« (Highly) Notable | Main | Week 15 Results »

Rule 33.7

Should Tiger Woods have been playing golf on the weekend?

There is, perhaps, no definitive answer to that question because ultimately it comes down to how one inteprets the spirit of Rule 33.7, a 2011 revision under which "a penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted."  Rule 33.7 was spurred heavily by Padraig Harrington’s disqualification from the 2011 Abu Dhabi Championship after he putted a ball which he was unaware had moved a fraction of an inch after he’d replaced it, then DQ’d because the violation was confirmed after he’d signed a thus incorrect scorecard; the rule would seem to be intended to protect an innocent player from being banished based upon circumtances of which he was essentially unaware.  In one sense, that standard might well be used to justify Woods not being disqualified, because had Augusta’s Competition Committee correctly penlized his 15th-hole Friday drop upon first reviewing it (instead of later deciding that perhaps they really had to after Woods announced on national television that he had, in fact, dropped his ball two yards away behind the appropriate spot), the issue of an incorrect card would never have arisen.  This is, undeniably, a fair and logical interpretation of events, and thus seems a reasonable decision.

But there is alternative point of view – and this one points to two reasons why Woods should have been sent packing. 

The first reason lies in how a Committee opts to interpret the phrase “in exceptional individual cases” – or, more directly, what one considers to be the spirit of the rule.  Padraig Harrington was DQ’d for signing a scorecard which failed to reflect a rules violation which he could not reasonably have known had even taken place.  He was truly a man caught in an unfortunate situation.  Woods, on the other hand, attempted to gain a competitive advantage (a slightly longer shot that he felt more comfortable with) when he mistakenly believed that he could drop his ball two yards further back.  He was not, of course, attempting to cheat – but he was knowingly attempting to improve his lot in violation of the rules, an entirely different situation from the unwitting golfer snagged by circumstance.

Which leads us to the second reason, the fundamental notion that, very simply, the player is responsible for knowing the rules.  Being unaware that a violation has inadvertently taken place (as in Harrington’s case) is one thing; creating the violation because one did not properly understand the rules is, it seems to me, something altogether different.  There may be an element of splitting hairs here, but I find myself guided by the words of USGA Executive Director Mike Davis who, at the time Rule 33.7 was announced, stated:  “Ignorance of the rules will not in this particular case get a player off disqualification, if he breaches a rule, doesn't include the penalty, and then returns a scorecard.”

Would it have been fair to Tiger had the Committee, after making their mistake, disqualified him?  Not really.

But it would, I believe, have been fairer than failing to protect the rest of the field from his violation – and the unfortunate administrative failing which followed.

Posted on Monday, April 15, 2013 at 06:11PM by Registered CommenterDaniel | Comments Off