Ratings Over Integrity: Augusta Bails Out Tiger
News

Ratings Over Integrity: Augusta Bails Out Tiger

Ratings Over Integrity: Augusta Bails Out Tiger

The original contents of this story written by Tony Covey have been edited.

When I wrote this article my goal was to present 3 main points:

:: Once it was clear an infraction had been committed, the Masters Tournament Committee looked for a loop hole that would keep Tiger in the Tournament.

:: Rule 33-7 shouldn’t apply because the interpretation falls well outside of what I believe is the spirit of the rule.

:: Given the opportunity to withdraw there’s nothing we know about Tiger that suggests he would take a self-imposed DQ.

At MyGolfSpy our staff members have diverse opinions and each of us who contributes here has the unique freedom to publish those opinions. The one belief we all share is that when you put words on a page it is your responsibility to own them. And so, I am taking this opportunity to own mine.

After reviewing some of the feedback, it’s clear that in my haste to provide commentary, I chose unnecessary language that some found offensive and distracted from the larger points I was attempting to make.

I offer sincere apologies to anyone who was actually offended by my poor choice of words.

I have removed that language but fully stand behind my opinion of how “dropgate” was handled.

-Tony Covey, MyGolfSpy

“Dropgate” Soils the 2013 Masters

Even if you’re one of the last 7 guys in the country without HDTV, you’ve gotta be aware of what has transpired in Augusta over the last couple of days. Apparently unhappy at not laying claim to his usual percentage of Masters-related headlines (damn that kid from Taiwan), Tiger Woods found a new way to bump his cut back to its requisite 99%.

To recap, here’s what we can state as fact from Friday’s events:

:: During Friday’s round, Tiger’s 3rd shot on #15 came to rest in the hazard
:: Tiger took an illegal drop
:: Tiger signed an incorrect score card

That should be the end of it…DQ…pack your bags and enjoy your weekend with Lindsay Vonn.

Instead the entire situation, and the reputation of The Masters, is as muddied as Tiger’s ball.

Let me be very clear about one thing. I’m not saying that Tiger cheated. I’m saying he broke the rules, and in all reasonable likelihood did so unknowingly. And so despite being the best golfer on the planet, and despite his 35 years of experience playing the game, Tiger Woods – a guy with intimate knowledge of the rule book – broke a 2nd rule; he signed an incorrect score card…also unknowingly.

Ignorance is bliss.

And well…at the 2013 Masters anyway, blissful ignorance guarantees better ratings for CBS and a sizeable paycheck for Tiger. Everybody wins…except the game (and the guy whose paycheck gets deposited in Tiger’s account).

Anywhere other than the fantasy land inside ropes of Augusta ignorance of the rules is never an excuse. Try the ignorance defense in traffic court sometime. Let me know how it works.

Even between the storied magnolia trees and azaleas of Augusta, if you’re a 14 year old Asian kid, rules are rules. But when you’re Tiger the rules are whatever the Committee needs them to be. Iron that Nike shirt, Eldrick, you’re playing on Sunday. The tournament needs you.

Spin it however you’d like…and god knows the Masters committee is spinning it. After giving Tiger just enough of a penalty to make the weekend interesting, it’s pretty clear the green coats spent some time making sure the CBS broadcast team would follow the company line to the letter.

After initially suggesting Tiger should have been DQ’d or at least done the honorable thing and withdrawn, a thread-worn Nick Faldo back-peddled fast enough to pass Lance Armstrong while at the same time giving us plenty of cause to question the integrity of the stitching that holds his green jackets together. Behold the magic of Augusta.

Finding a Loophole

Somebody at a Augusta had to know…and if somebody didn’t, they’ve got no business running a local amateur tournament let alone what’s billed as the most prestigious tournament in golf. Somebody…probably multiple somebodies looked the other way and hoped nobody else would notice. But somebody did. Damn those telephone lines.

Tigergate or Dropgate, or whatever the latest trending headline is was born.

While it’s not much of a stretch to suggest that the the Augusta Tournament committee rewrote the rules of golf, at a minimum they found a creative new interpretation which will certainly hereto for be know as “The Tiger Rule“.

If it was anyone else in the field used a post round interview to admit a rules violation, he’d be watching the tournament from home, and this story would be a footnote. But Tiger is money. It’s good for CBS if he’s in the hunt on Sunday (and bad when he’s not), and its good for the Masters too. Some people would tell you the Masters isn’t the Masters without Tiger.

And so when faced with what boils down to a financial issue, a bunch of guys got together and did what guys with money problems do; they found a loophole.

It’s a tradition unlike any other.

That loophole is rule 33-7. Previously 33-7 has been referred to as the HDTV rule. The USGA added the rule…more accurately, the decision to the rule, in 2011 to give players some cover from rules infractions phoned in from the couches of America by meddlesome viewers with super-slow-motion DVRs and HDTVs. The spirit of the rule is to give the committee the the option to waive disqualification for violations that were unknowingly committed and are otherwise only perceptible with modern technology.

The rule was written to cover things like grounding a club in a hazard, or stirring up a loose impediments when playing from a red-staked treeline. Fortunately for Tiger (and CBS) the committee found enough ambiguity in the rule to give them the out they desperately wanted. So much for rules being rules.

As has been pointed out numerous times already, you didn’t exactly need an HDTV to verify Tiger’s infraction. Hell, by the time Tiger was done talking Friday evening you didn’t even need a TV. A radio would have sufficed, and it need not be an HD Radio either. In case you missed it, here’s a condensed version of Tiger’s post round interview.

“I was pissed…and I took an illegal drop to gain an advantage”. – Tiger Woods

Ok…Tiger didn’t actually say he took an illegal drop, he only described his illegal drop, and pretty explicitly too. And fortunately for Tiger, at the 2013 Masters, ignorance of the rules keeps you in the game, but let’s not pretend for so much as a second that Tiger’s illegal drop is covered by the spirit of 33-7. The letter, perhaps, but definitely not the spirit that anyone who believes in the integrity of the game would have envisioned.

Apart from the whole HDTV thing, 33-7 is supposed to cover a player who wasn’t aware he committed a violation, not to bail out a ratings-generator who got frustrated and made a mistake that the average club golfer wouldn’t make in a hundred years.

But rather than DQ their money-man, the forward-thinkers in the green jackets co-opted rule 33-7 to also include situations where a player admits to a rules violation that nobody realized was a rules violation (except the guy on the other end of the phone). The subtle distinction is that 33-7 is supposed to cover the guy who isn’t aware he broke the rule (didn’t see the impediment move), not the guy who doesn’t know the rules, or more to the point, the guy who absolutely does know the rules, but in a moment of frustration, had a mental lapse.

At the Masters, a farting brain will incur its owner a 2 stroke penalty.

Karnack Wears a Green Jacket

Even if you buy into idea that the Masters Committee didn’t have any notion of self-preservation or star power in mind when they decided to give Tiger Woods a pass (mostly), the application of an arbitrary rule designed to induce ambiguity into a rule book that is otherwise supposed to be absolute, creates a huge problem in a stroke play competition.

In any stroke play tournament, there’s ZERO room to presume an outcome, and yet, that’s what the rule effectively does. Simply put the Master’s Committee gave Tiger Woods a gimme. A two-stroke gimme, but a gimme none the less.

A gimme, in a major? Yeah, that just happened.

Let’s go back to what we know.

Tiger Woods banged his ball into a flagstick. and watched in disgust as it rolled into hazard. A self-described “pissed” Tiger Woods took an illegal drop, and did so, by his own admission, to give himself a more advantageous playing position. To his credit, he hit a very nice shot, and only needed a single putt to finish the hole (for a 6).

Here’s what we don’t know. What would have happened if Tiger had taken a legal drop? Does he stick it to two feet? Maybe. But maybe he spins it into the hazard again. Maybe he sails the green and subsequently chips it into the hazard come back. Maybe he shanks it. Maybe he makes a natural 8 all by himself.

We just don’t know, and yet the Masters Committee is content with effectively saying “This is Tiger Woods, and we’re absolutely certain his score would have been no worse than 8”. Probable, sure. Certain…never.

Rule 33-7 not only covers phoned-in infractions, it effectively allows the committee to predict the outcome of events in a parallel universe. How’s that for the rules being absolute?

Would that fly in your Club Championship? Why shouldn’t it, it works at the Masters.

Rules, even stupid ones with dubious application, are still rules.

Self-Imposed Disqualification – Not a Chance

The media inside the ropes at Augusta have reported that the prevailing sentiment from others in the field is that Tiger Woods should have disqualified himself. Many of us would like to believe that faced with a similar situation it’s what Mr. Palmer, Mr. Nicklaus, Misters Jones, Hogan, and Snead would have done. None of us really know, and I suspect even Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer can be certain of what they would have done.

What is certain is that Tiger chose to play, and I’d expect nothing less from the foul-mouthed, club-throwing, me first guy, who just happens to be the most talented golfer on the planet.

The best thing that can happen for this Masters is for Tiger to be competitive but not quite good enough to win the 2013 Tournament. If he doesn’t claim another green jacket today all of this becomes barely a footnote, but should he go on to win, he’s Barry Bonds.

His integrity will be questioned. His victory column will forever hold an asterisk, and this tournament will be cited as one of many reasons why no matter his place in the records books in relation to Mr. Nicklaus and Mr. Palmer, he’ll never be held in quite the esteem as the guys who came before him. Time won’t transform him into Mr. Woods. He’s Tiger, and that’s all he’ll ever be.

For You

For You

Irons
Apr 24, 2024
PXG Irons: Model By Model
Putters
Apr 23, 2024
PING 2024 Putter Line Extension
News
Apr 23, 2024
Nelly Korda Deserves Her Caitlin Clark Moment, So Why Isn’t She Getting It?
Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony is the Editor of MyGolfSpy where his job is to bring fresh and innovative content to the site. In addition to his editorial responsibilities, he was instrumental in developing MyGolfSpy's data-driven testing methodologies and continues to sift through our data to find the insights that can help improve your game. Tony believes that golfers deserve to know what's real and what's not, and that means MyGolfSpy's equipment coverage must extend beyond the so-called facts as dictated by the same companies that created them. Most of all Tony believes in performance over hype and #PowerToThePlayer.

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      Patrick

      11 years ago

      “Tiger, tiger, burning bright
      In the forests of the night,
      What immortal hand or eye
      Could frame thy fearful symmetry?”

      I drive down Magnolia lane,
      I remember arriving as a young boy to watch my first masters
      I feel my heart pounding with excitement
      I am humbled by the magnificence
      I am in awe at the splendour of Augusta
      I remember the great wins I have had, the prestige, the honour.
      I feel no more
      I remember no more

      “Tiger tiger” burning……

      Reply

      Craig

      11 years ago

      missed this article during masters.

      I agree with op.

      I doubt he will see my comments but I middle of comments was one from a guy with user name…

      Philip gullan

      He equated golf breaking rules with other sports like tennis etc.
      He said in those sports he stood with foot on line serving & didn’t lose sleep getting away with it if official didn’t notice.

      This is the classic wknd golfer. Justifying cheating.
      Sorry. Serving with foot baseline is not same as a sport that has integrity and your supposed to call penalties on yourself.

      Philip thinks all sports allow you to get away with things including golf.
      Sorry but does that make it ok to nudge ball in woods because nobody saw?
      I don’t think so. Integrity I have. You don’t.

      Reply

      Tom Leighty

      11 years ago

      I found this article spot on! Tiger has been playing golf all of his life, is one of the best players on the planet, perhaps the best, but to suggest that he doesn’t need to know and follow the rules is ridiculous. For those that do not know that this is a game where a player should call a penalty on themselves obviously suggests they should not be playing the game.

      Read the rule book! It begins with the spirit of the game and any of you amateurs, like me, are proud to play the game according to the rules regardless of the outcome.

      As far as I am concerned, He made an error, albeit honest, but an error none the less. The penalty in this situation is Disqualification, not by Augusta, not by CBS, not by the USGA or the R and A, by Tiger himself! I hate to say it but it is another case of a lack of sportsmanship. What a travesty and what a statement of character.

      Reply

      RoverRick

      11 years ago

      Damned Tom you had me. Right up to the last paragraph. You were right for a while, but the penalty for this is two strokes, which he accepted. The penalty for not finding out about it used to be automatic disqualification, BUT NOW, NOW not years ago, But NOW, the USGA & R&A changed the rule so that if the committee feels it was a mistake, and not intentional breaking of the rule, it is not DQ. The rule is not the player should withdraw. The rule was never a player should withdraw.

      IF the USGA wanted Tiger DQed than they should not have changed the rule. The rule is plain. They can waive the DQ if they want. The decisions are not the rules. The rules are the rules and all these people on here touting what he should have done or they did in the past are full of it. He played by the rules, excepted the rule, did not try to skirt his part of the infraction, and moved on. Perhaps we should also.

      Reply

      Bamagolf1

      11 years ago

      To all those people that say they would have withdrawn or DQ’ed themself because its the “honorable thing” I would like to say that all of you are full of it and if I was out in the same situation as tiger I say keep on playing… If I have a chance to win there’s no way I’m keeping myself from playing. Not one golfer on the pga tour if given the same situation would have DQed themselves, if they do in the situation that he was… Four or 5 shots back with 2 rounds to play, they are extremely stupid and have no competitive bone in their body

      Reply

      RoverRick

      11 years ago

      I have to disagree with you on one point. At the time this happened Tiger was in the lead, tied for the lead or about to be in the lead. I seriously doubt that anyone else would have been under such scrutiny that it would have been noticed.

      Reply

      vivacarlos

      11 years ago

      Nail on the head for sure. I quit watching some tournaments because Tiger or however you say his real name is in them. All these announcers, media, fans, etc… would literally jump into bed with this guy in a heartbeat. Was no suprise to me there was no DQ, no suprise at all. He can be 10 shots back and all you hear is Tiger. It is without a doubt always a better story when someone else wins.
      Always…

      What a classless guy, especially on the course. Just because he is money for the game
      doen’t make him a poster boy for it.

      Reply

      Joel Serra

      11 years ago

      Drop the rant and drop the ad homonym attacks on Tiger. You could easily have made your point by reference to the rules and prior decisions. It would have been fair to suggest that Tiger received preferential treatment because of the dramatic impact his presence has on TV ratings. Instead, what comes across is a deep-seated dislike of Woods and his style of play (perhaps as much off the course as on). As for the honerable gentlemen at Augusta National, the rules decision was not just within the letter of the reference decision, it was pretty much mandated by the text. As for the “spirit” of the rule, we are all in trouble when the pundits get to disregard the plain meaning of the text in favor of their own nostalgic sense of the traditions of the game. It was a new decision, based new language. Under the circumstances, why wouldn’t we expect a different outcome than in the past? If the brain trust at USGA & Royal and Ancient had wanted the same outcome, there would have been no need for the change.

      If you really think Tiger is bad for the game, go ask the guys down around 100 on the Tour money list how they feel about grossing $1 million vs. not making bus fare home twenty years ago. And all those high-tech drivers, super irons and elegant putters you guys love to review? Have you noticed that the pace of innovation went off the charts starting just after Woods made his PGA Tour debute? Ditto all those amazing courses that were built in modern golf’s renaissance. We have all been the beneficiaries of the enormous increase of cash flowing into golf that Woods created. As for me, I kinda like it.

      P.s. Will Augusta National ever achieve full integration if they don’t admit Democrats?

      Reply

      Impress1

      11 years ago

      Please please everyone.

      He Cheated everyone saw it BUT nothing was done which means……. all the golfers in the world will now try their best not to …but may do…Its a classic at the saturday box when they all turn up and one…just one guy says he seen another cheat cause of the £40 in the kitty.

      Sad that should have disqualified him full stop.

      Reply

      Warwick Weedon

      11 years ago

      This comes across as written by a guy with a huge chip on his shoulder. It does not make pleasant reading and leaves a sour tast in my mouth.

      Reply

      dave

      11 years ago

      Illegal drop, signed the score card, DQ! Barry Bonds maybe a stretch of an analogy! I must admit that distance in golf is the penalizing factor typically for the average player (Tiger dropped further back) no closer to the hole were my thoughts, however these guys are so good that 2 yards really made a tremendous difference.

      You heard Tiger admit it, case closed. Augusta is some what tarnished now. I promise as this lingers there will be chants from the galleries calling out Cheater. It’s inevitable! It will affect Tiger for years. I want to see how the Big Three treat him now! Dave L.

      Reply

      Stuart Johnson

      11 years ago

      Did I get this right?

      Friday, at his player interview, Tiger unwittingly confesses to a Rules violation; and that evening, Jim Nantz alerts Masters officials that Woods’ post-round comments are raising some concerns.

      On Saturday, Tiger wakes up and learns through the Competition Committee that yesterday a television viewer complained of a possible Rules violation he may have committed on hole 15, but they reviewed it and determined there was no violation. He then comes to know that with his own player interview statements, it is determined that he did in fact violate Rule 26 on hole 15, and although he then signed a wrong score for the hole, which is a disqualification, they will waive the disqualification under Rule 33; because they are responsible for initially determining, before he signed his card, that there was no violation. If they had made the correct decision, they could have saved him from himself, and there would have been no issue of disqualification. So you see, it’s their fault, not his.

      Wow! Lucky Tiger. He should send a well-stuffed Card to the television viewer who complained.

      When I viewed the leader board early Saturday morning, I shamefully thought whoever is posting this error in Tiger’s score must be a “Tiger hater.” But upon further information, I now think Woods is not a Tiger; he’s a Cheetah.

      Reply

      Alex

      11 years ago

      I have to agree on most of what you said,rules are there to be played by if the rule is infringed then your out that’s it. Golf is all about the money now Tiger you have let every one down again.
      Anyone of the other players had signed there card like that would have been gone.
      just go’s to show you there is to much money in this sport. you had Phil complaining about having to pay tax a lot of his fan’s don’t have job’s.

      Reply

      jmiller065

      11 years ago

      I think a lot of us have beat this like a dead horse on the forum in the post “Tiger should withdraw” located here:
      http://forum.mygolfspy.com/topic/8705-tiger-should-wd/

      I think the main question now in the aftermath of the situation is how do we address technology and hdtv viewers calling in rules violations on the PGA Tour. I personally don’t think it’s fiar to the guy at 10am on that same hole that takes the same drop and doesn’t get busted because it’s not televised. Compared to the leaders that do it and it is televised, so they get slapped with the penalties.

      On the PGA Tour they have the budget to have a walking official with every group. They have the technology to track every shot to an inch for their website shot tracker and statistics. How about we start using the technology to verify scores before the players leave the golf course? Is there really a point in the paper score card and attesting to the score with the amount of TVs and technology / people standing around?

      I really doubt that any of us in a club tournament would have even gotten busted for it. Honestly majority of people reading this take their drop in the drop zone, they don’t even think about the other two options available to them. So you would have never had anything to worry about.

      Those people like Tiger that are looking for the best option would likely have taken the last crossed option if they didn’t confuse it for “line of play”. If you did happen to drop near your last shot then you have to figure out “where can I drop without it going closer to the hole and nearest as possible to the last spot”. The rule is very gray in terms of what exactly “nearest as possible” means. There is no clear definition of distance. Does that mean within 6inches, 1foot, 3 foot, 1 club, etc.

      We can talk about this on the forum if you want, I linked the topic where most the debate happened above in this post.

      Reply

      Gary Lewis

      11 years ago

      I think that most PGA pros or even amateur’s playing in club championships would have DQ’ed themselves in this kind of a situation, because it is the right thing to do and it would prevent the kind of controversy that resulted, but Tiger has tunnel vision on winning majors and that probably overrode his common sense. I have seen many amateur’s DQ themselves for less.

      Reply

      Mike Corcoran

      11 years ago

      Golf Spy T holds Arnold Palmer as a pinnacle of integrity but his 1958 Masters victory was certainly tainted by his embedded ball controversy with Ken Venturi. Ask Ken Venturi today and he will adamantly state Palmer broke the rules that day and should have left the 12th hole with a double bogey and not the par (gift) he received from Bobby Jones and the Masters committee as part of his final score. Palmer claims it was a “he said–he said” issue but witnesses to this day side with Venturi’s account of what Arnie failed to do in playing his second ball after taking a double bogey. I suspect Arnie conveniently continues to employ selective memory about his actions.
      Secondly, forget about Rule 33-7. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation why the PGA and USGA accept phone call rulings from self-righteous wannabe officials in their Laz-y-boy at home. By definition the rules committees accepting these calls are applying rules after the fact and unfairly penalizing a small portion of the field who are unlucky enough to get TV coverage because they are among the leaders. Until cameras follow every player in every round or have rules officials following every foursome every round, accepting rules infractions from TV spectators is application of the rules to a select portion of the field and by definition unequal application of the rules to the entire field. Name me one other sport that accepts perceived rules infractions from TV spectators. This is insane.

      Reply

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      Excellent post!!

      Drop into the forum please, cuz I know that there are a lot more where that came from

      Reply

      Fredo

      11 years ago

      Awesome historical relevance, I bow to your knowledge. PGA needs to fix the calls from the wanna be rules officials, because the cameras are not on all players. Therefore it is uneven scrutiny.

      Reply

      Rusty

      11 years ago

      Initial sidenote: I have no connection whatsoever to the Masters or PGA officials, nor any connection to Tiger Woods.

      I do not quite agree with a couple of the key summary points to what took place, and in what order. I won’t comment on how well the rules committee did, or try to guess what their motivation was (which many people seem to believe they know implicitly), but I would like to comment on the rules of golf. At the time that Tiger Woods (it could have been anyone else – the rules in this case do not hinge on who was involved) completed his round and signed his score care he did sign a correct score card. The “incident” had been reviewed by the pertinent officials and no penalty had been awarded. A “post score card having been signed” concern arose, partially from another TV viewer and in a large part because of comments made by the player in the post round interview. At that time it was (correctly) determined that an infraction (improper drop) had taken place and a two stroke penalty was awarded. The fact that Tiger did not realize it was an improper drop did not save him, nor would it save anyone else, from the two stroke penalty.
      Now the whole issue of “signing an incorrect scorecard” comes into play. There is no doubt that prior to the introduction of the rule it would have resulted in a DQ to Tiger (or anyone else). However, golf is the only competitive money sport where all (sometimes up to millions) TV spectators act as secondary referees and can submit concerns directly to the tournament officials. Many of these concerns do result in full reviews. Many of these reviews take place after play has been completed and scorecards have been signed. Golf’s ruling body took a look at this situation and made a new rule whereby the “appropriate” penalty could be awarded if deserved, but also whereby the player would not be disqualified as he/she was unaware of such penalty at the time of signing the score card.
      My summary is that the current rules of golf were followed. I do not pretend to know whether or not the Master’s officials were overly kind in their initial ruling, but they did follow the current rules with the awarding of the two stroke penalty and no DQ.

      Reply

      Bill

      11 years ago

      In this instance you and Brandel stated your angry personal opinions and we heard both of you. The committee ruled based on other harsh non spirited, previous decisions so move on. Was it fair that Craig Stadler got penalized for kneeling on his towel to keep his pants clean. Is that in the “spirit” of the rules”. No. Had the official come up to Tiger after he hit the shot and informed him of his error the outcome would have been the same. Explain your spin any way you wish but on this end you two sound like personal sour grapes toward Tiger.

      Reply

      Willie

      11 years ago

      Personally, I hate the call in rule. Mostly because if applies MORE to players like Tiger who get more air time. If this occurred with a player that was a little further back, and not Tiger status, it would have been 100% unknown to anyone.

      Secondly, writing all this saying that they somehow sold a bit of their souls for the sake of ratings just because it was Tiger is also a little much. As I recall Vijay broke a substance rule very recently, and played within a couple weeks after claiming ignorance. Personally, I think someone like Vijay who is constantly praised for his fitness level at his age, banned substance use is a much worse offense. His banned substance was also admitted to be a multiple use offense. Much worse then a drop that Tiger had approved by on course officials. So if you are saying that golf is becoming tainted, well, that’s why professional athletes (of any sport) should not be paid millions of dollars a year. You put that much money into anyone’s hands, things will become “questionable”.

      Reply

      Augustine

      11 years ago

      I enjoyed the article, because it was honest and really expressed the sentiment that many in the playing field would be too scared to express seeing that Tiger was who made modern golf what it is today (don’t bite the hand that feeds ya!)

      So it’s okay to start enforcing the slow play penalty one day, and re-interpreting DQ rules another. Very bad optics especially given how it was a 14- year old foreign amateur and the #1 ranked pro golfer involved – trying to think objectively that no favors were given based on your standing in the game is very difficult.

      I agree with getting rid of the HDTV rule. If technology is to be embraced to review possible rules infraction, it should be done officially by the tournament organizers, not viewers at home.

      Reply

      Three Guys Golf

      11 years ago

      Too many good comments so I will try not to state anything again. With that said, I have not read anyone simply stating that the whole idea of a DQ is dumb. Outside of punching a fellow player, no one should be DQ’d. For pete’s sake, I don’t even know why players keep their own score anymore. Either take them at their honor or let the officials keep the score but not a mix of both.

      Reply

      Harry Goss

      11 years ago

      Tiger Woods has played in nearly 300 professional golf tournaments in his lifetime. If you add the sanctioned amateur tournaments, that number is probably close to 500 events where the rules of golf are, supposedly, enforced. The rule Tiger violated is not an obscure rule for a player of his experience. The yellow and red stakes are easily discernible. It stretches the imagination that anyone with his resume’ would confuse or forget these options. As far as the reasoning that, “why would he confess” is concerned, people confess to mistakes and crimes daily. Sometimes because they want to seem innocent, or to simply admit without culpability.

      Reply

      C.C. CHAN

      11 years ago

      I was completely flabbergasted by the treatment to Tiger Woods for this rules infringement. Tiger, ought to be ashame of himself for continuing to play. I had totally lost my respect (so should the whole world) for him as world best golfer.

      Reply

      Qwagmire

      11 years ago

      How many times do the officials an umpires KNOW they screwed up (see the kid that almost threw the no-hitter a few years ago) but cant reverse the call they just made? That Umpire KNEW he screwed up, but couldn’t change the call.

      Then an HDTV QB calls in and get someone DQ’d. Isnt right. Even if it is The Meal Ticket, err Tiger.

      Reply

      jmiller065

      11 years ago

      I talked about this on the forum, now the rule of DQ for an improper scorecard has completely become worthless. They have set the precedence that John Doe will have that waived and then assessed a penalty as if they had caught it while play was still going on.

      I don’t care that they use this rule but the only way to make the rule far is if everyone in the field would have gotten the same ruling. It comes down to the fact that before April 2011 players wouldn’t have been given the opportunity to WD from the tournament. They would be packing the trunk and heading off the grounds period it’s DQ.

      Where Tiger did not win the tournament it still leaves a lot up in the air, such as what is the point of a DQ penalty for signing a wrong scorecard. Why not just finalize everyone’s scores the night after all rounds are complete and don’t worry about the old school system of paper score cards? Heck we have the technology to know what each player shot every tournament maybe it’s time to use it?

      I think what gets on my nerves are the HDTV officials for the sport. No other sport would even give you the time a day and adjust the score or plays of a game after the fact because you called to complain about a bad call and they agree with you, that flat would never happen.

      I think the Rule of 33-7/4.5 and Rule 6-6b are in direct contradiction at this point. As it’s now expected for the committee to waive the rule of a DQ in any situation of a TV caller giving the player the strokes for the penalty they breached as they would before they signed the card.

      Reply

      jmiller065

      11 years ago

      My fault it’s Rule 6-6d and Rule 33-7/4.5 I miss typed 6-6b.

      Reply

      Mark_II

      11 years ago

      I agree with just about all of your post. Especially how this event changes expectations for when a player might be DQed. Now, it seems, the committee is somehow responsible for preventing a golfer from turning in a bad card or, failing that, will be expected to take the DQ off the table. Really, really bad precedent.

      One quibble: This was not an “HDTV” event. The 4.5 decision goes out of its way to say that it is addressing only things the player could not reasonably be expected to have known … an imperceptible movement of the ball, for example. That’s not the case here. Woods had busted a rule, and gained an advantage in doing so. There is flat out no way 4.5 can be used to justify the Augusta ruling.

      Reply

      RoverRick

      11 years ago

      There is not much question about rule for signing a wrong score card. It comes down to this, could he have been reasonably expected to know he incurred a penalty. If so, he is disqualified. Master’s officials said they had ruled it a good drop before he signed his card. Later, they changed their minds. So therefore he could not reasonably be expected to know this. Therefore, he was not disqualified. Below, I copied the decision that was used. No where in it does it say HDTV or any thing about call ins.

      33-7/4.5
      Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified
      Q. A competitor returns his score card. It later transpires that the score for one hole is lower than actually taken due to his failure to include a penalty stroke(s) which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered before the competition has closed.
      Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7, in waiving or modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule 6-6d?
      A. Generally, the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.
      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

      Reply

      Mark_II

      11 years ago

      I’m sorry but this is just wrong.

      The Masters officials did not change their minds. Tiger changed their minds for them by announcing that he had broken a rule. That the officials could not or did not determine this from what they saw on Friday should not matter, since they did NOT talk to him then or in any way influence his signing the incorrect scorecard. He alone is responsible for that card.

      The language about whether he “could reasonably have known” has nothing to do with any committee meeting (which he had no knowledge of when he signed) or his responsibility to know and follow the rules. It is there to cover cases where something is detected later … like video of a ball moving almost imperceptibly that the golfer did not see.. The rules make this clear:

      “A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.”

      As an aside … this whole episode had nothing to do with HDTV. But there IS plenty in the original April, 2011 USGA / R&A decision about the role of HDTV in possible waiving of a DQ. It can be found here … http://www.usga.org/news/2011/April/Rule-Revised-On-DQ-For-Incorrect-Card/

      Michael Garrard

      11 years ago

      My problem is protecting the field. By not DQing Tiger he made the cut, not only giving himself a win he did not deserve, but also paying him prize money that should have gone to someone else.

      Also, top 12 get invited to next year’s Masters, and by finishing where he did he screwed someone out of an invitation next year.

      He should talk to John Feinstein about golfers getting screwed by not knowing the rules. One that sticks in my mind is the guy who was DQ’d from U.S.Open qualifying by practicing in a real bunker, even he didn’t know it wasn’t a real bunker, not a practice one, or the guy who missed graduating from Q-School because he wasn’t sure he re-marked his ball in the right place.

      Reply

      RoverRick

      11 years ago

      First off, since this was discovered and not acted on until Saturday morning, if he would have been DQ it made no difference to the cut. They had already made the cut top 50 and ties and those within 10 strokes of the leader. That was 61 golfers so losing Tiger would not have mattered. It is not like anyone in the Masters needs to make the cut to pay the light bill.

      I can understand all the hoopla on Saturday morning before the facts were know but people do not seem to be paying attention to the facts.

      Reply

      Mikerio

      11 years ago

      Hey T well done for having the balls for writing something you believe in. We live in an era where the media are simply puppets to outside influence. You and MGS have made a decision to question Wood’s decisions and why not. I am tired of hearing about Woods off the course and I don’t care! I love his ability but at times am embarrassed for him in relation to his poor conduct. The masters is a big deal and the biggest sports star on the planet made a big mistake. MGS made a big decision to question him…..T always go with your gut! It’s better to stand out than join the rest of the sheep! Oh And mu opinion, technically he should of DQ’d but then I liked watching him chase the leading pack! He is a beast on the golf course and a joy to watch!

      Reply

      Qwagmire

      11 years ago

      I think the only people who can comment on this are ones that never took an illegal drop.

      Should be nothing but crickets. Even if you think you haven’t, you have. I found out about mine after a round once during match play, but I conceded the hole ( I needed to hole the shot to tie from 125ish yds). The gentleman I was playing and our captain approached me and pointed out I needed to drop within a club of the drop area marker (local rule), and I was probably 2 drivers away from it (still within the circle though…)

      What I am curious about is Mr. 125 on the money list. He’s trying to put bread on the table, if we put a camera on him how many rules violations would he have in a week?

      Since the Augusta officials knew about it, but did not bring it to his attention before he signed his card, its on them, not him. They should have told him before he signed they had an issue. They used 33-7 to cover their tail.

      Reply

      Qwagmire

      11 years ago

      and their TV ratings…

      Reply

      RoverRick

      11 years ago

      T, Seriously? I often read your blog and find them to be well thought out and very entertaining. When I read this however, I had to check the date to see if it were April Fool’s Day.

      I guess I will address your 3 poorly thought out points in the order you wrote them. But first the illegal drop.

      Tiger used Rule 26-1b. dropping along the line that the ball crossed into the hazard and he can go backwards as far as he wants. No problem, except that rule says last crossed the hazard. In this case the ball crossed the hazard twice. Once directly at the flag and after hitting the stick it rolled back into the hazard. This was a different line than where he dropped because the ball did not roll straight back. So it was an illegal drop and required a two stroke penalty. He was not intentionally trying to cheat, but was using his knowledge of the rules to his advantage. Had the ball come straight back at him there would be no penalty. When this was pointed out he said that he did take an illegal drop. He did not change his story, but he was not aware at the time, or during the post round interviews that he took an illegal drop.

      :: Once it was clear an infraction had been committed, the Masters Tournament Committee looked for a loop hole that would keep Tiger in the Tournament.

      The Rule 33-7 was created specifically for instances like this. They do not have to look for a loophole when there is now a rule specifically designed so that a penalty applied to a player after they sign their card does not result in automatic disqualification. This has been applied several times in the last year and a half or two years but generally receives no more than a 10 second comment on the news.

      :: Rule 33-7 shouldn’t apply because the interpretation falls well outside of what I believe is the spirit of the rule.

      BS. The “Spirit of the rule” is so that it does not result in automatic DQ.

      :: Given the opportunity to withdraw there’s nothing we know about Tiger that suggests he would take a self-imposed DQ.

      This is stupid also. I got a speeding ticket the other day. I was using the rule that allowed me to drive 75 mph but had entered a 60 mph zone. I was unaware that I was speeding because I missed the speed limit sign. I went to pay my fine, but should I have also asked for jail time also? Tiger was given a two stroke penalty and since it was decided after he had signed his card he was not disqualified because they now have a rule for that. Him withdrawing would be as stupid as me asking the judge to sentence me to a weekend in jail in addition to the $178 I paid for the fine.

      Reply

      Mark_II

      11 years ago

      Facts matter, at least to some of us.

      The “HDTV” decision on rule 33-7 could not be more clear in saying it is to cover violations that a player might not have been aware of (cludhead touched two grains of sand … that sort of thing) but which showed up on TV.

      Only the most tortured logic gets you from that to covering Tiger’s situation. He had broken a rule and knew it. Said so in an interview. As someone said earlier, you didn’t need an HDTV here; a radio would cover it.

      Reply

      Chip

      11 years ago

      Tiger in an interview said that he moved 2 yards from the original spot. If he “knew” that he broke a rule as you suggest why would he talk about it after the round where he might face disqualification. It wasn’t Tigers ruling that allowed him to continue to play it was the committees decision.

      As was mentioned earlier it is just plain stupid to have rules that apply to a few people. Those being Tiger, because no matter what position he is in he gets air time, and the players that have a chance to win that week.

      Reply

      Mark_II

      11 years ago

      Tiger himself said he had screwed up. He knew this immediately when it was brought to his attention the the drop he made was not legal. Forgetting how a rule works is no excuse.

      Nobody is saying he broke the rule intentionally. But even Tiger says he now knows he broke the rule. And the kicker is … he had sought and gotten an (illegal) advantage in moving the ball back. He signed his card without it dawning on him that he had broken the rule. If this is not a DQ, nothing is a DQ.

      David W

      11 years ago

      One thing everyone of you are forgetting who support this article. The only reason there was a penalty called is because someone called in. That automatically puts 33-7 into play. The committee didn’t go searching for a rule. If this had happened to Couples, Els, or Mickelson then no one would have said a word. And if you think they would have withdrawn when the rules allowed them to play in the Masters you are dreaming.

      Reply

      David W

      11 years ago

      I have been saying for years (long before this ever happened to Tiger) that this viewer call in mess is an embarrassment to golf. There shouldn’t even be a need for 33-7 because allowing a viewer to call a penalty on a player is worse than the refs currently working the NCAA. It is moronic, and self serving for the PGA. You want to talk about Augusta using 33-7 as self-serving, how about the PGA using this moronic process to keep a few viewers who don’t have a life happy? The only argument that ever needs to be voiced for or against allowing viewers to make calls is that every shot isn’t shown on TV and every player doesn’t get covered on TV. It isn’t fair competition to allow someone who isn’t involved in any form or fashion with the tournament to have affect on it’s outcome. And don’t reply with crap about if you are famous that is something you have to deal with. PGA tournaments are a competitive sports competition, not a red carpet preview show.

      Reply

      GolfSpy T

      11 years ago

      Couldn’t agree more, and great point about the rule basically not applying to the groups that get zero TV time.

      How about the same rule as it applies to the weekend amateur. Essentially what we have if a rule that only applies to a very small subset of golfers who abide by the Rules of Golf.

      It’s a very clear example of the reality that bifurcation already exists.

      Reply

      David W

      11 years ago

      True!

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      Excellent post!

      Fairways & Greens 4ever

      Reply

      Fredo

      11 years ago

      Awesome post. It’s a blemish the PGA tour allowing viewer call ins. I find it hard to believe that there is NOT an official on every hole!

      Reply

      Mark_II

      11 years ago

      I agree with Tony Covey’s overall take on this, but believe it’s possible to get to the same answer much quicker. Only two questions matter here, under the rules of golf.

      Did Woods sign an incorrect scorecard for Friday’s round, having failed to take a penalty for the illegal drop? Yes, he did. (It does not matter that he was unaware of the error at the time … nobody ever *intentionally* signs an incorrect card.)

      Could he have reasonably been expected to know he had broken a rule? In other words, could he have been expected to know the correct drop options available to him? Again, yes.

      The penalty under these circumatances is DQ (unless the committee over-rides it.)

      The committee is free to do what it wants, but the explanation given by them for over-riding the DQ … applying the so-called “High Def TV” rule — is absurd on its face. That rule was put in place to cover situations that a golfer could not reasonably be expected to be aware of … a ball moving by a few millimeters for example. Totally unrelated to what happened.

      The fact that the committee could offer only an incoherent explanation for their actions brings their motives into question. The game was damaged on Saturday, not by Tiger but by a bunch of self-important green jackets who claim to came only about the good of the game.

      Baloney.

      Reply

      MattF

      11 years ago

      And now that Adam Scott won the Masters (Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!!!) and 3 of the top 5 were Aussies, it really doesn’t make too much difference…at least not to me. :-)

      Reply

      Jack

      11 years ago

      In my opinion, everything in your original article was fair commentary, and it was unnecessary to apologize to the Tiger fanboys, most of whom would defend his actions if he were seen strangling a kitten.

      Reply

      RoverRick

      11 years ago

      He is not accused of strangling kittens, he is accused of not knowing that the rules committee would change their minds and decide he made an illegal drop after he signed his card.

      Reply

      A.D.

      11 years ago

      What would have Bobby Jones done? That is the question. His tournament, his ideals. In his mind there were no grey areas.

      Reply

      frank

      11 years ago

      A.D.,

      Bobby jones was the empidome of the rules. Not sure if you are agreeing with this thread or not but below are a couple facts below that show his sportsmanship. I find it hard to believe that if Mr. Jones came across this ruling he would’ve allowed the committee to look for the loop hole moreover he would’ve, even if the committee extended his playing privledges, DQ’d himself for the better of the tournament and the game.

      I said to a friend on saturday…In baseball if we swing and miss and the UMP calls a foul ball we look the other way, in football if we drop a pass but the replay doesn’t show it hit the turf we look the other way, in basketball if the ref calls a bogus foul we look the other way all these sports have someone monitoring the rules. Golf on the other hand is self imposed policing with rule officials to be there in the case of an emergency or clarification. Granted I agree with Rule 33-7 when it applies to something like the Paddy Harrington ball moving a hair and was only able to be caught on HD TV by a viewer. Augusta used the call from a veiwer as the loop hole an that is BS. Tiger self incriminated saying he took the drop two yards back to not hit the flag again ignorance to the rule when you are heated or whatever it may be is not exceptable he shoudl’ve went home…

      The best is when you hear two weekend players on the range sunday morning saying nick faldo was wrong for saying tiger should’ve went home (becasue nick faldo knows nothing about the game right??). yeah to the weekend guy who takes a drop by the OB stakes and plays three in from there rather than reteeing it I can see that but if you are an avid golfer and someone playing by the true rules of the game you know what should’ve been done. I do agree some of the rules need to come to the modern times and things such as a ball moving because of wind shouldn’t be deemed as a stroke penalty or causing the ball to move but until the rules are changed we live and play by them accordingly

      BOBBY JONES IS TURNING IN HIS GRAVE!!!!

      Jones was not only a consummately skilled golfer but exemplified the principles of sportsmanship and fair play. In the first round of the 1925 U.S. Open at the Worcester Country Club near Boston, his approach shot to the 11th hole’s elevated green fell short into the deep rough of the embankment. As he took his stance to pitch onto the green, the head of his club brushed the grass and caused a slight movement of the ball. He took the shot, then informed his playing partner Walter Hagen and the USGA official covering their match that he was calling a penalty on himself. Hagen was unable to talk him out of it, and they continued play. After the round and before he signed his scorecard, officials argued with Jones but he insisted that he had violated Rule 18, moving a ball at rest after address, and took a 77 instead of the 76 he otherwise would have carded. Jones’ self-imposed one-stroke penalty eventually cost him winning the Open by a stroke in regulation, necessitating a playoff he then lost. Although praised by many sports writers for his gesture, Jones was reported to have said, “You may as well praise a man for not robbing a bank.”

      A similar event occurred in the next U.S. Open, played at the Scioto Country Club in Columbus, Ohio. In the second round, after his opening round put him in second place, Jones was putting on the 15th green in the face of a strong wind. After grounding his putter during address to square up the club face, the ball rolled a half turn in the wind when Jones lifted the club head to place it behind the ball. Although no one else observed this movement of the ball either, again Jones called a penalty on himself, but this time Jones went on to win the tournament, the second of his four U.S. Open victories.

      Reply

      Tim

      11 years ago

      Then the story itself gets moderated, wow the site that doesn’t moderate opinions sure backed up faster then a back peddling Nick Faldo on a Lance Armstrong’s Tour de France bike.

      Reply

      Tim

      11 years ago

      Tony, You, Brandel and Faldo should all go out to dinner with Ronald over at golfwrx. The ruling was made and that’s that get over your Tiger hateraid. You write a story and then you make your own version of Tigers quote by leaving out half the quote to suit your version of the story.

      Reply

      GolfSpy T

      11 years ago

      Tim, that was done tongue in cheek, and fairly obviously so (all you had to do was read the next sentence).

      Tiger is obviously a polarizing figure. And while I’d prefer he conduct himself different, and be a better ambassador for the game, his talents are undeniable. I think I was fair in how I presented the Tiger piece. He made an honest mistake, the committee issued a ruling I don’t agree with, and yes, I would have liked Tiger to do what many, myself included, consider the honorable thing, DQ himself.

      All of that said, the Augusta guys botched it, and all Tiger is guilty of is doing what’s best for Tiger.

      That said, dinner sounds nice. Is Faldo buying?

      Reply

      Tim

      11 years ago

      Can’t anyone just laugh anymore? Everyone takes everything I say at face value…LOL. If anyone has seen my millions of posts on many many other forums they would know i’m a joker……

      GolfSpy T

      11 years ago

      And see Tim…there’s a lesson in that. What’s clearly a joke to you may not come across quite the same way on some other guy’s screen.

      This is exactly why I removed an occurrence of 2 words (that’s right…2 words) from the original article. My words didn’t come across in the spirit in which they were intended.

      After much debate internally we agreed that they were unnecessary to the larger point I was trying to make, and given that some people may have been legitimately offended (while others certainly feigned a fair degree of moral outrage), we elected to remove those 2 words.

      Incidentally…we don’t censor our readers and their opinions UNLESS they write something that’s clearly offensive. In this particular case, I simply chose to hold myself to the same standard.

      Tim

      11 years ago

      I hear you T. Some others don’t feel the same. The typed word is awfully hard to show emotion or intent. Some get tongue and cheek and others don’t. Some others are here just to ridicule others. Some people also like to think that only their opinions are relevant. You would think that when your dealing with adults they could all act as such but I guess sometimes that’s only a dream or a fantasy.

      RON

      11 years ago

      Ofcoarse the golf channel never talks about in depth because Tigers their HONEY BUN, I will admitt one thing and thats that golf does have the silliest rules in all of sports, on the other hand you know everyone involved in the masters and cbs is going to bend over backwards fr him thats a given, perhaps they might thing he earns that right by bringing ratings or watever, but I agree with golfspy and they should have DQed him as a lesson for young viewers, but were living in a world of MONEY and not lessons learned.

      Reply

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      LMAO, Wait, let me make sure that I understand this, lol

      So ya liked em for all of the factual stuff, and probably 95-98% of their material is either directly or indirectly related to companies and/or people in the industry, so you’re saying good bye over an article that you obviously dissagree with?

      Dude, I’m gonna ask a favor of ya. And I understand that there is absolutely no reason for you to grant it, however I have to ask.

      Please sit down, clear your mind of the disgust & disdain that you obviously have for MGS at the moment and in as objective, impartial & detached frame of mind as you can be, ask youself, #1, is it really worth it for you to say goodbye to something/someone that, for all intents and purposes, you are not even involved with except for the occasional reading of an article or review & #2, and I speak for noone but myself here, however, do you really believe that you will be missed?

      Oh yea, don’t let the door hit ya in the a$$!

      Though I do wish ya the Best this season.

      Fairways & Greens 4ever

      Reply

      Tim

      11 years ago

      All I can say is what a joke. Also not everything goes un moderated. heck this will probably be pulled as well. and I help build the membership at this site.

      Reply

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      #1, and I don’t speak for MGS in any way, shape or form however moderation had nothing to do with Tony’s editing of his article. I have not spoken with him though I have no doubt that he felt that it was in MGS’s best interest to edit his post. If you are a regular, and I don’t recall seeing your name in the forum, however you would know that there is only one person at MGS capable of telling T to do something or delete or change something, and from what I know of that individual(GolfSpy X), he would not do that. My money is that T ultimately made the decision on his own.

      #2, as a member for just over two years, and with my fair share of posts, and if you go into the forum and look at some of my posts and threads, they would not have seen the light of day at a few of the other sites that we all know of. They were nott PC or they were too direct.

      Not here! No way! Never!

      I have never had a single post or thread moderated on this site.

      So, I don’t mean to imply that you have no idea what you’re talking about….

      …Ah hell, what am I saying, lol, cuz that’s excactly what I’m implying, lol

      You’re clueless and wayyyyyyyyy off base.

      And as far as building membership, except for maybe occasionally hangin around out here on the blog, cuz as I said, unless you go by another username in the forum, your presence is non-exsistent, you have contributed virtually nothing to truly “building” MGS.

      And please, do not take this wrong, cuz if you went back into the forum and posted a thread in the Intro Section, I and the other regulars would welcome you with open arms, right now, after you read this. That’s the waya I am, that’s the way these Guys/Gals are and that’s the way MGS is, however it really grates on me when people who post the occasional post out here in the blog and MAYBE, have posted a time or two in the forum, and they b*tch, complain and moan about stuff that they have absolutely no clue about and they are soooooooooooo far off base, that it lierally isn’t funny, it’s maddening.

      So, with that, I wish you the Best this season

      Fairwways & Greens 4ever

      Reply

      Tim

      11 years ago

      “And as far as building membership, except for maybe occasionally hangin around out here on the blog, cuz as I said, unless you go by another username in the forum, your presence is non-exsistent, you have contributed virtually nothing to truly “building” MGS.”

      Obviously you don’t know everything you think you know, because in the beginning of MGS golf blog/forum there were several people who were asked to help with getting this site going. One of those just happened to be me. I took pride in that and wrote all my friends in the industry and other friends in forums that I’ve met over the last 10 years to come check out this site. I like to feel like I did help this site in some small way. I wrote plenty of articles and reviews long before they started the MY GOLF SPY TEAM , where we have guys now who get all kinds of free merchandise to write articles. I was a MODERATOR and that was just a title given to the original 6-7 guys that were talking on Google Talk long before MGS Forum got up and running. Just because a person doesn’t post just to be a post leader or actually has other things going on in their life, doesn’t mean their not involved. Also it doesn’t make them a casual or non-existent as you happen to say. AND
      yes I have a user name in the forum and it’s TWShoot67, maybe you might want to just post about the topic instead of always replying to everyone else’s post. Also as far as using different names when I first signed up to this BLOG I just happened to use my first name. Then the forum came into existence and I used my same user name that I have in every other golf forum known to man. Now that you know who I am maybe you’ll just post on the topic and not reply to every post someone makes as it may just be a SPY! lol

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      Well, well, well, I see that the garbage rolled out front, here. I give ya some credit for responding because you showed more balls here than you ever have in the forum. And the fact that you are one of the original members and you would post a post such as you did above is a disgrace, as are you.

      I respond to posts like all others do and you know where to find my original material and if you ever wanna take a shot at me or one of my threads, you know where to find both, LMAO

      I’d use Tim also with the above post, lol

      Like I said in my/your thread, I want ya to post in top of mine

      Please

      I will not continue this out here.

      To all the rest, my apologies for deviating from the subject at hand, however when garbage lands only doorstep, I have to remove it.

      Fairways & Greens 4ever

      Tim

      11 years ago

      RP
      you really gotta get over yourself. You must be a lawyer with all your spewing. You must love looking in the mirror and pat yourself relentlessly on your own backside. Once your posts are removed so will be the garbage. So much for having a beer and being my buddy and playing a round together like you stated in my thread. How quick a mans opinion of one gets changed over one post!

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      No Tim, I am not an attorney, and the only time that I look in a mirror is to shave or if I want a group decision on something. Most of my time is spent looking into employees’ and other people’s eyes.

      And no, in two years in this forum, I have never gone around or gone after someone….

      Except & until you.

      And the reason is simple. Yes, I was looking forward to one day playing with you and yes, I sent a $300 Scotty putter and 2 limited edition putter covers for your son’s auction. So, along with being opinionated, I back my words with action.

      Been doin it my whole life….

      Unlike you…

      You see, in my book, and since I have my own company and some control over my world, in my world, the two most important traits that I display and yes, I demand, are honesty and loyalty. Black & white. No compromises there. No grey there,

      And while I can’t comment on your honesty, your lack of loyalty in the Whitlam putter contest was a disgrace. Forget misunderstanding. Man up Dude. Quit bein a balless b*tch. You lost, and you responded by throwing a forum sponsor in Witlam, under the bus by accusing them of running a rigged contedt. Then you threw MGS, and I know that you don’t see it this way cuz pieces of trash like you have never been a part of a high quality, championship orginization, company or team, but you basically threw X, T, Matt and the other MGSers under the bus as well, by your words. Anyone reading this may go into the forum and look in the “TW” thread in the Everything Else Section if you want to see what Timmy is made of.

      No, I don’t talk to hear myself talk, but when someone like yourself, garbage from the letter G, starts in on other people, then yea Dude, I make it my business. Been doin that my whole life too.

      Like I’ve said, I wasn’t raised in the gutter, nor do I frequent it, however I’ve got no problem goin there to deal with trash like you. You’re not amusing or funny, you’re nauseating.

      I give T & X credit, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, because for them to even respond to you in a civil manner, they are far better men than I. You could never understand how much disloyalty turns my stomach, because you do not know what true loyalty is. However, even your comments out here reak of rudeness, immaturity & words of a self centered pr*ck.

      I was hesitant to respond to this however many will read this that normally do not go into the forum and I want them to go into “your” thread, the TW thread, and read what I said, read what you said and read what other members said, members who know us both.

      Nuff said!

      Fairways & Greens 4ever

      Reply

      Tim

      11 years ago

      I don’t need to prove anything to you. Your like a child with your name calling on a computer. that would never happen face to face and you know it with you high and mighty stance. obviously you didn’t even follow the comp. There was much more said on the FB page by several others who actually helped their face book page get over 100’s of likes and that was what they wanted. I brought it to MGS as when I posted it was supposed to be a dig how WRX pics their winners as opposed to MGS random winners being picked. You can believe what you want and as far as anyone being civil on this site. no one has even talked to me. The owner was supposed to call me and talk about the post as he didn’t even know there was any problem as he;’s too busy now. So unless you know what’s going on behind the scenes you really shouldn’t have a comment. but again i’m sure you will throw you cussing and name calling about like every other post. I’m done. You can keep trying to judge people over the internet. I’m sure their all you want them to be. I’m as real as anyone can get and as honest to a fault. So reply with some more name calling. It really shows your intelligence.

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      Dude, face to face would be the second worst day of your life.

      And that’s no threat.

      It’s a fact, second worst day of yor life, and believe me when I say that you would never forget this day either

      RP Jacobs II

      Stephen Peszel

      11 years ago

      Now that SOUNDS like a threat, I could be wrong though. As I said, we need to dial this down a bit. This has now become a violent forum. Pity. One man had an opinion and it was given more space than it deserved IMO but it engendered response either for or agin. getting personal to the point of threatening is sad. Masters over with, Tiger didn’t win. It ended well. Let’s draw the curtain on this and get on with lives. This is a good forum to be part of. Lessons learned.

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      No threat, just a statement of fact. You do not know me, however I am not one of those who hides behind a computer screen and I do not make threats. In fact, I am an IT midget, as the Guys/Gals in the back well know, lol

      I prefer belly-to-belly.

      However you’re talking to the wrong man here. HaHa, I would hardly call this violent, though it is by no means reflective of my typical posts. As I said, on page two in the Everything Else section, In the thread “This site, like the game, is one of Dignity, Integrity & Class” will tell you all that you or anyone else needs to know about this individual.

      “We” don’t need to do anything, because I too am finished, though not because anything needs to be “toned down,” lol, however I have wasted enough time with him.

      And I seriously doubt that there were any lessons learned here, lol.

      The Best to ya Stephen

      RP II

      Fairways & Greens 4ever

      Jmn

      11 years ago

      Good bye GolfSpy. Allways liked the factual content, never cared the for the attitude towards certain companies or people.

      Reply

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      Hat’s off Rob on your knowledge of the make-up of the Rules Board. There are few that can match Russell & Ridley regarding their knowledge and experience & though I am not as familiar with Reinhart, I’ve read his background, and he’s no slouch.

      I owe you an apology.

      I am sorry.

      Whether or not anyone posts having heard the interview that you listened to, you obviously heard this. I just find it very hard to believe. And for me to base the validity of your statement on whether or not someone responds supporting you is more ludicrous than the Green Coats going outside for advice.

      Again, have a great season! :-)

      Fairways & Greens 4ever

      Reply

      Rob

      11 years ago

      No apology necessary. I think its great that people have differing viewpoints on the ruling. Our interest in rules of golf shows how much integrity goes into our great game. I was just a bit upset by the lack of proactive journalism used in the article. The important thing is that we got to see a great Masters tournament today. Hope everyone out there has a great season!!

      Reply

      Rob

      11 years ago

      I appreciate the fact that the author removed some of his obligatory comments. That being said, this article still takes some liberties that lack serious thought. Namely, your “I was pissed… and I took an illegal drop to gain an advantage” comment which you put in quotes and in a text box to make it stand out. Not only is that a faulty way of summing up Tigers comments but it also shows a complete lack of unbiased commentary on the writers part. Not surprisingly, the author completely fails to mention any information that would refute his argument. Such as the fact that all of the other major ruling bodies were consulted and agreed with the decision.

      Personally, I find this writing a travesty. There is a difference between informative writing that makes an argument and a rant that is meant for the casual golf forum or a bar. This article is definitely the latter. I have always applauded MGC for posting informative articles that are written seriously with the utmost care for detail and accuracy. As a result, when an article from the site comes out I look forward to reading it. This work makes me rethink that decision. I sincerely hope that in the future this site will lean on authors that have the mental capacity to write informative arguments unlike Mr. Covey.

      Reply

      Christian Furu

      11 years ago

      “All other ruling bodies were consulted”? Who are they? USGA? R&A? Were they consulted in this case before they made the decision at Augusta?

      Reply

      Rob

      11 years ago

      Yes, in the interviews on Saturday morning the official stated that officials from nearly all of the major bodies were on the rules board that made the ruling. He also stated that the major ruling bodies were consulted and agreed 100% with the decision. Whether or not they were consulted before or after the decision at Augusta is beside the point. Surely, we all know the USGA and RNA do not hesitate to make their opinions known and no statements have been issued whatsoever. I agree, that this information was shady during the interview. However, it is also important to concede to the vast experience of the rules board at Augusta. Mark Russell was a former chairman of the rules of golf for the USGA. Both Ridley and Reinhart are also some of the most respected rules individuals on all tours. This decision was not made by a bunch of T.V. producers or a couple low level officials. The men who made this decision have paid their dues and understand the depth of the rules of golf.

      Christian Furu

      11 years ago

      And still they got it wrong ;) That says a lot about how difficult the rules of golf (and all the decisions) are. They’ve butchered 33-7.

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      Dude, not to pile on, however I’m with Christian on this one, LMAO

      “the fact that all of the other major ruling bodies aere consulted and agreed with the decision.”

      Dude, there is not one comment in the author’s piece as ludicrous as the above statement!!

      Would you please direct me to either the article or the interview where it has been said that the Green Coats consulted ANYONE outside of the men in the room or on the property of Augusta.

      “Such as the fact…..”

      Fact?

      Dude, I’m callin ya on this one. I think that you’re full of sh*t.

      If I’m wwrong, I’ll be the first to apologize.

      Like I said, I wanna see proof on your statement.

      Fairways & Greens 4ever

      Reply

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      Or if there is someone else who heard or read that the other bodies were consulted, becuase I realize that it’s nearly impossible to get ahold of an interview with so many being given.

      I just find that totally unbelievable that they would have a “group” grope to arrive at a decision.

      However, I’m open to anyone else who heard this

      And this Rob, I wish ya the best this season!

      Fairways & Greens 4ever

      Rob

      11 years ago

      I simply watched the interview on Saturday morning. Whether or not you take the officials comments at face value is your decision. As I stated, I am inclined to believe the official based on the track record of the members of the rules board at Augusta. Regardless, the point of my original post was not to make any sort of argument for or against the ruling. My information relies on an interview with a green coated masters employee because it is a post NOT an article which is meant to inform readers.

      lambo

      11 years ago

      They had to make up for the BS call on the slow play penalty for the kid from China. He wasn’t the only one playing slow, if it took almost six hours for a round.

      Reply

      G. R. Blankenship

      11 years ago

      I respect the decision of the committee!!!

      Reply

      Chal

      11 years ago

      The big problem with what you wrote is that before Tiger took that drop his playing companions and a rules official all ok’d the drop. Effectively saying it was “as near the original playing position.” No penalty should have been assessed and if it was Joe Schmoe that is what would have happened.

      Reply

      Christian Furu

      11 years ago

      Did a rules official talk to him during the drop? And said it was ok? I know there was an official following them.

      And just to make it clear – it doesn’t matter if your playing partners say it’s ok. That just means that they’re all wrong.

      Reply

      MTW

      11 years ago

      I am not concerned regarding your article, I am concerned with the amount of people responding with their disgust. Tiger should have been DQ’d, end of story. It’s a shame when individuals become above the law and unfortunately it often ends in tears. Just ask anyone on wall street circa 2008.

      Reply

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      “But should he go on to win, he’s Barry Bonds.”

      I’m going to give the author of this piece the benefit of the doubt, just as it was given to Tiger, that the above statement was written while getting caught up in the emotion of reading his own writing, and not an intentional, though ludicrous statement none the less, attempt to innacurately compare two men who have nothing in common regarding their clashes with the rules.

      “Let me be clear about one thing. I’m not saying that Tiger cheated. I’m saying that he broke the rules, and in all reasonable likelihood did so unknowingly.”

      This too came from this author in this piece.

      And this is what I find amusing about young writers, who getting swept up in the emotion of their writing, lose touch with reality and move into the ficticious, and unfortunately, lose credibility because of such nonsensical statements.

      Putting aside this author’s first comments, to compare Tiger to Barry Bonds and his actions is just ludicrous.

      Bonds did KNOWINGLY, willingly and with obvious forethought knew the rules, and he chose to ignore them, along with subsequently ignoring a host of criminal statuates, to gain a competitive advantage.

      Tiger did no such thing. I do agree with the author that any rule(s) infraction was unintentional. His fate was in the hands of, and determined by others. Bonds’ fate was in his own hands, and he shose the path that will be his legacy.

      End of that discussion and comparison.

      Fairways & Greens 4ever

      Reply

      GolfSpy T

      11 years ago

      Richard – as you say, the actions are different, but the end result is the same.

      History will show Barry Bonds as having a record he didn’t earn (because he cheated), at least until MLB gets wise and cleans the record books (which I think they eventually will).

      If Tiger wins this one, though the cause (cheating vs. unintentional rule breaking) will be different, the ultimate perception (he’s got something he didn’t earn) could be the same. The reasons won’t matter…probably not as much as they should. The Committee gave him a pass, but he shouldn’t have taken it.

      If Tiger goes on to tie or surpass Jack the conversation will begin with Tiger has X, but the 2013 Masters…

      Reply

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      Thanx for the reponse

      RP II

      Fairways & Greens 4ever

      Rev Kev

      11 years ago

      Point well taken – I did not find the point of comparison between Woods and Bond to be the least bit compelling.

      Reply

      Stephen Peszel

      11 years ago

      Apology should be accepted but the words should stay or the following comments have no context.

      Reply

      GolfSpy T

      11 years ago

      Stephen we talked about that, but the last thing we want to do is risk either further offending existing readers, or genuinely offending new readers.

      Reply

      Stephen Peszel

      11 years ago

      Oh, I understand that, just saying.

      Christian Furu

      11 years ago

      The most important issue here is the use of 33-7/4.5. A rule meant to protect players from armchair referees. Not protect players that either don’t bother learning the rules or cheat on purpose.

      Reply

      Rev Kev

      11 years ago

      I do appreciate the point as you make it Christian and also as Tony has made it – from what we can tell that is the goal of the rule.

      However it is up to the committee to determine when or how to apply the rule as written and they did. The fact remains that many people could have told Tiger he had taken an improper drop prior to his signing his scorecard indeed even prior to his striking his next shot. But they didn’t. Why?

      I understand that T’s article is aimed primarily at the committee but I would sugget there is another culprit here – the rules themselves. They opened the door for the committee to apply an interpretation which T disagrees with. (I happen to agree with them but that’s not my point here.)

      My point is that the rules of golf have become far too complex for most to understand when even the guys who play the sport for a living can’t. If there were one simple rule for all water hazzard situations – say your options are to drop and hit or try and play it out of the hazzard – that would be that – several other rules cause similar issues with interpretation because of the multiple options involved and some others are so ridiculous as to have a golfer have to go backwards on the course to replay a shot even if he’s played a provisional ball to begin with because he played it under the wrong assumption – that’s nuts – it slows down play and adds to confusion.

      Simplify and tighten up the rules and this doesn’t happen.

      It’s way too complicated for a game where the object is to hit a ball with a stick around a course in the fewest strokes possible.

      Reply

      Christian Furu

      11 years ago

      It’s actually not up to the committee.

      From 33-7/4.5

      “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.”

      This clearly states that ignorance is not bliss :) The intent of 33-7 was never to leave it up to the tournaments committees. There are rules within the rule to guide them when using it. By acting the way they did Augusta and Masters have set precedent.

      Players can claim they didn’t know better and tournaments committees can base their decisions on their own beliefs and not the rules.

      That being said. The golf rules is a stupid system that’s way too complicated.

      Stephen Peszel

      11 years ago

      REALLY? I thought it was within the rules, I was wrong. If the rules were so simple an deasy to understand and interpret there would not be a need for a committee to interpret rules, there would be no need for on-course officials to make determinations and interpret the rules. I just learned something. Now, how close is as close as possible?

      Reply

      dr. bloor

      11 years ago

      What ever “close as possible” might be, there’s no way you start out a couple yards from your divot when you’re dropping in the middle of the fairway.

      Also, officials aren’t shadowing players to look for rule violations, and it’s not their job to do so. It’s incumbent on the player to consult the official for a ruling. Tiger and his caddy screwed up.

      Reply

      Mike

      11 years ago

      I don’t think a measurement in inches is the point here. The point for me is the wording “as close as possible”.

      If he hadn’t said anything else, a yard or two is probably within a best (or at least decent) guess even for shorter strokes. But, and for me this is the heart of the matter, he was aware enough of were he hit is last shot that he could tell that he added 2 yards. And by adding these he is per definition, not dropping “as close as possible” even in his own mind. He had an idea, right or wrong, were his last shot was from, and as he deliberately chose another point, it doesn’t matter if this was 1 foot or 10 yards away it is not “as close as possible”.

      Had he not said anything during the interview, and claimed that he dropped to “as close as possible” in his own judgement, then it would be another matter altogether. Then the call in of the penalty should either have been ignored or in worst case the 33-7 rule would have been more understandable.

      My main problem in this whole mess is that I can’t shake the feeling that, of the 93 players in the field, 90 of them would have been disqualified without further discussion. I might not be right, and we’ll never know, but if I am this is a win for the business, not the game.

      Reply

      Tiger's Claw

      11 years ago

      This article is written with a lot of emotion, no doubt. You should of started out at the beginning of the article by letting us readers know how much you hate Tiger. This way I wouldn’t have wasted 5 minutes of my life reading such a slanderous article.

      Reply

      GolfSpy T

      11 years ago

      It’s interesting, if I’m critical of Tiger, I’m a Tiger hater. If I’m complimentary, I’m blind.

      My feelings on Tiger are complicated. Simply put, he disappoints me. His greatness on the course in unquestionable, but beyond that, he’s some much less than what he could be.

      It’s impossible to condone, or really even be tolerant of the petulant behavior on the course. The swearing, the club throwing. It’s unnecessary, and is outside the traditions of the game. And that’s all before we talk about the off-course stuff. With the exception of my kid, I’m not obligated to be a role model for anyone, the same is true of Tiger. Golf would just be so much better off if he was.

      The majority of the blame for this incident doesn’t fall on Tiger. I thought I was clear…knowingly, he did nothing run. I believe the Masters Tournament Committee botched the ruling. Tiger could have done what many, myself included, would call the honorable thing, and withdrawn from the tournament. He chose to compete, which is well within his rights based on the ruling, but I’d like to think that in the same situation that I, and the guys I respect would have taken a self-imposed DQ.

      Reply

      Paul

      11 years ago

      Golfspy T,
      Your comments are spot on except your last paragraph. Once he found out that he violated the rule he should have said good-bye and moved on to the US Open as his next oportunity to win a major. Mr. Jones would have insisted he leave the grounds, no doubt in my mind.

      sherwood6handcp

      11 years ago

      You are spot on! Tiger should have been DQ’d, but I can see it now. The Masters Committee running around saying “If we DQ him the press will vilify us, and CBS will be really upset. Let’s find something where we can slap him with a penalty and hopefully it will blow over.” We all know that El Tigre would never DQ himself. Bobby Jones is spinning around in his grave! It is truly the worst thing I have seen in 40+ years of watching the Masters, but with Tiger nothing surprises!

      Reply

      Mark

      11 years ago

      I have to disagree, this is a group of guys that told the world F you when it came to allowing a woman in to the club. They said if you don’t like it we wont have any commercials. I highly doubt that the old codgers at Augusta care a lick about what the public or anyone else has to say about the decisions they make.

      Reply

      Barbajo

      11 years ago

      I haven’t read a ton of online material on this, but from what I’ve written – this is the best written and most thought provoking. As thinking people it’s important to look at all points of view on issues – especially the ones that run counter to our own. One of the things I think we’ve lost over the years is the ability to listen to opposing points of view, learn from those POV’s and advance our own understanding. At best we evolve, at worse, we respectfully disagree.

      Hacks? Hardly. You very ably gave your point of view and opinion on a pretty touchy subject, and seemingly everyone has an opinion on this one. You gave me some stuff to consider, but I do feel the ruling is acceptable for the following reasons:

      1. Since we can’t get inside the head of Tiger, we have to assume brain fart. The fact he was so matter of fact about it in his interview indicates he didn’t knowingly “cheat.”

      2. No one called the penalty at that time. We can debate the why’s till Christmas but it is what it is. The penalty wasn’t called until after the round was over and after the score card was signed.

      3. So tiger signed an incorrect card. At the time, he had no way of knowing it was an incorrect card, since no penalty had been called, nor had he called one on himself.

      The two-stroke penalty is significant. At 5 under he’s one of the hunters. At 3 under he’s hoping. Should he have DG’d himself? My gut says no, but I could see why others feel differently.

      As for the noise going on over on Facebook – that’s just noise. Your post racist? Please…

      Reply

      Barbajo

      11 years ago

      edit — “from what I’ve read,” not “from what I’ve written,” Big difference!

      Reply

      Stephen Peszel

      11 years ago

      This is the most jaundiced piece of writing I have seen on this site. The author and editor should apologise for this. If you don’t like the ruling then say so and state why it was wrong. why not pick on the stupid decisions to accept call ins from viewers, no other sport does this and it unfairly penalises those actually being televised not the other players. They might as well not have on course officials at all and let the public make the call. They should have instant replay and each time the ball is holed it should go for review at central command. What nonsense. The official did not call a penalty, the playing partner did not object. The committee saw nothing wrong at the time. Ergo no penalty. I don’t think it is right to assess penalties retroactively no matter who is playing. This write must be a Brandel Chambly wannabe. This type of writing stinks of Golf Digest and Chambly. Shame on you. If the intent was to spark debate it was misguided at best and fatuous at worst.

      Reply

      Christian Furu

      11 years ago

      You do know that Tiger announced to the whole world that he dropped incorrectly?

      “Their initial determination was that there was no violation, but they had additional concerns based on my post-round interview. After discussing the situation with them this morning, I was assessed a two-shot penalty. I understand and accept the penalty and respect the Committees’ decision.”

      ““The subsequent information provided by the player’s interview after he had completed play warranted further review and discussion with him this morning.”

      From – http://www.pgatour.com/tourreport/2013/04/13/woods-assessed-two-stroke-penalty.html

      We don’t need people calling in when players announce it live on tv.

      Reply

      GolfSpy T

      11 years ago

      Stephen, obviously I don’t agree with your assessment of my take on this as jaundiced, but I can appreciate the use of the word.

      For the most part, I believe there is much we agree one. The USGA created this nonsense by opening the door for call in violations. It is indeed stupid. The rule should read, “rules violations called in from Johnny on his couch are ignored”. Unfortunately the USGA decided to come up with a ridiculous rule (this should surprise nobody since it’s pretty much standard practice for the USGA…something new comes up…make a rule).

      So in this particular case, there’s a stupid rule, which I believe was used as a loophole. The issue here is that even if nobody on TV had noticed, Tiger himself admitted a violation of the rules. This isn’t the HD TV rule, this was a mea culpa (even if he didn’t realize he was admitting a rules violation).

      Yeah…it’s gray, and I suspect the reason nobody noticed is that it’s such a basic fundamental rule (hardly one of those tricky situations) that there’s no reason to suspect that someone with Tiger’s experience would botch it. But he did.

      If you take 33-7 out if it (and I think we should both in this case, and permanently)…this was hardly the type of infraction that requires slow-motion or HDTV, the rest of the rule book is crystal. DQ…and whether the committee did it, or Tiger did it himself, that’s what should have happened.

      Reply

      Philip Gullan

      11 years ago

      Whomever wrote this article clearly never played sports at a competitive level in his life. Tiger’s JOB is to play golf, not to interpret the rules of golf. A rules official determined that a 2-shot penalty was sufficient. END OF STORY!

      When MJ pushed of Bryon Russell in the NBA finals to get the final shot off, should he have told the ref that he have told the ref to call a foul. I know the situation is a bit different than what we are talking about now, but hopefully you catch my drift.

      When I played tennis at Carolina, I never really thought too much about how the integrity of the game would be diminished if I served with a foot on the baseline and the lines official didn’t call it. It’s not my job to make those calls; that’s what a refs and rules officials are for. Please get off your high-horse!

      I also read a comment intimating that you essentially admired tigers game, but could not put up with his, at times, petulant behavior. This is a fair point you made. I admire Tiger because of his game and his drive. I do not really care if he curses because it doesn’t affect me. If Tiger cursing on TV once in a while affects you so much, I would suggest that you see a therapist because there is something wrong with you. Seriously.

      GolfSpy T

      11 years ago

      From a rules perspective attempts to equate golf with basketball or tennis are ridiculous.

      Interpretation…that’s the USGA’s and the committee’s job, but it’s absolutely part of Tiger’s job to know the rules. In golf it’s the players responsibility to call his own penalties, which is why it claims to be a game of integrity of honor.

      So yeah…while you may have taken any liberty you could get away with on the tennis court, you didn’t have to consider it a character flaw, not if you could pass the buck off to the guy in the chair who missed the call. I’ll give you a pass. I understand stretching the rules to gain a competitive advantage, but that’s not we’re talking about. Tiger broke a rule. A very clear rule, with very clear consequences.

      The entire situation is cut and dry right up until the decision was made to allow one rule to supersede another. There’s a reason why 33-7 is called the HDTV rule, and it’s not to cover golfer who unknowingly admits to a rules violation that would otherwise result in a DQ.

      On a golf course, there’s no guy in a chair, it’s up to the golfer, and the system supposedly works because it’s played by men of honor who police themselves.

      Rules officials are not refs…not even close.

      Finally, the near constant swear (it’s well-beyond occasional) don’t offend me, but it doesn’t belong in what still is a gentleman’s game.

      Philip Gullan

      11 years ago

      I understand your point about refs not being the same as rules officials. You’re completely right about that. All I’m really trying to communicate is that while Tiger may have (there appears to be photo evidence that shows that Tiger took his drop from nearly the identical spot as the shot that ended up in the water) broken the rules, he didn’t knowingly do it. Tiger should have known the rules. If he was unsure about anything, he should have asked a rules official. My point is that after the decision was made to only penalize him two shots, it’s over. It would be truly silly to forfeit in this situation.

      I understand that Golf is seen as a gentleman’s game, but from my experience, Golf is a game like any other. Many gentlemen may play golf, but I can assure you that just as many scoundrels play the game as well. Golf is not special in this regard. This is my opinion, of course, and it is totally fine if you disagree.

      The point I’m trying to make is that even though you may be right about how the rules were interpreted incorrectly, it is not Tiger’s job to make sure that the rules are interpreted in the correct fashion. He is there to play and that’s it.

      I feel as though I’m over-simplifying my point simply because I do not want to write an essay (this may or may not be the case for you as well). I just don’t see professional athletes as more than just regular people who happen to have become very good at a certain activity. I admire people who have changed the world, not people who merely entertain (it’s true many athletes do great things as well). I thank you for you response and just want to let you know that I’m a very big fan of this site.

      Cheers!

      Andy

      11 years ago

      Philip I disagree with you for one reason only. you need to know the rules to make sure the ref or the rules official make the correct call. Bottom Line is Tiger knew3 and it should have been over right there.

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      Stephen, while I do agree with most of your coments regarding the ruling, I believe that your remedy and comments regarding the author are just as misguided & fatuous as you claim the the article to be. And I do not know who the author is, though he brings valid points, the Bonds comparison aside, to the table. I just happen to dissagree with him.

      However that’s the great thing about MGS. You can dissagree and voice that dissagreement and have a stimulationg discussion.

      If I want to exchange with someone who shares my views, I’ll speak into the mirror.

      First, I do not perticularly care for the editorial slant of GD, along with a host of other publications, in their coverage of the Tour, equipment and many areas in the golf industry. Nor am I a big fan of Brandel Chamblee, however both are main stream and both do bring legitimate opinions, thoughts and viewpoints.

      To get personal with the wannabe comment just takes away from an otherwise excellent comment and as I said previously, to ask for an apology is as misguided and fatuous as you find the article to be.

      Just one man’s thoughts

      Fairways & Greens 4ever

      Reply

      Stephen Peszel

      11 years ago

      RP, I will defend your right to have an opinion, even if it’s wrong, to your last breath, We need to dial this down a bit.

      TwoSolitudes

      11 years ago

      Nicely written and well said. There will always be an * next to this Masters no matter where Tiger finishes. A self-DQ would have been the best move for him by far. Playing on hurts his reputation and the Master’s reputation.

      Reply

      Ross

      11 years ago

      I am a big believer in playing by the letter of the rules as written, but when a sport maintains an intentionally cryptic and vague rule book (at some point it progresses from mere negligence), you provide ample room for subjective calls. If USGA or PGA wants a DQ for this type of offense, then say so in the rule book. I can help them write it. The words are available, and for free! Otherwise, take your penalty and play on, Tiger, because McEnroe never bowed out of a Wimbledon just because he was penalized for cursing, and few of your critics would voluntarily skip a payday from their job, and the ones that would probably don’t get invited to many happy hours.

      Reply

      Paul

      11 years ago

      Nothing complicated about the rule “as near as possible” is pretty clear. Anybody who has played in a competitive event is well versed on this rule. Tiger, once he said it in the post round interview he should have realized that the drop was illegal. He should have DQ’ed himself to protect the balance of the field from his blunder.

      Aaron

      11 years ago

      You guys arent nothing but a bunch of F&^%$* HACKS!! Writing a story like that just shows the trash that you clowns at MyGolfSpy publish!! No wonder you are one of the biggest jokes on the net!

      Reply

      RP Jacobs II

      11 years ago

      Dude, I happen to it disagree with a lot of this piece above however for you to react and more to the point, commit to writing, the garbage above, shows a true lack of class and a clown in full bloom, though your post is far from amusing. I have no doubt that you are one of the “forum phenoms”from one of the other sites who loses more balls on a single hole than youv’e got hangin between your legs, so you’re the typical, “one & gone.”

      However, if I am mistaken, please use your membership status and start a thread voicing your opions, thoughts and feelings in the forum. Ya see, no matter how distasteful or disagreeable they may be, unlike the site that you’re a b*tch for, your thread will go up and stay up, unmoderated & unedited, provided it’s not libelous or crude.

      Hope to see ya in the back

      My Best,
      RIchard

      Fairways & Greens 4ever

      Reply

      Paul

      11 years ago

      Aaron, Tiger just displayed another instance where he did not take responsibility for his own actions. He is symtomatic of today’s youth and culture. If you are a golfer I would have expected a reasoned retort to the opinion, but like Tiger you showed little class. Imagine that.

      Reply

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Irons
    Apr 24, 2024
    PXG Irons: Model By Model
    Putters
    Apr 23, 2024
    PING 2024 Putter Line Extension
    News
    Apr 23, 2024
    Nelly Korda Deserves Her Caitlin Clark Moment, So Why Isn’t She Getting It?
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.