Masters Golf keeping the Black man Down?

[akatrex]

Golfs Master's Tournament:

AUGUSTA, Ga. — Tiger Woods was assessed a two-shot penalty at the Masters on Saturday for taking an illegal drop during Friday's second round.

The Masters issued a statement 40 minutes after play in the third round began.

After being prompted by a television viewer, the Rules Committee reviewed a video of the shot while Woods was playing the 18th hole. At the time, the committee determined Woods had complied with the rules, according to the statement.

After the round, Woods said he played his fifth shot further from the point from where he had hit his third round, which would constitute playing from the wrong place. This warranted the committee to further review and discuss the matter with Woods Saturday morning.

After the meeting, according to the statement, the committee determined Woods had violated the rule and assessed him a 2-stroke penalty. The penalty for disqualification for signing an incorrect scorecard, however, was waived by the committee under Rule 33 as the committee had previously reviewed the matter and made its initial determination prior to the finish of the player's round. This meant Woods was not aware or told he made an illegal drop.

Any other player would have been Disqualified!

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

lol...


woods is that nigga

 

[renard_ruse]

Shut up you race baiting FAGGOT.

Wood is an Oriental, not a black anyway. So, double SHUT UP.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

Shut up you race baiting FAGGOT.

Wood is an Oriental, not a black anyway. So, double SHUT UP.

wtf... you got problems hahaha

woke up on the wrong side of the bed, you fucking puss?

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

I always cheat when I play. Golf is too hard.

 

[Beco]

OMG! Tiger Woods, its all over sports radio!

Who gives a shit

 

[Sean Renaud]

Shut up you race baiting FAGGOT.

Wood is an Oriental, not a black anyway. So, double SHUT UP.

I occasionally forget just how racist you are. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I have watched the video. I have listened to the commentary. I have heard Tiger's own words.

He clearly stated that he used the ball in the water to gain an advantage. Sorry Tiger, disqualify yourself. That is not golf.

Jack wouldn't have done something like that, and you sir are no Jack.

 

[RjThoughts]

I have watched the video. I have listened to the commentary. I have heard Tiger's own words.

He clearly stated that he used the ball in the water to gain an advantage. Sorry Tiger, disqualify yourself. That is not golf.

Jack wouldn't have done something like that, and you sir are no Jack.

Guess what: Why the FUCK would the PGA allow viewers to call in penalties? Does the NFL? Does the NBA? Does MLB? NO!!!!! The PGA and Augusta allow couch potato, nothing better to do than to find fault in others, jealous duffers to effect the outcome of a game. Disgusting!!!!

The rules committee allowed him to sign the card, but after someone whined, they assessed the penalty. Outright asinine behavior on the part of the rules committee, to overturn their initial rulling.

Leave all other golfers out of it. No one knows what another golfer would do in similar circumstances.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Dude. Chill.

 

[RjThoughts]

Dude. Chill.

You voiced your opinion and I did the same. You don't like it, just ignore it. Do not tell me to chill because I disagree with you.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

You voiced your opinion and I did the same. You don't like it, just ignore it. Do not tell me to chill because I disagree with you.

Dude. Do not tell me to not tell you to chill. Just ignore it.

 

[RjThoughts]

Dude. Do not tell me to not tell you to chill. Just ignore it.

I believe I will, since you're not engaging in debate, just using adolescent responses.

 

[Wrong Element]

I have watched the video. I have listened to the commentary. I have heard Tiger's own words.

He clearly stated that he used the ball in the water to gain an advantage. Sorry Tiger, disqualify yourself. That is not golf.

Jack wouldn't have done something like that, and you sir are no Jack.

That's not what I heard him say. But at any rate, the question is why no one, including the officials who monitor every hole for rules-related situations that arise during play, noticed this at the time it happened. Had Woods been told prior to signing his scorecard that a penalty had been assessed, that would have been that.

The issue is whether he's morally obligated to drop out for signing an "incorrect scorecard" when the penalty was only imposed after he had signed it. I'm not exactly immersed in golf culture, but I fail to see how that makes any sense.

As for the OP's charge that this is special treatment and that "anyone else would have been disqualified," well, prove it. Show me the exact same set of circumstances where the penalty was a DQ rather than a stroke penalty, and I might agree that you're on to something.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

This is what he said:

Q. How hard is it, that second shot on 15 after getting a bad break like that?

TIGER WOODS: 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 I went 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.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I have watched the video. I have listened to the commentary. I have heard Tiger's own words.

He clearly stated that he used the ball in the water to gain an advantage. Sorry Tiger, disqualify yourself. That is not golf.

Jack wouldn't have done something like that, and you sir are no Jack.

To begin with, Tiger had three options for his next shot after the ball entered the hazard.

1. Hit from the drop area.

2. Hit from a point along a line established by the hole and the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard keeping that point of entry between the hole and the golfer.

3. Replay the shot as near as possible from the point where it was last played.

The very definition of "options" is to provide a choice by which the chooser may select that option which affords his best "advantage," so to indict someone for seeking an advantage within the rules would be contrary to both the letter and spirit of those same rules.

Secondly, it would be beneath mere stupidity to believe that someone who intended to violate the rules would subsequently tell a TV reporter not 45 minutes after the incident exactly how he executed that violation. This is particularly true since the mere observation of Tiger's replay from the area where he last hit did not conclusively indicate that he had violated that part of the rule under which he was proceeding. That's exactly how the rules committee missed it the first time they reviewed the tape -- a review that took place while Tiger's round was still in progress and at a time wherein the rules committee could have imposed the appropriate penalty and had Tiger sign a corrected scorecard.

Since Tiger's self-incriminating TV interview clearly indicated his inadvertent violation of the rule, the committee appropriately decided they should not further penalize him with a DQ for signing an incorrect scorecard as a direct result of the ruling they made that there had been no rules violation in the first place.

Rule 33-7 of the Rules of Golf was added a few years ago, quite obviously for situations just like this. It reads:

Rule 33 / 34 115

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.

The rules of golf were written long before professional tournaments offering millions of dollars in prize money were conducted. Today, these tournaments, as is true of any other professional sport, can afford to employ as many rules officials as may be deemed appropriate. The competitors subjected to these professional rulings have every right to rely upon them and not be further unduly penalized if and/or when they may have found to be issued in error.

Unfortunately, Jack Nicklaus and others of his generation never had the protection afforded by rule 33-7. On the other hand, Nicklaus, unlike Bobby Jones, never had to use his wedge on the putting green when he was stymied by an opponent's ball.

Tiger Woods owes neither of his predecessors an apology or defense for playing under and profiting from rules that they may have found onerous during their own playing careers.

 

[jomar]

...

Any other player would have been Disqualified!

First off, I thought the rules said that if you went into the water you could hit again on any line from where it crossed the water...meaning he could back up as far as he wanted. Guess not, but pros aren't necessarily schooled in the rules. I know.

As far as disqualification, turns out that Wood has video of the committee meeting, which consisted of three active people, if you know what I mean.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

First off, I thought the rules said that if you went into the water you could hit again on any line from where it crossed the water...meaning he could back up as far as he wanted. Guess not, but pros aren't necessarily schooled in the rules. I know.

Under one of the options available to Woods, he could have done exactly that. Keeping the point where the ball entered the water in line with the hole, he could have gone back as far on that line as he wanted and dropped.

But that wasn't the option he chose. He elected to replay from where he last hit. And the rules in that case require you to drop as close as possible to that spot. Obviously he got different aspects of the two options confused, which resulted in the penalty.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Bobby Jones

 

[RjThoughts]

To begin with, Tiger had three options for his next shot after the ball entered the hazard.

1. Hit from the drop area.

2. Hit from a point along a line established by the hole and the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard keeping that point of entry between the hole and the golfer.

3. Replay the shot as near as possible from the point where it was last played.

The very definition of "options" is to provide a choice by which the chooser may select that option which affords his best "advantage," so to indict someone for seeking an advantage within the rules would be contrary to both the letter and spirit of those same rules.

Secondly, it would be beneath mere stupidity to believe that someone who intended to violate the rules would subsequently tell a TV reporter not 45 minutes after the incident exactly how he executed that violation. This is particularly true since the mere observation of Tiger's replay from the area where he last hit did not conclusively indicate that he had violated that part of the rule under which he was proceeding. That's exactly how the rules committee missed it the first time they reviewed the tape -- a review that took place while Tiger's round was still in progress and at a time wherein the rules committee could have imposed the appropriate penalty and had Tiger sign a corrected scorecard.

Since Tiger's self-incriminating TV interview clearly indicated his inadvertent violation of the rule, the committee appropriately decided they should not further penalize him with a DQ for signing an incorrect scorecard as a direct result of the ruling they made that there had been no rules violation in the first place.

Rule 33-7 of the Rules of Golf was added a few years ago, quite obviously for situations just like this. It reads:

Rule 33 / 34 115

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.

The rules of golf were written long before professional tournaments offering millions of dollars in prize money were conducted. Today, these tournaments, as is true of any other professional sport, can afford to employ as many rules officials as may be deemed appropriate. The competitors subjected to these professional rulings have every right to rely upon them and not be further unduly penalized if and/or when they may have found to be issued in error.

Unfortunately, Jack Nicklaus and others of his generation never had the protection afforded by rule 33-7. On the other hand, Nicklaus, unlike Bobby Jones, never had to use his wedge on the putting green when he was stymied by an opponent's ball.

Tiger Woods owes neither of his predecessors an apology or defense for playing under and profiting from rules that they may have found onerous during their own playing careers.

Jack Nicklaus also didn't have views calling into the PGA to call penalties on him, either.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Jack Nicklaus also didn't have views calling into the PGA to call penalties on him, either.

He should have called it on himself. That is the point.

 

[jomar]

Under one of the options available to Woods, he could have done exactly that. Keeping the point where the ball entered the water in line with the hole, he could have gone back as far on that line as he wanted and dropped.

But that wasn't the option he chose. He elected to replay from where he last hit. And the rules in that case require you to drop as close as possible to that spot. Obviously he got different aspects of the two options confused, which resulted in the penalty.

Where the ball crosses the water is different that where is goes in the water, which is what I thought the rule was (crossing the water). I think where the ball entered the water moved the the line considerably to the left, about halfway to the ball drop zone.

Be a great win if he does.