so that bad bounce cost him 4 shots
-
-
chamblee should shut up about it
talking about morals for tiger, we don't care about morals
bad enough we don't get to see kobe in the playoffs, at least let us see tiger at the masters a couple more daysComment -
I wonder if the books will grade L. Donald winner of the 2nd round matchups against Tiger?Comment -
Mike with the breaking newsComment -
No penalty or DQ. No 2 shot penalty.Comment -
confirmed by golf channel 2 shot penalty no dq
Tiger now 1 underComment -
Golf rules are a joke now. 2 shot penalty.Comment -
Bend the rules for Eldrick. Unreal!Comment -
Thanks headline news.
Comment -
Yes it should have been a two-shot penalty, but how is he not DQed? If there is a rule that allows for "unknowingly" signing an incorrect scorecard because of a scoring change after the round was completed, then fine. If not, Tiger is not above the rules.Comment -
they changed rule last season so players would NOT be DQ'd for this exact thing...at least thats what i heard on golf channel LOLComment -
I can't stomach Woods but he didn't get any favors here.They created this exemption last year for this exact reason.Comment -
Tiger +600. Thinking he shoots -5 todayComment -
33-7/4.5
Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified
Q.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?
A.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.
For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would be justified in waiving the disqualification penalty:
- A competitor makes a short chip from the greenside rough. At the time, he and his fellow-competitors have no reason to suspect that the competitor has double-hit his ball in breach of Rule 14-4. After the competitor has signed and returned his score card, a close-up, super-slow-motion video replay reveals that the competitor struck his ball twice during the course of the stroke. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the one-stroke penalty under Rule 14-4 to the competitor's score at the hole in question.
- After a competitor has signed and returned his score card, it becomes known, through the use of a high-definition video replay, that the competitor unknowingly touched a few grains of sand with his club at the top of his backswing on a wall of the bunker. The touching of the sand was so light that, at the time, it was reasonable for the competitor to have been unaware that he had breached Rule 13-4. It would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the two-stroke penalty to the competitor's score at the hole in question.
- A competitor moves his ball on the putting green with his finger in the act of removing his ball-marker. The competitor sees the ball move slightly forward but is certain that it has returned to the original spot, and he plays the ball as it lies. After the competitor signs and returns his score card, video footage is brought to the attention of the Committee that reveals that the ball did not precisely return to its original spot. When questioned by the Committee, the competitor cites the fact that the position of the logo on the ball appeared to be in exactly the same position as it was when he replaced the ball and this was the reason for him believing that the ball returned to the original spot. As it was reasonable in these circumstances for the competitor to have no doubt that the ball had returned to the original spot, and because the competitor could not himself have reasonably discovered otherwise prior to signing and returning his score card, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty. The two-stroke penalty under Rule 20-3a for playing from a wrong place would, however, be applied to the competitor's score at the hole in question.
A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the competitor's failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the competitor could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.
For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:
- As a competitor's ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the competitor fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the competitor was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.
- A competitor's ball lies in a water hazard. In making his backswing for the stroke, the competitor is aware that his club touched a branch in the hazard. Not realising at the time that the branch was detached, the competitor did not include the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4 in his score for the hole. As the competitor could have reasonably determined the status of the branch prior to signing and returning his score card, the competitor should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4. (Revised)
Comment -
looks like should have been dq.Comment -
Some speculation on Masters Radio that Woods is considering DQing himself. This is going to be a big story all day long.Comment -
I admit I'm a Tiger hater, but if he DQ'd himself I would become a fan. Part of my hate for tiger is he's an asshole that treats others like he's better than everyone else. Just ask Greg Norman (his neighbor in Florida). If Tiger DQs himself, I will have a new found respect for the guy and would not hate on him again.Comment -
There's 0 reason he should DQ himself. He broke the rules and is suffering with a 2 shot penalty as he should under the current rules of golf.
To say he should DQ himself is to say it would be honorable for a player to DQ himself after hitting a shot OB, even though the rules say he can just take stroke and distance.....
Just 0 reason for it to happen.Comment -
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.
A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the competitor's failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the competitor could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.
Comment -
The shyt is simple....if he didn't know the rule..2 shot penalty and keep playingComment -
no way should he dq himself
i don't see lebron calling traveling on himself
people thinking it's "doing the right thing" are chumps, just like the chumps that give $500,000 home run baseballs back to the player in exchange for some ticketsComment -
no u dont...Comment -
Your Golf Game Reveals Your Personality
Tiger cheats on his wife so of course he cheats on the golf course. Would have won more fans if he drops out. Now that he's 5 back good chance he will lose. Also good chance that in the back of his mind he knows he should drop out which will mess with his mind which will make him play like crap. Just like after his other cheating scandal.
Comment -
I hope he be a boss and play!!!Comment -
Have any of you ever played in a golf tournament?
If the drop area isn't fit, you drop the ball from your original spot..
Now follow me here, NEVER does a player drop it exactly where they hit it from because there is a divet.
It is a petty rule because it is broken everytime.
Truthfully, if he doesn't do an interview saying he moved it two feet back no penalty would have occurred.
I don't like Woods, but it is impossible to hit it from exact area.. That two feet shouldn't cost him two stroke nor a dq.
The rule is tainted.Comment -
no one can confirm if this means he shot a 71 or 73 yesterday?Comment -
So rules officials said his drop was ok so that's why there's no DQ. In that case why should there be any penalty?Comment -
Big Deem you are right Re: the interview
"Kelly Tilghman <s>@</s>KellyTilghmanGC <small class="time"> 4m </small> Tournament committee reviewed video of Tiger while he was on 18. Thought no issue. Tiger's interview prompted further review"Comment
