Has Hot Seat Finally Shifted From Tiger To Ridley?

Kevin Ferrie takes the analysis of the Tiger drop incident at Augusta a bit far in quoting Neil Hampton, GM of Royal Dornoch, who says...

"We are trying to encourage more juniors to play our game and one of the most important things we address is the ethics involved: how to treat your fellow man, and doing so with integrity. We're looking to put great people out into the world through golf, so this is sending the wrong message to the youngsters," he said.

"We are trying to get them to police themselves but now they can look at that and say, 'if Tiger can do it, so can I'.

"He has been given a chance to stay in the tournament by people who have selfish reasons for wanting him to stay in: because it is good for their viewing figures or whatever. However, having realised that he made a mistake, Tiger should have withdrawn from the tournament."

This was my initial reaction, but as we've learned what happened, it's clear the committee made the right move and set a bold precedent in an effort to remedy its mistake. Fred Ridley was not acting out of concern for the tournament so much as for his job as competitions chair (and a possible future club chairmanship).

Considering how badly Ridley missed the opportunity to take the viewer's call seriously enough to call Tiger in for a pre-scorecard signing, the 33-7 remedy was a pretty good save. Yet it's clear as time passes that Ridley's competence will continue to be questioned because of this incident.

Based on your reading of the situation and talking to other golfers, is it fair to say the ire/blame/annoyance at the entire episode has shifted from Tiger to Ridley?

Lord Tatum: "The ruling body blew it."

Criticism of Masters Competitions Committee Chair Fred Ridley has come from about the highest place possible to anyone associated with the rules of golf world: Sandy Tatum.

Ron Kroichick talked to the former USGA President about the Masters rules incident.

Lost in all this, as Tatum noted: Did Woods not understand the rule? He could have moved farther back if his original shot had gone straight into the pond at No. 15 - but it hit the flagstick and caromed left into the water. That was the line where the ball last crossed the hazard.

Woods later said he wasn't "really thinking," but he deftly talked around the question of whether he knew exactly what the rules allowed.

As for the television analysts who called for Woods to withdraw before Saturday's third round, Tatum cut him some slack and returned to his original point.

"In that context, it's asking too much of him," Tatum said, "because the ruling body blew it."

Stevie Defends Tiger, Also Says He Should Have Been DQ'd

New Zealand's 3 News tracked down looper Steve Williams at the airport and talked to him about all things Masters, those who think caddies are mere luggage toters (nostrils expand!), and in the most enjoyable portion at minute 12, Tiger's penalty. (Thanks to reader Chris for this.)

Williams stammers and struggles with the situation, prefacing his comments and even giving the likely explanation for Tiger's mistake (confusing the hazard lines on 15), before also matter-of-factly stating that despite the lack of intent to circumvent the rules, there should have been a disqualification.

Golf World Feature: "Behind Closed Doors."

In his latest blog post, PGA of America President Ted Bishop writes that watching Adam Scott win "was probably as painful as swallowing a handful of nails for USGA and R&A officials."

The increasingly confrontational tone between Bishop's PGA and Peter Dawson's R&A is just one of the many topics covered in my Golf World feature from Augusta, posted on GolfDigest.com.

The centerpiece topic, of course, is the Woods ruling and the handling by Fred Ridley as yet another recent black eye for casual observers of the Rules.

"Team adidas, or is this the Carlsbad high school golf team?"

Mr. Style Marty Hackel's mostly positive reviews of Masters fashion.

But he thankfully calls out the over-scripting misfire by the usually marketing-masterful folks at adidas.

Team adidas, or is this the Carlsbad high school golf team? The adidas three amigos? I could go on for days describing the perfectly-uniformed adidas team.

Video: Adam Scott On CBS This Morning

A glib Adam Scott this morning on CBS This Morning with Charlie Rose and Gayle King.

Lots of fresh stuff, and bad news for the ladies as Gayle confronts him about his looks and he finds it all "embarrassing" before saying he's "not single at all." Women, her name is Marie. Hate away!

Poll: Does Adam Scott's win alter your view of the proposed anchoring ban?

We've soaked up the good vibes of Adam Scott's win and will continue to enjoy the dramatics that closed out the 2013 Masters. 

However...

Scott's win means all four majors have now been won by an anchorer and four of the last six majors have been won by anchorers. Hank Gola made the point that this was "pure coincidence," no different than a string of lefthanders winning. I'm not sure I buy that one.

Garry Smits lays out the status of the proposed ban after Billy Payne took a pass on an Augusta National stance. He also points out the pesky numbers which suggest Scott still isn't that great of a putter, despite what we saw Sunday.

The raw numbers say his long putter didn’t matter. Scott was 39th in putting among the field, averaging 1.67 putts per green in regulation, the major putting stat used at Augusta National. That put him in the bottom half of the players who made the cut.

So I know this isn't the cleanest question or tightest answer option, but here goes:

Does Adam Scott's win alter your view of the proposed anchoring ban?
	No, I remain IN FAVOR of the ban
	No, I remain AGAINST the ban
	Yes, more proof there's an advantage & needs to go
	Yes, the ban is unfair to players who've invested time in anchoring
pollcode.com free polls

One More Attempt To Clarify 33-7 v. 33-7/4.5

Tiger Woods was penalized two strokes for violating Rule 26-1a and/or 20-7c yet avoided disqualification under Rule 6-6d or 33-7/4.5, instead he was absolved under an obscure, maybe unprecedented use of 33-7.

Got that?

I understand the confusion over Tiger's penalty and non-WD. I misunderstood it initially because the first reports, by Tom Rinaldi (ESPN) and Steve Sands (Golf Channel) mentioned 33-7 and the recent rule change involving HD video, which was the 33-7/4.5 Decision not invoked in this case.

I tried clarifying it in Golf World Daily, have written about the episode in this week's Golf World, posted this Barry Rhodes item on the matter, but for now, just read John Morrissett's Facebook post on the Erin Hills website if you still aren't sure why Tiger avoided disqualification.

The key graphs:

While this seems like a complicated set of facts, the ruling becomes straightforward when it is boiled down to its basic elements: On Friday the Committee made an incorrect ruling (of no penalty), and on Saturday the Committee corrected that incorrect ruling. The key is that, before Tiger returned his score card on Friday, the Committee had reviewed the incident on 15 and made the ruling of no breach. (Even though the Committee did not tell Tiger of this ruling, it was still a ruling.) On reflection, the Committee realized it made an incorrect ruling and corrected that ruling on Saturday (with ample authority and precedent to do so).

If the Committee had not become aware of the incident and had not made a ruling before Tiger returned his score card on Friday, then it would have been a straightforward disqualification. It is interesting to note, therefore, that the timely telephone call actually prevented Tiger from being disqualified.

Final '13 Masters Ratings: Second Largest Audience In 12 Years

For Immediate Release...

THE MASTERS® ON CBS SPORTS IS SECOND-MOST WATCHED IN 12 YEARS AS ESTIMATED 44.3 MILLION VIEW ALL-OR-PART OF WEEKEND COVERAGE
 
An estimated 44.3 million viewers (Persons 2+) watched CBS Sports’ third- and final-round coverage of the 2013 Masters on Saturday, April 13 and Sunday, April 14, making it the second largest number of viewers to watch all-or-part* of the Network’s weekend coverage of the Masters in 12 years.
 
Sunday’s final round, which saw Australia’s Adam Scott win the coveted Green Jacket in an extra-holes playoff over Argentina’s Angel Cabrera for his first career major, was watched in all-or-part by 37.4 million viewers (Persons 2+), up 13% from last year’s 33.1 million viewers.
 
Saturday and Sunday’s 44.3 million viewers was up 13% from 39.3 viewers in 2012.  Saturday’s third round was watched in all-or-part by 20.9 million viewers, up 19% from last year’s 17.5 million viewers.
 
Sunday’s final round coverage earned an average preliminary national household rating/share of 9.4/19, up 18% from last year’s 8.0/19.
 
Saturday’s third-round coverage earned an average preliminary national household rating/share of 5.8/13, up 16% from last year’s 5.0/12. 

2013 Masters, Iconic Photography Roundup

The light and lens experts weren't given the best conditions Sunday on top of their already limited access yet they still came up with some amazing shots from the 2013 Masters.

Sam Weinman and Alex Myers pick the photos that defined the Masters, including Jewel Samadi's Getty shot of Scott's 18th hole putt.

golf.com posts SI's best stuff from round 4 including Robert Beck's wide shot of the winning playoff putt.

Golfweek features an Adam-only gallery, including an uncredited AP image from behind Scott's 18th hole putt in regulation.

Masters.co features an assortment of beautiful shots, including Scott Brown's amazing shot of Scott's outdoor green jacket ceremony that was also posted on Digg.

The Augusta Chronicle has several galleries, including Emily Rose Bennett's shots from the Green Jacket ceremony, Jon-Michael Sullivan's images of Scott, an Angel Cabrera gallery and a top 12 players gallery.

The Chronicle also sets their shots to a YouTube video set to Come On Aussie. There is also a mute option if you should so choose.