Woods could be disqualified from the Masters

Gin77

Masters breakfast broke the news that Tiger may be disqualified today due to breaking the rules on the 15th after taking a penalty drop 2 yards back from where he played his last shot.

Rule 26 states 2 options, Tiger chose to play the ball from where he played his last shot after it went into the water as a result of hitting the flag pole.
The problem was he said after in the interview that he moved back 2 yards and took a little off the shot.

Had he chose to go back in line from where the water last crossed the hazard he would be playing from the gallery.

If they can penalize a 14 yo for slow play surely the rules of golf should be applied here also.
So lets see what will happen this morning at the masters as theres an awful stench around.

Gin77

Masters breakfast broke the news that Tiger may be disqualified today due to breaking the rules on the 15th after taking a penalty drop incorrectly. He dropped the ball 2 yards back from where he played his last shot.

Rule 26 water hazards states 2 options, Tiger chose to play the ball from where he played his last shot. See his ball went into the water as a result of hitting the flag pole.
The problem is that in the interview after the round he said that he moved back 2 yards and took a little off the shot.

Had he chose to go back in line from where the ball last crossed the hazard he would be playing from the gallery.

If they can penalize a 14 yo for slow play surely the rules of golf should be applied here also.
So lets see what will happen this morning at the masters as theres an awful stench around.

gordongekko

Gin77 wrote: »

Masters breakfast broke the news that Tiger may be disqualified today due to breaking the rules on the 15th after taking a penalty drop 2 yards back from where he played his last shot.

Rule 26 states 2 options, Tiger chose to play the ball from where he played his last shot after it went into the water as a result of hitting the flag pole.
The problem was he said after in the interview that he moved back 2 yards and took a little off the shot.

Had he chose to go back in line from where the water last crossed the hazard he would be playing from the gallery.

If they can penalize a 14 yo for slow play surely the rules of golf should be applied here also.
So lets see what will happen this morning at the masters as theres an awful stench around.

pretty misleading thread title. It could badly do with a question mark

ForeRight

In other breaking news 2 planes just hit the twin towers

Anyone

gordongekko wrote: »

pretty misleading thread title. It could badly do with a question mark

Its being discussed in the Masters thread already, but yeah the thread title is way off. He hasnt been disqualified.

Rippeditup

I thought the ruling was you could go back as far as you want but you need to keep the point of entry between you an the flag?

fullstop

Committee rules 2 shot penalty, Woods continues with penalty (what happened)

Rippeditup wrote: »

I thought the ruling was you could go back as far as you want but you need to keep the point of entry between you an the flag?

Yes. He didn't keep the point of entry between him and the flag though, did he. By the way, nice misleading thread title OP

Nuri Sahin

Can a mod edit the thread title.

Gringo180

Will he be disqualified tho? Does the rules state that he should be disqualified?? Surely a 1 shot penalty would be the best thing to do.

Daithio12

Gin77 wrote: »

Masters breakfast broke the news that Tiger may be disqualified today due to breaking the rules on the 15th after taking a penalty drop 2 yards back from where he played his last shot.

Rule 26 states 2 options, Tiger chose to play the ball from where he played his last shot after it went into the water as a result of hitting the flag pole.
The problem was he said after in the interview that he moved back 2 yards and took a little off the shot.

Had he chose to go back in line from where the water last crossed the hazard he would be playing from the gallery.

If they can penalize a 14 yo for slow play surely the rules of golf should be applied here also.
So lets see what will happen this morning at the masters as theres an awful stench around.

Dude seriously read the rules before you start acting like an expert, you have more than 2 options, it's 4 options if memory serves correctly.

Amirani

What a rubbish thread title. Can you not see why it was a bit silly OP?

weemcd

****in stupid thread title that, considering he hasn't been disqualified yet. .

mike65

Dropping balls in the wrong place, fancy that!

Presumably if he has done so he will be disqualified. No special cases.

Zaph

Gringo180 wrote: »

Will he be disqualified tho? Does the rules state that he should be disqualified?? Surely a 1 shot penalty would be the best thing to do.

If he was given a 1 shot penalty presumably the disqualification would then be for signing for an incorrect score.

Gin77

NiallSparky wrote: »

What a rubbish thread title. Can you not see why it was a bit silly OP?

Its called sensationalizing do ya want me to stick in a question mark? lighten up stiffs!

rebel girl 15

Dropping the ball in the wrong spot carries a 2 stroke penalty, but as Zaph said, the disqualification would come from signing for a wrong score on his card.

Amirani

Gin77 wrote: »

Its called sensationalizing do ya want me to stick in a question mark? lighten up stiffs!

Yes.

Zaph

Gin77 wrote: »

Its called sensationalizing do ya want me to stick in a question mark? lighten up stiffs!

It's called being deliberately misleading. I've merged your two threads and given this a proper title as the forum mods aren't around at the moment.

blockic

Gin77 wrote: »

Its called sensationalizing do ya want me to stick in a question mark? lighten up stiffs!

Not only one thread, but two with the misleading title! :rolleyes:

Question mark is essential yes . Otherwise you have everyone clicking in here thinking it has been confirmed.

Orion

Zaph wrote: »

If he was given a 1 shot penalty presumably the disqualification would then be for signing for an incorrect score.

Thats exactly right. If they officials rule that there should have been a penalty then he's out. As if going into the water from a great shot wasn't bad enough luck.

drkpower

Does anyone know how consistently 'as near as possible' has been applied on the regular tour. I can see a fairly convincing argument being made amongst the green jackets that, in practice, 'as near as possible' means within a few yards rather using a strictly literal interpretation

mike65

2 shot deduction I think I just heard

edit yep.

JonathanAnon

Yeh just listening to it on the radio.. Apparently it is in line with the rule that was brought in when Harrington was DQ'd in Abu Dabi because somebody rang in after seeing his ball move on their HD TV. I wonder if it had been that young Japanese amateur that had made the mistake would they have pulled out all the stops to keep him in ?

BiffoGooner

So he's been giving a 2 shot penalty but not DQ'd for the incorrect scorecard?

That's not really right, is it? Saw Lowry just call it a joke on twitter. Said anyone else would have been DQ'd.

mike65

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Yeh just listening to it on the radio.. Apparently it is in line with the rule that was brought in when Harrington was DQ'd in Abu Dabi because somebody rang in after seeing his ball move on their HD TV. I wonder if it had been that young Japanese amateur that had made the mistake would they have pulled out all the stops to keep him in ?

I take it that's a rhetorical question?

BiffoGooner

Have a feeling the Sky guys will go to town on this later, and rightly so to be honest. Rules are rules, except when it's Tiger apparently.

Amirani

I think it's a bad decision, and I say that as a big fan of Tiger.

Daithio12

drkpower wrote: »

Does anyone know how consistently 'as near as possible to the pin' has been applied on the regular tour. I can see a fairly convincing argument being made amongst the green jackets that, in practice, 'as near as possible' means within a few yards rather using a strictly literal interpretation

It's as near as possible to where the original ball was played not the pin, and it's very strict hence why he got the two shot penalty, the problem lies with signing for a lower score.

drkpower

Daithio12 wrote: »

It's as near as possible to where the original ball was played not the pin, and it's very strict hence why he got the two shot penalty, the problem lies with signing for a lower score.

Sorry, mis-speak. Is it really strictly applied? I have no idea, I just have never heard of anyone being stung by it and when most people drop in those circumstances, I don't recall them making any real effort to see precisely where their old divot was or giving any real attention to where precisely they are dropping the ball. In any case, seems moot now.

Anyone got the wording of the rule that has no been applied to hit him with a two stroke penalty.

danthefan

Here's the rule that kept him in the competition. I don't think it's a good ruling because Tiger knew exactly what he was doing when he dropped in a different spot. He should be disqualified and if he wins he'll be on 15* majors imo.

Panrich

The difference in Harringtons case in Dubai was that everyone was unaware of the infringement at the time and he couldn't therefore have posted a correct score. In this case, the fault was that Woods did not follow the rules correctly. If he knew the rule (it is his job to know them), he could have avoided the infringement, or realised his mistake and taken his two shot penalty before posting his score.

uberwolf

drkpower wrote: »

Anyone got the wording of the rule that has no been applied to hit him with a two stroke penalty.

I've seen some reference to the new rule to prevent DQ's on the basis of tv viewers ringing in.

I think this is baloney.

He deliberately did not drop where he had last played a shot in order to give himself a shot he was more comfortable with. I expect that he did not realise that he was breaking the rule but I don't think absent mindedness is what the new rule was intended to provide escape from.

Daithio12

drkpower wrote: »

Sorry, mis-speak. Is it really strictly applied? I have no idea, I just have never heard of anyone being stung by it and when most people drop in those circumstances, I don't recall them making any real effort to see precisely where their old divot was or giving any real attention to where precisely they are dropping the ball. In any case, seems moot now.

Anyone got the wording of the rule that has no been applied to hit him with a two stroke penalty.

It's rule 20-7c, playing from wrong place.

drkpower

uberwolf wrote: »

I've seen some reference to the new rule to prevent DQ's on the basis of tv viewers ringing in.

I think this is baloney.

He did deliberately did not drop where he had last played a shot in order to give himself a shot he was more comfortable with. I expect that he did not realise that he was breaking the rule but I don't think absent mindedness is what the new rule was intended to provide escape from.

Just read the rule.... Wow, can't believe they have used that. The only reason tiger can claim not to have known about the rule was through ignorance of the rule. I can't see how that is within the spirit or even the letter of the rule they are using here.

Could be an interesting 48 hours!

JonathanAnon

Faldo saying that "Tiger Woods need to sit down over the next few hours and consider how this will affect his legacy"..

Shur why doesnt he just play on and have another press conference with his ma saying sorry in a couple of weeks, then everything will be alright again..

RedorDead

Woods knowingly dropped his ball two feet back from his previous divot to stop the same result happening again. How can he not know he played from the wrong place? Rules are rules FFS. Cop out of a decision.

ghostdancer

danthefan wrote: »

Here's the rule that kept him in the competition. I don't think it's a good ruling because Tiger knew exactly what he was doing when he dropped in a different spot. He should be disqualified and if he wins he'll be on 15* majors imo.

the very first line of it quite clearly shows that this doesn't apply to him. he knew the fact, he admitted it himself. ignorance of the rule he broke is something he should quite clearly have "reasonably known".

no surprise though, rules being twisted/desperately clutched at to keep him in it was the likely outcome from the start.

Panrich

danthefan wrote: »

Here's the rule that kept him in the competition. I don't think it's a good ruling because Tiger knew exactly what he was doing when he dropped in a different spot. He should be disqualified and if he wins he'll be on 15* majors imo.

This rule is being used as a loophole to keep Tiger in the tournament. Nothing has come to light that was not available to Tiger at the time of the infringement.
If Tiger knew post round that he moved the ball two yards back, then he knew it also standing there on the 15th fairway.
It has been ruled that his ball placing contravened the rules (hence the two stroke penalty) and nothing in that rule allows Tiger an out clause.

Not Easy

Come on Tiger!! Hope he wins!!!

What a disaster hitting that flag was by all accounts.

Amirani

I don't think it makes any sense for Tiger to withdraw. The committee has made it's decision, he should abide by it.

bigtimecharlie

Presume he will keep his tee time just starting at -1 rather than re-jiggling the rest of the players.

Goldenjohn

Committee rules 2 shot penalty, Woods continues with penalty (what happened)

bigtimecharlie wrote: »

Presume he will keep his tee time just starting at -1 rather than re-jiggling the rest of the players.

Yep confirmed same tee time just starts on 1 under

danthefan

NiallSparky wrote: »

I don't think it makes any sense for Tiger to withdraw. The committee has made it's decision, he should abide by it.

You're not really allowed withdraw unless you're injured.

drkpower

More context to the decision. Apparently masters officials were aware of the issue before the end of tigers round and reviewed video of the incident. They considered that he had dropped the ball on accordance with the rules and confirmed that the signing of his card was all in order.

After hearing the tv interview, they then interviewed tiger and reconsidered their initial decision. Because of that history, they felt they could invoke the 'Harrington' rule.

Interesting....I think it provides everyone with a little bit more cover but I'm still not sure it comes within the 'Harrington' rule.

Davidth88

I think that's a fudge. Tv ratings are obviously more important than rules of golf . Disgusting if this was a journeyman golfer he would have been dq ed

PRAF

Is there a danger that a precedent has now been set with this Tiger ruling? Ignorance of the rules now a valid excuse fo signing an incorrect scorecard.

medic087

Does anyone think tiger can win from five back now. There's a lot of good players between him and the lead.

lostatsea

drkpower wrote: »

More context to the decision. Apparently masters officials were aware of the issue before the end of tigers round and reviewed video of the incident. They considered that he had dropped the ball on accordance with the rules and confirmed that the signing of his card was all in order.

After hearing the tv interview, they then interviewed tiger and reconsidered their initial decision. Because of that history, they felt they could invoke the 'Harrington' rule.

Interesting....I think it provides everyone with a little bit more cover but I'm still not sure it comes within the 'Harrington' rule.

The detail of this information is critically important. If this is true Tiger should have been aware of a problem and would not have said what he said in the interview. Obviously the committee had no communication with Tiger on the matter and assumed that he had dropped it close enough to the original position.

However, they now know that he deliberately dropped it back 2 yards. So it actually makes no difference what their original interpretation was.

Quote from the Guardian about the Harrington rule:
''Now the Royal and Ancient Club and the United States Golf Association have announced a new interpretation to apply "in limited circumstances not previously contemplated" where disqualifications have been caused by scorecard errors identified as the result of recent advances in video technologies.
It covers 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 before returning his scorecard.
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. The new ruling will start to be applied in The Masters today.
The two organisations did confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for scorecard breaches that arise from ignorance of the rules of golf.
Peter Dawson, the Royal & Ancient chief executive, said: "For some time we have been concerned that, in certain limited circumstances, disproportionate disqualification penalties have been required by the rules. This carefully considered decision reflects our desire to ensure that the rules of golf remain fair and relevant in the changing environment in which the game is played today."

It is clear that Tiger was ignorant of the rule, signed his card and should have been disqualified.

lostatsea

Tiger may well disqualify himself. I don't think he deliberately cheated but he clearly forgot the rule and has admitted as much. By breaking the rule he got an advantage. Invoking the 'Harrington rule' is wrong as this was not put in place for ignorance of the rules. Faldo is suggesting for legacy reasons he may disqualify himself. I think he is right.

cornerboy

This ruling if it stands will change golf forever. This is why the rules of golf never allowed any leeway.......keep committees from making decisions like this.

Imhof Tank

Committee rules 2 shot penalty, Woods continues with penalty (what happened)

lostatsea wrote: »

. Obviously the committee had no communication with Tiger on the matter and assumed that he had dropped it close enough to the original position.
.

Exactly. How can the committee claim to have "reviewed" the incident without speaking to him?

Unless he told them one thing and told the TV interviewer another version of course. That would be even worse.