# Tiger Woods should be disqualified from the Masters **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [April 13, 2013, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596 "2013-04-13T12:53:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/181 "2013-04-17T12:58:33Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > I hate these assholes that call the PGA … and tattle-tell on the golfers. It’s worth noting that this call is the reason Tiger wasn’t disqualified. Without it, there would have been no review of the drop prior to Tiger signing his card, and thus no basis for invoking Rule 33-7, which was the only way the DQ could have been avoided. Tiger should find that guy and send him half his prize money. ---
**Author:** ![notfrommensa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f14d63/32.png) [@notfrommensa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notfrommensa)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/182 "2013-04-17T13:47:46Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > It’s worth noting that this call is the reason Tiger wasn’t disqualified. Without it, there would have been no review of the drop prior to Tiger signing his card, and thus no basis for invoking Rule 33-7, which was the only way the DQ could have been avoided. > > Tiger should find that guy and send him half his prize money. Yes, take a look at this [blog entry from Geoff Shackledford](http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2013/4/16/one-more-attempt-to-clarify-33-7-v-33-745.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true). > [@](#): > > If the Committee had not become aware of the incident and had not made a ruling before Tiger returned his score card on Friday, then it would have been a straightforward disqualification. It is interesting to note, therefore, that the timely telephone call actually prevented Tiger from being disqualified. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/183 "2013-04-17T14:22:41Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > The evidence clearly says the incorrect drop was based on a failure to understand the rule, and not on a desire to gain an unfair advantage. Hmmmm… I still contend that the rule is not too complicated for a pro golfer to understand and any failure to understand was temporary in nature. As for an unfair advantage…Tiger explained the advantage he was trying to achieve and if he violated a rule to achieve that advantage it was unfair. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/184 "2013-04-17T14:27:22Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > It’s the committee’s job to protect the field. They thought the drop was correct, but Tiger said it wasn’t. They can’t ignore that, even if they think he’s wrong. Tiger called the penalty on himself, and they honored it, but because the scorecard was signed in accordance with their previous ruling, they did not DQ him, just like they would not DQ a player who signed an incorrect scorecard based on a ruling he got from an official on the spot. Those two examples should not be “just like” each other. If **relying** on a ruling is spelled out anywhere I wonder if “ruling” is also spelled out. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/185 "2013-04-17T16:18:37Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > I still contend that the rule is not too complicated for a pro golfer to understand and any failure to understand was temporary in nature. The rule is definitely not too complicated, and it is quite surprising that Tiger got it wrong. But if he’d understood at the time of the drop that it was against the rules, it’s inconceivable that in his post-round interview he’d have carefully explained how he was trying to set up a better shot. ---
**Author:** ![notfrommensa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f14d63/32.png) [@notfrommensa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notfrommensa)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/186 "2013-04-17T16:56:17Z")
For the poster who are adamant that there should be no call in viewers. One of the reasons cited is because marquee players have increased coverage and therefore at more at risk of a fan calling in an infraction. True enough. But it is mitigated. Tiger won the Cadillac last month at Doral. His drive on one of the last holes got stuck in a palm tree and could not be seen from the ground. Fortunately for him, the blimp camera zoomed in on the ball and he was able to identify it. Something similar happened to Rory at the PGA Championship. His ball got stuck in a dead tree. Most other golfers do not have that advantage. And don’t forget, all other factors being equal, Tiger would have been DQed without that ‘alleged’ viewer call in. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/187 "2013-04-17T17:17:54Z")
> [@notfrommensa](#): > > And don’t forget, all other factors being equal, Tiger would have been DQed without that ‘alleged’ viewer call in. Assuming he would still make the comment. Whether or not the rule was correctly administered or not, the rule that you should be disqualified for signing a wrong scorecard might be the dumbest in all of sports. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/188 "2013-04-17T18:54:34Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Assuming he would still make the comment. How would the lack of that phonecall have caused him to suppress his comment? ---
**Author:** ![notfrommensa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f14d63/32.png) [@notfrommensa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notfrommensa)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/189 "2013-04-17T19:38:13Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Assuming he would still make the comment. > > Whether or not the rule was correctly administered or not, the rule that you should be disqualified for signing a wrong scorecard might be the dumbest in all of sports. The alleged phone call and his post round comments were independent of each other. There are much dumber rules in golf (let alone sports) that a DQ for signing wrong scorecard. Take the wording of Rule 26-1a that got Tiger is hot water. Golfer is to drop ball “ **as Nearly as Possible** ”. Why is it vague and ambiguous? The rule should set a concrete distance like One foot or 1 clublength. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/190 "2013-04-17T22:23:46Z")
For what it’s worth, a new summary of the incident from Kendra Graham, a former USGA rules official. Full article here: [http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/former-usga-rules-official-explains-woods-ruling/](http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/former-usga-rules-official-explains-woods-ruling/) Last few paragraphs, emphasis in the original: > [@](#): > > Decisions are written to help interpret and further clarify the Rules of Golf. Decision 33-7/4.5 was written to give guidance to Committees on when to use Rule 33-7. It gives many different examples as to when the Committee would be justified in waiving a penalty of DQ and when the Committee would not be justified. > > In this case, the Committee felt justified in using Rule 33-7 to waive the penalty of disqualification because they knew of the player’s possible breach before he signed his scorecard. They do not have to “fit” their reason into one of the scenarios listed in Decision 33-7/4.5. The most recognizable example in this new decision relates to a situation involving a player and HD television. The decision explains that the use of Rule 33-7 by the Committee in absolving a player of a DQ penalty involving a breach of a Rule that was only detectable by HD television would be justified. > > The decision is not all encompassing. It is there to provide insight, but ultimately, the Committee makes the final decision. > > In conclusion, it is important to keep in mind the words found in Rule 34-3, Committee’s Decision. _In the absence of a referee, any dispute or doubtful point on the Rules must be referred to the Committee, whose decision is final._ The distinction she makes between Rules and Decisions IMO is exactly what I said in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16198088&postcount=131). In his almost immediate response to that post, Stratocaster said that I was wrong, but said he did not have the energy to go through it again. I hope that when he recovers his strength, he takes it up with the USGA, as I consider the matter settled for anyone who is basing his opinion on the facts of the case as clarified by experts on the Rules of Golf, rather than a personal dislike for Tiger Woods. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/191 "2013-04-17T23:21:29Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > The distinction she makes between Rules and Decisions IMO is exactly what I said in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16198088&postcount=131). In that post, you said (in part) “if you get a ruling from an official, and sign for an incorrect score based on that, you are not DQd, even if later review shows that the official was wrong.” This doesn’t match the circumstances of this case - Tiger didn’t sign based on a ruling from an official. > [@](#): > > In his almost immediate response to that post, Stratocaster said that I was wrong… His point was that the USGA had outlined the circumstances under which the 33-7 “no DQ” rule applied, and had specifically exempted cases where the player’s wrong action stemmed from ignorance of the rules - as he felt it did in this case. > [@](#): > > I consider the matter settled for anyone who is basing his opinion on the facts of the case as clarified by experts on the Rules of Golf, rather than a personal dislike for Tiger Woods. I think there is still ample room to raise eyebrows at the decision as a departure from past practice, without invoking any dislike of Tiger. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/192 "2013-04-17T23:44:27Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I already explained that to you. The score didn’t change after the round. Your score is what it is based on your strokes and any penalties that should be assessed at the moment the infraction occurs. Penalties aren’t created when someone points out that he should have taken them. The penalty is created when the infraction occurred. The score he actually took during the round should have been two strokes higher than what he put on his card. > > Seriously, this is how it has always worked. That’s why there are all those DQs referenced in this thread and elsewhere. Tiger signed a card with the wrong score on it. Nobody is arguing otherwise, including the rules guys who excused it for…well, for some reason that exists outside the rules apparently. I don’t think Tiger knew he was breaking any rules at the time of the drop. Therefore he _can’t_ give himself the two stroke penalty at the time of the card signing. Seriously, why would Tiger purposely commit a violation that would lead to a two stroke penalty? ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/193 "2013-04-17T23:57:00Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > In that post, you said (in part) “if you get a ruling from an official, and sign for an incorrect score based on that, you are not DQd, even if later review shows that the official was wrong.” This doesn’t match the circumstances of this case - Tiger didn’t sign based on a ruling from an official. I don’t know why you bring that up in the context of Rules vs Decisions, but I said at the time that I was speculating that they were treating video reviews as equivalent to rulings on the spot, and IMO the Janzen incident, where an official passively approved a violation until after he signed his card, confirms that specualtion. > [@](#): > > His point was that the USGA had outlined the circumstances under which the 33-7 “no DQ” rule applied, and had specifically exempted cases where the player’s wrong action stemmed from ignorance of the rules - as he felt it did in this case. That was not the entirety of his point. He apparently believed that since ignorance of the rules was not grounds for a waiver in one specific example, then any incident involving ignorance must result in a DQ, and that is simply wrong, as Ms. Graham said, and as Janzen’s incident shows, and as the Dow Finsterwald incident showed. He also seems to believe that the Rules and Decisions have equal generality, which I denied, and which Ms Graham confirmed. The Decisions are ad hoc examples that must be evaluated case by case by qualified officials to determine their applicability to a new situation. > [@](#): > > I think there is still ample room to raise eyebrows at the decision as a departure from past practice, without invoking any dislike of Tiger. There’s a difference between considering the issue settled, and agreeing with it whole-heartedly, or even half-heartedly. I consider _Bush v. Gore_ settled, but I disagree with it strenuously. I also acknowledge that ignorance of the facts of the case, and/or the Rules and Decisions of Golf, and/or past precedents, and/or the statements of qualified experts regarding this incident, would substitute for personal dislike of Tiger. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/194 "2013-04-18T00:05:54Z")
> [@Uncommon\_Sense](#): > > I don’t think Tiger knew he was breaking any rules at the time of the drop. Therefore he _can’t_ give himself the two stroke penalty at the time of the card signing. > Seriously, why would Tiger purposely commit a violation that would lead to a two stroke penalty? There are people, god save us, who think that Tiger deliberately broke the rule and then bragged about getting away with it later, but Stratocaster is not one of them. He just mistakenly thinks that signing an incorrect scorecard is an automatic DQ, and that ignorance of the rules is no excuse. He is half right — ignorance of the rules is no excuse. But signing has never been an automatic DQ — it has always been the case that if the officials rule that the score is correct when you sign, then you are not DQd. Stratocaster apparently thought that exception applied only when the player is personally assured by an official on the spot, but he is mistaken about that, as the Janzen and Finsterwald examples show. Tiger was not excused for his ignorance — he was penalized two shots. He was not DQd because the officials had ruled his card correct at the time he signed it. Once you know all the relevant rules and precedents, it’s not controversial at all. ---
**Author:** ![notfrommensa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f14d63/32.png) [@notfrommensa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notfrommensa)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/195 "2013-04-18T02:07:17Z")
Another Stupid Golf Rule [The LPGA once DQed Juli Inkster](http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/22/juli-inkster-disqualified-after-tv-viewer-reports-violation/). Her crime. Using a weighted doughnut to keep loose while she endured a 30 minute wait at a bottleneck. The penalty: Automatic Disqualification. Not a 2 shot penalty. She got the dealt the ultimate penalty for what I consider a misdemeanor breach in the rules. ---
**Author:** ![notfrommensa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f14d63/32.png) [@notfrommensa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notfrommensa)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/196 "2013-04-18T17:38:31Z")
For some other perspective, here is [an article](http://www.businessinsider.com/replay-shows-exactly-why-tiger-woods-was-assessed-a-2-stroke-penalty-2013-4)where ESPN placed two balls in the divots. Article was published Saturday. Why they didn’t measure the distance is incredibly bad journalism. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/197 "2013-04-18T18:08:55Z")
There are so many aspects to this: I think there are several perspectives at play with respect to the DQ issue. 1. The “Honor” perspective: Tiger should DQ himself, because golf is played by gentleman and blah blah blah. I find this perspective ridiculous. 2. The rule giving the officials an “out” was far too loosely interpreted. I am not sure I agree with that. 3. The rule was correctly interpreted and used. I am not sure I agree with this either. 4. The whole being DQ’d for signing an incorrect scorecard is insane. The correct perspective. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![notfrommensa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f14d63/32.png) [@notfrommensa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notfrommensa)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/198 "2013-04-18T19:58:52Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > 1. The whole being DQ’d for signing an incorrect scorecard is insane. The correct perspective. 🙂 One of the reasons why there is a DQ for signing an incorrect scorecard because it could be a slippery slope. Players could “unintentionally” intentionally violate a rule for a competitive advantage. If they get caught, they could scream mea culpa, have mercy on me. And be given a two shot penalty. With the DQ (death penalty), there is a lot of incentive to strictly abide by the rulebook. The DQ for incorrect scorecard is not a bad rule. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/199 "2013-04-18T20:00:19Z")
> [@notfrommensa](#): > > For some other perspective, here is [an article](http://www.businessinsider.com/replay-shows-exactly-why-tiger-woods-was-assessed-a-2-stroke-penalty-2013-4)where ESPN placed two balls in the divots. > > Article was published Saturday. > > Why they didn’t measure the distance is incredibly bad journalism. They also didn’t say how they determined which divots were Tiger’s. They say they placed the balls the following morning, and you can see a big crowd around the 15th green in the photo, so it wasn’t the crack of dawn. During the tournament, they showed the Augusta grounds crew seemingly in the hundreds, so it seems likely that they would have filled the divots in by then, and that was a layup area for most of the field. The photo is not sharp, but the dark area under the balls looks more like a shadow than a divot to me. I’m not saying they got it wrong, but they should have indicated how they were sure. Incidentally, if your earlier reference about the pro photographer’s analysis was to Robopz, I’ve exchanged correspondence on the TGC website with him since yesterday (my handle there is bobo2k1). I’ve known him through the golf boards for several years, and I consider him intelligent and fair. He’s convinced me that Tiger was right about the two yards. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596/200 "2013-04-18T20:11:39Z")
> [@notfrommensa](#): > > One of the reasons why there is a DQ for signing an incorrect scorecard because it could be a slippery slope. > > Players could “unintentionally” intentionally violate a rule for a competitive advantage. If they get caught, they could scream mea culpa, have mercy on me. And be given a two shot penalty. > > With the DQ (death penalty), there is a lot of incentive to strictly abide by the rulebook. > > The DQ for incorrect scorecard is not a bad rule. Which s why players shouldn’t be the official keepers of their own score in the first place. I understand why it is done for the local club championship,why it is done for The Masters boggles the mind. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tiger-woods-should-be-disqualified-from-the-masters/655596.md?page=11)