Masters competition chairman defends not disqualifying Tiger Woods

Tiger-gate 2013: what we had here was a failure to communicate.

Masters Tournament competition committee Chairman Fred Ridley said he felt it would be “unfair” to disqualify Tiger Woods for an accumulation of errors that began with rules officials not asking him to explain his drop on the 15th hole in Friday’s second round.

On Saturday morning, Woods was assessed a two-shot penalty for violating Rule 26 by hitting from the wrong spot after an improper drop, taken after his ball hit the flagstick and caromed into the pond. Ridley decided under Rule 33-7 not to disqualify Woods for signing an incorrect scorecard because the committee had initially deemed his drop legal after reviewing visual evidence.

“To me it would have been grossly unfair to Tiger to have disqualified him after our committee had made that decision,” said Ridley, a former U.S. Golf Association president. “I mean, there’s no question that Tiger should be penalized. That’s not the issue. The issue is what should we do in imposing that penalty.”

Woods addressed the matter on Twitter before teeing off in Saturday’s third round.

“I understand and accept the penalty and respect the Committees’ decision,” Woods wrote.

The timeline of events Friday night and Saturday as the committee debated Woods’ fate sparked controversy among players and fans.

Three-time Masters champion Nick Faldo said repeatedly that Woods should withdraw, and his viewpoint was supported by numerous players.

Hunter Mahan was more diplomatic: “There is no right or wrong here.”

It was Woods’ own explanation of the drop that led to a second investigation. He came to Augusta National at 8 a.m. Saturday to give his side of the story to the rules committee. He explained how he had dropped a yard or two behind the original spot in order to create the distance he wanted for his next shot.

“Based on that and based on his very forthright and honest answers to the questions that I had, I told Tiger that in light of that information that we felt that he had in fact violated Rule 26 under the Rules of Golf and that he was going to have to be penalized,” Ridley said.

So Woods’ score on No. 15 Friday should have been 8 instead of 6 and his final score 73 instead of 71. But instead of disqualifying him for signing an incorrect scorecard, Ridley applied the discretion allowed in Rule 33-7 to keep Woods in the Masters.

While the discretionary rule adopted in 2011 in a meeting between the USGA and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club at Augusta National was not designed to protect players from “ignorance of the rules,” Ridley believes the committee’s initial decision to deem the drop proper overrode Woods’ mistake.

“Let’s face it, committees make mistakes from time to time, and players are entitled to rely on what a committee does,” Ridley said. “In this case the committee had made a decision; it’s just that Tiger was not informed of it. … We had made a decision before he finished his round, before he finished his scorecard, and I think he’s entitled to be protected by 33-7, and that’s our decision, and others agree with us.”

Ridley said he advised the USGA and R&A, and “they have concurred with our decision.”

Asked whether he regretted not asking Woods about the drop before signing his card, Ridley said, “There’s not a day that goes by that there are not some things I wish I would have done differently.”

The ruling perhaps sets a major precedent in the application of future infractions that come to light after a player has signed his card.

“I hope it sets good precedent because I think it is a good decision,” Ridley said.