Should Woods DQ Himself For Bad Drop?

Jim Bob from Toledo, or wherever the hell this call came from, has no business officiating the game. If the call was missed by the officials on the course, then it was missed and that is part of the game, any game. What's next? I see a guy holding a defensive lineman while watching a Bears game and a call get's reversed because I call it in. Fans have no business officiating any game. If fans were any good, they would be out there playing instead of watching. This issue is more about the Tiger haters just looking for something to whine about.

And, as the photo in the previous post shows, Tiger Woods may not have deserved a two-stroke penalty.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

And, as the photo in the previous post shows, Tiger Woods may not have deserved a two-stroke penalty.
More...

The photos were not conclusive, or if anything, seems to show that the drop was appropriate. Note that those photos were from over 100 yards away.

However, Tiger very clearly described the shot after the round, saying (in essense) that he "wanted the ball to land four yards shorter on the green. As a result, he backed the ball up (on the drop) by two yards and then took two yards off the shot (with his swing), and the result was very good" (he hit it the second time to about 3 feet).

=> Hard for the committee to rely on photos from 100 yards away, when they can rely on the direct statements of the guy who dropped the ball himself, who described where he dropped the ball (and that he intentionally dropped it from two yards farther back). You can bet that they talked to Tiger on Saturday morning, and Tiger confirmed that he did, in fact, drop from two yards farther back (to gain an advantage of having the ball land shorter on the green). With that conversation, the committee had no choice but to penalize him, and per the rules, a DQ was warranted (but they compromised and figured they'd 'overrule' the written rules and go with a 2 shot penalty).

I don't disagree that their decision seemed fair and appropriate, however, it is contrary to the written rules, IMO. As such, you can argue that it's arbitrary and therefore not fair and appropriate.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

There is not a golf fan , tiger fan or not, who would not have respected him. He gained nothing and forfeited quite a lot.
More...

Likely true.

But as he didn't win, this issue will soon be forgotten.

Still, I believe this new rule is a step in the right direction.

I'm one for "the penalty should fit the infraction", not merely, "ANY infraction (which goes unnoticed at the time of the infraction) = DQ". I understand golf has "always been THAT way"... but just because it has doesn't mean it's always been logical and just. I remember Craig Stadler's incident with the towel. (I doubt he was conjuring up an improvement in his stance, but rather trying to preserve his pants so that he didn't walk around on TV the rest of the day with mud on his knees.) Seems a penalty for "improving his stance" would have been appropriate, not automatic DQ.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

Jim Bob from Toledo, or wherever the hell this call came from, has no business officiating the game. If the call was missed by the officials on the course, then it was missed and that is part of the game, any game. What's next? I see a guy holding a defensive lineman while watching a Bears game and a call get's reversed because I call it in. Fans have no business officiating any game. If fans were any good, they would be out there playing instead of watching. This issue is more about the Tiger haters just looking for something to whine about.

And, as the photo in the previous post shows, Tiger Woods may not have deserved a two-stroke penalty.
More...

Golf is different from any other sport. In other sports, if an official doesn't see it, it didn't happen.

Golfers are expected to call penalties on themselves. Bobby Jones famously emerged from thick woods where no one could see him and announced he had assessed a penalty for an infraction no one else saw.

Tiger by contrast has benefitted over the years from playing it close to the edge. He got a bunch of spectators to move a boulder that was in his way and claimed it was a "moveable obstruction." Cowed officials agreed, but the rule was later changed to explicitly outlaw it. In another tounament he hit his ball over the grandstand and clubhouse. He was ludicrously given a free drop. In another incident, his ball landed close to some woods amid a scatering of spectators. The ball was never found and officials generously ruled that a spectator "must have" taken it, although there was no evidence of that.

Tiger favoritism even seemed to extend to the US Open. Once notorious for tight fairways and high rough, the Open started using a graduated rough, where wild tee balls were not punished so severely. Who was struggling with wild tee balls? Tiger Woods.

I don't think it's fair to say people are Tiger-haters just because they have a problem with what happened. A lot of people admire Tiger as a golfer, but resent the favoritism he has clearly received. The fact that he has conducted himself poorly on and off the course doesn't help.

This incident will not go away in a week, like a bad call in an NFL game. It will follow Tiger and detract from his legacy.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Golf is different from any other sport. In other sports, if an official doesn't see it, it didn't happen.

Golfers are expected to call penalties on themselves. Bobby Jones famously emerged from thick woods where no one could see him and announced he had assessed a penalty for an infraction no one else saw.

Tiger by contrast has benefitted over the years from playing it close to the edge. He got a bunch of spectators to move a boulder that was in his way and claimed it was a "moveable obstruction." Cowed officials agreed, but the rule was later changed to explicitly outlaw it. In another tounament he hit his ball over the grandstand and clubhouse. He was ludicrously given a free drop. In another incident, his ball landed close to some woods amid a scatering of spectators. The ball was never found and officials generously ruled that a spectator "must have" taken it, although there was no evidence of that.

Tiger favoritism even seemed to extend to the US Open. Once notorious for tight fairways and high rough, the Open started using a graduated rough, where wild tee balls were not punished so severely. Who was struggling with wild tee balls? Tiger Woods.

I don't think it's fair to say people are Tiger-haters just because they have a problem with what happened. A lot of people admire Tiger as a golfer, but resent the favoritism he has clearly received. The fact that he has conducted himself poorly on and off the course doesn't help.

This incident will not go away in a week, like a bad call in an NFL game. It will follow Tiger and detract from his legacy.
More...

That's racist.:p But seriously, I don't think this will haunt Tiger as much as his off the course antics, but you may be right. Personally, I think the game has been corrupted more by technology than lack of honor or sportsmanship. I will give ya', Tiger does get plenty of slack, but I don't think he's ever won a tournament on that alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top