14-year old to play at Augusta

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Yes screwed. That shot was on the nuts and it ricochet's off the pin.
Terrible break. Then it gets compounded with an additional 2 stroke penalty
for an illegal drop.

I am pleased he is still in the tournament.

The drop was definitely his fault, and the reasons he gave for taking it where he did suggest that he was looking to gain an advantage by dropping it a couple of yards back. So a penalty needed to be applied.

Howver, unless he was trying to cheat (which of course is not the case) I have never understood why the penalty should be disqualification for signing an incorrect scorecard when it is still possible to apply the penalty and remove any conceivable advantage that he might have gained. Apparently the rule was changed to allow players to continue in the tournament in precisely these circumstances, which seems much fairer to me.

I still don't agree with you about 'screwed', but I think we are arguing about semantics rather than sentiment. A terribly bad piece of luck.

But it certainly sets up tonight for something special by Tiger.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

My "if" was just my way of expressing things. I knew he was there on merit.

I doubt John Paramor is a member of Augusta National. So I can't see what relevance Augusta National's racist past has to his decision to impose a penalty. He is one of the best in the business and someone whose integrity is not in question.

It was a judgement call, as you say, and he made the right judgement, based on the lad's refusal/inability to play as required by the rules.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

If someone is told to play his shots within 40 seconds, and they take 5 minutes, what would you do?

They were apparently 20 minutes behind the group in front.

If you allow pro golfers to do this with impunity, the days of 6 hour rounds are not far off.

I accept that people can reasonably disagree with me. It just doesn't make them right.

🙂

As for the views of 'some people', you can find 'some people' who forget that the most rules officials do not have any connection with Augusta National. So the link to racism, based on the club's past, is either offensive or the height of stupidity/ignorance, expressed by people either deliberately trying to make an issue where there is none, or who simply know no better.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I think you should.

The issue is whether a respected golf official was being racist when he imposed a penalty on a golfer who was in flagrant breach of the rule requiring him to obey pace of play guidelines.

Nobody has offered a shred of evidence that race was an issue. The actions themselves do not appear to be racist, and Paramor has issued slow-play warnings and penalties in the past to white golfers.

On every level, any suggestion of racism as a motive is offensive and stupid. Your hypothetical example is simply irrelevant. The lad was warned repeatedly about his actions, and he failed to take corrective action. The penalty was not only justified, it was also inevitable.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You used the term 'unconvinced', which suggests that you are not certain that the allegations are without merit. You should dismiss these allegations for the rabble rousing they are until evidence is offered.

I never suggested that you actually thought the actions were motivated by racism. That is a strawman of your own creation. I am objecting to the fact that you seem to give it any credence at all.

Assuming you are not a murderer, I think you might be a bit upset if someone randomly accused you of this, and I said I was 'unconvinced' about whether they were right.

If you introduce an example with 'let's say', and then repeat this phrase, I can reasonably describe it as hypothetical. I can also use the term in knowledge that, somewhere and at some time, this situation has probably occurred. The only person that knew it was a specific real-life example was you, and the way you phrased the example suggested it wasn't. It is also completely irrelevant to the discussion we were having. So I think your original suggestion to drop it was the correct one.

Golf writers are paid to create controversy where none exists. The facts are:

1 The rules require a player to observe slow-play guidelines.

2 The initial penalty for failing to observe these is a one shot penalty.

3 The player was instructed to play his shots within 40 seconds.

4 He did not comply with these and was repeatedly warned to comply.

5 The group he was in, as a result, fell 20 minutes behind the group in front, which any golfer knows is not acceptable.

5 On the 3rd or 4th occasion of this breach of the guidelines, he was penalised one shot.

Repeating what 'some people' say does not get away from these facts.

If you are going to bring in my golfing prowess as if it is relevant, Tiger Woods said 'Rules are rules'. Presumably, by your logic, that means I win, as he is the best golfer in the world.

Oh, and I wouldn't have had a problem if he hadn't been given a penalty. Rules officials have a tough job to do. After all, when they give a decision in good faith, they have to put up with suggestions of racism and people repeating them on websites.

But I also respect their decisions unless they are clearly wrong. In this case, the penalty was imposed in a case where there was a clear breach of the rules.

Anyway, back to the golf. Yesterday was compelling viewing, but personally I hope they soften up the greens a bit for the final round and put in more accessible pins. The course was unfair yesterday in parts, with good shots sometimes being punished more severely than less good ones. Players cannot be expected to hit mid irons to within a few feet in a gusting breeze, and at times they were finding themselves 30 feet away for being a few inches from perfect.

As to a winner, I think it is only those at 2 under or better who have a chance. I can't see the winning score being less than 7 under, and shooting 67 is probably about as low as you could go unless the conditions are changed a lot.

Snedeker is the favourite, but I am still hoping for a Tiger charge to make things interesting.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Yes screwed. That shot was on the nuts and it ricochet's off the pin.
Terrible break. Then it gets compounded with an additional 2 stroke penalty
for an illegal drop.

Screwed implies action by a third party. So no.

Originally posted by Crowley
Screwed implies action by a third party. So no.

Whatever.. He got the worst possible break through no fault of his own then.

Are you satisfied with that??