A vigilant TV viewer pointed out the mistake and prompted what became the most prominent story entering the third round of the Masters.
During the second round Friday, Tiger Woods apparently took advantage of an improper drop on the 15th hole. By signing an improper scorecard after the round, he would typically be disqualified.
Tournament officials said the matter was not that simple.
While those officials immediately reviewed the matter (based on the TV viewer's call) and reached a decision that Woods did not violate the rule, a second caller pointed to Woods' answer during a post-round interview that he had dropped farther back from the original spot on purpose to give himself a better shot -- basically admitting a violation.
When Masters officials were made aware of that, they scheduled a Saturday morning interview with Woods, talked about the situation and levied a two-stroke penalty -- dropping him from three strokes off the lead and tied for fourth to five strokes behind and tied for 17th.
One long-followed, traditional golf rule (Rule 26, which would've prompted the disqualification) was in apparent contrast with another (Rule 33, which prevents after-the-fact penalties) in the situation. Still, with Woods' admission about his mindset in the situation, many golf purists believe he should withdraw because of his intent.
"He unkowingly broke a rule, but he knowingly took and advantage. It casts a dark shadow over the proceedings," Golf Channel analyst Brandel Chamblee said. Chamblee said it was not a matter of disqualification but withdrawal, adding that Woods had a chance to do something bigger than his golf game, acting as a leader in the game by pulling himself from competition.
Still, there was hardly any unanimity on the matter. For every expert or former player who wanted to talk ethics and golf tradition, there was another who pointed to Rule 33, which was implemented just two years ago at least in part to protect players from mistakes later revealed through TV. Conversely, those supporting Woods believed the two-stroke penalty was more than enough.
Beyond the viewers who pointed out the rules violations, there were many others to consider. While CBS Sports officials were not part of the discussions (nor should they have been), the millions who would watch the final two rounds of the Masters certainly had to be a consideration. With Woods, they would have a reason to watch. Without him, they would have a reason to do almost anything else.
Ridley said Woods, the world's No. 1 player, was not given special treatment.
"We felt it might have been prejudicial to Tiger if we had not given him the benefit of the doubt. I can't control what the perception might or might not be. This tournament is about integrity," Ridley said. "If it had been John Smith from wherever, he would have gotten the same ruling -- because it is a good one. I hope it sets good precedent, because I think it was a good decision."
If nothing else, the incident again shows the importance and power of TV viewers. Those two calls, one after Woods shot on the 15th hole and the other after his interview with ESPN's Tom Rinaldi, are typical for golf. Ridley said tournament officials get dozens of calls each year, and that they follow up on every one.
TV also played a role in the other high-profile rules matter during the second round.
Because players have been pushed to play more efficiently in order to keep things moving for TV, that led at least in part to the slow-play violation for the group including 14-year-old Tianlang Guan.
While his playing partners and some others feel bad about the penalty for the youthful player, the rule was applied as it should have been. It exists to help golf build a more TV-friendly profile, though, and that's not a bad thing.
Of course, when a sport -- and especially one big-name player -- attracts a big TV following, the rules and how they apply can sometimes become a matter of debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment