I have already watched the video in HD and I saw what everyone is talking about, but again the ball barely looks like it moved. We don't know what he saw and the ball looks like it moved 2 millimeters... I don't get why everyone is trying to label him like he just got caught with some roids in his system...
rojo wrote:
There really is no such thing as an oscillating balls that stays in the same place.
Your understanding of simple physics and what is possible are lacking very much.
In any case, the penalty was assessed, he is playing well today, and it is really a non-issue.
Do you know how many other golfers have similar issues, aren't recorded or scrutinized to the degree that he is, and never get 'caught' doing things like this. The media in sports is a double-edged sword. They get a ton more $ from sponsors due to the fact they are so high profile, but with this we also get a lot more things on tape to be reviewed than before.
This happens to all golfers. They don't all take penalties as the rule states it is not the ball moving, it is the ball moving from its original position.
I hope he continues playing well today and tomorrow.
]
rojo wrote:
There really is no such thing as an oscillating balls that stays in the same place.
Not true. My balls oscillated on your mom's chin.
rojo wrote:
SO i guess if the ball moves but comes back it's ok, but to me that ball clearly does more than oscillate. It rolls a little wodds. There really is no such thing as an oscillating balls that stays in the same place.
If the ball was in a slight indentation it'd go right back to where it was. I mean, if you want to be theoretical then there would be some miniscule change in a microscope, but that doesn't seem like the spirit of the rule.
White makes are the only males that obsess and concern themselves
with other men's sex lives.That must explain why so many of them are
homosexuals.
I'd be interested to see how many penalties there would be if everyone was followed around and studied like Tiger is. Or for that matter gold in general, no other sport has more no life losers studying each event looking for the most obscure rule violations that have little to do with the events outcome.
Everyone gets a self righteous when this happens, but I bet this happens more than anyone admits.
Tell me, how did Tiger benefit from that tiny flutter of the ball?
What's even more hilarious is Tiger was just chipping it 6 ft out of the woods.
I agree that some of this stuff is just way too petty. I've pretty much quit watching all sports because of all this great technology that basically shows how inept the human eye is and all sports must now be ground down to the smallest minutiae taking out all the joy of watching.
rojo wrote:
I mean it would infuriate me as well if I was him that the stupid rule is worth 2 points but they have to rules like htat or everyone would just move all sorts of crap.
Actually, I think it's a one-stroke penalty. It was a two-stroke penalty because he turned in a wrong scorecard.
Golf is a dumb game anyway.
it moved about 1/32 of a rotation
tempest in a pispot
man this game must be pure if that's cheatin
i see no movement.
hahahahahah, like the second poster said... you are a lying SOB. Quit sensationalizing every little thing to get people to respond to your threads. Leave Sh*t like this to FOX, CNN, NBC etc.
Move or Moved: A ball is deemed to have "moved" if it leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place.
Looks like the ball rotated or as Tiger said oscillated. It appears to be in the same position before and after the rotation. Hard to tell though from the video captured by some random fan.
rojo wrote:
SO i guess if the ball moves but comes back it's ok, but to me that ball clearly does more than oscillate. It rolls a little wodds. There really is no such thing as an oscillating balls that stays in the same place.
Actually you absolutely can have an oscillating object that doesn't move physical position. The definition of oscillation in physics is movement around a central point. The ball could spin or rotate around it's center point while not actually moving it's place on the ground - which is exactly the interpretation of the rule Tiger was referring to. Similarly, how can one make an assumption of his emotional reaction when all you see is his feet? I think everyone is just trying to be really good at speculating without knowing: #1 the scientific definition of oscillation; #2 the rules of gold; and #3 what Tiger was really thinking since none you have any idea.
"Oscillation: regular variation in magnitude or position around a central point."
Let me be clear: I HATE CHEATS!
So when I heard about Tiger's penalty I wanted to see what happened. During today's TV broadcast of the tournament I caught two lengthy segments where they showed what happened. In both instances they showed it three or four times ZOOMED IN. The first two times I saw no movement. The third time I think I saw movement but it may have been rhe power of suggestion - the announcer told me it moved. I was watching on HD TV and standing close to our 42" screen.
When they did another segment, with 3-4 reruns, ZOOMED IN, I again was at best unsure if the ball moved.
Johnny Miller, the announcer, claimed it moved one sixteenth of an inch and turned one sixteenth of an inch. ONE SIXTEENTH! Send for the lynch mob! I saw no turning at all, not even one sixteenth of an inch. If I understood Miller, THAT matters. He seemed to say that if it had not turned there would have been no penalty.
In any case, the penalty would have been one stroke, not "two points" Rojo, if he had called it on himself at the time.
Gainesville/Miami guy wrote:
Let me be clear: I HATE CHEATS!
So when I heard about Tiger's penalty I wanted to see what happened. During today's TV broadcast of the tournament I caught two lengthy segments where they showed what happened. In both instances they showed it three or four times ZOOMED IN. The first two times I saw no movement. The third time I think I saw movement but it may have been rhe power of suggestion - the announcer told me it moved. I was watching on HD TV and standing close to our 42" screen.
When they did another segment, with 3-4 reruns, ZOOMED IN, I again was at best unsure if the ball moved.
Johnny Miller, the announcer, claimed it moved one sixteenth of an inch and turned one sixteenth of an inch. ONE SIXTEENTH! Send for the lynch mob! I saw no turning at all, not even one sixteenth of an inch. If I understood Miller, THAT matters. He seemed to say that if it had not turned there would have been no penalty.
In any case, the penalty would have been one stroke, not "two points" Rojo, if he had called it on himself at the time.
This post is wrong in so many ways. First, it's a 1 stroke penalty for inadvertently causing the ball to move. The ball must be replaced to it's prior position. Because Woods didn't replace the ball, it's an additional 1 stroke penalty. Calling it on himself is irrelevant. The penalty of an additional stroke is for playing the ball in a potentially improved position.
It's obvious the ball moved. It moved down and sideways. The marking on the ball clearly shifted. It doesn't matter how far.
This kind of penalty occurs a lot more than you might think, especially in circumstances like Wood's. The ball is surrounded by loose impediments. Removing the impediments is legal as long as it doesn't cause the ball to move. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed in Wood's reaction. It was clearly a penalty and he should have called it on himself. I will say, in his entire career, I've never known him to call a penalty on himself. He always gives himself the benefit of the doubt.
Many pros have called this penalty on themselves, even without cameras nearby.
rojo, other armchair quarterbacks, and the rest of the don't-know-any-better-yet-insist-on-spouting-nonsense crowd.
yes, the ball can and will oscillate. play more good courses in windy conditions, especially on greens. as with tiger, it happens a lot in the woods and hazards, most often as you clear the loose debris around the ball, just as tiger was doing. but it didn't in this case. the marks on the ball have clearly moved to a different position.
2 vs 1 stroke silliness? if he'd put the ball back, it would've been 1 stroke. because he didn't, and played it from the new position, it was 2.
bladerunner wrote:
This post is wrong in so many ways. First, it's a 1 stroke penalty for inadvertently causing the ball to move. The ball must be replaced to it's prior position. Because Woods didn't replace the ball, it's an additional 1 stroke penalty. Calling it on himself is irrelevant. The penalty of an additional stroke is for playing the ball in a potentially improved position.
It's obvious the ball moved. It moved down and sideways. The marking on the ball clearly shifted. It doesn't matter how far.
This kind of penalty occurs a lot more than you might think, especially in circumstances like Wood's. The ball is surrounded by loose impediments. Removing the impediments is legal as long as it doesn't cause the ball to move. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed in Wood's reaction. It was clearly a penalty and he should have called it on himself. I will say, in his entire career, I've never known him to call a penalty on himself. He always gives himself the benefit of the doubt.
Many pros have called this penalty on themselves, even without cameras nearby.
Perhaps from his perspective the ball replaced itself. If the ball did in fact only shift or rotate by a sixteenth of an inch, how exactly would he replace it? That's too small for human motor control.