Tiger Disqualified?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lifter

New
This sucks!

Tiger's Drop On 15: Grounds For*DQ? - GeoffShackelford.com, With GolfDigest.com - A blog devoted to the state of golf.

Some on Twitter and commenting here, as did Jim Nantz and David Feherty on CBS's Masters evening highlight show, questioning whether Tiger Woods violated the rules and faces disqualification over an incorrect drop on the 15th hole Friday.

Tiger reportedly told ESPN's Tom Rinaldi in the post-second round interview that he droppped his ball "two yards" behind the original spot after his third shot hit the flag and finished in the lake. A video replay on ESPN confirms that he was a good yard or two behind the original divot.

Shannon Rouillard explains the options for a ball entering a water hazard in this April, 2011 USGA article. Besides the provided drop circle, Tiger had these options:


2. play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or

3. 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.​


So technically, his ball LAST CROSSED on the green side of the lake, which would mean he had to drop as "near as possible" to the original location. The divot for that can be seen in the above photo when enlarged.

Will that be considered "as near as possible?" Is a deliberate "two yards" as near as possible?

If Woods deliberately played the shot two yards behind the original spot, that is not as near as possible. Considering Tiger's "rules are rules" comment after the round when responding to the Guan violation, it's going to be difficult for the committee to claim that he was as "near as possible" when he says he deliberately dropped a certain distance from the original spot.

Here are the video highlights from ESPN. You can see Tiger's play on No. 15 at the 2:00 minute mark.
 
F

fronesis

New
It's not QUITE cut and dried, because:
1. If he did what he said he did in the interview, and dropped 2 yards back, it is an illegal drop.
2. But on the replays it looks like his ball is only about a foot or two behind where he payed his first shot; you can see the divot. So it's not clear that what he actually did is illegal.
 
F

fronesis

New
Another interesting point: some folks on other sites have watched video of Furyk's play on Friday. Furyk's ball crossed the hazard well to the right of the direct line between him and the pin. But when Furyk dropped he was very close to his original location; to keep the spot that his first shot crossed the hazard between himself and the hole he would have needed to move very far to the right; he did not do so. Seems like Furyk's violation is even more clear-cut than Tiger's.

But twitter isn't talking about a DQ for Furyk.
 
C

Cloran

New
sunmart said:
Calling someone that disagrees with this ruling a "hater" should get you banned.
Click to expand...

Lolololololololol

If you're not a hater then I wasn't talking to you... Big difference which is easy to see.

I apologize to all the haters. Mea culpa...
 
F

fronesis

New
Still no word on Furyk. :)

(I'm mostly joking, but it's true: Furyk's drop was 10 to 15 yards from where it should have been.)
 
johnnymarlboro

johnnymarlboro

New
conkanen said:
Dude, do you have an original thought in that head of yours? "haters"....really? Grow up. Take it to golfwrx
Click to expand...

LOL! If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black! Seriously conkanen, and sunmart, it is really really sad, and silly that you guys take every single news story you don't like about Tiger so personally. I think that is actually the definition of hater.

The decision came down from the committee to change a terrible rule that's been around for way too long. Deal with it.
 
C

Cloran

New
I agree with Fred Couples. This ruling is GREAT FOR THE GAME!

No longer will an Interweb golf rules afficionado be able to get someone DQ'd...

Thank you, Masters Officials, for siding with the golfer for once!
 
J

jbrunk

New
Cloran said:
I agree with Fred Couples. This ruling is GREAT FOR THE GAME!

No longer will an Interweb golf rules afficionado be able to get someone DQ'd...

Thank you, Masters Officials, for siding with the golfer for once!
Click to expand...

Only problem with Freddie's thinking is the committee is not allowed to use ignorance of the rule as a defense and they did. This doesn't look or feel right.
 
C

conkanen

New
johnnymarlboro said:
LOL! If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black! Seriously conkanen, and sunmart, it is really really sad, and silly that you guys take every single news story you don't like about Tiger so personally. I think that is actually the definition of hater.

The decision came down from the committee to change a terrible rule that's been around for way too long. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Show me where I called anyone down for rooting for Tiger? You got your idioms mixed up pal. The Tiger "Hater" mantra is old and overused by people who perceive anyone as rooting against Tiger.
 
F

fronesis

New
The official statement from the masters indicates that the rules officials actually REVIEWED the video WHILE Tiger was still playing 18. They decided it was not a violation. They only went back to look at it again after Tiger's interview. They invoked rule 33 because of the fact that they had previously reviewed it.

More info here: Newsroom - 2013 Masters Tournament
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top