The Masters 2013 Official Thread

[daunwaun]

I love golf, its still really crappy weather here in Ontario Canada but this weekend helps me get through it - The Masters.

Who's your pick to take the green jacket this year?

Is there a better major in your opinion?

My money's on Tiger!

P.S. How about that 14 year old...yikes!

[advocatia]

Augusta National has a well documented history of racial and gender discrimination, obnoxious elitism, nauseating control over how their tournament is broadcast (Gary McCord) and I despise everything that club represents. That said, they put on one helluva show. I'll be watching. Tiger is unstoppable at or near the lead. Safe money.

[77T]

Originally Posted by daunwaun

P.S. How about that 14 year old...yikes!

He played great - but Guan was assessed a one-stroke penalty after the 17th hole of his second round for slow play. He's at +4 and may not make the cut. He's on the bubble now and if Tiger drops to -6 or -7 then he misses the cut.

[crew]

I heard someone on sports radio refer to The Masters as the "greatest HD event on TV".
I thought that was well said.
If the British can call their open just "The Open" (this is not a criticism), I think we could simply call The Masters "The Tournament".

[daunwaun]

Originally Posted by crew

I heard someone on sports radio refer to The Masters as the "greatest HD event on TV".
I thought that was well said.
If the British can call their open just "The Open" (this is not a criticism), I think we could simply call The Masters "The Tournament".

I would agree, its simply a spectacle.

[Boardman]

It's anyone's still to win. Watching Dustin falter today was painful. Not as bad as rory last year though. Coupes is awesome but likely to fall again. Tiger...,eh....still can't stand him. Could it be Jason days time to shine??

Ain't it fun!

I hungry suddenly for a $1.50 pimento cheese sandwich.

[TswaneNguni]

If any of the South Africans take it, it will be ... !!!!!!
Looks like Schwartzel and Immelman still in with a chance.

Mister Guan .... 14 years old ...absolutely amazing !!

[AzPaul]

Get a feeling that shot off the flag stick was only delaying the inevitable.

[Watchdog]

Tiger was very unlucky today when it hit and ricocheted into the water.

[77T]

I'm excited to follow these 2 pairings today. Tiger may kick it up a notch, but the back 9 has not been kind recently...

[eman1200]

C'mon Freddie!!

[HL65]

Would love to see Fred C win it!!

[crew]

Originally Posted by eman1200

C'mon Freddie!!

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

Would love to see Fred C win it!!

I'm with you!
I saw Fred being interviewed last night & they asked him what he would do if he won. He replied that he would immediately retire from golf as a 2nd Masters would mean so much. He said he'd come back every year to play in the Masters but probably play in no others.
This guy is cool.

[mtrunner]

Tiger Woods was nearly disqualified for an improper ball drop. Sports center just said he is getting a 2 shot penalty. Now is is 5 shots off the lead. Should be an interesting day.

[77T]

Originally Posted by mtrunner

Tiger Woods was nearly disqualified for an improper ball drop. Sports center just said he is getting a 2 shot penalty. Now is is 5 shots off the lead. Should be an interesting day.

Yes, a very lucky penalty indeed; they used the 33-7 rule ("HDTV" clause) . The other option was DQ. Based on my understanding he should have been DQ'd.

[77T]

BTW, Faldo and Chamblee are on Golf Channel begging Tiger to DQ himself for the mistaken interpretation of Rule 26-1 governing his drop.

[mtrunner]

Originally Posted by 77T

BTW, Faldo and Chamblee are on Golf Channel begging Tiger to DQ himself for the mistaken interpretation of Rule 26-1 governing his drop.

I think the 2 shot penalty is fair but everyone is going to have their own opinions and this will probably debated to death especially if he puts himself into connection again.

[77T]

Agree - it was not a flagrant rules violation. Had he realized the error by the 16th tee I believe he would have told an official and taken the 2 strokes.

For what it's worth the vast audience would rather see him take a penalty and strive to overcome it.

I'm pulling for Guan to overcome his slow play penalty stroke and put together 2 good rounds to win the low amateur title and cup.

[lhanddds]

Pulling for Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AzPaul]

In Augusta's explanation, they're basically saying that Tiger's not being disqualified for signing a wrong scorecard because they had concluded he was not in violation of 26-1 prior to the completion of his round. Whether this is true or not, only the guys in the green jackets know for sure but if it is true, then not disqualifying him now is the right call. If they had actually reviewed the drop prior to the completion of his round, had the opportunity to inform him of the penalty (before he signed his scorecard) but decided it wasn't a violation, then it's really all on them. After all, the DQ penalty would be for signing an improprer card, not the drop itself and at the time he signed the card, the legitamcy of the drop had supposedly been reviewed and cleared.

[77T]

Originally Posted by AzPaul

After all, the DQ penalty would be for signing an improprer card, not the drop itself and at the time he signed the card, the legitamcy of the drop had supposedly been reviewed and cleared.

Yes, there was just a press conference and Ridley, the Rules Chmn., said as much.

The Masters has many traditions that are different from other PGA Majors, and one of them is this: there are no "walking officials" to help a player get a rules interpretation on the spot.

The "2 yds" Tiger stepped back before his drop was his own mistake - my generous assessment is a misunderstanding of Rule 26. But he would've benefited from an official's interpretation right then.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by 77T

Yes, there was just a press conference and Ridley, the Rules Chmn., said as much.

The Masters has many traditions that are different from other PGA Majors, and one of them is this: there are no "walking officials" to help a player get a rules interpretation on the spot.

The "2 yds" Tiger stepped back before his drop was his own mistake - my generous assessment is a misunderstanding of Rule 26. But he would've benefited from an official's interpretation right then.

Ok, been following this all morning and all of you are much smarter (and better) about the game of golf then me, and I do agree the penalty was appropriate, and he should not have been DQ'd. BUT - Here is my question:

From what I understand (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong) The way this whole thing started was in the post round interview Tiger said: (Something like) "I moved back two yards on the drop to get a better shot" That caused the committee to review the video and THEN institute the 2-stroke penalty. As a matter of fact, in the interview the rule manager said that at the time of the drop, they felt it was within the rules and no penalty was instituted.

IS THIS TRUE? The committee hears the player say something in the post-round interview and decides to take a second look and THEN institute a penalty!?!?!? Is this fair?!!!? Not in my opinion... At the time of the drop, they ADMITTED they believed it was a fair drop, can they reverse that decision based on what a player says?

[mtrunner]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Ok, been following this all morning and all of you are much smarter (and better) about the game of golf then me, and I do agree the penalty was appropriate, and he should not have been DQ'd. BUT - Here is my question:

From what I understand (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong) The way this whole thing started was in the post round interview Tiger said: (Something like) "I moved back two yards on the drop to get a better shot" That caused the committee to review the video and THEN institute the 2-stroke penalty. As a matter of fact, in the interview the rule manager said that at the time of the drop, they felt it was within the rules and no penalty was instituted.

IS THIS TRUE? The committee hears the player say something in the post-round interview and decides to take a second look and THEN institute a penalty!?!?!? Is this fair?!!!? Not in my opinion... At the time of the drop, they ADMITTED they believed it was a fair drop, can they reverse that decision based on what a player says?

This is the explanation from Yahoo news:

It starts with Tiger's approach shot on 15 hitting the flag and bouncing back into the water. From there, Tiger had three options: drop a ball in the designated drop area, go back to the original spot where he hit or put the ball in direct line with where it entered the water.

He did none of those precisely, going a couple of yards back from the original spot but at a slightly different angle. A television viewer alerted the tournament about the discrepancy. An initial video review of the shot by officials, however, determined no violation.

"At that moment and based on that evidence, the Committee determined he had complied with the rules," the tournament stated.

Woods eventually finished his round and signed his scorecard. In subsequent media interviews, however, Tiger explained that he purposefully took his drop "two yards further back" from the original shot.

That acknowledgement, the tournament said, changed the decision-making process.

"After he signed his scorecard, and in a television interview subsequent to the round, the player stated that he had played further from the point than where he had played his third shot. Such action would constitute playing from the wrong place.

"The subsequent information provided by the player's interview after he had competed play warranted further review and discussion with him [Saturday] morning.

"After meeting with the player, it was determined that he had violated Rule 26, and was assessed a two-stroke penalty."

[AzPaul]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

From what I understand (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong) The way this whole thing started was in the post round interview Tiger said: (Something like) "I moved back two yards on the drop to get a better shot" That caused the committee to review the video and THEN institute the 2-stroke penalty. As a matter of fact, in the interview the rule manager said that at the time of the drop, they felt it was within the rules and no penalty was instituted.

IS THIS TRUE? The committee hears the player say something in the post-round interview and decides to take a second look and THEN institute a penalty!?!?!? Is this fair?!!!? Not in my opinion... At the time of the drop, they ADMITTED they believed it was a fair drop, can they reverse that decision based on what a player says?

I believe when the rules committee reviewed the drop initially, they judged the distance between the new drop and his original shot as being both inadvertent and inconsequential, and therefore, unworthy of a penalty. It wasn't till after they heard Tiger say in his interview that he had knowingly dropped the ball a few feet back, (not inadvertently) that they decided a penalty was in order. As it turned out, it was Tiger's candor that cost him the strokes, not any competitive advantage the location of the drop itself might have given him.

[signcarver]

Although i realize the are two unrelated events i am disappointed that Tiger did not disqualify himself and the they assessed Guan a penalty for slow play.

Both may be justified but both still stink.

This is the one tournament i watch every year but i'm really disappointed by the way both of these events were handled.

[advocatia]

I am most bothered by television viewers impacting the results. is that not the job of the on-site officials?

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by advocatia

I am most bothered by television viewers impacting the results. is that not the job of the on-site officials?

EXACTLY! And MT Runner, thanks for the explanation. This is my whole point, they listen to a television viewer, look at it, and decide there is no violation. THEN, they listen to a post-round interview where Tiger says " two yards back... " whatever. So they THEN decide to institute a penalty? In other words, if Tiger had NOT done the interview there would have been NO PENALTY!?

I think two strokes was fair, and I understand people bringing up the point he should withdraw or perhaps should have been DQ'd, don't agree, but you definitely have excellent points. What I am saying, is the committee looked at the event, immediately following it (after a TV viewer called in, give me a break) and made the decision it was legal. THAT SHOULD BE IT. How much latitude do they have? Three months from now, when a TV viewer is watching the DVR of the event and calls in, will they decide the winner should have had a penalty and change the results?

[mtrunner]

Why does everyone think Tiger should have disqualified himself? The only reason he was even called out was by a viewer calling in. The rule was put in to specifically protect players that are always under the microscope since they are on TV more often than other players. The committee made their decision he did nothing wrong and he signed the scorecard. Tiger thought he was proceeding correctly under the rule when he made the statement on TV after the round.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by mtrunner

Why does everyone think Tiger should have disqualified himself? The only reason he was even called out was by a viewer calling in. The rule was put in to specifically protect players that are always under the microscope since they are on TV more often than other players. The committee made their decision he did nothing wrong and he signed the scorecard. Tiger thought he was proceeding correctly under the rule when he made the statement on TV after the round.

Without making the case for him to withdraw, the reason some people feel it would be the right thing to do is because the TV rule protecting a player from disqualification is designed for situations where he breached the rule because of facts "he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered". The problem in this case is that even though Tiger apparently didn't know know he broke a rule, he certainly could have known. I mean it is a written rule.

The issue is that the committee reviewed the situation before Tiger signed his card and had made the initial decision that there was no violation. Given that, it's hard to say that he should then face a DQ after he signs his card because the committee changed it's mind. On the other hand, once Tiger made statements saying he purposely dropped further back that sort of changes things. And it seems to me that just because it was brought to the attention of officials through TV shouldn't really be relevant because it involves facts he "could have reasonably known" had he known the rule.

This is why tour players quite often ask for a rules official even under circumstances they are very familiar with (like cart path or sprinkler head relief). Because once an official rules on it, they are off the hook if the ruling is wrong.

I can understand though, those that think he should withdraw mainly because even though the officials had ruled on it, they were not aware that Tiger had purposely dropped not as close as possible until his comments after the round. But then again, they should have discussed it with him before he signed his card. In which case he would have been informed he broke the rule and assessed a 2 stroke penalty and signed for the correct score. Since this is what ended up happening, it's hard to find fault - except maybe with how the officials handled it.

On the other hand, what would have happened if no TV viewers were involved and no officials reviewed the situation or even considered there may have been a violation - and then Tiger makes the comment that he purposely dropped further back after he signs his card? In this case it seems more clear that he should be DQ'd for breaking a rule and signing an incorrect card. So really, Tiger benefited from the TV rule in a way that it wasn't meant to protect players. Therefore, the call for him to withdraw is not that out of line either.

This isn't the first time Tiger has gotten what some consider an unfair advantage. Anyone remember the boulder incident?

[77T]

Tiger could not DQ himself once the Rules Committee assessed the penalty. He was judged as commiting an infraction that did not require a DQ.

The only option open was to WD this AM. But that in itself is only open due to injury - else he would be open to additional penalties for quitting a PGA Tourney in progress.