An Open Letter to Brandel Chamblee

Dear Mr. Chamblee,

You have long been one of my favorite golf analysts because of the wealth of knowledge you have about tournaments, players and golf courses. Watching you and Frank Nobilo dissect the ins and outs of players and tournaments is something I truly enjoy.

My position on the Tiger Woods ruling at Augusta, is that although the logic for getting there may have been flawed, the end result was fair, and that is what the Rules of Golf attempt to achieve. Your comments about Tiger Woods upset me because I believe you influence many people, and that you and others in the media have done irreparable harm to Tiger’s reputation as a golfer. Since I have had so much respect for your knowledge, I’m hoping you’ll engage in a little Q&A on the topic. I’ll even be open to having my mind changed if you are convincing!

1. Can you cite a couple of examples of specific situations where a player has “disqualified himself” (or withdrawn) because he disagreed with the rules committee’s decision NOT to disqualify him?

   It’s not as if the final decision of the committee was made without all the facts. The committee knew everything and made a decision to give Tiger a two-stroke penalty. What player in his right mind, would disrepect the committee’s decision in order to hurt himself? Wasn’t it just the day before the Tiger incident, that we were all praising a 14-year old for respecting the decision of the committee?

2. Do you believe that if the committee had approached Tiger about the concern before he signed his scorecard, that a two-shot penalty would have been appropriate?

3. Here’s a hypothetical question… A rules official makes a ruling and a player finishes his round and signs his score based upon that ruling. Later that night the rules committee is sitting around watching highlights on The Golf Channel and sees that the official has made a terrible mistake and the player should have been assessed a penalty.

   Should they A) let it go; B) disqualify the player or C) assess the penalty?

   Back in the hotel room that night, the player gets out his rulebook and also realized that a mistake has been made.

   Should he A) withdraw; B) Check with the committee the next morning and see if they want to penalize or disqualify him; or C) Sleep like a baby?

   Isn’t that essentially what happened in the Tiger Woods ruling? The committee made the mistake of making a ruling without approaching Tiger about it before he signed his scorecard. If they had, he would have received the two-shot penalty. Since they did not, I even question whether they were required to have penalized him at all. In hypothetical above, I think it’s a question as to whether or not they would penalize the player. I feel certain they would not have disqualified the him.

4. I really think the committee made a mistake in saying they were using Decision 33-7/4.5 to make their ruling. As Kendra Graham suggests, Rule 33-7 would have been sufficient and according to Graham, that rule has been in place since 1952. Saying they were using the Decision, really muddied the waters. I’ll put Rule 33-7 below, but definitely suggest everyone with an opinion on this issue, read Kendra Graham’s explanation of the Tiger ruling.

   Rule 33-7:
   A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.

   It seems to me that this was definitely the right time to waive the DQ rule. To have a player be disqualified because the committee made a ruling without even consulting the player would be truly unfortunate.

5. I am not the only one who has been critical of the committee. Former USGA president Sandy Tatum, had pretty harsh words about the committee’s handling of the situation. What role do you think the committee had in creating the situation?

I’ll close with the final rule noted in Kendra Graham’s explanation of the ruling… and then refer you back to question #1.

Rule 34-3, Committee’s Decision
In the absence of a referee, any dispute or doubtful point on the Rules must be referred to the Committee, whose decision is final.

I look forward to your responses.

Sincerely,