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 It makes no difference who thinks Woods should have been disqualified, or who thinks he should have withdrawn.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.