You are now officially deemed a Tiger Hater even though your argument is 100% accurate and no one will explain why we never saw that shot again on TV.

Dude, it was clearly a bad drop. The blimp was basically head on with Tiger teeing off. The ball did not start "way right". Most of the hook action occurred well before it hit water. Rolfing's first account was that it did not cross much land. Rolfing obviously did not want to get in the middle of what could have been a huge blow up so he was compelled to backtrack and leave it up to the players. If I were in his place I would have done the same thing.

And I'll take shotlink's 25 yards compared to some concocted "60 yards".

ETA: Woods turned away and did not see the ball's flight where he later claimed it last crossed land.

And we have detailed analysis and video of the shot. He is deemed a Tiger hater

http://www.golfcanada.ca/blogs/the-c...ticle36441.ece

Did Elin pick up like 30lbs. It must have been NBC camera angle or something because she looked heavy. Oh wait... I'm so sorry Elin it was Lindsey never mind.

my quess:

Vohn in the sack <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Elin

One, you have zero clue about the blimp. At 1000 feet up it wouldn't take much to distort the view. Plus you've got the distortion of the wide angle lens.

Two, Rolfing's initial commentary was that the ball was likely in the water, but wasn't sure until the end. Hence, "and I believe wet" from him. To add to the Rolfing analysis, where was Rolfing when the shot was hit? Most of the on course announcers are down the fairway when tee shots are hit. Assuming that's the case, how would he have any real idea where it crossed?

Three, how does Shotlink work when the ball is in the water? Why don't you share with the class how and why the accuracy of where the ball splashed would be affected with it not being sitting on land. I know exactly why, do you?

There's always that one guy in the group that pulls a club in middle of your swing, runs up to his ball yells back I'm ok it's inbounds, takes a drop where he's not suppose to.

Roger Clemens

Jack would have insisted on stopping the tournament until blimp coverage could be thoroughly analyzed to determine the crossing point. And then assessed himself a penalty for delaying the game.

Where was the blimp? It was basically in line with the tee shot and generally revealed the path of the ball. The camera angle would reveal if the ball started "way right". It didn't.

Why are you asking where Rolfing was? Why are you not asking why Tiger did not see the ball last cross water (at least where he claimed)? BTW, Rolfing was not down the fairway, he was near the teeing ground as evidenced by his appearance on the coverage immediately after the shot.

So you buy some contrived account over shot link? Why are you not pursuing somebody who throws 60 yards out as some piece of evidence that can be defended with facts?

Why are you defending an obviously bad drop?

Why are you attacking a ldo standard run of the mill drop?

This. A lot of arm-chair analysts out there and a lot of bad info. First, Tiger looked away initially, but there is no evidence that he stayed that way. It did show him walking off of the tee, so I assume he didn't stand there the entire time with his back to the ball. Second, the blimp was clearly to the right of the hole, so you have NO idea of where the ball crossed land from the blimp angle. Third, and most importantly, Tiger's playing partner and his caddie agreed to where it crossed the hazard. TWO players, who were in the best position to see the ball, BOTH agreed to where the ball crossed the hazard.

Just shut up already.

Its clear it was a brutal drop but the PGA is fine with it. As long as Tiger wins the Tour is happy, networks are happy and Tiger is happy. Rules who cares
Another asterik

Cite?


Yeah, no doubt he looked away. And that's one of the reasons we have the video where Wittenberg is coaching TW on where to drop.

Again, tell everyone how shotlink works?

Spoiler alert:


And it's not some "contrived account". That's from Mark Russell.

Not defending it. Just pointing out that it's impossible to determine based on what we saw on tv.

Tiger clearly physically turned away immediately before the point in time (2 seconds at most) where he claimed the ball would have crossed land. It is highly unlikely he would have quickly turned around, caught the ball again while in flight, and assessed where it would have crossed.

That was about 10 seconds later. Little relevance.

It was not "clearly right of the hole". It was in the general line within 10 degrees or so of path toward the fairway from the tee. This can be seen by the mowing path on the tee which orients directly toward the fairway, which has no dogleg.

This has already been addressed, and from a rules perspective this is all that matters. It is not part of the discussion.

Bitterness FTW

The only thing that is "clear" is that you will do anything to try to knock Tiger down a peg. (and/or troll Tiger fans)

Did you watch the overhead?


So at least you are acknowledging Tiger did not observe where it last crossed.


So, who do you believe? And why are you not challenging the second hand "60 yards"? Did you actually try to reconcile 60 yards to see if it made sense?

Read his quote again.
So he is wrong about "they both saw it". He is wrong about Rolfing, who immediately after the shot noted that the ball crossed early in flight. And he is most likely contriving the "60 yards" as that number cannot be reconciled to anything reasonable. Russell can say anything he wants, it means little compared to the evidence.



Basically, wrong. If I had to put a line on it with a crew of impartial video experts with access to impartial accounts immediately after the event, -5000. And that's generous to Tiger.

'Winning takes care of everything' -GOAT

learn the rules first because no rule was broken. he asked his playing parnter and he agreed. if you have an issue with the spot of the drop blame his playing partner.

i dont think some of the posters here even play golf. when you hit into hazard 200+ yards out you go to the estimated area where you think it crossed and ask your partner if said spot is agreeable for a drop and then you move on. your playing partner will deem if its fair and make the decision to protect the field. its not an exact science like a baseball landing on the chalk line or 2 inches outside of it. who the hell can see the exact spot it crossed from 200+ yard out. how accurate do you think drops are in an averge hackers round?

do people really want instant replay to be a part of golf. i think rounds are long enough.

Substitute Sergio for Wittenberg and play out that scenario.

No, you're wrong. Again. He turned around, THEN they showed the ball, which was still VERY high, and landed a few seconds later. No doubt that he turned around

No, it was about 2 seconds later when he walked off to the side of the tee. Do you really think he stood there with his back to the ball for the entire time? Dude, really, it's ok to admit you're wrong.

If you understood angles, you'd understand the height of the blimp. take a look at the ball flight, and watch the ball go over trees on the OTHER side of the lake, and spectators. Now take a look at how far left that is actually is. A blimp (which is at a high altitude compared to a golf shot) would have to be the right of the hole to give that impression. If you don't understand, a geometry book might help you.

What do you mean it isn't part of the discussion. The TWO players responsible for making that decision other than the player himself agreed on the drop. You try to use a TV commentator as "evidence", but the two people standing on the right side of the tee, with a perfect view of the ball, can't be introduced as such?


Ignorance FTL

you have some serious depth preception issues if you couldnt tell that blimp angle was well right of the fairway.

ahh now your starting to get it? thats golf baby! its subjective. if sergio had an issue with it then he would have told tiger where he saw the ball cross and go from there. comprende?

once tiger asks his playing partner to verify the spot its done with. if tiger didnt ask anyone and dropped himself then you can have a valid arguement.

after that masters drop incident tiger haters have found something they can cling to from here on out. scrutinizing every drop of tigers, claiming he cheated. so desparate to find a reason. no tiger is not a cheater. he doesnt carry a footwedge in his bag. just an army to move boulders for him. all within the rules!

This is all you need to know about your argument. You state that he was wrong about them both seeing it, yet it is very clear that there are 4 seconds after the TV showed Tiger turning away before the ball splashed. In your mind, it's FACT that Tiger could not have turned around and saw that last part of the landing, because no one could turn around quickly enough in 2-3 seconds.

Ridiculous.

What are you watching? It was 2 seconds from the time he was in the act of turning away, to when the ball crossed the point where Tiger claimed the ball crossed. Again, it is highly unlikely he would have quickly changed his motion, turn back, caught the ball while in flight, and assessed where the ball last crossed.
Again, watch the video. Time it. What is the time between him turning away and when he turned back toward the general area where the ball landed?

The blimp is right of the path of the ball, not the fairway. Understand?
More bitterness. Follow the evidence. Don't use the evidence to fit your flawed conclusion.