On the 15th, after having been robbed by an unfortunate bounce off a flagstick, he took a drop that by his own admission was two yards from the point where he hit his original shot.
The rule requires a drop “as near as possible” to the original strike, or else a drop on a line behind the point where the ball entered the hazard. This latter option would be well to the left in this situation.
Mr Woods did not assess himself a penalty for an incorrect drop, and therefore signed an incorrect scorecard, for which the penalty is disqualification.
I expect an announcement of this later today by Augusta National, that Tiger has been disqualified. This will be a very sad day for us golf lovers, but I don’t think they have a choice.
Any debate around this from SDMB golfers? For us in the golf world, it hurts. And perhaps this belongs in GQ. I’m wondering if there’s any debate here.
I think it comes down to whether or not it is defined as a “serious breach” (ie, one which conferred an advantage). It seems hard to believe that going back two yards farther (when you were already in the fairway) confers an advantage.
Chief, I can’t seem to find a good cite that explains clearly what occurred. Tiger’s comments suggest he just went back 2 yards to make the distance better for the shot, which seems permissible.
What did he do exactly? Did he drop to the left of the line, for example, because he liked the lie better? That would be wrong. But 2 yards back is okay, right?
Zakalwe, “serious” isn’t a factor if it’s a breach. The only subjective part, ISTM, is “close as possible.” That’s open to debate. But in the end, if the officials deem it was not as close as possible, “but it wasn’t too bad” won’t be an excuse. Or shouldn’t be. The ratings hit this will create may sway people’s judgment.
ETA: To clarify, whether it creates an advantage doesn’t matter. Talk about pedantic–golf rules create specific technical breaches, and it doesn’t matter if your violation placed you at a disadvantage, if it was technically a violation.
TW was just assessed a 2 stroke penalty and will not be DQ’d.
This is an incorrect ruling by Augusta National, but at least my interest in this Masters will be preserved.
Rule 20-7(c) seems to think serious breach is something that has to be determined.
Going forward, golf really needs to address this issue generally. There are rules officials on the course. If the player confers with them and takes their advice, it should be a “get out of jail free” card.
Chief, I think the issue would be whether or not Tiger informed the Committee before signing his card. If he did, then the decision was correct. See Rule 20-7(c).
That seems like a bad ruling. They relaxed the “DQ for signing a wrong scorecard” for “facts that he or she didn’t know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his scorecard. Thus, stroke penalties will be added to a score retrospectively.”
So, if your ball moved, but you didn’t know it till someone examined the tape and told you later, yeah, that seems to fit the bill. Tiger violated a rule (I get the circumstances now). Are they saying, “but he didn’t know it was a rules violation”? That can’t be a good precedent. And, again, it certainly doesn’t seem consistent with the Padraig rule. Let’s say he said, “I dropped it next to the wrong divot, I thought that’s where I played my shot,” (which didn’t happen here), then I could buy it. “Shit, that’s against the rules?” can’t be the reason for a ruling like this, right?
I think that only addresses whether or not he should play out the hole from the wrong spot. It does not change the penalty or change the rule about signing the wrong card. It means, if you took your drop next to the green when the correct drop was 250 yards back, under a tree, you can’t just play out the hole and take the penalty.
That’s already the case, I think. If you get a ruling on the course, you get a pass if it’s wrong.
Tiger’s ball was struck from position A. It crossed a water hazard and struck the flagstick, rebounding to the left, and backwards, into the water. The last point (call it position B), where it crossed into the water hazard is now no longer on a line between A and the flagstick. It is well to the left of that A-to-flagstick line.
The rule allows you to replay from a point that drops the ball “as nearly as possible” to position A, or else anywhere you want on a line between the flagstick and B as long as it is not nearer the hole. (You could also drop from a designated drop zone, but TW chose not to do that.) Tiger’s choice was to drop from the point of his original strike, and by his own admission he chose a point a couple yards back from that because it was an advantage to be a little farther back. I believe he confused the rule about dropping in a line where the ball enters the hazard. In his case, the ball actually entered the hazard from the flagstick side on the opposite side of the water; not from the near side of the water on a line from A to the flag.
The rule does not specify what “as nearly as possible” means, so ordinarily you might get by with a careless drop, although the general application has been that you must literally try to drop within inches of your original strike. That point is well demarcated by the divot, in this case. But further complicating matters is Tiger’s own admission that he did not pick such a nearest point for his drop. Further further complicating this is that a lower profile player would not have been scrutinized or interviewed, and his intent would not be a matter of record. Further further further complicating this is the fact that viewers are the ones who made a complaint about rules violation, and the Tour has a “Hi Def TV” exception for such circumstances. Further further further further complicating it is that the HDTV exception is for tiny movements seen by HD devices and not for gross infractions.
It’s a mess.
The decision by Augusta National is the right practical thing. DQing Tiger Woods would be a disaster for the Masters.
I disagree with the former, because I agree with the latter. No one is bigger than the game or the rules. And this is a horrible precedent. “Know the rules and follow them” seems to have been ignored here and that has ALWAYS been the foundation for the game. Again, I understand lenience for someone who knows the rules and reasonably believed he was following them. That doesn’t seem to be the case here.
What a terrible ruling. If the Masters rules committee doesn’t have the balls to disqualify him, then Tiger Woods should step up and DQ himself.
He made an illegal drop to gain an advantage (by his own admission after the round, he wanted to be 2 yards back since his original shot carried too far). He was confused and still thinking of the “go back as far as you like on line with the hole” rule when he went back to his original position and then proceeded to go back 2 yards to drop instead of dropping “as close as possible to the original position”.
No, TW is not likely to cheat at golf rules. Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible for him to cheat at golf for most of the rules because his play is so scrutinized. I’m uninterested in debate a play on the word “cheat.”
What the Masters Committee is now saying is that under 33-7they waived disqualification because they had already deemed his drop acceptable before he finished the round. They say they reviewed the drop because a viewer had called in the infraction.
Tiger’s casual admission that his drop was deliberately a couple yards away from the correct drop point then put the Committee in a dilemma. They had already ruled the drop was acceptable but then the player admitted intent to (accidentally) breach a rule. In golf, it’s that intent that makes this an obvious violation of the rules. Tiger signed for a card with an incorrect score. He made an illegal drop, by his own admission.
The Committee made a ruling Tiger’s action was unintentional. Tiger then signed his scorecard. Then Tiger said his action (to drop at a point that was not “as near as possible”) was intentional. So what to do?
They basically decided to penalize him two strokes. But the correct ruling would have been to DQ him. This is not an exceptional case. The rule is simple and clear. This is not a case where a player did not gain an advantage or had an unintentional technical violation. Unfortunately, what hangs Tiger is his own admission that he did not take a drop as near as possible, and his own analysis that his reason for not dropping at the correct point was to gain an advantage.
Yeah, really. This is a no-brainer. I suspect it will bug only the game purists and rules geeks, but there seems to be no argument that a DQ isn’t the proper conclusion, ISTM–other than, “But it’s Tiger, and that would so suck for our ratings!”
I’d DQ myself if I was Tiger. If he wins, it’s tainted. However spectacularly he plays, he shouldn’t be on the course.
What he should say: “I’m not second guessing the officials. I just think it’s best that there not even be a hint of controversy surrounding this tournament that I love so much. I’m not finishing.”
What he probably will say: “I’m not second guessing the officials. They’ve made their ruling, let’s all move on.”
Also interesting, Tiger’s reaction (before all this blew up) when asked about the 1-stroke penalty that 14-year-old kid got for slow play: “Rules are rules.” Yeah, right.
Tiger’s most recent tweet essentially accepts the Committee’s ruling that he should be assessed a 2 stroke penalty.
The Committee rulings are always final, so TW is in an untenable position. It is not “the right thing to do” if he unilaterally withdraws, because the decision to DQ or not isn’t Tiger’s. Such an action would be a unilateral one against the Committee’s ruling.
If he wins, there will be an asterisk. But given that the original infraction was due to a superb shot going bad because of unbelievably bad luck, and Tiger getting a four-stroke “penalty” (shoulda been a birdie; took a bogey; assessed two more strokes), there will be an asterisk after the asterisk that winning the Masters with a four-stroke handicap was an extra impressive achievement.
The “signed an incorrect score” rule doesn’t strike me as being a fair call at all. Woods did not sign a scorecard that incorrectly tallied up his score. He signed a scorecard that he believed, and which really, correctly tallied up his score as it really was at the moment he signed it. If the committee were to DQ him for signing an incorrect scorecard, they would be doing so because of a decision made after he signed it. You can’t officiate a sport that way.
Now, I think it would be fair for the Committee to retroactively apply a penalty, as appropriate, for the act of taking an illegal drop, whether that is a DQ or an additional penalty (and precedent would have to be employed to make that decision.) But it’s colossally unfair to apply the scorecard rule if you do that, since it would instantly make any after-the-fact rules decision a disqualification, and really is not in the spirit of the rules. (Rule 6-6d does not really say either way if the rule can be applied to a retroactively altered score.)
It was not correct at the moment he signed it. He should have assessed himself a penalty for the incorrect drop. He didn’t. He signed a scorecard without the penalty. Penalties aren’t created at the moment of a ruling. They are created at the moment of the infraction. And in golf, it is expected that golfers understand the rules and follow them, and that the scores they sign are reflective of that.
They completely misapplied the rule they invoked. Here’s additional detail:
In this instance, the fact is that Tiger dropped 2 yards behind where he took his prior shot–and he knew he did. What he didn’t know was that this was a rules violation. Not knowing the rule itself can NEVER be the basis for excusing not following the rules. “Shit, that was against the rules?” is not a defense. Understanding the rules, believing you are following the rules, and having that be a reasonable belief–that’s something that shouldn’t be penalized and that’s why they installed this rule. That ain’t what happened to Tiger.
The example I provided earlier would be acceptable, and consistent with the Padraig scenario that prompted the rule change. Let’s say Tiger dropped by a divot he thought was his from the prior shot, but it wasn’t. It was a different spot, 5 feet away. In this instance, Tiger reasonably believes he is following the rules. If someone sees this infraction after the fact, Tiger would get a pass under this new rule, and rightly so.
Again, there is no affirmative duty for ANYONE to let Tiger know he violated a rule (unless he asks for a ruling, which he did not). This is an after-the-fact ruling for one reason only: because Tiger didn’t do so himself before he signed the card.