^^^

Important point. Money trumps chivalry. Sadly.

I wonder if Seb V and Tiger are buddies, they both do the wrong thing even know its the wrong thing to do.

Q: Why is the hooker always on top when she and Tiger do it?
A: Cause Tiger can only F up.

Finn

There is no question - ZERO - that he should be disqualified.

The ONLY reason he wasn't disqualified is because he's Tiger, and if he's not there on Saturday and Sunday ratings drop off the chart.

So, it's about ratings and money.

Here it is in layman's terms:

1. He took an illegal drop. There is no question about that.

(In simplest terms, he hit the ball into the water, and therefore had to drop and play another ball. He was required to drop it as near as possible to the original spot. He admitted on tape that he intentionally dropped it 6 feet further back from the original spot in order to get an advantage (he wanted to hit the second ball 6 feet shorter than the first one).)

2. Because of the illegal drop, he should have given himself a 2 stoke penalty.

3. He didn't add the 2 strokes. Therefore, when he signed and turned in his scorecard, it was an inaccurate card (it was 2 strokes less than it should be).

4. The penalty for turning in an incorrect scorecard (one that is too low) is DQ.

Now, before 2012 there would be no question, he'd DQ'd. There'd be no way the PGA could give him an improper "free pass."

But a new rule in 2012:

"Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the Committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying Rule, but is not disqualified.''

That's what they're using to give him a free pass. Which is obviously not applicable, because (1) this involves facts, not rules. And (2) while Tiger claims he didn't know the rule, the rule ALSO requires that he "could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card."

Obviously, there were no facts involved here that Tiger did not know AND could not have reasonably known. Players are responsible for knowing the rules, and are charged with that knowledge.

That new rule is for completely different situations, not for one where a player violates a rule because he doesn't know the rule.

It's for a situation where, for example, play is officially stopped (like for weather), but a player on a far away hole keeps playing because it was impossible for him to hear the horn halting play.

It's funny watching the press conference and the Augusta rules guys talk about "integrity," etc., but then dodge the issue.

Now, should Tiger voluntarily withdraw? That's a tougher question. Tiger isn't responsible for rulings, just for following the rules and rulings. So in a way, if he said "I'll respect the ruling of the Committee and do what they say to do, that's their job," it's arguably hard to criticize that.

But when it's so obvious they are breaking their own rules to make an exception for financial gain . . . I don't know.

And, another issue is he broke a rule, and by doing so got an advantage. It certainly puts a cloud on him.

IMO, players like Bobby Jones, and a lot of current PGA players, would DQ themselves. It doesn't surprise me that Tiger won't.

I believe the drop can be no closer to the hole and a maximum of two club lengths from where the drop hits the ground. Thus, you can argue that you have a little leeway in where you drop it. It's not meant to be an exact thing and you are not expected to put it back in your original divot. I'd definitely drop it behind the original location, especially on a downslope.

Regardless of what he said, he didn't drop it, or play it, from two yards further back. It looked like maybe 2-3 feet and definitely less than one club length.

Read the rule book. It will make your head hurt.

JR

I didn't hear about this yesterday when I was watching the end. I hope it is resolved and he plays, I want to see him win.

For his particular situation, that is incorrect. The relief option he chose was not to take relief from a hazard (which is the rule you describe), but to go play the ball again from the original spot. Those are different rules.

He was required to drop the ball "as nearly as possible'' to the spot of the original shot.

He admitted he purposely dropped the ball 6 feet back of that spot so he could put the same swing on it, but have it hit 6 feet shorter.

With that admission, it doesn't matter whether he dropped it 1 inch further back, or 100 yards further back. Because he admitted he purposely did *not* drop it "as nearly as possible" to the spot of the original spot.

There is no dispute as to any of the above, no one is arguing any of that.

The rules also recognize that it's an impossibility to drop it exactly where it was, which is why they allow two club lengths. If they wanted it more precise, they'd allow you to place the ball, not drop it.


But, if you look at the video of the drop, he didn't drop it 6 feet back. Not even close to 6 feet. And, he talked about taking 2 yards out of his swing. Miss that comment?

Do you penalize him for what he said, or what he did? If the intent was to drop it 6 feet back, don't you think he'd have dropped it a little closer to 6 feet back? I know the difference between 2-3 feet and 6 feet and I could probably have dropped it closer to 6 feet back, had that been my intent.

He was on a downslope, you can assume the ball is going to roll some distance towards the hole, so how far back do you make the drop, to ensure it doesn't roll forwards past the divot and you have to drop it again?

JR

Boy would that send the pissers and moaners into a frenzy! (You know who you are.) Talk about "one for the ages." The chattering class just loves--craves--lusts for--drama and that would set off one hell of a spectacle wouldn't it! Go Tiger go!

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't so he might as well play some golf at Augusta. Yeah, he should have withdrawn and sent the suits ($$$) into an apoplectic fit over the losses ($$$). It might have been the right thing to do but it wouldn't silence the pissers and moaners. He could commit suicide and the complainers would still complain. (You know who you are.)

I'm pulling for the long-shot of Fred Couples winning. I can dream can't I?

Much ado about nothing.

He got a two stroke penalty and he was ratted off by a viewer that saw it on the replay. Whether he admitted it or not it was a rule violation.

The rules people made the call. He could have been disqualified if he was anyone else but Tiger.....he prolly would have.

His "admission" came after the fact. Not like you can dispute HDTV coverage.

Off with his head. Both of them.:)

No, the 2 club length rule has no application at all to his situation. Zero.

His comment was he took 2 yards out of his shot by moving the ball further back 2 yards, and putting the same swing on it.

You penalize him for violating the rules. He admitted he didn't drop the ball "as nearly as possible'' to the spot of the original shot." Boom. That's a violation.

If you were correct, don't you think he'd be making your argument???

No one is making your argument, because it is a complete misunderstanding of the rules and the relief he took.

Everyone (even Tiger himself) agrees it was a rules violation and a 2 stroke penalty. The only dispute is whether he should be DQ'd or only.

Answer this question- did he drop the ball two yards bacK? Yes or no?

Answer this question- did he say he intended to take two yards out of his swing? Yes or no?

Answer this question- did he get penalized for an improper drop? Yes or no?

JR

1. Doesn't matter. He admitted he purposely didn't drop the ball "as nearly as possible'' to the spot of the original shot, but intentionally dropped it somewhere else. Without his admission, an analysis of exactly how far away the drop was from the original spot might be relevant. But with his admission, it is completely irrelevant.

2. This is what he said: "I went back to where I played it from, but I went 2 yards further back and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit.''

3. Yes, he was assessed a 2 stroke penalty for taking an improper drop.

Again, no one - no analyst, fellow competitor, golf pro, or even Tiger himself, disputes that what he did requires a 2 stroke penalty. That's not at all what is being discussed or disputed.

So, that would be a no, a yes and a yes?

The problems I have with this situation...

If he intended to drop the ball two yards back, I think he would have dropped it two yards back, not one, or less. It's not that hard.

I thought when he made he statement yesterday that it made no sense. He moved the ball two yards, then took two more yards out of his swing? Nah. It would be easier to take four yards out of his swing, than two. Plus, intending to back it up 4 yards would mean flirting with putting it in the water on the fly.

The rule they chose to apply doesn't specify much about the specifics of the drop. So, do you apply the rule for a drop, which is a different rule?

When YOU drop a ball, do YOU hold it over the divot or drop it behind the divot? When on a downslope, do YOU drop it behind the divot, knowing that it WILL roll forward after hitting the ground? The intent of the rule is to not be closer to the hole, or not change the angle to an obstruction, etc. I don't see any advantage to being further from the hole, especially when you have a short landing area, as if 2 or 3 feet woudld make any difference whatsoever.

No matter what, he'll get crucified for it from the peanut gallery.

JR

Do you not find it odd that you can't find a single commentator, golf pro, analyst, etc. of any repute that is arguing - in light of Tiger's admission - that it was a proper drop and he shouldn't have been assessed a 2 stroke penalty?

It is simply beyond dispute.

He admitted that he purposely did not drop the ball "as nearly as possible'' to the spot of the original shot. That's a violation of the rule.

And, you say "The rule they chose to apply doesn't specify much about the specifics of the drop. So, do you apply the rule for a drop, which is a different rule?"

Who do you mean by "they?" The only person who chose which rule would apply was Tiger. He had several relief options, and he chose one. The relief option he chose was to go back and hit the ball from the original spot. The drop rule for that option is specific and undisputed - it must be dropped "as nearly as possible'' to the spot of the original shot.

Without his admission, there would be lots of debate as to the 2 stroke penalty. But his admission kills any debate as to legality of the drop.

What about "as near as possible" do you not understand? It was not a situation where it was an unplayable lie and relief is no more than two club lengths and no closer to the hole.

Edit: my comment was for javadog

Rule 33-7 applies.

I'm cheering for the 14 year old . Fun to see how far he can go.

How so?

(And, agree on Tianlang Guan! My son is the same age and played against him in a tournament in San Diego a few years ago).

The Masters Dude just said that's the rule in which Tiger is not dis-qualified. Ask him.