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 18th
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 15th 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.)
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.
