This is the number 1 thing I hate about golf. I love the sport but this **** is ruhtarded. He was in the FAIRWAY, 3 FEET from his divot on a shot that was 90 YARDS away. He gained ZERO advantage in terms of lie or stance. He had to hit the ball over water AND he had just gotten royaly 17ed by the flagstick. He would of had a guaranteed birdie if his ball hadn't struck the flagstick and created that crazy spin. Who gives a **** if he dropped it 3 feet from his first ball.
OK golfers. Should Woods be disqualified for the drop ?
- Thread starter thatsbaseball
- Start date
Close. But it's not the sport that is retarded. It's the people that love to talk big **** about rules being applied when they wont take the time to think about why the rule is there. They are all about the letter of the law, but the cement headed bastards wouldnt know the spirit of it if it bit them in the ***.
No on has mentioned THE most important part of this:
Rules officials claim they reviewed the drop BEFORE Woods had finished his round. They determined, at that time, that he did NOT violate a rule. So, at the time he signed his scorecard....it was correct. After Tiger's comments about the drop, rules officials reviewed their ruling, changed their mind, and gave him a two stroke penalty. Had they determined he violated the rule before he finished his round, he would have been given a two shot penalty BEFORE he signed his card...and none of this would have happened.
In short, the rules committee cant change their mind after a card has been signed, penalize a player, then DQ him for signing an incorrect scorecard. The card was correct at the time he signed it.
Rules officials claim they reviewed the drop BEFORE Woods had finished his round. They determined, at that time, that he did NOT violate a rule. So, at the time he signed his scorecard....it was correct. After Tiger's comments about the drop, rules officials reviewed their ruling, changed their mind, and gave him a two stroke penalty. Had they determined he violated the rule before he finished his round, he would have been given a two shot penalty BEFORE he signed his card...and none of this would have happened.
In short, the rules committee cant change their mind after a card has been signed, penalize a player, then DQ him for signing an incorrect scorecard. The card was correct at the time he signed it.
Correct. That was the determining factor.
I'll take it a step further. There should be a rules official for every group. The official's ruling is final with regard to scorecards and must be made before the end of the round OR the player may not submit the card until the ruling is made.
But your explanation is the reason for the rule. Not to save anyone, but to make sure that a ruling could take place and the player could not be punished 'ex post facto'.
I'll take it a step further. There should be a rules official for every group. The official's ruling is final with regard to scorecards and must be made before the end of the round OR the player may not submit the card until the ruling is made.
But your explanation is the reason for the rule. Not to save anyone, but to make sure that a ruling could take place and the player could not be punished 'ex post facto'.
No, Actually the most important part of this will show golf starting to reflect our society in general. Prior to this the golf world and the public at large would in unison condemn any player trying to win a tournament because an official basically blew a call. The spirit of the game has always called for the player to do the right thing regardless of what he could`ve gotten by with.
Last edited:
If there is an advantage, it wasn't as near as possible.
Again, if it ends at him telling the rules officials and media he selected that spot bc it was close to the divot and he had essentially the same shot as he did before, there is no issue. There isn't even a 2 shot penalty. Going further and stating he picked that spot to change the scenario implies he could have placed it closer and that he chose to not comply with the rule. A few feet is nothing to a hacker like me, but it's potentially huge for Tiger - the Committee chair acknowledged that in the presser yesterday as well.
What's done is done now, but I'm very curious if Tiger actually gave his thought process to the rules official or if he withheld it until after the round for the media. I don't think Tiger was trying to be dishonest, otherwise he wouldn't have made the comments that he did. However, he did show ignorance of the rules and he got bailed out under a rule meant to protect golfers from things only slow motion camera can pick up on. That's what is irritating here.
Again, if it ends at him telling the rules officials and media he selected that spot bc it was close to the divot and he had essentially the same shot as he did before, there is no issue. There isn't even a 2 shot penalty. Going further and stating he picked that spot to change the scenario implies he could have placed it closer and that he chose to not comply with the rule. A few feet is nothing to a hacker like me, but it's potentially huge for Tiger - the Committee chair acknowledged that in the presser yesterday as well.
What's done is done now, but I'm very curious if Tiger actually gave his thought process to the rules official or if he withheld it until after the round for the media. I don't think Tiger was trying to be dishonest, otherwise he wouldn't have made the comments that he did. However, he did show ignorance of the rules and he got bailed out under a rule meant to protect golfers from things only slow motion camera can pick up on. That's what is irritating here.
Was Tiger as forthcoming in his logic during the round?
That is even more important. If he was, then you are absolutely right that the officials screwed up. If he wasn't, then Tiger had two stories. The one during the round that said he dropped as near as possible then the one after the round where he said he picked a better spot. That is assuming he corresponded with the rules official during the round. I think the rules committee chairman said something to the effect that they did ask him about the drop during the round. Not sure about that part.
Edit: I re-watched the press conference and read this timeline of events
http://jacksonville.com/sports/golf/2013-04-13/story/chronology-tiger-woods-rules-violation
This is a simple issue. They reviewed by video and saw that the drop was close and determined it wasn't worth discussing with Tiger. Tiger signs his card. Then, Tiger displays his ignorance of the rules via media interview and states that he chose that spot to get a better shot. That's a penalty of DQ if you didn't add 2 strokes. It's clear as day. There is no process in golf where the rules committee stamps your card as being valid. There is an honor system involved in that the score you submit was earned within the rules framework. There is also a process where you can discuss with the rules committee anything that you are unclear on before you sign the card. That's on Tiger and he didn't do that. Then, he was bailed out WITH IGNORANCE AS AN EXCUSE, under a rule meant to protect players from slow motion review. I'm sorry, that's a Cecil Newton / NCAA level perversion of the rules.
That is even more important. If he was, then you are absolutely right that the officials screwed up. If he wasn't, then Tiger had two stories. The one during the round that said he dropped as near as possible then the one after the round where he said he picked a better spot. That is assuming he corresponded with the rules official during the round. I think the rules committee chairman said something to the effect that they did ask him about the drop during the round. Not sure about that part.
Edit: I re-watched the press conference and read this timeline of events
http://jacksonville.com/sports/golf/2013-04-13/story/chronology-tiger-woods-rules-violation
This is a simple issue. They reviewed by video and saw that the drop was close and determined it wasn't worth discussing with Tiger. Tiger signs his card. Then, Tiger displays his ignorance of the rules via media interview and states that he chose that spot to get a better shot. That's a penalty of DQ if you didn't add 2 strokes. It's clear as day. There is no process in golf where the rules committee stamps your card as being valid. There is an honor system involved in that the score you submit was earned within the rules framework. There is also a process where you can discuss with the rules committee anything that you are unclear on before you sign the card. That's on Tiger and he didn't do that. Then, he was bailed out WITH IGNORANCE AS AN EXCUSE, under a rule meant to protect players from slow motion review. I'm sorry, that's a Cecil Newton / NCAA level perversion of the rules.
Last edited:
Whether you believe in the 2 stroke penalty or a DQ, I have no major disagreement one way or another. But one thing I do know is that the viewer that called in needs to have his number traced so that he can have his balls cut off. Whether he's just golf rule book nazi or he did it out of sheer hatred towards Tiger, someone that would take time out of their day to make that call needs to really think hard about his priorities in life
Read this...
http://espn.go.com/golf/masters13/s...watson-says-tv-viewers-rules-influence-bounds
Seems as though Bubba agrees.
http://espn.go.com/golf/masters13/s...watson-says-tv-viewers-rules-influence-bounds
Seems as though Bubba agrees.
Which is?
I will answer that. It's to require the player to play the next shot in conditions as close as possible to the previous shot. Did Tiger say he did that? Here is what he said:
Anxious to hear your response on that.
Yeah, the rules are harsh but they are harsh for everyone.
I will answer that. It's to require the player to play the next shot in conditions as close as possible to the previous shot. Did Tiger say he did that? Here is what he said:
."
Anxious to hear your response on that.
Yeah, the rules are harsh but they are harsh for everyone.
Not relevant.
Nobody knew about the caller outside of the rules committee. Tiger self incriminated himself in his Friday post round interview. The question was asked in general, not in response to a viewer tip. Bubba is an idiot.
http://web.tigerwoods.com/news/article/2013041244616680/news/
Nobody knew about the caller outside of the rules committee. Tiger self incriminated himself in his Friday post round interview. The question was asked in general, not in response to a viewer tip. Bubba is an idiot.
http://web.tigerwoods.com/news/article/2013041244616680/news/
And a related point. Why would the Tour even take the call? That's a lot more disturbing than whether or not they should have DGd Woods or given him a 2-stroke penalty. The call had ALREADY BEEN MADE and there was no penalty. That should have been the end of it.
God Bless America why is everyone so damn quick on this board to throw a reply, call calling them wrong or an idiot, without trying to understand the point being made.
Bubba's point was not to defend Tiger and say that he shouldn't have been penalized. That wasn't it at all. It was to say there shouldn't be a circumstance EVER where viewers can call in to rules officials to point out rules breakings or anything else for that matter. Meaning they shouldn't be able to influence the rules committe. "You don't see people calling in for football or basketball games."
Thats what I'm trying to point out, not the self incrimination of Tiger...that's a different topic than what I'm putting out there.
Bubba's point was not to defend Tiger and say that he shouldn't have been penalized. That wasn't it at all. It was to say there shouldn't be a circumstance EVER where viewers can call in to rules officials to point out rules breakings or anything else for that matter. Meaning they shouldn't be able to influence the rules committe. "You don't see people calling in for football or basketball games."
Thats what I'm trying to point out, not the self incrimination of Tiger...that's a different topic than what I'm putting out there.
You are right. That's my bad.
And I agree that viewer input is ridiculous. There are very little scenarios I could think of where it should be welcomed. Slow motion replay can sometimes show things like hitting the ball twice on a chip that they couldn't feel. The players are protected from being DQed in intances like that. But yeah, the couch officials aren't doing anything to help the game.
Sorry Bubba, you aren't an idiot.
And I agree that viewer input is ridiculous. There are very little scenarios I could think of where it should be welcomed. Slow motion replay can sometimes show things like hitting the ball twice on a chip that they couldn't feel. The players are protected from being DQed in intances like that. But yeah, the couch officials aren't doing anything to help the game.
Sorry Bubba, you aren't an idiot.