The Show Must Go On (?): Tiger Woods Gets A "Free" Drop (Or Does He Get Screwed Royally?)

(Several Sunday edits, including ANOTHER picture.)

I will make no secret as I start this post.  I believe Tiger Woods to be the complete anti-thesis of anything resembling "fair sport".  I have no problems stating a strong bias against Tiger Woods, as I believe he has no less than supplanted Michael Jordan at the top of the Corporate Machine of Sports.

So count me less than surprised that Tiger Woods (and his millions of dollars and with his millions of viewers) was allowed to participate in the third round of the 2013 Masters.

However, it sounds like the whole thing was full of bloody freaking shenanigans.

Not even under a rules change that was supposed to take away some of the shenanigans that "home refereeing" has done to the game of golf has something like this gotten so ridiculous!

This, after what I (and golf fans (note that I say "golf fans" and not "Tiger Woods jockers" -- as the two have been badly confused, resulting in decisions like this morning's) have varying opinions about this ruling, too) had believed to be the biggest effort yet of "Get Out of the Way, Tiger's Supposed To Be The ONLY Story!"

The history of Major golf is a long one.  In the history of the major tournaments, no player has ever qualified younger than China's Tianlang Guan, who won the Asia-Pacific Amateur Championship to qualify for this week's Masters...  at age 14!!!

He actually gets paired with the likes of Ben Crenshaw, and then goes out and posts a 73 in his first round, including a very nice birdie on 18!

Guan becomes the story of the tournament, a tournament (much to the disgust of people like me!) dominated with Tiger Talk after his three Tour victories so far in 2013.

So what do I wake to Friday morning?

Guan (in what would turn out to be a complete Masters first -- the first time this have ever happened!) is penalized under Slow Play rules.

It turns out Guan was too indecisive on a number of the holes with respect to the winds at Augusta, was cautioned on 10, put on the clock at 12, and eventually was penalized after 17.

Michael Collins of ESPN.com notes in his commentary and grades for Round Two that the same official who penalized Guan,  John Paramor, also put on the clock a golfer in the 2009 (British) Open Championship.

So what happens?  Ross Fisher is found to have violated the 40-second time limit from address to ball-strike SEVEN FURTHER TIMES, and Paramor does not penalize him for Slow Play.

Hmmm...  That's an awful large case of "Get the fuck back to China, kid.  TIGER'S THE ONLY STORY HERE!"  (And especially given the racist and sexist nature of Augusta National Golf Club, can anyone dispute that possibility really exists?)

(Is there any wonder that I believe the future of golf is an Oriental-based Tour, for both genders.  We're almost there for the women as it is!)

That one-stroke penalty (especially with the Almighty Tiger CHARGING to the top of the leaderboard at the turn of his second round) appeared to endanger that Guan would fall more than 10 strokes outside the leader, and, hence be cut (since more than 50 players would be inside that number).

Then the Golfing Gods intervened.

Turns out, TWICE.

The second time was that no one got past the -6 necessary to keep Guan within 10 shots, so he will play the weekend.  (According to reports, though he was not warned, Guan was definitely advised on the back-nine to speed up his play at least twice!)

It's the first time that has everybody up in a tizzy!  (And may, depending on tomorrow's results, for quite some time!)

Tiger Woods was 5-under when he, predictably, blasted his drive on 15 a mile long and a mile wide into the pine straw.

This forced Tiger to lay up to about a full wedge.

What happens next almost causes golf fans (or Tiger-jockers, depending on your take) to slit their throats.

Tiger's wedge on 15 hits the flagstick.

If it (and we've seen this happen in golf) drops from there into the hole, he's -7 and off to the races.

Instead, something else is off to the races.  The ball -- to (EDIT FOR CORRECTNESS:  Rae's Creek is on 11-12-13) the pond of the Sarazen Bridge in front of the green!  The backspin on the wedge shot spins the ball from a few inches from the hole all the way off the front of the green, into the drink, see ya to 3 or 4...  Try 6.

Oh, did I say 6?

I meant 8!!!

The problem which resulted in much overnight Twitter consternation is seen in the following Deadspin picture.

Once the ball went into the hazard, Tiger, under the rules, has three options after a one-stroke penalty under Rule 26:

• There was a drop area near the water hazard.  Tiger elected not to take that option because he felt the lie there was too wet.
• He could take a line from the hole to the point in which the ball entered the hazard, and then drop any distance behind the hazard on that line he so chose.  The pin placement on 15, however, made that nearly impossible.
• So he elects the third option:  "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);"

A television viewer noted that he had not done so, as the picture above-referenced might appear to indicate.

He had actually taken his shot, and said so in his post-round press conference (which was one of the things Augusta referenced when it pulled him over today) two yards behind that initial divot.

So we have a problem.

Augusta officials (The "Masters Committee") heard Woods' comments, re-evaluated the stand, and ruled that he had illegally dropped, but invoked the following new rule (now part of Rule 33-7) (actually, a decision, two years old, now, at the Masters) to prevent the home viewer from disqualifying Woods.

"Generally, the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.

However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred."

It turns out, according to multiple sources, WE REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM.

You see, it turns out, and Tiger Woods said this himself on Twitter, that the drop had been declared legal on the course.

This is a huge problem.  On it's face, I'd be all for tossing the corporate punk.  I have seen a number of articles on the Internet saying exactly that, and the original intention of THIS article was to say that they may well be, as much as the Golfing Gods will allow, trying to rig a golf major for Tiger Woods for all the obvious reasons.

But in this case, you've got a Hell of an issue here.  Let's go through a timeline, shall we?

Tiger takes his shot on 15.  Conk, roll, splash.

Tiger then, according to his press conference:

“Well, I went down to the drop area, that wasn't going to be a good spot, because obviously it's into the grain, it's really grainy there. And it was a little bit wet. So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from,"

The important matter comes up next, but this basically tells you he discarded the other two options.

"but I went two yards further back and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit."

And that's the comment that the Committee did the penalty on.

On that statement alone, 33-7/4.5 never should've applied, and the penalty should've been disqualification, even if Tiger wasn't entirely aware that he had fouled.  This isn't something that some jackass with super slo-mo DVR on a 75" 1080p HDTV found one blade of grass had moved illegally, blah blah blah.

The problem is there are additional issues.

From the committee's statement on the matter:

"In preparation for his fifth shot, the player dropped his ball in close proximity to where he had played his third shot in apparently conformance with Rule 26. After being prompted by a television viewer, the Rules Committee reviewed a video of the shot while he was playing the 18th hole. At that moment and based on that evidence, the Committee determined he had complied with the Rules."
 OK, so why does the comment at the press conference merit reconsideration then?

You told him it was legal at 15.

Some Joe Blow calls in, you review it when he plays 18, call it legal again.

THEN you tell him to sign the 71, even as you advise him that something may have happened.

THEN, and only after his press conference, do you call it back.

First off, you made the call on the course when it happened.

Second off, you made the call again on the video (which should've been the same video that the guy at home saw!) as he was playing 18.

Third off, you authorized him to sign for the 71 that the two rulings of legality indicated he had earned!

If you are going to THEN say that he had fouled because he openly said he'd dropped two yards behind and took that into account when he took the shot:

"So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards further back and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit..."

Then, to me, you've screwed yourself.

33-7/4.5 does NOT apply.  He's admitted to going two yards further back and taking that into account.

The problem is:  You called the shot legal THREE TIMES. On the course, on the video, at the scorer's tent. And howinhell are you so blind as to not have seen the divot mark that he made with the first thing, especially with the aid of the video for the second review?

So you have only two options:

No penalty, as you said to him three times.

or Disqualification.

Now I will scream the loudest and the longest that he should be gone (and said it a lot today!) until I heard of the ruling and what was behind it.

If it was legal on the course, then you either have to toss the officials or let the call stand, because they made the call, and they saw it legal.

If what Tiger says is an admission of illegality, he's gone.  That's not 33-7/4.5.

However, was it actually illegal?

He's ruled legal three times (including the actual time of the shot and the video review (which should've handled 33-7/4.5.).

Also, as a good friend of mine (who knows her golf and wanted me to edit in that she hates Tiger Woods more than I do!) talked to me extensively about tonight: 

Could this have been a drop from what normally would've taken place on such a shot, that it was in line where the ball crossed the hazard the first time?

Which crossing of the hazard is counted under Rule 26?

After the Guan controversy, did they decide to stick it to a superstar, perhaps THE superstar, for Augusta National to make a point?

Could this have been payback against Tiger and the media for making Tiger the story?  That Augusta National Golf Club is the only attraction here??

We all know there is racism and sexism deep in the Augusta National Golf Club.  Perhaps still some animosity that a black man has taken over the white man's expensive game?

The more we see of it, the more it smells.

If Tiger admitted taking the two yards back and taking it into account, he should be tossed -- if that's a penalty under Rule 26.

But looking at the lie, what has he done to improve it?

One thing is for certain:  The Committee's Discretion rule does not apply here.  He either fouled and knew he fouled, or he didn't foul.

I'm not even sure he fouled, and, the more that golf fans I know read of it, it's pretty cloudy that he did foul at all.  ("As close as possible...")

Now, you have articles like this all over the Internet:

Tiger Woods' Masters Escape Reflects Badly On All Concerned

Rules are Rules -- Except for Tiger

Tiger Woods Should Withdraw from the 2013 Masters

Not to mention multiple golfers stating the same.

That said:

If he fouled, it's the wrong penalty.

He was ruled legal, even after a video review after Joe Blow called in.

If the facts of the press conference changed that, it's the wrong penalty.

Fact is, especially with Joe Blow with a telephone in one hand and a penalty flag in the other out there, they called it legal, with what should've been the same knowledge Woods provided in the press conference.

But if it is clear that he stated that he changed things, then you have the other problem.

The thing is:  He was called legal on the course.  If it were that blatant, I'd be loudest and longest to scream that the PGA and CBS and ESPN are buying this guy a Green Jacket.

Now, regardless of result, the tournament's been tainted.  Maybe, as my friends have said, this ends Joe Blow with the right to DQ and the like...

---

EDIT TO ADD after Sunday's action:

And, according to Sports Illustrated, there's now discussion that the pictures you saw with Deadspin are WRONG.

According to THIS SET of pictures, Woods was very precise in abiding by Rule 26.

Now Tiger did (due to several problems on the front side) lose by 4, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that this whole set of shenanigans, because of how golf screws with people's heads (we had one golfer on the Par-3 12th post a 7 today, and TWO MORE got 10's!!), this whole debacle may well have cost Woods the long-awaited 15th major.

If they don't get rid of the at-home officiating in tournament golf, the US Open, especially, is going to be a freaking debacle!!