CHEATER, CHEATER PUMPKIN EATER PART DEUX

In the prior post in my rush to publish I noted that Tigers Woods cheated at the masters, that he should have been disqualified, and that that Rule 33-7 was a hot mess in its vagueness.  Shane Ryan, in his well-researched and hugely entertaining piece on Grantland, The Masters Retro Diary, clears it all up by including a link to the USGA Archives.  This article provides the legislative history of the rule, so to speak, and provides specific examples of the situations in which the rule should be applied and when it should not.  See article here.  Woods’ behavior clearly falls in the latter category.

The USGA states as follows in its commentary:

A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:

• As a player’s ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest.  Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole.  As the player was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.

• A player's ball lies in a water hazard.  In making his backswing for the stroke, the player is aware that his club touched a branch in the hazard.  Not realizing at the time that the branch was detached, the player did not include the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4 in his score for the hole.  As the player could have reasonably determined the status of the branch prior to signing and returning his score card, the player should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4.  (Revised)

Woods was aware of the facts in this case.  As he candidly explained to the media after his round, he knew that he dropped his ball behind the permitted drop area in order to get a better shot.  The committee of Augusta panjandrums should not have applied Rule 33-7, but they did, a cowardly act consistent with Augusta National’s past, as I noted previously.  If we couldn’t have the satisfaction of the proper application of the rule and Tiger’s deserved disqualification, we can all take solace in the New York Post’s classic front page (rivaling “Headless Body In Topless Bar” fame) aptly describing Tiger’s improper actions at Augusta here.

CHEATER, CHEATER PUMPKIN EATER

Let’s get a few things straight:

1.  Tiger Woods cheated.  And he cheated intentionally.  He admitted that he placed his ball outside the proper drop area in order to have an easier chip shot to the green.  (Whether he did or not is irrelevant.  His admitted intent was to give himself a better shot, whether he actually improperly dropped the ball farther back from the hole or not 

2.  Woods committed a serious breach of golf etiquette.  This determination is important for the proper application of PGA Rule 33-7.  

3.  The Augusta National Golf Club acted consistently with its character in not disqualifying Woods.   Every golfer since the beginning of time (measured by the creation of the game of golf hard by the Firth of Forth) has been disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard, period.  However, invoking new golf rule 33-7, the Augusta national panjandrums that rule the Masters with an iron golf glove (see McCord, Gary – “bikini wax’) penalized Woods two strokes but did not disqualify him.  

The cowardice in this ruling is consistent with the club’s craven treatment of minorities and women since its inception.   The irony here is that, consistent with the fundamental principle of corporate greed (a classic oxymoron) which is the hallmark of the club and its members, a veritable Who’s Who of corporate royalty, a minority benefits directly from the ruling.

 

4.  Rule 33-7 is an open-ended disgrace.   The rule was created after Padraig Harrington was disqualified because his ball moved “three dimples” worth of real estate during a tournament in Abu Dhabi in 2010  An eagle-eyed television viewer called it in, and Harrington was penalized and disqualified.  Harsh?  Apparently the rules makers thought so. Consistent with the rules of golf then in place?  Absolutely.

Here’s Rule 33-7:

33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion

A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.

Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.

If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.

The PGA rules define the term “Committee” as follows: 

“Committee’’ is the committee in charge of the competition or, if the matter does not arise in a competition, the committee in charge of the course.

Okay, tell me what “committee” at Augusta National decided to invoke the “exceptional individual cases” provision of Rule 33-7.  While you’re at it, define “exceptional individual cases.”  One case would appear to be the “three-dimple” situation.  The ball moves a tiny bit at address, you’re okay.  The second exceptional individual case appears to be the “wrong drop by the most important and popular player in the world, whose absence from the tournament in midstream would cause TV ratings to plummet, much to the dismay of our sponsors.”  So far, a rather limited universe exists for the application of this extremely vague rule.  Let’s keep it that way for the good of the game.

5.  Roberto De Vicenzo is spinning in his grave.

6. Cheaters never prosper, or perhaps more in keeping with the modern version, karma is a bitch.  It would appear the golf gods notice all, on and off the course.   Tiger’s recent Nike ad that “Winning takes care of everything” exhibits the kind of hubris that the golf gods typically find distasteful.  Throw in Tiger’s extramarital exploits and Jack’s majors record looks safer every day.

7. Finally, we need to know who these callers are. Is it the same guy, sitting in his mancave (or “jar”) with a wall of equipment in front of him, a paranoid wizard of spy technology like Gene Hackman in Enemy of the State, here, monitoring every second of every tournament on the Golf Channel and beyond?  Is it a club, with secret handshakes, like the Neighborhood Patrol, whose members take turns monitoring each tournament on a rotating basis so that no illegal act is missed?  And how do you know what number to call?  Is there a PGA Tournament hotline, like Harrison Ford calling the White House in Air Force One?  I think the number to call is 1-800-Get- A-Life, but I could be mistaken.

So many questions, so little time.  But it was rewarding to see the golf gods frown on Tiger’s attempt to win yet another major, this time in a very unusual way.  Perhaps he’ll think twice about breaking the rules of golf in the future.  

 

No Cheating Allowed!

 
                                                          

AMDG

 

© R.E. Kelly 2012-2021