Fore please! Running Masters thread

[MileHigh]

The club said CBS Sports announcer Jim Nantz alerted Masters officials that Woods' post-rounds comments were causing some doubts, leading to another review.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=177128783

 

[Mark2010]

Anybody hear Costas on the Dan Patrick Show today? He pretty much went off on CBS (and Augusta) for never mentioning the tournament's issues with regard to race and gender discrimination.
http://blogs.golf.com/presstent/2013/04/bob-costas-says-cbs-ignores-augustas-history-of-racism-sexism.html

And yeah, not a word of the comments on ESPN for obvious reasons.

Really could care less for sportscasters (of all people) trying to turn an event into some sort of social crusade.

If Sam Snead, Arnold Palmer or Jack Nicklaus wanted to organize some sort of player boycott back in the day to bring attention to something, they could have done so. Apparently, they didn't feel it was their place to do so or it wasn't worth doing. I've rethought a lot of things about Augusta National in recent years, but if it's good enough for the rest of the world, it's enough for me.

CBS produces the telecast and just airs the first two rounds on ESPN. If ESPN wants to raise those issues, it would have to come on SportsCenters, Outside the Lines, etc., not the telecast of the actual tournament itself. It's well-publicized that Masters officials maintain tight control of the telecast, including what announcers can and cannot say. If CBS/ESPN pulled that stunt, someone else would have next year's contract.

I'm fine with that. When I tune into to watch, I want to...... well, watch golf.

 

[Mark2010]

I had honestly never heard of the penalty assessed to Tiger before.

It was my understanding that on a penalty drop, you could go back as far as you wished, so long as you kept the line where the ball entered the hazard. I guess I sort of see the logic in it (lie, distance, etc.), but it's one of those obscure rules like the one that snared Dustin Johnson at the 2010 PGA Championship.

 

[MileHigh]

I had honestly never heard of the penalty assessed to Tiger before.

It was my understanding that on a penalty drop, you could go back as far as you wished, so long as you kept the line where the ball entered the hazard. I guess I sort of see the logic in it (lie, distance, etc.), but it's one of those obscure rules like the one that snared Dustin Johnson at the 2010 PGA Championship.

That is the correct ruling -- but the ball went into the water way to the left of where he dropped. He dropped under the ruling of near the location of where he previously hit -- but he dropped 2 yards farther back from that with the intent -- in his own words -- to improve the shot.

 

[Mark2010]

I had honestly never heard of the penalty assessed to Tiger before.

It was my understanding that on a penalty drop, you could go back as far as you wished, so long as you kept the line where the ball entered the hazard. I guess I sort of see the logic in it (lie, distance, etc.), but it's one of those obscure rules like the one that snared Dustin Johnson at the 2010 PGA Championship.

That is the correct ruling -- but the ball went into the water way to the left of where he dropped. He dropped under the ruling of near the location of where he previously hit -- but he dropped 2 yards farther back from that with the intent -- in his own words -- to improve the shot.

Gotcha. So he complied with neither official option? I've always dropped where the ball crossed the margin of the hazard.... and I gave up counting how many I've dumped in the water over the years.... probably about as many as they used to plug the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

OK, so I guess the question is "did anyone tell Tiger a penalty was being assessed BEFORE he signed his card Friday night?" If he didn't know he was being penalized, then he didn't know. So he gets the two-stroke penalty and life goes on. Even with all of this, he's four shots behind, which is pretty amazing.

 

[MileHigh]

I had honestly never heard of the penalty assessed to Tiger before.

It was my understanding that on a penalty drop, you could go back as far as you wished, so long as you kept the line where the ball entered the hazard. I guess I sort of see the logic in it (lie, distance, etc.), but it's one of those obscure rules like the one that snared Dustin Johnson at the 2010 PGA Championship.

That is the correct ruling -- but the ball went into the water way to the left of where he dropped. He dropped under the ruling of near the location of where he previously hit -- but he dropped 2 yards farther back from that with the intent -- in his own words -- to improve the shot.

Gotcha. So he complied with neither official option? I've always dropped where the ball crossed the margin of the hazard.... and I gave up counting how many I've dumped in the water over the years.... probably about as many as they used to plug the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

OK, so I guess the question is "did anyone tell Tiger a penalty was being assessed BEFORE he signed his card Friday night?" If he didn't know he was being penalized, then he didn't know. So he gets the two-stroke penalty and life goes on. Even with all of this, he's four shots behind, which is pretty amazing.

He had four options:

* Hit where the ball came to rest (in the water).

* Hit from the drop area.

* Dropped the ball, keeping the point at which 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, it would seem he did not choose this option, which would have allowed him to drop on a straight line as far back as he wanted.

* Return to the original spot from which he played, and drop "as nearly as possible'' from where he played the third shot.

He chose Curtain No. 4. Two yards back is not "as nearly as possible."

The green jackets were alerted to a problem while Woods was finishing his round. They reviewed and determined everything was fine. He was never told there was a review. He signed and everything was fine. But later, CBS called up Ridley and raised some more questions, based on his post-round interview with ESPN of what happened on the hole. It was at this point ANOTHER review happened and they called him in this morning.

Ridley then cited the new (2 years old) rule of keeping him in the tournament based on the committee's ORIGINAL decision to not alert him -- much less assess the penalty before he signed the scorecard -- to not DQ him.

 

[jr/shotglass]

You know anything about golf? ANYTHING? I suspect not.
Here's another thread you need to avoid so it doesn't get dumbed down.

i admitted from jump street i know diddly about the ways of golf, which is why i ask for guidance. there are many who know more than i do -- and dare i say, as much as you -- who have akso weighed in on the issue of ti ger dq'ing himself. and, in his case in particular, i wouldnt imagine that forfeiting his earnings for the tourney would impact of any deision he may have made, he apparently never ven considered it. fine. i dont think i deserve to be jumped for asking if it would have been a good p.r. move for a guy who could use some good p.r.

He didn't direct the comment to you. Who he was directing it toward has a history of trolling and saying stupid shirt in an attempt to pish people off vs. someone like you who admits you need guidance/help with how things go because you're out of the loop on certain things, so to speak.

Hey, I didn't say nuthin'.

 

[Moderator1]

Fascinating debate on Golf Channel. Brandel Chamblee says Tiger should DQ himself.

Others saying: If Tiger wins, it comes with an asterisk. There was a misinterpretation of the rule. Tiger can set a precedent if he doesn't play.

i know diddlt about golf; covered '84 masters without ever leaving press tent. that said, i've been watcging this hysteria via espn and the golf channel this a.m. and am left wondering: wouldnt the classiest thing for tiger be to d.q. himself before he tee off this afternoon? i dont see where he has much chance to come back to win at this point -- especially given his history of NEVER coming from behind to win majors -- so why not score points with the 'rules-are-just-made-for-tiger' naysayers by 'fessing up he just MAJORLY effed up. even moreo after his cold response to the slow-play penalty on the kid being, 'rules are rules.'

dickhead.

Only losers DQ themselves.

You know anything about golf? ANYTHING? I suspect not.
Here's another thread you need to avoid so it doesn't get dumbed down.

Quoting the whole thing to make it clear where I directed my response. Not sure how Shockey thought I meant him

 

[Mark2010]

I had honestly never heard of the penalty assessed to Tiger before.

It was my understanding that on a penalty drop, you could go back as far as you wished, so long as you kept the line where the ball entered the hazard. I guess I sort of see the logic in it (lie, distance, etc.), but it's one of those obscure rules like the one that snared Dustin Johnson at the 2010 PGA Championship.

That is the correct ruling -- but the ball went into the water way to the left of where he dropped. He dropped under the ruling of near the location of where he previously hit -- but he dropped 2 yards farther back from that with the intent -- in his own words -- to improve the shot.

Gotcha. So he complied with neither official option? I've always dropped where the ball crossed the margin of the hazard.... and I gave up counting how many I've dumped in the water over the years.... probably about as many as they used to plug the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

OK, so I guess the question is "did anyone tell Tiger a penalty was being assessed BEFORE he signed his card Friday night?" If he didn't know he was being penalized, then he didn't know. So he gets the two-stroke penalty and life goes on. Even with all of this, he's four shots behind, which is pretty amazing.

He had four options:

* Hit where the ball came to rest (in the water).

* Hit from the drop area.

* Dropped the ball, keeping the point at which 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, it would seem he did not choose this option, which would have allowed him to drop on a straight line as far back as he wanted.

* Return to the original spot from which he played, and drop "as nearly as possible'' from where he played the third shot.

He chose Curtain No. 4. Two yards back is not "as nearly as possible."

The green jackets were alerted to a problem while Woods was finishing his round. They reviewed and determined everything was fine. He was never told there was a review. He signed and everything was fine. But later, CBS called up Ridley and raised some more questions, based on his post-round interview with ESPN of what happened on the hole. It was at this point ANOTHER review happened and they called him in this morning.

Ridley then cited the new (2 years old) rule of keeping him in the tournament based on the committee's ORIGINAL decision to not alert him -- much less assess the penalty before he signed the scorecard -- to not DQ him.

Thank you. That was a much more understandable explanation than anything I've read online at the sports news sites today. (I was out Friday night and much of Saturday, so was sort of shocked when I first heard the news mid afternoon.)

 

[H.L. Mencken]

The reason he should have DQ'd himself is obvious:

He forked up. In his rage over getting screwed by the perfect shot, he walked to the drop area and seemingly forgot where the ball last crossed the hazard. This is why he thought it was ok to go two yards back. When he was alerted there was a potential violation, he should have owned up to the fact that he CLEARLY mixed up the rule and added two strokes to his score BEFORE he signed the card. He obviously did not want to do that. That's what makes it bullshirt.

The rules official can't really determine if he sorta dropped it in the same area, but Tiger clearly knows he mixed up the rule. And players are constantly reminded that ignorance is not an excuse. He went backward to improve his lie when that wasn't an option. He was them questioned about it. Whatever explantion he gave Ridley before he signed the card was b.s. based on his comments to Rinaldi. This is why Faldo and Chamblee are so adamant that he should have withdrawn, even though ANGC had enough wiggle room to keep him in the tournament.

This was no ones fault but his. He forgot the rule. He didn't own up to it when initially confronted. He had the option to consult a rules official on the course if it was in doubt.

He himself insisted when it came to Guan that "rules are rules." He just didn't mean for himself, apparently.

 

[MileHigh]

The reason he should have DQ'd himself is obvious:

He forked up. In his rage over getting screwed by the perfect shot, he walked to the drop area and seemingly forgot where the ball last crossed the hazard. This is why he thought it was ok to go two yards back. When he was alerted there was a potential violation, he should have owned up to the fact that he CLEARLY mixed up the rule and added two strokes to his score BEFORE he signed the card. He obviously did not want to do that. That's what makes it bullshirt.

The rules official can't really determine if he sorta dropped it in the same area, but Tiger clearly knows he mixed up the rule. And players are constantly reminded that ignorance is not an excuse. He went backward to improve his lie when that wasn't an option. He was them questioned about it. Whatever explantion he gave Ridley before he signed the card was b.s. based on his comments to Rinaldi. This is why Faldo and Chamblee are so adamant that he should have withdrawn, even though ANGC had enough wiggle room to keep him in the tournament.

This was no ones fault but his. He forgot the rule. He didn't own up to it when initially confronted. He had the option to consult a rules official on the course if it was in doubt.

He himself insisted when it came to Guan that "rules are rules." He just didn't mean for himself, apparently.

He wasn't told there was any problem yesterday before signing the card. The committee reviewed the situation while Tiger was still playing his round. It determined everything was fine, case closed. It did NOT tell Tiger there was a problem and it reviewed something. It was later Friday night -- after Tiger signed his card and was gone from the premises -- when the committee was alerted to his post-round comments that it then opened a second review. It then reviewed it Saturday morning with him. Ridley and the committee ruled that because of its ORIGINAL ruling -- that everything was kosher even though, later, it wasn't -- it couldn't penalize him with a DQ.

 

[shockey]

Quoting the whole thing to make it clear where I directed my response. Not sure how Shockey thought I meant him

your comment seemed directed at me -- or possibly to me. too often it's easy to lose track on looong posts whose comment is directed at whom. my sincerest apologies if your swipe was directed elsewhere, mod1. mea culpa.