April 13, 2013

Tiger Woods incriminates himself: "Well, I went down to the drop area, that wasn’t going to be a good spot..."

"... because obviously it’s into the grain, it’s really grainy there. 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 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."

Penalized 2 strokes for breaking a rule. Ironically, he had just yesterday opined "Well, rules are rules" when asked about the 1-stroke penalty given to Guan Tianlang — the 14-year-old who made the cut at the Masters — for slow play.

ADDED: Why wasn't Woods disqualified? He's ratings

109 comments:

edutcher said...

Spent to much time with King Putt, who is supposedly as good a golfer as Willie.

Jay said...

A few of the tv analysts on the Golf Channel are hyperventilating and calling for Tiger to DQ himself.

Mark O said...

He dropped the ball in an illegal spot precisely to give himself an advantage over the spot where he should have dropped the ball.

But, because he was not penalized during the round, it seems odd to suggest he signed an incorrect scorecard. It's not like the 40's when the score might have been easier to fudge.

Quayle said...

I think he mixed up his options.

There are a lot of rules that say 2 club lengths back or behind.

This one doesn't. He mixed them up.

Not withstanding, he did get an advantage by the drop (which should have been as close to the first divot as possible) because his first unlucky shot was about exactly 2 yards too much club.

He knew that if he hit the same shot with the same club, but two yards further back, it would have been exactly the right distance he wanted.

Sorry to say it, but I think he should withdraw.

If he loves the game more than himself, that is.

Quayle said...

But these days who loves anything or anyone more than themselves?

TML said...

Unclear: Didn't he say he moved it further from the pin, so it was more disadvantageous? No way he openly volunteers that he cheated. And the rules committee invoked a brand new rule that's meant to deal with Twitter and Social Media fan catches of infractions after the fact. The Masters had to respond to Twitter!

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Obviously, he needs a lawyer for a caddy.

TML said...

Let me make that clearer, sorry: "fan catches" meaning infractions eagle-eyed fans discover with Tivo rewinds, HD zooms and other methods and then report them, making officials uncomfortable and putting them in a bind.

Ann Althouse said...

It's obvious -- isn't it? -- that he didn't think he violated a rule or he wouldn't have explicitly confessed. This could happen in all sorts of legal contexts, where you explain something you did and the explanation admits to something that happens to be illegal. That's why you shouldn't talk to the police and you need a lawyer. You don't know all the things they might charge you with. That's what's so terrible about having too many rules.

And Tiger Woods's story is also a future-looking cautionary tale. He's on video all the time and his actions can be reviewed minutely. More and more of what we all do is caught on video.

Patrick said...

I wonder how new the rule is that allows the PGA to overlook minor violations in exceptional cases. I recall a few years back, some guy disqualified himself because he signed his card that contained a very minor technical (as I recall) and inadvertent error. That guy seemed more worthy of a break than Tiger under these circumstances.

Ann Althouse said...

"Unclear: Didn't he say he moved it further from the pin, so it was more disadvantageous? No way he openly volunteers that he cheated."

You're reasoning about what the rules ought to be if the rules were based on principles that you think ought to apply, but, as it says at the link:

"The rules state that a golfer should play his ball “as nearly as possible” at the spot from which the original ball was played."

Now, I could think of a good reason for that rule: You want a clear rule, not something that is a matter of judgment. What is more "disadvantageous"? If you could move farther away is that sometimes arguably advantageous? I would think so. There are many factors. You want a clear rule that can be applied without argument.

Bob_R said...

The big problem is that you have a set of rules that were developed for self-policing, but some tournaments are now being policed by a million people. I think the whole practice of signing scorecards (which makes perfect sense in a self-policed tourney) is misplaced in a tourney that will be policed by millions of people. If officials are going to go over every shot in slow motion (and take their sweet time about it) the scorecard should be signed a rules official.

TML said...

Ann, I see now what you mean, yes. Very possible that moving it away would confer an advantage. Someone else mentioned the two club-length rule as well. They might have conflicting rules in some cases.

I'm more fascinated that the PGA or whatever the governing body is, adopted a rule based on Social Media outrage. It's nothing more or less than a delayed NFL review.

wyo sis said...

He thought it out in a way that gave himself the advantage. He admitted that. And, they let him continue to play?

Golf...just another sport with two sets of rules one for the elite and one for 14 year old newbies.

Ann Althouse said...

"Very possible that moving it away would confer an advantage."

Why do it if it's not for an advantage? That itself shows why you want no leeway.

AllenS said...

The advantage is the lie. Going further back than is allowed to drop the ball on solid ground, as to something closer that is swampy/wet is an advantage.

David said...

Tiger made a rules error. He does not dispute that, it seems.

The question then becomes, what is the penalty? The problem arises because the Committee (which is the judge on rules for the competition) determined after a video review that there was no violation. The Committee did this before Tiger signed his scorecard. Tiger signed it in reliance on the Committee's determination.

Later, the Committee reversed its decision on whether Tiger's drop was a rules violation. This would normally cost Tiger two strokes, but since the scorecard was wrong, Tiger would be disqualified unless there was an exception to the usual disqualification for signing the wrong scorecard.

The Committee determined that there was an exception, based on the so called HD video rule. It's arguable whether this is a correct application of the rule, but it's a new rule so the Committee had little precedent to guide it.

The Committee also has the right to take "equity" into consideration if a situation is unclear. It may have done so here, though it did not so state.

Fred Ridley, Chair of the Rules Committee, is a well regarded lawyer. (Partner in a Florida office of Foley & Lardner, Wisconsin's largest law firm.)






Kansas City said...

Easy to see from a distance, but Tiger made a mistake not disqualifying himself. He is a guy who desperately needs a shot of integrity for his image, and he blew the chance to seize the moment. He could have said that he did not intend to break the rule, but he did and it gave him an advantage so our of respect for the rules and fellow players, he is withdrawing. He could not see that optoin because he was blinded by his ambition to win another Masters this year, which he is very unlikely to do and, even if he does, it will now be forever tainted. My guess is that fate delivers him a one stroke loss, i.e., the penalty costs him the tournament.

Jay said...

And Tiger Woods's story is also a future-looking cautionary tale. He's on video all the time and his actions can be reviewed minutely.

Curtis Strange made that point on ESPN this morning. That the better players are at a disadvantage because they have the later tee times and are on TV all afternoon. The players starting earlier are not on TV and thus may have an advantage by fewer eyeballs...

David said...

Why should Tiger disqualify himself when the Committee, which applies the rules for the tournament, has concluded that he should not be disqualified?

AllenS said...

He cannot be disqualified because he's half black. Those are the rules.

David said...

"Incriminate" is really not the right word for what Tiger did with his interview.

You can violate the rules of golf without cheating. A rules violation has consequences, but it's not cheating. It's a mistake, like missing a short putt.

Cheating is when a player tries to conceal a rules violation. Obviously Tiger did not do this.

Craig said...

The ball hit the flag and bounced straight back into the water. An eighth of an inch left or right of dead center and he would have been putting for birdie. As long as he's on a direct line from the point where the ball entered the hazard he can take it back as far as he wants. Tiger was assessed a two stroke penalty to placate China's golf community for the nit picky ruling applied unfairly to the 14 year old phenom from China.

Jay said...

determined after a video review that there was no violation. The Committee did this before Tiger signed his scorecard. Tiger signed it in reliance on the Committee's determination.

Where are you getting this information?

David said...

Statement from Tournament Headquarters

Yesterday afternoon, the Rules Committee was made aware of a possible Rules violation that involved a drop by Tiger Woods at the 15th hole.

In preparation for his fifth shot, the player dropped his ball in close proximity to where he had played his third shot in apparent conformance with Rule 26. After being prompted by a television viewer, the Rules Committee reviewed a video of the shot while he was playing the 18th hole. At that moment and based on that evidence, the Committee determined he had complied with the Rules.

After he signed his scorecard, and in a television interview subsequent to the round, the player stated that he played further from the point than where he had played his third shot. Such action would constitute playing from the wrong place.

The subsequent information provided by the player’s interview after he had completed play warranted further review and discussion with him this morning. After meeting with the player, it was determined that he had violated Rule 26, and he was assessed a two-stroke penalty. The penalty of disqualification was waived by the Committee under Rule 33 as the Committee had previously reviewed the information and made its initial determination prior to the finish of the player’s round.

Fred Ridley
Chairman, Competition Committees

lincolntf said...

ESPN radio had several golf commentators discussing the committee ruling. They okayed it after 15 when he dropped, okayed it again after 18 when he signed his card, reversed themselves after a TV viewer called in. And yeah, you can move it further away as far as you want, that's explicitly stated in some sub-clause of the rule they were citing.

garage mahal said...

Nobody could have predicted $$$$$ $$$$$ wouldn't get disqualified.

Nobody!


Ann Althouse said...

The word "incriminate" is hyperbole. It was used in the linked NYT article and I liked it.

jacksonjay said...


....they let him continue to play?

Tiger drives huge TV ratings!

Ambrose said...

There ought to be a rule that once you move on, it is done - like in baseball (the next pitch s made) or football (the ball is snapped to start the next play). Surely there are officials on site who can rule on a drop when it is made.

Where does the review end? Can I look at videos of last year's Masters to look for missed violations? What about 1960's Masters?

Indigo Red said...

lincolntf said... "okayed it after 15 when he dropped, okayed it again after 18 when he signed his card, reversed themselves after a TV viewer called in."

TV viewing should be banned.

Jay said...

Sorry, I should clarify.

The rules committee did not communicate to Tiger that they reviewed the tape and he was within the rules before he signed yesterday's score card.

This statement: "Tiger signed it in reliance on the Committee's determination" is what made no sense.

Methadras said...

Go back to what I said when he first was exposed with this multitudes of trysts and you will see that I was right. No one cares anymore and he is a massive draw to the game because what happened to him was the best thing that could have happened to golf. Now this.

tim said...

Imagine, an obama buddy cheating. First time for everything I guess.

tiger said...

Well 'winning takes care of everything' whether it's farking TWENTY women not your wife lying to your fans and the public or cheating at the 'Gentlemen's Game' of golf.

He keeps confirming my opinion that he is a disgrace as a husband - as a public figure - as a professional golfer and as a human being and shouldn't be anyone's 'role model'.

I have more respect for John Daly because that drunk loser never pretended to be anything BUT a drunk loser who just happens to play golf.

rcocean said...

The idea that someone should be disqualified for some grey, minor infraction is absurd.

This 2 stoke penalty may cost Tiger a Masters win. Punishment enough. And I see usual babies are crying over the penalizing the Chinese teenager. If he's man enough to play, he's man enough to get penalized. Maybe, he'll learn to play faster.

David said...

Jay, you seem to be right about the communication of the decision. However, as with all players, the Committee would have informed Tiger of the penalty if they thought there was one. However, I do think that your point makes my point of view somewhat harder to justify. Nevertheless, I think that this is a fair decision, and that the Committee had the right to do equity.

rcocean said...

I've seen Tiger at the US open. There a MOB of people following him around at ALL times. Officials, security, photographers, TV cameras, hangers on. You don't see them on TV, but they are there, inside the ropes.

So, I'm surprised the officials didn't catch it real time.

Ann Althouse said...

It's more of an honor code in golf. That's why signing the card is a big deal.

You can penalties on yourself. You're expected to be honest about that.

Ann Althouse said...

The officials who are out of the course don't act like the referees and umpires in other sports. They're mostly about crowd control.

Ann Althouse said...

Now, that I think about it, the disqualification subject really is huge.

Did they keep him in because he makes money for the PGA?

CharlesVegas said...

"And yeah, you can move it further away as far as you want, that's explicitly stated in some sub-clause of the rule they were citing."

That's only the case if he chose the option of hitting from a line based on the trajectory of the ball as it entered the hazard.

He chose the option to rehit from the original ball location, and apparently thought it was OK to backtrack.

Jay said...

David,

I agree with you. What they did yesterday makes them look like they are only keeping Tiger in the tournament because of ratings.

Why did the rules officials need to have Tiger announce he moved the ball 2 feet when they had tape of him doing so?

garage mahal said...

Tiger! Controversy! Media! Watch!

CharlesVegas said...

"Why did the rules officials need to have Tiger announce he moved the ball 2 feet when they had tape of him doing so?"

Because absent his acknowledged intent to improve his lie, it would otherwise be arguable that 2 feet is close enough to the original spot that it was within the rules.

Lincolntf said...

Fred Couples, who has probably played more pro golf than anyone else on the course this week, and who is a scholar of the game, and who actually has something to lose if Tiger gets an unfair advantage, is fine with the 2-stroke penalty and Tiger not d-q'ing himself. That's the smart, reasonable position.

Lincolntf said...

Tiger Tweets, promptly birdies first hole. Now 4 strokes off the lead. "At hole #15, I took a drop that I thought was correct and in accordance with the rules. I was unaware at that time I had violated any rules.
I didn’t know I had taken an incorrect drop prior to signing my scorecard. Subsequently, I met with the Masters Committee Saturday morning..and was advised they had reviewed the incident prior to the completion of my round. Their initial determination...
was that there was no violation, but they had additional concerns based on my post-round interview. After discussing the situation...
with them this morning, I was assessed a two-shot penalty. I understand and accept the penalty and respect the Committees’ decision."















Jay said...

David Duval and Greg Norman have said Tiger should DQ!

Lincolntf said...

They're commentators, half take one side, half take the other. It's the job description. Couples is still a player, albeit one with more Major experience than any 2 of the commentators combined, I trust his judgment.

Michael said...

Golf was once played by gentlemen. The rules are to be learned so that the gentleman will behave appropriately out of the sight of his fellows. How he behave s when no one is looking is one of the measures of a gentleman. Tiger Woods, as we have seen, is not a gentleman Still not.

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim said...

What else is Couples supposed to say? "Kick the black guy out of Augusta?" Then we would all have to hear about "if I had a pro golfer son, he would look a lot like Tiger." Or "I think they acted stupidly."

lincolntf said...

You weren't paying attention. Everyone was watching, Tiger described the event itself before it was ever sanctioned. So, no, your fake "honorability" attack doesn't hold water. I'm sure you've neither watched the shots nor read the Committee results, but hey, you did get to sound like a tool, so that's something.

Alex Ignatiev said...

A man who would cheat at golf, would cheat at wife. I mean, life.

Likewise, he would pun would pick a pocket.

MadisonMan said...

He should have DQed himself. Would've done so much to improve him image.

AllenS said...

As I've gone through life, nothing has been more evident, that there is a double standard. That's just the way it is.

lincolntf said...

Next time a football player gets caught for holding, the team should forfeit.

AllenS said...

We'll have to wait for information about golfers who have been disqualified to see what they did to be disqualified. I doubt if any of them tried to cheat, but simply signed their score card and then were informed they didn't follow the rules, hence the disqualification.

Hagar said...

This is B.S.
The only reason there is a penalty is because of Tiger's statement in the interview after his round. Apparently it was his intent in conjunction with the action that was illegal, rather than the action itself.
That is indeed getting rather obscure!

And yesterday, the same people who are outraged that Tiger was not summarily disqualified, was equally outraged that the Chinese kid was penalized 1 stroke for slow play. Should have looked the other way and given the kid a pass was all the theme then!

You guys are all for Bill O'Reilly ad hoc lynch mob justice!

Hagar said...

This is B.S.
The only reason there is a penalty is because of Tiger's statement in the interview after his round. Apparently it was his intent in conjunction with the action that was illegal, rather than the action itself.
That is indeed getting rather obscure!

And yesterday, the same people who are outraged that Tiger was not summarily disqualified, was equally outraged that the Chinese kid was penalized 1 stroke for slow play. Should have looked the other way and given the kid a pass was all the theme then!

You guys are all for Bill O'Reilly ad hoc lynch mob justice!

dreams said...

I think he wasn't disqualified because of a new rule.

Jay said...

CharlesVegas,

CBS just explained the rules and they didn't mention intent. Though the chairman of the rules committee just said they called Tiger last night and said he wasn't in violation in any rule.

They talked to him and asked him to explain his statement this morning and said he violated rule 26.1

Very interesting.

CharlesVegas said...

Jay,

I think that with having a million eyeballs checking his every move comes an obligation to inform him that he may have violated a rule before he signs his card.

CharlesVegas said...

Hagar,

Anyone outraged at the slow play penalty probably doesn't play golf.

lincolntf said...

Tiger is probably the only man on Earth who has been in that 14-year old's position in the golf world, and in a way he gave him solid career advice about playing through the vagaries of the game. He kept it short and sweet, and I'm sure Guan didn't mind.

Hagar said...

Jay is still off.
The action at #15 was reviewed and discussed with the committee and Tiger after the round, and they told him he was OK and to go ahead and sign his card.

He then made the after-round interview, and they saw that on TV and went into a huddle with all officials concerned, and it was decided that he should not have moved the ball back two yards for the reason he gave, though he apparently could have if, and even farther as long as he stayed on line, if it had been for some other reason.
However, since the rules committee had told him to go ahead and sign his card the evening before, they felt they could not DQ him for signing an erroneous card.
Hence, the two stroke penalty for just the action and conflating two different rules.
Lincolntf and Tiger's tweet quoted above are both accurate.

AllenS said...

CharlesVegas said...
Because absent his acknowledged intent to improve his lie, it would otherwise be arguable that 2 feet is close enough to the original spot that it was within the rules.

It was 2 yards, which is 6 feet.

Michael said...

The point of honor is that you do not improve your lie. Very straightforward.

lincolntf said...

Tiger said "two yards", the replays make it look like about half that.

lincolntf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

The Punishment should fit the crime. DQ Tiger is absurd. As someone stated up-thread if the Chinese teenager had committed the same "crime" no one would be demanding he be DQ'ed.

Just more Tiger hate.

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

Golf has been lucky that its greatest players have been the kind of men you'd trust life savings or teenage daughter to.

Nicklaus, Watson, Palmer, Player, Jones, Hogan. Men of great ability and character. Tiger isn't really up to that level.

AllenS said...

I hope Woods wins this tournament. What will be interesting is to see if golf officials will ever try to DQ anybody after this.

Jay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Supposed to drop near the divot of the last shot. Too wet, too grainy. Moved back. Better spot.

Jay said...

Hager,

On Saturday morning, Woods was assessed a two-shot penalty for violating Rule 26 for hitting from the wrong spot as a result of an improper drop taken after his wedge hit the flagstick and caromed into the pond. But Ridley decided under Rule 33-7 not to disqualify Woods for signing an incorrect scorecard because the committee had initially deemed his drop legal after reviewing visual evidence.



And:

After he signed his scorecard, and in a television interview subsequent to the round, the player stated that he played further from the point than where he had played his third shot. Such action would constitute playing from the wrong place.”

The statement added: “The subsequent information provided by the player’s interview after he had completed play warranted further review and discussion with him this morning.”


Jay said...

I am understanding that by "deeming the shot legal" they did not talk to him, because there was no reason to.

I can't find any quotes saying the rules people told Tiger to sign his card. They had no reason to talk to Tiger at all since nobody thought the drop was a penalty.

Michael K said...

I've played a lot of competitive golf and this is a tough case.

"
MadisonMan said...
He should have DQed himself. Would've done so much to improve him image."

That sounds about right to me. David Duval called a penalty on himself in a hazard a few years ago that no one else saw.

Given that Tiger is unlikely to make up the three strokes, he would have done himself a lot of good with the golf public by withdrawing.

I'm not disappointed with him because my expectations are not very high.

Hagar said...

Jay,
That's what I heard the rules guy say in the interview at the opening of the CBS coverage this PM.

And it is apparently OK to move your drop back in a situation like that for any reason whatever, except in order to fit the yardage to your swing. You see players weigh their options and taking whatever advantage they can after shooting a ball out of bounds, but this is one you can't take.
Weird rule, but then golf is a weird game.

Hagar said...

Also, it beats me how the officials would ever know, unless the player pulls a boner like Tiger and publicly announces it himself.

lincolntf said...

Obviously Tiger needs to cheat in his umpteen-hundredth golf tournament, he's a a lousy golfer foisted on us by the Networks!

Hagar said...

"The word "incriminate" is hyperbole. It was used in the linked NYT article and I liked it."

And you, a law professor!

traditionalguy said...

I watched this live yesterday, and the Expert Panel of commenters did not understand the rule either. They talked about a golfer's 4 choices in that case.

The golfer has 3 options that include 1)a drop in a small drop zone next to the water, and 2) a drop near the water's edge on the same line as his wet ball crossed the water's edge, and 3) a drop at the same place his wet shot was played from.

Tiger mixed up 2 with 3 and took choice #3 which was a drop in the same place from which his original shot played, but he used a 6 foot fudge backwards from that spot. That would have been acceptable if he had chosen #2. And all drops can be in a fudge area of about 3 feet anyway.

The Rules Committee reviewed and approved it in error, and Tiger played on. But the next morning they corrected that error and imposed the 2 stroke penalty that was correct.

What the issue became is whether Tiger should be DQd for the Rules Committee's error he followed and thereby incurred a false Scorecard death penalty rule. That answer is NO according to the latest rules.

Jay said...

Hagar,

fair enough. Without a doubt the rules people handled this poorly. They should have pulled him aside before he signed the card and said we are reviewing this and asked him about it yesterday evening.

lincolntf said...

If anything, Tiger is guilty of being overly forthcoming. And since he knows his reputation is crap, he accepted the ruling with grace. I suppose a lifetime ban from the sport wouldn't be enough punishment for him in the eyes of half the public, but half the public are fucking TMZ/ Jon Stewart-style ignorami.

PaulV said...

My favorite Swedish book, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was subtitled The Girl with the 2 Billion Kroner Niblick. In book she used a 9 iron to beat the villain.

Derek Brown said...

I wish Tiger had banged Lincoln's wife. It's always funniest when the fan boys get it from the idols they attack others to defend.

lincolntf said...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't care about Tiger Woods sex life, so I'm a fanboi. Idiot. I know he's no sort of role model, I've known that about athletes nd entertainers since I was about 9 years old. He's an athlete and I see him as part of the spectacle of sports, one of the best entertainers in history.

chrisnavin.com said...

I kind of wish Tiger hadn't cheated on his wife with dozens of trashy white women, it's kind of an honor code.

That said, I'm still kind of pulling for the guy to break the record.

Sam L. said...

And it's never raaaaacist to penalize an Asian, more Asian than Tiger.

Hagar said...

Jay,
They had not seen his TV interview yet then. It was what he said after the round that got him in trouble; not what he had done on the course.

bpm4532 said...

The tournament committee has the discretion under rule 33-7 to override disqualification.

chrisnavin.com said...

Sometimes you just gotta keep your clubs in the bag, stay away from ballwashers, and play through. Take the penalty and walk on to the next hole.



Unknown said...

Looks like golfers should have lawyers as caddies.

AllenS said...

From TV they said that the rules committee contacted Woods' representatives. Representatives? I read that as Woods' lawyers. Don't leave home without them.

Jay said...

Hagar,

What I meant was, the rules people were reviewing the drop per all the people calling in while Tiger was on 18.

They should have asked him about it while he was coming off the course yesterday.

Craig said...

My ruling. Give each member of the committee a bucket of range balls to hit from the point where Tiger hit his shot. If any one of them hits the flagstick, the penalty stands. If not, Tiger starts the final round tied for second, two shots back from the leader, instead of eighth place, four strokes back.

Hagar said...

Whichever. They issued a formal ruling yesterday evening, then reversed themselves this morning after breakfast.

Craig said...

Round three is now complete. Without the penalty he's in fourth place, two strokes back, instead of tied for seventh, four strokes back. They should assess him a one stroke penalty for every green jacket he owns. That would level the playing field.

David said...

Ann Althouse said...
Now, that I think about it, the disqualification subject really is huge.

Did they keep him in because he makes money for the PGA?


Certainly not for the PGA, which does not supervise, sanction or have any financial interest in the Masters tournament.

The Masters tournament is takes no financial hit either. Their income is not dependent on viewership. The networks and advertisers do have an interest in viewership of the current tournament, but they had no role in this decision. Any advertiser who tried to influence it would be replaced by the tournament.

rcocean said...

Ratings? Not for the Masters. They're bigger than Tiger. They don't give a fuck about Tiger. They never would've DQ'ed anyone for what Tiger did. Its too grey an area.

Why haven't we talked about the sexist Augusta C.C. and how they don't allow enough multi-millionaire business execs to join?
Talk about missing the big issue. I thought Althouse was a "you go girl" feminist.



rcocean said...

I can't believe that no else one cares that Meg Whitman or Hillary Clinton can't play golf with the boys at Augusta.

America thy name is Misogyny.

guyinsb said...

Why have so few suggested firing his caddy?

guyinsb said...

Why have so few suggested firing his caddy?

james conrad said...

The fact that the rules folks reviewed the drop on 15 & decided no rules infraction had occurred BEFORE Tiger signed his card is what made the difference in this case. It was only later AFTER he signed his card and admitted in an interview an improper drop that the rules people re-opened the ruling they had already made.

The rules guys did the right thing here, Tiger should not be DQ-ed because the rules guys screwed up.

james conrad said...

I would add that if this incident had occurred 2 or more years ago, Tiger would have been DQ-ed. A new rule was passed in 2011 so as to make it more fair to modify a ruling, this new rule is what saved Tiger. This new rule has become known as the HD tv rule, where we have all these arm chair rules "officials" sitting at home watching golf on high def TV & calling in a supposed rule infraction.

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-33/

Hagar said...

James,
"Admitted" is not the right word, since Tiger had no idea he had committed an error.

I am coming to think that the problem was that his first ball hit the flagstick and then ricocheted off and into the water on quite a different line than the line between Tiger and the flag, and so the rule about moving back on the same line as where the ball went out of bounds did not apply, and he should have made the drop next to his divot.
However, that did not dawn on the rules committee when they reviewed and discussed the Hole #15 incident on Friday evening, and they gave Tiger an official OK ruling.
Then someone called in and pointed out the correct ruling, and they had a V-8 moment and reversed themselves the next morning.

The final decision seems fair enough to me - if the rules committee could not see it after being alerted to a potential problem and reviewing the tapes from all angles and thoroughly discussing them, it seems unfair to penalize Tiger for not getting it right in an instantaneous decision out on the course - and in any case the "HDTV rule" is official now and applicable.

james conrad said...

Admitted" is not the right word, since Tiger had no idea he had committed an error.


Agreed, in effect, he self incriminated himself because he was not aware he made an improper drop.

This sort of thing is very common in world class sports events. Tiger hits a great golf shot on 15, the golfing gods crap all over his shot. Now he is walking around ( most likely angry) trying to figure out how to limit the damage and makes a mistake in the heat of battle.