Tiger penalized for bad drop. Should he have withdrawn.

[Roy H.]

What would the penalty have been if a golfer intentionally chose to shoot from that spot?  Do the rules call for a specific penalty?

He would have received the same two shot penalty.  The ruling was correct and fair.

Okay.  Then yeah, sounds good to me.  If they wanted to tack on a stroke for signing an incorrect scorecard, I think that would have been fine, too.  Disqualification seems draconian.

[KGs Knee]

What would the penalty have been if a golfer intentionally chose to shoot from that spot?  Do the rules call for a specific penalty?

He would have received the same two shot penalty.  The ruling was correct and fair.

Okay.  Then yeah, sounds good to me.  If they wanted to tack on a stroke for signing an incorrect scorecard, I think that would have been fine, too.  Disqualification seems draconian.

The thing is, had nobody said anything about it prior to Tiger's round ending, but later raised issue with his error due to his words (admission), he would have been rightly disqualified.  The new rule that saved him wouldn't have mattered.

[Cman]

I'm not a huge golf follower, but this isn't a big deal to me. He was appropriately penalized for the bad drop. Same thing would have happened to any other golfer. Should he have voluntarily withdrawn? No. This is pro sports, not a parlour game.

  I'm not a huge golf follower either but I think the "big deal" is that it's a newish rule that I've never seen come into play before. Traditionally someone who did what Woods did would have been disqualified from the tournament, in fact it's not unheard of for golfers to disqualify themselves when they discover that they've inadvertently broken a rule.

  It's somewhat like the nba changing a rule, nobody noticing the change, and the first time the rule was enforced it saved LeBron from a suspension.

I wouldn't expect LeBron to voluntarily suspend himself in that case.

Professional golf, like NBA basketball, is entertainment. Sometimes I get upset with the rules, and sometimes I get upset with rules that seem to be selectively enforced.

In Tiger's case, I don't really care one way or another about the rule, but from everything I've read, it doesn't seem that it was selectively enforced.

[nickagneta]

I'm not a huge golf follower, but this isn't a big deal to me. He was appropriately penalized for the bad drop. Same thing would have happened to any other golfer. Should he have voluntarily withdrawn? No. This is pro sports, not a parlour game.

Its pro sports but its golf. A completely different game that has since its inception, had self government of the rules by the players. Signing a wrong scorecard was grounds for disqualification for over 100 years. Only television and some dolt calling in and getting a player disqualified changed that rule.

Tiger admitted to breaking the rule and he signed the wrong scorecard. The situation had nothing to do with a fan calling in and reporting the mistake. Therefore, in my opinion, new rule or not, I think Tiger probably should have withdrawn. Players have penalized themselves(withdrawing from a tourney, penalizing shots) for lesser infractions than Tiger.

But, being a game of self government and rules, the new rule allows for Tiger to change his card so he's doing everything within the rules. Still think he should have withdrawn though. And BTW, I am a huge Tiger fan, through the thick and thin so this isn't Tiger hating.

[SHAQATTACK]

he should tied to stake and whipped 30 lashes


You know Tiger is a Laker fan, he has to be.

[CelticConcourse]

Two years ago, he would have been disqualified.

[csfansince60s]

I'm not a huge golf follower, but this isn't a big deal to me. He was appropriately penalized for the bad drop. Same thing would have happened to any other golfer. Should he have voluntarily withdrawn? No. This is pro sports, not a parlour game.

Its pro sports but its golf. A completely different game that has since its inception, had self government of the rules by the players. Signing a wrong scorecard was grounds for disqualification for over 100 years. Only television and some dolt calling in and getting a player disqualified changed that rule.

Tiger admitted to breaking the rule and he signed the wrong scorecard. The situation had nothing to do with a fan calling in and reporting the mistake. Therefore, in my opinion, new rule or not, I think Tiger probably should have withdrawn. Players have penalized themselves(withdrawing from a tourney, penalizing shots) for lesser infractions than Tiger.

But, being a game of self government and rules, the new rule allows for Tiger to change his card so he's doing everything within the rules. Still think he should have withdrawn though. And BTW, I am a huge Tiger fan, through the thick and thin so this isn't Tiger hating.

Nick, I agree with you that he should've withdrawn, but only before[/u} the Rules Committee made their decision, and I do think that he should've done that. Given his admission yesterday, it would've been the honorable thing to do, which is what golf is supposed to be about. It also would have done wonders for his image and the game that has given him so much.

I can't recall a player DQing himself after a Rules Committee decision, though. That would be disrespectful to the Committee and therefore to the game.

I too am a Tiger fan, even thru all the bad times and am not colored by that in my opinion of the timing of his withdrawal.

Just a comment on Tiger's image. His personal life, because of his own foibles and fault, blew up in his face, but so did a pitching wedge.

Here's a rhetorical question for all Tiger haters. What would've happened if Tiger took a pitching wedge to his wife's face because she cheated on him rather than her whacking him like she did?

He's vilified for his (inexcusable, granted) behavior, but she's the ONLY victim here. Ask the plastic surgeon in Phoenix who helped reconstruct his face. Give me a break.

[nickagneta]

I'm not a huge golf follower, but this isn't a big deal to me. He was appropriately penalized for the bad drop. Same thing would have happened to any other golfer. Should he have voluntarily withdrawn? No. This is pro sports, not a parlour game.

Its pro sports but its golf. A completely different game that has since its inception, had self government of the rules by the players. Signing a wrong scorecard was grounds for disqualification for over 100 years. Only television and some dolt calling in and getting a player disqualified changed that rule.

Tiger admitted to breaking the rule and he signed the wrong scorecard. The situation had nothing to do with a fan calling in and reporting the mistake. Therefore, in my opinion, new rule or not, I think Tiger probably should have withdrawn. Players have penalized themselves(withdrawing from a tourney, penalizing shots) for lesser infractions than Tiger.

But, being a game of self government and rules, the new rule allows for Tiger to change his card so he's doing everything within the rules. Still think he should have withdrawn though. And BTW, I am a huge Tiger fan, through the thick and thin so this isn't Tiger hating.

Nick, I agree with you that he should've withdrawn, but only before[/u} the Rules Committee made their decision, and I do think that he should've done that. Given his admission yesterday, it would've been the honorable thing to do, which is what golf is supposed to be about. It also would have done wonders for his image and the game that has given him so much.

I can't recall a player DQing himself after a Rules Committee decision, though. That would be disrespectful to the Committee and therefore to the game.

I too am a Tiger fan, even thru all the bad times and am not colored by that in my opinion of the timing of his withdrawal.

Just a comment on Tiger's image. His personal life, because of his own foibles and fault, blew up in his face, but so did a pitching wedge.

Here's a rhetorical question for all Tiger haters. What would've happened if Tiger took a pitching wedge to his wife's face because she cheated on him rather than her whacking him like she did?

He's vilified for his (inexcusable, granted) behavior, but she's the ONLY victim here. Ask the plastic surgeon in Phoenix who helped reconstruct his face. Give me a break.

I was thinking more about the respect for the game and the people who played before him who may have DQed themselves for less than what Tiger did. I think he should have done it for that reason and that alone. Doing it because of how it would effect his image, is doing it for the wrong reasons, IMHO.

ALSO, SINCE I STARTED THIS THREAD AND DON'T WANT IT LOCKED CAN WE PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING THIS A THREAD ABOUT TIGER'S PERSONAL LIFE. THANK YOU

[csfansince60s]

I'm not a huge golf follower, but this isn't a big deal to me. He was appropriately penalized for the bad drop. Same thing would have happened to any other golfer. Should he have voluntarily withdrawn? No. This is pro sports, not a parlour game.

Its pro sports but its golf. A completely different game that has since its inception, had self government of the rules by the players. Signing a wrong scorecard was grounds for disqualification for over 100 years. Only television and some dolt calling in and getting a player disqualified changed that rule.

Tiger admitted to breaking the rule and he signed the wrong scorecard. The situation had nothing to do with a fan calling in and reporting the mistake. Therefore, in my opinion, new rule or not, I think Tiger probably should have withdrawn. Players have penalized themselves(withdrawing from a tourney, penalizing shots) for lesser infractions than Tiger.

But, being a game of self government and rules, the new rule allows for Tiger to change his card so he's doing everything within the rules. Still think he should have withdrawn though. And BTW, I am a huge Tiger fan, through the thick and thin so this isn't Tiger hating.

Nick, I agree with you that he should've withdrawn, but only before[/u} the Rules Committee made their decision, and I do think that he should've done that. Given his admission yesterday, it would've been the honorable thing to do, which is what golf is supposed to be about. It also would have done wonders for his image and the game that has given him so much.

I can't recall a player DQing himself after a Rules Committee decision, though. That would be disrespectful to the Committee and therefore to the game.

I too am a Tiger fan, even thru all the bad times and am not colored by that in my opinion of the timing of his withdrawal.

Just a comment on Tiger's image. His personal life, because of his own foibles and fault, blew up in his face, but so did a pitching wedge.

Here's a rhetorical question for all Tiger haters. What would've happened if Tiger took a pitching wedge to his wife's face because she cheated on him rather than her whacking him like she did?

He's vilified for his (inexcusable, granted) behavior, but she's the ONLY victim here. Ask the plastic surgeon in Phoenix who helped reconstruct his face. Give me a break.

I was thinking more about the respect for the game and the people who played before him who may have DQed themselves for less than what Tiger did. I think he should have done it for that reason and that alone. Doing it because of how it would effect his image, is doing it for the wrong reasons, IMHO.

ALSO, SINCE I STARTED THIS THREAD AND DON'T WANT IT LOCKED CAN WE PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING THIS A THREAD ABOUT TIGER'S PERSONAL LIFE. THANK YOU

Here is the quote from my post:

"Given his admission yesterday, it would've been the honorable thing to do, which is what golf is supposed to be about. It also would have done wonders for his image and the game that has given him so much."

Not sure how one can misconstrue my words as to imply that he should have done it to rehab his image. I think that it is pretty clear that I said that the reason to withdraw before the Committee's decision was because it was "the honorable thing to do".

Helping his image would only be an attendant benefit to his doing the honorable thing, not a reason he should do it. I think that the word "also" in my quote is the word to key in on here. It's a subtlety, I know, but one I'm sure you're bright enough to pick up on.

[celticsleyte]

I think it has been handled properly.  No need to withdraw the rules have been enforced.  The former rules are irrelevent. 

[nickagneta]

I'm not a huge golf follower, but this isn't a big deal to me. He was appropriately penalized for the bad drop. Same thing would have happened to any other golfer. Should he have voluntarily withdrawn? No. This is pro sports, not a parlour game.

Its pro sports but its golf. A completely different game that has since its inception, had self government of the rules by the players. Signing a wrong scorecard was grounds for disqualification for over 100 years. Only television and some dolt calling in and getting a player disqualified changed that rule.

Tiger admitted to breaking the rule and he signed the wrong scorecard. The situation had nothing to do with a fan calling in and reporting the mistake. Therefore, in my opinion, new rule or not, I think Tiger probably should have withdrawn. Players have penalized themselves(withdrawing from a tourney, penalizing shots) for lesser infractions than Tiger.

But, being a game of self government and rules, the new rule allows for Tiger to change his card so he's doing everything within the rules. Still think he should have withdrawn though. And BTW, I am a huge Tiger fan, through the thick and thin so this isn't Tiger hating.

Nick, I agree with you that he should've withdrawn, but only before[/u} the Rules Committee made their decision, and I do think that he should've done that. Given his admission yesterday, it would've been the honorable thing to do, which is what golf is supposed to be about. It also would have done wonders for his image and the game that has given him so much.

I can't recall a player DQing himself after a Rules Committee decision, though. That would be disrespectful to the Committee and therefore to the game.

I too am a Tiger fan, even thru all the bad times and am not colored by that in my opinion of the timing of his withdrawal.

Just a comment on Tiger's image. His personal life, because of his own foibles and fault, blew up in his face, but so did a pitching wedge.

Here's a rhetorical question for all Tiger haters. What would've happened if Tiger took a pitching wedge to his wife's face because she cheated on him rather than her whacking him like she did?

He's vilified for his (inexcusable, granted) behavior, but she's the ONLY victim here. Ask the plastic surgeon in Phoenix who helped reconstruct his face. Give me a break.

I was thinking more about the respect for the game and the people who played before him who may have DQed themselves for less than what Tiger did. I think he should have done it for that reason and that alone. Doing it because of how it would effect his image, is doing it for the wrong reasons, IMHO.

ALSO, SINCE I STARTED THIS THREAD AND DON'T WANT IT LOCKED CAN WE PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING THIS A THREAD ABOUT TIGER'S PERSONAL LIFE. THANK YOU

Here is the quote from my post:

"Given his admission yesterday, it would've been the honorable thing to do, which is what golf is supposed to be about. It also would have done wonders for his image and the game that has given him so much."

Not sure how one can misconstrue my words as to imply that he should have done it to rehab his image. I think that it is pretty clear that I said that the reason to withdraw before the Committee's decision was because it was "the honorable thing to do".

Helping his image would only be an attendant benefit to his doing the honorable thing, not a reason he should do it. I think that the word "also" in my quote is the word to key in on here. It's a subtlety, I know, but one I'm sure you're bright enough to pick up on.

My apologies my friend, that last comment wasn't meant in the manner it was written. Now that I re-read the post I see where you get that.

What I meant was to agree with you regarding withdrawing for the respect of the game and then to say that I would hope that Tiger's decision had nothing to do with his image, not that you said he should do it for that reason. Probably should have started a new paragraph and explained a wee bit more. My bad. TP.

[nickagneta]

The former rules are irrelevent.

I disagree with this.

In the former rules, any player is gone from the game. With the new rules, if the player wants to try to take a little leeway and doesn't fess up to doing it, if caught, he's not gone from the tourney, he's got a stroke penalty.

Golf is about honor and your word. This ruling opens up the game to players thinking breaking the rules will at worst, cost you a stroke or three. In the past it was your chance to continue in the tourney. To me, it goes to the integrity of the game.

This is golf. You follow the rules and you are the only one policing the rules unless your group happens to be one where a course official is near.

To me, its apples and oranges because you don't have officials trying to prevent you from "cheating" and this rule hurts the integrity of the game almost leading to the "its time for officials to be with every grouping in a tourney" type thing which I think is awful.

Golf is about playing honorably not about playing to win at all costs, even if every other professional sport is about that.

Old fashioned opinion? Yeah maybe. But its the way I see it.

[KGs Knee]

The former rules are irrelevent.

I disagree with this.

In the former rules, any player is gone from the game. With the new rules, if the player wants to try to take a little leeway and doesn't fess up to doing it, if caught, he's not gone from the tourney, he's got a stroke penalty.

Golf is about honor and your word. This ruling opens up the game to players thinking breaking the rules will at worst, cost you a stroke or three. In the past it was your chance to continue in the tourney. To me, it goes to the integrity of the game.

This is golf. You follow the rules and you are the only one policing the rules unless your group happens to be one where a course official is near.

To me, its apples and oranges because you don't have officials trying to prevent you from "cheating" and this rule hurts the integrity of the game almost leading to the "its time for officials to be with every grouping in a tourney" type thing which I think is awful.

Golf is about playing honorably not about playing to win at all costs, even if every other professional sport is about that.

Old fashioned opinion? Yeah maybe. But its the way I see it.

I"m not sure I agree with the application of the rule used to allow Tiger what basically amounted to a get out free jail card, but he had to respect their decision.

Mainly, the officials didn't want to set precedent their new rule wouldn't have teeth.  I don't really like the idea of people calling in watching on tv, raising rule issues.  Just doesn't sit well with me.

[saltlover]

The former rules are irrelevent.

I disagree with this.

In the former rules, any player is gone from the game. With the new rules, if the player wants to try to take a little leeway and doesn't fess up to doing it, if caught, he's not gone from the tourney, he's got a stroke penalty.

Golf is about honor and your word. This ruling opens up the game to players thinking breaking the rules will at worst, cost you a stroke or three. In the past it was your chance to continue in the tourney. To me, it goes to the integrity of the game.

This is golf. You follow the rules and you are the only one policing the rules unless your group happens to be one where a course official is near.

To me, its apples and oranges because you don't have officials trying to prevent you from "cheating" and this rule hurts the integrity of the game almost leading to the "its time for officials to be with every grouping in a tourney" type thing which I think is awful.

Golf is about playing honorably not about playing to win at all costs, even if every other professional sport is about that.

Old fashioned opinion? Yeah maybe. But its the way I see it.

But why shouldn't there be a rules official in every group?  There were in some groups on Friday, which is how that 14 year-old got penalized for slow play.  Seems unfair that other players, who did not have a rules official, might have done the same, rather innocuous, thing, with no penalty at all.  Likewise, some players had rules officials nearby to confirm they were dropping it in the correct place, or entitled to a drop at all (in the case of obstructions) while others didn't.  I've seen Tiger and a host of other players consult with officials while making a drop, because the rules of golf are confusing, and sometimes open to some interpretation.  Tiger may "know the rules", but knowing them and thinking about how they apply when you're focused on recovering from having just hit it into the water in a major are two different things.

I'm also glad that Tiger didn't WD (which, also, would have made him ineligible for various postseason awards), and that the new rule was applied somewhat loosely, in a major, with Tiger.  It's bothered me for years that players get DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard because someone called in a possible violation at the end of or after the player's round.  Now that it's been used on Tiger, other players will be sure to get the benefit to nip the Tiger got special treatment argument in the bud.  And if Tiger has withdrawn, then every other player would be under the same pressure to withdraw for time immemorium, and the what's the point.

Also, as a Tiger fan, I hope he comes one shot short of winning, so that the two stroke penalty will have had a major effect, and we can drop the talk of whether he should have continued.  If he wins, it won't go away, which would be unfortunate.

[Finkelskyhook]

What would the penalty have been if a golfer intentionally chose to shoot from that spot?  Do the rules call for a specific penalty?

He would have received the same two shot penalty.  The ruling was correct and fair.

Okay.  Then yeah, sounds good to me.  If they wanted to tack on a stroke for signing an incorrect scorecard, I think that would have been fine, too.  Disqualification seems draconian.

I agree. with this.