This is the Masters

[Doggy Styles]

Oh dear. It has come to light that Tiger took an illegal drop yesterday.

Because he didn't add on the 2-stroke penalty, TV and tournament officials are desperately trying to concoct a reason why he should not be disqualified for signing an incorrect card.

[Doggy Styles]

Surprise surprise. A "Special Rule" has been invented for Tiger Woods.

He only gets the 2-stroke penalty but stays in the tournament. I'll wager that all the other players disqualified for the same thing over the years are in full agreement.

[Malcolm Buggeridge]

Surprise surprise. A "Special Rule" has been invented for Tiger Woods.

He only gets the 2-stroke penalty but stays in the tournament. I'll wager that all the other players disqualified for the same thing over the years are in full agreement.

Yes, quite DS. He's the Man Utd of the golfing world.

Let's not mince words, this is an outrage!

Interesting comment from Nick Faldo:

.

“He should really sit down and consider this - it will taint his legacy and his life,” he said. “I would be saying: ‘I have broken the rules of golf’. Sometimes the black and whiteness is harsh, but Tiger would get massive brownie points if he stood up and said: ‘Fair enough, I’ve broken the rules’ and walked.”

Explaining why he believed Woods was wrong to play on, Faldo said: “Tiger gained an advantage intentionally. He said so himself. He was judge and jury. If he goes on to win what kind of asterix would he have next to this Masters? Arnold Palmer said that in our game the integrity of golf must be taken forward. We are custodians of the game. We must carry it forward.”

[Malcolm Buggeridge]

Great birdie there from Cabrera on the 9th.

He's opened up a 2 point lead now.

I fancy Snedeker to be snapping st his heels though.

[Malcolm Buggeridge]

Well what a night that was! I'm sure there are a lot of bleary eyed CUKers out there today as we awake to our first ever Aussie Masters champion.

Glad that the Woods challenge faded. It would have been an asterixed victory and would have done, IMO, great damage to the game.

[DodgyAgent]

An Australian has won something

[oracleslave]

It would have been an asterixed victory and would have done, IMO, great damage to the game.

No it wouldn't. There is a committee in place to make and apply the rules and he complied fully.

[Malcolm Buggeridge]

No it wouldn't. There is a committee in place to make and apply the rules and he complied fully.

Tiger shoulda been chucked out for that drop shot error. Judges kept him in to boost TV ratings. Utter disgrace.

If he had any decency at all, he would have walked.

I'm not going as far as to say that Woods is bringing the game into disrepute but he's treading a very fine line.

Ok, on this occassion we can also point the finger at the judges (I don't think there's a cat in hell's chance of the R and A letting him off the hook if the circumstances were to be replicated at Muifield this July). I can also forgive him his off course pecadillos but his treatment of Steve Williams was beyond the pale and I'm pretty sure he's not far off doing something that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and he will have brought the game into disrepute and the golfing world will be a worse place for that.

[Doggy Styles]

No it wouldn't. There is a committee in place to make and apply the rules and he complied fully.

I totally agree with Malc on this point, but I also agree with you that it was the committee's responsibility. They were at fault, Tiger cannot really be blamed for accepting his good fortune.

With a precedent like this, what is to stop the next player breaking the rules, signing for a wrong score, then when they get caught pleading that they didn't know the rule?

The whole basis of golf is that ignorance of the rule is no excuse. Tiger broke a rule with a deliberate act, should have added two penalty shots for doing so, then signed for a wrong score. That is cast-iron disqualification in any golf competition, as many golfers have found to their cost.

That get-out rule quoted by the committe was added in 2010, where players could be re-instated at the discretion of the committee. However, that was to cover cases where the player did not know a rule had been broken, not that they didn't know the rule.

It came after the wind had moved Harrington's ball unbeknown to him, and was only picked up later by an eagled-eyed TV viewer. If he had seen it he would have applied the appropriate penalty, but he didn't see it and was disqualified after the event.

The Masters committee have abused this rule, and by doing so one can only assume they have put commercial interests above those of the game.

[oracleslave]

However, that was to cover cases where the player did not know a rule had been broken, not that they didn't know the rule.

Is that not the crux of it i.e. those points are pretty closely related. Tiger didn't know a rule had been broken and therefore the 2010 rule could be applied.