**2013 Masters Thread**

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

Do you realize how idiotic you sound? Its as if you don't even know what happened. Do you even play golf, watch golf or know how it all works?

 

If Tiger wouldn't have gotten what you folks call 'special treatment' then the rules official would've accessed a 2 stroke penalty after the 15 hole and we would've moved on. They don't DQ anyone for having a drop penalty in golf.

 

Tiger signed a correct scorecard deemed correct by the tournament officials. It wasn't until hours and hours later that they RETROACTIEVLY deemed he should've recieved a 2 stroke penalty. But you can't and shouldn't say a golfer signed an incorrect scorecard when he (at the time and by the tournaments own judgement) signed it correctly. That's ridiculous and rule 31-7 is in place just for that ridiculousness.

 

At no point was Tiger or any golfer in that exact situation ever going to be DQ'd. That was just internet twitter nonsense and TV talking heads who were spouting off who didn't have the facts and were ignorant of the rules.

 

For the love of the Baby Jesus stop it. You sound ignorant as hell.

 

And Tiger didn't try to cheat, he may have been confused as to one of his options, but if he TRIED to knowningly cheat do you really think he goes on TV and explains exactly how he cheated in a TV interveiw? Of course not. Stop being a ninny.

 

 

Tiger did not sign a correct scorecard. The argument of when the penalty was realized is semantics. Whether the broken rule was realized before or after he signed his card, doesn't matter. The rule was in fact broken, when the drop took place, which was prior to signing his card.... which makes it an incorrect scorecard.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "deemed correct by tournament officials". Officials never mentioned anything to Tiger or even questioned him prior to him signing his card. They did it afterwards. So really, they dropped the ball. Had they questioned him before he signed his card, there would be no "deeming correct". tiger could have taken his penalty and signed a correct card and none of this would be an issue.

 

I'm not ganging up on Tiger here. Do I think he received preferential treatment? yes I do BUT, that also doesn't matter. The rule of exception was in place and that was the decision. Like it or not, that's the rule.

 

The bigger story is what an awesome Masters that was.

[joeshushu 51]

I think Tiger looked lost out there but still finished fourth. Just think how good he could be if he just found his inner child again. How about that 14 yo making the cut?

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

I think Tiger looked lost out there but still finished fourth. Just think how good he could be if he just found his inner child again. How about that 14 yo making the cut?

 

i feel like all ive been hearing for the past 4 years is "tiger looked _____ out there" "tiger barely did _____" "Tiger didn't even ______" and he finished pretty high! Imagine how good he would be if _______ or ________ or ________.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Tiger did not sign a correct scorecard. The argument of when the penalty was realized is semantics.

 

At the time he signed the scorecard it was indeed correct. But you are right, it is semantics, so not sure why you chose to argue this semantics.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "deemed correct by tournament officials".

The head rules guy said in his statement that after the 15th hole, three officials all got together, even reviewed video and deemed that it was a legal drop. Why do you think they didn't penalize him? Because they deemed it a legal drop.

 

I realize it's en vougue for Tiger detractors to want and play some conspiarcy angle or make up rules or play semantics to paint some negative narrative.

 

The truth is that being DQ'd was never an option due to the rules and the facts of what transpired. The truth is that Tiger Woods didn't knowingly try to cheat. The truth is that the MASTERS officials are the ones who screwed up the call, not Tiger. And the truth is the correct call, a 2 stroke penalty, was ultimately made.

 

Everthing else is just hot air.

[cbfalcon 824]

This is my down the middle Tiger opinion.

 

Bert had it right that Tiger get preferential treatment initially. When they reviewed the drop while Tiger was still on the course...A lesser player is at least being asked about it before he signs his scorecard. But they didn't want Tiger to go from 3 back to 5 back, so they let it go.

 

That said, he should not have been DQd. Yes, we can read the rules and about how ignorance is no excuse, etc etc..... But the spirit of the new rule is: If it's discovered over night that a guy was supposed to take a penalty (whether via phone call or something said in an interview), we aren't going to DQ him for signing an incorrect scorecard that was thought to be correct when signed. That's what happened.

 

So he got favorable treatment AND it wouldn't have been right to DQ him.

[KSB2424 3,083]

So he got favorable treatment AND it wouldn't have been right to DQ him.

Even if you believe the tournament officials knowingly gave him the initial pass on the 2 stroke penalty (which is debateable), that favorable treatment was negated. Tiger did in fact recieve a 2 stroke penalty. So in the end nothing favorable happened.

 

The proper call and the proper penalty was ultimately made. The right thing happened in the end. The End.

[jerryskids 5,192]

Even if you believe the tournament officials knowingly gave him the initial pass on the 2 stroke penalty (which is debateable), that favorable treatment was negated. Tiger did in fact recieve a 2 stroke penalty. So in the end nothing favorable happened.

 

The proper call and the proper penalty was ultimately made. The right thing happened in the end. The End.

I wonder what would have happened had the caller not called in, the rules officials didn't make the initial (Friday) ruling, and Tiger made that same statement Saturday morning. In other words, did the caller actually help Tiger in the end? Because by the rules of golf, he either intentionally violated the rule or was ignorant of it, which is not a valid reason either.

[KSB2424 3,083]

I wonder what would have happened had the caller not called in, the rules officials didn't make the initial (Friday) ruling, and Tiger made that same statement Saturday morning. In other words, did the caller actually help Tiger in the end? Because by the rules of golf, he either intentionally violated the rule or was ignorant of it, which is not a valid reason either.

Regardless of if it was Friday Night or Saturday Morning, the reason that Tiger was never at risk of a DQ was because the officials missed the call. They made the mistake of not accessing the penalty at the time and letting Tiger know what was the correct scorecard to sign. They even admitted that three officials got together and quickley looked at a replay and came to the conclusion the drop was okay (at the time).

 

Tigers maximum penalty was a 2 stroke penalty. The DQ was never an issue once the round was over because any change would've been deemed the Masters officals mistake (or miss) not the players. The culpablity of that part falls on the offficals.

 

Being ingnorant/confused of the rule doesn't stop Tiger from recieving the 2 stroke penalty. Correct. Of which he ultimately recieved.

[DankNuggs 305]

Tiger did not sign a correct scorecard. The argument of when the penalty was realized is semantics. Whether the broken rule was realized before or after he signed his card, doesn't matter. The rule was in fact broken, when the drop took place, which was prior to signing his card.... which makes it an incorrect scorecard.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "deemed correct by tournament officials". Officials never mentioned anything to Tiger or even questioned him prior to him signing his card. They did it afterwards. So really, they dropped the ball. Had they questioned him before he signed his card, there would be no "deeming correct". tiger could have taken his penalty and signed a correct card and none of this would be an issue.

 

I'm not ganging up on Tiger here. Do I think he received preferential treatment? yes I do BUT, that also doesn't matter. The rule of exception was in place and that was the decision. Like it or not, that's the rule.

 

The bigger story is what an awesome Masters that was.

As i understand it he asked officials if he was OK with the drop before signing the card. They instructed him that he was fine. So he signed it. After the fact it got political and they changed their tune after some pressure. Not fair to penalize Tiger for follwing instructions.

[NewbieJr 540]

Belly putters are for queers.

Green jacket-wearing queers.

[DankNuggs 305]

Green jacket-wearing queers.

it'll be an * like the steroid era. Anchored strokes isn't golf.

[NewbieJr 540]

it'll be an * like the steroid era. Anchored strokes isn't golf.

No it won't. If it was a clear advantage, more golfers would use them.

[DankNuggs 305]

No it won't. If it was a clear advantage, more golfers would use them.

If it wasn't an advantage they wouldn't have banned them. This is the phase out period. get your majors while you are still relevant.

[drobeski 3,061]

it'll be an * like the steroid era. Anchored strokes isn't golf.

Belly putters a joke ...and hopefully will disappear from the tour soon

[KSB2424 3,083]

Some of my favorite golfers use belly putters or the long putter. Bradley, Simpson, etc.

 

But I agree, they should be banned. It's simply not golf. I don't think ther eshould be an asterisk, but people will look back and say that so and so won it in the belly putter era. So there will be a, sort of 'pretend' asterisk. If you know what I mean.

[jerryskids 5,192]

Regardless of if it was Friday Night or Saturday Morning, the reason that Tiger was never at risk of a DQ was because the officials missed the call. They made the mistake of not accessing the penalty at the time and letting Tiger know what was the correct scorecard to sign. They even admitted that three officials got together and quickley looked at a replay and came to the conclusion the drop was okay (at the time).

 

Tigers maximum penalty was a 2 stroke penalty. The DQ was never an issue once the round was over because any change would've been deemed the Masters officals mistake (or miss) not the players. The culpablity of that part falls on the offficals.

 

Being ingnorant/confused of the rule doesn't stop Tiger from recieving the 2 stroke penalty. Correct. Of which he ultimately recieved.

 

 

RULE 33-7 AND COMMITTEE’S INITIAL RULING SAVES TIGER’S BACON

 

So here is a portion of Rule 33-7 which was instituted by the PGA Tour in April 2011:

 

“A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Rules Committee considers such action warranted.”

 

This necessarily implies that the governing rules committee must make a judgment call. Further assisting such judgments is this corollary to Rule 33-7 which states:

 

“If the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed…The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.”

 

I think it is highly reasonable that Tiger could have discovered the legitimacy of his various options by calling for a rules official prior to dropping his ball. Considering that he was likely steaming mad about his freakishly bad luck with his third shot into 15 on Friday, it is not surprising that he may not have been thinking clearly enough to do so.

 

But the committee’s own initial ruling, which in hindsight they admitted was incorrect, is ultimately the thing that got Tiger off the hook. Even if his error was intentional, the rules committee had reviewed and ruled upon the matter before he signed his scorecard…thereby affirming (at the time) the correctness of the ’6′ Woods posted on 15. It was only deemed an incorrect scorecard by the rules committee after they reversed their earlier judgment.

 

In short, Rule 33-7 aided Tiger Woods…but so did the Rules Committee’s initial and (albeit unknowingly) erroneous ruling which contributed to the incorrect scorecard being signed. Their decision to assess a 2-stroke penalty rather than disqualify Mr. Woods feels a bit like a ‘mea culpa’ on the committee’s behalf.

 

 

My link

 

Tiger focked up the drop. The new rule is not intended to save ignorant golfers from signing incorrect scorecards. It is intended to prevent some loser watching on TV from calling up and saying "I saw a leaf fall on his practice swing$#@!"

[KSB2424 3,083]

My link

 

Tiger focked up the drop. The new rule is not intended to save ignorant golfers from signing incorrect scorecards. It is intended to prevent some loser watching on TV from calling up and saying "I saw a leaf fall on his practice swing$#@!"

Focking up the drop is a two stroke penalty not a DQ.

 

Your bolded portions are saying exaclty what I'm saying. Rule 33-7 did exactly what it was inteded to do. Not hold a player at fault when the reason the incorrect scorecard was signed was due to the officials mistake not the player.

 

If Tiger played an incorrect drop, was notified by the officials of a penalty, and still wrote down a 6 then that would be on Tiger and he should be DQ'd. But the officials made the mistake, therefore rule 33-7 comes into play, as it should and as inteneded.

 

 

The right thing happened in the end, by way of common sense and the...you know...rules. I don't see whats so hard for people to understand?

[NewbieJr 540]

Some of my favorite golfers use belly putters or the long putter. Bradley, Simpson, etc.

 

But I agree, they should be banned. It's simply not golf. I don't think ther eshould be an asterisk, but people will look back and say that so and so won it in the belly putter era. So there will be a, sort of 'pretend' asterisk. If you know what I mean.

Until the first belly-putter guy wins a major without one.

[The Moz 69]

Granted it made no difference as that would of what got him tied for 2nd or 3rd. But if the PGA says everything is legit even after the round - I can't see how they can penalize the golfer after the fact. Some of the rules are pretty stupid anyway

[Fumbleweed 426]

Until the first belly-putter guy wins a major without one.

 

Which will happen. Bradley and Scott are good enough to win majors with conventional putters. So is Els (obviously). Simpson...jury's still out.

[NewbieJr 540]

Which will happen. Bradley and Scott are good enough to win majors with conventional putters. So is Els (obviously). Simpson...jury's still out.

But if all the guys who use belly-putters suddenly start to suck and don't win any more tournaments, I agree that those guys' wins will have invisible asterics.

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

At the time he signed the scorecard it was indeed correct. But you are right, it is semantics, so not sure why you chose to argue this semantics.

 

 

The head rules guy said in his statement that after the 15th hole, three officials all got together, even reviewed video and deemed that it was a legal drop. Why do you think they didn't penalize him? Because they deemed it a legal drop.

 

I realize it's en vougue for Tiger detractors to want and play some conspiarcy angle or make up rules or play semantics to paint some negative narrative.

 

The truth is that being DQ'd was never an option due to the rules and the facts of what transpired. The truth is that Tiger Woods didn't knowingly try to cheat. The truth is that the MASTERS officials are the ones who screwed up the call, not Tiger. And the truth is the correct call, a 2 stroke penalty, was ultimately made.

 

Everthing else is just hot air.

 

again, I said i'm not piling on Tiger so don't get all upset and play the Tiger hater card. It doesn't matter what I think in terms of did he get special treatment or not.

 

I'm just talking about the facts as we have them.

 

The semantics I referred to was the idea of WHEN officials chose to recognize the drop as illegal. The timing of when they recognized it as illegal does not change the time when the infraction happened. It happened on the 15th hole. Before Tiger signed his card. Thus an incorrect scorecard.

 

I'm basically saying the officials dropped the ball by not questioning Tiger before he finished his round and signed his scorecard. If they have any inlking for any reason that a player may have broken a rule, they usually question the player. And you are correct, under this new "rule" officials can hide behind the guise of "it was our mistake not Tigers" even though Tiger should know the rule better as a 15+ year professional. The thing is, the rules committee has the choice to DQ a player or not. It's not a steadfast rule that no player can be DQ'd under the circumstances.

 

Tiger was never at risk of a DQ was because the officials missed the call

that's the great thing about golf. Its not like football or baseball where the onus is on the officials to catch an infraction. Golf, as a "gentlemen's game" has a measure of self awareness. This is unrelated I just felt like commenting.

 

 

 

however, I know you are a huge Tiger guy and anything we say will boil down to "people keep hating on Tiger" so i'll leave the subject alone

[Cruzer 1,992]

The bigger story is what an awesome Masters that was.

/thread.

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

Some of my favorite golfers use belly putters or the long putter. Bradley, Simpson, etc.

 

But I agree, they should be banned. It's simply not golf. I don't think ther eshould be an asterisk, but people will look back and say that so and so won it in the belly putter era. So there will be a, sort of 'pretend' asterisk. If you know what I mean.

 

I agree. Well, actually I don't even care if they get banned or not but I agree with your sentiment about the "belly putter era" and what people will think.

 

Until the first belly-putter guy wins a major without one.

 

Ernie has won majors without one. Time will tell but I think the other guys have the game to win/contend without them.

 

thats the crazy thing about golf. 4 years from now we could see Adam Scott or Keegan Bradley in a Masters playoff and push one into the trees off the tee and lose. Will that mean they needed the long putter to win?

[Fumbleweed 426]

I agree. Well, actually I don't even care if they get banned or not but I agree with your sentiment about the "belly putter era" and what people will think.

 

 

 

Ernie has won majors without one. Time will tell but I think the other guys have the game to win/contend without them.

 

thats the crazy thing about golf. 4 years from now we could see Adam Scott or Keegan Bradley in a Masters playoff and push one into the trees off the tee and lose. Will that mean they needed the long putter to win?

 

Exactly. Lee Westwood is a terrible putter by PGA standards and he rose to #1 in the world. How did he do that? By being so good at other aspects of the game. The putter thing is overstated. Adam Scott made maybe one putt on Sunday that he might not have made with a traditional putter. One. He missed every other putt that wasn't a short and sweet putt. So, with a conventional putter, the worst he would have shot is a 70. And, it's speculative whether or not he would have made the final putts with something else anyway. You still have to get your reads correct and he made good reads on both.

 

It's the most overblown issue in golf right now with respect to success. I think the anchored putters need to go...but it's not because I think golfers are ultimately any more or less successful because of them.

[Mike Honcho 4,018]

My link

 

Tiger focked up the drop. The new rule is not intended to save ignorant golfers from signing incorrect scorecards. It is intended to prevent some loser watching on TV from calling up and saying "I saw a leaf fall on his practice swing$#@!"

 

[Mike Honcho 4,018]

Focking up the drop is a two stroke penalty not a DQ.

 

Your bolded portions are saying exaclty what I'm saying. Rule 33-7 did exactly what it was inteded to do. Not hold a player at fault when the reason the incorrect scorecard was signed was due to the officials mistake not the player.

 

If Tiger played an incorrect drop, was notified by the officials of a penalty, and still wrote down a 6 then that would be on Tiger and he should be DQ'd. But the officials made the mistake, therefore rule 33-7 comes into play, as it should and as inteneded.

 

 

The right thing happened in the end, by way of common sense and the...you know...rules. I don't see whats so hard for people to understand?

 

Ignorance of the rule, doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist. He illegally dropped the ball and in golf players are supposed to police themselves---not have it presided over by an official to throw a flag. He appeared to get preferential treatment and a unique interpretation of 33-7.

[cbfalcon 824]

It was open enough to interpretation that there was opportunity to allow him to play. I hope in most situations in which the rules can be interpreted as to show someone mercy, mercy is demonstrated more often than not. Obviously, if golfers start trying to take advantage, then that opinion will change.

[patweisers44 697]

Adam Scott made maybe one putt on Sunday that he might not have made with a traditional putter. One. He missed every other putt that wasn't a short and sweet putt. So, with a conventional putter, the worst he would have shot is a 70.

...which has him one shot out of a playoff.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Ignorance of the rule, doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist. He illegally dropped the ball and in golf players are supposed to police themselves---not have it presided over by an official to throw a flag. He appeared to get preferential treatment and a unique interpretation of 33-7.

We've gone over this a thousand times yet people still don't get it.

 

Ignorance of the rule means that he should've recieved a 2 stroke penalty on the drop even though he was confused as to the rule and didn't do it on purpose. Which is what ultimately happened, nobody is saying he shouldn't of recieved a two stroke penalty. Quit saying that! Sheesh. Non golf folks are getting the rules confused. It's maddening.

 

Let me break it down for the slow pokes. I'll even type slow.

 

A. An illegal drop is equal to a 2 stroke penalty

B. Signing and incorrect scorecard based on officials ruling is subject to a DQ

 

Tiger did A but did not do B as the officials did not penalize Tiger during his round. Rule 33-7 was made up just for that reason. Another example would be if the playing partner (who keeps the other person score) wrote down the wrong score on a hole and the othe player signed it. Rule 33-7 give the officials leeway to say "Hey the other guy made the mistake not the player in question, no need to DQ the player for another persons fault". The same logic applies. You don't DQ Tiger for the officials mistake.

 

Tiger got his 2 stroke penalty punishment for what he did wrong. The right call was ultimately made. Nothing more to see. The End.

 

The only other even remotely open argument to be made was if you think the rules officials actually gave Tiger the benefit of the doubt (special treatment) when they didn't give him a 2 stroke penalty during his round. I can see a discussion there, however at no point should Tiger have ever been DQ'd. That isn't even in the conversation, nor should it have been.

[Bert 1,091]

A. An illegal drop is equal to a 2 stroke penalty

B. Signing and incorrect scorecard based on officials ruling is subject to a DQ

 

Rule 33-7 does allow officials the leeway to not DQ him but Tiger did sign an incorrect score card. The rules official did not discuss the ruling until Tiger admitted he broke the rule (intent is irrelevant). This would not have been an issue if the review official had not pulled a Stevie Wonder and said they did not see a violation. If they had enforced the rules like they do for everyone else they would have discussed it with Tiger before he signed his card he would have said what he said in his interview and the situation would have been over. The officials created the signed an incorrect score card issue by not discussing this with Tiger. Because they cut him a break they choose to use 33-7 to not DQ for a situation they created trying to play favorites.

[cribdog 0]

 

 

The only other even remotely open argument to be made was if you think the rules officials actually gave Tiger the benefit of the doubt (special treatment) when they didn't give him a 2 stroke penalty during his round. I can see a discussion there, however at no point should Tiger have ever been DQ'd. That isn't even in the conversation, nor should it have been.

 

Except for the fact that this new rule has never been used to allow a player to not be DQ'd when signing an incorrect scorecard. I have been a huge golf fan for a long time, and in every similar instance to this before the player has been DQ'd. This is the first time someone has not been, and it happens to be Tiger and it happens to be in the Masters. Maybe a new precedent has been set.

 

On a personal level, I do think that a DQ is too harsh, and you shouldn't have to sign your scorecard at all. As a player, you are not responsible for scoring in any other professional sport, not sure why you have to in golf, especially this day and age when scores are reported as they happen.

[cbfalcon 824]

We've gone over this a thousand times yet people still don't get it.

 

Ignorance of the rule means that he should've recieved a 2 stroke penalty on the drop even though he was confused as to the rule and didn't do it on purpose. Which is what ultimately happened, nobody is saying he shouldn't of recieved a two stroke penalty. Quit saying that! Sheesh. Non golf folks are getting the rules confused. It's maddening.

 

Let me break it down for the slow pokes. I'll even type slow.

 

A. An illegal drop is equal to a 2 stroke penalty

B. Signing and incorrect scorecard based on officials ruling is subject to a DQ

 

Tiger did A but did not do B as the officials did not penalize Tiger during his round. Rule 33-7 was made up just for that reason. Another example would be if the playing partner (who keeps the other person score) wrote down the wrong score on a hole and the othe player signed it. Rule 33-7 give the officials leeway to say "Hey the other guy made the mistake not the player in question, no need to DQ the player for another persons fault". The same logic applies. You don't DQ Tiger for the officials mistake.

 

Tiger got his 2 stroke penalty punishment for what he did wrong. The right call was ultimately made. Nothing more to see. The End.

 

The only other even remotely open argument to be made was if you think the rules officials actually gave Tiger the benefit of the doubt (special treatment) when they didn't give him a 2 stroke penalty during his round. I can see a discussion there, however at no point should Tiger have ever been DQ'd. That isn't even in the conversation, nor should it have been.

 

Calm down buddy. It's not people are claiming the tabloids are right about him cheating on his wife a bunch.

[Fumbleweed 426]

...which has him one shot out of a playoff.

 

Assuming he misses with a traditional putter. Big assumption. Golfers are funny when they get in a slump. They try different things. Scott's career was in a slump, so he tried a different putter. I think his confidence and maturity have a lot more to do with his recent success than the putter change. He's always had the talent, short or long putter.

[KSB2424 3,083]

This would not have been an issue if the review official had not pulled a Stevie Wonder and said they did not see a violation.

Actually this was talked about ad-naseaum but you may have missed that.

 

There were officials on the 15th hole. There were hundreds of spectators and other playing partners. Nobody, I mean nobody stood up and said that "Hey Tiger Woods just did an illegal drop!@#!"

 

Your Stevie Wonder comment is ignorant.

 

The drop rule is rather open in that it reads:

 

return to the original spot from which the ball was played, and drop as nearly as possible, from the original shot.

 

Tiger walked up to the drop zone, didn't like that so walked back to where his caddy was and went back two yards from where he thought he hit the first shot. His mistake was thinking he could go backwards (no closer to the hole) instead of that it had to be right beside his original divot.

 

This was not easily seen by everyone and was not an "obvious rule" to all. In fact nobody, I mean nobody caught it. His playing partners, the officials, all the spectators there. You act as if he did a foot wedge from behind a tree or something.

[Mike Honcho 4,018]

Rule 33-7 does allow officials the leeway to not DQ him but Tiger did sign an incorrect score card. The rules official did not discuss the ruling until Tiger admitted he broke the rule (intent is irrelevant). This would not have been an issue if the review official had not pulled a Stevie Wonder and said they did not see a violation. If they had enforced the rules like they do for everyone else they would have discussed it with Tiger before he signed his card he would have said what he said in his interview and the situation would have been over. The officials created the signed an incorrect score card issue by not discussing this with Tiger. Because they cut him a break they choose to use 33-7 to not DQ for a situation they created trying to play favorites.

 

you're confused..KSB needs to type slower...

[Mike Honcho 4,018]

We've gone over this a thousand times yet people still don't get it.

 

Ignorance of the rule means that he should've recieved a 2 stroke penalty on the drop even though he was confused as to the rule and didn't do it on purpose. Which is what ultimately happened, nobody is saying he shouldn't of recieved a two stroke penalty. Quit saying that! Sheesh. Non golf folks are getting the rules confused. It's maddening.

 

Let me break it down for the slow pokes. I'll even type slow.

 

A. An illegal drop is equal to a 2 stroke penalty

B. Signing and incorrect scorecard based on officials ruling is subject to a DQ

 

Tiger did A but did not do B as the officials did not penalize Tiger during his round. Rule 33-7 was made up just for that reason. Another example would be if the playing partner (who keeps the other person score) wrote down the wrong score on a hole and the othe player signed it. Rule 33-7 give the officials leeway to say "Hey the other guy made the mistake not the player in question, no need to DQ the player for another persons fault". The same logic applies. You don't DQ Tiger for the officials mistake.

 

Tiger got his 2 stroke penalty punishment for what he did wrong. The right call was ultimately made. Nothing more to see. The End.

 

The only other even remotely open argument to be made was if you think the rules officials actually gave Tiger the benefit of the doubt (special treatment) when they didn't give him a 2 stroke penalty during his round. I can see a discussion there, however at no point should Tiger have ever been DQ'd. That isn't even in the conversation, nor should it have been.

 

Rule 33-7 was created to address people watching at home, calling and saying, "He knocked down a leaf on his backswing", not your BS interpretation.

 

And even in your interpretation "Hey the other guy made the mistake not the player in question", sorry, Tiger was the one who made the mistake, not some other guy. Clearly you will excuse anything he does and there is no point in further discussing it.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Rule 33-7 was created to address people watching at home, calling and saying, "He knocked down a leaf on his backswing", not your BS interpretation.

No it wasn't. Stop making up stuff. It's not MY interpretation, its what the rule is intened for dummy. You and others who probably don't even follow golf or play golf, except when something like this happens are sounding ignorant.

 

Rule 33-7 was put in place because over the years players have been DQ'd when it was deemed really no fault of their own or it wasn't really warranted. However due to 100 year old golf rules the committes had to DQ them by the letter of the outdated rules. Rule 33-7 was created to give the officials leeway to use common sense in today's game to stop the madness.

 

It wasn't just made up because people calling from home. That is a part of it but not all of it. It was made up to do just what it did. To give officials the proper athuority to update the rules of golf to present times.

 

 

Rule 33-7 protects the player from not being DQ'd for something deemed not their 'fault'. I watched a whole segment on it with USGA an PGA rules officials explaining why 33-7 was implemented and what it does on the golf channel. Did you? Or did you read some blog on USA Today and are spouting off at the lip?

[jerryskids 5,192]

KSB is so cute when he gets all authoritative in a failed attempt to cover up his ignorance of the rules of golf.

[Bert 1,091]

you're confused..KSB needs to type slower...

 

The way this retard acts about Tiger I would swear he was Phufur.