Tiger Woods ''penalty''

[Kelly the Dog]

Here is a reasonable explanation. If I am reading this right, for example, if Tiger chose option b (the second one I listed above) he could have moved the ball back as far as he wanted.

 

Did Tiger Woods' actions after he drenched his third shot on No. 15 Friday at Augusta result in him signing an incorrect scorecard, which would result in his automatic disqualification from the Masters?

There was no definitive answer and a lot of speculation late Friday. So, while a conclusion has yet to be reached, let's walk through the events in question.

After his round Woods said about his shot into the water on No. 15:

"I went down to the drop area, that wasn't going to be a good spot, because obviously it's into the grain and it was a little bit wet."

“So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards farther back and I tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit."

Two yards farther back.

Woods had just dunked his third shot in the water in front of the green, walked to the edge of the water, walked back to the spot where he hit the shot, and dropped his ball two yards behind the original shot.

He then hit that shot (his fifth) 3 feet from the pin and tapped in for bogey.

So why might he be disqualified?

It has to do with the drop, per USGA rule 26-1:

It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke:

a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or

b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or

Woods apparently didn't choose "a" because two yards (as he said in his post-round interview) isn't "as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played." Although I admit "as nearly as possible" is incredibly vague so I suppose this is still an option for what Woods did.

And the second choice "b" is in question as well (there is a "c" but it doesn't apply here).

According to this explanation by the USGA regarding "b," when a player's ball crosses a hazard three times (which Woods' did -- the front of the water, the back of the water, and the roll into the water after the ball careened off the pin) this is how the drop is supposed to play out:

If a ball last crossed the margin of a water hazard as described in the situation above, it appears that the ball crossed the margin of the hazard three times (e.g., first, the initial time it crossed; second, when it crossed over the hazard onto land; and third, when the ball rolled back into the hazard). So when the Rule states that the ball must be dropped “keeping the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is to be dropped,” it is referring to the third (final) time. It is the reference point for the 26-1b option only.

Did Woods keep the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard "directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball was dropped?" It's hard to tell. It looked on TV like the ball shot off to the left, not between where Woods dropped and the hole.

If Woods played an incorrect ball, according to rule 20-7 he should be penalized 2 strokes and would have, theoretically, incorrectly signed his scorecard -- an automatic disqualification.

Whether Woods did anything wrong has sparked enough chatter about his possible disqualification to make us get very familiar with this portion of the rule book.

 

He could have taken it back as far as he wanted on a line from where it was struck and where it entered the hazard, and that would have taken it more left. The problem was he took it back straight.

Correct.

 

The timing isnt what Im worried about, as much as leaving it up to home viewers to police the sport. Seems kinda bush league and puts the popular players under much more scrutiny.

The guy who heads the committee said every year they get dozens of calls from viewers who see things and call in to tell the officials, and that they check them all out. That is what happened here. It was one of dozens of calls and when they looked at it they got together and started to discuss whether an action should be taken.

 

You're right, it puts them under much more scrutiny.

[truth on hold]

 

 

The timing isnt what Im worried about, as much as leaving it up to home viewers to police the sport. Seems kinda bush league and puts the popular players under much more scrutiny.

The problem is what if someone wins a tournament while its been determined they should have been assessed a penalty, and would not have won? That opens a lot of controversy

 

 

Correct.

 

Actually my original post was wrong. Where it was struck doesn't factor into it. I corrected it w/ this explanation from ESPN:

 

He could drop the ball, keeping the point where it last crossed the margin of the water between the hole and the spot on which the ball would be dropped. Since the ball entered the water well left of Woods' position from the fairway, Woods did not choose this option – which would have allowed him to drop on a straight line as far back as he wanted.

[Kelly the Dog]

The problem is what if someone wins a tournament while its been determined they should have been assessed a penalty, and would not have won? That opens a lot of controversy

 

 

Actually my original post was wrong. Where it was struck doesn't factor into it. I corrected it w/ this explanation from ESPN:

 

He could drop the ball, keeping the point where it last crossed the margin of the water between the hole and the spot on which the ball would be dropped. Since the ball entered the water well left of Woods' position from the fairway, Woods did not choose this option – which would have allowed him to drop on a straight line as far back as he wanted.

That's actually what I thought you meant, and the same thing that was in the explanation I quoted.

[truth on hold]

Not sure. Some of those shots that go out of bounds or in the water, depending on the set up of the hole, have four or five different options for the golfer. And I know some of them allow you to take the ball back. He probably just confused the specific rule on that specific kind of hole. I know there were four options he could have taken on that one. He could have hit it out of the water, he could have hit at the spot where the hazard first comes into play, he could have shot from the specific drop area on that hole, or he could have shot from where he did, where he first struck the ball.

here's what he said

 

"I wasn't even really thinking," said Woods of The Drop That Shook The Masters. "I was still a little ticked at what happened [his ball caromed off the pin and into a pond] ... it's pretty obvious I didn't drop in the right spot."

[Keukasmallies]

I find I'm unable to comment on this matter as I don't have a shirt on that has a collar.

[truth on hold]

Have to respect Tiger's attitude on this...

 

After a tumultuous day that saw Woods wake up to the news that his status in the tournament was in question, getting a reprieve from disqualification due to a rarely invoked rule (but having two strokes added to his score), Woods was looking forward to Sunday's final round, which finds him four strokes back of leaders Brandt Snedeker and Angel Cabrera.

 

"It started off obviously different, but I'm right there in the ballgame," Woods said after a 2-under-par 70 at Augusta National left him in a tie for seventh place.

Adam Scott, Marc Leishman, Jason Day and Matt Kuchar are also ahead of Woods, who is tied with Tim Clark.

"As of right now, I'm four back with a great shot to win this championship," Woods said immediately after his round.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack

[bbb]

The biggest question I have is what number do these people have that they are calling? I can't call my bank a block away without being on 20 minutes worth of menus and hold times just to have a guy named "Bob" from Bangalore finally pick up the phone.

 

And, these people are calling on Sunday afternoons and getting somebody answering "Hello, PGA" or "Hello, CBS" and they are actually getting to the decision makers??

[NoSaint]

 

 

The timing isnt what Im worried about, as much as leaving it up to home viewers to police the sport. Seems kinda bush league and puts the popular players under much more scrutiny.

 

And is a direct product of the time issue. If the nfl could review 8 hours after the game and adjust scoring then you would see the same dynamic. A mistake was brought to their attention and they fixed it- the source doesn't make much difference, truly, beyond it feeling funny

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

Actually, they changed the rule two years ago so the penalty is correct.

 

 

Wrong. He took an illegal drop, and even admitted so in the interview later on, saying that he did it to improve his lie. And by saying that, he should have DQed himself.

[Kelly the Dog]

Wrong. He took an illegal drop, and even admitted so in the interview later on, saying that he did it to improve his lie. And by saying that, he should have DQed himself.

So he should be punished for being interviewed? The issue isnt the drop. That is the two stroke penalty. The issue is the signed scorecard. And he didn't know it was an illegal drop when he signed the scorecard.

[Kelly the Dog]

And KD is right, the rule change is specifically for this stuff, the after the fact television review from fans, which reveals violations. If Tiger knew from the 15-18th holes that he violated the rules and then signed the card, sure he should be DQ'd or DQ himself. But he clearly, inarguably didn't.

[truth on hold]

Wrong. He took an illegal drop, and even admitted so in the interview later on, saying that he did it to improve his lie. And by saying that, he should have DQed himself.

He can't DQ himself. Officials make that determination. And they determined within the guidelines of the revised rule the penalty was 2 strokes, not DQ.

[Ramius]

The best comment i heard was that they should rename the rule that kept Tiger in the tournament the "Nielsen Rule." There are 3 asinine rules here that need to be changed from that whole snafu:

 

1) TV viewers calling in infractions is complete crap. If an official didn't catch it, tough ****.

 

2) There should be a statue of limitations on assessing a penalty, be it the tee shot for the next hole, or the end of the round. But you should not be able to assess a penalty at some unlimited time in the future. This leads to 3...

 

3) Once a decision is handed down, it should stand. The officials should not be allowed to make a decision, then go home and eat, sleep on it, fight with their wife, and then re-visit the instance and change their mind, as happened in this case.

 

As much as i love golf, their idiotic rules causes the PGA and USGA to make asses out of themselves on an increasingly more often basis.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Ramius

[bbb]

I don't get why anybody would think this is the Nielson rule. It only makes sense, and all your points say why.

[snafu]

The best comment i heard was that they should rename the rule that kept Tiger in the tournament the "Nielsen Rule." There are 3 asinine rules here that need to be changed from that whole snafu:

 

 

snafu, perhaps not. I think I would call it an embroglio.

 

[Just Jack]

The biggest question I have is what number do these people have that they are calling? I can't call my bank a block away without being on 20 minutes worth of menus and hold times just to have a guy named "Bob" from Bangalore finally pick up the phone.

 

And, these people are calling on Sunday afternoons and getting somebody answering "Hello, PGA" or "Hello, CBS" and they are actually getting to the decision makers??

 

They call the clubs main number and ask for the officials....

 

http://www.nj.com/golf/index.ssf/2013/04/tiger_woods_masters_ruling_onc.html

 

How did they do that at the one of the world's most secretive and private clubs? Simple: They called the main number of Augusta National Golf Club and asked for a rules official. The number — (706) 667-6000 — is easily accessible through a internet search. This is how Woods' violation first came to light to Augusta National officials, who then discussed it amongst a three-person rules committee.

[Fezmid]

When the refs screw up and don't call a penalty on the Pats*, can we call CBS to have them review? That'd be sweet.

[NoSaint]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--photos-show-tiger-woods-may-not-have-deserved-a-two-stroke-penalty-204353354.html

 

New argument that he may not have even actually moved back like he thought.

[Beerball]

He can't DQ himself. Officials make that determination. And they determined within the guidelines of the revised rule the penalty was 2 strokes, not DQ.

False.

[truth on hold]

False.

He can "Withdraw" himself, but "DQ" is a determination made by officials.