===============================================================

Tiger Woods - Why the Ruling Was Correct

As much confusion still seems to surround the recent ruling at The Masters involving Tiger Woods, John Morrissett, former Director, Rules of Golf for the USGA, offers the following in hopes of clarifying what, once the key facts are determined, is a much simpler ruling than was initially thought by announcers from ESPN and The Golf Channel

First, the facts: On the 15th hole in the second round, Tiger's third shot struck the flagstick and came back into the water hazard (yellow stakes and lines) fronting the green. He elected to use the stroke-and-distance option under the water hazard Rule (Rule 26-1a). That option required him to drop a ball as near as possible to where he just played from, but Tiger dropped a ball approximately 2 1/2 feet away, a distance that does not meet the "as near as possible" requirement. He then played the ball onto the green and holed the putt, believing he had scored 6 for the hole.

A former Rules official, watching the telecast at home, called to report a possible breach. While Tiger was still playing (and that is the most important point of the entire incident), the Committee reviewed the video and, believing the results to be inconclusive, ruled there was no breach. The Committee did not tell Tiger of its ruling, and Tiger went on to return his score card for the second round, with a score of 6 for the 15th hole.

Following Tiger's post-round comments to the media that he had dropped "two yards" from the spot of the previous stroke, the Committee wondered if it had made the correct decision. It consulted with Tiger Saturday morning and retroactively penalized him two strokes on the 15th hole (for playing from a wrong place - Rules 26-1a and 20-7c) but did not disqualify him for returning a score for that hole that was lower than he actually made (Rule 6-6d).

While this seems like a complicated set of facts, the ruling becomes straightforward when it is boiled down to its basic elements: On Friday the Committee made an incorrect ruling (of no penalty), and on Saturday the Committee corrected that incorrect ruling. The key is that, before Tiger returned his score card on Friday, the Committee had reviewed the incident on 15 and made the ruling of no breach. (Even though the Committee did not tell Tiger of this ruling, it was still a ruling.) On reflection, the Committee realized it made an incorrect ruling and corrected that ruling on Saturday (with ample authority and precedent to do so).

If the Committee had not become aware of the incident and had not made a ruling before Tiger returned his score card on Friday, then it would have been a straightforward disqualification. It is interesting to note, therefore, that the timely telephone call actually prevented Tiger from being disqualified.

It should be emphasized that Rule 33-7 has been part of the Rules of Golf for decades (at least 50 years). This Rule was invoked to waive the penalty of disqualification for the score card error because the score card error was a result of the Committee's incorrect ruling during the second round. In other words, if the Committee had ruled correctly on Friday and had informed Tiger of the two-stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place before Tiger returned his score card, Tiger would have returned the correct score for that hole. Decision 34-3/1 provides authority for the Committee to correct its ruling by adjusting the previous round's score.

Contrary to what some reported, Decision 33-7/4.5, which was significantly revised two years ago, played no role whatsoever in the Saturday ruling at Augusta National. That Decision shows sympathy for the player who breaches a Rule because he did not know, and could not have reasonably known, the facts that led to his breach. In Tiger's case, he could have and should have easily known the facts of the case (i.e., that he dropped 2 1/2 feet away from where he was required to drop), so the principle of this Decision does not apply.

Consider the ramifications if the Committee had disqualified Tiger on Saturday. In that case, Tiger would have been justified in being furious at the Committee for failing to advise him of the issue before he returned his score card so that he could have avoided disqualification. Tiger made an error and was penalized two strokes; the Committee's incorrect ruling should not have resulted in further penalty.

I don’t think we will ever really know the answer to why the Committee dismissed the issue in the first place. That was clearly a mistake. Did the player’s celebrity influence their decision? If the initial call came in while Tiger was finishing on 15, why did it take them till he was on the 18th to review the video footage?

Some people have found fault that Tiger did not DQ himself. While that might have been a good PR move, it would not serve the game. The best thing for all parties and for the good of the game was to let the Committee make it’s ruling and everybody live with the result. End of story.

Doc