PGA Tour: HE'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Masters: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).Martin Laird of course; you didn't think I was talking about the guy who's on the cover of every golf magazine and even some others did you? Or even that young Northern Irishman we've heard so much about?

No, Martin Laird's fantastic final round last Sunday in San Antonio not only stuck two fingers through the Ballwasher who doubted his resolve after a dismal nine-month spell. But also earned a ticket to Augusta National and finds himself in the "long shot, stranger things have happened, but not many" category for The Masters. More on that later.

2).The TPC San Antonio, ("Greg Norman designs golf courses to test professional golfers, not to please professional golfers," said Padraig Harrington), certainly looked much easier on the eye than in years past and it seemed that most pros who turned up enjoyed their week; some will hopefully even be back.
But play was dreadfully slow and one young American is just another guilty party who I hadn't spotted before. Daniel Summerhays, good lord, how long does it take you to hit the golf ball? Summerhays seemed to turn to Winterhays during some of his pre-shot routines.

3).And, while our thoughts turn to Magnolia Drive, our annual word in tribute to the Welshman from Bangor, Errie Ball, who played in the first Masters and is still alive today, hopefully to tell the tale, at 102.

4).Billy Payne has two new members this year, one who's just gone up one rung, presumably, on the list of the World's most evil women, the other who got her invite the old-fashioned way, thru' connections. (Have a personal interest in Darla Moore's richly endowed University of South Carolina's Moore School Of Business, so pleased to see her being honoured with a membership.)

5).With McIlroy and Woods striking form, I'd say this Masters, more than most, is almost certain to go to a favourite if, not necessarily, THE favourite. So let's look at some long shots and the owgr Top 25 for a form guide, with all the usual biases of course:

"Long shots, stranger things have happened, but not many":

#269: Angel Cabrera: You may think there's more chance of him attending Thatcher's funeral but, hey, this man hasn't forgotten how to play the game, he's physically fitter, has shown glimpses of form, and knows how to win - and how many can say that?

#56: Well, Martin Laird certainly can! 20th first time around Augusta, 50-something last year, but if he can putt like last week who knows? He hits the ball perfectly for the course, but it will be all about course management and his short game for Martin. The Laird of San Antonio with 22 Sunday putts, or the Laird of Florida when he took eight 3-putts each at Bay Hill and Tampa?

#41: Henrik Stenson: Eccentric as ever but plenty long enough and can putt well. On my e.w. list at 75/1.

#38: Scott Piercy: Thinks he's the best golfer the world has ever seen. Still seething at the perceived injustice of not being interviewed on TV after his demolition of Luke Donald at the MatchPlay. The favourite, in his eyes anyway, and don't you dare discount his chances!

6).21 - 25:
#25: Furyk: Planning to attack Augusta with two drivers but hasn't done better than 4th here and not likely to this week.

#24: Els: Terrible year so far, seems to have lost confidence just when he needs it most.

#23: Watney: Jekyll and Hyde, Would love to see him take the proverbial next step but don't see it this week.

#22: Hanson: 3rd last year but in much better form coming in than this year's version. Wouldn't count him out completely, top ten material.

#21: Mahan: A couple of Masters' top tens under his belt, but something's been missing this past year and I can't see him finding it at Augusta.

7).16 - 20:
#20: Simpson: His US Open win apart, hasn't really had that great a last 18 months. Can't see it improving here.

#19: Dustin Johnson: Augusta National is made for Dustin - no par 5's here for him, but nothing inside the Top 30 here yet, and his dodgy short game will frustrate him again this week.

#18: Dufner: Good start a year ago but faded. If his Dufnering pic's are anything to go by he's still asleep.

#17: McDowell: Top 15 material, doesn't fancy some of the tee shots here and, until he does, can't see him contending.

#16: Garcia: This place frustrates the sh1t out of him. Shame, might get close, but not close enough.

8).11 - 15:
#15: Schwartzel: 2011 winner and no reason to think he can't win another one. Except none of the five South African Major (and Players) winners these past eight years have won since on the PGA Tour. Top three candidate.

#14: Bubba Watson: It's all about his emotions - I fancy a left-hander but perhaps not this one.

#13: Westwood: Nope, not this year, Lee, not until your short game and your long game are on the same page. But, if he can somehow be -10 on the par fives, he'll be right there. Nah.

#12: Poulter: Would love to see Poults win a Biggie but reckon Augusta National is too long for him, too much pressure on his mid and long irons. Top 15 though.

#11: Bradley: Lots of top tens this year and may score another one. Plenty long enough but can't see that short game winning a Green Jacket.

9).6 - 10:
#10: Kuchar: 3rd last year, plods along with that inane-looking, sh1t-eating grin of his and, hey presto, he's right there. Top 5 perhaps, but Green Jacket? Perhaps not, e.w. value though at 33/1 or 40's.

#9: Mickelson: My choice last year and should've, would've and certainly could've . . . . Those triple bogeys did him in. My idea of the man to beat, not scared to win and probably doesn't want it so manically much as Number One.

#8: Stricker: Says he's "still trying to figure out Augusta". I bracket him with Poults, his long game puts too much pressure on his world-class short game; top 20 probable but can't see him in the shake-up.

#7: Scott: No form to speak of this season; plays a bizarre schedule and who knows if he's up for this? Not worth the risk.

#6: Oosthuizen: Difficult for me to separate the two South African Kings: He was devastated by last year's play-off defeat, but can he bounce back? Sh1t or bust I'd think - at his best a sure-fire contender.

10).1 - 5:
#5: Snedeker: Has been out injured for most of the past two months, no cuts made since his early season super form. Certainly has the game, but feel he's still slightly under-cooked for this week. The Sneds of the past year a certain Major winner - just not this week.

#4: Donald: No form for ages. The 2011 model Luke would be a contender anywhere, but not the short-and-crooked version of years ago which has made an unwelcome return - might get away with it at Hilton Head but not 150 miles up the road at Augusta.

#3: Rose: Which Justin will we see? The winner at such top courses as Aronomink and Muirfield Village, or the strutter who flatters only to deceive, but then burns up the final nine holes for a back-door podium finish? Until he can prove that he won't wilt when the heat turns up, I'd have him down as a likely top tenner, not a winner.

#2: And then there's Rory. If his confidence right now was as high as Scott Piercy's I'd ink him in to his first Green Jacket, but his driver left him a bit last Sunday and he won't be "back" until he's back. Not many would be surprised to see him win; me neither, but perhaps not this year.

#1: Tiger: The only person who can beat Tiger is Tiger, and his ambition and anxiety to earn his next Major. Until he does it, I'd bet against him and gamble that Tiger will beat Tiger. As we saw at Bay Hill, though, the old intimidation factor is back and, if he putts like he did in Orlando and hits 60% of the fairways, he'll win this. For me, I'd bet the field against him.


Can't wait though, although we'll have to put up with the unctuous, over-reverential tones of CBS - would be nice to think they'll have a commentator under the age of 50, a breath of fresh air so sorely needed, but no chance of that. The weather should have the course in perfect condition, but there's a chance of severe storms Thursday p.m. into Friday, after which the sun will shine.

I fancy Phil to win, but Bones (perhaps the only born-in-Britain winner this year?) has to keep him focussed. Reckon Louis and Charl will be right there and fancy Kuchar as best outsider, Stenson best complete long-shot.

Not exactly gael, but suggested they follow the PGA Tour model of having eight rules officials scattered around the course.
Apparently they were sufficiently on the spot to warn Guan at least twice to pick up the pace, on 12 and 14, but evidently officiated Tiger via TV.

I haven't seen any opinion since yesterday morning regarding claims that Tour players were told specifically that ignorance of the rules does not apply to the retroactive penalty that Tiger incurred. So, under that interpretation he should have been dq'd.

What happens next time a journeyman touring pro falls foul of the rulebook and seeks application of this rule? No Fred Ridley to bail him out, I would suggest, straight for the guillotine more likely.

Anyone else a little sad to see the witch hunt attitude towards the tiger ruling?

it depends if the witch hunt is directed at woods or the lies that the commitee gave us..


this is not Tigers fault..

Btw kwini is spot on.. this hasnt moved the game on- I garantee the next time ignorance is applied to a rule the average journeyman will be dq'ed for signing an incorrect score..

Hardly a witch hunt, Mac; just seeking the merits of, and possible repercussions from, this ruling.

What would your reaction be if this happened in a Tour event to, say, Doug Barron?


Good point mysti,
It's not about Tiger, it's about the apparent mis-application of a rule by the morons in green jackets.

It's not the first time a big name has got a favourable ruling from the committee at Augusta. Some years back Els went way left on 11 and his ball ended in a pile of branches. As he was removing some of the branches he caused his ball to move, it was noted at the time on the commentary that he was likely to receive a penalty. Over comes a committee member and it's "don't worry Ernie, you can have a free drop as these branches are cleared for removal!"

As an aside to Diggers re. falling on their sword. There was a guy who DQ'd himself from stage two of tour school after he wasn't sure if he took the right penalty for touching sand in a bunker. At the time he incurred the penalty it couldn't even be determined whether he had actually touched the sand or not. His DQ/WD allowed other players who had missed out to actually progress to the final stage.

"What would your reaction be if this happened in a Tour event to, say, Doug Barron?"

I would ask who doug barron was to begin with.

I dont know if you have twitter but it seemed a few ex and current pro's wanted him to go. I assume you have also heard Sir Nick claiming tiger now has a black mark against his legacy.

Is it possible the rules have been followed exactly as they should have been?

Faldo out of order IMO to say what he said that TW should have withdrawn.

The officials have to decide,. However tenuous their reasoning, their decision is acceptable.

People talk about the Harri DQ in Abu Dhabi. Harri WAS AWARE of movement of his ball at the time but decided it was only oscilating. He DID NOT ask a rules official to look at it on TV before he signed his card. IMO, Harri was lucky that he wasn't sanctioned.

If we believe that they gave him the all clear before he signed his card, and before he gave his IV then the decision is fair & reasonable. Had they decided during the round that he incurred a penalty, they would have told him and he would have signed for an 8 and that would have been acceptable to all.

Why therefore is this a big deal?

John i dont think he was out of order- he just said his piece. And tbh it made a lot of sense.. If tiger had withdrawn it would have shown up the idiots in the green jackets and given him a massive public lift!! Which is needed!

"If we believe that they gave him the all clear before he signed his card"

they havent said that. they said they deceided it was ok before and didnt consult tiger.. He signed the incorrect card I am 100% sure of this. They only picked up on the probelm- because they were pushed into it because he admitted fault in the TV interview--Players do not do tv before they sign the cards..

how can you give him the all clear when he was at fault! the consultation happened the next day

In what other sport would we even consider a sportsperson quitting if the rules officials were perfectly happy for them to continue.

The so called integrity of the game is a nonsense which ranks alongside superstition and religion in the logic stakes.

kwinigolfer wrote:Not exactly gael, but suggested they follow the PGA Tour model of having eight rules officials scattered around the course.
Apparently they were sufficiently on the spot to warn Guan at least twice to pick up the pace, on 12 and 14, but evidently officiated Tiger via TV.

I haven't seen any opinion since yesterday morning regarding claims that Tour players were told specifically that ignorance of the rules does not apply to the retroactive penalty that Tiger incurred. So, under that interpretation he should have been dq'd.

What happens next time a journeyman touring pro falls foul of the rulebook and seeks application of this rule? No Fred Ridley to bail him out, I would suggest, straight for the guillotine more likely.

The competition ctte's role in all of this stinks to high heaven. How can they possibly make a ruling on a situation when they don't have all the facts to hand. They'd have got away with too had Tiger not stated he had taken an unintentional illegal drop. One would have thought that given cameras are disposed to foreshortening, they would have wanted to have clarified Tiger Woods' intent. Seems to me they just didn't want to ask the question in the first place so as to avoid the risk of having to apply penalty strokes.

There are walking refs at The Open with every match and they have to place themselves in a position which is not obtrusive but allows them to see what's happening to try and prevent mistakes happening in the first place.

Faldo's been kinda wobbly on this.

Mac,
We won't know for sure if the rules have been followed correctly until there's a more unequivocal statement about their future application. But reports suggest the Tour would have ruled differently.
Clearly there are a number of pros who feel Woods has incorrectly been handed a get-out-of-jail card.

McLaren wrote:In what other sport would we even consider a sportsperson quitting if the rules officials were perfectly happy for them to continue.

The so called integrity of the game is a nonsense which ranks alongside superstition and religion in the logic stakes.

the intergrity is needed to be shown from the rules commitee not the players..

If big Angel wins tonight that gives home 3 majors in the tiger woods era. other then Phil mick can anyone else better this?

John Cregan wrote:...If we believe that they gave him the all clear before he signed his card, and before he gave his IV then the decision is fair & reasonable...

This would be a key issue John. Where is the evidence that this is the case?

beninho,
Vijay and Padraig would match it.

mystiroakey wrote:

McLaren wrote:In what other sport would we even consider a sportsperson quitting if the rules officials were perfectly happy for them to continue.

The so called integrity of the game is a nonsense which ranks alongside superstition and religion in the logic stakes.

the intergrity is needed to be shown from the rules commitee not the players..

No. It should be shown by both.

Its what seperates golf from the rest nbs.. but for how long

Yeah. Shame if it ends up like the footy.

Snedeker or Tiger to win....Tiger has to win a major from going into the final round of a major sometime right?

Dry, breezy, overcast and rain due late this evening.

Some funky pin positions on Saturday but greens still not as lightning fast as they could be.

Much more open Masters than I expected.

No-one's come from outside the Top Ten to win since 1959, but would think the tenth-placed guys (viz. Westwood!) overnight are still in with the chance to turn history upside down.

Let's hope today will be all about the golf.

McLaren wrote:Anyone else a little sad to see the witch hunt attitude towards the tiger ruling?

Absolutely, been some terrible comments I think because it is Tiger. Like another poster said earlier, if it had been Westwood at Royal St Georges during The Open, then the rule would have been a good one and sense has prevailed in the end, good decision for a change etc etc

jpx not sure what LW or RSg has got to do with it. Fact is it could have been anyone anywhere from any nationality and many may have said it was a good decision for once. By the way its not a hatrid of TW its(for me anyway)its the paranoia that woods has been let off due to his importance within the money men of the sport.

You only have to watch an hour or two of the TV coverage to work it out. We get to see TW scracthing his ass, pondering decisions, wlaking from his car etc etc rather than the others in the field PLAYING GOLF!!

Not sure if you realise how ratings driven the states is when it comes to Tv, but i am sure they realise that if TW wasnt playing they may have lost millions of viewers. Sadly from a UK pespective -we only ever get to see there coverage as well

navyblueshorts wrote:

John Cregan wrote:...If we believe that they gave him the all clear before he signed his card, and before he gave his IV then the decision is fair & reasonable...

This would be a key issue John. Where is the evidence that this is the case?

The Rules guy in his statement said so himself. They looked at it before he finished his round. They decided it was ok. They did not contact TW,thereby they did not allow TW the opportunity to explain what happened. Had TW given them honest answers it was a 2 shot penalty and therefore he would have signed for an 8.

The decision they made is IMO therefore acceptable.

John Cregan wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

John Cregan wrote:...If we believe that they gave him the all clear before he signed his card, and before he gave his IV then the decision is fair & reasonable...

This would be a key issue John. Where is the evidence that this is the case?

The Rules guy in his statement said so himself. They looked at it before he finished his round. They decided it was ok. They did not contact TW,thereby they did not allow TW the opportunity to explain what happened. Had TW given them honest answers it was a 2 shot penalty and therefore he would have signed for an 8.

The decision they made is IMO therefore acceptable.

john when has these things ever not been the players responsbilty,. No one is going to buy that mate.

Mysti,

I don't understand what you are saying there. No one is going to buy what??

Its a well known saying John..

basically no one is going to be convinced by the BS the commitee has been spouting and you are agreeing with . It has more holes than swiss cheese(another saying )

mystiroakey wrote:Its a well known saying John..

basically no one is going to be convinced by the BS the commitee has been spouting and you are agreeing with . It has more holes than swiss cheese(another saying )

Mysti,

I've never been a fan of these guys in the Green Blazers, but i admire your suspicion !!
Surely they must be telling the truth here..............given Woods is so high profile, they must have looked at that drop at the earliest opportunity.

John If they looked at the drop why and how is it possible to get it wrong??

think about that!

Westy leading the putting (with 3 others).....is it just me who thinks his tee to green game has been off this year?

My thinking is they noticed something wrong and thought sod it - lets not do anythijng about it.

they didnt look into it..

or the one they are trying to potray is that not only did they look in to it because they assumed it might be dodgy but then ruled that it was perfectly legal- Therefore we dont just have tiger and his caddy forgetting this obvious rule but also the whole masters commitee as well. The odds on that are about as likely as a lottery win tbh with you..

Sirbenson- nope your spot on he has been clearly concentrating alot on his short game this year and yes his GIR's and fairways hit have been noticably down..

Last 9 yesterday LW holed 4 10-20 footers for par saves!! that is pretty awesome for anyones standards tbh

mystiroakey wrote:

Last 9 yesterday LW holed 4 10-20 footers for par saves!! that is pretty awesome for anyones standards tbh

That is some stat - I'd say you're spot on and it's something the commentators on BBC missed. Today is yet another chance for Westwood to win this I believe. For nearly every major for the last 5 years I've been saying I think this could be Westwood's week. He needs to go out and grab this one. Looking forward to a great final round later. The HD picture on BBC is just beautiful - worth the licence fee right there...not that I have to worry about that Enjoy folks.

forget HD when you have seen Augusta in 3D.

Its like seeing it for the first time.. Unbelivable and worth inventing 3d for on its own!!

Just got myself a 3d TV, forgot to watch in 3d though.

SR you have to make sure you see some of it!

You actually see the golf course!! The difference is spectacular.. I was banging on about this last year and all!! but it truely is something you wont get unless you see.

3d has been pretty pointless bar this time of the year tbh

I agree, very rarely watch anything in 3d, should be good in conjuction with the HD coverage. Think of nine chins- nine chins in 3d. Awesome.

Nothing much going on this morning in Augusta, perhaps we need another controversial ruling to spice things up.

Really looking forward to seeing how a crowd of players handle this afternoon, starting with Cabrera and Snedeker. Then Scott and Jason Day, not to mention Woods, Kuchar and Westwood.

Just hope someone posts a low 72-hole score for them all to catch, or crumble in the act of trying.

Slightly surprised to see that Amen Corner coverage has started on time (on BBC website at least) given the slow pace of players in the first couple of groups.

and its just decided to stop

Mystiroakey, Sorry for the confusion. I didn't think I was being that cryptic but yes, JPX is right, in my opinion this contoversy only exists because the name Tiger Woods is attached and the fact that it happened on American soil as opposed to the hallowed fairways of Britain, further implies that bias was shown. Rule 33-7 was correctly applied, like it or not. On Kwini's point to Gael, the next time someone seeks application of this rule, there will be a very high profile precedent to guide them.
There has to be something wrong with the way the rules themselves are written if they are so ambiguous that even the appointed officials can interpret them differently.
As for Nick Faldo's comments, it just muddy's the water even more when the press report his initial comments but fail to give equal space to his later retraction having reviewed the rules.
I hope Tiger wins the event now, because whoever else does will not get the press they deserve. The 2013 Masters will be about Rule 33.

"There has to be something wrong with the way the rules themselves are written if they are so ambiguous that even the appointed officials can interpret them differently"

GT350 lets forget rule 33-7- because its meaningless- lets look into what actually happened and the actual rule that was violated and then the lies that the commitee made to justify the outcome.

by the way can you tell me which officials interpreted the rule differently and how it was correctly applied..

why didnt the rules officials query Woods after he came off the 18th hole a la Dustin Johnson at whistling straits??

marc leishman has hung in nicely, and nobody is talking about him. Fancy him to pull off a sneaky win today!

Most of the field have been quiet on the front nine today but many have been burning up the back, Michael Thompson, Ryan Moore, even Piercy. Sign of things to come, or will the course have firmed up by the time the leaders get going?

Remember, Top Twelve and ties return next year.

Good effort by Sandy Lyle - in with a 71.

mystiroakey, You are of course entitled to your opinion, and I mine, but whether you agree with the rule or not it is there. In my opinion it was correctly applied because of the line that says that a penalty of disqualification may be waived, modified or imposed as the committee sees fit (or similar) and also "Any penalty LESS than disqualification must NOT be waived or modified.
It seems that, like others, you and I interpret those words differently, and that is OK. Apparently Faldo commented without first reading the rule, and he should have known better.

GT350 wrote:Mystiroakey, Sorry for the confusion. I didn't think I was being that cryptic but yes, JPX is right, in my opinion this contoversy only exists because the name Tiger Woods is attached and the fact that it happened on American soil as opposed to the hallowed fairways of Britain, further implies that bias was shown. Rule 33-7 was correctly applied, like it or not. On Kwini's point to Gael, the next time someone seeks application of this rule, there will be a very high profile precedent to guide them.
There has to be something wrong with the way the rules themselves are written if they are so ambiguous that even the appointed officials can interpret them differently.
As for Nick Faldo's comments, it just muddy's the water even more when the press report his initial comments but fail to give equal space to his later retraction having reviewed the rules.
I hope Tiger wins the event now, because whoever else does will not get the press they deserve. The 2013 Masters will be about Rule 33.

It has little to do with TW. I couldn't care less if it's the Almighty. He broke the rule and he should have been DQ'd. I'd say the same if it was Westwood.

GT350 your missing the point.

how and why does rule 33.7 apply to this situation..(this wasnt a tv evidence situation, or A REASONABLY NOT KNOWN SITUATION- every one in the gofling world knows the rule!!!!)

what about the lies the commitee have made up to try and use this rule?

which officals interpreted rule 33.7 differently?

I think you need to go back and understand what actually happened from the start gt350 and then form your opinion- there is no reason for this rule to be applied for this rule breach!

Kevin Na having a Tin Cup moment!

every one in the gofling world knows the rule!!!!)

Apparently Nick Faldo did not, and like him you are not looking at all of the facts. Like I said, it comes down to your interpretation and ability to be objective.
Sorry but I just don't agree with your conspiracy theory.

Thorbjorn! Gonzo!! Bernhard!!!
Europe making a move, 24 hours late.

is Angel playing purely on a past champion exemption. would he be in any other way?

regarding earlier posts I read on the golf channel app a mention of Jeff sluman (?) had concerns over a drop he made got a 2 shot peno and then withdrew. something like that anyway!!