"Tiger Puts Balls in Wrong Place Again"

[slag]

As I've stated ad nauseam, the call didn't create the issue ... the interview did.

[CCPete]

And you continue to be wrong ad nauseam.

The woods issue is history but we a left with what I first stated is the real issue in this whole thing. The unbalanced scrutiny of players on camera and phone calls and texts from TV audience. It wasn't the interview or the actual incorrect application of the rules (the actual placement of the ball drop). That has been resolved. What hasn't been resolved is who,s running the show. The PGA or Joe Sixpack?

[3rd & Inches]

As I've stated ad nauseam, the call didn't create the issue ... the interview did.

The interview did. I just don't understand why people think he should DQ himself.

Its on record that the officials looked at the drop and didn't see anything wrong. Which means he was innocent of the charges brought forth by the armchair golfer.

Because of the interview, the officials had to act, but if they (officials) felt like he should of been DQ'd, he would of been DQ'd. But they didn't disqualify him. They took two strokes from him, that he didn't complain about.

[3rd & Inches]

As I've stated ad nauseam, the call didn't create the issue ... the interview did.

The call/text and if he should DQ himself are two different issues like you say.


I just don't understand why the PGA feels the need to respond to viewers.

[slag]

You are wrong.

The telephone call had nothing to do with why Woods was declared to have violated the motherfucking rule.

That's a fact.

[slag]

The reason the officials didn't think he violated the rule when he dropped is that they must have thought he had dropped it close enough to where he hit the previous shot to adhere to the rule that you drop as near as you can approximate that spot.

They made this ruling without knowing Woods' intent.

He made it clear that his intent was to drop two yards behind the original spot in the interview.

He was not innocent of anything when the armchair golfer made the call.

If the armchair golfer never called, the shit would have hit the fan based on the interview anyway.

[slag]

This we agree on ... the issue of whether callers should be able to effect things is a horse of another color.

However, the mouth that created the Woods' Masters violation controversy was not the caller's, it was Woods'.

[slag]

PS - And the reason he should have DQ-ed himself is that he signed a bad scorecard when the reason he signed it is because he didn't know a rule he's responsible for knowing ... and should have declared a 2-shot penalty on that card because of violating that rule.

The scorecard is sacrosanct in golf ... you want to debate that being silly, have at it ... but that's the way it is.

The committee's ridiculous basis for not DQ-ing him, because they made a mistake because they didn't know Woods' subjective intent is ridiculous. Woods didn't even know about the call or the ruling when he signed the card HAVING VIOLATED A RULE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO KNOW!!!!!!!

[slag]

Unfortunately, you and the person you defend don't understand that playing by the rules requires you to declare that penalty before you sign your scorecard.

He didn't ... and the Masters' rules committee's twisting of another rule to give him a do-over was exactly that ... a twist.

And the rules of football don't apply.

[slag]

I wrote it yesterday ... Woods didn't cheat ... otherwise he never would have said what he said in the interview.

However, I also wrote, and Francessa opened his show with the same concept ... Woods blew a chance to rehabilitate his image.

He should have DQ-ed himself for signing a bad card that was his, AND ONLY HIS, fault for signing it.

[Kelly Green]

But When He Signed It, It Was Accurate!!

He wasn't penalized until AFTER THE FACT -- the next morning, for cryin' out loud! What part of that don't you understand?

[slag]

Wrong.

He signed the card knowing that he intentionally stepped back two yards.

He also signed the card without knowing that the committee had received a call and ERRONEOUSLY ruled the drop was proper (because they had not heard his admission when they ruled, due to the fact that he hadn't made it yet in the interview).

He did not know that the rules committee had made any ruling when he signed the card.

Therefore, he was not duped by that into signing what he thought was a correct card.

When he signed the card, he thought it was correct because he didn't know what he intentionally did violated the rules ... and that is SOLELY on him.

Therefore he signed an inaccurate card ... which the unknown to him ruling DOES NOT CHANGE.

The rules committee tried to excuse that by stating that their original ruling was bad.

And that is fucking illogical because the bad ruling was not known by the person signing the card and did not effect his decision to do it.

[slag]

Furthermore, the rules committee doesn't have to penalize him to trigger a bad card.

If you know you did something that actually violates a golf rule but you don't realize it because you don't know the rule, and you find out after you sign the card that you violated the rule, you are supposed to be disqualified.

Ignorance of the rule is no excuse.

Nor is the fact that the rules committee made an unknown bad ruling, at no fault of their own because they didn't have all the facts that Woods had. It did not have any effect on Woods' decision to sign a bad card.

Which was clearly bad at the time because it should have been two strokes higher ... and the rules of golf deem Woods to know that even if he didn't.

Woods was the only one who knew he intentionally stepped two yards back when he signed the card ... the committee didn't.

[CCPete]

Wrong.

He signed the card knowing that he intentionally stepped back two yards.

He also signed the card without knowing that the committee had received a call and ERRONEOUSLY ruled the drop was proper (because they had not heard his admission when they ruled, due to the fact that he hadn't made it yet in the interview).

He did not know that the rules committee had made any ruling when he signed the card.

Therefore, he was not duped by that into signing what he thought was a correct card.

When he signed the card, he thought it was correct because he didn't know what he intentionally did violated the rules ... and that is SOLELY on him.

Therefore he signed an inaccurate card ... which the unknown to him ruling DOES NOT CHANGE.

The rules committee tried to excuse that by stating that their original ruling was bad.

And that is fucking illogical because the bad ruling was not known by the person signing the card and did not effect his decision to do it.

You have done an amazing job confusing the hell out of yourself.

Return to reality.

Woods broke the rules. Woods didn't know he broke the rules. A couch potato phone call told the people paid to watch this stuff that he broke the rules. Many hours later they tell Woods he broke the rules. They penalize him for breaking the rules. Woods issues a message that he was told he broke the rules and he agrees that he broke the rules and accepts the penalty for breaking the rules and with the exception of your almost unreadable posts here ......all is right on the golf course. Stop the buffoonery.b

[slag]

The only buffoon here is you, pal.

You continue to ignore that fact that nobody is required to tell Woods he violated a rule.

He is responsible for knowing it.

And the fact that you ignore this means you don't know jack shit about golf.

Enjoy your ignorance ... your name calling doesn't change it.