Well, the problem is that they’re ignoring the rule that says signing a card with the wrong score is an offense that means DQ, with one exception: the player was not aware of the facts that resulted in the breach. So, again they are not using the rules as written. They are using the one they like and ignoring the other, IMO, for obvious reasons. Whether you see it that way or not, you want them to overlook a rule, the one that would result in a DQ.
If your point is that this ruling may ignore a specific rule, but it’s a dumb rule, or an unfair one (or something, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth), and who cares if they ignore it, this ended up being a fair outcome, one where it’s exactly the same as if Tiger had given himself the penalty during the round–well, fine. I disagree, but that’s a matter of opinion, and everyone is entitled to one. My opinion is that the fairest outcome is one that applies the rules as they exist, without modifying them on the fly for convenience for a superstar. If we don’t like the rules, change 'em for the next time. But my primary point was, and is, this was IMO unambiguously an offense that required a DQ based on the rules as written.
By the way, they got it wrong with Dow Finsterwald, too. Seriously, this seems like an exception that proves the rule. There are countless instances where the death penalty was applied.
I’m sure there are other examples of bad rulings. Can you point to the rule that you think supported this ruling, and Tiger’s for that matter? I’ve provided the rule that governs it. It’s the one they cited. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve explained why I think Tiger’s situation doesn’t get any leniency from these rules as they’re written. What’s your explanation? What rule do you think applies and why?
The Masters doesn’t have different rules (other than the normal local rules). USGA / PGA rules apply. There are lots and lots of DQs. I don’t know if there are other Masters DQs, but I suspect there are. Why does that matter? This isn’t case law. If they fouled up the Finsterwald ruling, that doesn’t change the rules. Here’s the rule:
37-5 can provide leniency, so long as the Committee determines the player was unaware of the facts that resulted in the breach. Tiger was aware. Here’s another rule:
That’s it, that’s all there is, unless I’m wrong. Tiger f$#@ed up and should have been DQ’d.
… and although it may have been said before up-thread, it bears repeating: the drop rule that he actually violated is not that complicated. He just had a brain fart.
Chief, I agree with your comment @ 10:16 am / 13th. Rules are created to make the game an equal playing field. Some people will break the rules or find a way to take advantage of them if opportunity lends itself, and actively look for ways to do so to get an edge on their game. ( the true sign of a cheater ) Oh, did I forget to mention that Tiger is already a know cheater!? He cheat on his wife… who is supposed to be the one he respects and cares for most, so I am very inclined to think that his morals about the game would be corrupt if opportunity arose to do so… and of course he did, by his own admission, drop the ball in an advantageous position. Rules are rules. The committee decided. They are the Gods, their decision is final and this discussion needs no further comment. As for TW, I believe he would cheat any way he could, if he feels he can get away with it. SO much for fairness, but he already proved what he is… a cheater.
I don’t really care that much about golf, but the idea that someone who cheats on their spouse will be dishonest in other areas is really not borne out by the evidence. Think of how many people have cheated in school, cheated on their taxes, or cheated on their spouses. Do you honestly think all of them are not trustworthy in every sense?
This is why I asked the question in the other thread about Tiger’s explanation of exactly what he was trying to do. There seem to be two possibilities:
He was playing from the point of his last shot, and incorrectly believed the rule allowed him to move back.
He was playing line-of-sight, but had the point of entry wrong.
#1 is a mistake understanding the rule, but #2 could be considered a mistake of fact. It seems very likely to me that he was operating under #1, but #2 is the only way I can see to make an argument that this falls under the 33-7 rule to not DQ him.
I guess, but it would be an implausible argument, ISTM. He was WAY off if he thought he was on that line. I don’t think he could reasonably argue that he thought he was on that line. What would he have been off by, fifty yards?
Plus, here’s part of his post-round interview (emphasis added):
Why didn’t he take a drop where the ball entered the hazard? That’s what I would have done. You drop twice, both times it rolls back into the hazard, and then you get to place it nicely in the fringe or rough. Bump and run up to the hole.
Well, need to take into account that Tiger had been told the drop was fine before the interview. So when he said about the two yards he might have thought that was ok.
As I have stated, Rule 6-6d. He signed for the score he actually took during the round. His score was changed only after he signed for it, so at the time he signed it, it was his score.
I do not watch golf, so I am just giving my assessment of the argument made here.
He’s already explained what rule and exactly how he thinks the rule should be applied. He’s cited precedent for showing his interpretation is the correct one. Plus we have on his side that the actual judges of the sport agreeing with him on this call, too.
The burden of proof is now on you to prove that your interpretation is correct. You’ve done the first half, explaining why you think he is wrong. You’ve not done the second half, showing the judges of the sport agree with your interpretation in other cases. Obviously, you can’t change this case, but you can provide others.
The rules of anything, sport or not, are what are actually enforced, and not what is written on paper. Merely arguing that the rules plainly say one thing is insufficient if proof is provided that the rules are usually enforced another way.
In other words, he’s provided what you’ve asked for, so now you should provide what he asked for. If there are as many examples as you say, it shouldn’t be too hard to prove.
Seriously, this seems like an exception that proves the rule. There are countless instances where the death penalty was applied.