Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The Masters

TruCatzFan

By TruCatzFan,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Happy Panther Grand Master

Happy Panther

Posted
Posted

People seem to be getting outraged over this which is surprising.

Whether you agree or disagree with the ruling, it was done within the letter of the law. The 2 stroke penalty basically took him out of contention.

The penalty could have ramifications down the road. What if he gets within two strokes of the lead. What if he gets to 17 majors?

I'm guessing this will be a watershed event in golf.

Or I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob NC Rookie

Bob NC

Posted
Posted

TV viewers have cost players tournaments in the past- Camillo Villegas was DQ'd as a result of a phone call in 2011.

In the case of the latest-this Tiger thing- had a caller not made the call, he would have been DQ'd for signing an incorrect score card. Only by virtue of that call did rules officials begin looking at the incident.

It's not a question of Tiger-hating as much as it is changing the rules of the game to accommodate the almighty TV dollar. Football and NCAA basketball timeouts are governed by TV. Masters tournament has their own rules committee and does not have the USGA or the PGA rules committees involved. Therefore, they feel they can change the rules of golf to suit their tournament, which benefits their TV ratings and their profitability.

The relatively new change in the rules is BECAUSE of the situation with Villegas, and various other situations where players have been DQ'd dating all the way back to Roberto De Vicenzo signing an incorrect scorecard in the 1968 Masters.

The powers that be instituted rule 33-7 to give an alternative to an automatic DQ. With Roberto, he hit the shots necessary to win the Masters with his golf clubs but he got the death penalty because of a mistake he made with his pencil.

There have been many instances of DQ in the past that almost everyone would look at as too harsh a penalty for the violation.

In 2011 the rules committee finally realized this and took some action, instituting Rule 33-7.

The only problem here is all the talking heads on TV that haven't swung a competitive club in years can't go along with progress and realize the rule has changed.

Tiger should have been DQ'd or should withdraw ONLY if we apply the pre 2011 rules.

We, however, are now operating under the current Rules of Golf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anybodyhome Grand Master

Anybodyhome

Posted
Posted

People seem to be getting outraged over this which is surprising.

Whether you agree or disagree with the ruling, it was done within the letter of the law. The 2 stroke penalty basically took him out of contention.

The penalty could have ramifications down the road. What if he gets within two strokes of the lead. What if he gets to 17 majors?

I'm guessing this will be a watershed event in golf.

Or I could be wrong.

Whether or not anyone agrees with the ruling, saying it was "within the letter of the law" is not entirely the case. In penalizing the 14-year old Chinese amateur for slow play on Friday and then a rules official saying, "In keeping with the applicable rules..." gives the doubters every reason to be a little more than suspicious.

You see, the "applicable rules" also state that Tiger Woods signed an incorrect scorecard, which is penalized by DQ. In this case, though, the Master Rules committee (not the USGA, not the PGA, not the R&A) has a rule that allows them to change the rules of the game for the benefit of TV. So, although the "letter of the law" says one thing, there is apparently the catch-all, one-time, get-out-of-jail free card- the almighty TV rule.

Does no one else find it curious that this relatively unknown "rule" put in place in 2012 has never been used until Friday?

*1991 Doral Ryder: Azinger DQ'd for signing incorrect scorecard after the final round.

*1987 San Diego Open: Stadler DQ'd for "building a stance" by putting a towel under his knee to hit a shot from the mud behind a tree. He didn't want to get his pants dirty. (TV viewer ratted him out)

*2010 PGA Championship: Dustin Johnson DQ'd for grounding his club in a hazard (TV viewer ratted him out)

*1996 Bay Hill: Jeff Sluman DQ'd for doing the exact same thing Tiger did Friday- hit a ball into the water and didn't replay from the same spot. He was 2 shots back...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob NC Rookie

Bob NC

Posted
Posted

Does no one else find it curious that this relatively unknown "rule" put in place in 2012 has never been used until Friday?

*1991 Doral Ryder: Azinger DQ'd for signing incorrect scorecard after the final round.

*1987 San Diego Open: Stadler DQ'd for "building a stance" by putting a towel under his knee to hit a shot from the mud behind a tree. He didn't want to get his pants dirty. (TV viewer ratted him out)

*2010 PGA Championship: Dustin Johnson DQ'd for grounding his club in a hazard (TV viewer ratted him out)

*1996 Bay Hill: Jeff Sluman DQ'd for doing the exact same thing Tiger did Friday- hit a ball into the water and didn't replay from the same spot. He was 2 shots back...

Let me type this slower this time. The rule has changed SINCE all the instances you mention above.

All the situations you mention above are the REASONS the rule has changed.

One more time: There is a new rule, 33-7 which gives leeway to the application of a DQ.

You can like the rule change, you can not like the rule change. You, though, just seem to ignore the rule change.

Now, get your ball off my lawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob NC Rookie

Bob NC

Posted
Posted

You see, the "applicable rules" also state that Tiger Woods signed an incorrect scorecard, which is penalized by DQ. In this case, though, the Master Rules committee (not the USGA, not the PGA, not the R&A) has a rule that allows them to change the rules of the game for the benefit of TV. So, although the "letter of the law" says one thing, there is apparently the catch-all, one-time, get-out-of-jail free card- the almighty TV rule.

You are taking the term "TV Rule", to mean that the individual tournament committees can change the rules of the game to increase tv RATINGS.

It is called the "TV Rule", because golf seems to be the singular sport where people can call from home during a tournament and report player infractions. The governing bodies didn't think it fair that a player could unknowingly violate a rule, turn in their scorecard, and then AFTERWARDS be subject to a late call from a viewer watching tv at home in his Lay Z Boy.

If the player knew before signing his scorecard that he was subject to a penalty, he would take the penalty and not be subject to turning in an incorrect scorecard.

Most people would think DQing someone for signing an incorrect scorecard when they didn't even KNOW it was incorrect is a very harsh penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • strato
      Hey You, You Don't Know Quarterbacking

      By strato · Posted

      Yeah and I am doubtful he can offer that consistently. I don’t have many years left at my age and in my view we have wasted two and this whole exercise with him was always a three year minimum.  I am out on that with a guy I don’t believe in, and never believed in, it has sucked. To me it is a costly detour off the right track. Years.    But I am not so rigid that I can’t see excellence. He needs to display it though, consistently before I change my outlook.  
    • fieryprophet
      Hey You, You Don't Know Quarterbacking

      By fieryprophet · Posted

      No, when I said rage, I meant rage, which only applies to certain fans on this board. Your timeline of trying to assess whether he is the future or not is really tied to the discussions surrounding his second contract. If this team is going to commit to some monster contract while he has shown nothing but glimpses of brilliance would be deservedly worrisome, so the clock is genuinely ticking for him to settle into something resembling his final form. Perhaps a best case scenario is that he plays well, the team succeeds, but he does so with a more limited role that makes the rest of the league view him as a game manager, and his second contract value reflects that. Then he continues to improve and becomes a bargain comparatively while not handicapping the team around him, and we enter an era of consistent championship competitiveness that the fanbase has craved for decades and has never really experienced before. But that requires many, many things to go right and for Bryce himself to facilitate that if he ends up being the quarterback of the future.
    • strato
      Bryce's Achilles Heel Is Not What You Think It Is

      By strato · Posted

      Exactly. And the flame throwers as well, get location benefits from not going all out. But they have it in reserve.  Not sure how much Greg had but he was an artist.  There was a YouTube I came across last year or maybe even 2023 and I don’t how to even find now but it had two NFL QBs I want say one was Carr from the Raiders but I don’t really remember  The point of it is they stood side by side throwing identical distances to identical targets. Radar gun was used.  They threw the normal effort (not all out) and it was measured etc. Then they were asked to throw their ‘fastball’. They were missing and most often they were missing high. It demonstrated the same principle.    edit: and applying that to arm strength, give me the guy that doesn’t need max effort to have good velocity. The margins are so narrow with less velocity in tne NFL the defenders can Close on it and this is a league where they value down to the 100th of a second level. It is that tight 
×
×
  • Create New...