Golf Digest Search Results

The Tiger Fiasco: Understanding what went wrong and who's to blame

Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:21:00 GMT

AUGUSTA, Ga. -- Buzzards began circling the Tiger Woods rules dust-up about six hours after it happened, and like the buzzard, it began looking uglier the closer one got. None of the entities -- Tiger, the Masters rules committee, the Rules of Golf or an increasingly manic Twitterverse -- have come out looking better for it. To describe the incident and its implications, we can only borrow a movie title and say, It's Complicated. Here is a primer on the incident and what we should know and think so far.

What happened on the 15th hole on Friday?
Tiger's third shot to the green of the par-5 15th clattered off the flagstick and into the pond fronting the green. After some deliberation, Tiger dropped a ball and chose to play his next shot -- his fifth, with the penalty stroke -- from what he later said was "two yards" farther from where he had splashed his third.

So what rule did Tiger violate?
There are a few options under Rule 26. Tiger chose to proceed under Rule 26-1a, which requires that a player drop his ball "as near as possible" from the place from where he had played his previous shot. By dropping a couple of yards farther from that place and then hitting a shot, Tiger was in violation -- not of Rule 26, but of Rule 20-7 (playing from a wrong place). He proceeded without knowing he had violated a Rule, and upon finishing the round, signed his card and left the premises.

What happened next?
For hours, nothing. A television viewer watching ESPN's live coverage did what viewers these days are wont to due -- he or she phoned Augusta National and informed persons there that a violation had occurred. The Masters rules committee duly reviewed tape of the incident, and essentially shrugged it off. They saw no apparent violation.

How could the officials miss this?
It's easy to hold the cudgels up to rules officials, but the real-world interpretation and application of rules can be dicey. Remember the murky component of Rule 26 and the phrase, "as near as possible." No specific measure for where Tiger should have dropped is outlined. The threshold is not clearly delineated. This happens in golf. Unlike Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart, who stated he could not define pornography but knew it when he saw it, the committee was left to make an organic determination as to whether Tiger went too far. It decided he had not.

Where and when did the real indictment start?
After Tiger completed his round, he stated in a TV interview that he'd dropped and played about two yards from the spot from where that very visible first divot rested. This alarmed the Masters rules folks, who now had palpable evidence that Tiger had done something other than drop at a spot "as near as possible" from that initial divot. Tiger became the driver of an automobile telling a peace officer that he'd had a couple of beers; the committee had no choice but to investigate further. They contacted Tiger and arranged for a full recounting first thing Saturday morning.

Should Tiger have been disqualified? After all, he signed for a score that was incorrect.
The committee could have imposed a DQ -- the equivalent of a death sentence -- but chose to commute it to a two-stroke penalty. The committee is empowered to do this under the sweeping authority of Rule 33-7, under which penalties can be modified or even rescinded completely. It's an enormous power, but one we suppose the committee felt was appropriate because it could have intervened and saved Tiger while the episode on Friday unfolded, but did not. In a sense -- and this is opinion -- the committee was covering for its failure to police the incident properly. It is saying, "It's our fault, too."

So did Tiger intentionally break the rules?
A wonderfully lascivious assumption maybe, and one not lost among bloggers and Tweeters. But a deliberate breach of the rules on this kind of public stage is implausible. Millions of people were watching Tiger in a setting as stark and visible as exists in sport. A blatant rules violation would be like Bubba Watson trying to hide his hovercraft under a kitchen counter. Tiger clearly proceeded with clear intent at the 15th, but in the welter of the moment, probably misunderstood the parameters of the rule. It happens. Say what you will about Tiger's integrity in some aspects of life, but in golf, it has been a 35-year record of impeccability.

Should Tiger have taken the "high road" and withdrawn from the tournament?
Some are in a high dudgeon of moral righteousness on this point, but I don't see it. A harsh eye is always merited by small but sharply defined violations; no quarter can be given when a player blatantly runs afoul of the rules. DQs often seem like an inescapable option. But Tiger's failing to play from "as near as possible" from that spot was a violation that nobody on the Augusta National premises noticed. If Tiger had fallen on his sword, it would have been a great P.R. move, but not one that delivered justice to the field.

The best call here is to send the buzzard back to its nest.

Follow @Guy_Yocom1

Up close and personal with Phil's "Phrankenwood"

Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:11:00 GMT

By Guy Yocom

AUGUSTA, Ga. -- While Phil Mickelson played in the Par 3 Tournament Wednesday afternoon, caddie Jim (Bones) Mackay prepped for some final pre-tournament preparation. Bones donned the heavy white coveralls, the signature of the Masters caddie, and performed a perfunctory inventory of Phil's tour bag.

The shorter clubs were with Phil and the Mickelson children (Amanda, Sophia and Evan) over at the Par 3 Course. But the heavy lumber, which has often determined Phil's fate at Augusta, remained with Bones. The star of the lineup, resting under a large white clubhead cover, was the Callaway X Hot "Phrankenwood" he's putting into play this week.

Bones couldn't tell my eyes were riveted on nothing else but the Phrankenwood. "They've got to find a way to make this outfit lighter," he said of the caddie uniform. "They make a warm day even warmer."

"Your man ready?" I said.

"Oh yeah," Bones said. "We got this." Bones palmed the Phrankenwood, which Phil began dropping hints about at the Shell Houston Open.

"The Phrankenwood!" I said. "How's it working out?"

Bones winked. "He's killing it. The ball is coming off with almost no spin. The center of gravity is high, the ball is tumbling, and isn't picking up as much mud on the fairways. Want a closer look?"

"Um, yes."

Bones removed the clubhead cover like he was presenting jewelry. He handed me the club, which I waggled, hefted, grounded and inspected. "Tell me more," I said.

"It's about the size of a driver from about 1999," Bones said. "About 250 cc's, but much better technology. Again, it's the ball flight. It has less than 9 degrees of loft, but more than 8.5. Phil's hitting it straighter than his conventional driver, and long. He doesn't bend the ball as much as he does his driver, but that's OK. He can shape it enough."

The Phrankenwood sets up nicely. The head is glossy black, sets up nice and square, and to the eye has even less loft than the 8.5-9 degrees Bones alluded to. That may be because we just aren't use to seeing small-headed metal woods with so little loft. Phil's grips are slightly oversized. The shaft, of course, feels murderously firm -- there is so little play when you waggle the club.

Mickelson has made effective adjustments with his set composition before. At the 2006 Masters, he used two drivers -- one that produced a hook, the other a fade, and drove the ball monstrously long and straight en route to winning his second Masters. He's adopted sand wedges with a tad more bounce to deal with Augusta's incredibly tight lies.

The switchups have given Phil a tactical edge and a psychological boost as well. He enjoys the stimulation of trying new stuff, and having the feeling he has something the other players don't.

"He has a look in his eye when he pulls out the Phrankenwood," said Bones. "He's excited. It might be the thing that makes the difference for him this week."

Follow @guy_yocom1

If You Could Change One Thing About the Masters

Guy Yocom — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Players have their say on everything from how the course plays to how it's mowed

Swing Sequences: Lee Trevino and son Daniel

GolfDigest.com — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:00:00 GMT

Video: Did Lee Trevino's unique style rub off on his son Daniel? View both of their swings in slow-motion and decide for yourself.

My Shot: Rocco At 50

Rocco Mediate and Guy Yocom — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:00:00 GMT

He beat the school bullies and bargained with Ely Callaway and Evel Knievel, but even as Mr. Mediate is hitting a milestone birthday, he's afraid to greet Arnold Palmer without shaving first.

My Shot: Larry Nelson

Guy Yocom — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Twenty-five years after winning the U.S. Open (and 40 years after leaving Vietnam), Mr. Low-Key shares his secrets.

My Shot: Tommy Gainey

Tommy Gainey with Max Adler — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 04:00:00 GMT

From $9 an hour to $20,000 a hole, Tommy Gainey on the karma of jumping from 'the Big Break' to the PGA Tour and going face to face with Fred Couples, Bill Murray...and an iguana.

PGA Preview: A Return To Kiawah

Guy Yocom and John Huggan — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 04:00:00 GMT

The PGA returns to the Ocean Course, the scene of the 1991 matches that became known (for better or worse) as The War by the Shore. Players, captains, caddies and others recall a week they'll never forget.

Swing Sequence: Patrick Cantlay

Swing analysis by Jamie Mulligan with Guy Yocom — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:00:00 GMT

The tours's young phenom is ready for prime time. See a frame-by-frame look at his swing with analysis by Jamie Mulligan.

What's In My Bag: Phil Mickelson

Phil Mickelson with Guy Yocom — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 04:00:00 GMT

The four-time major-championship winner has won 40 PGA Tour events and was inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame in May. From driver to putter find out what Phil carries in his bag.