By now, just about everything has been written that can be written
about Tiger Wood’s drop at the 2013 Masters Tournament.[1]
What has not been examined is how various bureaucratic interests may have led to
bizarre actions (i.e., not asking Tiger to review the replay before signing his
card) and rulings (i.e., applying a rule that does not appear to be applicable)
that marked this event. Lacking subpoena
power or access to enhanced interrogation techniques, golf journalists will
probably never find out what drove the decisions on that Friday and
Saturday. Bureaucracies like Augusta
National, the USGA, and the media, however, act in predictable ways (see Inside Bureaucracy by Anthony Downs[2]). They also have specific institutional
histories that suggest how they would act in the future based on how the acted
in the past. Combining theory with
history and adding a heavy dose of literary license, a possible scenario that
explains the events surrounding that fateful drop is outlined below. As homage to Bob Woodward, hypothetical
conversations are employed to advance the narrative.
Here is the cast of characters:
·
Fred Ridley – Chairman of the Competition
Committee and former President of the USGA.
·
Jim Reinhart – Member of the Competition
Committee and former member of the Executive Board of the USGA.
·
Mark Russell – Member of the Competition
Committee and Vice President of Rules and Competition for the PGA Tour--and
ubiquitous presence at televised Tour events.
The Committee convened after a television viewer questioned
whether Tiger Woods took a proper drop.[3] The Committee members reviewed the recording
and the following discussion ensued:
Ridley: You have all seen the replay. Tiger chose to proceed under Rule 26-1a by
playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which his original ball
was played. As you see in the replay,
Tiger did not do that. But let me put
this in context. We already look like
a-holes by letting John Paramor assign a one-stroke penalty for slow play to
Guan Tianlang. As you know, John thinks
he is bigger than the game, and has made controversial decisions over the years
to put the spotlight on himself. Now do
we parlay John’s screw-up by assessing Tiger a two-stroke penalty for an
inconsequential error and greatly reduce his chances of winning a major?
Reinhart: It would be tough not to assign a penalty
when Decision 20-5/2 penalizes a player who drops a couple of inches from where
he should.
Russell: In Decision 20-5/2, the player gained an
advantage by dropping on a part of the course through the green and not in or
close to the edge of the bunker. I think
we can agree there was no advantage gained from the improper drop. Now we also have to stipulate that Tiger was
uncertain about where he hit his original shot from. He did drop it near where his caddie was
standing. It is not unreasonable to
assume that Tiger thought this was the proper spot.
Reinhart: But what about the divot? Shouldn’t Tiger have known that was where he
hit the original shot?
Russell: Sure, but an argument could be made that
given the circumstances his drop was close enough.
Ridley: Should we call Tiger in before he signs his
card and ask if in his mind he dropped “as near as possible?”
Russell: Fred, let’s stick with your assumption it would
be best for all concerned if Tiger was not penalized. I see two possible plans, A and B. Under Plan A we call Tiger in. That is what I would do if this were the
Buick Open. It covers our ass since it
shows due diligence in getting all of the facts before a ruling is made. But know that if you call him in, Tiger is
probably going to walk out of the meeting with a two-stroke penalty. I suspect Tiger was confused about Rule
26-1a). It is hardly ever invoked on the
Tour since a player does not want to give up distance. He was probably thinking
of Rule 26-1b) where a player can go back as far as he wants keeping the point
at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the hazard directly
between the hole and where the ball is dropped. So if Tiger comes in, he is either going to
say he was confused and get a penalty or admit he didn’t drop as near as
possible and get a penalty.
In Plan B, we don’t call Tiger in
and agree the drop was proper. We
contact the viewer(s) who called in and thank them for their interest, but tell
them the Committee has decided after review that the drop was close enough, there was no intention to
gain an advantage, and therefore there
was no infraction.
Ridley: I like that Plan A covers our ass, but it has
a bigger downside for the tournament. I
say we go with Plan B. Based on what we
know, Tiger’s drop was proper. We don’t
pursue the issue with Tiger and hope it goes away.
Of course, it does not go away since Tiger tells the press
how he dropped two yards back from the spot of the original shot to get a
better yardage. Oops! Ridley is informed of Tiger’s comments at
approximately 10:00 PM Friday. Ridley
states that he, Tournament Director Buzzy Johnson, and incoming Executive
Director of Augusta National Will Jones then convened to review the replay
again. It is not clear if Russell and
Reinhart are also at this meeting. For
this fictional account, it is assumed they are.
Johnson: Well, Fred, your Plan B was supposed to
protect the success and integrity of the Masters. It seems it did neither. It
looks like you gave a player preferential treatment, missed an easy call on a
rules infraction, and sent the tournament’s big draw down the road. Not exactly the way I wanted my last
tournament as director to be remembered.
Ridley: I am sorry, sir. My plan had a downside I did not
foresee. It is possible, however, that through
a generous interpretation of the rules we could save Tiger.
Johnson: A judge’s save like on American Idol?
Ridley: Close, but not exactly. Let Jim Reinhart go through the options.
Reinhart: It would be nice if Tiger
DQ’d himself.
Ridley: If he did, it would only
be because we did not call him in and alert him to the problem. That would make us look like idiots. We would have to explain why we thought the
video evidence did not show an improper drop and why we didn’t call him in to
clear up any confusion. We need a
solution that does not reflect poorly on our competence.
Reinhart: Point well taken. I have been looking at Rule 33-7 that gives
the Committee discretion to waive the disqualification penalty in exceptional
cases. It is not clear that any of the decisions apply to this case.
33-7/4 – A player submits a wrong scorecard. Later the player recognizes his error and
informs the Committee. This is not an
exceptional case and the disqualification penalty may not be waived.
33-7/4.5 – Competitor is unaware
of a penalty and returns a wrong score.
To waive the penalty the Committee must be satisfied that the competitor
could not reasonably have known, or discovered the facts resulting in the
breach of the rules. This decision has
been altered so video evidence that could not be reasonably detected by the
player is not a reason for disqualification. This is not the case here. Tiger not only should have been aware of his error
and he also admitted his error, and therefore this decision is not applicable.
We might be able to hang our hat on
Decision 34-3/1, Correction of Incorrect
Ruling in Stroke Play.
34-3/1 - Here a player reports the
facts, the Committee tells him he is not penalized and he signs his
scorecard. The Committee discovers its
error before the competition is closed.
It adds the penalty stokes, but does not disqualify the competitor under
Rule 6-6d, Wrong score for hole.
Ridley: The problem is Tiger never
informed the Committee of the facts nor did the Committee tell him his drop was
proper.
Reinhart: We could argue that
because we didn’t call him in, Tiger could implicitly assume the Committee
ruled his drop was proper.
Russell: Like the dog that didn’t bark. If a player is not called in, can he
rightfully infer the Committee has found nothing improper about his play? If
later the player discovers he signed a wrong scorecard, couldn’t he argue it
was the Committee’s error in not informing him and ask the Tiger Ruling be
applied to his case? Or worse, couldn’t
a Committee save any player it wanted, by saying it saw the action of the
player and ruled it was not an infraction? Are they then justified in waiving the
disqualification penalty when infraction comes to light?
Ridley: Mark, you raised some important issues, but
precedence is really not a concern at the moment. Here is what I propose we do. We assign Tiger a two-stroke penalty, but
waive disqualification under 33-7. If
asked, the “exceptional circumstance” is the Committee’s decision that there
was no infraction at the time Tiger signed his card.
Russell: So this really is American Idol. There is no decision that
supports your ruling. Do you expect any
blowback from the USGA or the media?
Ridley: I can get the USGA and R&A on board. This will stifle most of the criticism from
the press who don’t know the rules that well. If you say something often enough
and with authority most of the media will go along. We also have the fear
factor going for us. Be too obnoxious
and you’ll be the next Jack Whitaker.[4]
The Competition Committee acted as theory would predict. Its initial actions were meant to advance the
policies and goals of the Masters. Bureaucracies
tend “to exaggerate data that reflect favorably on themselves, and minimize
those that reveal their own shortcomings.”[5]
That explains why Tiger was not called in and not disqualified.
The Competition Committee was not the only bureaucracy
exhibiting such behavior. The Media and
golf’s ruling bodies also did not distinguish themselves:
The Golf Channel –
After the ruling was announced, analysts Nick Faldo and Brandel Chamblee
strongly criticized the ruling and argued Tiger should withdraw. Attitudes at the Golf Channel softened
considerably during the day. Rich Lerner
interviewed Gary Player, for example, and never mentioned the controversial
ruling or asked Player his opinion.
ESPN - Rick Reilly
argued that this “new reassessment rule” seemed fair. To his discredit, he did not realize there
was no new rule applicable to this case.
To his credit he called for Tiger to withdraw. Andy North turned the spotlight from the ruling
to whether fans should be able to call in.
Curtis Strange felt compelled to wonder if Nick Faldo, in similar
circumstances, would withdraw.
CBS - The
strident Nick Faldo of the morning became the mollified Faldo later on the CBS
telecast. He said:
We’re in a new era now under new rules and even if they bring some
controversy; Tiger is playing rightly under the new rules. And myself and some of my old pros, we have
to accept that now.
Of course, there are no new rules, but Faldo legitimized
Tiger’s playing and the ruling by the Competition Committee by telling the
viewing audience there were.
USGA and the R&A
– Ridley claimed in his press conference on Saturday that both the USGA and
the R&A agreed with the
Committee’s ultimate ruling. This raises
the question of “Who do you call on Friday night or Saturday morning at these
organizations to get a ruling?” Ridley
didn’t say and the passive golf press did not ask. Clearly, the USGA Rules Committee did not sit
en banc and affirm the Committee’s
actions. More likely, Ridley found someone
from each organization hanging around the Augusta National clubhouse to back
the Committee's decision. But once Ridley had made
his statement, both organizations were put in a box. If, in fact, either organization determined
the ruling was incorrect it would have to announce that Ridley had erred in
implying imprimatur by the organizations rather than by individuals within the
organization. This would make everyone look bad: Ridley for stretching the truth and the USGA
and R&A for not immediately correcting the record.
Both organizations found a more bureaucratic solution in
their belated joint statement explain the ruling.[6]
Below is a summary of that statement:
1. The Ruling that
Woods Dropped in and Played from a Wrong Place -Woods did not drop as near
as possible and was “penalized two strokes for dropping in and playing from the
wrong place.” Note: There is no penalty for dropping in the wrong place. There is only a penalty for playing from the
wrong place. The joint statement was not
carefully crafted as it also contains “Copyright 2012 (emphasis added) by the United States Golf Association.”
2. The Decision to
Waive the Penalty of Disqualification -
“The Masters Tournament Committee concluded it actions taken prior to
Woods’(sic) returning his score card created an exceptional individual case
that unfairly led to the potential disqualification. In hindsight, the Committee determined that
its initial ruling was incorrect, as well as that it had erred in resolving the
question without first seeking information from Woods and in failing to inform
Woods of the Ruling given the unusual
combination of facts…the Committee reasonably exercised its discretion under
Rule 33-7 to waive the penalty of disqualification…”
In essence, because of the unusual case of Ridley, Reinhart,
and Russell being incompetent, the penalty of disqualification was not invoked.
3. Scope of Committee
Discretion to Waive a Penalty of Disqualification for Failure to Return Correct
Score – As discussed above, this decision raises the question of
precedence. Should the Masters Committee be held responsible for not reminding
Roberto di Vencenzo he birdied the 17th hole? Should Craig Stadler get a pass if the
Committee saw him use a towel but wasn’t aware that it was an infraction?
To eliminate the precedent problem, the joint statement
reads “although a Committee should do its best to alert competitors to
potential Rules issues that may come to its attention, it has no general
obligation to do so; and the fact that a Committee may be aware of such a
potential issue before the competitor returns his score card should not, in and
of itself, be a basis for waiving a penalty of disqualification under Rule
6-6d. Only rare sets of facts, akin to
the exceptional facts at the 2013 Masters Tournament as summarized in the
previous paragraphs, would justify a Committee’s use of its discretion to waive
a penalty of disqualification for returning an incorrect score card.” If one examines the “rare set of facts,”
however, there are only two: Tiger Woods and the Masters Tournament.
The joint statement attains it bureaucratic aims. To maintain good relations between the USGA
and the Masters, the Committee is absolved for making a wrong ruling, and only
given a slap on the wrist for the errors it committed. The USGA and R&A dispatched the problem
of precedence by saying there is none (i.e.,
this is one-time only lifeline tossed to Mr. Ridley in appreciation of his
years of service to the USGA).
The joint statement does say the “USGA and R&A will
review the exceptional situation at the 2013 Masters Tournament, assess
potential implications for other types of situation, and determine whether an
adjustment in the Rules and/or Decisions is appropriate.” It would be helpful if the governing bodies
listed the “rare circumstances” in a Decision. To do so, however, would expose
the weakness in the argument for waiving disqualification in this case. It is
likely the 2014-2015 Decisions on the
Rules of Golf will not contain any reference to the Masters ruling. This would be in accordance with another
axiom that guides bureaucratic behavior:
When you find yourself in a hole,
quit digging.
[1] Barry
Rhodes, rules expert, gave a concise critique of the ruling. See www.Barry Rhodes.com.
[2]
Downs, Anthony, Inside Bureaucracy,
Little, Brown, and Co., Boston MA, 1967.
[3]
The caller was not someone calling from his parent’s basement as Ridley and
most of the media implied. It was, in
fact, David Eger who at one time was the Vice President of Competition for the
PGA Tour, a position now held by Mark Russell of the Masters Competition
Committee.
[4]
Jack Whitaker was allegedly banned from the CBS broadcast team for referring to
the patrons as “a mob.”
[5]Downs, op. cit., p. 77.
[6]
USGA, The R&A Issue Statement
Addressing Tiger Woods Ruling at the 2013 Masters Tournament, www.usga,org, May 1, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment