Tiger Woods called a "Cavalier with the rules"

by Fernando Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:57 pm

First topic message reminder :

Tiger Woods has been called a cheat by one of American television’s most respected golf commentators. In an explosive article in the US magazine Golf, former PGA Tour professional and Golf Channel lead analyst Brandel Chamblee has tarred the world number one with the worst label possible.
It seems inevitable Woods will take legal action, for how can he let such an allegation go unchallenged in this, of all sports?

Woods won five times on the PGA Tour and was named Player of the Year by his peers. But he was also involved in no fewer than four rules controversies, and it clearly incensed Chamblee.
Calling Tiger ‘cavalier with the rules,’ the 51 year old American gave exam grades in the magazine article to each of the leading players and awarded Woods an ‘F.’ He then embarked on an analogy that left no room for doubt as to why the grade was so dismal.

‘When I was in the fourth grade I cheated on a maths test and when I got the paper back it had “100” written at the top and just below the grade was this quote: ‘Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!”
‘It was an oft-quoted line from the epic poem “Marmion” by Sir Walter Scott, and my teacher’s message was clear. Written once more beneath that quote was my grade of “100” but this time with a line drawn through it and beneath that an F.
'I never did ask my teacher how she knew I cheated and I certainly didn’t protest the grade. I knew I had done the wrong thing and I never forgot the way I felt.’ Drawing a line through a score of 100 and giving Woods an F, Chamblee concluded: ‘I remember when we only talked about Tiger’s golf.
'I miss those days. He won five times and contended in majors and won the Vardon Trophy and....how shall we say this....was a little cavalier with the rules.’
Woods has caused plenty of muttering behind hands with his rules issues but Chamblee is the first to declare he cheated. It is certainly a brave call given the power Woods holds, and the storm that will assuredly follow.
Chamblee might not be the biggest name on the golf analyst circuit but he is certainly among the most forthright and knowledgeable

Woods’s rules woes began at the Abu Dhabi Championship in January, where he was given a two shot penalty for taking an illegal drop.
By far the worst came at the Masters, where he again took an illegal drop after his approach to the 15th in the second round cannoned unluckily off the flag stick into a water hazard. Woods duly signed for an incorrect scorecard when he was subsequently assessed a two stroke penalty.
Disqualification ought to have followed, only for the Masters rules committee to come up with a tortuous explanation as to why ‘exceptional’ circumstances applied. Even so, when he realised he had broken the rules, Woods should have disqualified himself. Instead, he played on.

A month later, he allegedly gave himself another favourable drop at the Players Championship. Finally, at the BMW Championship in Chicago last month, he argued vehemently against a two shot penalty being assessed for causing his ball to move while lifting a twig, even though television evidence appeared damning.
Now Chamblee has reached the gravest conclusion. We haven’t heard the last of this.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-2465974/Tiger-Woods-labelled-cheat-pro-commentator-Brandel-Chamblee.html#ixzz2i75VRvS8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:58 pm

But then he would have won the tournament KNOWING he'd broken the rules, that doesn't seem to bother Nine Chins, who seems to think he NEEDS to gerrymander the rules in his favour to improve his chances of winning.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:00 pm

Oh Christ! I said that incident is the one I have an issue with but I still contend it's a tiny movement, if the balls markings were not uppermost he may not have had anything to gauge movement by etc etc. He was dumb contesting the video but the movement is so tiny I'm not surprised.

This is actually a bit pathetic. Any number of pros have been seen improving lies (treading rough down, using a club to tamp rough down behind a ball etc etc) and yet we're pillorying Woods? As I said, I'm not a fan but he's being judged by what people think of him for other reasons. Hardly a watertight case for the prosecution I would suggest.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:02 pm

McLaren wrote:I would argue Brian Davies would have a little more respect if he had ever been any good. He should have ignored whatever it was he thought he clipped and tried to win.

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:04 pm

Navy, I don't like to see any pro cheat, yet, that is who the article is about.

It's well known I dislike the guy, I just can't understand why if you are in any doubt ( and there must have been doubt in regard to the surface the ball was on) why you wouldn't just call a penalty on yourself. No one is going to argue that the ball didn't move, and then you don't get labelled as someone who gerrymanders the rules as they see fit.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:09 pm

super_realist wrote:Navy, I don't like to see any pro cheat, yet, that is who the article is about.

It's well known I dislike the guy, I just can't understand why if you are in any doubt ( and there must have been doubt in regard to the surface the ball was on) why you wouldn't just call a penalty on yourself. No one is going to argue that the ball didn't move, and then you don't get labelled as someone who gerrymanders the rules as they see fit.

A fair point and I might agree with you but then if he didn't think it moved, why would he do that? All this suggests Chamblee knew the mind of Woods at those moments and that he knew he was cheating. He can't have known any such thing and, IMO, the evidence the rest of us have access to is so far from convincing as to being an actual cheat that we couldn't sensibly cast such an aspersion. Woods may well ignore it as he's obviously got a very thick skin but I'd be very surprised if he does.

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:11 pm

Well, he claimed it "oscillated" which means movement and resettling in exactly the same place, so he knew it wasn't stable.

I don't mind, just gives me an other stick to beat the miserable, surly, personality free gimp with.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:13 pm

super_realist wrote:Well, he claimed it "oscillated" which means movement and resettling in exactly the same place, so he knew it wasn't stable.

I don't mind, just gives me an other stick to beat the miserable, surly, personality free gimp with.

But simply oscillating doesn't require him to call a penalty does it?

As if you need any other reason to harangue him!

by Davie Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:17 pm

The "oscillated" part is actually a fair point. First you try to defend him by suggesting he may not have known it moved - but he DID know it moved because he claimed "oscillation" himself

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:18 pm

Indeed, I can understand someone claiming oscillation on a green, but on a bed of pine needles and twigs it's a bit of a stretch to be naive enough to think no one will question and be filming it when I'm playing kerplunk (and losing) with dry loose vegetation.

If I was pro, and at the top of the game, and subject to extreme media intrusion in every slo mo aspect of my game I'd make damn sure I didn't give people ammunition, but then again, he's an arrogant unpleasant, narcisist who feels bullet proof, so no wonder he didn't call penalty.

by Roller_Coaster Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:30 pm

busted wrote:Kim Hyung-tae also seems to have been under a bit of scrutiny

Ah - but Mr Kim is not Mr Woods (although I do note that the topic is a Woods one - although the title hasn't ever stopped the topic meandering before...)

What I noted on the Kim one is that despite the apparent black or white nature of the indiscretion (club touches ground in hazard or doesn't) I think the officials ended up having to vote on whether it was a penalty. That vote came out 5-3 (looked at the golf.com article) so there are clearly opposing views on whether that was an indiscretion/cheat/OK. Believe Kim "argued" (BBC wording) for a couple of hours that it wasn't a penalty. As the decision went against him, is he also a cheat?

Wonder what would have happened at a 4 - 4 vote?

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:32 pm

Davie. 'Move' and 'oscillate' are not the same thing in this context are they? Yes, in a pure sense, 'oscillating' is 'moving' but they aren't the same thing here.

In any case, :we really do need some sort of shrug emoticon:

by MontysMerkin Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:33 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
JAS wrote:...Then there's football and "simulation" Some might call that an art but NO its cheating.
Forgot to address this. Diving in football is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. It's cheating. Where's the proof that Woods deliberately played fast and loose with the rules?

The diving thing is a bit different imo. A lot of the time if the player didn't jump/dive out of the way then they would probably get their leg broken. I really don't like the ones that leave a leg trailing - that is cheating.

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:34 pm

Sounds like neither deliberately cheated, more indirect cheating, as in ignoring the rules, or choosing not to apply them.

Remember when that bloke out of Mythbusters, Dustin Johnson blew a major by grounding his club in a "bunker".

Not cheating in his case as he forgot, but thems the rules.

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:35 pm

MontysMerkin wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
JAS wrote:...Then there's football and "simulation" Some might call that an art but NO its cheating.
Forgot to address this. Diving in football is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. It's cheating. Where's the proof that Woods deliberately played fast and loose with the rules?
The diving thing is a bit different imo. A lot of the time if the player didn't jump/dive out of the way then they would probably get their leg broken. I really don't like the ones that leave a leg trailing - that is cheating.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:37 pm

Roller_Coaster wrote:
busted wrote:Kim Hyung-tae also seems to have been under a bit of scrutiny
Ah - but Mr Kim is not Mr Woods (although I do note that the topic is a Woods one - although the title hasn't ever stopped the topic meandering before...)

What I noted on the Kim one is that despite the apparent black or white nature of the indiscretion (club touches ground in hazard or doesn't) I think the officials ended up having to vote on whether it was a penalty. That vote came out 5-3 (looked at the golf.com article) so there are clearly opposing views on whether that was an indiscretion/cheat/OK. Believe Kim "argued" (BBC wording) for a couple of hours that it wasn't a penalty. As the decision went against him, is he also a cheat?

Wonder what would have happened at a 4 - 4 vote?

Yeah. Was Harrington an out-and-out cheat at the Abu Dhabi? Don't recall Chamblee (or anyone else for that matter) going postal over that. No, I don't care that he was disqualified.

The whole thing is too grey of an area and the balance of probabilities in Woods' case is far from convincing enough.

by MustPuttBetter Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:01 pm

Although i agree he didn't choose to be, but remind me again why it's pathetic for Woods to be treated as a role model?

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:07 pm

1. He's got no personality.
2. Not gracious
3. Not sporting.
4. Doesn't engage with the crowd
5. Poor on course demeanour
6. Poor on course behaviour
7. Doesn't know the rules
8. Doesn't apply the rules.
9. Rubbish interviews
10. Dubious morals
11. Not very bright
12. Big headed, arrogant and self obsessed

shall I go on?

All he does is put the ball in a hole quite effectively. Not much to look up to.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:08 pm

More fool the people who treat him as such. He's under no obligation to act as such is he? His job is to win tournaments and make (a lot of) money by doing so. Maybe his sponsors would have more to say on the 'role model' concept but who knows what they ask of him for their money?

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:09 pm

Agree Navy, and I think if you need a role model there is something wrong with you.

by MustPuttBetter Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:12 pm

It depends what role you have him as a role model in doesn't it?
If you say 'hey i like the way Tiger plays golf, i sure would like to play like him' then he's essentially a role model for you in a golfing context. I would imagine a great many people think that way, and he is a role model whether he asked for it or not.
I love it how people think that a role model must mean you want to be like that person 100%. The clue is in the title........ 'role'

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:15 pm

He's got no reason to live up to that synthetic responsibility though.

by gaelgowfer Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:20 pm

Oscillating balls don't travel uphill ...

http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/23633540/video-tiger-woods-ball-moves-at-bmw-championship

There ought to have been sufficient doubt in his mind to call a ref who would then have requested any video evidence.

by kwinigolfer Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:21 pm

Strange that there's been very little response from the Woods camp on this, just the "Steiny" "deplorable" and "atrocious" comments.

His "I'm not sure if there isn't legal action to be taken. I have to give some thought to legal action," response seems pretty limp-wristed considering the intention to besmirch his client's integrity.

Perhaps they feel there's nothing more than a matter of opinion, just an aggregation of stuff that's in the public domain already. Which is how I would characterise it.
Not much point in suing if you're going to lose whilst at the same time dragging your name through the dirt - again.

by MustPuttBetter Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:27 pm

super_realist wrote:He's got no reason to live up to that synthetic responsibility though.

I agree but to say he isn't a role model is blantantly incorrect and to suggest that to have him as a model in that role is a bit naiive of what role model means. It's not 'life model'!

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:37 pm

Oh OK, then would you allow your kids to have John Terry or Joey Barton as "role" models?

I don't think having NIne Chins as a role model is stupid, I think having role models full stop is stupid.

by MontysMerkin Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:41 pm

Role model.
An individual who is looked up to and revered by someone else. A role model is someone who other individuals aspire to be like, either in the present or in the future. A role model may be someone who you know and interact with on a regular basis, or may be someone who you've never met, such as a celebrity. Common role models include well known actors, public figures such as police men or political officials, teachers or other educators, and parents or other family members.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/role-model.html#ixzz2iMbykOgS

Pretty much sums up Tiger Woods for me Wink

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:43 pm

So Hitler is a role model for those who revere Volkswagen and the Autobahn?

by MontysMerkin Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:44 pm

super_realist wrote:So Hitler is a role model for those who revere Volkswagen and the Autobahn?

No for Nazis. Derr

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:46 pm

I understand the definition. I just don't think anyone needs or should have role models from sport.

by MustPuttBetter Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:47 pm

If my kid wanted to be a centre back and wanted to play centre back like John Terry then i would have no problem.
If he/she wanted to be the same sort of person as John Terry then i'd be disappointed.
It depends what role they had John Terry as a role model in! Just because Woods might be someone's golfing role model it doesn't mean they want to have his personality?!

Everyone who has aspirations has role models, even if they don't admit it

by MontysMerkin Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:49 pm

I think anyone wanting to grow a full and fashionable mustachios could do a lot worse than hold Joey Barton in high esteem. His work ethic and devotion to cultivating his slug must make him the go-to man when it comes to growing your own snot mop.

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:51 pm

Anyone wanting to cultivate a great French accent could do worse than emulate Barton (or Arthur Bostrom)

by MontysMerkin Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:01 pm

Cantona for me. Many think it's a very vague approximation and a bit showy but to my ears he covers up his west country twang well.

by pedro Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:14 pm

MontysMerkin wrote:I think anyone wanting to grow a full and fashionable mustachios could do a lot worse than hold Joey Barton in high esteem. His work ethic and devotion to cultivating his slug must make him the go-to man when it comes to growing your own snot mop.

I find the thought of Joey Bartons mustachio a lot less disturbing than Montys Merkin... Very Happy

by MontysMerkin Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:19 pm

Smells the same tho

by raycastleunited Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:15 pm

I think Joey Barton is a role model for everyone who aspires to wear a hairband

by MontysMerkin Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:36 pm

I'm forever getting Joey Barton and Joey Deacon mixed up. Now remind me which was the well spoken intellectual who appeared on tv a lot? Was it Mr D or Mr B? All I can remember is they seemed to share the same stylists.

by raycastleunited Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:00 pm

super_realist wrote:1. He's got no personality.
2. Not gracious
3. Not sporting.
4. Doesn't engage with the crowd
5. Poor on course demeanour
6. Poor on course behaviour
7. Doesn't know the rules
8. Doesn't apply the rules.
9. Rubbish interviews
10. Dubious morals
11. Not very bright
12. Big headed, arrogant and self obsessed

shall I go on?

All he does is put the ball in a hole quite effectively. Not much to look up to.

For many people, the golf is secondary. The revelations following the fire hydrant incident elevated him from being a boring golfer to the same level as footballers / basketball players. All he needs to do next is video himself roasting some bimbos in a hotel room with maybe Hunter Mahan and some other college frat boys and he will achieve true role model status.

Reasons to look up to Tiger (in some people's eyes):
1. He had a hot wife.
2. He boned dozens of women who were literally queuing up for the Tiger service.
3. Some of those women were pretty hot, were porn stars, and allegedly filthy.
4. He (again allegedly) enjoyed asserting himself with these women and carried out acts which can be described as degrading or even misogynistic.
5. Despite (because of?) all the stories, he's still very popular with the ladies and has now got quite a hot girlfriend.

by super_realist Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:25 pm

Being minted and famous will get you all manner of superficially tidy but shallow birds frothing at the gash, even if you look like a boiled horse like John Terry, or are a bald, nine chinned half wit like Woods.

by JAS Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:15 pm

McLaren wrote:
super_realist wrote:I'd say if Nine Chins had had at least one example a la Brian Davis who called a penalty on himself when in contention then he'd be given a bit more respect for his other rules infringements.

He does like to be the pantomime villain it seems.
Why?

I would argue Brian Davies would have a little more respect if he had ever been any good. He should have ignored whatever it was he thought he clipped and tried to win.

So what about Bobby Jones then?

Seen it snooker as well, certainly Hendry, O'Sullivan and White have called fouls on themselves that the referee didn't see, you cant say any of them 3 (certainly the first 2) didn't have a strong winning mentality.

At the end of the day, yeah perhaps this journo has overstepped the mark in the accusatory tone of the article but Woods really hasn't helped himself with his "apparent" ignorance of the rules. I think he would have gone along way to easing some of the increasing question marks over his integrity if he had DQ'd himself at Augusta. I also think there has been a bit of a change from the rules officials on tour and the way they view him. He got breaks when he was at his peak...the boulder, the miraculous ball find on the clubhouse roof (was it Firestone??) etc etc that I don't think he would get the benefit of the doubt on now.

by Davie Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:28 pm

JAS I'm surprised you even gave that post from Mac the dignity of a reply - it was clearly troll bait

by robopz Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:44 am

Been trying to stay out of this thread... but one point...

IMO anyone who thinks Tiger should have DQ'd himself at Augusta after the committee had ruled has gone absolutely daft. The PROPER thing to have happened was for the committee to do their proper duty in the first place when notified of a possible violation by an experienced rules official calling in. IF handled properly in the first place by the bungling green coats... Woods would have ended up with the same 2-strokes he eventually got and there wouldn't have been all the ridiculousness on that one.

But DQ himself for no freeking good reason for "reputation" purposes????? Oh, HAIL NO... Get a grip... It wouldn't have made a spit of difference with ANYBODY's opinion of him. Those that disliked him before would still dislike him regardless if he did or didn't DQ. And any of those here that think ANY other player in that field would have DQ'd themselves in similar circumstances... has gone outright lunatic. NOT one.. NOT a single one would have.. and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU know it...

by kwinigolfer Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:05 am

robo,
What credence do you place on David Eger's Golf Digest interview where he pretty much says Fred Ridley was influenced over the Augusta Tiger ruling because of "previous" between the two?
Can't help but imagine both Eger and Ridley are pompous asses; clearly Eger is contemptuous of Ridley.

by McLaren Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:06 am

Robo

Spot on. We only need to remember Rory's bunker testing episode to realize that given the chance the players want to play on, and not impose DQ's on themselves.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:03 am

robopz wrote:Been trying to stay out of this thread... but one point...

IMO anyone who thinks Tiger should have DQ'd himself at Augusta after the committee had ruled has gone absolutely daft. The PROPER thing to have happened was for the committee to do their proper duty in the first place when notified of a possible violation by an experienced rules official calling in. IF handled properly in the first place by the bungling green coats... Woods would have ended up with the same 2-strokes he eventually got and there wouldn't have been all the ridiculousness on that one.

But DQ himself for no freeking good reason for "reputation" purposes????? Oh, HAIL NO... Get a grip... It wouldn't have made a spit of difference with ANYBODY's opinion of him. Those that disliked him before would still dislike him regardless if he did or didn't DQ. And any of those here that think ANY other player in that field would have DQ'd themselves in similar circumstances... has gone outright lunatic. NOT one.. NOT a single one would have.. and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU know it...

Incorrect. TW DQing himself would have made a big impression for me. I'm not saying he should have done it given what went on at all but you're seriously mistaken in your belief that it would have made no difference to anyone's impression of him.

by JAS Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:04 am

Perhaps a bit of a moot point because he wasn't actually in the Masters field this year Robo but David Howell DQ'd himself in a tournament earlier this year after it subsequently became clear he should have added 1 shot penalty for a moving ball. The incident happened on the Thursday and came up in conversation on the Friday night over dinner (he'd played the 2 rounds and made the cut but DQ'd himself before the start of the Saturday round when it became clear to him that he had infringed). So there ARE people out there that have some respect for the integrity of the game and their fellow Pros. Ergo I don't think I'm outright lunatic...maybe perhaps a bit thick for thinking Woods might have any sort of honour about him.

The Green Coats bungled yes but at the end of the day Woods didn't drop in the proper place and therefore signed for the wrong score (didn't add the 2 extra shots for the penalty incurred by the incorrect drop) and THAT should be a DQ...simple really. The fact that they sycophanted around him and bent over backwards to keep him in for the weekend should not have made one iota of difference to his integrity if he had any. He SHOULD have DQ'd himself. That incident DID make a difference to how I view him. Unlike say Super who clearly detests him and makes no secret of the fact, I don't. I wouldn't say I was ever a fan (a la Mac) but I admired greatly much of what he achieved in the game. This year however he's gone RIGHT down in my estimation.

by SmithersJones Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:44 am

I'll second that, JAS.

by MustPuttBetter Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:44 am

You're not going all Kevin Keegan on us are you JAS? thumbsup

by MontysMerkin Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:00 am

Still just a golfer to me (albeit the GOAT imo)

by BlueCoverman Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:12 am

I will love it, love it if he doesn't beat Jack's record

by Sponsored content