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.
Yes, it’s clear you don’t follow golf. The rules are almost never enforced this way, and in the 2 instances mentioned (Tiger’s included) it was done in contradiction to countless other instances where the poor bastard got DQ’d for exactly the same circumstance. If you’re looking for a precedent, there are a couple of links in this thread that provide examples. The friggin’ rules change mentioned was done specifically because of Harrington’s DQ.
Check this thread for the examples. Or google PGA disqualifications. Seriously, this is weak. It should take you about ten seconds to satisfy yourself that the strong precedent is that guys who sign for the wrong score get a DQ.
These guys are such opposites, it’s great to see them playing together. I was routing mainly for Jason Day or Snedecker, but Scott certainly earned it.
Tiger was right in his interview-- -10 would have won it outright. Good prediction.
Yes, you have explained it, and I disagree, and so does the committee at Augusta. In fact I think this is similar (in the relevant matters; in some respects it is different) to the Padraig Harrington case.
The Augusta committee doesn’t disagree. They agree that rule 6-6d indicates that Woods should be disqualified, but that they can use rule 33-7 to waive the DQ.
He made his ball move when removing his marker, but nobody saw it except for a guy with a DVR and HD who looked at it over and over. The Euro Tour looked at it 50 times before deciding the viewer was right and disqualified Harrington.
It is exactly the same situation as Tiger’s - Harrington violated a rule but didn’t realize he had done so, and an after-the-fact ruling meant he signed an incorrect scorecard and was DQ’d. The Harrington rule is rule 33-7, which allows a player to be penalized after the fact without suffering a DQ for signing an incorrect scorecard.
This rule, implemented in 2012, is why references to previous disqualifications (before 2012) are meaningless.
One famous one is when Craig Stadler hit his ball under a tree, and he was going to have to hit the shot off his knees to stay under the branches. He was wearing light colored trousers, and to keep them from getting wet and muddy, he laid a towel on the grass to kneel on. This runs afoul of the rule about “building a stance” and a viewer called in about it.
This happened during the third round, and Stadler finished and played the next day and finished in a tie for second place. It wasn’t until after his final round that he was informed of the decision and DQ’d.
In golf, if you sign a scorecard that has a score lower than you actually shot (until 2012), the penalty is disqualification. If you sign a card that shows you had a higher score than you actually shot, the penalty is you have to accept the higher score as official, as happened to Roberto De Vincenzo in the 1967 Masters.
No, it’s not the same. The rules, as written, provide room for leniency only in narrow circumstances–i.e., the player was unaware (like Harrington) of the facts that resulted in a breach. IOW, he was well aware of the rule, and reasonably thought he was following it–he didn’t even know his ball had moved. Here’s some clarification (again, with emphasis added):
Tiger was not unaware of the facts that resulted in the breach–i.e., he dropped 2 yards behind where he had previously hit. What he was unaware of was that this was a violation, which is irrelevant.
No, that’s falt-out wrong and I’ve never heard anyone else assert this. Most pre-change DQs would stand, including Stadler’s. Stadler violated a rule and turned in the wrong score. Like Tiger, he did so unaware he had committed an infraction. That makes no difference (unless you’re Tiger).
The Committee does not disagree. They acknowledge, unlike you, that Tiger signed for the wrong score at the time he signed it. They just waived the DQ penalty in contradiction of their own rules and guidance. You’re continuing to misunderstand their goofy ruling, which is incoherent relative to the rules as written and applied in every other non-Tiger situation.
You’re hand-waving away the difference to the Harrington situation, which is the key diffference! Harrington understood the rule and reasonably believed he was following it, because he was not even aware of the fact that resulted in the breach (his ball moved). Tiger was well aware of the facts that resulted in his breach: he dropped two yards behind where he had previously hit. What he seemed to be ignorant of was that this was a violation–and this ignorance is irrelevant, according to the USGA’s rules! This is not some trivial distinction. It’s the whole and entire reason the DQ can or can’t be waived, according to the USGA’s rules!
They made a shitty ruling to avoid the catastrophic impact a proper ruling would have had on ratings. The pressure must have been enormous! So, when I say their ruling was bad, and explain why, citing the shitty ruling as evidence that it was right is begging the question. If I’m wrong (on rare occasions, I am :D), that could best be argued by showing how I’m misunderstanding the plain English of the rules I’m citing. They’re their rules, not mine!
From the cite I just provided, some further clarification:
If you’re looking for something analogous to Tiger’s situation, here’s one. And the conclusion? DQ.
Same for Stadler. Was Craig aware he knelt on a towel? Um, yes. Case closed, even under the new rule. But he didn’t know that was against the rules when he did it! When he signed his card, he honestly thought he was signing for the proper score! Doesn’t matter.
