Are the current Rules of Golf helping or hurting the game of golf?

[rollin]

All i know Kobey - it was a pleasure to watch Scott & Cabrera play quickly vs Painfuly watching J. day stare at his shots for what seemed like minutes, (of course it wasnt) but then reset and stare yet again etc....I wanted to jump through the tv. If I was there i would of gotten thrown out cause i would of yelled out loud "are you kidding, just hit the friggin thing already"

 

[ddxu]

All i know Kobey - it was a pleasure to watch Scott & Cabrera play quickly vs Painfuly watching J. day stare at his shots for what seemed like minutes, (of course it wasnt) but then reset and stare yet again etc....I wanted to jump through the tv. If I was there i would of gotten thrown out cause i would of yelled out loud "are you kidding, just hit the friggin thing already"

I agree with this big time. The rules exist, we just need more officials with some balls to enforce them.

 

[blugold]

I cant say whats right or wrong but if one wants to play the rules exactly as written (and is there any other way?) even if rediculous than heres what i found and you be the judge.

First part copied states the player is responsible for knowing rules. Even goes on to say says if his caddy breaks a rule the player is also responsible.

Second says player responsible for correct score card.

Third says committee can not wave any rule.
And here they are;

6-1. Rules
The player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the Rules.


d. Wrong Score for Hole
The competitor is responsible for the correctness of the score recorded for each hole on his score card. If he returns a score for any hole lower than actually taken, he is disqualified.


33-1. Conditions; Waiving Rule
The Committee has no power to waive a Rule of Golf.


What I gather from it - Wether he new at the time what he did was wrong or not doesnt matter. He is supose to know the rules regardless and therefore take a 2 stroke penalty for breach of rule. He is also then supose to hand in a score card reflecting the 2 stroke penalty. If he doesnt he is supose to be disqualified. The committe can not wave any rule as stated in the rules so..... Unless he handed in the card with the penalty strokes already added in is the only way he should still be playing.

Rediculous or not and i personaly wouldnt want to see that happen but they are bending thier own rules if he handed in the card that way. If so and they bend the rules then whats going to make all else follow them? And what about the next players in the mix? How is any of it fair to any of them? I just dont know.

For what it's worth. You just took snippets of the rules and not the entire rule. The Rules Committee at The Masters got the ruling correct with Tiger. When the PGA Tour Director of Rules, USGA Director of Rules, R&A Director of Rules, European PGA Tour Director of Rules, Augusta National Director of Rules all agree, then the ruling was correct. They are smarter than us.

 

[rollin]

They were correct about the penalty. I dont think thats arguable. But how are they correct about the (handing in an incorrect score card part)? And i dont ask to be sarcastic. I just not seeing that part of it as correct. Please share

 

[blugold]

They were correct about the penalty. I dont think thats arguable. But how are they correct about the (handing in an incorrect score card part)? And i dont ask to be sarcastic. I just not seeing that part of it as correct. Please share

Here's one:

33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion


A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived,
modified or imposed if the Committee
considers such action warranted.

Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.

If a Committee
considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may
impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.

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

 

[NavyMustang]

Here's one:http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-33/

I don't disagree with any of that and I think the committee initially made the right decision by reviewing what was called in by a spectator (I hate that that can happen by the way). Somehow they came to the conclusion that he had dropped properly and did not assess a penalty. What I don't understand is how after Tiger himself stated that he didn't even try to drop it as close as possible he wasn't disqualified. Maybe they didn't do it because they had already reached a decision on their own prior to his statement that the drop was good, but when he admitted, someone should have pulled him aside, showed him the rule and said "Tiger, what would you like to do since you just submitted an incorrect scorecard".

I think the spirit of the new rule was to protect players from people calling things in that could lead them to signing an incorrect scorecard, I think the committee did their due dilligence on this and because they felt there was nothing illegal about the drop, they chose not to penalize him or even talk to him.

I don't think the spirit of the new rule is there to protect players from incriminating themselves, this is where I have the issue. Tiger admitted to breaking the rule on National TV right after he signed his card in his post round interview, the new rule is not their to protect him from himself and he should at that time have been disqualified.

 

[blugold]

I don't disagree with any of that and I think the committee initially made the right decision by reviewing what was called in by a spectator (I hate that that can happen by the way). Somehow they came to the conclusion that he had dropped properly and did not assess a penalty. What I don't understand is how after Tiger himself stated that he didn't even try to drop it as close as possible he wasn't disqualified. Maybe they didn't do it because they had already reached a decision on their own prior to his statement that the drop was good, but when he admitted, someone should have pulled him aside, showed him the rule and said "Tiger, what would you like to do since you just submitted an incorrect scorecard".

I think the spirit of the new rule was to protect players from people calling things in that could lead them to signing an incorrect scorecard, I think the committee did their due dilligence on this and because they felt there was nothing illegal about the drop, they chose not to penalize him or even talk to him.

I don't think the spirit of the new rule is there to protect players from incriminating themselves, this is where I have the issue. Tiger admitted to breaking the rule on National TV right after he signed his card in his post round interview, the new rule is not their to protect him from himself and he should at that time have been disqualified.

He admitted to breaking rule 26 only through ignorance. Which is not really an excuse. But the new rule structure allows for ignorance to protect a play from DQ. Also, there is precedent at Augusta for this sort of ruling. It wasn't like this was the first time the Masters Committee did this.

 

[rollin]

Here's one:http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-33/

Yes Blue you have it there for sure. They say one thing and then say the oposite there about the DQ part so its a little bit contradicting within thier own rules. I would still wonder what part of this they would consider to be an exceptional case to be warranted of the rule waive.

 

[blugold]

Yes Blue you have it there for sure. They say one thing and then say the oposite there about the DQ part so its a little bit contradicting within thier own rules. I would still wonder what part of this they would consider to be an exceptional case to be warranted of the rule waive.

The rules are tricky because they say one thing, then contradict it later. The "exceptional case" here, I would assume, is that the Committee ruled during the round that no penalty would be given. Only to hear, after the round, that Tiger unknowingly broke rule 26.

 

[rollin]

".
I think the spirit of the new rule was to protect players from people calling things in that could lead them to signing an incorrect scorecard, I think the committee did their due dilligence on this and because they felt there was nothing illegal about the drop, they chose not to penalize him or even talk to him.
.

The rules are tricky because they say one thing, then contradict it later. The "exceptional case" here, I would assume, is that the Committee ruled during the round that no penalty would be given. Only to hear, after the round, that Tiger unknowingly broke rule 26.

This is what i'm a bit hung up on. They are not allowed to waive a "rule of golf" so even if they had no issue with the drop tiger is still wrong because he is supose to know the rules (as his responsibility) and part of the rules states that no one can wave a rule. Just because some official or whomever did not catch or even ok'd it, it doesnt mean anything because tiger is supose to know that they can not waive any rule of golf which is part of the rules itself. Meaning regardless of no one catching or even ok'd it he was still not supose to drop where he did. Its his resonsibility and resulted in handing in the wrong scored card and we all know what that is supose to result in.

Its not like an official told him "hey tiger you cant drop there, you must drop here" and actualy forced him to drop incorrectly, then he'd be guilty of nothing. Or if there was a major ground issue at the drop location and he was advised oncorrectly. That to me would be the only esceptional case to warrant a waive of DQ. Other than that, nothing else matters and therefore he handed in the wrong card.

 

[blugold]

This is what i'm a bit hung up on. They are not allowed to waive a "rule of golf" so even if they had no issue with the drop tiger is still wrong because he is supose to know the rules (as his responsibility) and part of the rules states that no one can wave a rule. Just because some official or whomever did not catch or even ok'd it, it doesnt mean anything because tiger is supose to know that they can not waive any rule of golf which is part of the rules itself. Meaning regardless of no one catching or even ok'd it he was still not supose to drop where he did. Its his resonsibility and resulted in handing in the wrong scored card and we all know what that is supose to result in.

Its not like an official told him "hey tiger you cant drop there, you must drop here" and actualy forced him to drop incorrectly, then he'd be guilty of nothing. Or if there was a major ground issue at the drop location and he was advised oncorrectly. That to me would be the only esceptional case to warrant a waive of DQ. Other than that, nothing else matters and therefore he handed in the wrong card.

I know all of what you're saying. But rule 33-7 gives the committee power to waive a DQ. The rule book is odd and leaves a lot of wiggle room. Which is the opposite of what is supposed to happen. The rules of golf need to be trimmed and streamlined. But as it stands, the Committee at Augusta ruled correctly.

 

[rollin]

to me, as rediculous as some of the rules may be it could be argued they didnt follow there own rules. I cant say 100% they ruled correctly just because they made the decision they made.

What if tiger simply handed in the wrong score due to an honest adding mistake? That happened i recall as we discussed in a thread on THP about an amateur doing such in a big tournamnet and was DQ'd. Whta the amateur did, did not directly affect the physical play and yet was DQ'd for something rdiculous that was to be double checked anyway. Yet the mistake Tiger made (honest or not) directly affectd the physical play of his game. Much more important but for some resaon its ok.

What if you were DQ'd for honestly adding wrong only to be double checked anyway and yet an apponant did what Tiger did and he was not Dq'd? That would be rediculous.

and I do wonder if a no name made this same scenerio what they would of ruled.

 

[Hawk]

This conversation is hilarious and a good indicator of how ridiculous the rules of golf can be. Nobody knows what the hell is going on.

Brush a twig? How dare you!

Ball moved a tiny fraction of an inch? Penalty!

 

[blugold]

to me, as rediculous as some of the rules may be it could be argued they didnt follow there own rules. I cant say 100% they ruled correctly just because they made the decision they made.

What if tiger simply handed in the wrong score due to an honest adding mistake? That happened i recall as we discussed in a thread on THP about an amateur doing such in a big tournamnet and was DQ'd. Whta the amateur did, did not directly affect the physical play and yet was DQ'd for something rdiculous that was to be double checked anyway. Yet the mistake Tiger made (honest or not) directly affectd the physical play of his game. Much more important but for some resaon its ok.

What if you were DQ'd for honestly adding wrong only to be double checked anyway and yet an apponant did what Tiger did and he was not Dq'd? That would be rediculous.

and I do wonder if a no name made this same scenerio what they would of ruled.

But there is precedent for what you detailed. A DQ is the right rule. In correct adding is not an "exceptional case." As far as other competitors go, if you looked at twitter and saw what Hunter Mahan, Luke List, and Graeme McDowell tweeted (there may have been others), Tiger's competitors supported Augusta's decision.

 

[Fourputt]

He admitted to breaking rule 26 only through ignorance. Which is not really an excuse. But the new rule structure allows for ignorance to protect a play from DQ. Also, there is precedent at Augusta for this sort of ruling. It wasn't like this was the first time the Masters Committee did this.

It allows ignorance to protect a player only if there are other factors in the equation. In this case the mitigating factor was the committee's knowledge of a potential problem and their failure to discuss it with Tiger immediately after the round. The result in that case would have been a 2 stroke penalty. They waived the disqualification because they realized that they had dropped the ball, and it was their failure which put him in that position.

This is what i'm a bit hung up on. They are not allowed to waive a "rule of golf" so even if they had no issue with the drop tiger is still wrong because he is supose to know the rules (as his responsibility) and part of the rules states that no one can wave a rule. Just because some official or whomever did not catch or even ok'd it, it doesnt mean anything because tiger is supose to know that they can not waive any rule of golf which is part of the rules itself. Meaning regardless of no one catching or even ok'd it he was still not supose to drop where he did. Its his resonsibility and resulted in handing in the wrong scored card and we all know what that is supose to result in.

Its not like an official told him "hey tiger you cant drop there, you must drop here" and actualy forced him to drop incorrectly, then he'd be guilty of nothing. Or if there was a major ground issue at the drop location and he was advised oncorrectly. That to me would be the only esceptional case to warrant a waive of DQ. Other than that, nothing else matters and therefore he handed in the wrong card.

They didn't waive a rule. They waived a disqualification penalty. This is the only power granted them. They did so because it was their failure which put him in a position where he could be disqualified.

 

[Tedfroop]

I think the problem most people are having here is the "Spirit if the game" thing. Was it Mark Davis at Harbourtown that called a penalty on himself when he was the only person that saw a reed move on his back swing and lost the tournament. No one else saw it, slow motion replays didn't see it but he did.

The difficult thing with Tiger was intent and do you really believe he did not know how to proceed? I think the ethics of maintaining the Spirit of the Rules is where a lot of people have a problem with this, me included. Tiger stated in his post round interview the intent to drop the ball in a wrong place. He said he moved away from the original spot on purpose. He never called a rules official over to help him.

I think that's where Faldo and others had a problem. Something about the review process before he signed his card doesn't seem right. If the committee called him back in for the penalty in the morning because of what he said in his post round interview then they were missing information when they reviewed the incident the night before. That felt to a lot of people like intent.

 

[Fourputt]

The player is responsible for only the individual hole scores Rollin, not for the addition. This has been true for as long as I've been playing. No player could possibly have been DQ'ed over that.

 

[Fourputt]

I think the problem most people are having here is the "Spirit if the game" thing. Was it Mark Davis at Harbourtown that called a penalty on himself when he was the only person that saw a reed move on his back swing and lost the tournament. No one else saw it, slow motion replays didn't see it but he did.

The difficult thing with Tiger was intent and do you really believe he did not know how to proceed? I think the ethics of maintaining the Spirit of the Rules is where a lot of people have a problem with this, me included. Tiger stated in his post round interview the intent to drop the ball in a wrong place. He said he moved away from the original spot on purpose. He never called a rules official over to help him.

I think that's where Faldo and others had a problem. Something about the review process before he signed his card doesn't seem right. If the committee called him back in for the penalty in the morning because of what he said in his post round interview then they were missing information when they reviewed the incident the night before. That felt to a lot of people like intent.

If Tiger had cheated intentionally, do you really think that he would have said so in his interview? Tiger may have some faults, but stupidity isn't one of them. Come on people, get over the hate and think about it.

 

[Kobey]

I don't understand the whole thing. He made the drop and was not assessed a penalty and at the time probably didn't know he was in the wrong until later. Therefore he didn't sign an incorrect scorecard. The officials accepted it, so that should have been the end of it. What's the time limit on something like that? If Jack Nicklaus said today that he may have made an incorrect drop back when he won a major, would they go back and take it from him now? What if Tiger made the statement two weeks from now? I think once the officials have accepted and verified the scorecard, that score should stand, no matter what comes out later.

 

[NavyMustang]

He admitted to breaking rule 26 only through ignorance. Which is not really an excuse. But the new rule structure allows for ignorance to protect a play from DQ. Also, there is precedent at Augusta for this sort of ruling. It wasn't like this was the first time the Masters Committee did this.

OK, I see what your saying. 33-7 was put into place apparently to keep guys from getting DQd. I would guess the committee looked at it as an exceptional circumstance because they had the ability to stop him before signing it and they didn't (still don't see how they looked at the video and called it a valid drop) and because DQ was the only possible penalty they had the ability to waive it.

I'm no Tiger hater, but I think the bigger issue in this whole thing is that while the rules give the committee the ability to waive the DQ, "the spirit of the game" however abstract that is, basically requires a golfer to self impose. I can see Joe Average Pro accepting a decision like this and playing on because he's just trying to earn a living and keep his card. Tiger is trying to rehabilitate an image, and DQing himself would have gone a long way towards restoring some semblance of his integrity in a lot of peoples eyes. Its pretty obvious that Tiger doesn't really care what the public thinks about him, has no desire to be a role model, and is simply a stone-cold assassin of a golfer. Class, grace and gravitas he has not. He's a blast to watch when he is on fire, but he's sure not someone to emulate.

 

[Fourputt]

There is a bit of a misunderstanding here. A player cannot disqualify himself. He can only state the facts of his play. It's up to the committee to apply a penalty or make or waive the disqualification. The player can withdraw, but then it looks like he's doing so for petty reasons, because he's pissed at the committee or something.

 

[Canio]

OK, I see what your saying. 33-7 was put into place apparently to keep guys from getting DQd. I would guess the committee looked at it as an exceptional circumstance because they had the ability to stop him before signing it and they didn't (still don't see how they looked at the video and called it a valid drop) and because DQ was the only possible penalty they had the ability to waive it.

I'm no Tiger hater, but I think the bigger issue in this whole thing is that while the rules give the committee the ability to waive the DQ, "the spirit of the game" however abstract that is, basically requires a golfer to self impose. I can see Joe Average Pro accepting a decision like this and playing on because he's just trying to earn a living and keep his card. Tiger is trying to rehabilitate an image, and DQing himself would have gone a long way towards restoring some semblance of his integrity in a lot of peoples eyes. Its pretty obvious that Tiger doesn't really care what the public thinks about him, has no desire to be a role model, and is simply a stone-cold assassin of a golfer. Class, grace and gravitas he has not. He's a blast to watch when he is on fire, but he's sure not someone to emulate.

I agree that 33-7 was only put in to prevent DQs.The 'commitee' did what they did because they thought they had made an incorrect decision the first time. Tiger took advantage of that. Right or wrong, he followed the ruling. I might think the honorable thing to do would be to WD, but that's Tiger.

I absolutely HATE that people can call in to report infractions. I don't think that it should be allowed. You cannot do that in any other sport.

As far as following all the rules in our everyday play, it's really almost impossible to do the stroke and distance. With as little as 8 minutes between groups that some courses schedule, going back to re-tee contributes to those awful 5 and 6 hour rounds. Plus, the arguments and fights that could result from it. Ball in divot? I feel it's the 'rub of the green'.

 

[rollin]

The player is responsible for only the individual hole scores Rollin, not for the addition. This has been true for as long as I've been playing. No player could possibly have been DQ'ed over that.

That does clarify some of my questions. But i ask now out of confusion on just how they hand in and score thier own cards. So if a player hits into water and then makes the normal correct drop he doesnt have to count the penalty stroke on his card and scores it as though hitting 3 from there instead of 4? And only the committee adds the penalty stroke later? Is that how it normally done?

I came back to edit because I had a brain freeze. You are referring to the actual adding up and not adding the penalty strokes on the card - my bad I misunderstood. i thought that was wierd.lol

But moving on, once he signs his card that should be it. I fail to see what the fault is from anyone else that causes the committee to determine no dq.

 

[NavyMustang]

As far as following all the rules in our everyday play, it's really almost impossible to do the stroke and distance. With as little as 8 minutes between groups that some courses schedule, going back to re-tee contributes to those awful 5 and 6 hour rounds. Plus, the arguments and fights that could result from it. Ball in divot? I feel it's the 'rub of the green'.

You know, I've seen this posted in different ways several times in this thread and I just have to disagree. This is what the "Provisional" was created for. When you tee off (or any other shot) and think there is a chance that you hit it OB or put in a place that may be very difficult to find, call a provisional, hit another ball from the same spot and if you don't find the original you play the second ball. Perfectly legal and keeps the pace of play going.

 

[Kobey]

You know, I've seen this posted in different ways several times in this thread and I just have to disagree. This is what the "Provisional" was created for. When you tee off (or any other shot) and think there is a chance that you hit it OB or put in a place that may be very difficult to find, call a provisional, hit another ball from the same spot and if you don't find the original you play the second ball. Perfectly legal and keeps the pace of play going.

In that case I'd be hitting twice on almost every tee on some of the courses I play.