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.