Frank,
I read your putting tip this week and would like to join you in congratulating Adam Scott – a great champion.
The Masters was filled with excitement but I want your “Frank” take on the Tiger penalty.
Thanks for your weekly tips and comments. I look forward to your opinion on various issues.
Norm
Florida
Norm,
First, I would like to thank you for your comments about our weekly communications with our Frankly Friends.
Second, YES, we do have a worthy and real super-star in Adam. I believe he will continue to represent the game well into the future. I am sure he will be able to adapt to a shorter putter if anchoring is banned but I found the design of his putter head very interesting.
To this end, we not only congratulate Adam but also congratulate Scotty Cameron of Titleist for recognizing the innovations developed ten years ago by Frankly Golf for its Frankly Frog putters.
Regarding the Tiger penalty; I believe it was an opportunity lost.
Rule 6-6b requires that the competitor sign the card after settling any doubtful point with the Committee, and Rule 6-6d states that if he returns a score for any hole lower than actually taken, he is disqualified.
However, “Rule 33-7 Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion” states in part that a penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.
This potential waiving of the disqualification penalty by the Committee gives the competitor a second chance, relieving him of the obligation to disqualify himself when he knows the rule has been broken. This is a fracturing of the very foundation of our game. Yes, there may be extenuating circumstances, but in most cases there is no excuse for not knowing the rules and calling the penalty on oneself. “There is only one way to play the game” as Bobby Jones stated at the 1925 U.S. Open
If Tiger had disqualified himself –as harsh as it might have seemed – in the long run he would have benefitted more than winning another Masters at this time.
I hope this is Frank enough.
Let us know what you think.
Frank
franklygolf 
Well said. There should have been no reason for Tiger not to have been DQ’d or to have DQ’d himself.. I have never questioned his Integrity but I now do.
Subject: FW: John Morrissett’s take on Tiger Ruling from Facebook – probably the best summary so far
John Morrissett clearly describes Tiger’s ruling at Augusta.
As much confusion still seems to surround the recent ruling at The Masters involving Tiger Woods, John Morrissett (Competitions Director at Erin Hills and former Director, Rules of Golf for the USGA) offers the following in hopes of clarifying what, once the key facts are determined, is a much simpler ruling than was initially thought.
First, the facts: On the 15th hole in the second round, Tiger’s third shot struck the flagstick and came back into the water hazard (yellow stakes and lines) fronting the green. He elected to use the stroke-and-distance option under the water hazard Rule (Rule 26-1a). That option required him to drop a ball as near as possible to where he just played from, but Tiger dropped a ball approximately 2 1/2 feet away, a distance that does not meet the “as near as possible” requirement. He then played the ball onto the green and holed the putt, believing he had scored 6 for the hole. A former Rules official, watching the telecast at home, called to report a possible breach. While Tiger was still playing (and that is the most important point of the entire incident), the Committee reviewed the video and, believing the results to be inconclusive, ruled there was no breach. The Committee did not tell Tiger of its ruling, and Tiger went on to return his score card for the second round, with a score of 6 for the 15th hole.
Following Tiger’s post-round comments to the media that he had dropped “two yards” from the spot of the previous stroke, the Committee wondered if it had made the correct decision. It consulted with Tiger Saturday morning and retroactively penalized him two strokes on the 15th hole (for playing from a wrong place – Rules 26-1a and 20-7c) but did not disqualify him for returning a score for that hole that was lower than he actually made (Rule 6-6d).
While this seems like a complicated set of facts, the ruling becomes straightforward when it is boiled down to its basic elements: On Friday the Committee made an incorrect ruling (of no penalty), and on Saturday the Committee corrected that incorrect ruling. The key is that, before Tiger returned his score card on Friday, the Committee had reviewed the incident on 15 and made the ruling of no breach. (Even though the Committee did not tell Tiger of this ruling, it was still a ruling.) On reflection, the Committee realized it made an incorrect ruling and corrected that ruling on Saturday (with ample authority and precedent to do so).
If the Committee had not become aware of the incident and had not made a ruling before Tiger returned his score card on Friday, then it would have been a straightforward disqualification. It is interesting to note, therefore, that the timely telephone call actually prevented Tiger from being disqualified.
It should be emphasized that Rule 33-7 has been part of the Rules of Golf for decades (at least 50 years). This Rule was invoked to waive the penalty of disqualification for the score card error because the score card error was a result of the Committee’s incorrect ruling during the second round. In other words, if the Committee had ruled correctly on Friday and had informed Tiger of the two-stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place before Tiger returned his score card, Tiger would have returned the correct score for that hole. Decision 34-3/1 provides authority for the Committee to correct its ruling by adjusting the previous round’s score.
Contrary to what some reported, Decision 33-7/4.5, which was significantly revised two years ago, played no role whatsoever in the Saturday ruling at Augusta National. That Decision shows sympathy for the player who breaches a Rule because he did not know, and could not have reasonably known, the facts that led to his breach. In Tiger’s case, he could have and should have easily known the facts of the case (i.e., that he dropped 2 1/2 feet away from where he was required to drop), so the principle of this Decision does not apply.
Consider the ramifications if the Committee had disqualified Tiger on Saturday. In that case, Tiger would have been justified in being furious at the Committee for failing to advise him of the issue before he returned his score card so that he could have avoided disqualification. Tiger made an error and was penalized two strokes; the Committee’s incorrect ruling should not have resulted in further penalty.
Mr. Wight,
I believe Mr. Morrisett’s opinion is incorrect. Very surprised that a former Director of Rules for the USGA would think a committee ruling would take precedent over the rules of golf. Please read Mr. Snyman’s post at 12:47 p.m. regarding Rule 33-7 and the limits placed on the rules committee.
This explanation sounds like one rules official protecting another. What baffled me about the explanation on Saturday is that the committee said there was no rules official on hole #15. Are you kidding me? That’s like playing the Super Bowl and telling the teams the officials will be on break for this set of downs. What I also don’t understand is how the Augusta officials originally decided no violation occured. Anyone watching that second shot could clearly see the ball was dropped well behind the first divot. I think Augusta officials looked at that replay and decided they couldn’t penalize the great Tiger Woods who at the time was battling for first place. What would CBS and viewers think? They would have gotten away with it, if Tiger hadn’t made his comments after the round. Then the committee had to invoke Rule 33 to get themselves out of the mess they had created. Someone should interview Jack Nicklaus and ask him how he would have handled it.
Hi Frank,
should Tiger have disqualified himself? In my opinion, Tiger acted within the bounds of the rules, and who knows what kind of pressure the number one player in the world was under, from sponsors, to TV moguls wanting top ratings, to the Masters committee themselves, wanting the best for their tournament. I am sure he had a very difficult decision, and was in a “no win” situation. Tiger has my sympathy.
What I think the issue really highlights is that the current set of “Rules of Golf” are a major issue and major problem. The best player in the world doesn’t even know all the rules because of their complexity.
The rules are so complex that PGA touring pros feel obligated to call in a rules official for the most minor of issues, else they face the risk of disqualification. Now because of Tiger’s error, this will just get worse, slowing play even more, and adding to viewer boredom.
At the amateur level, I have found that the rules tend to take the fun out of local and club tournaments. Every where you play, there is always at least one rules “expert” ready to pounce on unsuspecting competitors. Often the rules expert is assertive but wrong, but who knows the correct rule? The rules are so complex we even need a separate book of “Decisions” just to help clarify the rules. Should we all be carrying around a rules book and decision book in our golf bags just to make sure that we are doing everything correctly?
Enough said. In my opinion, the “Rules of Golf” need to be revised and GREATLY simplified so that guys like Tiger and myself can just go and play competitively, and still enjoy ourselves.
Don Gibbs
Abbotsford BC.
Nice article showing Tiger’s first shot and the second after the drop.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf–photos-show-tiger-woods-may-not-have-deserved-a-two-stroke-penalty-204353354.html
These pictures do not show a huge difference between position.
I am satisfied with the outcome.
I am now waiting for the hue and cry regarding Scott’s putter.
No other sport allows the inclusion of fans in the questioning or discernment of a rule or ruling. Can you imagine the chaos it would cause if the NBA, NFL, MLB or other professional sport would include fan’s opinions in the questioning or discernment of a rule or ruling? Why doesn’t the USGA, R&A and PGA stop taking calls, tweets, texts and emails from the fans?
I disagree with your view regarding whether Tiger should have disqualified himself. I agree that self-disqualification may have been the better PR move, however, such action was not required. I believe your disdain should be directed at the respective governing bodies’ decision to implement Rule 33-7.
Under Rule 33-7, waiver of disqualification is permissible. Such waiver having been agreed upon, Tiger was justified in continuing play. You seem to want to hold Tiger to the “pre-Rule 33-7” Rules. In my opinion, golfers don’t get to pick and choose which Rules they follow. Tiger acted in compliance with the Rules as currently promulgated. That should not be condemned, nor should Tiger be expected to adhere to a stricter standard than the Rules require. If you don’t like that, you should undertake action to try to get Rule 33-7 repealed.
Thank You !!!
Finally an honest opinion of the Tiger ruling. In my opinion, many in the media (both TV and print) are reluctant to express how they feel because they need access to Tiger. “An opportunity lost” indeed. Tiger’s response to the Masters Rules Committee should have been . . “thank you for your ruling but the Rules of Golf require that I disqualify myself”. What a wonderful statement that would have made to all of the young people that follow Tiger and are influenced by his actions.
TW has already shown he doesn’t care about his influence on kids. Look at his example of how to be a good and faithful husband !
Frank,
Can’t agree with you on this. The mistake was that Fred Ridley, former head of USGA and chair of the Augusta Competition Committee, didn’t approach Tiger BEFORE he signed his card. Remember, the Competition Committee was alerted long before Tiger signed his card. Tiger didn’t know there was a “doubtful point,” BUT Mr. Ridley did. Had he discussed the matter at the end of the round but before Tiger signed his card., Tiger would have been made aware of his error and accepted the penalty. And, then there would be no discussion about disqualification.
If someone needs to fall on a sword, it is Mr. Ridley, not Mr. Woods.
An open letter to the Masters Rules Committee.
From the Committee statement (on the Masters website) about the Woods fiasco in the 2013 Masters:
“The penalty of disqualification was waived by the Committee under Rule 33 as the Committee had previously reviewed the information and made its initial determination prior to the finish of the player’s round.”
Might I add:
… thus proving themselves gutless wonders not once but twice.
It was always a factual question whether the player had dropped in the correct place. The committee should in the first instance have asked the player before making any decision. They failed to do so. They then compounded their mistake by making another wrong decision. The Rules of Golf do not contemplate the ineptness of a committee, so any former decision has no bearing on a subsequent one.
Fact. The player dropped in a wrong place.
Fact. This incurred a penalty.
Fact. Ignorance of the rules is never an excuse in Golf.
Fact. The player signed for a wrong score.
Fact. Signing for a wrong score means disqualification.
Copied from Rule 33-7: “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 ignorance of the Rules …”.
The player should have been disqualified. Live with your conscience.
I somewhat agree. However, it is my opinion that a player should not be disqualified for signing an incorrect score card if the score card was believed to be correct at the time of signing.
Something else I would like to see changed is disallowing TV viewers from affecting rulings. Until every golfer has a camera on every single swing then the non-televised/scrutinized players are being given a competitive advantage.
Disagree Frank, the committee were looking into the matter due to phone call before Tiger finished the round and were unable to discuss the round with him prior to signing the card, forget the reason now, however were satisfied with the talk they had with him after all phone calls, two, were taken into consideration. i am not a tiger fan and believe the committee did the right thing. tiger has a lot of enemies out there, Brandel chamblee and Greg norman for starters.
The very wealthy Tiger received a mere $352,000 for his 4th place tie.
In the long run, I bet he wishes he could go back and disqualify himself, because his peers are looking at him as someone who should have disqualified himself even after the “favorable” ruling of a two shot penalty was given for a bad drop.
If I had been the caddy, the third shot divot would have been replaced while Tiger was checking out his options and I would have forced Tiger to re-drop before his fifth shot was played.
Simply, a tee should have been placed next to the repaired divot to mark the spot the drop must be close to and behind for the next shot.
Tiger was lucky not to have won the Tournament! What a mess that would have been!
Except that the initial ruling was that this was a legal drop. Furthermore, there was no way that Tiger could have seen where his ball entered the hazard from his vantage point. He did not gain an advantage because of his drop. Just like instant replay in football or basketball, golf needs to stand by the initial ruling and not revert because of after the fact television replays. Remember that in match play once the hole is finished, it’s finished.In all respect to Bobby Jones the circumstances are different from 1929 because of television.
TW got away with one there. The controversy started when he said in a post-round press Q&A that he backed up a couple yards from the spot from where he hit into the water. He said that AFTER signing the card. That’s what started the whole review process that evening with the officials and calling him in early on Sat. to discuss it, resulting in the 2-stroke penalty rather than a DQ. I saw a headline saying he should have “withdrawn” himself “to save face” … well, after his troubles of the last 5 yrs, how much “face” has he left to save? I think, not much. Still not fan-friendly, same old terse answers. I think the committee went easy on him just because he is a big-name draw for ticket sales and TV ratings.