The best & worst about Tiger Woods and The Ruling

The best...from Gary Van Sickle at Sports Illustrated:

"We learned that 33-7 isn’t the score of a football game but a rule that, if applied universally the way it was to Tiger Woods in Augusta, means no player guilty of a rules breach found after-the-fact should ever be disqualified for signing an incorrect score again. Of course, that’s not how it is going to work for the rank and file. There will be more DQs for wrong cards following post-round penalties. The Masters bent the rules for Tiger. Let me simplify the whole supposedly complicated Tiger issue for you: Yes or no, did Tiger sign for an incorrect score? Correct answer: Yes. He agreed that he took a wrong drop and should’ve had a two-shot penalty included. Tiger should’ve been disqualified. The rest of the story is smoke and mirrors and the more Fred Ridley talked, the worse it sounded. What a stain it would’ve been had Tiger won. He would’ve had to get to 20 majors to beat Jack because this one wouldn’t have counted in the eyes of a lot of observers. Luckily, that’s a moot point now."

The worst...from Gary Player:

"In golf, we have a rules committee, and situations like this are exactly why. When a referee makes a ruling, you have to accept it. It doesn't matter what the commenters on the side say, so why make comments? It makes no difference who thinks Woods should have been disqualified, or who thinks he should have withdrawn. We have to abide the decision. That's how we play golf. Augusta made the final verdict: Tiger broke a rule, and he took his penalty exactly how it was given. No talking can change it, and amen to that."

I used to try not to think Gary Player was a holier-than-thou-chump.

I told him nice up & down once at Valencia Country Club during a Champion's Tour event and he said with a wink, "Thank's, laddy!" It was cool. I was like 40 years old at the time.

Still, what Player misses is that rules evolve from forces applied from both within and without a sport. No ruling body should or can do their work in a vacuum. Commentary, questions and criticism of the rules (and the rule makers) are more than necessary evils, they are the road to better rules.

ESPN's Rick Reilly on Sergio Garcia's Demons

This piece by ESPN's Rick Reilly annoyed me on both tone and style points, so I fired off this sharply tongued missive to him:

Dear Mr. Reilly

Really, it's hard for me to figure out why Sergio Garcia's attitude is so interesting to you. He's a golfer; would it be so wrong to judge him by his play rather than dredging up quotes and actions from him going back more than a decade?

Garcia is 33 years of age and has no majors. Then again, Brandt Snedeker is 32, also with no majors, but 3 fewer PGA Tour wins than Garcia. Should we talk about Sned's sunny disposition or his game? In addition to Snedeker, have you ever compared Garcia's career to that of Ian Poulter? Poulter may be trending in the press, but his record doesn't compare.

Garcia finished the Masters at -3, just like Lee Westwood and Matt Kuchar. Has anyone checked their attitudes lately? It would seem not.

I've watched Garcia since the days of his win at the British Amateur and his run at the PGA Championship. Like you, I've wondered about his life away from golf. Also like you, I've not walked a step in his shoes, so I don't question what I don't know.

Why not? Because it would be like kicking a man whom I don't know. In the end, I was surprised of the mean-spirited feel to your piece. If Garcia has been hard on anyone, it's been himself. If he is man of great talent yet lacking commensurate confidence & joie de vivre, so what?

Why not just leave him to his demons?

But please, refrain from adding your own.

2013 Masters: This year's tale of guilt.

In so many ways, Tiger Woods is the perfect counterpoint to Adam Scott.

His failure to hit the gas hard enough on Sunday was blamed on slow greens. Sure, they were trhe very same greens that Cabrera and Scott made epic putts on but, hey, they were just too slow for the stripped one.

Woods debacle at the 15th left me with only one question:

Why did Woods think it was OK to drop a couple yards short of the divot of his previous shot?

I haven't heard anyone ask this question.

In one respect, it doesn't matter: The fact is he made a bad drop and signed an incorrect scorecard.

Game over.

The additional fact is that was only the Masters Rule Committee's failure to identify the penalty in real time, and to notify Woods before he signed his card, that saved him from disqualification.

2013 Masters: This year's tale of redemption.

When Adam Scott blew a four shot lead over the last four holes at the 2012 British Open I wondered if he would ever be able to redeem himself...to himself.

It was the kind of collapse that could have ruined the career of a player like Scott.

Now that Scott has exorcised whatever demons may have remained by his amazing win at The Masters it may be time to start to wonder about his potential to become the best player in the world. One major does not a number one player make, of course, still Scott's the perfect age to become a golfer in full to borrow from Tom Wolfe.

He's long and accurate driver whose short game and new-found fortitude could make him hard to beat. The folks at Nike would like us to imagine Rory McIlroy as his foil, but a slightly younger and just as fit Scott could be the genuine challenger to Woods and the other would-be Number Ones.