golfrewind.com

My take? (like anyone cares)...
Tiger simply left it to those who enforce the rules...played by the ruling given, made his 5 and left

...whoever made the (very correct) comment on the liberal IO rulings earlier got it right...Tigers is nothing new or earth-shattering.
...for those who want "reasonable evidence"--to sit and sort that out would have made those 30 minutes turn into an hour or more
.....the comparison to Darren Clarke, while it does point out a gentlemanly act by DC, is not accurate. He KNEW the position and lie he would have faced, Tiger did not.
...--ALL these guys are playing for their JOBS by the same set of rules. Favorable rulings come from knowing the rules and LEGALLY taking advantage of what a ruling will allow...it happens every day, in every job, whether it be on the golf course, in the court room, big businesses, small businesses, other sports...etc.
---Rules are there not to help or penalize. But I guarantee knowing the rules thoroughly will more often help a player than penalize him.
...LASTLY: FOR ALL THE TIGER BASHERS OUT THERE WHO ARE
WHO ARE FANS OF ____(fill in his name there) CALL PHIL OR
VIJAY, OR ERNIE AND TELL THEM TO LEARN HOW TO GET
UP AND DOWN FOR PAR FROM A DOWNHILL LIE IN 4 IN. GRASS
TO A SHORT SIDED PIN IN A PLAYOFF LIKE TIGER DID Y'DAY.
THEN YOUR GUY MIGHT WIN. FACE IT, HE IS THE BEST BY MILES

And the congregation says, "AMEN."

The point Ty is that they didn't "find" the ball; the concluded they had reasonable evidence that they knew what had happened to it and made their ruling on that supposition.

It is that supposition that I have the problem with.

The responsibility for the reasonable evidence is the player's, not the officials. The player has 5 minutes, then its lost ball. That rule applies to everyone - or should, Tiger included.

Yes, that's true, but if you actually read the quote, both of the rules officials said if they didn't find it, then they'd proceed under the ball lost in immovable obstruction rule. That's what they said. Read the quote. Then maybe we can discuss it, but at the moment, you are arguing something from completely the wrong place.

And if the player has responsibility for determining what is reasonable evidence, then we have anarchy. How long before someone says, oh well I knew that was in the water hazard because I saw it. Even though their playing partners didn't. If it's up to them, then noone can call it into doubt.

Yes- absolutely right. But that just makes the whole charade even worse.

If they hadn't found the ball they would have given him a drop from the IO.

How foolish would they have looked if they gave that ruling and THEN the ball was found outside the IO ?

Oh, but I forgot, one of your earler posts implied that the IO covered half of Ohio !

Er, the ball was in the IO. That's why he got relief remember???

Ironically, "IO" is actually half of OHIO!

No we don't have anarchy we actually have GOLFplayed in the spirit of the game - no cheating.

Ty, there are well established procedures for "resonable evidence", based on common sense, equity and especially honour.

If you hit a ball towards a hazard, where there is nothing but fairway in between and we reach the point and there is no ball on the grass, then it is usually agreed that the ball is in the hazard. The "reasonable evidence" is that we saw the ball head towards the hazard.

Now if I was tying my shoe-lace when you hit and didn't see the line of the ball, I am quite entitled not to agree and could insist you treat it as a lost ball. In that situation golf's "self policing" policy comes into play. If we all play in the spirit of the game, I will take your word for it; I don't have to but that it was makes golf special. I could also pretend I didn't see it but that would also be outside the spirit of the game.

Last Friday the ball was hit towards an IO but nobody saw where it finished and no-one established where it finished within 5 minutes. The officials took it upon themselves to accept a set of inconclusive and inter-locking assumptions as "reasonable evidence" the ball was in the IO. They based everything else (including alternatives if the ball wasn't found) on that assumption.

If it happened in a normal game, as Tiger's partner I would not have granted him IO relief and in the company I keep, nobody would have sought it.

I realise that professional golf is a different situation but there is a central principle of the game at issue here and to me that is a lot more important than Tiger's 52nd win or anything else.

Why don't you for a second think of it like "it's a good job that they found out some kid had pinched his ball, because otherwise, they could have unfairly penalised Tiger for someone stealing his ball". The ball was in the IO. You know that and therefore you know what the fair result was. Someone took it, so they couldn't identify it straight away, but they had evidence that that happened. And someone did see it, so your statement is already false.

Also, if I hit a ball into a lake and see a splash, but you're not watching, you can't make me follow the lost ball rule. If you tried, I wouldn't be playing with you again any time soon I can assure you. You're entitled not to agree with me, but you're not entitled to insist I treat it as a lost ball. It's not my fault you're not watching and nor should I be penalised as such.

A ball can not be deamed lost in an IOR.

Pistol

The problem is that a ball can be deemed lost if you don't know it is in the IO. I think they knew it was. swingaling thinks they didn't.

I don't believe they had sufficient "reasonable" evidence within the alloted time that the ball was in the IO and I don't believe they ever had enough evidence that the ball would have remained in the IO without the alleged interference. There has been quite a lot of retro-fit history on this incident; what is now being presented as a seamless sequence of events was anything but.