If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   PGA to discuss the wisdom of letting gamblers call in rules violations   (bloomberg.com) divider line 49
    More: Fail, PGA Tour, PGA, tour, Tim Finchem, The Master, punishments, Jim Furyk, Steve Stricker  
•       •       •

931 clicks; posted to Sports » on 18 Sep 2013 at 7:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-18 07:58:00 AM  
FTA: Woods, after being shown video evidence following his round, denied that his ball moved. He repeatedly defended his position and said his ball oscillated slightly and returned to its original spot, which is not a penalty.

He watched the video and still thought the ball didn't move? He's delusional.
 
2013-09-18 07:58:33 AM  
At last week's BMW Championship in,, was assessed a two-stroke penalty when a freelance videographer for PGA Tour Entertainment alerted his supervisor that Woods's ball moved while he was removing a stick and pine cone from around it.

That wasn't a case of a viewer calling in a violation, and the person that called El Tigre's previous Master's peccadillo was actually a former PGA Tour Rules, who was then ignored by The Masters for the better part of 12 or so hours.

So I have a better idea: stop cheating.
 
2013-09-18 07:59:16 AM  
First off no sport should allow fans at home to call in rules violations that can change the outcome of a match.  One of the big issues I see with it is that not every player gets TV time so allowing this is not fair across the field of players.
 
2013-09-18 08:07:51 AM  
But no one ever cheats in golf, that's why it's so much nobler than other sports, right?
 
2013-09-18 08:52:10 AM  
"People calling in with rules and infractions, it only keeps us sharp," said 59-year-old Peter Jacobsen, a seven-time PGA Tour winner who now works as a television golf analyst. "It's probably no fun for the PGA Tour staff and all the rules officials, but I don't have a problem with it."

Hey Peter, it's not "US" when you no longer play.

Also just for a level playing field it should be disallowed.  The cameras ONLY follow the top players (at least the cameras that would pick up something as small as a ball moving 1/4" while debris was being moved).   This type of thing would never happen to Derrick Ernst (the 74th player on the money list and someone 99.9% of people have never heard of).  If you can't apply something evenly it shouldn't exist.
 
2013-09-18 08:58:00 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: "People calling in with rules and infractions, it only keeps us sharp," said 59-year-old Peter Jacobsen, a seven-time PGA Tour winner who now works as a television golf analyst. "It's probably no fun for the PGA Tour staff and all the rules officials, but I don't have a problem with it."

Hey Peter, it's not "US" when you no longer play.



Jake's played 13 events this year.
 
2013-09-18 09:03:22 AM  

ChrisDe: FTA: Woods, after being shown video evidence following his round, denied that his ball moved. He repeatedly defended his position and said his ball oscillated slightly and returned to its original spot, which is not a penalty.

He watched the video and still thought the ball didn't move? He's delusional.


He thinks the ball moved back in to its initial spot.  It's defensible.

The penalty from earlier this year was not defensible.  He didn't drop in the same location and then said "I tried to not drop it in the same location."
 
2013-09-18 09:17:46 AM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: But no one ever cheats in golf, that's why it's so much nobler than other sports, right?


It's not that nobody cheats, it's that some people don't. It's a good way to determine a person's character, or lack thereof.

Here's an idea, during a tournament STOP TAKING CALLS! Can people call in and overturn a close call at 2nd base too?
 
2013-09-18 09:22:40 AM  

ChrisDe: FTA: Woods, after being shown video evidence following his round, denied that his ball moved. He repeatedly defended his position and said his ball oscillated slightly and returned to its original spot, which is not a penalty.

He watched the video and still thought the ball didn't move? He's delusional.


Sorry but I agree with Tiger here.  The ball didn't change location, which would have been a better description in the rule rather than "moved".
 
2013-09-18 09:24:54 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: "People calling in with rules and infractions, it only keeps us sharp," said 59-year-old Peter Jacobsen, a seven-time PGA Tour winner who now works as a television golf analyst. "It's probably no fun for the PGA Tour staff and all the rules officials, but I don't have a problem with it."

Hey Peter, it's not "US" when you no longer play.

Also just for a level playing field it should be disallowed.  The cameras ONLY follow the top players (at least the cameras that would pick up something as small as a ball moving 1/4" while debris was being moved).   This type of thing would never happen to Derrick Ernst (the 74th player on the money list and someone 99.9% of people have never heard of).  If you can't apply something evenly it shouldn't exist.


He's so obscure you even spelled Derek's first name wrong. :)
 
2013-09-18 09:25:45 AM  

MFAWG: At last week's BMW Championship in,, was assessed a two-stroke penalty when a freelance videographer for PGA Tour Entertainment alerted his supervisor that Woods's ball moved while he was removing a stick and pine cone from around it.

That wasn't a case of a viewer calling in a violation, and the person that called El Tigre's previous Master's peccadillo was actually a former PGA Tour Rules, who was then ignored by The Masters for the better part of 12 or so hours.

So I have a better idea: stop cheating.


Just because a retired rules official was watching on tv, doesn't mean he should be able to call out rules violations.  That should be for the active rules official present on the course.

Imagine a retired NFL official calling into the officials during a NFL game about a face mask that was used that shouldn't be.  BUT they didn't correct that violation for 12 hours.  How can you do that?
 
2013-09-18 09:27:03 AM  

ChrisDe: FTA: Woods, after being shown video evidence following his round, denied that his ball moved. He repeatedly defended his position and said his ball oscillated slightly and returned to its original spot, which is not a penalty.

He watched the video and still thought the ball didn't move? He's delusional.


Didn't move is not what he meant, in golf it means he improved his ball which didn't happen, in fact it looks to me like it sunk lower once he touched it and made shot harder.
 
2013-09-18 09:32:37 AM  

steamingpile: ChrisDe: FTA: Woods, after being shown video evidence following his round, denied that his ball moved. He repeatedly defended his position and said his ball oscillated slightly and returned to its original spot, which is not a penalty.

He watched the video and still thought the ball didn't move? He's delusional.

Didn't move is not what he meant, in golf it means he improved his ball which didn't happen, in fact it looks to me like it sunk lower once he touched it and made shot harder.


Tiger's claim is that it "oscillated", which is legal. Which is the ball moved down and then back up. There's no way that happened. It rolled down a fraction of an inch, hardly at all, but that's all it takes. And it certainly didn't move back up to the original position. Worse position of the ball? Yes, slightly. But still a penalty.
 
2013-09-18 09:34:11 AM  
You can't triple-stamp a double-stamp, Tiger.  You can't triple-stamp a double-stamp.
 
2013-09-18 09:36:29 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: MFAWG: At last week's BMW Championship in,, was assessed a two-stroke penalty when a freelance videographer for PGA Tour Entertainment alerted his supervisor that Woods's ball moved while he was removing a stick and pine cone from around it.

That wasn't a case of a viewer calling in a violation, and the person that called El Tigre's previous Master's peccadillo was actually a former PGA Tour Rules, who was then ignored by The Masters for the better part of 12 or so hours.

So I have a better idea: stop cheating.

Just because a retired rules official was watching on tv, doesn't mean he should be able to call out rules violations.  That should be for the active rules official present on the course.

Imagine a retired NFL official calling into the officials during a NFL game about a face mask that was used that shouldn't be.  BUT they didn't correct that violation for 12 hours.  How can you do that?


What's going on in THIS thread???

blogs.suntimes.com
 
2013-09-18 09:43:58 AM  

Daniels: The penalty from earlier this year was not defensible.  He didn't drop in the same location and then said "I tried to not drop it in the same location."


Oh, sure it is. Here's the applicable rule: 26-1

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;

Now, it was known (or virtually certain) that Tiger's ball was in the water hazard on 15. By the Rules, I don't see why he was compelled to proceed under Rule 26-1-a, which says "as nearly as possible". If he was proceeding under 26-1-b, the drop "two yards back" is perfectly fine. It's a legal drop. It's not trying to cheat, it's trying to follow the Rules.

The Committee at Augusta agreed with that interpretation. As a matter of fact, if Tiger hadn't taken a divot with his approach shot, there wouldn't be any way to judge whether or not his drop was legal under 26-1-a.
 
2013-09-18 10:12:00 AM  
I play and enjoy golf, but it has so many bullshiat rules and such fetishized culture that it has become incredibly annoying at times.  The rules book should be drastically simplified and scrubbed of a lot of the crap that has no practical impact on the outcome of competition.
 
2013-09-18 10:19:57 AM  
Tiger should be allowed and encouraged to cheat. Because it is good for golf when he wins or something. It isnt his fault if more cameras follow him than others. And who you gonna believe? A lying camera or a loving Tiger Woods?
 
2013-09-18 10:23:58 AM  

mikaloyd: Tiger should be allowed and encouraged to cheat. Because it is good for golf when he wins or something. It isnt his fault if more cameras follow him than others. And who you gonna believe? A lying camera or a loving Tiger Woods?


Look at you.
 
2013-09-18 10:26:21 AM  

mikaloyd: Tiger should be allowed and encouraged to cheat. Because it is good for golf when he wins or something. It isnt his fault if more cameras follow him than others. And who you gonna believe? A lying camera or a loving Tiger Woods?


Weren't you a Lance Armstrong apologist too?
 
2013-09-18 10:27:08 AM  

Gonz: Daniels: The penalty from earlier this year was not defensible.  He didn't drop in the same location and then said "I tried to not drop it in the same location."

Oh, sure it is. Here's the applicable rule: 26-1

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;

Now, it was known (or virtually certain) that Tiger's ball was in the water hazard on 15. By the Rules, I don't see why he was compelled to proceed under Rule 26-1-a, which says "as nearly as possible". If he was proceeding under 26-1-b, the drop "two yards back" is perfectly fine. It's a legal drop. It's not trying to cheat, it's trying to follow the Rules.

The Committee at Augusta agreed with that interpretation. As a matter of fact, if Tiger hadn't taken a divot with his approach shot, there wouldn't be any way to judge whether or not his drop was legal under 26-1-a.


Six feet away on open fairway is not "as nearly as possible."   It also doesn't change the fact that he said, in his own words, that he thought he could get a better shot by dropping it farther back.
 
2013-09-18 10:29:19 AM  
Also, "we wouldn't have known he broke the rules if he didn't leave evidence of breaking the rules" is equally indefensible.
 
2013-09-18 10:30:46 AM  

Daniels: Also, "we wouldn't have known he broke the rules if he didn't leave evidence of breaking the rules" is equally indefensible.


Wait, are we talking about Tiger playing a round, or playing around?
 
2013-09-18 10:31:44 AM  

Gonz: Daniels: The penalty from earlier this year was not defensible.  He didn't drop in the same location and then said "I tried to not drop it in the same location."

Oh, sure it is. Here's the applicable rule: 26-1

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;

Now, it was known (or virtually certain) that Tiger's ball was in the water hazard on 15. By the Rules, I don't see why he was compelled to proceed under Rule 26-1-a, which says "as nearly as possible". If he was proceeding under 26-1-b, the drop "two yards back" is perfectly fine. It's a legal drop. It's not trying to cheat, it's trying to follow the Rules.

The Committee at Augusta agreed with that interpretation. As a matter of fact, if Tiger hadn't taken a divot with his approach shot, there wouldn't be any way to judge whether or not his drop was legal under 26-1-a.


The ball last crossed the hazard way left of where Tiger dropped. Tiger dropped on the line where it first crossed.

See the problem?
 
2013-09-18 11:16:10 AM  

Daniels: Gonz: Daniels: The penalty from earlier this year was not defensible.  He didn't drop in the same location and then said "I tried to not drop it in the same location."

Oh, sure it is. Here's the applicable rule: 26-1

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


Six feet away on open fairway is not "as nearly as possible."   It also doesn't change the fact that he said, in his own words, that he thought he could get a better shot by dropping it farther back.


It's not "as nearly as possible" from the water hazard, but from where you took the stroke that sent the ball into the hazard.  Which, very well may be, in the middle of the fairway.
 
2013-09-18 11:25:08 AM  
Also RE: the Masters issue:

Here is the rundown:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/04/13/tiger-woods-the-maste r s-two-stroke-penalty-replay-augusta-national/2079893/

He should have dropped the ball into the divot as that would have been "as near as possible".  He didn't do that because it was in a divot, so he went back of that (which is mixing the two rules) and is a no no.

He could have moved the ball back by declaring the divot "unplayable" and assessed himself a 1 stroke penalty though.
 
2013-09-18 11:29:05 AM  
I don't understand why the tournaments don't have their own officials follow the players around and take note of violations. If they miss it, it gets missed. Them's the breaks.

It seems especially bad when someone gets penalized hugely for not correcting a mistake no one noticed at the time. It'd be like the NFL reviewing footage of an interception, deciding it wasn't actually an interception, and making the intercepting team forfeit retroactively.
 
2013-09-18 11:56:52 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Also RE: the Masters issue:

Here is the rundown:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/04/13/tiger-woods-the-maste r s-two-stroke-penalty-replay-augusta-national/2079893/

He should have dropped the ball into the divot as that would have been "as near as possible".  He didn't do that because it was in a divot, so he went back of that (which is mixing the two rules) and is a no no.

He could have moved the ball back by declaring the divot "unplayable" and assessed himself a 1 stroke penalty though.


The divot is actually in front of the where the ball was, so no.
 
2013-09-18 12:08:33 PM  

MFAWG: DoBeDoBeDo: Also RE: the Masters issue:

Here is the rundown:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/04/13/tiger-woods-the-maste r s-two-stroke-penalty-replay-augusta-national/2079893/

He should have dropped the ball into the divot as that would have been "as near as possible".  He didn't do that because it was in a divot, so he went back of that (which is mixing the two rules) and is a no no.

He could have moved the ball back by declaring the divot "unplayable" and assessed himself a 1 stroke penalty though.

The divot is actually in front of the where the ball was, so no.


It's a "drop" not a "place".  If you drop the ball and it hits the EXACT spot where it was, there is a really really good chance it will go into the divot.

But that is just splitting hairs on where a "good" divot should be in relation to the ball at contact.   The comment I was referencing in my post just prior was stating that he "couldn't" have been "as close as possible" because he was in the fairway.
 
2013-09-18 01:09:48 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: MFAWG: DoBeDoBeDo: Also RE: the Masters issue:

Here is the rundown:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/04/13/tiger-woods-the-maste r s-two-stroke-penalty-replay-augusta-national/2079893/

He should have dropped the ball into the divot as that would have been "as near as possible".  He didn't do that because it was in a divot, so he went back of that (which is mixing the two rules) and is a no no.

He could have moved the ball back by declaring the divot "unplayable" and assessed himself a 1 stroke penalty though.

The divot is actually in front of the where the ball was, so no.

It's a "drop" not a "place".  If you drop the ball and it hits the EXACT spot where it was, there is a really really good chance it will go into the divot.

But that is just splitting hairs on where a "good" divot should be in relation to the ball at contact.   The comment I was referencing in my post just prior was stating that he "couldn't" have been "as close as possible" because he was in the fairway.


It is splitting hairs. That's why the rule is worded that way, so you don't have to drop in the divot.

Bottom line is he farked up on a pretty basic rule, but I thought it was appropriately handled in the end. It would have been way worse if the Masters had ignored it, which they tried very hard to do.
 
2013-09-18 01:43:06 PM  

ChrisDe: FTA: Woods, after being shown video evidence following his round, denied that his ball moved. He repeatedly defended his position and said his ball oscillated slightly and returned to its original spot, which is not a penalty.

He watched the video and still thought the ball didn't move? He's delusional a cheater.


At golf too, apparently.
 
2013-09-18 01:58:34 PM  

The Muthaship: ChrisDe: FTA: Woods, after being shown video evidence following his round, denied that his ball moved. He repeatedly defended his position and said his ball oscillated slightly and returned to its original spot, which is not a penalty.

He watched the video and still thought the ball didn't move? He's delusional a cheater.

At golf too, apparently.


See this argument, In regards to this particular incident, I don't get.  There is no penalty for the ball moving.  He can just place it back where it was.  Most sane people agree the lie was not "improved" by the ball moving, some argue it was made worse.

So how is it cheating to hit a ball that might have moved ever so slightly into a worse lie, when you can, without penalty, move it to the "better" lie?

Again, I would imagine this has happened 1000 times this year alone, only to guys that DON'T have 500 cameras showing every angle in 1080P HD.   Are we going to start requiring players to carry micrometers with them to measure distances to nearby objects prior to moving any obstruction or addressing a ball?

Just like this shiat:   http://livereport.pga.com/2012/08/12/pettersson-ruling-explained/

What, was gained by doing this?   The rules all have spirit behind them.   Yes if your ball goes in a hazard and lies behind a log that you COULD move, it should be illegal to do so.  But your backswing moving a farking leaf?    How did that improve the lie?

I mean if we are going to start breaking out string theory to show possibilities of changed ball flight due to a leaf being moved a bit, we've lost all reason.
 
2013-09-18 02:04:00 PM  
And also going back to my earlier comment the ONLY reason there was a camera angle to catch that moving leaf?  He was playing with McIlroy.
 
2013-09-18 02:35:24 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: See this argument, In regards to this particular incident, I don't get.  There is no penalty for the ball moving.  He can just place it back where it was.  Most sane people agree the lie was not "improved" by the ball moving, some argue it was made worse.


I think there's a 1 stroke penalty if you move it back, and a 2 stroke penalty if you don't.  Either way there is still a penalty for causing the ball to move positions, even if it moved to a worse position.
 
2013-09-18 02:42:53 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: There is no penalty for the ball moving.  He can just place it back where it was.


Yes, there is.

No, he can't.
 
2013-09-18 02:42:57 PM  

GQueue: DoBeDoBeDo: See this argument, In regards to this particular incident, I don't get.  There is no penalty for the ball moving.  He can just place it back where it was.  Most sane people agree the lie was not "improved" by the ball moving, some argue it was made worse.

I think there's a 1 stroke penalty if you move it back, and a 2 stroke penalty if you don't.  Either way there is still a penalty for causing the ball to move positions, even if it moved to a worse position.


Nope, if the ball moves prior to address, you just put it back.   That's it.

He was moving movable obstructions when it moved, there is no penalty if the ball moves under those circumstances
 
2013-09-18 02:49:11 PM  

The Muthaship: DoBeDoBeDo: There is no penalty for the ball moving.  He can just place it back where it was.

Yes, there is.

No, he can't.


Nope, see the last line of section of 18-2

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-18/
 
2013-09-18 02:52:40 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Nope, see the last line of section of 18-2


Which line do you think allows it?  He was removing a loose impediment while not on the green.  I think he's on the hook for one stroke if he moved it accidentally while doing that no matter what.

But, the rules of golf are worse than the tax code.
 
2013-09-18 02:54:38 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: And also going back to my earlier comment the ONLY reason there was a camera angle to catch that moving leaf?  He was playing with McIlroy.


This isn't complicated. Eldrick causes the ball to move by moving the obstruction. It's a 2 stroke penalty, plain and simple.
 
2013-09-18 02:54:51 PM  

The Muthaship: DoBeDoBeDo: Nope, see the last line of section of 18-2

Which line do you think allows it?  He was removing a loose impediment while not on the green.  I think he's on the hook for one stroke if he moved it accidentally while doing that no matter what.

But, the rules of golf are worse than the tax code.


I told you, last section of 18-2:

Under the there is no penalty if a player accidentally causes his ball to in the following circumstances:
......

In removing movable obstructions
 
2013-09-18 02:55:40 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: In removing movable obstructions


Leaves aren't obstructions as defined by the idiotic rules of golf.
 
2013-09-18 02:57:36 PM  

The Muthaship: DoBeDoBeDo: In removing movable obstructions

Leaves aren't obstructions as defined by the idiotic rules of golf.


Ahh listening to the golf channel on XM they were describing it as obstructions (rocks or something) and not just leaves.   I didn't actually see it but they've been talking about it on there pretty much all week.
 
2013-09-18 02:59:29 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Ahh listening to the golf channel on XM they were describing it as obstructions (rocks or something) and not just leaves


Obstructions pretty much always are artificial.

The rules say always artificial, but the rules remain stupid and chock full of exceptions.
 
2013-09-18 04:02:16 PM  

SkittlesAreYum: I don't understand why the tournaments don't have their own officials follow the players around and take note of violations. If they miss it, it gets missed. Them's the breaks.

It seems especially bad when someone gets penalized hugely for not correcting a mistake no one noticed at the time. It'd be like the NFL reviewing footage of an interception, deciding it wasn't actually an interception, and making the intercepting team forfeit retroactively.


No it wouldn't, as NFL players are not expected to assess penalties on themselves.
 
2013-09-18 04:13:48 PM  
Dudes a lying cheat in his personal life. Would anyone expect anything different on the course?
He needs to go back to his old ways of partying and banging anything that cast a shadow and he will start winning majors again.
 
2013-09-18 04:17:35 PM  

BobCumbers: Dudes a lying cheat in his personal life. Would anyone expect anything different on the course?
He needs to go back to his old ways of partying and banging anything that cast a shadow and he will start winning majors again.


If thats all it took then Charlie Sheen would break Nicklaus' record
 
2013-09-18 04:24:44 PM  

The Muthaship: DoBeDoBeDo: In removing movable obstructions

Leaves aren't obstructions as defined by the idiotic rules of golf.


No, they're natural- which makes them a loose impediment. An artificial item is a moveable obstruction.

The back-of-the-envelope difference only matters in a hazard, which kinda makes sense if you think about it: you hit in a hazard and there's a leaf in there, it's part of the course. Play as it lies. You hit in the same trap, and some jackass left a half-smoked cigar in there? Not part of the course, you can move that.

Tiger's argument is that his ball oscillated, but didn't move. Like anything else in a Rules dispute, you can always find a violation if you apply the letter of the law hard enough. Think about marking a ball to putt- if you measure on a small enough scale, you can show that a player didn't place their ball in the exact spot it was when they picked it up, and, thus, should be penalized. This would be dumb- as long as the player's not marking behind his ball and then placing it to the side of his marker, it's good enough, play on. If you're staring at a HDTV trying to determine if a ball moved or oscillated... it's tough to say that anyone was cheating to gain a competitive advantage.
 
2013-09-18 08:14:31 PM  

Gonz: The Muthaship: DoBeDoBeDo: In removing movable obstructions

Leaves aren't obstructions as defined by the idiotic rules of golf.

No, they're natural- which makes them a loose impediment. An artificial item is a moveable obstruction.

The back-of-the-envelope difference only matters in a hazard, which kinda makes sense if you think about it: you hit in a hazard and there's a leaf in there, it's part of the course. Play as it lies. You hit in the same trap, and some jackass left a half-smoked cigar in there? Not part of the course, you can move that.

Tiger's argument is that his ball oscillated, but didn't move. Like anything else in a Rules dispute, you can always find a violation if you apply the letter of the law hard enough. Think about marking a ball to putt- if you measure on a small enough scale, you can show that a player didn't place their ball in the exact spot it was when they picked it up, and, thus, should be penalized. This would be dumb- as long as the player's not marking behind his ball and then placing it to the side of his marker, it's good enough, play on. If you're staring at a HDTV trying to determine if a ball moved or oscillated... it's tough to say that anyone was cheating to gain a competitive advantage.


'Competetive Advantage' has nothing to do with it. He caused the ball to move, and played it from that spot.

2 stroke penalty, plain and simple.
 
2013-09-18 11:53:08 PM  

BobCumbers: Dudes a lying cheat in his personal life. Would anyone expect anything different on the course?
He needs to go back to his old ways of partying and banging anything that cast a shadow and he will start winning majors again.


He also needs to be five years younger and not have surgically repaired legs.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report