Tigergate - By the Rules

This past Saturday morning, the worlds of golf and sport came to a collective standstill as the Rules Committee at the Masters decided the fate of Tiger Woods.  Would they?  Could they?  Did they dare disqualify him for violating a Rule that resulted in his signing an incorrect score card? 

There was a media frenzy with everyone having an opinion.  Social media was alive with theories.  Even the participants in the Rules Workshop I was conducting were buzzing with a renewed interest despite having to spend “Moving Day” in a hotel meeting room learning about the Rules.

It took Fred Ridley, Chair of the Committee, a considerable length of time to make a public statement after it had been announced Tiger was not disqualified but would be assessed a two-stroke penalty for having played from a wrong place when taking relief under Rule 26-1a the previous day.  After he spoke, it left many, including PGA Tour pro Ernie Els, Golf Channel analyst Brandel Chamblee and two-time Masters champion and CBS analyst Nick Faldo, wondering how and why Tiger had not been disqualified.  Some, including Faldo and Chamblee, suggested Tiger should “man up” and withdraw to save the tournament and the game from public humiliation.  Others believe in a conspiracy theory – a behind the scenes agreement between the Masters, CBS Sports and Tiger.  Of course, some still believe LBJ had something to do with JFK’s assassination.

Yet, in the aftermath of the public outcry, once the facts were presented and studied came the realization that the ruling was correct.  Well, some have come to that point … others are still not convinced.  Allow me to revisit the facts to show the ruling is correct.  But, before I do, I will make two assertions:

#1:  I cannot explain how or why Tiger lost focus when taking relief.  He is known to be one of the more knowledgeable players when it comes to the Rules.  However, after many other well documented gaffes by his peers, and the bungled attempt by David Feherty to explain Tiger’s options, it goes to show that mistakes can be made.

#2:  I believe the Committee made an error in not speaking with Tiger in the Scoring Area when it had the opportunity Friday afternoon.  We will never know the reason for this.  Mr. Ridley said, after reviewing the tape, the Committee did not believe there was a breach.  Using 20/20 hindsight most will come to a different conclusion.

There is no doubt Tiger dropped and played from a wrong place; even Tiger admitted to that.  Rule 26-1 allows the player to drop under “stroke and distance” as one of the options.  When a player elects to make his next stroke from where a previous stroke was made, Rule 26-1a specifically states the players must drop “as nearly as possible” to the spot from which the original ball was last played.  This means where the ball must first strike the course – not necessarily where it ends up after the drop.  PGA Rules instructor Ed Hoard used to teach that “as nearly as possible” meant approximately 6”.  The penalty under Rule 26 for this breach is two strokes.

Someone happened to notice the possible issue, so they alerted the Committee, which in turn began its investigation.  While Tiger was playing the 18^th hole, the Committee reached the conclusion that there had not been a breach.  Therefore, it elected not to speak to Tiger about it in the Scoring Area.  This is critical.  By dealing with the question and reaching its decision, the Committee had, in essence, made a ruling – despite the fact the player didn’t even know.

After Tiger made his infamous comments during the interview later, the Committee took notice and elected to revisit the question.  It asked Tiger to meet them Saturday morning in order to ask questions.  During this interview, it was stated Tiger admitted to dropping in a wrong place mistakenly.  (While he may have said he “intentionally” dropped two yards away, he was mistaken with his ability to do so.)  Thus, Tiger had signed his card with a score of 6 for the 15^th hole, when it should have been an 8, a breach of Rule 6-6d that carries with it a penalty of disqualification.

However, the Committee had ruled on the issue the day before and had not elected to speak with Tiger in the Scoring Area.  While the Committee is not on record for using it, we can look to Decision 34-3/1.5 – “Committee Error and Scoring in Stroke Play” for guidance on such an issue.  Some key concepts in this Decision are as follows:

1.      “The player is entitled to act on such information in his subsequent play.”  This means, the player may proceed based on information the Committee gives him, even if incorrect.  In Tiger’s case, to sign the score card believing it is correct.

2.      “When a referee (Committee) makes a specific ruling that is contrary to the Rules in a specific situation, the player should be exempt from penalty.”  Tiger is exempt from the disqualification penalty for signing an incorrect card.

3.      “In these situations, the Committee should resolve the matter in whatever manner it considers most equitable, in light of all the facts and with the objective of ensuring that no player receives an undue advantage or disadvantage.”  By assessing Tiger the two stroke penalty for having played from the wrong place, it restored things to the way they should have been if they had discussed the issue with Tiger in Scoring.

Finally, Fred Ridley referred to Rule 33-7.  This is the Rule that permits the Committee to “waive, modify or impose” a penalty of disqualification in exceptional circumstances.  It is this Rule that allowed the Masters Committee to waive the disqualification penalty for Tiger.  (Reference had been made by the media to Decision 33-7/4.5 erroneously.  That decision is not relevant.)

 In my opinion, not only did Mr. Ridley and the Committee get the ruling correct, they took the more difficult option.  It would have been easy, and popular in the eyes of many, to disqualify Tiger, but he would have had every right to be angry at such an action.

By assessing Tiger the two stroke penalty and allowing him to play, despite the firestorm of negative publicity and the accusations of preferential treatment, the Committee upheld the Rules of Golf.

The following is a post from the USGA website regarding the cancellation of play at this weekend's Hyundai Tournament of Champions.  I think it is interesting as it focuses on why the scores were wiped out twice.

Wind Causes Cancellation Of Play

By John Van Der Borght, Manager, Rules Communications

Can you explain why first-round scores were nullified when play was postponed due to high winds at the Hyundai Tournament of Champions in Maui?

Weather conditions frequently interrupt play at golf tournaments, but this past weekend saw extreme weather conditions cause the PGA Tour to not only suspend play, but to cancel the play that had already occurred. This happened not once, but twice over the first three days of the Hyundai Tournament of Champions at the Kapalua Resort’s Plantation course.

On Friday, the first groups teed off in high winds and rain. As they worked their way around the golf course, the winds continued to pick up. Golf balls were being blown across the greens and by the time the first group reached the ninth hole, the conditions were such that the PGA Tour Rules Committee decided that play needed to be suspended. Shortly after that, they reached the difficult decision to cancel all the play for the day and nullify the results to that point.

Rule 33-2d (The Committee – Course Unplayable) says that if the Committee considers that for any reason the course is not in a playable condition or that there are circumstances that render the proper playing of the game impossible, it may, in match play or stroke play, order a temporary suspension of play. It further gives the Committee, in stroke play only, the power to declare all play null and void and cancel all scores for the round in question. This is what the Committee chose to do.

Decision 33-2d/1 contains guidelines on whether to cancel a round. There is no hard and fast rule and the decision is left to the judgment of the Committee. The example given in this Decision is exactly what happened at Kapalua. It states “… if some competitors begin a round under extremely adverse weather conditions, conditions subsequently worsen and further play that day is impossible, it would be unfair to the competitors who started not to cancel the round.”

Had the first round been continued the next day in substantially better conditions the player who had played eight holes in almost impossible conditions would have been at a severe disadvantage over those who hadn’t started their rounds.

Unfortunately for the PGA Tour and the players, Saturday’s conditions were no better and play was never started. They tried for a third day on Sunday, but once again the winds became so severe that play was quickly suspended and again the first-round scores were nullified. The PGA Tour hoped to commence the first round on Monday, attempting to play 36 holes and possibly conclude the 54-hole tournament on Tuesday.

As Rule 33-2d states, play can never be canceled in match play. This is one example of the differences between match play and stroke play. Since the two sides in a match are playing in equally poor conditions, no player can be considered to have been placed at an unfair disadvantage versus his opponent.