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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How would the lack of that phonecall have caused him to suppress his comment?
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.
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/
Last few paragraphs, emphasis in the original:
The distinction she makes between Rules and Decisions IMO is exactly what I said in this post. 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.
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.
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 think there is still ample room to raise eyebrows at the decision as a departure from past practice, without invoking any dislike of Tiger.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Another Stupid Golf Rule
The LPGA once DQed Juli Inkster.
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.
For some other perspective, here is an articlewhere ESPN placed two balls in the divots.
Article was published Saturday.
Why they didn’t measure the distance is incredibly bad journalism.
There are so many aspects to this:
I think there are several perspectives at play with respect to the DQ issue.
The “Honor” perspective: Tiger should DQ himself, because golf is played by gentleman and blah blah blah. I find this perspective ridiculous.
The rule giving the officials an “out” was far too loosely interpreted. I am not sure I agree with that.
The rule was correctly interpreted and used. I am not sure I agree with this either.
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.
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.
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.