|Don't agree w/NY Post politics, but love its headers!|
Update, May 1: As I predicted, it was NOT Joe Fan, but a golf pro, who originally phoned in about Tiger Woods bad drop at the 15th hole of Round 2 at the Masters. It was a golf pro, still unidentified. More here, in which Augusta National looks more goofy. Again. And, possibly deeper into playing favorites.
Tiger Woods didn't get an "unlucky break" by how his ball bounced after hitting the flagstick on the 15th green in Friday's second round.
Instead, he got a lucky break by not being disqualified for cheating on where he took his drop after his ball bounced in the water.
Per Dan Wetzel's column (and Dan, for someone who could take on the "mighty" Bowl Championship System, you're an awful suck-up to Tiger and the Masters) Woods acknowledged deliberately improving his lie by not taking a drop allowed by golf rule standards. (Update: Wetzel has doubled down on the Tiger suck-up hypocrisy in a second column.)
And, per ESPN, the rule is pretty damned clear.
Therefore, a two-shot penalty, instead of disqualification, is clearly "Tiger favoratism."
The man knows the rules of golf. He deliberately broke this one.
Beyond that, another ESPN column reminds us that "intentionality" isn't even an issue. Theoretically, not even with the new 33-7 overlay rule. It's a basic rule, that Tiger should know. He blew it. The "Tiger rules" folks at Augusta should have disqualified him. If not, he should have DQ-ed himself.
Update, May 1. Given what we now know, per the top link, IMO, maybe 33-7 should NOT have applied. And, if we need a DQ, Fred Ridley should DQ himself from running the Masters rules committee or having any part of it. And worse, the USGA and the R&A are now "getting the back" of Ridley and Augusta National. A sport that has a lot of self-proclaimed ethics has got a bunch of issues with that now.
And, if a Chinese youth can get a bogus stroke penalty for delay, and if 45 years ago, Roberto de Vicenzo can get penalized for his playing partner's mistake at Augusta, then a cheater can get disqualified. Or a semi-cheater. Or somebody for whom ignorance is not an excuse and shouldn't be.
This isn't about Tiger's mistresses, etc. This is inside the gallery ropes. Let's see how many Tiger homers continue to defend him.
The fact that Tiger is taking to Twitter to defend himself shows he knows th score. And, in Wetzel's column, Ernie Els' shrug of the shoulders with his comment indicating "Yeah, it's Tiger," shows he knows it's another score.
And, it's not just Tiger. Any "ordinary" tournament, a favor like this would attract less scrutiny.
But, because the Masters puts itself on a pedestal, it's invited second-guessing.
I mean, for years, NBA writers talked about the "Jordan Rules" in basketball. We've now got evidence of similar.
I mean, this was phoned in yesterday, or emailed in, or whatever, by a fan. Masters officials claimed video evidence yesterday was inconclusive, but they reverse themselves today? On what grounds, other than Tiger's words? And, since those words indicate deliberation, then why no DQ?
And, if Bob Costas, yesterday, on Dan Patrick's radio show, could chide CBS and The Masters for not talking about racism and other issues? Bob, let's hear you now.
Update, 5:15 p.m. Saturday: Well, Nick Faldo had no problem weighing in from the CBS side. He just talked about "old rules" and "new rules" of golf, and said that, per his own thought and discussion with fellow pros of his age, that, under the "old rules," a golfer in Tiger's position would have DQ-ed himself.
Let's have somebody interview Jack Nicklaus on this!
And, as of April 25, he's now weighed in. He says he thinks the penalty was appropriate. OK, but then, his logic goes fuzzy. He says that if Tiger had DQ-ed himself, THAT would have been a statement by Tiger that he was above the rules.
Meanwhile, Masters rules officials screwed up on how they handled this. Tiger should immediately have been met by them, or as soon as they heard, with full review of video, instead of what actually happened.
Meanwhile, if not in a major, golfers have voluntarily withdrawn from other tournaments in similar situations, as John Feinstein notes. So, it's not rule 33-7, designed for TV viewers phoning in more iffy rules violations, that's at issue with "new rules" vs "old rules." Because this wasn't a call made by a viewer of Woods' drop, but of Woods' statement after his round. Maybe Sir Nick was referencing that, but the reality is this is Tiger rule vs. rules for others.
And, per Golf Channel, it sounds like Masters officials are either kind of clueless, or were taking the lead in perpetuating Tiger rules. Maybe the unnamed caller threatened to go more public. And, had a name big enough that, if he did so, this would have been a hand grenade exploding.
That said, whether Tiger actually DID gain an advantage or not, I can't believe that he doesn't know that rule better. I'd like to also have his current caddy, Joe LaCava, talk (fat chance). I'd also like to hear his outspoken long-term former caddie, Stevie Williams, weigh in on if he, as Tiger's caddie in the past, knew the rules that clearly, and what he would have said to Tiger if he saw him trying to do something like that.
And, I got my wish for Adam Scott to win. Now, Stevie, even if nobody sticks a mic in your face, speak out anyway.
And, speaking once more of Williams, don't forget it was his read, based on his experience, of the putt Scott faced at No. 10 in the playoff that let Adam win.
Almost to a man, even the ones who think Tiger should have gotten a DQ, or else withdrawn, still think it wasn't deliberate, in the sense of trying to get a deliberate edge.
WTF? That's not what the unnamed caller thought, I think.
I'm not sure, overall, who has more egg on the face, Tiger or Augusta National. It's awfully damned close between a golfer thinking he's privileged and an alleged "major championship" that got busted in preferential treatment as well as second-rate management.
Meanwhile, you Tiger fellators who call people like me Tiger haters? Look in the mirror; your slobbering over him leads to disdainful reactions like this.