matthew
Well-known member
He didn't know he had received a penalty before he had handed in his score card and no official brought it up, so rule 33.7 does apply
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Is Tiger in trouble?
- Thread starter The Andy Naylor Fan Club
- Start date
He didn't know he had received a penalty before he had handed in his score card and no official brought it up, so rule 33.7 does apply
matthew
Well-known member
He didn't 'admit it' he voluntarily said it in his interview as he didn't know he wasn't allowed to take the ball back a yard
matthew
Well-known member
I think a 4 shot penalty for hitting the pin is fair enough.
HAILSHAM SEAGULL
Well-known member
- Nov 9, 2009
- 10,359
You would expect the No1 player in the world, to know the rules.
Rule 26-1a: Relief for ball in water hazard: Must play ball as near as possible at the spot from where the original ball was last played.
If he wasnt sure, he should of consulted the rules official that is with every pairing.
Rule 26-1a: Relief for ball in water hazard: Must play ball as near as possible at the spot from where the original ball was last played.
If he wasnt sure, he should of consulted the rules official that is with every pairing.
banjo
GOSBTS
Not really. Rule 33.7 says:
Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion
A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.
Rule 33.7 was implemented in 2011 by the R&A and USGA in reaction to television viewers phoning in rules violations after the fact - the so-called "HD rule," where "HD" refers to high-definition televisions.
And specifically:
The R&A and USGA Revise Decision Regarding Disqualification for Incorrect Score Card
"The R&A and the USGA have announced a new interpretation of the rules that apply in limited circumstances not previously contemplated by the Rules of Golf where disqualifications have been caused by score card errors identified as the result of recent advances in video technologies.
This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card.
In revising the decision, The R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognizing that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach."
So Tiger broke the rules, and didn't realise due to ignorance of the rules. But then, hey, it's Tiger.
What utter tripe. I question your knowledge of golf. Anyone who has ever attempted to play the game will tell how often a great shot results in a despairingly bad position due to the vagaries of the game. That doesn't excuse cheating.
He cheated
And as if it needed to be made more clear:
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 player makes a short chip from the greenside rough. At the time, he and his fellow-competitors have no reason to suspect that the player 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 player’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 player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player 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 player’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 player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the player 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.
The rules make it very clear he should have been disqualified.
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 player makes a short chip from the greenside rough. At the time, he and his fellow-competitors have no reason to suspect that the player 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 player’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 player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player 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 player’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 player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the player 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.
The rules make it very clear he should have been disqualified.
I don't think so. We all know he made a mistake, and didn't mean to make it - and didn't know he'd made it (the ignorant fool). It's the committee that are cheating by letting him continue. I know there is etiquette in golf, and he could DQ himself, but a player shouldn't have to make those decisions, it's the job of the committee.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Golf is the only sport where the competitor is in charge of his own score. It is up to him to sign for the correct score. It is up to him to know the rules. He didn't. Players call penalties on themselves all the time. Why not Tiger? Can he really not see what the fuss is about?
Tiger is no longer a golfer as a "golfer" would have disqualified himself.
Oh and Ewan Murray is that arse of a commentator on Sky.
Ah, that'd be the one then.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Two things I heard yesterday sum this situation up for me:
"This is the first time since I became a Pro that a person signed for a wrong score and still turned up to play the next day" Ernie Els.
"This is going to rumble on for ages. Something that was black and white is now grey" Nick Faldo.
Am also pleased that he did not win as the ramifications if he had would have been momentous. Let's hope the USGA sort this out asap and that the R&A make their position absolutely clear.
"This is the first time since I became a Pro that a person signed for a wrong score and still turned up to play the next day" Ernie Els.
"This is going to rumble on for ages. Something that was black and white is now grey" Nick Faldo.
Am also pleased that he did not win as the ramifications if he had would have been momentous. Let's hope the USGA sort this out asap and that the R&A make their position absolutely clear.
