DQ for Tiger ?

120 posts / 0 new

Christ Almighty. If I'd have been playing with Tiger, bare with me, and he'd said I'll just drop it here, and as I looked over I'd notice that it was not quite where it should be but FURTHER BACK, I'd have a little chuckle, and shout yeah yeah that's fine mate, knock yourself out, then he stuck it to 1 metre away I'd just marvel at the guys brilliance. Jesus H, He could have done it no matter where he'd dropped the bl00dy ball. Bow down in front of The Master !

Alex, it is a common sense decision.
However the rules as currently written quite clearly state that he should be disqualified, they have trumped up a reason not to dq him and this is a reprehensible act.
Signed, A Tiger Fan.

Stop the comp according to Crazyface, he's entitled to the green jacket cos he's the best.

Crazyface wrote (see)

Christ Almighty. If I'd have been playing with Tiger, bare with me, and he'd said I'll just drop it here, and as I looked over I'd notice that it was not quite where it should be but FURTHER BACK, I'd have a little chuckle, and shout yeah yeah that's fine mate, knock yourself out, then he stuck it to 1 metre away I'd just marvel at the guys brilliance. Jesus H, He could have done it no matter where he'd dropped the bl00dy ball. Bow down in front of The Master !

Could he? Why then did he specifically state he went two yards back so he could play the same shot again to the exact distance, which funnily enough is just what he did? If that's not bending rules to your advantage, what is?

Lou B wrote (see)

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.

You are right that the wrong rule has been used to save him, however it is still a massive fudge by the Masters committee.The revision quoted earlier in the thread is states that ignorance of the rules is no defence and that a player should still be DQ'd. In my eyes it's a clear breach of the rules and it raises the question as to whether Woods it too big a star to be DQ'd on a technicality. 

gmac twitter; from Augusta's statement we know the infringement was detected before the round finished so therrefore should've been dealt with then. And Faldo on golf channel; "for me this is dreadful, no intention of dropping the ball close, simply a breach of the rules"

Crazyface, I can't quite work out why some pisshead from Macclesfield and his karaoke machine would be walking down the 15th at Augusta?

Alex, the 'trial by TV' ruling should not have been applied in this case as it's irrelevant. You are wrong.

Wonder what the chinese kid makes of this ?

Alex Perry wrote (see)

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.

Just asking, but what are your thoughts on how much the rest of the field have been disadvantaged? Say Woods goes out and shoots a 64 today...

Official statement says a viewer called in prior to tiger's statement. Tiger could do the right thing and dq himself!

wonder what a game with Alex is like, just cheerfully flouting the rules as he goes along ? "I've just kicked it out from behind that tree, common sense and all that eh guys" ?

Personaly I dont think he did much wrong. He dropped his ball just over a foot away, close enough for me. Whats he going to do drop it in his divot? Or near enough so it rolls in his divot. No step back a yard and drop it there, close enough.

But the fact that they have decided he did break the rules means he should be dq'd. The trial by tv rule shouldn't apply.

Some of you need to chill though, nobody died, he's not got away scot free a 2 shot penalty has probably cost him the chance of winning.

I bet some of you walk back to the tee when you can't find your ball in a friendly knock, "rules are rules" you say to your playing partners who are thinking wtf!!!

not me Tiger Wes, I just drop it on the floor and claim ignorance...maybe my playing partners are thinking "WTF" !!

The Committee has the power within the Rules of Golf to waive a penalty of disqualification (Rule 33-7).  This incident isn't about fudging the issue of dropping in the wrong place - for which Woods is penalised - but rather about whether the Committee was right to find the exceptional, individual reasons for waiving the DQ he should have incurred for submitting a scorecard with a lower score at one hole than he took.

We have a thread on which rules should we ignore today. This isn't a friendly knock. This is the masters with the world watching. This decision is bad for our sport.

Yeah, that's the same Penfold...

Back to Tiger, of course he shouldn't WD. I see Faldo is spouting off this theory. Is he suggesting he would have pulled out if it had been him 15years ago? Do me a favour.

Without a time machine we don't know what he'd have done but 15 years ago he'd have been diusqualified before he got the chance to withdraw.

Yes Alex he would have.

niblick wrote (see)

The Committee has the power within the Rules of Golf to waive a penalty of disqualification (Rule 33-7).  This incident isn't about fudging the issue of dropping in the wrong place - for which Woods is penalised - but rather about whether the Committee was right to find the exceptional, individual reasons for waiving the DQ he should have incurred for submitting a scorecard with a lower score at one hole than he took.

I have just heard that the Committee was aware of a possibly rules breach before Tiger's card was submitted and did not deal with the matter before he handed it in.   Given that Committee error, it would be unfair to DQ the player. The exceptional reason for waiving the DQ would be its own failure to deal timeously with the matter.

Or would he, less cameras less coverage. Would it have been spotted? ?

Wes, it wasn't 'spotted'. Woods(unintentionally) gave himself up during an interview.

fatshaft wrote (see)

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.

now that I have seen a copy of the ruling I can understand what's happened and why - and this rule change is sort of relevant but not in the way it was intended! the committee knew, and discussed, the place at which TW dropped the ball on the 15th prompted by a call in - before TW finished his round. they concluded that it was close enough to the position he played his original ball given the scope of the shot ie angles/distances and importantly decided not to disuss ith with TW when he came of the course! if they had done so he would have explained his intent, the committee would now be aware of facts that they hadn't previously been aware of when making their decision - hence the use of 33-7/4.5  The committee not the player were unaware of the facts. they should have made themselves aware - it was a significant error on their behalf. I think the right decision was ultimately made, and would have been made in respect of any player.

niblick wrote (see)

I have just heard that the Committee was aware of a possibly rules breach before Tiger's card was submitted and did not deal with the matter before he handed it in.   Given that Committee error, it would be unfair to DQ the player. The exceptional reason for waiving the DQ would be its own failure to deal timeously with the matter.

Further reading of the BBC report tells me that the Committee did review the incident before Woods finished his round and concluded there was no breach and that it was only later that it was looked at again and the 2 stroke penalty imposed.  In those circumstances, the Committee obviously did not DQ him for the "wrong score".

georgiemac wrote (see)

Wes, it wasn't 'spotted'. Woods(unintentionally) gave himself up during an interview.

nope - apparently it was spotted and the committee looked at it; see other posts above. this is the missing bit that makes sense out of an otherwise non-sensical situation.

Why did they review the incident ? Nobody seemed aware of it until he stated he'd deliberately dropped the ball further back ?

Article updated with Tiger's quotes via his official twitter feed. Click here for more. 

penfold ace (not p.c) wrote (see)

wonder what a game with Alex is like, just cheerfully flouting the rules as he goes along ? "I've just kicked it out from behind that tree, common sense and all that eh guys" ?

Very enjoyable actually.

That makes sense. There is a clear reason for waiving the DQ. Phew.

Little concerned as to why the committee felt there was no breach when they initially reviewed it?

Duncan

I don't buy it. No mention of it or the mythical 'viewer' until he states what he did during an interview. Even so no one spoke to him before the end of the round so he signed for an incorrect score because he was ignorant of the rule (not because he had been given the all clear). Therefore he should have been disqualified.

The TV viewer is mentioned in the official statement. Posted on Twitter by the masters feed.

Just to fuel the fire. Is the TV viewer real or just a cover to allow Tiger to continue playing?

It was me

This can't have come to a conclusion at only 5.20pm on a Saturday night. We need this to go on into the 'drinking hours' for the real discussions to begin!  

What a twist.
Now a tv viewer allegedly SAVES a player from a DQ.

Exactly Dan, seems like they've fabricated the whole thing. It was Tiger Woods from behind the grassy knoll etc.

I'm sure some on here are well in the 'drinking hours' already!

haha, Cs just made me laugh, this story continues to amaze, amuse and sicken.

Shame Tiger wasn't using a 2013 Srixon Z Star XV. Clearly the ball wouldn't have spun so much and would've stayed on the green.

Or he should have got Mat Woods to hit it, one hop and the little baby would've fizzed to a stop next to the pin evidently.

I wonder if any players in the field will be brave enough to say what they really think in an interview?

Faldo, Chamblee and Steve Flesch have laid into him on the golf channel.

Knowing Sergio's luck in majors I reckon woods will pip him by one shot and Sergio will top himself, hung from the Butler's cabin.

Tiger birdies the first, he's pissed off

Dan S wrote (see)

Just to fuel the fire. Is the TV viewer real or just a cover to allow Tiger to continue playing?

Exactly my thoughts, as I was tucking into chicken fajitas and downing some IPA

IT WAS ME!!!!!! The guilt is killing me.

More like the thought of the cost of a call to America is killing you!

okay CS, don't milk the joke man.

just got in from work, what was the opinion of the sky presenters ?

Pages