4 strokes for hitting the flag just don't seem fair. probably a 5 stroke swing and another jacket. karma
Should Woods DQ Himself For Bad Drop?
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
Sorry but I disagree.
This was not a situation where the player was unaware of the violation, for example if he moved an obstruction with his backswing while in a hazard, and it was discovered after he had signed his card. That is the kind of situation the new rule should cover. Where there would be clear unfairness.
The fact the Committee reviewed it before he finished should not be relevant. They did not inform him of their determination. He was not relying in any way on them in signing his card. In any event, they cannot waive a violation of the rules.
Woods knew exactly what he was doing and said so in the interview. He intentionally dropped away from his original spot. The fact that a professional golfer of his stature apparently did not know the rule is immaterial.
A violation is a violation. Signing an incorrect card is a DQ. Unless you are Tiger Woods apparently.
This was not a situation where the player was unaware of the violation, for example if he moved an obstruction with his backswing while in a hazard, and it was discovered after he had signed his card. That is the kind of situation the new rule should cover. Where there would be clear unfairness.
The fact the Committee reviewed it before he finished should not be relevant. They did not inform him of their determination. He was not relying in any way on them in signing his card. In any event, they cannot waive a violation of the rules.
Woods knew exactly what he was doing and said so in the interview. He intentionally dropped away from his original spot. The fact that a professional golfer of his stature apparently did not know the rule is immaterial.
A violation is a violation. Signing an incorrect card is a DQ. Unless you are Tiger Woods apparently.
Jeff Francoeur?
That's ridiculous. A player of Woods' stature and with his level of scrutiny? To intentionally violate a rule and expect to get away with it "because he's Woods"?
I think he confused his options. One of which was, "keeping the point at which the ball last crossed the hazard line, MOVE BACK AS FAR AS YOU WANT KEEPING THAT POINT BETWEEN YOUR BALL AND THE HOLE."
When he hit the shot, I thought it funny because he wasn't playing from a line where the ball last crossed the hazard line... which would have been in the drop area or further back.
I believe he got momentarily flustered and confused the rules thinking he could "go back as far as he wants keeping the point from where he hit the original shot between his ball and the hole." If that were correct, he would have been entitled to hit the shot from 2 yards back.. or 50 yards back from the original shot. (The only other logical conclusion would be the proposed, "I knew I was violating the rules... I also knew a million eyes were on me and LOTS of people would call/text in and complain... but I thought I could get away with it because I'm Woods"... and that's just NUTS!)
Hey, even the initial observations of the officials were that his play was OK.... looks like they got it a bit confused also at first.
In any event, I hope he shots 64 in the final round and wins. The controversy would boil up even more.
Of course if he did win, this one would always have an (*) by it and be brought up over and over for years.... in that case, wouldn't want him to end his career with either 18 or 19 majors.
Yes, "he knew what he was doing"... in the sense of trying to adjust for the length of his shot. I don't believe he "knew what he was doing" in intentionally trying to get away with a rules violation... I contend he confused the options and therefore made an improper choice.
And as far as "signing a wrong score card is automatic DQ"... used to be that way, but the new rule to allow the Rules Committee discretion where warranted was installed for a reason.... such as this.
I see this similar to what could have happened to Stacy Lewis a few weeks ago... the incident with the caddy apparently "testing the surface" of the bunker with his foot. That one was caught in time, of course, but I can see how 33-7 might have been righteously applied in that case had it not been brought to attention before she signed her card.
I'll have to disagree. Rule 33-7 seems to directly suggest that a waiving a DQ in this situation would be incorrect:
<i>"A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the playerâs 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."</i>
http://www.usga.org/NewsSF.aspx?id=2147496867
According to the context of the rule given, the committee would NOT be justified in waiving the DQ due to Tiger's ignorance of the Rules in that situation, or of the facts that he should have known (that he failed to drop as close to possible to the prior location). => Seems like an open and shut case for a DQ, per the rules.
The problem, is that the rules committee was fully aware of the situation before the round was complete, had reviewed it, and concluded that Tiger had played the shot in "close proximity" to the prior shot before Tiger finished the round. At that point, it was concluded that there was no reason to believe a penalty was warranted, and Tiger was not even notified of the issue after his round and before he signed his scorecard.
Subsequently, Tiger inadvertently threw the Rules Committee under the bus during his post-round news conference, explicitly stating that he dropped the ball two yards behind the initial spot, to gain an advantage by having his shot go shorter. => At that point, the Rules Committee was forced to re-review the issue in light of Tiger's inadvertent admission that he broke the rules.
Although unfortunate, Rule 33.7 would clearly imply that he must still be disqualified for the infraction. (FWIW, I was at the Masters tourney Thurs/Fri, but was at Amen Corner and did not see the incident in question)
That was my point. I think he just got confused or had a brain lock or maybe thought the rule was to drop reasonably close to the original spot instead of as close as possible. I'm not saying he deliberately cheated. He did deliberately take an action which was a rules violation. There is an ethical distinction, but I don't see it as reason not to DQ him.
There was no unfairness or inequity. He made a mistake, but it was a mistake that caused him to sign an incorrect score card. That's a bummer, but he violated a rule.
I maintain the new rule should be applied only in situations where the golfer is not aware of something that created a violation. Maybe the ball moved after he addressed it while he was looking the other way. This was not that case. He just got the rule wrong.
Very well stated.
I could see waiving it if the Committe had informed him before he signed his card that they had reviewed it and decided it was a proper drop. Then he could claim reliance on their interpretation. I don't think that would be the way Bobby Jones would have handled it, but it would have been defensible.
I lost a lot of respect for the Masters over this. It's hard not to conclude they cut him a break they wouldn't have given to someone else.
The irony here is that Tiger could have erased most of the taint from his prior personal misbehavior had he done the right thing and withdrew. The toadies in the golf press would have lionized him. He would have been a legend not just for his play, but for his character too. There is not a golf fan , tiger fan or not, who would not have respected him. He gained nothing and forfeited quite a lot.
