Faldo tells Woods to quit after drop admission
ANOTHERdayatthe Masters, another controversy that will be the talk of the golfing steamie for weeks. On Friday night, it was the one-shot penalty dished out to the 14-year-old Chinese prodigy Tianlang Guan for slow play that got the tongues wagging. Yesterday it was the lucky escape from disqualification of the world No 1 Tiger Woods that was set to develop into a full blown shouting match. He was given a retrospective twoshot penalty by officials following an improper drop during his second round, but the decision polarised opinion, with many roaring that the four-times Masters champion should have been booted out of the tournament. Either that, or he should have done the honourable thing and fell on his own sword by withdrawing for violating the rules of golf.
Back in February 2010, Woods made the following statement: “I was wrong, I was foolish, I don’t get to play by different rules,” he said. “The same boundaries that apply to everyone else apply to me.”
Those words were spouted during a public apology staged in front of a global audience after the sordid details of his extracurricular capers came tumbling out of the closet. He probably could have used the same phrases at Augusta National yesterday when he became embroiled in a rampant, rules rumpus.
As the sun dawned on a delightful Georgia morning, the clouds of contention were already building around Woods from events the night before. “Tigergate” was taking shape. Lurking menacingly on the leaderboard during his second round on Friday, Woods thundered an approach into the 15th green but watched his ball clatter off the flagstick and ricochet into the water.
As a practising Buddhist, Woods should perhaps have been alerted to those pearls of wisdom from the great John Lennon: “Instant karma’s gonna get you.” It did, and it was at this point that the seeds of a saga were sown as Woods dropped himself right in it.
In the situation, the 37-year-old had three options. Hecould have headed to the designated drop zone and played from there. He could have dropped another ball as far back as he wanted on the line where it last crossed the hazard. Or he could have returned to where he hit the original shot and dropped another ball as “nearly as possible” to that particular spot.
Woods opted for that final option but, in a post- round television interview, he uttered a few key words that sparked an almighty palaver “I went two yards further back and tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit,” he said.
Essentially, Woods had admitted that he had given himself, what he felt, would be a better yardage for the subsequent shot. In other words, he gained an advantage and he knew it. Closest to the spot of the original shot, as the rule states, doesn’t mean “two yards” or a few feet as is visible on the television footage that were flashed up on screens the world over.
Nick Faldo, the triple Masters champion, did not hold back in his summary of the situation. “For me, this is dreadful,” he said. “Absolutely, no intention to drop this as close as possible. Simply, a breach of rules. The rules of golf are black and white and Tiger broke them. He’s admitted he broke them. He should stand up and earn himself some brownie points and say to all his fellow professionals ‘I’ve broken the rules, I’m going home and I will see you next week’. He should consider the mark this will leave on his legacy.”
As the heat was turned up, Woods took to social media to launch his defence. “I was unaware at that time I had violated any rules,” he said. “I didn’t know I had taken an incorrect drop prior to signing my scorecard.”
He should consider the mark this will leave on his legacy
Officials had been made aware of Woods’ possible infraction by a television viewer before he had completed his second round but after a review of the tape, the top brass decided his drop “complied with the rules.” Woods’ unintended mea culpa with the media after the fact, however, prompted another review.
After a meeting with Woods yesterday morning at the club, officials decided he had taken an incorrect drop and he was assessed a two-stroke penalty, which turned his 71 into a 73. Historically, that would have meant disqualification as he had signed for the wrong score but a rule amendment let Tiger off the hook.
Known informally as the “HD Rule” as it was designed to assess transgressions that are not apparent at the time but are later exposed as a result of television replays, rule 33-7 states: “A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the committee considers such an action warranted.”
This is what Fred Ridley, and his fellow Masterscompetitioncommittee members decided to utilise in the Woods case. That particular rule also states that “a committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke( s) was a result of either ignorance of the rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card”.
In that sense, Woods, who came clean about gaining an advantage after his round and then confessed that he didn’t believe he had taken an incorrect drop, needs to brush up on his knowledge. Should he have been given the “protection” that rule 33- 7 offers? This is a debate that will rumble on long after the Masters has finished.
“All I can say is that, unequivocally, this tournament is about integrity,” said Ridley. “If this had been John Smith from wherever, then that player would have got the same ruling because it’s the right ruling under these circumstances.”
The Masters is all about green, but in the wake of this turmoil involving a Tiger, there remain many shades of grey.