It was wonderful Sunday afternoon—after spending four hours in the yard where my
wife and I trimmed an overgrown forsythia (taking the clippings to the landfill), cut a
few low hanging tree limbs to allow a little more sunlight into the garden, ridded
a holly tree/bush of many in-the-way prickly extensions, mowed our overgrown
grass combination of fescue and poa annua, and sprayed round-up here and there
in the flower borders to halt the growth of weeds and rouge grasses—when, after
an extensive shower, I settled into my oversize leather chair with A Big Boss
Brewing Bad Penny to watch the back nine of The Masters from the Augusta
National Golf Club where Condoleezza Rice
and Darla Moore were on site (I assume) enjoying their initial tournament as
the first and only female members of one of the most famous used-to-be-all-male
clubs in the world.
On Masters Sunday,
while the previous three rounds and the first nine holes of the final day offer
interesting story lines, it is always the back nine, the inward nine, of the
final round that draws the most interest. This year—with the two additional
holes for the twosome of Adam Scott, the eventual sudden-death (I hate the
phrase) winner who defies the USGA rules-makers with his anchored putter, and
Angel Cabrera, a man after my own heart with his pick-up-the-pace style of play—it
was lots of fun to watch story lines race back and forth as the final few
pairings made their way to complete the world's most famous, most important and
most beautiful golf tournament.
There's really no
reason to get into all the back and forth details because if you're reading
this edition of NC Golfer, then you probably already know how it all worked
out. While it made no difference to me who of the final two won the Green Jacket
and the $1.4 million that's discovered in the right inside jacket pocket as a
perk of sorts, I felt a little sorry for the way Jason Day gave back to the
course on Saturday (bogies at the 17th and 18th holes) and Sunday (bogies at
the 16th and 17th holes) to slip out of the playoff. Oh well, he’ll have another day as will others
who fell asleep at the wrong time Sunday.
As many of those
who play golf and follow the sport wondered on Sunday, what would have happened
if Tigers Woods had not hit the 15th hole pin with his third shot on Saturday
and then made a short putt for birdie? Or, after the ball that hit the pin
caromed into Rae's Creek, what if Tiger had not dropped outside the immediate
area of that third shot and been hit with a two-shot penalty a day later after
he said he had made the drop two-yards back form the original spot? In a way,
that was a three-shot swing for Tiger who finished 5-under par, four shots back
of Scott and Cabrera. Those three shots, or just the two shot penalty, might
have changed the entire day for those at the top of the leader board. Woods has
an intimidating presence on the course, especially when he's near the top. I
doubt Scott, Cabrera or Day had Woods in their minds as the played the final
nine. I believe they are better than that and simply had their own game in
their vision. (Actually I was hoping Tiger would finish two shots back of the
top! That would have been sweet!)
Of course, there
was a chance Woods would not (maybe should not) have been there Sunday, except
for a new rule as of 2012 in the USGA Rules of Golf, leaving it up to The
Committee to determine if malice was involved with the Woods-Dropping-The-Ball
incident. So, with the 2013 Masters in the book, there will be continued
discussion of the rules used and interpreted to allow Tiger to play Sunday
instead of disqualifying him for signing an incorrect scorecard Saturday. Tiger
claims to have not known the rules violation, but for someone as accomplished
as Tiger, he should have. His caddie should have. Maybe his playing partner
that day should have said something. Ignorance of the law is not excuse for
breaking the law, but then Tiger has other issues he's skirted and gotten away
with it.
Next time you're
playing a golf tournament and The Committee wants to DQ you for signing an
incorrect scorecard or for any other reason, just say, "I didn't know the
rule, just like Tiger didn't." Hopefully the committee will not treat you
any less than was the many-times-proclaimed-best-golfer-ever-in-the-world.
---------------------
Now, a little
language from the USGA:
a. Recording Scores
After each hole
the marker
should check the score with the competitor
and record it. On completion of the round the marker
must sign the score card and hand it to the competitor.
If more than one marker
records the scores, each must sign for the part for which he is
responsible.
b. Signing and Returning Score Card
After completion
of the round, the competitor
should check his score for each hole and settle any doubtful points with
the Committee.
He must ensure that the marker
or markers
have signed the score card, sign the score card himself and return it to
the Committee
as soon as possible. PENALTY FOR
BREACH OF RULE 6-6b:
Disqualification.
c. Alteration of Score Card
No
alteration may be made on a score card after the competitor
has returned it to the Committee.
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. If he
returns a score for any hole higher than actually taken, the score as returned
stands.
USGA Rule 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.
USGA Rules Decision 33-7/4.5: Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong
Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified
QUESTION: A
competitor returns his score card. It later transpires that the score for one
hole is lower than actually taken due to his failure to include a penalty
stroke(s) which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered before
the competition has closed. Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7,
in waiving or modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule
6-6d?
ANSWER: Generally,
the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.
However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably
have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it
would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty
prescribed by Rule 6-6d. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach
would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.
Problem is, if he had dropped within 12 inches, a TV view would still say he didn’t drop it close enough. It’s the Masters fault totally, they reviewed before he signed his card and said no foul. Only after Tiger said he did drop 2 yards back they took the shots away the next day….very bush league. Hitting the stick on 15 cost Tiger from a 4 to a final score of 8 for the hole. Not a Tiger fan anymore, but Augusta has a history of having problems with the rules and the reviews. Article below shows he actually did drop close enough even though he said he didn’t….what do you believe??? Interesting...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/woods-positive-drop-was-illegal-despite-photos/?cid=email_MondayNL_20130415
Pomeranz,
ReplyDeleteI went back and forth on what I thought should happen to Tiger as more information came into play. I agree with Nick Faldo. The ruling that he should incur a two-stroke penalty was correct and he should not be DQd. However, he should DQ himself. The Rules Committee was aware of the problem and reviewed it before Tiger finished his round. Their ruling was that Tiger make a proper drop so they did not contact him. Thus, at that time Tiger signed a correct score card. Later, the Rules Committee heard the interview where Tiger said he purposely went back two yards to make his shot easier, and that was a violation. Before last year, he would have been DQd. However, the new rule to protect the players from TV callers protects them from unknowingly signing an incorrect card when information comes in later. However, the Committee can assess a penalty, which it did. Faldo, said he did not disagree with the ruling; he just felt Tiger as a player should impose a stricter standard on himself. I agree. He would be seen in a much more favorable light for the rest of his career if he had done that, and considering the bumps his image has taken it would be a smart move in addition to being an ethical move.
If it had been us, we probably would have hit a ball from each of the three options and taken the one closest to the pin.
Jim, thanks for the article - a lot to think about. As to the hypothetical "what if" one runs into a similar situation as Tiger did, as I read Rule 33-7 each situation would be dealt with separately, and comparisons would be unusual. I suppose intent is part of the process, and intent, while germane, is very subjective. The integrity of the committee is as important as the integrity of the player.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteDecision 33-7/4.5 was quoted as the decision used to waive the DQ penalty on Tiger. I feel Tiger should have known that he could not have dropped where he did, but after what happened with his ball striking the flag stick, my mind would have went to mush also.
The Commitee made the biggest mistake by viewing the video and deciding that his drop was OK and not talking to Tiger. Later that evening "may" have thought that they made a mistake.
Look at Decision 34-3/1 which covers the Committee's a$$ in these errors.
Thanks and great round at #2 Donnie Bowers
Thank you Donnie. (He's a USGA Rules Official) For those who want to know:
ReplyDeleteUSGA Rules Decision 34-3/1
Question: During the first round of a 36-hole stroke-play competition, a competitor plays a wrong ball from a bunker at the 6th hole and the ball comes to rest on the green. He then realizes that he has played a wrong ball and corrects his mistake. The competitor reports the facts to the Committee before returning his card and is incorrectly advised that he has incurred no penalty since the wrong ball was played from a hazard.
During the second round the Committee realizes that it made a mistake and retrospectively adds to the competitor's first-round score two penalty strokes at the 6th hole, but does not disqualify the competitor under Rule 6-6d.
The competitor objects on the ground that the Committee reached a decision on the matter the previous day and that, as Rule 34-3 states, the Committee's decision is final, it cannot now impose a penalty.
Was the Committee's procedure correct?
Answer: Yes. Under Rule 34-3, a Committee's decision is final in that the competitor has no right to appeal. However, Rule 34-3 does not prevent a Committee from correcting an incorrect ruling and imposing or rescinding a penalty provided that no penalty is imposed or rescinded after the competition is closed, except in the circumstances set forth in Rule 34-1b.
Related Decision:
34-1b/1 Omission of Penalty Stroke When Score Returned. (look that one up yourself)