PGA Tour: HE'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Masters: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).Martin Laird of course; you didn't think I was talking about the guy who's on the cover of every golf magazine and even some others did you? Or even that young Northern Irishman we've heard so much about?

No, Martin Laird's fantastic final round last Sunday in San Antonio not only stuck two fingers through the Ballwasher who doubted his resolve after a dismal nine-month spell. But also earned a ticket to Augusta National and finds himself in the "long shot, stranger things have happened, but not many" category for The Masters. More on that later.

2).The TPC San Antonio, ("Greg Norman designs golf courses to test professional golfers, not to please professional golfers," said Padraig Harrington), certainly looked much easier on the eye than in years past and it seemed that most pros who turned up enjoyed their week; some will hopefully even be back.
But play was dreadfully slow and one young American is just another guilty party who I hadn't spotted before. Daniel Summerhays, good lord, how long does it take you to hit the golf ball? Summerhays seemed to turn to Winterhays during some of his pre-shot routines.

3).And, while our thoughts turn to Magnolia Drive, our annual word in tribute to the Welshman from Bangor, Errie Ball, who played in the first Masters and is still alive today, hopefully to tell the tale, at 102.

4).Billy Payne has two new members this year, one who's just gone up one rung, presumably, on the list of the World's most evil women, the other who got her invite the old-fashioned way, thru' connections. (Have a personal interest in Darla Moore's richly endowed University of South Carolina's Moore School Of Business, so pleased to see her being honoured with a membership.)

5).With McIlroy and Woods striking form, I'd say this Masters, more than most, is almost certain to go to a favourite if, not necessarily, THE favourite. So let's look at some long shots and the owgr Top 25 for a form guide, with all the usual biases of course:

"Long shots, stranger things have happened, but not many":

#269: Angel Cabrera: You may think there's more chance of him attending Thatcher's funeral but, hey, this man hasn't forgotten how to play the game, he's physically fitter, has shown glimpses of form, and knows how to win - and how many can say that?

#56: Well, Martin Laird certainly can! 20th first time around Augusta, 50-something last year, but if he can putt like last week who knows? He hits the ball perfectly for the course, but it will be all about course management and his short game for Martin. The Laird of San Antonio with 22 Sunday putts, or the Laird of Florida when he took eight 3-putts each at Bay Hill and Tampa?

#41: Henrik Stenson: Eccentric as ever but plenty long enough and can putt well. On my e.w. list at 75/1.

#38: Scott Piercy: Thinks he's the best golfer the world has ever seen. Still seething at the perceived injustice of not being interviewed on TV after his demolition of Luke Donald at the MatchPlay. The favourite, in his eyes anyway, and don't you dare discount his chances!

6).21 - 25:
#25: Furyk: Planning to attack Augusta with two drivers but hasn't done better than 4th here and not likely to this week.

#24: Els: Terrible year so far, seems to have lost confidence just when he needs it most.

#23: Watney: Jekyll and Hyde, Would love to see him take the proverbial next step but don't see it this week.

#22: Hanson: 3rd last year but in much better form coming in than this year's version. Wouldn't count him out completely, top ten material.

#21: Mahan: A couple of Masters' top tens under his belt, but something's been missing this past year and I can't see him finding it at Augusta.

7).16 - 20:
#20: Simpson: His US Open win apart, hasn't really had that great a last 18 months. Can't see it improving here.

#19: Dustin Johnson: Augusta National is made for Dustin - no par 5's here for him, but nothing inside the Top 30 here yet, and his dodgy short game will frustrate him again this week.

#18: Dufner: Good start a year ago but faded. If his Dufnering pic's are anything to go by he's still asleep.

#17: McDowell: Top 15 material, doesn't fancy some of the tee shots here and, until he does, can't see him contending.

#16: Garcia: This place frustrates the sh1t out of him. Shame, might get close, but not close enough.

8).11 - 15:
#15: Schwartzel: 2011 winner and no reason to think he can't win another one. Except none of the five South African Major (and Players) winners these past eight years have won since on the PGA Tour. Top three candidate.

#14: Bubba Watson: It's all about his emotions - I fancy a left-hander but perhaps not this one.

#13: Westwood: Nope, not this year, Lee, not until your short game and your long game are on the same page. But, if he can somehow be -10 on the par fives, he'll be right there. Nah.

#12: Poulter: Would love to see Poults win a Biggie but reckon Augusta National is too long for him, too much pressure on his mid and long irons. Top 15 though.

#11: Bradley: Lots of top tens this year and may score another one. Plenty long enough but can't see that short game winning a Green Jacket.

9).6 - 10:
#10: Kuchar: 3rd last year, plods along with that inane-looking, sh1t-eating grin of his and, hey presto, he's right there. Top 5 perhaps, but Green Jacket? Perhaps not, e.w. value though at 33/1 or 40's.

#9: Mickelson: My choice last year and should've, would've and certainly could've . . . . Those triple bogeys did him in. My idea of the man to beat, not scared to win and probably doesn't want it so manically much as Number One.

#8: Stricker: Says he's "still trying to figure out Augusta". I bracket him with Poults, his long game puts too much pressure on his world-class short game; top 20 probable but can't see him in the shake-up.

#7: Scott: No form to speak of this season; plays a bizarre schedule and who knows if he's up for this? Not worth the risk.

#6: Oosthuizen: Difficult for me to separate the two South African Kings: He was devastated by last year's play-off defeat, but can he bounce back? Sh1t or bust I'd think - at his best a sure-fire contender.

10).1 - 5:
#5: Snedeker: Has been out injured for most of the past two months, no cuts made since his early season super form. Certainly has the game, but feel he's still slightly under-cooked for this week. The Sneds of the past year a certain Major winner - just not this week.

#4: Donald: No form for ages. The 2011 model Luke would be a contender anywhere, but not the short-and-crooked version of years ago which has made an unwelcome return - might get away with it at Hilton Head but not 150 miles up the road at Augusta.

#3: Rose: Which Justin will we see? The winner at such top courses as Aronomink and Muirfield Village, or the strutter who flatters only to deceive, but then burns up the final nine holes for a back-door podium finish? Until he can prove that he won't wilt when the heat turns up, I'd have him down as a likely top tenner, not a winner.

#2: And then there's Rory. If his confidence right now was as high as Scott Piercy's I'd ink him in to his first Green Jacket, but his driver left him a bit last Sunday and he won't be "back" until he's back. Not many would be surprised to see him win; me neither, but perhaps not this year.

#1: Tiger: The only person who can beat Tiger is Tiger, and his ambition and anxiety to earn his next Major. Until he does it, I'd bet against him and gamble that Tiger will beat Tiger. As we saw at Bay Hill, though, the old intimidation factor is back and, if he putts like he did in Orlando and hits 60% of the fairways, he'll win this. For me, I'd bet the field against him.


Can't wait though, although we'll have to put up with the unctuous, over-reverential tones of CBS - would be nice to think they'll have a commentator under the age of 50, a breath of fresh air so sorely needed, but no chance of that. The weather should have the course in perfect condition, but there's a chance of severe storms Thursday p.m. into Friday, after which the sun will shine.

I fancy Phil to win, but Bones (perhaps the only born-in-Britain winner this year?) has to keep him focussed. Reckon Louis and Charl will be right there and fancy Kuchar as best outsider, Stenson best complete long-shot.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Diggers wrote:Navy is married with young twins. Why on earth would he be having sex ?

Good point!

See what he did Mac? Now, that's 'banter'....as opposed to straight insult.

Aye, still the king of the one liners.

To change the subject, slightly, I love Gary Evans' tweet on yesterday's slow play penalty:
"It never ceases to amaze me how rules are imparted on the innocent and the guilty get away with murder #monty #vj"

. . . . . .

Let's see what he has to say about today's denouement, whatever it is.

Diggers wrote:Would be a shame if he goes as its shaping up to be a great weekend. But I don't pretend to know the rules nearly as well as you guys so can't comment too much really.

I agree (despite Mac's feelings on why I think he should go). It'd be a great shame for the last two days but the Rules have to be applied uniformly w/o fear or favour.

His post round interview was pretty damning. If he isn't DQ'd and he wins, it'll be tainted.

Mac, you should be a reporter at The Sun.

And I get accused of making insults.

mclaren should be disqualified for his comments.

If Tiger somehow gets away with this then he should withdraw of his own volition.

As an aside, was Tiger supposed to drop on to his old divot?

Mr P and I are in a pool where only 3 people failed to pick tiger, and we are two of those three. Of course he should be DQd !!

I think Sneds is gonna win this tbh. Bit gutted, almost put money on him early in the season to win it, then he got injured and I decided he wouldn't be able to do it but out of the top 5 he has to be favourite

5 mins until bubba goes out alone, does that mean tiger is safe. Or will gonzo also be going solo?

This is what Tiger said ...

“I went down to the drop area, that wasn’t going to be a good spot, because obviously it’s into the grain and it was a little bit wet,” he said.

“So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards further back and I tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit. That should land me short of the flag and not have it either hit the flag or skip over the back. … It worked out perfectly.”

It should be a no-Payner....

Putting aside whether or not Tiger should be DQ'd, for me it shows the inconsistencies of the rules in golf. If you can go back as far as you want from entry to a hazard on a line to the pin, why shouldn't you be able to do it if dropping at your original spot. It's not like a free drop, you've already been penalised stroke and distance, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed a little but of freedom on lie for your next shot, (not nearer the hole obviously)!

Little bit of freedom! A little but of freedom probably means something else!

I agree the rules of golf are not clear and are in need of an overhaul if truth be known...the slow play issue and now this!! Forget about the anchored putter debate.

gaelgowfer wrote:This is what Tiger said ...

“I went down to the drop area, that wasn’t going to be a good spot, because obviously it’s into the grain and it was a little bit wet,” he said.

“So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards further back and I tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit. That should land me short of the flag and not have it either hit the flag or skip over the back. … It worked out perfectly.”

Was he saying 2 yards as a vague estimate, a turn of phrase if you like, or meant it as in he measured it out. Is it a bit about context maybe ?

Perhaps i am clutching at straws here and please tell me if i am. I think or hope it's fairly clear however that he did not knowingly break the rules, if the officials deem that he has that is. So i have been thinking surely it is the responsibility of the officials to inform him of the penalty before he signs the card? If they inform him ten minutes before the card signing then he doesn't get DQ'd, if they tell him ten minutes after the card is signed then then he gets DQ'd. Surely this is an unfair situation as there is nothing he could do about it? If he's accidently broken the rules and the rules officials failed to spot it before hand then that is a mistake on their part. Personally i can't see why the penalty can't just be added on to his score today if indeed he has broken the rules.

Playing from the same spot:

Are you meant to drop in the divot?
Can you replace divot before you drop?
Is divot mark slightly ahead of where the ball lied ?

Hunter Mahan ‏@HunterMahan
I've heard a two shot penalty for Tiger. Interesting

Surely it has to be a DQ or nothing.

two shot penalty by what some people are saying on twitter

How would that work?

Ashley Mayo ‏@AshleyKMayo 2m
As of 9:30am, no signs of Tiger on grounds at Augusta.

Bob Harig ‏@BobHarig 26s
ESPN reporting a 2-shot penalty, based on the new ability to assess after scorecard signed in case of called in infraction. Wow

McLaren wrote:How would that work?

You take two shots off his score.

2 shot penalty.

Suggest that anyone other than Tiger or Rory would be done.

Seems that is spot on benson. They claim it was only picked up because of HD TV.

Rob Hodgetts ‏@RobHodgetts
Tiger Woods given two-shot penalty. Rule changed a year ago by USGA, so not DQ for signing incorrect card. #bbcmasters

Diggers wrote:

McLaren wrote:How would that work?

You take two shots off his score.

I take it you are aware of the issues surrounding signing your card, and it not being a changable situation. Unless of course you claim someone called in after tv fooage shows something up.

Golf has become officially a joke...

McLaren wrote:

Diggers wrote:

McLaren wrote:How would that work?

You take two shots off his score.

I take it you are aware of the issues surrounding signing your card, and it not being a changable situation. Unless of course you claim someone called in after tv fooage shows something up.

Hmmm, misjudging the banter thing again Mac. Were you out last night or something ?

If Woods accepts a 2-shot penalty, surely that is an admission of guilt? And, if so, I'm surprised that he wouldn't withdraw as he knows any success, or indeed influence on the proceedings from hereon in, would be tainted?

Wonder how many other disqualified players want their penalties reviewed retrospectively?

Whatever the rule used to be, it seems this is the end of the signing of a scorecard being anything other than ceremonial.

I thought that 2 shot thing was supposed to be used when somebody calls in after play is over and the scorecard has been signed. But only applied in a situation where the player did not know and could not have known at the time that he was doing something wrong. For example hitting a blade of grass on the backswing when hitting out of a bunker. It shouldn't apply here surely !

He's not really in a position to a accept or not accept it is he ? It's not like he has a choice, carrying on playing doesn't mean he agrees with the decision does it ?

One would think the US TV Companies may have had a little word with the officials.

Mr Woods is quite the audience gainer...

Do the masters committee have to use the USGA rules 100% of the time, or is there a clause somewhere that means they can make exceptions?

kwinigolfer wrote:If Woods accepts a 2-shot penalty, surely that is an admission of guilt? And, if so, I'm surprised that he wouldn't withdraw as he knows any success, or indeed influence on the proceedings from hereon in, would be tainted?

Why should he? The rule was changed, I don't see how that taints anyting

It seems people weren't aware of this new rule....It happened after PH getting DQED......

Decent and fair rule.

Did Tiger deliberately break the Rules? No way. Why would he? Why would he when the world is watching?

Not sure what the "New USGA" rule is but if it allows a player to be retrospectively penalised the correct number of shots without a DQ then this is progress...............................

whats going on dudes.



he has allready signed his card??

I do agree this is progress john- I just hope a presedent will be set for the future- however if it wasnt woods- I think we all fear the player would have been DQ'ed

sirbenson wrote:It seems people weren't aware of this new rule....It happened after PH getting DQED......

Decent and fair rule.

100% agree. DQ's too harsh for non-delibrate rules infringement .

John Cregan wrote:Did Tiger deliberately break the Rules? No way. Why would he? Why would he when the world is watching?

Not sure what the "New USGA" rule is but if it allows a player to be retrospectively penalised the correct number of shots without a DQ then this is progress...............................

Very rarely when someone gets DQed in golf do they do it on purpose.

The general consensus is always 'rules is rules' when anyone else does it. The only difference is that it's Tiger.

John good point, and i agree it is progress, but would they have spun the situation to meet the criteria for that rule had this been anyone other than tiger?

It is for me way past time in pro tournaments that players do the whole scoring for themselves thing. It's archaic really, they should just be playing.

mystiroakey wrote:I do agree this is progress john- I just hope a presedent will be set for the future- however if it wasnt woods- I think we all fear the player would have been DQ'ed

I hope not. According to SirB, the "new rule" came in following Harri's DQ in Abu Dhabi a couple of years ago.

Don't think anyone is suggesting TW attempted to break the rules

Tour players have apparently been told "ignorance is no excuse" in such instances, just meant to cover incidents where something inadvertent happened that the player couldn't know about.

Not sure how accurate this is, maybe Masters' rules are different. Bound to be some eyebrows raised however. Clearly he was trying to gain an advantage, albeit through mistaken application of the wrong rule.

sirbenson wrote:It seems people weren't aware of this new rule....It happened after PH getting DQED......

Decent and fair rule.

Ph didn't know he was doing anything wrong. Somebody called in to say the ball had moved a tiny bit on the green on a windy day. Nobody saw it at the time. That's not the same thing as knowingly placing the ball 2 yds away from where the rules say you should place it. Particularly when you make it clear you took the 2 yds to make it easier for yourself.

of course not john- he even mentioned it in an interview that he dropped it behind- it was a bad missjudgement though- even i knew the ruling!



the point is the presedent being set that a signed card doesnt matter any more..

and the bigger issue that if anyone else had done it they may have been dqed

McLaren wrote:John good point, and i agree it is progress, but would they have spun the situation to meet the criteria for that rule had this been anyone other than tiger?

I wish i could answer that question, but i haven't got my Green Jacket on !!

Tiger probably feeling how could a likely 4 have turned into an 8 !!