Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

* * * * * 2 votes

No more viewer rule call ins - per USGA/R&A (Merged)

Chamblee Morning Drive Slugger RDD

815 replies to this topic

#751 Hardluckster

Hardluckster

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 655 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 81223
  • Joined: 04/26/2009
GolfWRX Likes : 247

Posted 05 January 2018 - 01:37 PM

View PostNorth Butte, on 05 January 2018 - 01:34 PM, said:

I always thought Seve could, if necessary, force a golf ball to break uphill and into the cup. Just by sheer force of will. So maybe Tiger could control space/time, at one time.

If not by himself, maybe he could enlist the aid of the gallery?

If winning was easy, losers would do it.

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#752 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,556 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 5921

Posted 05 January 2018 - 01:43 PM

Oh man, we crack ourselves up don't we?
Everything has its drawbacks, as the man said when his mother-in-law died, and they came down upon him for the funeral expenses.

2

#753 the bishop

the bishop

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,036 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 439390
  • Joined: 09/03/2016
  • Location:Richmond, TX
GolfWRX Likes : 1934

Posted 05 January 2018 - 01:46 PM

View PostNorth Butte, on 05 January 2018 - 01:34 PM, said:

I always thought Seve could, if necessary, force a golf ball to break uphill and into the cup. Just by sheer force of will. So maybe Tiger could control space/time, at one time.
Funny but Jesper Parnevik in this Golf Mag my shot interview:https://www.golfdigest.com/story/my-shot-jesper-parnevik   swears Tiger did just that with that putt on the 72nd hole of the 2008 US Open that forced the playoff.  Bonus:  interview leads off with my favorite Seve story ever.

Edited by the bishop, 05 January 2018 - 02:27 PM.

Dynacraft Avatar Evolution 10.5* - V2 HL - S
TM M1 15* (2016) - Maltby MPF Series FW - S
Maltby KE4 Tour 19*/22* - Kuro Kage Blk Hy80 - S
Dynacraft Prophet MB Forged 5-P, FST Pro 125 - S
Maltby MG Tour Grind 52/56/60 KBS Hi Rev 2.0
Scotty Newport Pro Platinum Mil-Spec

3

#754 Hardluckster

Hardluckster

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 655 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 81223
  • Joined: 04/26/2009
GolfWRX Likes : 247

Posted 05 January 2018 - 02:18 PM

View PostNorth Butte, on 05 January 2018 - 01:43 PM, said:

Oh man, we crack ourselves up don't we?
Sometimes. And sometimes we just err and amuse others. 👍
If winning was easy, losers would do it.

4

#755 nsxguy

nsxguy

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 431858
  • Joined: 07/08/2016
  • Location:Florida
  • Handicap:4.4
GolfWRX Likes : 1267

Posted 05 January 2018 - 08:38 PM

View Postnbg352, on 05 January 2018 - 10:56 AM, said:

The committee deemed the drop appropriate in spite of Eger's claim BECAUSE parallax distortion did NOT allow them to see that 2 feet was actually 4 yards as Woods himself stated. It was solely because of his statement that the committee decided to penalize him. Why do you seem to insist that you don't get that? And why do you insist that I am disparaging Eger because of those facts? SMH!

Disparaging Eger because of those facts ??? Oh, I don't know. Maybe it was you original post I replied to ?

View Postnbg352, on 21 December 2017 - 01:27 PM, said:

Eger had a previous run in with Ridley. Ridley had apparently one upped Eger at some point. Was this Eger's chance to get even? If so, he did it under the guise of someone solely concerned with protecting the field. Eger spoke of his dislike(?) for Ridley and the incident that led to it in his GD interview.

-Tiger takes his drop
-Ridley says the drop is fine
-The committee reviews the drop on video and determines that there is nothing there to warrant a reversal of Ridley's decision
- Eger calls in
-A further video review shows nothing that seems to be amiss...the drop still looks fine. ( parallax distortion is the culprit ).
-Tiger gives his interview.
-Penalties are levied as a result of Tiger's own words.
So, in the end, Eger was a peripheral player in this case. His call DID make the committee look at the drop again, but that's it.
Was his motivation pure? Or was it tainted? I can only hope the former is true. After all, he is a pro, right?

2 feet or 20 yards, in this situation, is exactly the same. It makes NO difference. 2 feet is MORE than enough to penalize Tiger as he did NOT drop as near as possible,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so the Committee/Ridley screwed up.

Your "parallax distortion" claim is IRRELEVANT.

Talk about SMH,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Callaway Fusion 9* Project X Handcrafted Hzrdus Black "60" 6.0
Adams A12 Pro hybrids, 16*, 20*, 23*, Aldila VS Proto Stiff
Ping G20 5-U, DG S300
Cleveland RTX-3 56* SW & 64* LW
TaylorMade Tour Spider Black

Chrome Soft Truvis Yellow/Black

5

#756 sui generis

sui generis

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,185 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 132389
  • Joined: 07/05/2011
  • Location:Asheville
GolfWRX Likes : 2078

Posted 05 January 2018 - 09:18 PM

A discussion dominated by the passionately uninformed. :swoon:
Knowledge of the Rules is part of the applied skill set which a player must use to play a round of competitive golf.

6

#757 MadGolfer76

MadGolfer76

    Admiration is the state furthest from understanding.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,502 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 89700
  • Joined: 07/26/2009
  • Location:Maine
GolfWRX Likes : 9491

Posted 05 January 2018 - 09:32 PM

I never really believed that it was actually the casual viewer who was calling in. Frankly, I tend to believe it was more people associated with the tour or even other players who would call it in and blame the rest of us.
Callaway Epic Sub Zero 9/Blueboard 73x
Callaway Alpha 816 16/Blueboard 93x
Adams Super 9031 20, 23/Motore F3 95x
Mizuno Mp-54 5-Pw/Dynamic Gold s300
Mizuno T7 50, 54, 58/Dynamic Gold s300
Scotty Cameron Futura X7
Titleist ProV1x

WITB

7

#758 15th Club

15th Club

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,388 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 248249
  • Joined: 04/30/2013
  • Location:Michigan
  • Ebay ID:cdbplc
GolfWRX Likes : 656

Posted 08 January 2018 - 02:36 PM

View Postnbg352, on 21 December 2017 - 01:27 PM, said:

Eger had a previous run in with Ridley. Ridley had apparently one upped Eger at some point. Was this Eger's chance to get even? If so, he did it under the guise of someone solely concerned with protecting the field. Eger spoke of his dislike(?) for Ridley and the incident that led to it in his GD interview.

-Tiger takes his drop
-Ridley says the drop is fine
-The committee reviews the drop on video and determines that there is nothing there to warrant a reversal of Ridley's decision
- Eger calls in
-A further video review shows nothing that seems to be amiss...the drop still looks fine. ( parallax distortion is the culprit ).
-Tiger gives his interview.
-Penalties are levied as a result of Tiger's own words.
So, in the end, Eger was a peripheral player in this case. His call DID make the committee look at the drop again, but that's it.
Was his motivation pure? Or was it tainted? I can only hope the former is true. After all, he is a pro, right?

That is a false chronology.

This is the correct chronology:
  • Tiger takes his drop
  • Eger sees it, and calls in before anybody on the Rules Committee is thinking about it.  While Tiger is still on the course.
  • Alerted by Eger's call, they review it and (perhaps, but I don't know) with Fred Ridley's animus toward Eger, and knowing that it had been a call from Eger, the Committee (including Fred Ridley) decides, wrongly, that Tiger's drop was okay.  It was a badly sloppy ruling; and after it was made, there began a groundswell of agreement with Eger, among the CBS crew, and others who gave the whole situation a second look after hearing about Eger's phone call.  Any animus on the part of Eger toward Fred Ridley is less than beside the point.  Eger was doing everyone a favor.  Eger didn't call Fred Ridley and had no idea that there'd be any disagreement between himself and Ridley at that point.
  • Tiger is asked about it in the media building after signing his card and accurately states exactly what he did.  What he did, was exactly what Eger had feared, and what Eger correctly described in his original telephone call.  Tiger goes back to his rented home in Augusta.
  • Having stated (admitted) what he did, Tiger effectively sealed any factual question.  The only question then would be what the penalty should be.
  • The resolution that was made the next morning -- no DQ, because the Committee considered it and ruled -- was undesirable, but was the best one under the circumstances.  And it was a resolution that was itself within the Rules.
  • Eger, who was correct all along, was the central player (apart from Woods himself).  Eger's call was barely in time for the Committee to consider it.  Eger's own relationship with Fred Ridley might (we don't know) have played a small role in how and why the Committee got it wrong.  (Lesson; don't doubt David Eger on a Rules question.)  But his getting the Committee involved, properly, ultimately saved Woods' continuation in the tournament.  Eger effectively and properly protected both Woods and the field.  The correct ruling was made, thanks mostly to his call.  Without Eger's call, the situation was destined to be a bad oversight, or a later-caught problem that would have required Tiger to DQ.
Under the newly-proposed procedures, they would have to ignore Eger's call.  Tiger would have gone in and signed his card.  Nobody would have done anything.  And then Eger would say to one of his golf-writer buddies, "You know, I called that in, while Tiger was still on the course.  And they ignored me.  The whole thing could have been saved."  And when the writer put that into print, everybody from Tiger to Joey LaCava to Fred Ridley to Billy Payne would have looked bad.  A clear violation, overlooked, and the call ignored.  There might have been an traumatic and embarrassing Tiger DQ.

Edited by 15th Club, 08 January 2018 - 02:40 PM.


8

#759 nbg352

nbg352

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,227 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 144021
  • Joined: 10/25/2011
  • Location:Ontario Golden Horseshoe
  • Handicap:8.6
GolfWRX Likes : 3928

Posted 09 January 2018 - 11:25 AM

.

View Post15th Club, on 08 January 2018 - 02:36 PM, said:

View Postnbg352, on 21 December 2017 - 01:27 PM, said:

Eger had a previous run in with Ridley. Ridley had apparently one upped Eger at some point. Was this Eger's chance to get even? If so, he did it under the guise of someone solely concerned with protecting the field. Eger spoke of his dislike(?) for Ridley and the incident that led to it in his GD interview.

-Tiger takes his drop
-Ridley says the drop is fine
-The committee reviews the drop on video and determines that there is nothing there to warrant a reversal of Ridley's decision
- Eger calls in
-A further video review shows nothing that seems to be amiss...the drop still looks fine. ( parallax distortion is the culprit ).
-Tiger gives his interview.
-Penalties are levied as a result of Tiger's own words.
So, in the end, Eger was a peripheral player in this case. His call DID make the committee look at the drop again, but that's it.
Was his motivation pure? Or was it tainted? I can only hope the former is true. After all, he is a pro, right?

That is a false chronology.

This is the correct chronology:
  • Tiger takes his drop
  • Eger sees it, and calls in before anybody on the Rules Committee is thinking about it.  While Tiger is still on the course.
  • Alerted by Eger's call, they review it and (perhaps, but I don't know) with Fred Ridley's animus toward Eger, and knowing that it had been a call from Eger, the Committee (including Fred Ridley) decides, wrongly, that Tiger's drop was okay.  It was a badly sloppy ruling; and after it was made, there began a groundswell of agreement with Eger, among the CBS crew, and others who gave the whole situation a second look after hearing about Eger's phone call.  Any animus on the part of Eger toward Fred Ridley is less than beside the point.  Eger was doing everyone a favor.  Eger didn't call Fred Ridley and had no idea that there'd be any disagreement between himself and Ridley at that point.
  • Tiger is asked about it in the media building after signing his card and accurately states exactly what he did.  What he did, was exactly what Eger had feared, and what Eger correctly described in his original telephone call.  Tiger goes back to his rented home in Augusta.
  • Having stated (admitted) what he did, Tiger effectively sealed any factual question.  The only question then would be what the penalty should be.
  • The resolution that was made the next morning -- no DQ, because the Committee considered it and ruled -- was undesirable, but was the best one under the circumstances.  And it was a resolution that was itself within the Rules.
  • Eger, who was correct all along, was the central player (apart from Woods himself).  Eger's call was barely in time for the Committee to consider it.  Eger's own relationship with Fred Ridley might (we don't know) have played a small role in how and why the Committee got it wrong.  (Lesson; don't doubt David Eger on a Rules question.)  But his getting the Committee involved, properly, ultimately saved Woods' continuation in the tournament.  Eger effectively and properly protected both Woods and the field.  The correct ruling was made, thanks mostly to his call.  Without Eger's call, the situation was destined to be a bad oversight, or a later-caught problem that would have required Tiger to DQ.
Under the newly-proposed procedures, they would have to ignore Eger's call.  Tiger would have gone in and signed his card.  Nobody would have done anything.  And then Eger would say to one of his golf-writer buddies, "You know, I called that in, while Tiger was still on the course.  And they ignored me.  The whole thing could have been saved."  And when the writer put that into print, everybody from Tiger to Joey LaCava to Fred Ridley to Billy Payne would have looked bad.  A clear violation, overlooked, and the call ignored.  There might have been an traumatic and embarrassing Tiger DQ.

I give facts and you give opinion. Nice call, CNN.
Ridley made the first determination, had ruled in Woods' favour, the committee agreed and then Eger called. The committee still stood by Ridley. Until Tiger spoke. On whether the committee and Ridley were sloppy or not is conjecture. They made the call based on video evidence. That evidence was skewed by parallax but they didn't know it. And yes,  the entire thing took place while Woods was on the course. Except for the interview after his round, which is what sunk his Masters dream that year.
But you will say anything to advance your cause. You've been dying to make the call yourself. Sorry, but that is no longer possible.
IMHO, if Eger was to make that same call under the new rule, his status would ensure that it would be accepted by the committee.
R11S 8* square; Stock stiff
Maltby  KE4  14* 3w , Axe Excaliber  R flex tipped 1"
RBZ 25* hb; RBZstage 2 19* hb
   Mizuno MP30  5 - PW, AXE Excaliber stiff, Hogan Apex PC E Wedge (50*) TT DG s300
GM Never Compromise GM2 putter
54*, 58* TM TP wedges 3* flat

9

#760 Sean2

Sean2

    #TheWRX (Callaway Trip)

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 29,614 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 29539
  • Joined: 05/23/2007
  • Location:South of Boston
  • Ebay ID:None
GolfWRX Likes : 16809

Posted 09 January 2018 - 11:43 AM

Seems like the viewer call-ins need to be called in. lol

Callaway GBB Epic
Callaway GBB Epic 4/7/9
Callaway Apex CF16 6-AW
Callaway MD3/MD-PM 54/58/62
Callaway "O" Works #7

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#761 Sawgrass

Sawgrass

    Legend

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,581 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 83736
  • Joined: 05/24/2009
  • Location:Stamford, Connecticut
GolfWRX Likes : 6035

Posted 09 January 2018 - 01:20 PM

View Postnbg352, on 09 January 2018 - 11:25 AM, said:

IMHO, if Eger was to make that same call under the new rule, his status would ensure that it would be accepted by the committee.
On what basis?

11

#762 nbg352

nbg352

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,227 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 144021
  • Joined: 10/25/2011
  • Location:Ontario Golden Horseshoe
  • Handicap:8.6
GolfWRX Likes : 3928

Posted 09 January 2018 - 02:08 PM

View PostSawgrass, on 09 January 2018 - 01:20 PM, said:

View Postnbg352, on 09 January 2018 - 11:25 AM, said:

IMHO, if Eger was to make that same call under the new rule, his status would ensure that it would be accepted by the committee.
On what basis?
As a known and respected rules official, not your average call in Joe, I think the committee would hear him out.
But, that is just my opinion, it's a call I would entertain in the same situation.
R11S 8* square; Stock stiff
Maltby  KE4  14* 3w , Axe Excaliber  R flex tipped 1"
RBZ 25* hb; RBZstage 2 19* hb
   Mizuno MP30  5 - PW, AXE Excaliber stiff, Hogan Apex PC E Wedge (50*) TT DG s300
GM Never Compromise GM2 putter
54*, 58* TM TP wedges 3* flat

12

#763 bscinstnct

bscinstnct

    Legend

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,329 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 77664
  • Joined: 03/17/2009
GolfWRX Likes : 16473

Posted 09 January 2018 - 02:15 PM

This thread be ; )

Posted Image

Edited by bscinstnct, 09 January 2018 - 02:22 PM.


13

#764 15th Club

15th Club

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,388 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 248249
  • Joined: 04/30/2013
  • Location:Michigan
  • Ebay ID:cdbplc
GolfWRX Likes : 656

Posted 09 January 2018 - 05:08 PM

I'll try rebutting you this way, nbg352; point by point.
My part in blue:


View Postnbg352, on 21 December 2017 - 01:27 PM, said:

...
Eger had a previous run in with Ridley. Ridley had apparently one upped Eger at some point. Was this Eger's chance to get even? If so, he did it under the guise of someone solely concerned with protecting the field. Eger spoke of his dislike(?) for Ridley and the incident that led to it in his GD interview.
That's just all nasty presumption on your part.  Even you use a question mark.

-Tiger takes his drop
No dispute, of course.
-Ridley says the drop is fine
True, but when?
-The committee reviews the drop on video and determines that there is nothing there to warrant a reversal of Ridley's decision
True, but when?
- Eger calls in
You imply that Eger's call came later.  That's positively untrue.  Eger absolutely called while Tiger was still on the course.  And, he texted his friend who was a Rules official.  It is known with some great specificity when Eger called.  When exactly that information was considered by Ridley & Co. is for them to say.  They blandly say that at some point they reviewed video.  I make the presumption that they reviewed video when prompted by Eger's call.  I have never heard them Ridley say when and why they reviewed the video.  To me, I think it is plain that they did it in a hurry, in response to Eger's call-in.
-A further video review shows nothing that seems to be amiss...the drop still looks fine. ( parallax distortion is the culprit )
I don't even understand why you contest this.  Eger saw THE SAME video.  Eger made the right call.  Proven to have been right, by Tiger's own unwitting (and honest) description.  You keep saying that the video, per se, doesn't show any clear violation.  But Eger saw it in a moment.  And others saw it and started talk on social media, that CBS was picking up on.  CBS/Jim Nantz later warned Ridley about the possible firestorm.
-Tiger gives his interview.
Uh, correct.  Tiger does his interview after he signed his card and the committee said he was okay.  The committee, we now know, was wrong.  And so totally wrong, that they didn't even supply Tiger with the head's up on what the controversy was.  So Tiger walked himself right into the penalty.  But only because he was being honest.
-Penalties are levied as a result of Tiger's own words.
And he got two strokes.  It would have been DQ if Eger hadn't called, and got them looking at the whole thing.
So, in the end, Eger was a peripheral player in this case.
Absolutely not.  His was the right call, made as soon as possible and within the time needed to save Tiger from DQ.
His call DID make the committee look at the drop again, but that's it.
I think it was Eger's call that made them look at it in the first place.
Was his motivation pure? Or was it tainted? I can only hope the former is true. After all, he is a pro, right?
There is not one shred of evidence that Eger's motivation was anything other than what he has said.

Edited by 15th Club, 09 January 2018 - 05:17 PM.


14

#765 nbg352

nbg352

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,227 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 144021
  • Joined: 10/25/2011
  • Location:Ontario Golden Horseshoe
  • Handicap:8.6
GolfWRX Likes : 3928

Posted 09 January 2018 - 05:22 PM

View Post15th Club, on 09 January 2018 - 05:08 PM, said:

I'll try rebutting you this way, nbg352; point by point:


View Postnbg352, on 21 December 2017 - 01:27 PM, said:

...
Eger had a previous run in with Ridley. Ridley had apparently one upped Eger at some point. Was this Eger's chance to get even? If so, he did it under the guise of someone solely concerned with protecting the field. Eger spoke of his dislike(?) for Ridley and the incident that led to it in his GD interviewa
That's just all nasty presumption on your part.  Even you use a question mark.

-Tiger takes his drop
No dispute, of course.
-Ridley says the drop is fine
True, but when?
Within minutes of the drop
-The committee reviews the drop on video and determines that there is nothing there to warrant a reversal of Ridley's decision
True, but when?
Within minutes of Ridley's ruling.
- Eger calls in
You imply that Eger's call came later.  That's positively untrue.  Eger absolutely called while Tiger was still on the course.  And, he texted his friend who was a Rules official.  When exactly that information was considered by Ridley & Co. is for them to say.  They blandly say that at some point they reviewed video.  I make the presumption that they reviewed video when prompted by Eger's call.  I have never heard them Ridley say when and why they reviewed the video.  To me, I think it is plain that they did it in a hurry in response to Eger's call-in.
Of course he called in while Woods was on the course. But he called after the Committee had accepted Ridley`s decision
-A further video review shows nothing that seems to be amiss...the drop still looks fine. ( parallax distortion is the culprit )
I don't even understand why you contest this.  Eger saw THE SAME video.  Eger made the right call.  Proven to have been right, by Tiger's own unwitting (and honest) description.  You keep saying that the video, per se, doesn't show any clear violation.  But Eger saw it in a moment.  And others saw it and started talk on social media, that CBS was picking up on.  CBS/Jim Nantz later warned Ridley about the possible firestorm.
Yes, he saw the same video. The committee looked at it again after he called, yet determined that the video did NOT clearly show any violation as the drop, as seen on distorted video, looked acceptable
-Tiger gives his interview.
Uh, correct.  Tiger does his interview after he signed his card and the committee said he was okay.  The committee, we now know, was wrong.  And so totally wrong, that they didn't even supply Tiger with the head's up on what the controversy was.  So Tiger walked himself right into the penalty.  But only because he was being honest.
Why wouldn`t he be honest? After all, he believed the drop was fine.
-Penalties are levied as a result of Tiger's own words.
And he got two strokes.  It would have been DQ if Eger hadn't called, and got them looking at the whole thing.
No, he was not DQ'd because Ridley had made the original decision that the drop was good and the committee had backed him up and then still decided the drop was good after Eger's call.
So, in the end, Eger was a peripheral player in this case.
Absolutely not.  His was the right call, made as soon as possible and within the time needed to save Tiger from DQ.
Yes, Eger made the right call but the committee disagreed at the time. It felt the drop was legit even after his call in.
His call DID make the committee look at the drop again, but that's it.
I think it was Eger's call that made them look at it in the first place.
On this we will just have to agree to disagree
Was his motivation pure? Or was it tainted? I can only hope the former is true. After all, he is a pro, right?
There is not one shred of evidence that Eger's motivation was anything other than what he has said.
Except of course for his own words given in a GD interview
Had it all gone down as you suggest, while Woods was still playing, then he would have been notified at the latest, at the end of his round. He was not. He was notified the next morning, after his interview and after the committee saw superimposed photo that clearly showed what parallax distortion would not.  And that late notification and the determination that Woods honestly felt the drop was good at the time he did it was why he was not DQ'd.
I sincerely hope this is it...I'm tired of typing.........

Edited by nbg352, 09 January 2018 - 05:33 PM.

R11S 8* square; Stock stiff
Maltby  KE4  14* 3w , Axe Excaliber  R flex tipped 1"
RBZ 25* hb; RBZstage 2 19* hb
   Mizuno MP30  5 - PW, AXE Excaliber stiff, Hogan Apex PC E Wedge (50*) TT DG s300
GM Never Compromise GM2 putter
54*, 58* TM TP wedges 3* flat

15

#766 15th Club

15th Club

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,388 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 248249
  • Joined: 04/30/2013
  • Location:Michigan
  • Ebay ID:cdbplc
GolfWRX Likes : 656

Posted 09 January 2018 - 05:46 PM

nbg352, and all other readers of this page; here is the link to David Eger's interview with GD.  Make up your own mind as to whether Eger had any ill-motivation in any of this:

https://www.golfdige...shot-david-eger

From the interview:

Quote

ON FRIDAY OF THIS YEAR'S MASTERS

, my wife, Tricia, went to the lawn-and- garden store and filled the back of the SUV with tomato plants, herbs and potting soil. She wanted help planting the stuff, so I was watching the tournament intermittently. I watched Tiger tee off on 14, when he stood at five under par, then left to manhandle a 50-pound bag of potting soil for Tricia. When I got back in front of the TV, Tiger was putting out for par on 16. When the announcer said, "Tiger remains at four under par," I naturally wanted to see how he'd made a bogey. So I rewound the DVR to his play at the 15th. I watched a replay of him ricocheting his third shot off the flagstick and into the water and thought,

He must have hit a great shot to make a 6

, and rewound further to watch his fifth shot. That's when I noticed the divot hole a good distance in front of the place where he'd played that fifth shot. Then I watched his third shot again, and I see no divot hole. I replayed the sequence again, and then again. Tricia asked for help with the tomato plants. I said, "Honey, you're going to have to wait."


I KNEW IMMEDIATELY

that unless somebody intervened before Tiger signed his card, there was a 100-percent chance he would be disqualified for signing for a score lower than what he shot. Tiger clearly didn't play his fifth shot from "as nearly as possible" from where he'd played his third shot, as required by Rule 26-1a. It was imperative that Tiger correct his hole score to an 8 instead of the 6 he'd made. So I phoned Mickey Bradley, a PGA Tour rules official who I knew was working the Masters. I'd seen Mickey a couple of weeks before at a Champions Tour event I'd played in. Mickey, who was assigned to the 13th hole, told me he was finished for the day and was in his car. I told him what I'd seen and urged him—strongly—to reach Mark Russell [rules official] or Fred Ridley [chairman of the Masters competition committees] and notify them. At that point, I figured it was a done deal. I assumed Mickey would call Mark or Fred, the officials would take another look, and Tiger would be surrounded by green coats when he came off 18. They would interview Tiger as to what happened on the 15th, he'd adjust his score from a 6 to an 8 for violating Rule 20-7 [playing from a wrong place], and that would be it.


WHEN I WATCHED TIGER'S INTERVIEW

with ESPN's Tom Rinaldi, explaining his thought process on moving back to take the drop at 15, it was clear Tiger didn't know he'd violated a rule. His score of 6 appeared to stand. He obviously hadn't been interviewed by anyone on the rules committee before he signed. I was perturbed but went to sleep knowing I'd done what I was supposed to do. I didn't know at that point what would happen next. The next morning I played golf at Quail Hollow. When I came off the course at about 10:45 a.m., the whole thing had blown up. Tiger was assessed a two-stroke penalty instead of being disqualified under Rule 33-7, because the rules committee had erred.


I DON'T KNOW IF MICKEY told Fred Ridley that it was me who had called, but it's hard to imagine that he didn't. When a TV viewer calls in—and I handled many call-ins myself when I was at the PGA Tour—you consider the source. You weigh that person's credibility and knowledge. Ridley apparently looked at my objection that Tiger's drop wasn't at a point "as nearly as possible" from where he'd played his third shot, and rejected it. Fred's comment that it would be "splitting hairs" on the drop being improper was a stretch, to say the least.


WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if I hadn't phoned Mickey? I think someone else would have noticed before play ended on Sunday, and Tiger would have been disqualified. It would have been an even bigger mess. The thing my call did, ultimately, was give the Masters a chance to make a mess of things, which in turn provided a basis to penalize Tiger only two strokes instead of DQing him.


...


RIDLEY ISN'T MY BIGGEST FAN

. There's a history there. Fred was captain of our 1989 Walker Cup team. In my opening-day foursomes match, with Kevin Johnson as my partner, I conceded our opponents a 10-inch putt, a straight-in gimme. Ridley approached me as I came off the green. "Don't ever concede a putt like that," he said. I'd played competitive golf my whole life and had a pretty good idea as to which putts can be conceded, and when. I didn't care for the admonishment, or his tone. It was a tough week. We ended up getting beat, the first-ever U.S. loss on American soil.


...


IN 1998, I qualified to play in the U.S. Open at Olympic. The walking official in my group was Fred Ridley. After Casey Martin, Ed Fryatt and I finished playing the seventh hole, I noticed there was a wait on the eighth tee. The seventh tee also was empty. So, I practiced putting, which is not prohibited at the U.S. Open as it is at the Masters, the PGA Championship and on the PGA Tour. As I was stroking the putts, Fred walked over and said practice putting wasn't allowed. It was a serious objection, because if Ridley happened to be right, it meant I'd incur a penalty. I suggested to Ridley that he check with another official, which he went off to do while I continued to putt. On the tee at No. 8, Ridley returned to inform me that practice putting was indeed allowed. A lot of years passed, but when it became obvious he blew past my take on the Tiger drop, my 1998 opinion of his rules expertise was reinforced. In my view, Ridley's knowledge of the Rules of Golf was, and is, suspect.


THE FIRST REAL CASE OF CALL-INS from viewers was Paul Azinger moving some loose impediments with his foot in a water hazard at Doral in 1991. You get the evidence where you can, and it doesn't matter if players who happen to be on TV are exposed to greater scrutiny than players not on TV. The bottom line is that ignoring a violation because it happened on TV would not be a level playing field.




16

#767 Mr. Herbert

Mr. Herbert

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 753 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 77823
  • Joined: 03/19/2009
  • Location:Quahog, RI
  • Handicap:Gin
GolfWRX Likes : 519

Posted 09 January 2018 - 06:54 PM

View Post15th Club, on 09 January 2018 - 05:46 PM, said:

nbg352, and all other readers of this page; here is the link to David Eger's interview with GD.  Make up your own mind as to whether Eger had any ill-motivation in any of this:

https://www.golfdige...shot-david-eger

From the interview:

Quote

ON FRIDAY OF THIS YEAR'S MASTERS

, my wife, Tricia, went to the lawn-and- garden store and filled the back of the SUV with tomato plants, herbs and potting soil. She wanted help planting the stuff, so I was watching the tournament intermittently. I watched Tiger tee off on 14, when he stood at five under par, then left to manhandle a 50-pound bag of potting soil for Tricia. When I got back in front of the TV, Tiger was putting out for par on 16. When the announcer said, "Tiger remains at four under par," I naturally wanted to see how he'd made a bogey. So I rewound the DVR to his play at the 15th. I watched a replay of him ricocheting his third shot off the flagstick and into the water and thought,

He must have hit a great shot to make a 6

, and rewound further to watch his fifth shot. That's when I noticed the divot hole a good distance in front of the place where he'd played that fifth shot. Then I watched his third shot again, and I see no divot hole. I replayed the sequence again, and then again. Tricia asked for help with the tomato plants. I said, "Honey, you're going to have to wait."


I KNEW IMMEDIATELY

that unless somebody intervened before Tiger signed his card, there was a 100-percent chance he would be disqualified for signing for a score lower than what he shot. Tiger clearly didn't play his fifth shot from "as nearly as possible" from where he'd played his third shot, as required by Rule 26-1a. It was imperative that Tiger correct his hole score to an 8 instead of the 6 he'd made. So I phoned Mickey Bradley, a PGA Tour rules official who I knew was working the Masters. I'd seen Mickey a couple of weeks before at a Champions Tour event I'd played in. Mickey, who was assigned to the 13th hole, told me he was finished for the day and was in his car. I told him what I'd seen and urged him—strongly—to reach Mark Russell [rules official] or Fred Ridley [chairman of the Masters competition committees] and notify them. At that point, I figured it was a done deal. I assumed Mickey would call Mark or Fred, the officials would take another look, and Tiger would be surrounded by green coats when he came off 18. They would interview Tiger as to what happened on the 15th, he'd adjust his score from a 6 to an 8 for violating Rule 20-7 [playing from a wrong place], and that would be it.


WHEN I WATCHED TIGER'S INTERVIEW

with ESPN's Tom Rinaldi, explaining his thought process on moving back to take the drop at 15, it was clear Tiger didn't know he'd violated a rule. His score of 6 appeared to stand. He obviously hadn't been interviewed by anyone on the rules committee before he signed. I was perturbed but went to sleep knowing I'd done what I was supposed to do. I didn't know at that point what would happen next. The next morning I played golf at Quail Hollow. When I came off the course at about 10:45 a.m., the whole thing had blown up. Tiger was assessed a two-stroke penalty instead of being disqualified under Rule 33-7, because the rules committee had erred.


I DON'T KNOW IF MICKEY told Fred Ridley that it was me who had called, but it's hard to imagine that he didn't. When a TV viewer calls in—and I handled many call-ins myself when I was at the PGA Tour—you consider the source. You weigh that person's credibility and knowledge. Ridley apparently looked at my objection that Tiger's drop wasn't at a point "as nearly as possible" from where he'd played his third shot, and rejected it. Fred's comment that it would be "splitting hairs" on the drop being improper was a stretch, to say the least.


WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if I hadn't phoned Mickey? I think someone else would have noticed before play ended on Sunday, and Tiger would have been disqualified. It would have been an even bigger mess. The thing my call did, ultimately, was give the Masters a chance to make a mess of things, which in turn provided a basis to penalize Tiger only two strokes instead of DQing him.


...


RIDLEY ISN'T MY BIGGEST FAN

. There's a history there. Fred was captain of our 1989 Walker Cup team. In my opening-day foursomes match, with Kevin Johnson as my partner, I conceded our opponents a 10-inch putt, a straight-in gimme. Ridley approached me as I came off the green. "Don't ever concede a putt like that," he said. I'd played competitive golf my whole life and had a pretty good idea as to which putts can be conceded, and when. I didn't care for the admonishment, or his tone. It was a tough week. We ended up getting beat, the first-ever U.S. loss on American soil.


...


IN 1998, I qualified to play in the U.S. Open at Olympic. The walking official in my group was Fred Ridley. After Casey Martin, Ed Fryatt and I finished playing the seventh hole, I noticed there was a wait on the eighth tee. The seventh tee also was empty. So, I practiced putting, which is not prohibited at the U.S. Open as it is at the Masters, the PGA Championship and on the PGA Tour. As I was stroking the putts, Fred walked over and said practice putting wasn't allowed. It was a serious objection, because if Ridley happened to be right, it meant I'd incur a penalty. I suggested to Ridley that he check with another official, which he went off to do while I continued to putt. On the tee at No. 8, Ridley returned to inform me that practice putting was indeed allowed. A lot of years passed, but when it became obvious he blew past my take on the Tiger drop, my 1998 opinion of his rules expertise was reinforced. In my view, Ridley's knowledge of the Rules of Golf was, and is, suspect.


THE FIRST REAL CASE OF CALL-INS from viewers was Paul Azinger moving some loose impediments with his foot in a water hazard at Doral in 1991. You get the evidence where you can, and it doesn't matter if players who happen to be on TV are exposed to greater scrutiny than players not on TV. The bottom line is that ignoring a violation because it happened on TV would not be a level playing field.



But none of this takes into account “parallax distortion”, so it’s all irrelevant.

17

#768 Ty_Webb

Ty_Webb

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,789 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 7874
  • Joined: 11/16/2005
  • Location:New York
  • Handicap:+1.2
GolfWRX Likes : 582

Posted 10 January 2018 - 08:50 AM

View Postnbg352, on 09 January 2018 - 05:22 PM, said:

-Ridley says the drop is fine
True, but when?
Within minutes of the drop
-The committee reviews the drop on video and determines that there is nothing there to warrant a reversal of Ridley's decision
True, but when?
Within minutes of Ridley's ruling.
How do you know when the committee first reviewed the video? How do you know that Ridley said the drop was fine before Eger called in? This runs contrary to everything that I heard about the situation, so I'm very curious as to your source.
Ping G30 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G30 3 wood Accra
Titleist 714CB 2, 3, 4
Titleist 714MB 5-PW
Vokey 52 and 56
Scotty Cameron Newport 2

18

#769 nsxguy

nsxguy

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 431858
  • Joined: 07/08/2016
  • Location:Florida
  • Handicap:4.4
GolfWRX Likes : 1267

Posted 10 January 2018 - 10:34 AM

View PostMr. Herbert, on 09 January 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

View Post15th Club, on 09 January 2018 - 05:46 PM, said:

nbg352, and all other readers of this page; here is the link to David Eger's interview with GD.  Make up your own mind as to whether Eger had any ill-motivation in any of this:

https://www.golfdige...shot-david-eger

From the interview:

Quote

ON FRIDAY OF THIS YEAR'S MASTERS

, my wife, Tricia, went to the lawn-and- garden store and filled the back of the SUV with tomato plants, herbs and potting soil. She wanted help planting the stuff, so I was watching the tournament intermittently. I watched Tiger tee off on 14, when he stood at five under par, then left to manhandle a 50-pound bag of potting soil for Tricia. When I got back in front of the TV, Tiger was putting out for par on 16. When the announcer said, "Tiger remains at four under par," I naturally wanted to see how he'd made a bogey. So I rewound the DVR to his play at the 15th. I watched a replay of him ricocheting his third shot off the flagstick and into the water and thought,
He must have hit a great shot to make a 6
, and rewound further to watch his fifth shot. That's when I noticed the divot hole a good distance in front of the place where he'd played that fifth shot. Then I watched his third shot again, and I see no divot hole. I replayed the sequence again, and then again. Tricia asked for help with the tomato plants. I said, "Honey, you're going to have to wait."











I KNEW IMMEDIATELY

that unless somebody intervened before Tiger signed his card, there was a 100-percent chance he would be disqualified for signing for a score lower than what he shot. Tiger clearly didn't play his fifth shot from "as nearly as possible" from where he'd played his third shot, as required by Rule 26-1a. It was imperative that Tiger correct his hole score to an 8 instead of the 6 he'd made. So I phoned Mickey Bradley, a PGA Tour rules official who I knew was working the Masters. I'd seen Mickey a couple of weeks before at a Champions Tour event I'd played in. Mickey, who was assigned to the 13th hole, told me he was finished for the day and was in his car. I told him what I'd seen and urged him—strongly—to reach Mark Russell [rules official] or Fred Ridley [chairman of the Masters competition committees] and notify them. At that point, I figured it was a done deal. I assumed Mickey would call Mark or Fred, the officials would take another look, and Tiger would be surrounded by green coats when he came off 18. They would interview Tiger as to what happened on the 15th, he'd adjust his score from a 6 to an 8 for violating Rule 20-7 [playing from a wrong place], and that would be it.











WHEN I WATCHED TIGER'S INTERVIEW

with ESPN's Tom Rinaldi, explaining his thought process on moving back to take the drop at 15, it was clear Tiger didn't know he'd violated a rule. His score of 6 appeared to stand. He obviously hadn't been interviewed by anyone on the rules committee before he signed. I was perturbed but went to sleep knowing I'd done what I was supposed to do. I didn't know at that point what would happen next. The next morning I played golf at Quail Hollow. When I came off the course at about 10:45 a.m., the whole thing had blown up. Tiger was assessed a two-stroke penalty instead of being disqualified under Rule 33-7, because the rules committee had erred.


I DON'T KNOW IF MICKEY told Fred Ridley that it was me who had called, but it's hard to imagine that he didn't. When a TV viewer calls in—and I handled many call-ins myself when I was at the PGA Tour—you consider the source. You weigh that person's credibility and knowledge. Ridley apparently looked at my objection that Tiger's drop wasn't at a point "as nearly as possible" from where he'd played his third shot, and rejected it. Fred's comment that it would be "splitting hairs" on the drop being improper was a stretch, to say the least.

WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if I hadn't phoned Mickey? I think someone else would have noticed before play ended on Sunday, and Tiger would have been disqualified. It would have been an even bigger mess. The thing my call did, ultimately, was give the Masters a chance to make a mess of things, which in turn provided a basis to penalize Tiger only two strokes instead of DQing him.

...

RIDLEY ISN'T MY BIGGEST FAN
. There's a history there. Fred was captain of our 1989 Walker Cup team. In my opening-day foursomes match, with Kevin Johnson as my partner, I conceded our opponents a 10-inch putt, a straight-in gimme. Ridley approached me as I came off the green. "Don't ever concede a putt like that," he said. I'd played competitive golf my whole life and had a pretty good idea as to which putts can be conceded, and when. I didn't care for the admonishment, or his tone. It was a tough week. We ended up getting beat, the first-ever U.S. loss on American soil.


...

IN 1998, I qualified to play in the U.S. Open at Olympic. The walking official in my group was Fred Ridley. After Casey Martin, Ed Fryatt and I finished playing the seventh hole, I noticed there was a wait on the eighth tee. The seventh tee also was empty. So, I practiced putting, which is not prohibited at the U.S. Open as it is at the Masters, the PGA Championship and on the PGA Tour. As I was stroking the putts, Fred walked over and said practice putting wasn't allowed. It was a serious objection, because if Ridley happened to be right, it meant I'd incur a penalty. I suggested to Ridley that he check with another official, which he went off to do while I continued to putt. On the tee at No. 8, Ridley returned to inform me that practice putting was indeed allowed. A lot of years passed, but when it became obvious he blew past my take on the Tiger drop, my 1998 opinion of his rules expertise was reinforced. In my view, Ridley's knowledge of the Rules of Golf was, and is, suspect.

THE FIRST REAL CASE OF CALL-INS from viewers was Paul Azinger moving some loose impediments with his foot in a water hazard at Doral in 1991. You get the evidence where you can, and it doesn't matter if players who happen to be on TV are exposed to greater scrutiny than players not on TV. The bottom line is that ignoring a violation because it happened on TV would not be a level playing field.


But none of this takes into account “parallax distortion”, so it’s all irrelevant.

:lol: "parallax distortion" or not, a blind man could see that is not "as near as possible" to the still existing and clearly visible divot. Now if the caddie had fixed the divot while Tiger walked up to assess his options,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Callaway Fusion 9* Project X Handcrafted Hzrdus Black "60" 6.0
Adams A12 Pro hybrids, 16*, 20*, 23*, Aldila VS Proto Stiff
Ping G20 5-U, DG S300
Cleveland RTX-3 56* SW & 64* LW
TaylorMade Tour Spider Black

Chrome Soft Truvis Yellow/Black

19

#770 heavy_hitter

heavy_hitter

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,156 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366715
  • Joined: 03/16/2015
GolfWRX Likes : 1594

Posted 10 January 2018 - 12:33 PM

View Post15th Club, on 09 January 2018 - 05:46 PM, said:

nbg352, and all other readers of this page; here is the link to David Eger's interview with GD.  Make up your own mind as to whether Eger had any ill-motivation in any of this:

https://www.golfdige...shot-david-eger

From the interview:

Quote

ON FRIDAY OF THIS YEAR'S MASTERS

, my wife, Tricia, went to the lawn-and- garden store and filled the back of the SUV with tomato plants, herbs and potting soil. She wanted help planting the stuff, so I was watching the tournament intermittently. I watched Tiger tee off on 14, when he stood at five under par, then left to manhandle a 50-pound bag of potting soil for Tricia. When I got back in front of the TV, Tiger was putting out for par on 16. When the announcer said, "Tiger remains at four under par," I naturally wanted to see how he'd made a bogey. So I rewound the DVR to his play at the 15th. I watched a replay of him ricocheting his third shot off the flagstick and into the water and thought,
He must have hit a great shot to make a 6
, and rewound further to watch his fifth shot. That's when I noticed the divot hole a good distance in front of the place where he'd played that fifth shot. Then I watched his third shot again, and I see no divot hole. I replayed the sequence again, and then again. Tricia asked for help with the tomato plants. I said, "Honey, you're going to have to wait."


I KNEW IMMEDIATELY

that unless somebody intervened before Tiger signed his card, there was a 100-percent chance he would be disqualified for signing for a score lower than what he shot. Tiger clearly didn't play his fifth shot from "as nearly as possible" from where he'd played his third shot, as required by Rule 26-1a. It was imperative that Tiger correct his hole score to an 8 instead of the 6 he'd made. So I phoned Mickey Bradley, a PGA Tour rules official who I knew was working the Masters. I'd seen Mickey a couple of weeks before at a Champions Tour event I'd played in. Mickey, who was assigned to the 13th hole, told me he was finished for the day and was in his car. I told him what I'd seen and urged him—strongly—to reach Mark Russell [rules official] or Fred Ridley [chairman of the Masters competition committees] and notify them. At that point, I figured it was a done deal. I assumed Mickey would call Mark or Fred, the officials would take another look, and Tiger would be surrounded by green coats when he came off 18. They would interview Tiger as to what happened on the 15th, he'd adjust his score from a 6 to an 8 for violating Rule 20-7 [playing from a wrong place], and that would be it.


WHEN I WATCHED TIGER'S INTERVIEW

with ESPN's Tom Rinaldi, explaining his thought process on moving back to take the drop at 15, it was clear Tiger didn't know he'd violated a rule. His score of 6 appeared to stand. He obviously hadn't been interviewed by anyone on the rules committee before he signed. I was perturbed but went to sleep knowing I'd done what I was supposed to do. I didn't know at that point what would happen next. The next morning I played golf at Quail Hollow. When I came off the course at about 10:45 a.m., the whole thing had blown up. Tiger was assessed a two-stroke penalty instead of being disqualified under Rule 33-7, because the rules committee had erred.


I DON'T KNOW IF MICKEY told Fred Ridley that it was me who had called, but it's hard to imagine that he didn't. When a TV viewer calls in—and I handled many call-ins myself when I was at the PGA Tour—you consider the source. You weigh that person's credibility and knowledge. Ridley apparently looked at my objection that Tiger's drop wasn't at a point "as nearly as possible" from where he'd played his third shot, and rejected it. Fred's comment that it would be "splitting hairs" on the drop being improper was a stretch, to say the least.

WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if I hadn't phoned Mickey? I think someone else would have noticed before play ended on Sunday, and Tiger would have been disqualified. It would have been an even bigger mess. The thing my call did, ultimately, was give the Masters a chance to make a mess of things, which in turn provided a basis to penalize Tiger only two strokes instead of DQing him.

...

RIDLEY ISN'T MY BIGGEST FAN
. There's a history there. Fred was captain of our 1989 Walker Cup team. In my opening-day foursomes match, with Kevin Johnson as my partner, I conceded our opponents a 10-inch putt, a straight-in gimme. Ridley approached me as I came off the green. "Don't ever concede a putt like that," he said. I'd played competitive golf my whole life and had a pretty good idea as to which putts can be conceded, and when. I didn't care for the admonishment, or his tone. It was a tough week. We ended up getting beat, the first-ever U.S. loss on American soil.


...

IN 1998, I qualified to play in the U.S. Open at Olympic. The walking official in my group was Fred Ridley. After Casey Martin, Ed Fryatt and I finished playing the seventh hole, I noticed there was a wait on the eighth tee. The seventh tee also was empty. So, I practiced putting, which is not prohibited at the U.S. Open as it is at the Masters, the PGA Championship and on the PGA Tour. As I was stroking the putts, Fred walked over and said practice putting wasn't allowed. It was a serious objection, because if Ridley happened to be right, it meant I'd incur a penalty. I suggested to Ridley that he check with another official, which he went off to do while I continued to putt. On the tee at No. 8, Ridley returned to inform me that practice putting was indeed allowed. A lot of years passed, but when it became obvious he blew past my take on the Tiger drop, my 1998 opinion of his rules expertise was reinforced. In my view, Ridley's knowledge of the Rules of Golf was, and is, suspect.

THE FIRST REAL CASE OF CALL-INS from viewers was Paul Azinger moving some loose impediments with his foot in a water hazard at Doral in 1991. You get the evidence where you can, and it doesn't matter if players who happen to be on TV are exposed to greater scrutiny than players not on TV. The bottom line is that ignoring a violation because it happened on TV would not be a level playing field.



Guess what????  It doesn't matter.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#771 farmer

farmer

    Hall of Fame

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 6,962 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 70095
  • Joined: 12/02/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 2823

Posted 10 January 2018 - 02:41 PM

Should parallax distortion have been considered in Lexi's penalty?

21

#772 heavy_hitter

heavy_hitter

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,156 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366715
  • Joined: 03/16/2015
GolfWRX Likes : 1594

Posted 11 January 2018 - 10:04 AM

View Postfarmer, on 10 January 2018 - 02:41 PM, said:

Should parallax distortion have been considered in Lexi's penalty?

Yes.

22

#773 nbg352

nbg352

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,227 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 144021
  • Joined: 10/25/2011
  • Location:Ontario Golden Horseshoe
  • Handicap:8.6
GolfWRX Likes : 3928

Posted 11 January 2018 - 10:58 AM

View PostTy_Webb, on 10 January 2018 - 08:50 AM, said:

View Postnbg352, on 09 January 2018 - 05:22 PM, said:

-Ridley says the drop is fine
True, but when?
Within minutes of the drop
-The committee reviews the drop on video and determines that there is nothing there to warrant a reversal of Ridley's decision
True, but when?
Within minutes of Ridley's ruling.
How do you know when the committee first reviewed the video? How do you know that Ridley said the drop was fine before Eger called in? This runs contrary to everything that I heard about the situation, so I'm very curious as to your source.
I read the news reports of the incident. That is how it was explained
R11S 8* square; Stock stiff
Maltby  KE4  14* 3w , Axe Excaliber  R flex tipped 1"
RBZ 25* hb; RBZstage 2 19* hb
   Mizuno MP30  5 - PW, AXE Excaliber stiff, Hogan Apex PC E Wedge (50*) TT DG s300
GM Never Compromise GM2 putter
54*, 58* TM TP wedges 3* flat

23

#774 nbg352

nbg352

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,227 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 144021
  • Joined: 10/25/2011
  • Location:Ontario Golden Horseshoe
  • Handicap:8.6
GolfWRX Likes : 3928

Posted 11 January 2018 - 11:01 AM

View Postnsxguy, on 10 January 2018 - 10:34 AM, said:

View PostMr. Herbert, on 09 January 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

View Post15th Club, on 09 January 2018 - 05:46 PM, said:

nbg352, and all other readers of this page; here is the link to David Eger's interview with GD.  Make up your own mind as to whether Eger had any ill-motivation in any of this:

https://www.golfdige...shot-david-eger

From the interview:

Quote



ON FRIDAY OF THIS YEAR'S MASTERS

, my wife, Tricia, went to the lawn-and- garden store and filled the back of the SUV with tomato plants, herbs and potting soil. She wanted help planting the stuff, so I was watching the tournament intermittently. I watched Tiger tee off on 14, when he stood at five under par, then left to manhandle a 50-pound bag of potting soil for Tricia. When I got back in front of the TV, Tiger was putting out for par on 16. When the announcer said, "Tiger remains at four under par," I naturally wanted to see how he'd made a bogey. So I rewound the DVR to his play at the 15th. I watched a replay of him ricocheting his third shot off the flagstick and into the water and thought,
He must have hit a great shot to make a 6
, and rewound further to watch his fifth shot. That's when I noticed the divot hole a good distance in front of the place where he'd played that fifth shot. Then I watched his third shot again, and I see no divot hole. I replayed the sequence again, and then again. Tricia asked for help with the tomato plants. I said, "Honey, you're going to have to wait."












I KNEW IMMEDIATELY

that unless somebody intervened before Tiger signed his card, there was a 100-percent chance he would be disqualified for signing for a score lower than what he shot. Tiger clearly didn't play his fifth shot from "as nearly as possible" from where he'd played his third shot, as required by Rule 26-1a. It was imperative that Tiger correct his hole score to an 8 instead of the 6 he'd made. So I phoned Mickey Bradley, a PGA Tour rules official who I knew was working the Masters. I'd seen Mickey a couple of weeks before at a Champions Tour event I'd played in. Mickey, who was assigned to the 13th hole, told me he was finished for the day and was in his car. I told him what I'd seen and urged him—strongly—to reach Mark Russell [rules official] or Fred Ridley [chairman of the Masters competition committees] and notify them. At that point, I figured it was a done deal. I assumed Mickey would call Mark or Fred, the officials would take another look, and Tiger would be surrounded by green coats when he came off 18. They would interview Tiger as to what happened on the 15th, he'd adjust his score from a 6 to an 8 for violating Rule 20-7 [playing from a wrong place], and that would be it.












WHEN I WATCHED TIGER'S INTERVIEW

with ESPN's Tom Rinaldi, explaining his thought process on moving back to take the drop at 15, it was clear Tiger didn't know he'd violated a rule. His score of 6 appeared to stand. He obviously hadn't been interviewed by anyone on the rules committee before he signed. I was perturbed but went to sleep knowing I'd done what I was supposed to do. I didn't know at that point what would happen next. The next morning I played golf at Quail Hollow. When I came off the course at about 10:45 a.m., the whole thing had blown up. Tiger was assessed a two-stroke penalty instead of being disqualified under Rule 33-7, because the rules committee had erred.


I DON'T KNOW IF MICKEY told Fred Ridley that it was me who had called, but it's hard to imagine that he didn't. When a TV viewer calls in—and I handled many call-ins myself when I was at the PGA Tour—you consider the source. You weigh that person's credibility and knowledge. Ridley apparently looked at my objection that Tiger's drop wasn't at a point "as nearly as possible" from where he'd played his third shot, and rejected it. Fred's comment that it would be "splitting hairs" on the drop being improper was a stretch, to say the least.

WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if I hadn't phoned Mickey? I think someone else would have noticed before play ended on Sunday, and Tiger would have been disqualified. It would have been an even bigger mess. The thing my call did, ultimately, was give the Masters a chance to make a mess of things, which in turn provided a basis to penalize Tiger only two strokes instead of DQing him.

...

RIDLEY ISN'T MY BIGGEST FAN
. There's a history there. Fred was captain of our 1989 Walker Cup team. In my opening-day foursomes match, with Kevin Johnson as my partner, I conceded our opponents a 10-inch putt, a straight-in gimme. Ridley approached me as I came off the green. "Don't ever concede a putt like that," he said. I'd played competitive golf my whole life and had a pretty good idea as to which putts can be conceded, and when. I didn't care for the admonishment, or his tone. It was a tough week. We ended up getting beat, the first-ever U.S. loss on American soil.


...

IN 1998, I qualified to play in the U.S. Open at Olympic. The walking official in my group was Fred Ridley. After Casey Martin, Ed Fryatt and I finished playing the seventh hole, I noticed there was a wait on the eighth tee. The seventh tee also was empty. So, I practiced putting, which is not prohibited at the U.S. Open as it is at the Masters, the PGA Championship and on the PGA Tour. As I was stroking the putts, Fred walked over and said practice putting wasn't allowed. It was a serious objection, because if Ridley happened to be right, it meant I'd incur a penalty. I suggested to Ridley that he check with another official, which he went off to do while I continued to putt. On the tee at No. 8, Ridley returned to inform me that practice putting was indeed allowed. A lot of years passed, but when it became obvious he blew past my take on the Tiger drop, my 1998 opinion of his rules expertise was reinforced. In my view, Ridley's knowledge of the Rules of Golf was, and is, suspect.

THE FIRST REAL CASE OF CALL-INS from viewers was Paul Azinger moving some loose impediments with his foot in a water hazard at Doral in 1991. You get the evidence where you can, and it doesn't matter if players who happen to be on TV are exposed to greater scrutiny than players not on TV. The bottom line is that ignoring a violation because it happened on TV would not be a level playing field.


But none of this takes into account “parallax distortion”, so it’s all irrelevant.

:lol: "parallax distortion" or not, a blind man could see that is not "as near as possible" to the still existing and clearly visible divot. Now if the caddie had fixed the divot while Tiger walked up to assess his options,,,,,,,,,,,,,,



The committee didn't "see" it that way...
R11S 8* square; Stock stiff
Maltby  KE4  14* 3w , Axe Excaliber  R flex tipped 1"
RBZ 25* hb; RBZstage 2 19* hb
   Mizuno MP30  5 - PW, AXE Excaliber stiff, Hogan Apex PC E Wedge (50*) TT DG s300
GM Never Compromise GM2 putter
54*, 58* TM TP wedges 3* flat

24

#775 nsxguy

nsxguy

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 431858
  • Joined: 07/08/2016
  • Location:Florida
  • Handicap:4.4
GolfWRX Likes : 1267

Posted 11 January 2018 - 11:24 AM

View Postnbg352, on 11 January 2018 - 11:01 AM, said:

The committee didn't "see" it that way...

Neither did this guy,,,,,,,,,,,

Posted Image

Callaway Fusion 9* Project X Handcrafted Hzrdus Black "60" 6.0
Adams A12 Pro hybrids, 16*, 20*, 23*, Aldila VS Proto Stiff
Ping G20 5-U, DG S300
Cleveland RTX-3 56* SW & 64* LW
TaylorMade Tour Spider Black

Chrome Soft Truvis Yellow/Black

25

#776 Andrew Bond of Glencoe

Andrew Bond of Glencoe

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 635 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 371925
  • Joined: 04/19/2015
  • Location:Sunny Florida
  • Handicap:2.5
GolfWRX Likes : 425

Posted 13 January 2018 - 10:36 AM

This ruling made a lot of old shut-in depressed men upset. Some of these old guys lived for being the one who caught someone for an infraction.

26

#777 Sawgrass

Sawgrass

    Legend

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,581 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 83736
  • Joined: 05/24/2009
  • Location:Stamford, Connecticut
GolfWRX Likes : 6035

Posted 13 January 2018 - 12:18 PM

View PostAndrew Bond of Glencoe, on 13 January 2018 - 10:36 AM, said:

This ruling made a lot of old shut-in depressed men upset. Some of these old guys lived for being the one who caught someone for an infraction.
Others of us are downright fascinated that people would bother to even try to imagine the motivation of a caller, and wonder how small a person's life must be to be use that random projection as a way to feel superior.

"One thing I'm sure of is that I don't want anyone else having an impact when I can't."

27

#778 nsxguy

nsxguy

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 431858
  • Joined: 07/08/2016
  • Location:Florida
  • Handicap:4.4
GolfWRX Likes : 1267

Posted 13 January 2018 - 09:16 PM

View PostAndrew Bond of Glencoe, on 13 January 2018 - 10:36 AM, said:

This ruling made a lot of old shut-in depressed men upset. Some of these old guys lived for being the one who caught someone for an infraction.

Sounds almost like the voice of experience,,,,,,,,,,
Callaway Fusion 9* Project X Handcrafted Hzrdus Black "60" 6.0
Adams A12 Pro hybrids, 16*, 20*, 23*, Aldila VS Proto Stiff
Ping G20 5-U, DG S300
Cleveland RTX-3 56* SW & 64* LW
TaylorMade Tour Spider Black

Chrome Soft Truvis Yellow/Black

28

#779 Ty_Webb

Ty_Webb

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,789 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 7874
  • Joined: 11/16/2005
  • Location:New York
  • Handicap:+1.2
GolfWRX Likes : 582

Posted 13 January 2018 - 09:19 PM

View Postnbg352, on 11 January 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

View PostTy_Webb, on 10 January 2018 - 08:50 AM, said:

View Postnbg352, on 09 January 2018 - 05:22 PM, said:

-Ridley says the drop is fine
True, but when?
Within minutes of the drop
-The committee reviews the drop on video and determines that there is nothing there to warrant a reversal of Ridley's decision
True, but when?
Within minutes of Ridley's ruling.
How do you know when the committee first reviewed the video? How do you know that Ridley said the drop was fine before Eger called in? This runs contrary to everything that I heard about the situation, so I'm very curious as to your source.
I read the news reports of the incident. That is how it was explained

Well you read different ones from me then. Here is one that matches my recollection: http://www.golf.com/...13-inside-story

Tiger drops in the wrong place. Eger calls. Ridley reviews after that call and says no penalty without asking Tiger. Tiger signs. Tiger says he dropped further back. Ridley gives him the penalty. They excuse him the DQ because they should have talked to him about it.

Interesting that they were completely unaware that Ridley had explicitly reviewed the drop before Eger called in. Especially given how much detail they seem to know about everything else.
Ping G30 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G30 3 wood Accra
Titleist 714CB 2, 3, 4
Titleist 714MB 5-PW
Vokey 52 and 56
Scotty Cameron Newport 2

29

#780 15th Club

15th Club

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,388 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 248249
  • Joined: 04/30/2013
  • Location:Michigan
  • Ebay ID:cdbplc
GolfWRX Likes : 656

Posted 15 January 2018 - 12:18 PM

View PostAndrew Bond of Glencoe, on 13 January 2018 - 10:36 AM, said:

This ruling made a lot of old shut-in depressed men upset. Some of these old guys lived for being the one who caught someone for an infraction.

This is what I hate about this debate.  Comments like this.  I knew that there would be a few, and so that is why I tried to grind on the David Eger situation so hard.  Because if you think that David Eger is an "old shut in depressed" man, who "lived for being the one who caught someone for an infraction," you might just be a special sort of Rules-ignorant, history-ignoring millennial douchebag.  You started it, Andrew Bond of Glencoe.

The motivations of callers have absolutely nothing to do with rulings.  Callers don't make rulings.  Callers alert officials, to things that the officials might have missed.  We've been through it already; in the history of televised golf, there has never been a "bad call" made because of a viewer call-in.  Because viewers don't assess penalties.  Calls that result in penalties have been, as if by definition, good rulings.  Wherein Rules officials review suspect video and make a decision.  The sooner the better, we'd all agree.  Ignoring calls won't help anything get done any quicker.  We will miss that chance, potentially, where something that could be seen and reviewed while the player is on the course, might get missed.

With the new addition of an official who will watch the broadcast, I regard it as a nice enhancement.  But of course that whole idea completely blows out of the water a couple of dozen comments on this topic, wherein people who are offended by call-in observations, said that the television broadcast put an unfair spotlight on parts of the field.  Well, that is EXACTLY what is going to happen with the new television-official.  Haha.

I still think it all goes back to my original comment on this topic; there are millions of general sports fans -- couch-potato watchers of football, basketball, baseball, etc. -- who with only a vague understanding of the Rules of Golf and the history of the game, cannot wrap their heads around how golf is different from all the other televised sports they consume.  They expect to sit back and be entertained by players who play and officials who rule over them.  They think that anybody else has no business being part of it.  They regard anybody else with suspicion and derision.

And I don't.  I expect that there are people sitting at home watching golf on television, who are Rules Officials for amateur golf with the Metropolitan Golf Association, or the Ohio Golf Association, or a USGA volunteer in California, or a retired player in Florida, who all know the Rules of Golf as well as or better than a Dustin Johnson or a Lexi Thompson or a Michelle Wie.  And if they see something, I hope they will say something, and that their information will not be willingly ignored.

I understand that golf is not like the NFL, or the NBA, or MLB, and I really do not want golf to be like them.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

30




Also tagged with Chamblee, Morning Drive, Slugger, RDD

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors