North Carolina Tar Heels

[Owlman]

Turns out Tiger's penalty wasn't deserved in the first place

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--phot ... 53354.html

[Dr. Nostron]

A tournament changing bit of bad luck for Tiger - that was basically a 4 shot swing when his ball unluckily hit the flagstick.

[crashcourse]

hard to say what happens or how he plays it differently if hes tied for the lead going into the back 9 vs being down by 4.

all i know is that was some good stuff the last 2 hrs yesterday

[crashcourse]

I see a nascar fan brought a gun into the NRA 500 saturday night and offed himself in the infield.

wonder if the NRA waived the part where they search the fans for guns before they enter a sporting event

[sardis]

They need to get rid of this fans calling in reporting golf violations while watching tv. It is not an even playing field when some golfers are televised more than others.

[Saint]

plus, TV lies

[Cletus]

They need to get rid of this fans calling in reporting golf violations while watching tv. It is not an even playing field when some golfers are televised more than others.

This wasn't some random yahoo who called it. It was several players and rules officials. After they are aware of a problem, I'm not sure how they could ignore it. The committee fucked up by not talking to Tiger before he signed his card. If they actually went through the process of reviewing his drop and making a ruling, the fact they didn't include a conversation with the player in the process is unbelievable.

[Owlman]

They reviewed in on the 15th hole when it occurred. They again reviewed in on the 18th hole and saw no problem. It wasn't until Tiger's interview that they thought it was a problem. Going by what he said, without true corroborating evidence, they made a ruling. The problem was that (except for the photo I showed above), all of the video used by the officials were in a different position. I'm not sure they ever had video evidence that the ball had moved 2 yards.

[Cletus]

That's why you ask the player what happened before you make a ruling. The player is ultimately responsible for his own score so he needs to know all the facts before he signs his card. A ruling made on his play is certainly an important fact. Strictly speaking, he should have been DQ'd. But, I think they actually used some common sense here which is unusual. It took a very liberal reading of the rules to get there but it was ultimately the right choice, IMO.

[Owlman]

The whole DQ thing is antiquated. It's like the DQ for signing an opponents erroneous scorecard needed to change. That was also something that needed to change, something they did last year and this was the first exercise of the new rule. I suspect this will be the standard for all televised tournaments in the future. New rule, no DQ.

[Cletus]

The whole DQ thing is antiquated. It's like the DQ for signing an opponents erroneous scorecard needed to change. That was also something that needed to change, something they did last year and this was the first exercise of the new rule. I suspect this will be the standard for all televised tournaments in the future. New rule, no DQ.

No, the new rule (actually decision on a rule) was not used here. That was intended to protect a player against a violation that he could not have known about but was discovered using HD TV (a ball moving a tiny bit or extremely slight contact with an impediment in a hazard). The rule they used was the one that protects a player from DQ if the committee makes a mistake but allows for the committee to correct its mistake. What will happen in the future as a result of this is that players will never make any sort of decision without first consulting an official. Once the official rules, the player is protected from DQ if the ruling has to be changed. This has always been an option but now the players should use it at every opportunity. If a player fails to consult an official, breaks a rule, and signs an incorrect card, he will and always should be DQ'd. That will never change.

[sardis]

They need to get rid of this fans calling in reporting golf violations while watching tv. It is not an even playing field when some golfers are televised more than others.

This wasn't some random yahoo who called it. It was several players and rules officials. After they are aware of a problem, I'm not sure how they could ignore it. The committee fucked up by not talking to Tiger before he signed his card. If they actually went through the process of reviewing his drop and making a ruling, the fact they didn't include a conversation with the player in the process is unbelievable.

But how did they see it? In person? If they saw it on tv then my point stands in that a player who has more tv exposure has an unfair disadvantage over golfers who don't get coverage.

[Cletus]

They need to get rid of this fans calling in reporting golf violations while watching tv. It is not an even playing field when some golfers are televised more than others.

This wasn't some random yahoo who called it. It was several players and rules officials. After they are aware of a problem, I'm not sure how they could ignore it. The committee fucked up by not talking to Tiger before he signed his card. If they actually went through the process of reviewing his drop and making a ruling, the fact they didn't include a conversation with the player in the process is unbelievable.

But how did they see it? In person? If they saw it on tv then my point stands in that a player who has more tv exposure has an unfair disadvantage over golfers who don't get coverage.

Actually, the fact that the drop was televised gave Tiger an advantage. If it wasn't televised, then the committee wouldn't have been alerted to make a ruling. Then, when Tiger admitted that he made a bad drop, he definitely would have been DQ'd. It was the improper ruling that saved Tiger and that only happens because of the TV coverage and the subsequent phone calls.

[Owlman]

so you admit then it's an unfair advantage as opposed to an unfair disadvantage?

[Owlman]

"So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards further back and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit. And that should land me short of the flag and not have it either hit the flag or skip over the back. I felt that that was going to be the right decision to take off four right there. And I did. It worked out perfectly."

and later

"No, because they already made the determination prior to me finishing the 18th hole. Fred and the Rules Committee had already made that determination that everything was fine."

"You know, I wasn't even really thinking. I was still a little ticked at what happened, and I was just trying to figure, okay, I need to take some yardage off this shot, and that's all I was thinking about was trying to make sure I took some yardage off of it, and evidently, it was pretty obvious, I didn't drop in the right spot."

yet, the video evidence except the one posted above is pretty inconclusive that he actually put it in the wrong spot. The disqualification would have been for signing an incorrect scorecard (something that in this day and age of major tournaments is just absurd) after it had been looked at multiple times by tournament officials.

[Cletus]

The extra scrutiny can cut both ways. In this case, he got a break because the call and review happened before he signed his card. But, it could have just as easily happened after he signed his card in which case it would have been a clear DQ. I don't think I'd say the TV coverage is fair or unfair since there are procedures that exist which, if followed, make the TV coverage irrelevant. The lesson here is that, in competition, always consult an official before you touch the ball. Put the burden on the rules committee and protect yourself from any mistakes.

[Owlman]

Get rid of the whole signing scorecards thing in majors. Every score should be kept by officials.

[Cletus]

"So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards further back and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit. And that should land me short of the flag and not have it either hit the flag or skip over the back. I felt that that was going to be the right decision to take off four right there. And I did. It worked out perfectly."

and later

"No, because they already made the determination prior to me finishing the 18th hole. Fred and the Rules Committee had already made that determination that everything was fine."

"You know, I wasn't even really thinking. I was still a little ticked at what happened, and I was just trying to figure, okay, I need to take some yardage off this shot, and that's all I was thinking about was trying to make sure I took some yardage off of it, and evidently, it was pretty obvious, I didn't drop in the right spot."

yet, the video evidence except the one posted above is pretty inconclusive that he actually put it in the wrong spot. The disqualification would have been for signing an incorrect scorecard (something that in this day and age of major tournaments is just absurd) after it had been looked at multiple times by tournament officials.

He definitely dropped it in the wrong spot. You are supposed to drop the ball as close to the previous spot as possible (in this case, the divot). He was a couple feet behind the divot and given that he was playing from a fairly steep downslope, the ball probably hit the ground even further back. I don't think he was the 2 yards that Tiger said he was but he was not in the same place as before. They should have asked Tiger before they made a ruling even if they thought he was OK.

[Owlman]

no he didn't. The tournament officials looked at it twice. The picture above shows that it was appeared to be extremely close to where he was played before. Even if he intended to go back two yards (and that may be a question), the evidence doesn't show that he did.

[Jungle Rat]

Once you turn in your signed card & the officials accept it, it should become concrete. If they have a problem it needs to be addressed then. No way some idiot from Iowa can call into anyone & change the outcome. If that was to become standard the NFL would have changed the outcome of the Packers fuck up early last season.