DQ for Tiger ?

120 posts / 0 new
DQ for Tiger ?
So the talking point of round 2 of the Masters if going to be either the penalty for slow play, or Tiger's possible DQ for the illegal drop on 15. Since he admitted taking the drop 2 yards behind his original position I can't see how the rules officials will get around this. It will be interesting to see how they announce the decision ... assuming they actually make an announcement and don't just ignore the rumblings. Will be grow some and DQ him, knowing full well that a rampant Tiger will make the TV viewings go thru the roof?

Tiger shouldn't be disqualified. Guan shouldn't have been docked a shot. Harrington shouldn't have been DQ'd in Abu Dhabi. Villegas shouldn't have been DQ'd in Hawaii. Just another story which will make people on the verge of getting into golf think twice. Dare I be properly cynical and suggest that certain outlets are creating a story to cover over a day of golf which essentially wasn't all that interesting?

There's only one option, and that's for him to be DQ'd unfortunately.
Absolutely no other outcome can be possible.

AP, creating a story? Really?

Alex Perry wrote (see)

Tiger shouldn't be disqualified. Guan shouldn't have been docked a shot. Harrington shouldn't have been DQ'd in Abu Dhabi. Villegas shouldn't have been DQ'd in Hawaii. Just another story which will make people on the verge of getting into golf think twice. Dare I be properly cynical and suggest that certain outlets are creating a story to cover over a day of golf which essentially wasn't all that interesting?

Somewhat surprising approach given the publishing only last week of the article on cheating that included in relation to dropping from water hazards, "The cheat will tend to steal a few yards to the right or left..." Read more: http://www.golfmagic.com/features/how-to-spot-the-golf-cheat/14668.html#...    

DQ should follow unless ref said it was ok. Two yards behind is not as near as possible. As near as possible is in the divot hole but this would be unfair IMO because the player is paying one stroke for the drop. The ruling bodies need to give a decision to say what is reasonable in the case of 'as near as possible' - again IMO. I think 6 inches from the spot (or estimated spot if the actual cannot be found) for the drop should be the case.

What is not crystal clear in these rules is what happens if you drop as near as possible to a spot and then your ball rolls say 1 club length not nearer the hole. I think that although the rule says 'as nearly as possible at' if the ball rolls so that it is technically not 'as nearly as possible at' the ball is still in play.

R25-3 refs to a dropping point, R27 refers to a playing point.

I think the "nearly as possible" description is necessary to cover the (probably many) occasions when you go back and it is difficult to be very exact about where you last played from.  In Tiger's case however, it does seem that he knew he was pplaying away from the spot he played from.   It is indeed an intriguing question whether a ball rolling a bit away from where you drop it should be redropped, presumably under 20-6,  because you would be not be playing from as nearly as possible to where you last played from.

niblick wrote (see)

I think the "nearly as possible" description is necessary to cover the (probably many) occasions when you go back and it is difficult to be very exact about where you last played from.  In Tiger's case however, it does seem that he knew he was pplaying away from the spot he played from.   It is indeed an intriguing question whether a ball rolling a bit away from where you drop it should be redropped, presumably under 20-6,  because you would be not be playing from as nearly as possible to where you last played from.

not very intriguing really.... 20-2 covers it all (and it's irrelevant to this current issue anyway ) "A ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course where the applicable Rule requires it to be dropped."  after that it's the normal rules about where it rolls to, also covered in Rule 20-2

Alex Perry wrote (see)

Tiger shouldn't be disqualified. Guan shouldn't have been docked a shot. Harrington shouldn't have been DQ'd in Abu Dhabi. Villegas shouldn't have been DQ'd in Hawaii.

Not sure of the last two, but reading what's posted here, clearly Tiger SHOULD be disqualified, equally slow play is the scourge of this sport, docking Guan should just be the first of many. I'm astonished that a golf writer could even think these things, never mind give voice to them.

not often I agree with fatshaft but he's spot on, Alex Perry's post is possibly one of the most bizarre I've read on here ?? Woods shouldn't be disqualified anyway, he shouldn't need to be because if he had a shred of integrity he'd call it on himself. I'm not Tiger's biggest fan and my mind goes back to Firestone when he hit his ball over the clubhouse roof and as officials took twenty minutes to decide someone 'probably'took his ball, woods didn't have the decency to go back and play a provisional. That said, if the tournament loses it's star attraction, it'll be poorer for it but as Woods stated yesterday when asked aboyt the chinese kids'penalty for slow play,  "rules are rules".

Tiger won't be DQ'd. And Guan shouldn't of had the penalty. If they were handing out penalties for slow play to people like Keegan Bradley and the rest of the slow players then fair game, but this is just picking on an easy target.

BBC reporting Tiger's drop is being reviewed.

If I heard it right (I was sort of listening to the radio, while mooching in the garage), according to R5L, Tiger stated in his press conference that he knowingly dropped 2 yds behind where he was supposed to. Agree on AP's post - bizarre is a good description.

At least Lindsey Vonn knows what to get Tiger for Christmas: a rule book. Could be second time this year TW falls foul of taking a drop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sN-Q8eEajgQ Take a look at the actual drop and you might think it was all right.  Now I make even less sense of what he said about 2 yards back 

Judging by the video, Tiger's statment seems to be a bit of a red herring, it doesn't look 2 yards away. It doesn't look to be "as close as possible" though, and his statement backs up that he didn't intend to drop it as close as possible. So now it comes down to judgement by the committee as to whether it was close enough. For the good of the game, I think he should be DQ'd as big a fan as I am.   I think if he is let off and goes on to win it would be a terrible thing for his PR for the rest of his life.

fatshaft wrote (see)

Alex Perry wrote (see)

Tiger shouldn't be disqualified. Guan shouldn't have been docked a shot. Harrington shouldn't have been DQ'd in Abu Dhabi. Villegas shouldn't have been DQ'd in Hawaii.

Not sure of the last two, but reading what's posted here, clearly Tiger SHOULD be disqualified, equally slow play is the scourge of this sport, docking Guan should just be the first of many. I'm astonished that a golf writer could even think these things, never mind give voice to them.

Nice selective editing of my quote, Fatshaft. The following sentence was key wasn't it?

Murmurings from Augusta that Tiger will be handed a retrospective two-shot penalty.

Official: Two-shot penalty and Tiger will resume round 3 at 1-under par.

2 shot penalty hhmmm. I think the sponsors might of had a word with the officials.

You either DQ him or do nothing. This is complete rubbish, bottled it in my opinion.

How can that happen? If he is penalised, he must be penalised for returning a wrong score surely and disqualified.

Cop out!

"Official" according to who?

Utterly depressing, the bloke is a cheat on and off the course it would seem. Of course, none of his fellow pros would dare say it but I'd love to know what they think of this. disgusting.

Lou B wrote (see)

"Official" according to who?

Everywhere! I don't understand it, I feel very uncomfortable about this.   How on earth can they do this?

The officials at Augusta just do what they like. I'm sure they will have been mindful of a loss of TV audience. Total b****cks if you ask me, particularly after Tiger's "rules are rules" quote following Guan's slow play penalty.

So we're all outraged when the likes of Harrington and Villegas suffer a DQ and we demand a rule change. We are granted said rule change by the USGA and R&A and now we want to go back to how it was [because we don't like Tiger any more]?

"ALL" ?? And what rule change are you talking about?

I've always said the tour would never dare test Woods for peds incase he tested positive, not so far fetched now ! Hope he wins it now.

Alex Perry wrote (see)

So we're all outraged when the likes of Harrington and Villegas suffer a DQ and we demand a rule change. We are granted said rule change by the USGA and R&A and now we want to go back to how it was [because we don't like Tiger any more]?

No, can;t say I was outraged about that, this however is just what you'd expect when it comes to Tiger, rules are bent to accomodate him. I ex[ect to see quite a backlash about this, especially from golf writers with integrity.

Alex, what on earth are you talking about ? You seem to be suggesting rules should change depending on who is involved ?

I wonder if the same thing had happened to David Lynn he would still be teeing it up in the 3rd round?

Alex Perry wrote (see)

  Just another story which will make people on the verge of getting into golf think twice. Dare I be properly cynical and suggest that certain outlets are creating a story to cover over a day of golf which essentially wasn't all that interesting?

As yu ddin't like the ommission of these two sentences from my earlier quote - unlike yourself I feel I quoted the meat of your response, but.... I would have thought that as one of the major claims about golf is the time it takes, then attempting to get players to speed up, by penalising Guan would be seen as a positive move, not negataive. Your final sentence, noyoumay not dare say that, Tiger admitted dropping in the wrong place, how are they in any way "creating a story"? Now that I've addressed the irrelevant parts of your initial post, let's get back to Tiger the cheat.

Hope he wins now, what a joke.

"However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d."   Rule 33-7 clearly does not apply. Tiger knowingly and deliberatly dropped two yards back to give himself the correct distance in.   Complete and utter cop-out, which the officials probably spent all morning searching for to allow him not to be DQ'd.

I do not believe Tiger is a (golf) cheat. Why would any Pro even think about trying to cheat when the whole world is watching. It was a simple gaff, a moment of not thinking straight, but he should pay the price. However, Rule 6.6d needs revision, IMO.

Alex Perry wrote (see)

So we're all outraged when the likes of Harrington and Villegas suffer a DQ and we demand a rule change. 

I think the difference here is that Harrignton and Villegas were reported by a TV viewer and Tiger admitted in interview that he had dropped his ball 2 yards away to gain an advantage. All three have signed for an incorrect score.  

Yes, hang on a minute folks, me included..... Well done Alex and Dec: From the USGA Rules site, April 2011: The R&A and the USGA have announced a new interpretation of the rules that apply in limited circumstances not previously contemplated by the Rules of Golf where disqualifications have been caused by score card errors identified as the result of recent advances in video technologies. This revision to 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. In revising the decision, The R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognizing that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach. This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 is effective immediately.

But the evidence did not only come about by video evidence, it came about due to Tiger's statement that he dropped two yards back. When all is said and done, a retrospective two shot penalty in situations like this is the sensible thing to do, HOWEVER this is not the current Rule and Tiger should be DQ'd.

No Lou, not well done ALex & Dec. That rule does not apply here.

Lou, I'm not sure that this is applicable. Woods, KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING (and admitted so). He should know that his drop should be as close as possible to his previous shot and that he can't just drop it 2 yards away to his advantage because he doesn't fancy the drop zone.

He has cheated not because he deliberately set out to break the rules but he is aware of it now, that's the difference. It's like me boasting to my playing partners that i've 'kicked it out the rough' then saying i was unaware i'm not allowed to do that later, still breach of the rules and dq if I signed my card.

Fatshaft, it was a well done to Dec and Alex for knowing, and pointing out the Rule under which Woods was not DQ'd. Samiguel, Woods didn't deliberately break the Rule.   He deliberately dropped back a couple of yards but it must be obvious that he thought he was going back in line with the pin, he must have been confused. The wrong rule has been used to save him.

Sorry Lou, misunderstoof ye there.

For the record my opinion is DQ should have been the outcome. I cited the Decision because that is what needed to be considered.

Should have been DQ. The amended rule was to cover viewers calling penalties in. Tiger knew what he was doing and told everyone so.

I bet the Twitterers are a bunch of indignant little bunnies...

fatshaft wrote (see) I expect to see quite a backlash about this, especially from golf writers with integrity.

Oh Fatshaft. Why so glum my ol' chum? Is it really worth getting so wound up about? You don't respect me as a golf journalist, that's fine. I'll get over it. I'm sure you're the best in the world at [whatever it is you do for a living]. (Moaning, probably.) If I have to dig out the old threads, I will. (I won't.) But there was outrage in the golfing world when those retrospective DQs happened and the rules were changed. Granted, the rules slipped under the radar somewhat but they were changed nonetheless. But to suggest golf writers aren't entitled to their own opinion and must be appalled by this incident if they are to retain any integrity is laughable.  My opinion is that common sense has prevailed and we've been calling out for common sense in golf for as long as I can remember. But it's just that - my opinion.

Common sense where, as in the case of rule 33/7, the golfer didn't know he was breaking a rule. That's good.   However using this rule, to allow Tiger to compete over the weekend, when he admitted DELIBERATELY dropping further back, is a gross error, and only happening becasue it is Tiger.

Pages