The Masters 2013.

[David McKeown]

Andrew Cotter on the BBC summed it up quite well for me

Andrew Cotter - BBC Sport at Augusta
"The rules of golf are clear. Tiger took an incorrect drop so there's only one outcome. Guan Tianlang will have to be disqualified."

[TacadoirArdMhacha]

http://www.pga.com/rule-changed-spare-players-being-dqd-in-cases-trial-tv

In a change directed at scorecards and television viewers, golf revised one of its rules Thursday so that players who learn of a violation after they sign their cards can be penalized without being disqualified.

The Royal & Ancient and U.S. Golf Association announced the new interpretation an hour before the Masters began. It is effective immediately.

'TRIAL BY TELEVISION'

Reports of rule violations by TV viewers got Camilo Villegas and Padraig Harrington disqualified from big events in recent months.

Villegas DQ'd from Kapalua after TV viewer phones in rules violation
Called-in report of Villegas' violation prompts spirited debate over rule
Harrington DQ'd after TV viewer reports violation
R&A might 'have a look' at rule after Harrington DQ'd
Rule changed to spare players from being DQ'd in cases of 'trial by TV'
The change stems from two incidents earlier this year on separate tours.

Padraig Harrington was disqualified after opening with a 65 in the European Tour's Abu Dhabi Championship when a slow-motion replay on high-definition television revealed that his ball moved ever so slightly after he replaced his marker.

Harrington knew the rule, but did not realize his ball had moved. It should have been a two-shot penalty, but because it was discovered after the round, he was disqualified for signing an incorrect card.

Under the change, Harrington would have had two shots added to his score and could resume playing the tournament.

In the first PGA Tour event of the year in Hawaii, Camilo Villegas was disqualified for signing an incorrect card after a television viewer noticed he had tamped down a divot in an area where his chip was rolling back down a slope. In that case, Villegas still would be disqualified for not knowing the rule.

It is not a change in the actual Rules of Golf, rather a book of Decisions that allows officials various case studies. The new interpretation is of Decision 33-7/4.5, that essentially gives officials more latitude to determine if a player should be disqualified.

Even with the new interpretation, it makes clear that knowing the rules is up to the player.

"For some time, we have been concerned that, in certain limited circumstances, disproportionate disqualification penalties have been required by the rules," R&A Chief Executive Peter Dawson said. "This carefully considered decision reflects our desire to ensure that the Rules of Golf remain fair and relevant in the changing environment in which the game is played today."

That changing environment mostly relates to television.

For the last three decades, there have been a few incidents in which TV viewers will see what they believe is an infraction. It can lead to penalties, but often the reporting of the violation comes after the player has signed his card.

"This is a logical and important step in our re-evaluation of the impact of high-definition video on the game," USGA Executive Director Mike Davis said. "We collectively believe that this revised decision addresses many video-related issues never contemplated by the Rules of Golf."

I'll freely admit I'm talking through my pocket here as I lumped onto the 6/5 that he'd be disqualified but its hard to see how the rule above saved him. Surely it was intended for incidents where the player couldn't have realised that a rule had been broken. Either Tiger forgot the rules (most likely) or he deliberately broke them. Either way, while disqualification mightn't fit the crime, it seems it did fit the rules.

[Jonah]

Storm in a tee cup this( pun intended!)
Time to move on and enjoy the next two rounds, certainly better with Tiger in than out.

[gallsman]

Storm in a tee cup this( pun intended!)
Time to move on and enjoy the next two rounds, certainly better with Tiger in than out.

That's the problem - the fact that it's Tiger should be immaterial.

[TacadoirArdMhacha]

But is the point not that the "get out clause" doesn't, or at least shouldn't, apply in this scenario?

[Hoof Hearted]

It's not the first time Tiger dropped his balls where he shouldn't have!

very good 

[muppet]

Piers Morgan tweeting that he should do the manly thing and withdraw.

We know Tiger is slow to pull out of anywhere.

[tyroneman]

26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard

It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke:

a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or

b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or

Part (b) seems to say he is free to move the ball as far back as he wants ....... ?

[gerry]

[TacadoirArdMhacha]

26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard

It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke:

a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or

b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or

Part (b) seems to say he is free to move the ball as far back as he wants ....... ?

Only if its in a line with where it entered the water and the hole. Tiger's initial shot hit the flag and then entered the water. A line between the two points would be in a completely different position to where Tiger played from.

[muppet]

26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard

It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke:

a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or

b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or

Part (b) seems to say he is free to move the ball as far back as he wants ....... ?

Only if its in a line with where it entered the water and the hole. Tiger's initial shot hit the flag and then entered the water. A line between the two points would be in a completely different position to where Tiger played from.

Was just about to post his. The new position looks like it would be close to the crowd to the left of the water in front of the green looking from the fairway. Where exactly did he play from?

He may simply have forgotten that the ball crossed the margin twice and he needed to drop in line with the second point. If that is the case he should be d/q.

[Tony Baloney]

I think all you lads calling for his disqualification need to seriously ask yourselves why you are pursuing this. I don't think it is any coincidence that he is black.

[Minder]

Woods birdies the 1st

[Minder]

Live streaming from the Masters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCvgMNnM3OA&sns=em

[TacadoirArdMhacha]

I think all you lads calling for his disqualification need to seriously ask yourselves why you are pursuing this. I don't think it is any coincidence that he is black.

I'd bet on him to be disqualified so am motivated by greed not race.

I graciously accept your profuse apology.