Karma for Tiger? He gets caught cheating in golf tournament and now Lindsey Vonn may have cheated on him? Karma is a ***

skjnij wrote:

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.

That was my thought when the world was going through it's latest outrage(!) over this earlier today.

rojo wrote:

I did some more research, blogs.golf.com says "Woods was reportedly surprised at the penalty, and told rules officials he thought the ball oscillated without changing position."

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.

I am not saying that Tiger intended to cheat and move the ball. I'm saying he tried to move the stick, inadvertently moved the ball and then knowingly cheated by not reporting it.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.

Rojo,

You are clearly learning, and open to modifying your stance. I appreciate that.

I think you need a little further understanding. If you know any competitive golfers (college, or professional), ask them, and I am confident they will confirm what I am about to share with you.

I played competitive golf in high school & college. I can tell you that this sort of thing can happen pretty frequently in competition, and I wouldn't assume Tiger knowingly cheated.

When in the woods, with the ball surrounded by loose impediments, here is what I was taught by our very ethical coach and local professional: Carefully attempt to remove any loose impediments you think you can. The ball can oscillate(move slightly) as long as it returns to its original position. If there is a key loose impediment that is touching the ball, you very carefully start to move the impediment... if the ball starts to oscillate (my pro in 1994 used that exact term) then stop immediately, and the ball will usually rotate back to its original spot. No penalty in this case.

If you've played much competitive golf (following every rule carefully), you know that it is very possible for the ball to start to "move" (call it oscillate if you want) and come back to it's original resting position. To the human eye, and in real time, it appears to return to its original resting position. That is the spirit of the rule. Who knows if we measured with micrometers how many competitors unknowingly "cheat".

I have had several times in competition when my ball "osciallated" and I felt it returned to the original position. Easily 30-40 times over the 10 years I played competitive golf. I called no penalty on myself in all but two of those cases. Twice, I believed it permanently moved slightly (probably no more than 1/8 of a rotation) and I called a penalty on myself. I was as honest as I could be.

In hindsight, with the benefit of a camera and slow motion review, it is possible that another of my 30-40 oscilation experiences would have looked like Tiger's video.

I think you're making a big assumption in paragraph 3 when you conclude that Tiger knowingly cheated in this case.

Just found this comment. As a former collegiate player, who did his best to follow the rules, I think it is a reasonable thought:

"The big problem is that you have a set of rules that were developed for self-policing, but some tournaments are now being policed by a million people. I think the whole practice of signing scorecards (which makes perfect sense in a self-policed tourney) is misplaced in a tourney that will be policed by millions of people. If officials are going to go over every shot in slow motion (and take their sweet time about it) the scorecard should be signed a rules official.

rojo wrote:

skyart wrote:

[quote]esesse wrote:

Looks like the ball shifted in place, but no actual movement. I see no reason to badmouth him over this.

If this was a court of law and that was Tiger's defense, the prosecution would rest as you just admitted to the crime.

If the ball shifts at all, it's a two-stroke penalty.End of story.

All I'm saying is he looks like a cheater. if you want to assing moral goodness or badness to cheating, that's up to you.

looks like a cheater? I know it is officially against the rules...but come on, you can't seriously argue that what he did gave him an advantage in anyway. The ball moved probably less than a quarter of an inch! I know people on this site get a hard on by calling dopers cheaters...but this is too far. Yes, what he did was against the rules. But in his mind, he was probably thinking "this incredible minute movement has no effect whatsoever on the shot, who cares." and he was right. Do you really think this altered his game play (aside from the 2 stroke penalty) in any way?

let's be rational about this. he was not cheating. He was not trying to gain any unfair advantage.

anapaix wrote:

looks like a cheater? I know it is officially against the rules...but come on, you can't seriously argue that what he did gave him an advantage in anyway. The ball moved probably less than a quarter of an inch! I know people on this site get a hard on by calling dopers cheaters...but this is too far. Yes, what he did was against the rules. But in his mind, he was probably thinking "this incredible minute movement has no effect whatsoever on the shot, who cares." and he was right. Do you really think this altered his game play (aside from the 2 stroke penalty) in any way?

let's be rational about this. he was not cheating. He was not trying to gain any unfair advantage.

I have serious doubts that he even thought "this incredible minute movement has no effect whatsoever on the shot, who cares." I would bet if you could get in his head, he honestly believed it oscillated (temporarily "moved", in non-golfer speak) and came back to rest in the original resting location. This would be within the rules.

Competitive golfers (professional & collegiate) have great respect for the integrity of the game. Every competitive golfer grows up competing in self-policing events. Somebody who has the "who cares" attitude when it comes to the rules does not last long in the sport, or is soon recognized as a "cheater". Once outed you are ostracized. And if Tiger, or any pro, had a "who cares" attitude to the rules, it would have been noticed and highlighted a long, long time ago. Probably in junior golf, but definitely at some point in high school or collegiate golf. LONG before professional golf came around. Espcially somebody like Tiger, who has had countless cameras and fans following/watching since he was a junior.

Find somebody who played collegiate or professional golf and ask them. You just don't cut rules corners in competition.

It's like asking a serious, competitive marathoner if they would consider cutting a few miles off their next marathon.

Okay, blowing it up full screen I could see the ball dip very slightly, but think I'm with Tiger that it just "oscillated" and didn't actually move. And I'm a Tiger hater.

So is Lindsey Vonn banging another dude?

anapaix wrote:

come on, you can't seriously argue that what he did gave him an advantage in anyway. The ball moved probably less than a quarter of an inch! I know people on this site get a hard on by calling dopers cheaters...but this is too far. Yes, what he did was against the rules. But in his mind, he was probably thinking "this incredible minute movement has no effect whatsoever on the shot, who cares." and he was right. Do you really think this altered his game play (aside from the 2 stroke penalty) in any way?

let's be rational about this. he was not cheating. He was not trying to gain any unfair advantage.

I've never seen someone totally miss a point like this.

The fact that the slight ball movement gave him no advantage is completely irrelevant. Let's use a running analogy to hopefully make it a little clearer for you. You're running the 200m,and you accidently step on your inside lane line on the turn. Let's say, about "less than a quarter of an inch", just like Tiger's ball. You also have amazing eyesight and happen to notice this as you are running the race, but think to yourself "well, I barely touched the line, and really, there's absolutely no meaningful advantage whatsoever here"... and you don't mention it to officials. But video confirms you stepped on it, and you are DQ'd.

In this case (just like Tiger's), you gained no real advantage, but broke a clear rule, knowingly.

The point you are missing (entirely, quite surprisingly) is that a rule was broken, not whether it can be justified by using the rationale of no advantage being gained.

Video evidence indicated that his golf ball moved ever so slightly as Woods was removing a twig from an area under the trees behind the first green at Conway Farms

Slugger White, vice president of competition at the PGA Tour, stopped Woods before he signed for a 70. Woods didn’t believe the ball moved out of its position, and White said the world’s No. 1 player still wasn’t convinced after watching the video.

Woods did not "cheat". Cheat means an intentional action used to gain advantage.

Not sure why you cannot follow that

Klondike5 wrote:

Woods did not "cheat". Cheat means an intentional action used to gain advantage.

Not sure why you cannot follow that

I've seen the video, and I'm pretty certain his immediate pause while clearing the twigs and debris at the moment the ball moved shows that he saw it happen.

Intentionally deciding not to call a penalty on yourself that would have resulted in a one-stroke penalty is gaining an advantage.

Not sure why you cannot follow that.

By your logic of "Cheat means an intentional action used to gain advantage", I could do any of these things and not be cheating:

1. Step completely out of bounds with the ball and then back in while playing soccer during a moment in the game when no opposing player is near you, and no offensive action is being taken (i.e. the step out of bounds created absolutely no scoring opportunity, or prevented an opposing player from one, or from gaining possession of the ball). It was just done randomly.

2. Touching the net while playing tennis during a rally, but during a moment and in a way that has nothing to do with creating an advantage in the point (i.e. you are at the net and volley a ball, then decide to touch the net for no other reason than simply to touch it - you aren't off balance, etc).

3. A basketball game in which a player decides to start a point by just walking the ball up to the center line without dribbling, then begins to play within the rules once an opposing player comes within close enough distance for it to matter.

The point you've missed is that cheating is not just "an intentional action used to gain advantage", it is breaking a rule that is part of the game. Whether you gain an advantage is meaningless.

easy weeks wrote:

The point you've missed is that cheating is not just "an intentional action used to gain advantage", it is breaking a rule that is part of the game. Whether you gain an advantage is meaningless.

Unintentionally breaking a rule that gives no advantage is not cheating. Spin however you must

Thanks for the ridiculous analaogies.

Tiger moved a twig that inadvertently caused the ball to move an imperceptible amount:

You compare this to:

A basketball game in which a player decides to start a point by just walking the ball up to the center line without dribbling, then begins to play within the rules once an opposing player comes within close enough distance for it to matter.

Yes. This is something that happens now and then during games. Nice one.

A more apt analogy would be that a b-ball player shooting a free throw accidentally has his shoe on the line when shooting a free throw.

The point you've missed is that cheating is not just "an intentional action used to gain advantage", it is breaking a rule that is part of the game.

Really? Accidentally breaking a game's rules and doing so purposefully in order to gain an advantage are all the same? The former is cheating as much as the latter?

I honestly don't know what is wrong with so many letsrun posters.

PLEASE read the above. It accurately sums this issue up and is by someone who knows from long experience.

I've watched the video rojo embedded a bunch of times. As near as I can tell, the 'move' moment in question occurs right round the six second mark.As Tiger presses down on the twig/branch...it seems to depress whatever is beneath the ball, as it appears to concurrently depress/move down slightly. He appears to notice and stops what he's doing. For the life me, I cannot interpret that very slight downward motion as a 'turn.' I've only golfed a handful of times in my life, and don't know all the rules. So, I just visited this site, going to what seems this applicable rule:

Rule 18--Ball at Rest Moved

http://www.usga.org/rule-books/rules-of-golf/rule-18/

I won't bother pasting in any of the rule here, as much of it seems appropriate to this discussion. However, to me...the critical bit is the definition of move, moves, moved. In Rule 18, all occurrences of variants of 'move' in context of the rule link to this definition in

Section II – Definitions:

"Move or Moved"

A ball is deemed to have “moved’’ if it leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place."

After watching that video repeatedly, I do not think that ball 'moved' in keeping with that definition. Certainly, Tiger gained no advantage. I don't think he should have been penalized. If you imagine him looking down, at the ball, at that six-second mark...he clearly realizes the ball 'could' move further...in violation of Rule 18...and stops what he's doing.

Tiger is the only reason I ever started watching golf. At all. His personal life is his personal life. I wish him continued success.

I have to disagree here, because no one know if he did so knowingly. The poin tis people shouldn't be labeling him as if he was trying to gain some advantage.

Maybe somebody's posted this already, but Tiger knows he's being watched all the time. He should have called the official over told him what happened and gotten a ruling right there. More than likely the official would have gone with Tiger's observation.

Also, this is the same association that allowed Tiger and friends to move a freaking boulder in a tourney years ago. Now that was a joke.

easy weeks wrote:

In this case (just like Tiger's), you gained no real advantage, but broke a clear rule, knowingly.

The point you are missing (entirely, quite surprisingly) is that a rule was broken, not whether it can be justified by using the rationale of no advantage being gained.

Read my posts a few before yours.

1. I'm sure Tiger saw the ball oscillate (that's "temporarily move", or "start to move out of it's resting position" in non-golfer speak).

2. I bet Tiger honestly believed the ball returned to its original resting position.

I've been in the same situation in competition, as has most any competitive tournament player (good high school, collegiate, or professional who actually has to follow the rules - i.e. no foot wedges).

Imagine 4 twigs/leaves/or stones around your ball. They will negatively affect your shot, so you'd like to remove them if possible.

Here is the process: one by one, you carefully try to remove each twig/leaf/stone. You usually start with the twig that is least likely to move the ball, and proceed in order to the twig/leaf/stone that is closest to the ball.

Watch any professional/collegiate golfer in the woods and you will usually see the same process. The first twig/etc is often removed fairly quickly (because it is the "safest"). Then the golfer's movements will get more deliberate & careful with each twig/leaf/stone because they are closer to the ball, and more likely to permanently move it (incurring a penalty).

Your eyes are fixated on the ball as you do this.

Twig/leaf one - success.

Twig/leaf two - success.

Twig/leaf three - the ball starts to move. You FREEZE. Stop pulling the twig/leaf, and the ball usually settles back into its original resting position. (no penalty)

Twig/leaf four - you might still try this one, but often not since it's even closer to the ball than twig/leaf #3.

This video might help some of you guys understand the "wobble"/oscillate (non-penalty) concept:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe6Vb1_MaII

At the end, the pro mentions "the ball wobbled a little bit, but it didn't move. It retained its position as it was originally, so there's no penalty..."

Now, if you reviewed slow motion, HD video on this ball "wobble" - it might look fishy. Heck it might even have slightly moved, but to the human eye in real time, this pro feels like it retained its position. Therefore, he HONESTLY determines there was no penalty.

This happens so often in tournament golf.

He was already of questionable ethics, of course. It's hard to put a positive spin on f*cking everything that moves when you have a wife and kids at home, even if you are a "free thinker."

Great athlete but the anecdotal evidence for him being an unbelievable prick is quite extensive.