Tiger, do the right thing. DQ yourself, or the taint will follow you forever.
Disagree.
Quote from: ATWizJr on April 13, 2013, 08:44:36 AM
Tiger, do the right thing. DQ yourself, or the taint will follow you forever.
No.
Quote from: ATWizJr on April 13, 2013, 08:44:36 AM
Tiger, do the right thing. DQ yourself, or the taint will follow you forever.
Ridiculous. Attitudes like this and the other jokers spewing the same noise on TV right now is a huge reason why no one would be watching on Sunday if he did what you suggest.
He signed an incorrect score card. Rule must be applied uniformly to all regardless of World Ranking or possible loss of viewership this weekend.
Quote from: ATWizJr on April 13, 2013, 10:06:06 AM
He signed an incorrect score card. Rule must be applied uniformly to all regardless of World Ranking or possible loss of viewership this weekend.
Review was conducted before he signed (while still on the course) with conclusion being he had not violated a rule. Not on him after that.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 13, 2013, 10:09:35 AM
Review was conducted before he signed (while still on the course) with conclusion being he had not violated a rule. Not on him after that.
Stupid facts.
what is considered close proximity to the original shot?
He said in one of his post round interviews yesterday that he had taken his drop 2 yards farther back and then hit the shot. There are rules to cover all of the minutae of golf and he inadvertently chose the wrong rule and the wrong interpretation. I can argue this one every which way but loose. Instead, lets ask this. If it was a no-name, what would the ruling be?
It clearly was not in closest possible proximity to the shot and if it were a no name the integrity of the game would have been upheld and he would have been disqualified. I hope Tiger takes it upon himself to call the penalty and withdraw.
Quote from: tower912 on April 13, 2013, 10:24:43 AM
Instead, lets ask this. If it was a no-name, what would the ruling be?
It wasn't, so we'll never know. Therefore, irrelevant.
Quote from: ATWizJr on April 13, 2013, 10:27:34 AM
It clearly was not in closest possible proximity to the shot and if it were a no name the integrity of the game would have been upheld and he would have been disqualified. I hope Tiger takes it upon himself to call the penalty and withdraw.
And if it was a no name, nobody would give a rip about the so called integrity of the game. Lets call it what it is.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 13, 2013, 10:30:26 AM
And if it was a no name, nobody would give a rip about the so called integrity of the game. Lets call it what it is.
actually, if it was a no name, everyone would be singing his praises for doing the right thing and protecting the integrity of the game. So, to you, the fact that it is Tiger matters, I guess.
Quote from: ATWizJr on April 13, 2013, 10:33:28 AM
actually, if it was a no name, everyone would be singing his praises for doing the right thing and protecting the integrity of the game.
LOL!
Whats the penalty for signing an incorrect card? DQ. Was he shot in question reviewed and ruled on the course before Tiger signed his card? Yes.
What's the penalty for dropping two yards back, which is and should be the only thing still in question given the above? 2 shots. This was handled correctly.
You don't like Tiger. I get it.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 13, 2013, 10:37:30 AM
LOL!
Whats the penalty for signing an incorrect card? DQ. Was he shot in question reviewed and ruled on the course before Tiger signed his card? Yes.
What's the penalty for dropping two yards back, which is and should be the only thing still in question given the above? 2 shots. This was handled correctly.
LOL!
Nah. The shot in question was not reviewed and ruled on the course. No marshall or rules expert was called over to rule on where the correct drop should take place. The infraction came to light when Woods himself mentioned that he had dropped 2 yards back. It os his obligation to know the rule and if in doubt ask for a ruling on the course. Clearly, he did not drop on the correct spot, failed to take a penalty, and then signed an incorrect scorecard. Should be out. What do you think his fellow competitors will feel about it?
Quote from: ATWizJr on April 13, 2013, 10:38:23 AM
LOL!
Nah. The shot in question was not reviewed and ruled on the course. No marshall or rules expert was called over to rule on where the correct drop should take place. The infraction came to light when Woods himself mentioned that he had dropped 2 yards back. It os his obligation to know the rule and if in doubt ask for a ruling on the course. Clearly, he did not drop on the correct spot, failed to take a penalty, and then signed an incorrect scorecard. Should be out. What do you think his fellow competitors will feel about it?
Ok, I am going to go ahead and drop out of his since you obviously aren't familiar with the actual facts, but instead, are choosing to believe our own version. From the PGA's own statement...
"After being prompted by a television viewer, the Rules Committee reviewed a video of the shot while he was playing the 18th hole. At that moment and based on that evidence, the Committee determined he had complied with the Rules."Only after his interview was it reviewed further, and here we are. Had they ruled differently at the time, he would have taken the 2 strokes and signed his card, yet at the time that was deemed unnecessary. The correct penalty has been assessed. Those of you who don't like Tiger want to retroactively say he signed an incorrect card and should be DQ'd, under the guise of protecting the integrity of the game. Again, lets just go ahead and call it what it is.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 13, 2013, 10:52:48 AM
Ok, I am going to go ahead and drop out of his since you obviously aren't familiar with the actual facts, but instead, are choosing to believe our own version. From the PGA's own statement...
"After being prompted by a television viewer, the Rules Committee reviewed a video of the shot while he was playing the 18th hole. At that moment and based on that evidence, the Committee determined he had complied with the Rules."
Only after his interview was it reviewed further, and here we are. Had they ruled differently at the time, he would have taken the 2 strokes and signed his card, yet at the time that was deemed unnecessary. The correct penalty has been assessed. Those of you who don't like Tiger want to retroactively say he signed an incorrect card and should be DQ'd, under the guise of protecting the integrity of the game. Again, lets just go ahead and call it what it is.
In fact, I am a huge Tiger fan which prompts me to hope that he will do the right thing. Tiger, this is your chance to retain your integrity on the course and avoid being called a cheater on and off the course. It is his responsibility to know and follow the rules, regardless of what the committee rules. If we play, NJ, I hope you'll let me keep the score.
if the rules committee reviewed it and ruled ok it makes no sense to go back cause Tiger says he dropped 2 yards back (it was actually about 4-5 ft). So after the NBA finals Jordan comes out and says yes I pushed Byron Russell does the NBA go back and take away the points?
According to the rules this was handled correctly but I still do not understand how you can go back after everything was ok'd and reviewed on video.
Character revealed
Tiger should have known the rule, called the penalty on himself at the time, added the extra stroke to his card and then signed a correct card. To me, the fact that someone else has said, paraphrasing, "It's ok Tiger, you can have a pass", does not make it right. It's like if you are given the wrong change after making a purchase. If you have any integrity, you need to do the right thing. Tiger, do you have the integrity to do the right thing?
Quote from: ATWizJr on April 13, 2013, 11:08:49 AM
To me, the fact that someone else has said, paraphrasing, "It's ok Tiger, you can have a pass", does not make it right.
Again facts are pesky little buggers. Who exactly said that? All involved
at the time, deemed no rule had been broken. Now, after further review, which as someone points out above, is a bit bizarre, the same penalty that would have been assessed had he/they gotten it right
at the time, has been assessed.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 13, 2013, 11:17:21 AM
Again facts are pesky little buggers. Who exactly said that? All involved at the time, deemed no rule had been broken. Now, after further review, which as someone points out above, is a bit bizarre, the same penalty that would have been assessed had he/they gotten it right at the time, has been assessed.
He took an unfair advantage with the drop, signed an incorrect scorecard and should be DQed. No mystery here. So we'll see if he has the character to do the right thing or whether he will take a second unfair advantage, and continue in the tourney. To me, this could cause a bigger loss of fans than his personal indiscretions.
Quote from: ATWizJr on April 13, 2013, 11:22:06 AM
He took an unfair advantage with the drop, signed an incorrect scorecard and should be DQed. No mystery here.
You can keep saying that all you want. Actual events, circumstances, and facts involved, indicate you are incorrect (but I suspect you already know that).
Football and Baseball geeks spend time between games discussing meaningless stats. Golf snobs spend time between rounds discussing meaningless rule infractions.
Uh.. you guys do know they added a new rule (rule 33.7) in 2012 that allows ANY player to continue playing even if they signed an incorrect scorebard, right? The reason he's still playing isn't because he's Tiger, it's because the rules permit him from still playing. All of those guys saying he should DQ himself are dumb. It's a new rule. If they all disagreed with the rule (which it sounds like they do), take it up with the PGA.
Quote from: injuryBug on April 13, 2013, 11:02:37 AM
So after the NBA finals Jordan comes out and says yes I pushed Byron Russell does the NBA go back and take away the points?
I wouldn't use other sports as an analogy, golf is supposed to be driven by the rules and self governance, that's the backbone of the game. In other sports, people are looking to gain an advantage often by breaking the rules all the time, hoping the refs don't call it.
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 13, 2013, 12:50:23 PM
Uh.. you guys do know they added a new rule (rule 33.7) in 2012 that allows ANY player to continue playing even if they signed an incorrect scorebard, right? The reason he's still playing isn't because he's Tiger, it's because the rules permit him from still playing. All of those guys saying he should DQ himself are dumb. It's a new rule. If they all disagreed with the rule (which it sounds like they do), take it up with the PGA.
This is correct.
Just back from my course from a round and a this was a big point of contention. The pros at the course stated the ruling was correct and the ruling was made by the Masters Rule committee under rule 46-1. Whether it was Tiger Woods or Peter Hansen, the ruling would have been the same. Rule 33.7 took over and he was protected by that.
It is an integrity matter now, but no way should he withdraw. He was penalized, basically took a trple bogey and move on.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 13, 2013, 01:08:51 PM
I wouldn't use other sports as an analogy, golf is supposed to be driven by the rules and self governance, that's the backbone of the game. In other sports, people are looking to gain an advantage often by breaking the rules all the time, hoping the refs don't call it.
I'm not sure this is the rule. My understanding is that the intent of the rule is to protect a player when they have inadvertently committed an infraction that can only be ascertained later by virtue of video replay. For example, a player grounds his club in a hazard by accidentally brushing a leaf or a grain of sand that cannot be known at the time but is later revealed by video replay. This is a true accidental infraction. What Tiger did was not accidental. He purposely dropped his ball 2 years behind the spot of his previous shot. He had every opportunity to call over a rules official to determine the proper place to drop and didn't. He got confused and used the incorrect rule resulting in a penalty and a higher score than the one for which he vouched when he signed his card.
By misusing the new rule to allow Tiger to continue in the tournament, the questions of double standard will be debated and whatever Tiger's result is will be tainted. Moreover, the integrity of the player and the motives of committee will be called into question.
If you're going to err in a game that is self regulated and depends on the honor system, it is better to err on the side of honor.
Otherwise what you have is....soccer.
Too bad. But, Tiger had every chance to call for a ruling on the course or have the rule explained to him before dropping and did not choose to do so. So, it's on him to do the right thing. Now, however he is stuck. The only way back to honor is to shoot a great round and withdraw while in contention.
Quote from: ATWizJr on April 13, 2013, 02:36:20 PM
I'm not sure this is the rule. My understanding is that the intent of the rule is to protect a player when they have inadvertently committed an infraction that can only be ascertained later by virtue of video replay. For example, a player grounds his club in a hazard by accidentally brushing a leaf or a grain of sand that cannot be known at the time but is later revealed by video replay. This is a true accidental infraction. What Tiger did was not accidental. He purposely dropped his ball 2 years behind the spot of his previous shot. He had every opportunity to call over a rules official to determine the proper place to drop and didn't. He got confused and used the incorrect rule resulting in a penalty and a higher score than the one for which he vouched when he signed his card.
By misusing the new rule to allow Tiger to continue in the tournament, the questions of double standard will be debated and whatever Tiger's result is will be tainted. Moreover, the integrity of the player and the motives of committee will be called into question.
If you're going to err in a game that is self regulated and depends on the honor system, it is better to err on the side of honor.
Otherwise what you have is....soccer.
Too bad. But, Tiger had every chance to call for a ruling on the course or have the rule explained to him before dropping and did not choose to do so. So, it's on him to do the right thing. Now, however he is stuck. The only way back to honor is to shoot a great round and withdraw while in contention.
Everybody will have their own opinion for a long time and the discussion could go on forever. The bottom line is the Masters Rules Committee, who runs the tournament, made the ruling according to the rules of golf and thats the final say for the tournament. Maybe the rules will now change, since it takes incidents like this for further rules discussion.
That being said, for some of you who play competitive golf and for those who are the "duffers", the Golf Gods always get back at you. Maybe they are on Tiger now. He just 400 degreed a birdie putt on #8 and then made a bad bogey on #9. Ah, the Golf Gods..........
Who cares? Many of the current players are happy that he's still playing.
Quote from: ATWizJr on April 13, 2013, 02:36:20 PM
I'm not sure this is the rule. My understanding is that the intent of the rule is to protect a player when they have inadvertently committed an infraction that can only be ascertained later by virtue of video replay. For example, a player grounds his club in a hazard by accidentally brushing a leaf or a grain of sand that cannot be known at the time but is later revealed by video replay. This is a true accidental infraction. What Tiger did was not accidental. He purposely dropped his ball 2 years behind the spot of his previous shot. He had every opportunity to call over a rules official to determine the proper place to drop and didn't. He got confused and used the incorrect rule resulting in a penalty and a higher score than the one for which he vouched when he signed his card.
By misusing the new rule to allow Tiger to continue in the tournament, the questions of double standard will be debated and whatever Tiger's result is will be tainted. Moreover, the integrity of the player and the motives of committee will be called into question.
If you're going to err in a game that is self regulated and depends on the honor system, it is better to err on the side of honor.
Otherwise what you have is....soccer.
Too bad. But, Tiger had every chance to call for a ruling on the course or have the rule explained to him before dropping and did not choose to do so. So, it's on him to do the right thing. Now, however he is stuck. The only way back to honor is to shoot a great round and withdraw while in contention.
Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're using incorrect language. In the same breath, you say Tiger got "confused and used the incorrect rule." Yet you also say what Tiger did was "not accidental." If you don't think Tiger's interpretation of the rule and subsequent drop based on that (incorrect) interpretation wasn't accidental, you're a fool. You're telling me a perfectionist and someone who is so used to the spotlight as Tiger is would intentionally break a rule and think he could get away with it based on video review (and random phone-ins from TV viewers... dumbest thing ever)? No way someone like Tiger does that intentionally. No way.
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 13, 2013, 04:29:05 PM
Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're using incorrect language. In the same breath, you say Tiger got "confused and used the incorrect rule." Yet you also say what Tiger did was "not accidental." If you don't think Tiger's interpretation of the rule and subsequent drop based on that (incorrect) interpretation wasn't accidental, you're a fool. You're telling me a perfectionist and someone who is so used to the spotlight as Tiger is would intentionally break a rule and think he could get away with it based on video review (and random phone-ins from TV viewers... dumbest thing ever)? No way someone like Tiger does that intentionally. No way.
We must not be communicating. Tiger did not accidentally drop the ball 2 yards behind his early spot. He intentionally did so. This is in contrast to a player accidentally brushing a leaf in a hazard. Both are infractions. One is a accident, one is intentional thinking the rule allowed it. Ne ces't pas?
Quote from: ATWizJr on April 13, 2013, 04:46:12 PM
We must not be communicating. Tiger did not accidentally drop the ball 2 yards behind his early spot. He intentionally did so. This is in contrast to a player accidentally brushing a leaf in a hazard. Both are infractions. One is a accident, one is intentional thinking the rule allowed it. Ne ces't pas?
So are you saying Tiger intentionally broke the rule? Or accidentally broke the rule? No argument here that he intentionally dropped the ball 2 yards back. My disagreement was with WHY he dropped it 2 yards back.
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 13, 2013, 05:54:26 PM
So are you saying Tiger intentionally broke the rule? Or accidentally broke the rule? No argument here that he intentionally dropped the ball 2 yards back. My disagreement was with WHY he dropped it 2 yards back.
I am saying he accidentally broke the rule. But ignorance of the rule is no excuse. Why did he drop it 2 yards back? He said why he did that. To get a better shot. In other words, to gain an advantage.
Quote from: ATWizJr on April 13, 2013, 08:07:17 PM
I am saying he accidentally broke the rule. But ignorance of the rule is no excuse. Why did he drop it 2 yards back? He said why he did that. To get a better shot. In other words, to gain an advantage.
The greatness of golf rests in its traditions. All players must respect that tradition or they are unworthy to set foot on any course.
My 2 cents on this issue:
1) It is absolutely ridiculous that the PGA and the Augusta Rules Committee take audience suggestions to review potential rules violations.
2) It's stupid that in this day and age PGA players still keep their own scorecard. I know "tradition, integrity, self-governance, blah, blah...". B.S. An official should be keeping score. It's silly that they keep this obsolete and unnecessary practice just for the sake of tradition.
3) All of this is over 5 feet. 2 strokes is more than enough penalty for the infraction.
Quote from: TJ on April 13, 2013, 11:48:19 PM
My 2 cents on this issue:
1) It is absolutely ridiculous that the PGA and the Augusta Rules Committee take audience suggestions to review potential rules violations.
2) It's stupid that in this day and age PGA players still keep their own scorecard. I know "tradition, integrity, self-governance, blah, blah...". B.S. An official should be keeping score. It's silly that they keep this obsolete and unnecessary practice just for the sake of tradition.
3) All of this is over 5 feet. 2 strokes is more than enough penalty for the infraction.
As they say, character is about doing the right thing when no one is watching. This is a matter of honor. Golf is a game of gentlemen, by gentlemen, for gentlemen. One either understands that or one does not. Unlike so much of life today, situational ethics will never apply.
Quote from: keefe on April 14, 2013, 12:20:17 AM
Golf is a game of gentlemen, by gentlemen, for gentlemen.
As a lifelong golfer, and being raised by a collegiate golfer, I definitely understand what you're saying. But it's the mentality here that also made golf an "elite" sport and led to things like Augusta only allowing white men for too long.
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 14, 2013, 02:00:32 AM
As a lifelong golfer, and being raised by a collegiate golfer, I definitely understand what you're saying. But it's the mentality here that also made golf an "elite" sport and led to things like Augusta only allowing white men for too long.
Honor Codes are far from elitist. The youngest Airman and most senior General are subject to it, regardless of gender, race, age, religion, education, etc... That universality suggests anything but elitism. I cannot speak for Augusta National but I am a member of a couple organizations where personal accountability is inviolable.
If Tiger Woods gained competitive advantage from an incorrect drop, regardless of intent, he should DQ himself. If he knowingly dropped the ball incorrectly to gain competitive advantage he cheated and should apologize to his brethren for betraying their trust. Some things are non-negotiable and trust is one of the most important.