so tiger should have been DQd, but just gets a +2 penalty!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
brianmanahan

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,608
6,000
136
http://aol.sportingnews.com/sport/s...rs-illegal-drop-incorrect-scorecard-pga-rules

he admittedly took an illegal drop and therefore should have carded himself a +2 penalty. he didnt, so signed an incorrect scorecard which automatically results in a DQ

BUT the officials decided to give him just the +2 penalty!

and in the meantime, they penalize the chinese kid +1 yesterday for taking 40 seconds on a shot when other players (sergio garcia especially) were taking at least twice that!
 
Last edited:
kranky

kranky

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
21,019
156
106
Moral of the story: it's good to be the guy who ensures millions of viewers at the premier tournament in the world; not as good to be a teenager nobody's ever heard of.

Oh, and that the unyielding, carved-in-stone rules of golf might have some leeway after all.
 
waggy

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
yeah he should have been DQ but they won't do that to him. without tiger veiwership will tank.

but they look bad. they gave the kid a 1 stroke for slow play (in the rules and deserved) yet only give tiger a 2 stroke penalty for cheating? wow
 
RaistlinZ

RaistlinZ

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
7,470
9
91
brianmanahan said:
http://aol.sportingnews.com/sport/s...rs-illegal-drop-incorrect-scorecard-pga-rules

he admittedly took an illegal drop and therefore should have carded himself a +2 penalty. he didnt, so signed an incorrect scorecard which automatically results in a DQ

BUT the officials decided to give him just the +2 penalty!

and in the meantime, they penalize the chinese kid +1 yesterday for taking 40 seconds on a shot when other players (sergio garcia especially) were taking at least twice that!
Click to expand...

Not quite. He is protected under another rule, I think Rule 33. The rules committee said initially he didn't do anything wrong when he dropped his ball on hole 15. So when he signed his scorecard he believed it to be accurate based on the rules committee. Rule 33 protects the player from being DQ'd when they could not have knowingly known their scorecard is wrong.

It was later that they gave him the 2 shot penalty after he said he moved his ball 2 yards further away from the hole.
 
GagHalfrunt

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,998
126
kranky said:
Moral of the story: it's good to be the guy who ensures millions of viewers at the premier tournament in the world; not as good to be a teenager nobody's ever heard of.

Oh, and that the unyielding, carved-in-stone rules of golf might have some leeway after all.
Click to expand...

The Jordan Rules apply to golf too. Tiger is above the law and The Masters will cheat to allow him to cheat. Bobby Jones is rolling over in his grave.
 
KlokWyze

KlokWyze

Diamond Member
Sep 7, 2006
4,451
9
81
www.dogsonacid.com
RaistlinZ said:
Not quite. He is protected under another rule, I think Rule 33. The rules committee said initially he didn't do anything wrong when he dropped his ball on hole 15. So when he signed his scorecard he believed it to be accurate based on the rules committee. Rule 33 protects the player from being DQ'd when they could not have knowingly known their scorecard is wrong.

It was later that they gave him the 2 shot penalty after he said he moved his ball 2 yards further away from the hole.
Click to expand...

Awww so it's a bunch twisted panties over nothing. Nothing to see here. Move along.
 
S

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
KlokWyze said:
Awww so it's a bunch twisted panties over nothing. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Click to expand...

Yes, he signed what he thought was the correct scorecard. It was later determined that his drop was illegal, so under the new rule they are allowed to give him a 2 stroke penalty instead of DQing him. It makes sense, he's just the first big player to fall under the new rule. ALL the players like the rule.
 
GagHalfrunt

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,998
126
KlokWyze said:
Awww so it's a bunch twisted panties over nothing. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You, RaistlinZ and Slick5150 are ignorant of the rules. Rule 33-7 expressly states that the committee DOES NOT have authority to waive the DQ rule in cases where the player is ignorant of the rules. It only applies to situations where information is presented that the player can't possibly know oh his own, like a viewed catching a ball moving in slow-mo replay that would be invisible to the naked eye. Tiger is NOT in any way covered by 33-7, the rules were bent and ignored because it's Tiger.

Here is the exact wording:

A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.
 
Last edited:
S

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
GagHalfrunt said:
Wrong. You, RaistlinZ and Slick5150 are ignorant of the rules. Rule 33-7 expressly states that the committee DOES NOT have authority to waive the DQ rule in cases where the player is ignorant of the rules. It only applies to situations where information is presented that the player can't possibly know oh his one, like a viewed catching a ball moving in slow-mo replay that would be invisible to the naked eye. Tiger is NOT in any way covered by 33-7, the rules were bent and ignored because it's Tiger.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely wrong about that.
 
GagHalfrunt

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,998
126
Slick5150 said:
You are absolutely wrong about that.
Click to expand...

No, you're absolutely stupid.

Exact wording:

A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.

______________________________________________________

33-7 is called the HDTV rule and is meant to protect players from things people can see on TV that they themselves cannot see on the course. The rule explicitly states that a player being ignorant of the rules and that if a player does not proceed properly because of that ignorance the player gets no coverage from 33-7.
 
S

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
GagHalfrunt said:
No, you're absolutely stupid.

Exact wording:

A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.

______________________________________________________

33-7 is called the HDTV rule and is meant to protect players from things people can see on TV that they themselves cannot see on the course. The rule explicitly states that a player being ignorant of the rules and that if a player does not proceed properly because of that ignorance the player gets no coverage from 33-7.
Click to expand...

Ok, well since you're being so polite in this discussion:

According to the USGA website, the "revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the Committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying Rule, but is not disqualified.''

In short, prior to discretion being given to the officials, the problem is that the player would be retroactively assessed the 2-stroke penalty after the round for the improper drop, thus making the scorecard the player signed incorrect resulting in an automatic DQ. The point of the rule is that the player obviously didn't know they signed for a wrong card and had no way to know that at the time (since it wasn't yet determined the drop was illegal), so they are able to still penalize him properly with the 2-strokes, but don't have to DQ him based on the wrong scorecard.

Even Paul Azinger, who has DQ'd for something very similar, is saying this is absolutely the right decision.
 
RaistlinZ

RaistlinZ

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
7,470
9
91
Meh, if this was some 100th ranked player we wouldn't even be talking about it. I give kudos to the viewer for noticing it though.
 
Fingolfin269

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
34
91
I'm more upset about the fact that I can watch them talk about Masters action on the Golf channel. But where can I watch the Masters right now? Nowhere. No idea if this is Augusta being pretentious or what but it's ridiculous that we can't just turn on the tournament and watch at any time they're playing.
 
brianmanahan

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,608
6,000
136
Fingolfin269 said:
I'm more upset about the fact that I can watch them talk about Masters action on the Golf channel. But where can I watch the Masters right now? Nowhere. No idea if this is Augusta being pretentious or what but it's ridiculous that we can't just turn on the tournament and watch at any time they're playing.
Click to expand...

masters.com

i have been watching it all day erry day since thursday
 
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Golf is a business, and Tiger is their number one spokesman. He turned it from a million dollar industry into a billion dollar industry. Shy of murder they'll give him a free pass on anything.

And I bet if he pulled an OJ they'd still let him back in.
 
S

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
GagHalfrunt said:
They didn't stop DQ-ing people for that crap. They just completely ignored the rule because it's Tiger.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't. I'm sorry you want to ignore every statement put out by the USGA, other pros, analysts, the Master's rule committee, and everything else, but the new rule was applied exactly as intended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom