQ according to the rules. Committee weaseled out of it through 33-7 and then has the audacity to claim it sets good precedence. That's crap.

 

[ckDOG]

Because you have options and this one requires as close as possible.

I understand that the drop back is under a different rule, put the point is you can drop in a position that is more advantageous than other drop options under that rule. Why can't you do this under the rule he proceeded under?

That is available under 26-1b. He clearly didn't choose that option based on where the ball entered the hazard. My guess the logic behind 26-1a and the therein referenced rule is to require the player to hit the next shot under conditions as close as possible to the first.

 

[RocketDawg]

The rules should be changed to take all subjectivity out. "As close as possible" means in the divot of the other shot, when taken literally. The rule should state "within 6 inches to the original shot, no closer to the pin" or something to that effect.

But it wouldn't be an issue had the ball not crossed the hazard a second time after it hit the pin. In that case, like when Furyk dumped it in the water on his first shot, you can go back as far as you want to with a yellow hazard.

 

[goindhoo]

But he wasn't in the wrong place. They determined that before he finished the round.

 

[ckDOG]

That was his story during the round and immediately after.

But he wasn't in the wrong place. They determined that before he finished the round.

He said he complied with 21-6a, it was fairly close to the original spot, and that was the end of it. That happens every round of the PGA tour. There is a subjective reasonableness portion of the rule. Tiger threw that out the window when interviewed. He said he dropped in a spot to gain advantage. If he actually told that to a rules official during the round and the official was okay with that, he is unqualified for that job.

 

[jacksonreb]

^^^^^^^^^^^this is exactly the point^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

The rules committe had video to show where he was, and looked at it...

so I don't know why what he said should have changed that much. They looked at it before he finished. Said he was fine. If he had not dropped in an area that was at least questionably correct, they would have penalized him at that point. HE THEN SIGNED A CARD THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE AS BEING CORRECT. And then they later went back and penalized him. You only get DQ'd for signing an incorrect card. His card was specifically approved by the rules group as correct when he signed it...

Based on the rules that are in place, he should not have been DQ'd, nor should he have had to WD.

 

[mstateglfr]

Tiger is not going to win anyway. He never comes from behind/out of the field to win. This is why he will never be one of the greats to me.

So who exactly does make your list of 'the greats'?

 

[ckDOG]

All that would have been the end of it if he hadn't opened his mouth.

so I don't know why what he said should have changed that much. They looked at it before he finished. Said he was fine. If he had not dropped in an area that was at least questionably correct, they would have penalized him at that point. HE THEN SIGNED A CARD THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE AS BEING CORRECT. And then they later went back and penalized him. You only get DQ'd for signing an incorrect card. His card was specifically approved by the rules group as correct when he signed it...

Based on the rules that are in place, he should not have been DQ'd, nor should he have had to WD.

If Tiger told them what he said in the interview after the round before he signed the card and they still okayed it, this is all on the officials. Did that happen? I don't know. It sounds like he simply told the officials that he dropped under 26-1a and they looked at the spot and deemed it reasonable (as would most folks). If he did state that he dropped where he did for advantage, a good rules official would have advised assessing a 2 stroke penalty before turning in the card.

 

[goindhoo]

But there is the problem. How is the drop in compliance with the rules but only if no interview? My point is: the drop was either as near as possible or not. If it is, then his ball is in the right place. Doesn't matter if there is an advantage because he didn't drop in wrong place.

For the record: I don't think he should be playing is his drop was not considered as near as possible.

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

I could compete on the Seniors Tour, if they let me throw my chip shots.