OT: that viewer who dimed Tiger out in the Masters was....

[Blakeon18]

not just any dude. According to USAToday it was David Eger...a senior tour player...he also used to be a Big Cheese in the USGA. He was instrumental in getting the U.S. Women's Open to come to The Orchards in South Hadley, Ma. in 2004. His wife is a graduate of Mt. Holyoke [same town] and he had played the course oft times during reunions.

I hear an occasional rumor froma couple of the members up there that they wouldn't mind being the host of the Open again...or of the U.S. Amateur [women]. The pros loved it in 2004. USGA...get it done!

 

[pinotbear]

Along with a few family members, I went to that Open - The Orchards folks did a good job, I thought. If I recall, Meg Mallon won? I remember following Annika a bit, and a young Michelle Wie.

Not to re-ignite the Tiger debate, but he was clearly in the wrong. The rule says to recreate, as closely as possible, your original lie, and Tiger admitted to deliberately moving the lie a couple of yards to improve his shot. Obviously, he thought that there was a degree of latitude in this situation, but, there isn't.

 

[Blakeon18]

I went to that Open on a couple of days. Mallon did win....10 under I think. I also saw a bit of Annika and a 13 year old Michelle.
A few weeks prior to the Open there were some rumors that the course was not near Open standards in terms of conditions and there was some talk [probably not realistic] that the USGA was going to transfer the Open to a course near Boston. Area courses lent The Orchards many, many workers....add some good weather...and it turned out fine....maybe the rough wasn't quite as rough as they would wish. If they had rolled the greens a bit more often the scores would have beena bit higher....imo.

I hope they have kept the conditions up after mucho bucks were spent getting it in fine shape. I have had the good fortune to play it many times way back when....it was fascinating to see the best women in the world play the same holes I did.

In the late 1980's they held the USGA Jr. Girls there...Michelle McGann won that event.

 

[Biff]

I went to that Open on a couple of days. Mallon did win....10 under I think. I also saw a bit of Annika and a 13 year old Michelle.
A few weeks prior to the Open there were some rumors that the course was not near Open standards in terms of conditions and there was some talk [probably not realistic] that the USGA was going to transfer the Open to a course near Boston. Area courses lent The Orchards many, many workers....add some good weather...and it turned out fine....maybe the rough wasn't quite as rough as they would wish. If they had rolled the greens a bit more often the scores would have beena bit higher....imo.

I hope they have kept the conditions up after mucho bucks were spent getting it in fine shape. I have had the good fortune to play it many times way back when....it was fascinating to see the best women in the world play the same holes I did.

In the late 1980's they held the USGA Jr. Girls there...Michelle McGann won that event.

I played the course a couple of months before the Open. There was lots of "construction at the time. Re-building tees and building new tees mostly that I remember. The fairways were nice but "thin". The greens were not in top flight condition by a mile. Lots of brown areas very, very thin on grass. I really wondered how they were going to get the greens up to snuff. Clearly they did do a bit of growing and rolling but what appeared to me was their final "technique" was green tint. I was convinced from my view at the open (which wasn't from all that close of course) was that they had tinted the greens so that they at least looked the part.

Other highlight players(besides Wie and Julie Inkster) I saw and followed for a while at that open were a young Paula Creamer (15 ish at the time?) and a younger Brittany Lincicome. I recall that they had Brit featured on one of the the post round pressers because she Eagled 15? I think. A downhill dogleg right hole. She put her drive behind a tree on the left by driving through the dogleg and then punched out low from under the tree a 150 yard bounder that found the hole.

 

[Blakeon18]

Biff...it was #15 for that eagle.

BTW: I think Michelle finished around T15. It is somewhat stunning that if she finished in that spot in a tournament nowadays it would be regarded as 'encouraging'. Her play in 2011, 2012 and so far this year has been mediocre by tour standards.

 

[UcMiami]

Interesting - Clearly the powers at Augusta felt he recreated the lie within the range of latitude originally and would have left it at that. And clearly Tiger forgot both at the time and in his later interview the exact requirements of the rule.
What I find really interesting is that if tiger had been 2 inches LESS accurate on the original shot he would have been 4 shots closer to the lead and much more threatening on Sunday. Nothing like being in trouble for being too perfect.

 

[vtcwbuff]

Did he hit the pin on the fly? If he did, it was not a good shot.

I remember Michelle McGann. She was one of my wife's favorite LPGA players. It may have been the hats. Its too bad that her successful career was cut short by illness.

 

[Alydar]

Not to re-ignite the Tiger debate, but he was clearly in the wrong. The rule says to recreate, as closely as possible, your original lie, and Tiger admitted to deliberately moving the lie a couple of yards to improve his shot. Obviously, he thought that there was a degree of latitude in this situation, but, there isn't.

Actually the rule says nothing about recreating the original lie. That is used when one ball interferes with another ball being struck and involves a free lift and allows for replacing any divot or raking sand and placing the ball on it's original spot. In the case of Tiger, the ball is, in all of his options except playing it out of the hazard, dropped and can roll several feet and still be "in play". In the option he used the drop should be at the spot of the original shot but in no way is there a requirement to recreate the original lie.

 

[cohenzone]

Still nuts to allow viewer call in to cause a review. I don't care who did the calling. Really, the presence of a TV camera shouldn't be a part of the game. What if some other golfer had done exactly the same thing in the same tournament when there was no camera covering the shot? What if Magic Johnson calls in to the NBA finals and says you guys totally missed the jersey grab on the last shot. Grabbing the shooter's jersey is against the rules, so please review the play.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Still nuts to allow viewer call in to cause a review. I don't care who did the calling. Really, the presence of a TV camera shouldn't be a part of the game. What if some other golfer had done exactly the same thing in the same tournament when there was no camera covering the shot? What if Magic Johnson calls in to the NBA finals and says you guys totally missed the jersey grab on the last shot. Grabbing the shooter's jersey is against the rules, so please review the play.

good points, but of course... its Tiger

 

[Purduke]

good points, but of course... its Tiger

Not a golfer so I don't know the rules. What I thought unfair though is to have a panel where he turns his card in and they review and accept. It seems to me that if they had any remaining question regarding the challenge, they should have asked him there for his explanation. Waiting for input during a subsequent interview, and then saying "Ohh, his explanation is different than we assumed it would be" seems weak. If it wasn't Tiger he doesn't get asked for the interview and it's still in the books as no offense?

Not a fan of how a premier institution handled what should be an anticipatable event.

 

[cohenzone]

Not a golfer so I don't know the rules. What I thought unfair though is to have a panel where he turns his card in and they review and accept. It seems to me that if they had any remaining question regarding the challenge, they should have asked him there for his explanation. Waiting for input during a subsequent interview, and then saying "Ohh, his explanation is different than we assumed it would be" seems weak. If it wasn't Tiger he doesn't get asked for the interview and it's still in the books as no offense?

Not a fan of how a premier institution handled what should be an anticipatable event.

I think altogether TV raises a bunch of sports issues. Allowing a viewer to cause a review is one thing that should never be allowed. The other thing is, that not every college basketball or football game is televised, even at the D1 level, and certainly not for women's basketball at even the highest D1 level. While I'm not against video replays, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe the non-TV games use closed circuit TV just so they can do replays. If I'm right about that, there are a bunch of games every year where circumstances that cause a replay review to be used in a TV game, don't happen in the non-TV games. The problem with that is that all the teams are thrown into the same pot for tournament selection and bowl selections, and one victory or loss here or there is the difference between being on the outside looking in or joining the party.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Not a golfer so I don't know the rules. What I thought unfair though is to have a panel where he turns his card in and they review and accept. It seems to me that if they had any remaining question regarding the challenge, they should have asked him there for his explanation. Waiting for input during a subsequent interview, and then saying "Ohh, his explanation is different than we assumed it would be" seems weak. If it wasn't Tiger he doesn't get asked for the interview and it's still in the books as no offense?

Not a fan of how a premier institution handled what should be an anticipatable event.

true... and welcome to the board

 

[Alydar]

Golf is the only sport I know in which the players virtually officiate themselves. In baseball, basketball and football, players are taught to cheat. Defensive backs are taught how to grab and hold a receiver so the refs don't see it. Basketball players are taught to flop, faking a foul. Baseball catchers pull the ball into the strike zone and infielders execute phantom tags on sliding baserunners.
I'm not suggesting that there are no cheaters in golf but I'd be interested to hear about football players going up to a ref and saying they didn't really catch the ball or that they held the charging defensive lineman. That sort of thing goes on all the time in golf.
In Tiger's case his caddy needed to know the rule. In a normal situation where a player hits a ball into a water hazard he drops straight back from the spot where the ball crossed the boundary of the water and can go as far back on a line as he wants, which is what Tiger did. But in this case, because the ball re-entered the water after crossing the entire pond the spot was much farther to Tiger's left. It was a weird situation. Tiger was under intense pressure when that happened and his caddy should have been more alert.

 

[cohenzone]

Golf is the only sport I know in which the players virtually officiate themselves. In baseball, basketball and football, players are taught to cheat. Defensive backs are taught how to grab and hold a receiver so the refs don't see it. Basketball players are taught to flop, faking a foul. Baseball catchers pull the ball into the strike zone and infielders execute phantom tags on sliding baserunners.
I'm not suggesting that there are no cheaters in golf but I'd be interested to hear about football players going up to a ref and saying they didn't really catch the ball or that they held the charging defensive lineman. That sort of thing goes on all the time in golf.
In Tiger's case his caddy needed to know the rule. In a normal situation where a player hits a ball into a water hazard he drops straight back from the spot where the ball crossed the boundary of the water and can go as far back on a line as he wants, which is what Tiger did. But in this case, because the ball re-entered the water after crossing the entire pond the spot was much farther to Tiger's left. It was a weird situation. Tiger was under intense pressure when that happened and his caddy should have been more alert.

I don't think there is a major issue with whether or not Tiger violated a rule. Just the way it was discovered. Lots of armchair officials sitting by the phone. How many shots out of the whatever number of thousands taken during a tournament are actually televised? It's the leaders, at least on the last 2 days who are more exposed to the camera than anyone else.

 

[UcMiami]

Did he hit the pin on the fly? If he did, it was not a good shot.

I remember Michelle McGann. She was one of my wife's favorite LPGA players. It may have been the hats. Its too bad that her successful career was cut short by illness.

Yes - it hit on the fly about a foot above the ground. Tigers next shot hit within a few feet of where the first would have hit and with the spin stopped maybe eight feet past the hole - so he would likely have been within ten feet of the hole on the same line - a not difficult putt.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Along with a few family members, I went to that Open - The Orchards folks did a good job, I thought. If I recall, Meg Mallon won? I remember following Annika a bit, and a young Michelle Wie.

Not to re-ignite the Tiger debate, but he was clearly in the wrong. The rule says to recreate, as closely as possible, your original lie, and Tiger admitted to deliberately moving the lie a couple of yards to improve his shot. Obviously, he thought that there was a degree of latitude in this situation, but, there isn't.

Thanks for the to the point bingo. Tiger deliberately improved the lie for his shot and that meant disqualification. Only the PGA's bizzare bungling saved him from being DQed. Tiger, as the media darling, got a pass from them, when they made the caller the villain.

 

[UcMiami]

Thanks for the to the point bingo. Tiger deliberately improved the lie for his shot and that meant disqualification. Only the PGA's bizzare bungling saved him from being DQed. Tiger, as the media darling, got a pass from them, when they made the caller the villain.

It would only disqualify him if he signed his score sheet without assigning a penalty for the rule violation. The problem was that the rules committed reviewed the situation and determined there was no violation prior to him signing. They then changed their mind 5 hours later. Interestingly if the guy had not dropped the dime, the rules committee would not have reviewed the situation, tiger would have signed an invalid card, given his interview, and at that point someone would have called or a rules committee member would have heard the interview and Tiger would have been disqualified. It is the very fact that the committee ruled between the time of violation and the time of signature incorrectly that changed tigers action for a DQ one into a total mess for the committee. If in the pre-signature meeting they determined a violation had occurred they would have advised Tiger of that fact and he would have assigned the penalty and signed a correct card.

 

[Biff]

It would only disqualify him if he signed his score sheet without assigning a penalty for the rule violation. The problem was that the rules committed reviewed the situation and determined there was no violation prior to him signing. They then changed their mind 5 hours later. Interestingly if the guy had not dropped the dime, the rules committee would not have reviewed the situation, tiger would have signed an invalid card, given his interview, and at that point someone would have called or a rules committee member would have heard the interview and Tiger would have been disqualified. It is the very fact that the committee ruled between the time of violation and the time of signature incorrectly that changed tigers action for a DQ one into a total mess for the committee. If in the pre-signature meeting they determined a violation had occurred they would have advised Tiger of that fact and he would have assigned the penalty and signed a correct card.

Bingo. Glad someone gets the root issue.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

It would only disqualify him if he signed his score sheet without assigning a penalty for the rule violation. The problem was that the rules committed reviewed the situation and determined there was no violation prior to him signing. They then changed their mind 5 hours later. Interestingly if the guy had not dropped the dime, the rules committee would not have reviewed the situation, tiger would have signed an invalid card, given his interview, and at that point someone would have called or a rules committee member would have heard the interview and Tiger would have been disqualified. It is the very fact that the committee ruled between the time of violation and the time of signature incorrectly that changed tigers action for a DQ one into a total mess for the committee. If in the pre-signature meeting they determined a violation had occurred they would have advised Tiger of that fact and he would have assigned the penalty and signed a correct card.

That is correct, but incomplete. To be complete, and what makes this a bigger incident, is that the rule he violated is basic and was completely know to Tiger when he knowingly violated it. I am a fan of his comeback, but that hubris filled, dumb moment is a sad event in the story of Tiger.

 

[UcMiami]

That is correct, but incomplete. To be complete, and what makes this a bigger incident, is that the rule he violated is basic and was completely know to Tiger when he knowingly violated it. I am a fan of his comeback, but that hubris filled, dumb moment is a sad event in the story of Tiger.

I guess you definitely are not a fan of Tiger - but you can't have it both ways. If Tiger knew the rule and blatantly disregarded it, then he would not have admitted to doing so in a televised post round interview. It was clear that he had no inkling of any violation until an early morning phone call.
And calling it a 'basic rule' is meaningless - the rule book is quite thick and situations are often covered by multiple rules and multiple options for play. Pro golfers frequently consult rules officials during rounds to get specific guidance because 'basic rules' are still not easy to interpret. And they are not infrequently DQed after the fact for infringements that they had no idea they had committed. And the rules were just amended to provide a little leeway for the officials in such instances. Interestingly, this change was not involved in this instance again because it was the committee that had made an error. The golfer had broken a rule, the committee had acted incompetently. It would have been the same situation if a golfer had asked for a ruling before playing a shot, complied with the ruling given, and later been told that the ruling he received was in error. That Tiger wasn't personally involved in the process does not alter that fact.

 

[ThisJustIn]

I don't think there is a major issue with whether or not Tiger violated a rule. Just the way it was discovered. Lots of armchair officials sitting by the phone. How many shots out of the whatever number of thousands taken during a tournament are actually televised? It's the leaders, at least on the last 2 days who are more exposed to the camera than anyone else.

I know. How awful would basketball be if people watching on television thought of themselves as armchair officials?

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I guess you definitely are not a fan of Tiger - but you can't have it both ways. If Tiger knew the rule and blatantly disregarded it, then he would not have admitted to doing so in a televised post round interview. It was clear that he had no inkling of any violation until an early morning phone call.
And calling it a 'basic rule' is meaningless - the rule book is quite thick and situations are often covered by multiple rules and multiple options for play. Pro golfers frequently consult rules officials during rounds to get specific guidance because 'basic rules' are still not easy to interpret. And they are not infrequently DQed after the fact for infringements that they had no idea they had committed. And the rules were just amended to provide a little leeway for the officials in such instances. Interestingly, this change was not involved in this instance again because it was the committee that had made an error. The golfer had broken a rule, the committee had acted incompetently. It would have been the same situation if a golfer had asked for a ruling before playing a shot, complied with the ruling given, and later been told that the ruling he received was in error. That Tiger wasn't personally involved in the process does not alter that fact.

I am a Tiger fan. And I can have it both ways. Because I am a fan does not mean I am going to ignore what he did. It is a very basic rule that you cannot move away from the spot of the last shot before your drop UNLESS unusual conditions may make the drop unplayable, and in that event you should be asking for guidance on course. There were no unusual conditions. As Tiger said, he moved away to make his shot distance more advantageous - you cannot even say that without knowing something is wrong with that picture. It is befuddling how Tiger could go through that thought process on the course and not know he was doing something against the rules. That is disappointing. It was overshadowed by the three stooges antics of the committee. The whole thing is unfortunate and I believe it lingered and affected Tiger's game on Sunday.

 

[VAMike23]

Did he hit the pin on the fly? If he did, it was not a good shot.

The simple fact of hitting the pin doesn't tell you enough.

In this case it was actually a good shot that would have ended up quite close IMO.