Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Woods could be disqualified from the Masters
Comments
-
-
Committee rules 2 shot penalty, Woods continues with penalty (what happened)Tell me what makes no sense and I will explain?
I think each sentence is logically formed and error free...?
1) Precedent has been set and so they must inform *all* players of rules infringements.
o According to the rules a referee has no obligation to offer advice on a rule infringement, however once they do they must do so to a all players uniformly.
2) In this case they couldnt inform at the time as they changed their decision.
o The officials were unable to advise Woods of his infringement before he signed his card as they had ruled no infringement.
3) As above, they can volunteer advice, as long as they do it uniformly.
o See #1
4) As soon as they inform anyone of a rule breach they have to inform everyone (penalty for slow play for example?)
o I'm using the example that since Guan was advised he had infringed on the slow play rule, that under the rule of equity, all players *must* be informed of known rule infringements from that point.
5) Thus they *were* obligated to inform Woods if he had breached a rule.
o See #1 and #4.
Still not getting it GreeBo, sorry, I must be having a slow night or something. I dont know what point you're trying to make.
"a referee has no obligation to offer advice on a rule infringement, however once they do they must do so to a all players uniformly"
I dont know what this is, but even if its a rule of golf, I dont know how it relates to anything. Of course you would expect for them to tell a player, all palayers, if they have rules issues. They do this all the time in the scorers hut.6-3 I (I think) puts the primary responsibiltiy on the player knowing the rules and abiding by them. I dont know what point you are making. The referees are not trying to catch people out by knowing that someone broke a rule and not telling them until afterwards.
"The officials were unable to advise Woods of his infringement before he signed his card as they had ruled no infringement."
The officials should not have been required. I am crap on the rules and I would have known what to do if I hit it in a hazard. Woods should have known he broke a rule. Its no ok for me that you say he didn't break a rule because they ruled the drop ok (unknown to Woods). I just dont buy that at all. The drop was not a legal drop, Woods knows it now, Woods should have realised then.
I also dont understand the comment about advising uniformly. Does that mean that every time a player hits in the water after Woods did that referee would need to attend every other incident of same and tell them? What would he tell them....that dropping two yards from original spot is an illegal drop? Does a single referee at a West of Ireland have the same responsibility in similar circumstances? I'm not buying that one.
The referee is obviously going to inform any slow player of slow play, or any other player of any rule issue he has with them when signing the card.0 -
Committee rules 2 shot penalty, Woods continues with penalty (what happened)2) In this case they couldnt inform at the time as they changed their decision.
5) Thus they *were* obligated to inform Woods if he had breached a rule.
One last thing, they didnt tell him at the time because they didn't know it. It doesn't mean he didn't break the rule because he did. I dont buy you saying he didn't because they ruled on it. Either he broke a rule or he didn't. He did, they penalised him subsequently for it. He broke the bloody rule
:D:D:D
How can they inform him when they dont know?
Again, 6-3 has been around a long time and its a great rule, its the only way the game can have any credibiltiy. You break a rule, through ignorance, stupidity, whatever, you pay the penalty. Bad drop = 2 shots. Signing for wrong scorecard = DQ. I undertsand your viewpoint that he didn't sign for a wrong score as at the time the drop was deemed legal. But it wasn't a legal drop, and the only reason the committee used 33-7 is because they messed up. If it was their responsiblity to tell Tiger he made a bad drop then he shouldnt have been DQd and 33-7 would be a good thing to use. But it isnt and wasnt. I understand that they should have said it to Tiger, but that's a wishy washy thing, the fact is the onus on the player is to know and abide by the rules.
What did you think of Paul O'Connells assault on Dave Kearney?:D:D:D:D:D
GreeBo - I'd like to have a beer or a round of golf with you some time. I'm not usually this argumentative, and can be good company!! And the funny thing is I am quite swayed by both sides. I just think 33-7 is a bad rule, and this is a bad first use of it. In short, I dont agree with the fella who said that Tiger is entitled to be protected by a ruling he never knew took place.0 -
Committee rules no penalty
I'll try againBoardsMember wrote: »Still not getting it GreeBo, sorry, I must be having a slow night or something. I dont know what point you're trying to make.
BoardsMember wrote: »"a referee has no obligation to offer advice on a rule infringement, however once they do they must do so to a all players uniformly"
I dont know what this is, but even if its a rule of golf, I dont know how it relates to anything. Of course you would expect for them to tell a player, all palayers, if they have rules issues. They do this all the time in the scorers hut.6-3 I (I think) puts the primary responsibiltiy on the player knowing the rules and abiding by them. I dont know what point you are making. The referees are not trying to catch people out by knowing that someone broke a rule and not telling them until afterwards.
Im not saying they are trying to catch anyone out, but the rules are quite clear, a referee doesnt *have* to inform someone that they have breached a rule, however if they inform one person, they must inform everyone uniformly.
The point Im making here is to counter the argument of "the referee didnt have to tell Woods he had dropped incorrectly, Woods should have known himself". I counter that the referee infact *did* have to inform him, if the referee knew.
I 100% agree that Woods should have known the rule. However the facts still are that at this stage the referee was obligated to inform Woods that he had broken a rule, if indeed Woods had. Since Woods was not so informed, he could not later be DQ'd for signing for an incorrect score. The reason Woods was not informed was that the committee had ruled there was no rule breech.BoardsMember wrote: »"The officials were unable to advise Woods of his infringement before he signed his card as they had ruled no infringement."
The officials should not have been required. I am crap on the rules and I would have known what to do if I hit it in a hazard. Woods should have known he broke a rule. Its no ok for me that you say he didn't break a rule because they ruled the drop ok (unknown to Woods). I just dont buy that at all. The drop was not a legal drop, Woods knows it now, Woods should have realised then.
No, it means that the referee must make a player aware of a rules infringement if the referee is aware of it.BoardsMember wrote: »I also dont understand the comment about advising uniformly. Does that mean that every time a player hits in the water after Woods did that referee would need to attend every other incident of same and tell them? What would he tell them....that dropping two yards from original spot is an illegal drop? Does a single referee at a West of Ireland have the same responsibility in similar circumstances? I'm not buying that one.
And yes the ref in the West has the same responsibility. Note that this rule doesnt mean the ref has to be omnipotent or omnipresent, merely that once the have informed one player, they must inform any other players of any other infringements that they are aware of. If the ref doesnt know you broke the rule then obviously this doesnt come into it at all.
Not obviously, the rules state that the referees are not obligated to, again, unless they have already set a precedence of informing some player.BoardsMember wrote: »The referee is obviously going to inform any slow player of slow play, or any other player of any rule issue he has with them when signing the card.
So basically (hopefully!) my argument is:
1) Woods was entitled to be made aware of any decisions on any infringements that he had made during his round.
2) Since he was not made aware, and the situation in question had been reviewed by the referees (irrespective of whether he himself knew it had been reviewed) he was entitled to benefit from this ruling and thus operate under the assumption that he had indeed broken no rule at the time of signing his card.
3) Since everything else happened after the card was signed, its an exceptional circumstance and thus the committee are entitled to invoke 33-7 (to cover their own stupidity imo)BoardsMember wrote: »I havent said that Woods should ignore any ruling.
A referee consulted on course by the player for a decision is the final arbiter, and his decision stands. That can be the only possible way.
I think you are being disingenuous if you cant see that this is consistent with the specifics of this case.
Apologies, I had (incorrectly) lumped you in with the "Woods should withdraw" group!
I 100% agree that the decisions of the referee/committee should stand (unless of course they are subsequently overturned under the rules
) 0 -
Committee rules no penalty
Are you crazy?!?!BoardsMember wrote: »What did you think of Paul O'Connells assault on Dave Kearney?:D:D:D:D:D
You can clearly see the ball is hit! (at the same time as Kearney gets a shin in the head :eek:)
A terrible ruling, or at least handled terribly. Have a review and then determine no malice, minimal ban. Dont cover it up.
In fairness to the Golf lads, they were as open as possible about it imo. (Conspiracy theories aside!)BoardsMember wrote: »GreeBo - I'd like to have a beer or a round of golf with you some time. I'm not usually this argumentative, and can be good company!! And the funny thing is I am quite swayed by both sides. I just think 33-7 is a bad rule, and this is a bad first use of it.
Beer before or after?
I can also see both sides and tbh wouldnt really have had a problem if they had ruled DQ, I could probably just as easily argue and find "rules" to cover that ruling. (Bloody rules, pages and pages of them and still loop holes)
I just have a big issue with people calling for Woods to withdraw, out of some sense of honor, for me if the rules say you are in then you are in, no matter how people feel about it. However the same must go in the opposite direction, if they say you are out then you are out also. (Harrington and his dimples, Woosie with his extra driver, etc, etc)
If I can ever manage to get to a boards outing we can continue this discussion there. Unfortunately (for you) Im always this argumentative, but its merely enjoyable discourse/banter for me, no malice implied or intended.
The problem is that the fella who said that is one of the blokes who makes the rules that we have both agreed we must obey, whether we like it or not!:oBoardsMember wrote: »In short, I dont agree with the fella who said that Tiger is entitled to be protected by a ruling he never knew took place.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Committee rules no penaltywow,
I still can't believe all the hype about this ..
not just on boards obviously, but the whole golfing media is still harping on about it. It's not even that big a story .. blown WAY out of proportion!
Tiger made a mistake, got penalised over it ... end of ...
get some sleep instead guys.
p.s I love Tiger Woods (in a non-sexual way)
0 -
Advertisement
-
Committee rules 2 shot penalty, Woods continues with penalty (what happened)[QUOTE=GreeBo;84217348
Any talk of Woods receiving preferential treatment is a nonsense. Why would you continue to play the game if you believe that the highest ruling body we have would bring the game into disrepute over one player?
.[/QUOTE]
Seriously ?
I agree the Masters issue can (and is being) argued both ways, but there have been too many incidents with TW to suggest he doesn't get preferential treatment.....
the ball going into the clubhouse at the WGC
the phantom fan "stealing" the ball
the tv cables at the Open
the boulder being moved
Come on........:)
now, Rule 33/7 at the Masters - personally I don't believe for a second they reviewed the drop prior to his completing the round, why would they ? it looked fine at first glance, his admission is what caused the furore. Ultimately he took a wrong drop and as a result signed for a wrong card, the rest is window dressing.
It seems that the official version is that he wasn't DQ'd because, he took a wrong drop, signed for a wrong score, but the committee decided that, before he finished and without telling him, they looked at it, they thought it was ok, so they didn't tell him they looked at it and that it was ok, then he admitted to a wrong drop, it turned out that it wasn't ok, but because they didn't tell him they looked at it, and didn't tell him it was ok, he's not DQ'd and it wasn't a wrong score because they didn't tell him they looked at it, because he didn't, no, they didn't, no, someone didn't.......ehhh - FFS my head hurts just thinking about it !!
It happens to all the top players/teams in sports, look at Man U when Howard Webb is playing for them. I think I read somewhere once that it was 20 years or something before Nicklaus lost a ball on tour !!
I'm not a rabid Tiger hater by any means (seriously), I'm not a huge fan either, he's one of the greats without doubt and sometimes plays shots the like of which have never been seen before, but I think he's more respected than loved, IMO of course.
As for continuing to play the game, I love it, I'm not going to stop because of the Augusta Committee, hardly the highest ruling body we have. I'll probably never tee it up in the Masters so I'm ok there, although can you imagine rocking up on the first tee with a pencil bag and half a set looking to get out on spec ??:D 0 -
-
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement