Tiger should WD

[HighFade]

I would gain a lot of respect for him if he WD.

 

The committee ruled based on money. Masters weekend without him would not be the same.

 

He is in a great position to show all the haters that he is not "cheetah" and can show real class by WD-ing.

 

If he were to come back and win, what a huge asterisk. Then if he breaks Jack's record, an even bigger asterisk. It's just not worth it, Tiger

[ZenGolfer]

Agree. Tiger should be a man of honor and WD. He wont though and if he should win and should go on to someday surpass Jack, it will be tainted.

[Walkerjames]

+ 100

[Jgolf]

Tainted? Yes, I agree. I think, though, that because the decision was made to not dq him, and he incriminated himself in the interview (something that I believe he never would have done if he had purposely violated a rule) it would be silly for him to wd. As i understand the rule his actions, and the failure of the committee to alert him to them after they discussed the situation and before he completed the round, are sketchy admittedly but warrant only the penalty and not a withdrawal. If the penalty as decided by the committee is 2 strokes than it should be 2 strokes. It may be even more impressive to come back from the penalty in my mind if he does go on to win...

 

I think the rules of golf are what are really tainted in this situation as they led to both the original confusion and the debatable outcome.

[mudfish]

I agree with JGolf on this one... I'm sure the Rules Committee put full though into the decision based on the most up to date and official rules. If the rule would have called for him to be DQ'd they would have done that. I will say that I am not cheering for Tiger to win as much today as I was yesterday, but I do not think he should WD...

[JBones]

This has nothing to do with Tiger being Tiger. The USGA put in a new rule last year to protect players from being DQ'd for something that was enforced AFTER they turned in their scorecard. If it is deemed that ANY player broke the rule unintentionally then they will not be DQ'd. This rule was put into affect, because of lame ass armchair "rules officials". So no, he should most definitely not WD.

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

This has nothing to do with Tiger being Tiger. The USGA put in a new rule last year to protect players from being DQ'd for something that was enforced AFTER they turned in their scorecard. If it is deemed that ANY player broke the rule unintentionally then they will not be DQ'd. This rule was put into affect, because of lame ass armchair "rules officials". So no, he should most definitely not WD.

 

Agreed. The rules committee followed their procedures to the letter. Sure did't appears as thought Tiger was intentionally trying to cheat. He didn't move his ball closer to the hole - he thought he was acting within the rules. He wasn't, the rules committee ruled within their stated procedures, and that's that. 2 strokes. Move on....

[whiskey golf]

I don't think he should WD

[Blade]

I didn't know the story behind this yesterday to form an opinion. But after hearing what happened, the penalty for the events that took place, according to the rules of golf, regardless of whether it was Tiger or not, is a two stroke penalty. That's what he got. End of story.

 

If another player had done the same thing, they wouldn't have been DQ'd. In all likely-hood, they would have gotten away with it all together. The other players don't have the millions of critical eyes on their every move from their living rooms as Tiger does. But even if they did get called on it, the ruling would have been the same.

[JMiller]

Really where I stand on this is asking the question >> Would every other player in the field get the same exact ruling from the committee? IF the answer is NO then I have a major issue with the decision because it was based on whom the player was not the situation. We can not make exceptions for one player and not the rest of the field and keep the integrity of the competition.

 

 

I personally feel that the bigger issue is the fact that TV viewers and the development of high depth television people can sit on their sofa's and call in a rules infraction that directly effects the score results for a player. This is really the main reason that Rule 33-7 got added in the first place is help protect the player from being DQ'd over something silly and intention of the rules infraction.

 

So I agree with this because I don't feel that TV viewers should be allowed to call in and effect the resulting score of an individual. If you are not on the grounds and there to witness it how is it fair across the field between the leaders and the guys that get zero TV air because they are not in contention. I am sort of under the impression that the guys not on Tv all the time might not always "get caught by the rules". We are human some things are going to slip through the cracks. I don't think that it is fair to the players in contention when the rulings for them are different then the ruling for the guys that are on TV all the time. Under the microscope so to speak.

 

 

Did Tiger receive a special treatment based on whom he is and not the rules of golf? I think that a lot of people feel this way that are competitive golfers and even avid golfers that know the rules very well. I know IF that were anyone that doesn't move the TV needle for ratings they don't get the option to WD, they only get "you have been DQ'd for signing a wrong scorecard" or they get no penalty and it slides.

[JMiller]

I didn't know the story behind this yesterday to form an opinion. But after hearing what happened, the penalty for the events that took place, according to the rules of golf, regardless of whether it was Tiger or not, is a two stroke penalty. That's what he got. End of story.

It's only a 2 stroke IF AND ONLY IF it is corrected and placed BEFORE the score card is signed. The penalty for signing a WRONG score card that has a LOWER score then you recorded is a DQ.

 

If another player had done the same thing, they wouldn't have been DQ'd. In all likely-hood, they would have gotten away with it all together. The other players don't have the millions of critical eyes on their every move from their living rooms as Tiger does. But even if they did get called on it, the ruling would have been the same.

The committee used rule 33-7 to exercise their right to WAIVE the penalty of DQ for a wrong score card signed, instead giving a 2 stroke penalty. The question really is would rule 33-7 be exercised for literally everyone in the field in the same way?

[Blade]

There is no way Tiger would deliberately violate a rule like that. Please! If he knew he was doing something wrong, he would know someone would catch it, either on site or called in. That means it was an unintentional violation. He was unaware he broke a rule . Therefore it falls under the provision of getting a two stroke penalty as opposed to being DK'd. Not earth shattering. People just aren't happy unless they have something to throw a fit about. They're happy when they're tic'd off.

[HighFade]

Blade, you're prob right. I just wish they had used the new rule for a less well-known player. Using it for tiger reeks of favoritism. But using it to clear a journeyman player would give the rule more legitimacy.

[The Dansome]

Blade, you're prob right. I just wish they had used the new rule for a less well-known player. Using it for tiger reeks of favoritism. But using it to clear a journeyman player would give the rule more legitimacy.

 

I think everything that has transpired is fine. Now the next time this happens with a lesser known player is where we'll know the truth.

[jaxbeachpackerfan]

I'm biased, of course, because he's a partner of mine in my law firm, but I thought Fred Ridley did a great job of communicating the decision and how the committee came to the ruling it did. Handled the press conference in a very persuasive manner. He even brought Faldo, who was livid about Tiger continuing on early in the day, over to his side.

[Tyk]

I don't think anything is required from Tiger in this. I do think he should have been DQ'd, he intentionally, even if unknowingly, violated the rules and did not penalize himself properly before turning in the card. Since when is not knowing the rules an acceptable excuse in golf? I bet everyone who's ever played competitively has been burned by a mistake at some point. But none of this is really Tiger's problem.

 

I personally believe the new rules were misinterpreted and misapplied. It was fine for them to rule that Tiger had not violated the rules when they reviewed it prior to his statements that made it clear that he HAD violated them. At that point, imo none of the new rules apply. These new rules were implemented to address situations where players were unaware of a rules violation. Things such as a ball moving without their knowledge, situations where they could not know that a penalty was called for. Tiger knew what he had done, it is his responsibility to know the rules and know how to penalize himself and write down his score. When he failed to do that, it was incumbent upon the officials to DQ him.

[revkev]

So I have a dilemna. I'm playing tomorrow and its supposed to be windy out which means the ball might move on the green.

 

Should I DQ myself because that might happen?

 

Why should a guy withdraw when the tournament committee has reviewed the case and made its ruling according to the rules? Aren't they supposed to be the arbiter here?

 

I agree that we'll have to see what happens when this happens to another player and it will at some point. It would seem to me that the same application should apply. Better yet before it can happen again change the rule with all water hazzards that you either play it in the hazzard or drop where you originally hit from with a stroke penalty.

 

Then there is no issue what so ever.

 

Let's focus on the tournament now shall we.

[Mrs.Manbearpig]

Wow that post on FB sure got people fired up. I wanted a less executioner style place, to post my own opinion.

 

I know Arnold Palmer had said "in our game the integrity of golf must be taken forward. We are custodians of the game. We must carry it forward.” I get the tradition of keeping the game the same but even in the past, in a tournament, the Committee and it's officials are being paid to enforce rules are followed. I like to take a look at things from both sides and being fair, I don't think Tiger should be the one crucified in this. I think Graeme McDowell really said it perfectly:

 

"Graeme McDowell -

Instead of retrospective disqualification, the player receives a penalty. It's a decent rule. Take the fact that it was Tiger out of the equation and it is a fair ruling. Since it is him, the debate begins about TV ratings and all that. From Augusta's statement we know that the possible infringement was detected before he finished the round. It all should have been dealt with then."

 

That's it. I'm done with this. Hey did anyone notice there are other golfers on the field? How about that Jason Day kid?

 

Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/mastersaugusta/9992387/The-Masters-2013-under-fire-Tiger-Woods-facing-player-backlash-for-not-withdrawing-after-wrongly-signing-his-scorecard.html

[HighFade]

@revkev

Actually, you're fine tomorrow. New version of rule 18-2b says as long as you didn't cause it to move, there's no penalty.

 

To clarify to everyone: I really do want tiger to break jacks major record. I just don't want the haters to put an asterisk on this one. Easier if he didn't win, and I don't think that's gonna be an issue now.

 

Pulling for Snedeker now....

[Firstkart]

For my 2 cents worth I do not believe the rules breach was intentional and had it been caught before his card was submitted there was the opportunity for Rule 33-7 to be used correctly and a 2 shot penalty would have sufficed.

 

Where they have made the mistake is to apply Rule 33-7 for both infringements.

 

I do not believe that Rule 33-7 should be applied in relation to the submitting of a card as is the case here.

 

So to summarize - 2 shots for the incorrect drop, Correct decision. DQ for submitting the card with lower score than actual, Correct decision but not enforced here.

 

Should TW WD - No. Should they have DQ'ed him, YES (for the card violation only).

 

AJ

 

P.S. Should not matter who the player is, the rules are the rules are the rules.

[RoverRick]

Darn it. I have been trying ignore this but can't. When he took the drop he was following the rule of line of flight no closer to the hole keeping that spot between himself and the hole. The problem was that he did not hit it into the hazard on that line. It hit the stick and entered the hazard on a different line. Something that did not occur to him oat the time. So he takes a drop.

 

He signed the scorecard with the right score on it at that time. Later he says he dropped back two yards someone realizes he could not do that. So they assess a penalty which now makes the score wrong. In past years that would have led to a DQ. But they changed that and while I could not find it to put his name here, I believe this new rule was used on some no name in the Open Championship last year.

 

This not DQing him was the right call. And why would he withdraw. He did not get away with anything. He made an error and was penalized for it. It is moot anyway now but there have been several instances of where someone was not dqed since this rule has gone into effect. However the main difference is you did not have all these "Has-Beens" spending 3 hours on Saturday morning calling for them to withdraw.

[Blade]

Yes Rick, well said. I should have referred to the Forum Bard to begin with!

 

A lot of fuss over nothing. And I don't mean this particular thread. I mean all the fuss I've heard over the last couple of days.

[JMiller]

I am not saying that it's not within the committees ability, it's obvious that it is under the new rule 33-7 in terms of dealing with call-in officials sitting on their sofa's. I think that's really the biggest issue in golf is that you me or anyone else reading this can literally call in a rules violation and have the tournament adjust a players score. You would never see that happen in any other sport, some might argue that's what makes golf different. I argue that we have the technology and amount of people on the golf course on Tour to actually moderate the game without the people calling in on possible rules violations.

 

It is now set the persistence for rulings down the road if it happens to someone else. If someone else is looking at a possible DQ for a call in rules violation situation then they need to have the DQ waived and assessed the amount of strokes that is warranted for the penalty. We really no longer even need the rule of DQ for signing for a improper score card honestly if we are always just going to waive it.

[jaxbeachpackerfan]

Did you all notice the commentator saying that Angel better not knock off one of the Magnolia leaves on his practice swings or all the switchboards will light up with people calling in for improving his lie!!!

[JMiller]

Did you all notice the commentator saying that Angel better not knock off one

of the Magnolia leaves on his practice swings or all the switchboards will light up with people calling in for improving his lie!!!

 

I'm almost positive that was Nick Faldo that said that on main network coverage. It's true people would have been calling in for sure. We have an ass ton of examples of this happening and players ending up DQ because they signed for a wrong score card and were found to have violated a rule.

 

Harrington comes to mind on the one dimple roll forward after removing his mark, thus why the addition of 33-7 even came about to deal with that exact situation. Thanks to technology we have made a ton of advancements in golf and now we almost have to consider re-working the rules to accommodate for the HD TV officials, and the first attempt at it has been 33-7

 

EDIT: Rule 33-7/4.5 is really what we deal with here. http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-33/#33-7/4.5

 

 

I just won't be happy if they decide to DQ John Doe for the exact same thing from now on and not DQ the famous players.

[JBones]

This is how this issue is resolved, quit allowing a$$holes to call in. SOLVED

[JMiller]

This is how this issue is resolved, quit allowing a$$holes to call in. SOLVED

 

Exactly.

[GolfSpy WD]

This is how this issue is resolved, quit allowing a$$holes to call in. SOLVED

 

+1

[JohnBarry]

Tainted? Yes, I agree. I think, though, that because the decision was made to not dq him, and he incriminated himself in the interview (something that I believe he never would have done if he had purposely violated a rule) it would be silly for him to wd. As i understand the rule his actions, and the failure of the committee to alert him to them after they discussed the situation and before he completed the round, are sketchy admittedly but warrant only the penalty and not a withdrawal. If the penalty as decided by the committee is 2 strokes than it should be 2 strokes. It may be even more impressive to come back from the penalty in my mind if he does go on to win...

 

I think the rules of golf are what are really tainted in this situation as they led to both the original confusion and the debatable outcome.

 

I also agree here, no DQ or with drawing, the rules were put in place and they followed them

[RoverRick]

I would gain a lot of respect for him if he WD.

 

The committee ruled based on money. Masters weekend without him would not be the same.

 

He is in a great position to show all the haters that he is not "cheetah" and can show real class by WD-ing.

 

If he were to come back and win, what a huge asterisk. Then if he breaks Jack's record, an even bigger asterisk. It's just not worth it, Tiger

 

 

Agree. Tiger should be a man of honor and WD. He wont though and if he should win and should go on to someday surpass Jack, it will be tainted.

 

For those that were asking for Tiger to withdraw I ask you this.

 

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?

 

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.