That is in reference to the incident where his ball was going out of bounds and a spectator put his hand up to knock it back into play.
Firstly, why wasn't there more talk about this? If it were a certain young female player there would have been alot more talk.
Add to this, Tiger was asked about it, and he said thanks to the guy who did it. Just imagine if Michelle Wie did that. Would there not be 20 pages of discussion critising her, calling her a cheat, and a bad sport for thanking the guy who stopped her ball going out of bounds?
Question 1:
Why not more discussion about that Tiger incident? Question 2:
What are the rules for this type of thing. For example, could I hire 20 guys to go around the course and anytime Luke Donald hits the ball in the deep rough or behind tree, one of those guys would pick the ball up and throw it on the fairway. Obiously the guy who did that would be thrown off the course, but there would be still 19 guys to continue the good work for the rest of the round.
Rodney, chill out. No one in the group saw what happened, and you don't PENALIZE a player for that. You give him a FREE drop wherever the ball would have ended up. OB was not likely, by the way. Most say he would have ended up about 15-20 yards further down in the trees or even in the trampled down grass about 10 yards left of where he was. The rules official asked the gallery if someone intentionally hit it, and the person denied it. No one saw it definitely except the TV people, so you can't blame Tiger or the rules officials for this. It's unfortunate the idiot felt the need to do that, though.
I saw someone do that to Nicklaus's ball at the Masters once. Playing 18 and his second shot landed on the back edge and bounced hard. It was going over the crowd's heads and this hand appears in the air above and whacks the ball back onto the green. Finished about 15 feet away. I think it was marked down as lucky jack. Rub of the green. If anyone got caught paying someone to do that, they would be kicked off the tour in an instant I would imagine. So, leaving aside the integrity of the players anyway which is pretty much exemplary, the risk would be too high.
From the rules, it says it should be handled with equity.
Okay Tiger didn't know and the rules officials didn't notice, but it was brought to their attention. Isn't it the case that with many infringements, they arn't noticed at the time but later tv evidence shows it. Jeong Jang's double hit is an example.
So should something not have been done after the round. I think when a spectator helps a player and it was very obvious that it was very intentional, then that is not handled equitably as the rule stated. Tiger got an unfair advatage. Okay he may have won anyway, but it may make a big difference in some other tournament.
From the rules, it says it should be handled with equity.
Okay Tiger didn't know and the rules officials didn't notice, but it was brought to their attention. Isn't it the case that with many infringements, they arn't noticed at the time but later tv evidence shows it. Jeong Jang's double hit is an example.
So should something not have been done after the round. I think when a spectator helps a player and it was very obvious that it was very intentional, then that is not handled equitably as the rule stated. Tiger got an unfair advatage. Okay he may have won anyway, but it may make a big difference in some other tournament.
Tiger already chipped out to the fairway. That's a one stroke penalty for a bad tee shot. What more do you want? Sounds to me like you're just bitter because A) he got it up and down for par, and B) he won the tournament easily. The equitable thing to do is NOT penalize a player after the fact. That's like charging someone for a crime (other than murder) after the fact (like a speeding ticket 10 years after it supposedly happened). And, despite what you think, Tiger is not at fault here. The equitable thing would have been to make Tiger go 10-20 yards further left and drop and play his second shot from there. No one saw what really happened, so you can't penalize him for that.
Well what the fan did was wrong but if Tiger would ease up on his drive and loose a little speed he would be able to keep it in the fairway. Then this would never have happened. I think fairways are being missed because of too much emphasis on longer drives. SO heres my idea, instead of making courses longer we need to make the fairways more narrow. IMO
If Tiger had been penalised because some idiot did not leave well alone, he would be vulnerable toa Donald/Mickleson fan doing it again to get him penalised.
You can not penalise a player for something he had no control over
However........now that you're aware of the rule, we will be watching Wie's gallery very closely to make sure you're not there to give her a "helping hand!"
I have no intention of doing that. However, I may recruit some helping hands to do that job.
But of course the reason, they will be blocking the ball is to protect the spectators behind them, as another poster commented on the Tiger issue.
SO heres my idea, instead of making courses longer we need to make the fairways more narrow. IMO
Absolutely. Golf should be about getting it in the fairway. They should trick courses up, and severely penalise the non accurate long hitter.
Anyone who hits it 330 yards + should be heading into severe danger unless they hit it onto a 2 yard wide fairway.
260 yards - fairway wide
280 yard - narrowing
300 yards - really narrowing
320 yards - really really narrow, with really penalising rough, that the ball could only be advances a few yards from.
If Tiger had been penalised because some idiot did not leave well alone, he would be vulnerable toa Donald/Mickleson fan doing it again to get him penalised.
You can not penalise a player for something he had no control over
August 21st, 2006, 12:28 PM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
