The Masters

[Brooklyn Bully]

A rich professional sports dude with a younger hot wife? The HELL you say!

[Darth Biscuit]

A rich professional sports dude with a younger hot wife? The HELL you say!

Have you seen Vijays wife? She's neither...

[4Corners]

Aussies or the field for Sunday?

[Kevin Greene]

Aussies or the field for Sunday?

Gimme Snedeker straight up all day long.

[4Corners]

Tomorrow is going to be awesome

[Happy Panther]

People seem to be getting outraged over this which is surprising.

Whether you agree or disagree with the ruling, it was done within the letter of the law. The 2 stroke penalty basically took him out of contention.

The penalty could have ramifications down the road. What if he gets within two strokes of the lead. What if he gets to 17 majors?

I'm guessing this will be a watershed event in golf.

Or I could be wrong.

[Bob NC]

TV viewers have cost players tournaments in the past- Camillo Villegas was DQ'd as a result of a phone call in 2011.

In the case of the latest-this Tiger thing- had a caller not made the call, he would have been DQ'd for signing an incorrect score card. Only by virtue of that call did rules officials begin looking at the incident.

It's not a question of Tiger-hating as much as it is changing the rules of the game to accommodate the almighty TV dollar. Football and NCAA basketball timeouts are governed by TV. Masters tournament has their own rules committee and does not have the USGA or the PGA rules committees involved. Therefore, they feel they can change the rules of golf to suit their tournament, which benefits their TV ratings and their profitability.

The relatively new change in the rules is BECAUSE of the situation with Villegas, and various other situations where players have been DQ'd dating all the way back to Roberto De Vicenzo signing an incorrect scorecard in the 1968 Masters.

The powers that be instituted rule 33-7 to give an alternative to an automatic DQ. With Roberto, he hit the shots necessary to win the Masters with his golf clubs but he got the death penalty because of a mistake he made with his pencil.

There have been many instances of DQ in the past that almost everyone would look at as too harsh a penalty for the violation.

In 2011 the rules committee finally realized this and took some action, instituting Rule 33-7.

The only problem here is all the talking heads on TV that haven't swung a competitive club in years can't go along with progress and realize the rule has changed.

Tiger should have been DQ'd or should withdraw ONLY if we apply the pre 2011 rules.

We, however, are now operating under the current Rules of Golf.

[Anybodyhome]

People seem to be getting outraged over this which is surprising.

Whether you agree or disagree with the ruling, it was done within the letter of the law. The 2 stroke penalty basically took him out of contention.

The penalty could have ramifications down the road. What if he gets within two strokes of the lead. What if he gets to 17 majors?

I'm guessing this will be a watershed event in golf.

Or I could be wrong.

Whether or not anyone agrees with the ruling, saying it was "within the letter of the law" is not entirely the case. In penalizing the 14-year old Chinese amateur for slow play on Friday and then a rules official saying, "In keeping with the applicable rules..." gives the doubters every reason to be a little more than suspicious.

You see, the "applicable rules" also state that Tiger Woods signed an incorrect scorecard, which is penalized by DQ. In this case, though, the Master Rules committee (not the USGA, not the PGA, not the R&A) has a rule that allows them to change the rules of the game for the benefit of TV. So, although the "letter of the law" says one thing, there is apparently the catch-all, one-time, get-out-of-jail free card- the almighty TV rule.

Does no one else find it curious that this relatively unknown "rule" put in place in 2012 has never been used until Friday?

*1991 Doral Ryder: Azinger DQ'd for signing incorrect scorecard after the final round.

*1987 San Diego Open: Stadler DQ'd for "building a stance" by putting a towel under his knee to hit a shot from the mud behind a tree. He didn't want to get his pants dirty. (TV viewer ratted him out)

*2010 PGA Championship: Dustin Johnson DQ'd for grounding his club in a hazard (TV viewer ratted him out)

*1996 Bay Hill: Jeff Sluman DQ'd for doing the exact same thing Tiger did Friday- hit a ball into the water and didn't replay from the same spot. He was 2 shots back...

[4Corners]

Imagine if TV viewers could call in on college basketball games

[TheRed]

It's safe to say that your tin foil hat is on way too tight.

[Happy Panther]

Whether or not anyone agrees with the ruling, saying it was "within the letter of the law" is not entirely the case.

How so?

[TheRed]

How so?

The "letter of the law" being his totally unbiased personal opinion.

[Bob NC]

Does no one else find it curious that this relatively unknown "rule" put in place in 2012 has never been used until Friday?

*1991 Doral Ryder: Azinger DQ'd for signing incorrect scorecard after the final round.

*1987 San Diego Open: Stadler DQ'd for "building a stance" by putting a towel under his knee to hit a shot from the mud behind a tree. He didn't want to get his pants dirty. (TV viewer ratted him out)

*2010 PGA Championship: Dustin Johnson DQ'd for grounding his club in a hazard (TV viewer ratted him out)

*1996 Bay Hill: Jeff Sluman DQ'd for doing the exact same thing Tiger did Friday- hit a ball into the water and didn't replay from the same spot. He was 2 shots back...

Let me type this slower this time. The rule has changed SINCE all the instances you mention above.

All the situations you mention above are the REASONS the rule has changed.

One more time: There is a new rule, 33-7 which gives leeway to the application of a DQ.

You can like the rule change, you can not like the rule change. You, though, just seem to ignore the rule change.

Now, get your ball off my lawn.

[Bob NC]

You see, the "applicable rules" also state that Tiger Woods signed an incorrect scorecard, which is penalized by DQ. In this case, though, the Master Rules committee (not the USGA, not the PGA, not the R&A) has a rule that allows them to change the rules of the game for the benefit of TV. So, although the "letter of the law" says one thing, there is apparently the catch-all, one-time, get-out-of-jail free card- the almighty TV rule.

You are taking the term "TV Rule", to mean that the individual tournament committees can change the rules of the game to increase tv RATINGS.

It is called the "TV Rule", because golf seems to be the singular sport where people can call from home during a tournament and report player infractions. The governing bodies didn't think it fair that a player could unknowingly violate a rule, turn in their scorecard, and then AFTERWARDS be subject to a late call from a viewer watching tv at home in his Lay Z Boy.

If the player knew before signing his scorecard that he was subject to a penalty, he would take the penalty and not be subject to turning in an incorrect scorecard.

Most people would think DQing someone for signing an incorrect scorecard when they didn't even KNOW it was incorrect is a very harsh penalty.