Tiger should WD

[Paul S]

I agree with the way that the issue was handled. Some seem to forget that since he didn't get DQed that he got of free and clear, however, he still was assessed the penalty. I can absolutely understand thinking that dropping the ball within two club lengths no closer to the hole would be acceptable. Tiger's mistake was acceptable, and he was assessed the fair penalty. I'm under the impression that the officials were aware of the tip from the viewer before Tiger finished, though he wasn't notified until after he signed his card. The reason for the change in their feelings came from his post round interview. For them to change their mind is also acceptable, but in that case, it's only fair that the officials incite rule 33.

 

Two takeaways...

1) Stop letting viewers call in. That's just ridiculous. How is it that the one game with what seems to be the most universally accepted level of personal integrity the ONLY one in which viewers can officiate?

2) Humans are human. It is both our best and worst quality. The rules of golf are often difficult and always convoluted. A proportionate penalty for Tiger's mistake does not need to provoke such disproportionate condemnation.

 

Live and let live.

 

Paul

[Firstkart]

I agree with the comments that people phoning in there armchair adjudications should not be permitted.

 

Imagine if in the 6 round of the world title fight, someone rings in to say that there was an illegal head butt that the referee missed. Then after the bout ends and they do a quick review of the video and disqualify the winner. Yeah right!!

 

AJ

[RoverRick]

Interesting. Lee Jansen signed a card in the 2001 US Open and Jeng in 2006 US Women's Open. Both cases they were assessed penalties after the round and were allowed to continue on because there was no way for them to know it was the wrong score. Where was the outrage?

 

And this was before the rule was changed to make it easier to not disqualify a player. The USGA runs both those tournaments.

[Tyk]

I think it's not as clear cut as that. What if the camera actually catches a player cheating? Then we'd want the cheater DQ'd. I also don't like the enforcement of inconsequential stuff after the fact, like a ball perhaps oscillating on a green, or a leaf being disturbed at address. To me, that stuff, although part of the rules of the game, when read literally it takes the spirit out of the game. To me, the spirit of the rule is "did I definitely, even if accidentally, cause the ball to move? Did I clip the sand in the bunker with a practice swing or ground my club in a hazard illegally?". If an infraction is consequential enough that I notice it then it is incumbent on me to call the penalty on myself, or on an opponent or playing partner if I see it happen. But the point of golf is not to sit around with a rules encyclopedia calling ticky tack penalties on each other.

 

Technology is causing golf to change, and alot of the rules changes as a result of it is positive. The Tiger incident illustrates this. Instead of a disqualification as in the past, he got a costly 2 stroke penalty. That is better. We'll no longer have guys getting penalized for wind blowing the ball on the green. It seems that for a while the pendulum was swinging toward zealous enforcement with no reflection upon intent, now it is swinging back to a more reasonable interpretation. Hopefully this will continue.

[RoverRick]

Tiger is not the first to benefit from this rule. I remember hearing about it a couple of time since April 2011 when this went into effect. I have googled it but did not find that per se.

 

Here are two examples of players not being DQ'd before the changed the rule making it easier for them not to disqualify a player.

 

BUT, I did find that in 2001, Lee Janzen was assessed a penalty on Thrusday after he signed his card in the US Open. He signed his card for a 75. It was later determined that he committed some infraction and received a two stroke penalty but was not disqualified. He shot a 70 the next day and missed the cut by 1 stroke.

 

I read this but did not copy the article.

 

I did find this in the USGA Archives. Both Janzen and Jang were playing in USGA Sponsored events and the USGA waived the DQ rule.

 

 

Jang Hit With Penalty After Double Hit

Newport, R.I. – During the third round Sunday, Jeong Jang attempted to it out of rough just off the 18^th fairway. Upon further review, it was determined that she hit her ball twice. According to Rule 14 -4, a player cannot hit a ball twice. If it happens, the player must take a one-stroke penalty.

 

In Jang's case, because it was not conclusive that she indeed hit the ball twice, her swing sequence was reviewed several times on television replays. The initial ruling by walking official Reed MacKenzie and observer Walter Driver was that they did not feel Jang struck her ball twice on the same swing. Jang and her caddie did not believe she struck the ball twice, either, although her caddie had asked her immediately after her swing whether she had done so.

 

However, some doubt remained. USGA executive director David Fay conferred with McKenzie by radio about the situation. Further replays were cued up for review by USGA officials on a sophisticated plasma screen provided by NBC. The video was run again and again before it was determined conclusively by USGA Senior Director of Rules and Competitions Mike Davis that Jang had indeed hit her ball twice. Davis then alerted Jang that she would be assessed the penalty of one stroke. Thus, she was given a 7 on the 18^th hole of her third round.

 

At no point did USGA rules officials believe Jang had tried to mislead anyone. It was obvious that she believed that she had hit the ball once although repeated replays proved that the one-stroke penalty was deserved.

 

According to Decision 34-3/7, Jang was not disqualified for signing an incorrect score card because she proceeded on the basis of the initial Ruling until subsequent facts proved the original Ruling to be incorrect.

[JBones]

I may be dumb, but I'm still failing to understand how Tiger broke a rule, based on this breakdown of your options for a yellow hazard.

 

If you do choose to take relief, the first option that you have is to play your next shot from as close as possible to the point from which you hit your original shot. So, if you were in the middle of the fairway at 150 yards and you hit it in the drink, you can go back to that spot and try to hit the shot again, plus a one-stroke penalty. Thus, if you hit your second shot in the water, you would be hitting your fourth shot from that same spot. This is the less commonly selected choice of the two because it is essentially a stroke and distance penalty.

 

The second option for relief from a yellow hazard is usually your best option, but is also the most misunderstood choice as well. The other way to take relief from a yellow hazard is to mark the point that the ball crossed the hazard and then draw a line between that point and the flag. You may drop your ball at any point on that line. Essentially, you can go back, keeping the point where your ball crossed the hazard in line with the pin, as far as you choose to go. Please note that you cannot go back on the line of flight that your ball took as it flew into the hazard! That is the most common mistake in this type of relief situation. How your ball got there doesn't matter. What matters is the point where it crossed the hazard. Those are the two different forms of relief that you may take for a water hazard or any other hazard marked by a yellow stake.

 

Based on the bold sentence, didn't he follow the rule, by going back on the same line? It's based on where the ball crossed the hazard, not where it went in.

 

So, should he have went by went it crossed the hazard after bouncing off the pin and took his drop 30yds left of where he was?

[RoverRick]

I may be dumb, but I'm still failing to understand how Tiger broke a rule, based on this breakdown of your options for a yellow hazard.

 

 

 

Based on the bold sentence, didn't he follow the rule, by going back on the same line? It's based on where the ball crossed the hazard, not where it went in.

 

So, should he have went by went it crossed the hazard after bouncing off the pin and took his drop 30yds left of where he was?

 

The exact phrasing is where it last crossed the margin of the hazard. Normally, when you hit into the hazard you think only of the flight of the ball. The issue is that when it LAST crossed the margin, it had bounced off the flag stick. The ball did not bounce straight back but at a 30* angle or some angle different than 180. He could have gone to Atlanta and dropped if it would have been on that line, (probably not that far because the course boundaries) but certainly he could have gone back 2 more yards if he wanted. However, since he stayed on the line where he last made the shot, he had to hit it, as close as possible to where he hit the first one. He could not move to the edge of the hazard because it did not LAST cross the edge of the hazard there. He could have also gone to the drop zone, which he elected not to do.

 

This was such an easy thing for me to understand how he made the mistake. He is pissed that he hit the perfect shot and it went into the hazard, and he is thinking I want to hit it exactly the same but back up two yards. And it crossed the hazard here so I will drop here.

[JMiller]

Yup RR explained the situation and Tiger's options here, I think majority of people interpret the rule as "line of play" that's not really the case all of the time.

 

Rule 26-1 gives the following options:

 

a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or

 

b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped;

 

c. Not really listed specifically under Rule 26-1 but it is a drop area designated as such by the tournament committee A white circle painted with DZ or Drop zone in it to specify where a ball may be played from other then the above two options. A drop must land in and stay inside the circle.

 

 

Tiger didn't elect to take option C, the drop zone. He Proceeded under Rule A because the point of last crossed was way the heck left of where the original was hit from. So that just leaves option A left "drop as near as possible". He failed to do this thus where the 2 stroke penalty came into play.

 

 

Really is it no penalty, a DQ, or waived DQ under 33-7/4.5 giving two strokes... is what it all boiled down to.

[Kor.A.Door]

Rule 33.7 is a rule that protects a player from DQ for unknowingly breaking a rule. The problem here is that the committee could have and should have addressed this with tiger before he completed his round, the head committee guy said they saw the violation but did not want to interrupt him on the 18 th hole, that's where they went wrong. Because they didn't address the issue before he signed his card, rule 33.7 went into affect, since tiger didn't know they were going to give him a 2 stroke penalty for an improper drop. They couldn't DQ him because it was their mistake, and after talking to tiger on Sunday morning they felt that he did not knowingly make an improper drop. The penalty was for the improper drop, the incorrect score card was a result of that, since the committee screwed up and didn't address the issue in a timely manner they could not DQ him because of the new rule 33.7. That s how I see now. The masters committee messed up, but this also sets a precedent for this type of violation in the future.

 

If tiger would have used the drop zone provided there would not have been an issue at all, but he did not like the yardage that why he dropped 2 yards back from his original spot, so he could take "advantage" of the drop.

[JMiller]

Do you really think that Tiger intentionally broke the rule seriously? I think more then one person here would have interpreted the rule is "line of play" rather then "last crossed".

 

Honestly at this point I could care less, All I care about is that now they have set the expectation for everyone on tour that they will get the DQ waived and accessed the penalty. I think the big thing now is that Rule 33-7 is in direct conflict with Rule 6-6d since it is now expected that the DQ penalty will always be waived.

[RoverRick]

Do you really think that Tiger intentionally broke the rule seriously? I think more then one person here would have interpreted the rule is "line of play" rather then "last crossed".

 

Honestly at this point I could care less, All I care about is that now they have set the expectation for everyone on tour that they will get the DQ waived and accessed the penalty. I think the big thing now is that Rule 33-7 is in direct conflict with Rule 6-6d since it is now expected that the DQ penalty will always be waived.

 

Excellent wording JM, I heard about this Saturday Morning, and called bull crap, and was arguing about it, and pulled up the rule and read the rule twice, before it occurred to me that I was wrong. "Line of play" versus "last crossed" was the mistake, and if I have to read it and consider it twice sitting at home, than I can certainly forgive someone for missing that point when moments ago he was thinking birdie and now he has a work hard for a bogey.

 

I feel that under no circumstances was this DQable.

[silver & black]

I think Tiger was given a fair penalty.

 

I will also say that allowing a TV viewer to call in and change the game is just ridiculous. Why couldn't the officials look for themselve's? I'm sure they had access to it just like the rest of us saw it. In any other sport/game calls are calls. Some are reviewed and some aren't. NEVER in any other sport/game is a TV viewer allowed to influence the outcome of the contest. The USGA needs to take a serious look in the mirror and decide where it goes from here as far as how rules are interpreted and penalties are meted out. It would behoove them to get it right.