Tiger Will He or Will He Not.

[POWERCATDON]

Be Playing Today. Bad Drop.

 

[Ultracrazy]

Good question. I read the rule and it seems ambiguous to say the least. I say it was a good drop.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sleek-Jet]

So did he not Account for the drop or are they saying it should have been a two stroke penalty?

Even the tv coverage had him at 71.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

Never mind, I found a story on ESPN. Sounds like he might not have played the second shot as close as possible to the location of the first.

 

[POWERCATDON]

2-Stroke Penalty Assessed.

 

[TPC]

Bobby Jones would have disqualified himself the second he realized his mistake.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

2-Stroke Penalty Assessed.

So much for Tigers new green jacket.

 

[regor]

A lot of golf left, Norman comes to mind.

 

[TPC]

What ever became of Chi Chi Rodriquez?

 

[POWERCATDON]

Remember the Stadler issue. He was booted from the tournament. Why not Woods.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

I didn't realize the USGA had a get out of jail free card if you throw yourself at the mercy of the court.

 

[Paul65k]

If you'll cheat on your wife....you'll cheat at golf.:thumbsdown

Nuff said!

 

[460]

5 back.

No way he is going to win unless the rest of the field chokes.

 

[Paul65k]

Remember the Stadler issue. He was booted from the tournament. Why not Woods.

Actually to be fair the USGA added a new rule after the Stadler issue that allows the "Committee" the discretion to asses a 2 stroke penalty if the penalty was later discovered solely as a result of High Definition TV.....whereas previously the only option available was disqualification.

The real problem here is that Tiger clearly stated in an interview last night that he INTENTIONALLY WENT BACK 2 YARDS and then dropped....this clearly was not in accordance with the rules and also was NOT realized as a result of HDTV.....the committee of course can make their decision but Tiger should have the integrity to disqualify himself.......and to be clear this is HIS decision at this time and his alone as the committee has made their decision.

If Tiger was to actually come back and win at this point it will follow him for the rest of his career (an asterisk so to speak) on his record and IMHO would not be in his best interest.......he should take this opportunity to disqualify himself. I personally would think better of him if he does bow out than if he plays on regardless of result. :bowdown:

 

[callbob]

If penalty assessed, he signed a wrong score card. See ya

 

[Paul65k]

If penalty assessed, he signed a wrong score card. See ya

Used to be true but not anymore as the rule changed see above post

 

[callbob]

Sleek, I'll ask Uncle Mike. We are playing today at one.
Paul, it's a sticky situation for sure. The penalty is not a result of TV so that should not be in play. He said he dropped back 2 yards because of how far he hit it the first time. Ruls say it has to be as close to original shot as possible. Hard to argue not intentional when he said it was. Bad deal but take the "name" out of play and SEE YA.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

If penalty assessed, he signed a wrong score card. See ya

At least his score was only double digits...

 

[callbob]

Went back and reread your post Paul. We agree I think.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

Sleek, I'll ask Uncle Mike. We are playing today at one.
Paul, it's a sticky situation for sure. The penalty is not a result of TV so that should not be in play. He said he dropped back 2 yards because of how far he hit it the first time. Ruls say it has to be as close to original shot as possible. Hard to argue not intentional when he said it was. Bad deal but take the "name" out of play and SEE YA.

Waiting for the snow melt or is he in ABQ?

 

[Paul65k]

Sleek, I'll ask Uncle Mike. We are playing today at one.
Paul, it's a sticky situation for sure. The penalty is not a result of TV so that should not be in play. He said he dropped back 2 yards because of how far he hit it the first time. Ruls say it has to be as close to original shot as possible. Hard to argue not intentional when he said it was. Bad deal but take the "name" out of play and SEE YA.

I agree completely......now that the committee has ruled it gives Tiger the opportunity to be the one that does the right thing instead of someone else telling him what to do......he should disqualify himself......it would be the best investment in his career and public persona that he could make!

 

[callbob]

I'm in Cortez Aaron. Course in great shape, we played it a couple of weeks ago. Ground is still pretty firm so 300 yard drives are standard.:eek

 

[Sleek-Jet]

I'm in Cortez Aaron. Course in great shape, we played it a couple of weeks ago. Ground is still pretty firm so 300 yard drives are standard.:eek

Used to love those early spring rounds... Lots of roll on the drives.

Tell him we all say Hi!

 

[Paul65k]

I'm in Cortez Aaron. Course in great shape, we played it a couple of weeks ago. Ground is still pretty firm so 300 yard drives are standard.:eek

Damn.....since I moved to Havasu I just don't tee it up anymore.....that's fucked up!!!:thumbsdown


Have Fun!!

 

[TomD]

Fuck Tigger!!!

 

[Bobby V]

I didn't realize the USGA had a get out of jail free card if you throw yourself at the mercy of the court.

New rule 33-7. :thumbup:

http://golf.about.com/cs/rulesofgolf/a/rule33_2.htm

 

[U4ia]

The rules of golf are quite clear on this: Tiger Woods took an illegal drop so the 14 year old Chinese kid gets penalized one stroke.

 

[Paul65k]

The rules of golf are quite clear on this: Tiger Woods took an illegal drop so the 14 year old Chinese kid gets penalized one stroke.

:lmao

 

[Bobby V]

Bobby Jones would have disqualified himself the second he realized his mistake.

Different era and different rules. BJ didn't have every shot filmed live on camera and have the TV audience call in for every infraction that may or may have not happened.

 

[Paul65k]

Different era and different rules. BJ didn't have every shot filmed live on camera and have the TV audience call in for every infraction that may or may have not happened.

Pardon me but...........WTF does having the cameras following him around have to do with anything here.

The question here is integrity, and by BJ's definition doing the right thing is expected NOT exceptional. He was asked once about his integrity and complimented on calling a very serious penalty on himself.....that led to him getting into a playoff and eventually losing a US Open.

After the round in a press conference he was complimented for his integrity. His response was very simple; complimenting me on calling the penalty is like complimenting someone for NOT robbing a bank......it simply WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

It was the right thing then, it's the right thing NOW and IT WILL BE THE RIGHT THING FOR AS LONG AS PEOPLE PLAY GOLF. Society has become much too accepting of changing the rules to suit the convenience of the current situation and golf will hopefully remain a bastion for integrity and NOT the convenience of a given situation. :rant:.....Rant over!

My .02

 

[Buoy]

Pardon me but...........WTF does having the cameras following him around have to do with anything here.

The question here is integrity, and by BJ's definition doing the right thing is expected NOT exceptional. He was asked once about his integrity and complimented on calling a very serious penalty on himself.....that led to him getting into a playoff and eventually losing a US Open.

After the round in a press conference he was complimented for his integrity. His response was very simple; complimenting me on calling the penalty is like complimenting someone for NOT robbing a bank......it simply WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

It was the right thing then, it's the right thing NOW and IT WILL BE THE RIGHT THING FOR AS LONG AS PEOPLE PLAY GOLF. Society has become much too accepting of changing the rules to suit the convenience of the current situation and golf will hopefully remain a bastion for integrity and NOT the convenience of a given situation. :rant:.....Rant over!

My .02

While I completely agree with you, society has "changed":rolleyes

Steroids?

Shall we discuss NASCAR?

Cheating has been deemed acceptable. Well, until you get caught. And even then in certain cases it is accepted and forgiven. Ehem, Bill Clinton...

 

[U4ia]

I have to disagree with you about NASCAR and other forms of Motorsport. There has never been "integrity" in racing, cheating has always been part of the game from the very beginning. We have made heros out of the best cheaters starting with Smokey Yunick and continuing on to today's crew chiefs. Probably because the "sport" began after the War when things were very different from the days in which golf was established. Also golf was a game for the idle rich and upper classes who had very different rules about how they acted with each other (golf) and the lower classes (business). To keep your place in proper society, you had to play honest with your peers, but you could screw your customers and especially your workers all you wanted.

 

[Buoy]

I have to disagree with you about NASCAR and other forms of Motorsport. There has never been "integrity" in racing, cheating has always been part of the game from the very beginning. We have made heros out of the best cheaters starting with Smokey Yunick and continuing on to today's crew chiefs. Probably because the "sport" began after the War when things were very different from the days in which golf was established. Also golf was a game for the idle rich and upper classes who had very different rules about how they acted with each other (golf) and the lower classes (business). To keep your place in proper society, you had to play honest with your peers, but you could screw your customers and especially your workers all you wanted.

So essentially, what you're saying is "this" is when society changed??:skull

 

[Bobby V]

Pardon me but...........WTF does having the cameras following him around have to do with anything here.

The only reason this even came up was because someone called in to point out the infraction. The rules chairman admitted this on the Golf Channel and now again on CBS. If this had happened to some player during the early rounds no one would have know. Rule 33-7 which was only has been in place for 2 years protects this type of DQ.

 

[Bobby V]

While I completely agree with you, society has "changed":rolleyes

Steroids?

Shall we discuss NASCAR?

Cheating has been deemed acceptable. Well, until you get caught. And even then in certain cases it is accepted and forgiven. Ehem, Bill Clinton...

Gotta agree with you. If integrity was in place. Why do they have a rules official with every group in a golf match or a rules guy in every pit in NASCAR. With so much $$$$ on the line now. Things have changed since Bobby Jones was playing. :rolleyes

 

[Phebus]

All this wont even matter with the press unless Tiger miraculously comes back to win. Who cares who finishes 5th.

 

[U4ia]

So essentially, what you're saying is "this" is when society changed??:skull

No, I am saying that i think it changed at some time after WWII. Exactly when would take someone with a lot more education that I have and a lot more time to research.

Certainly the world was very different in the 19th century when the rules of golf were formalized compared to the 1950's when NASCAR began to take off. Landed English aristocrats had very different attitudes from the Good ol' Boys who took time off from running bootleg whiskey to race on Sundays.

 

[westair]

All this wont even matter with the press unless Tiger miraculously comes back to win. Who cares who finishes 5th.

He's only 4 strokes off the lead with a lot of golf left to play ..... I think he still plans on winning this thing

 

[Paul65k]

The only reason this even came up was because someone called in to point out the infraction. The rules chairman admitted this on the Golf Channel and now again on CBS. If this had happened to some player during the early rounds no one would have know. Rule 33-7 which was only has been in place for 2 years protects this type of DQ.

Well.....close but not quite accurate and certainly doesn't go to the integrity of the issue, let me spell it out.

Tiger broke a rule (inadvertently and without malice) he finished his round without realizing that he had done so and signed and submitted his scorecard. He later came to understand that he had taken an improper drop and therefore had signed an incorrect scorecard as a result of not assessing the 2 stroke penalty for the improper drop. Signing an incorrect scorecard by itself is automatic disqualification from a tournament under the rules of golf and up until 2 years ago he would have been disqualified out of course.......PERIOD.

Now we enter new rule 33-7 which states that a player who incurs an infraction that was not known to him and later made known to him as a result of HDTV will not be disqualified under this new rule.

The real issue here is that Tiger did break the rules and as a result posted an incorrect scorecard.....hence disqualification. On the other hand he was made aware of the issue after the fact and rule 33-7 is applied......the reason Tiger is playing today......so both positions are actually correct.


My issue is a bit different........Tiger made an inappropriate drop, which at the time he believed to be correct. This is evidenced by the fact that he stated in his post round remarks that he intentionally went back 2 yards to get the yardage right after the total screwing got when he hit the pin (rub of the green). When someone made him aware of this infraction as a result of his comments and only based on his comments it was incumbent on him (IMHO) to do the right thing and disqualify himself for posting an inaccurate scorecard......PERIOD. I think that integrity is doing the right thing regardless if anyone is looking.

This is all very convoluted by the fact that there were calls to the tournament committee before Tiger finished his round.....they investigated these complaints prior to Tiger completing his round and based on the evidence they could determine from the footage they decided that there was no infraction and hence no penalty to be assessed. The Committee did NOT notify Tiger of this investigation prior to him signing his scorecard and the matter was closed based on being non-conclusive.

It was only after Tiger's press conference that he admitted to going back 2 yards (I can only imagine how furious was after such a bad break) that he improperly dropped the ball, hit a great shot and made Bogey which is what he posted on his card.....on to the next hole and proceeded to finish the round.

It was later when he was made aware of the fact that he had broken the rule in my opinion is that HE should have brought this to the attention of the Committee and admitted to signing an incorrect scorecard and offered to take a DQ....but he was instead notified the next morning by the Committee and then after a long conversation they all decided to use rule 33-7 would be justification to keep Tiger in the tournament......ratings, looking to get to 18 majors, and all that stuff.

So in the end both of us are right he is entitled based on the interpretation of 33-7, while at the same time the integrity of the game would have had him DQ himself.....both of these positions are correct technically but INTEGRITY only has one answer.........that is MY point!

 

[Buoy]

No, I am saying that i think it changed at some time after WWII. Exactly when would take someone with a lot more education that I have and a lot more time to research.

Certainly the world was very different in the 19th century when the rules of golf were formalized compared to the 1950's when NASCAR began to take off. Landed English aristocrats had very different attitudes from the Good ol' Boys who took time off from running bootleg whiskey to race on Sundays.

Trust me, we're in agreement on this.

I guess I was just raised a little different I guess (I'm not saying different from YOU, but different from the majority of society)
My Father is THE most honest man I have ever met in my life, so I was raised to a certain standard that many others weren't.
I'm thankful for that.

 

[Bobby V]

All this wont even matter with the press unless Tiger miraculously comes back to win. Who cares who finishes 5th.

Do you know how many Fed Ex points are given for 5th place. If he gets a DQ he doesn't get any.

 

[Bobby V]

Well.....close but not quite accurate and certainly doesn't go to the integrity of the issue, let me spell it out.

Tiger broke a rule (inadvertently and without malice) he finished his round without realizing that he had done so and signed and submitted his scorecard. He later came to understand that he had taken an improper drop and therefore had signed an incorrect scorecard as a result of not assessing the 2 stroke penalty for the improper drop. Signing an incorrect scorecard by itself is automatic disqualification from a tournament under the rules of golf and up until 2 years ago he would have been disqualified out of course.......PERIOD.

Now we enter new rule 33-7 which states that a player who incurs an infraction that was not known to him and later made known to him as a result of HDTV will not be disqualified under this new rule.

The real issue here is that Tiger did break the rules and as a result posted an incorrect scorecard.....hence disqualification. On the other hand he was made aware of the issue after the fact and rule 33-7 is applied......the reason Tiger is playing today......so both positions are actually correct.


My issue is a bit different........Tiger made an inappropriate drop, which at the time he believed to be correct. This is evidenced by the fact that he stated in his post round remarks that he intentionally went back 2 yards to get the yardage right after the total screwing got when he hit the pin (rub of the green). When someone made him aware of this infraction as a result of his comments and only based on his comments it was incumbent on him (IMHO) to do the right thing and disqualify himself for posting an inaccurate scorecard......PERIOD. I think that integrity is doing the right thing regardless if anyone is looking.

This is all very convoluted by the fact that there were calls to the tournament committee before Tiger finished his round.....they investigated these complaints prior to Tiger completing his round and based on the evidence they could determine from the footage they decided that there was no infraction and hence no penalty to be assessed. The Committee did NOT notify Tiger of this investigation prior to him signing his scorecard and the matter was closed based on being non-conclusive.

It was only after Tiger's press conference that he admitted to going back 2 yards (I can only imagine how furious was after such a bad break) that he improperly dropped the ball, hit a great shot and made Bogey which is what he posted on his card.....on to the next hole and proceeded to finish the round.

It was later when he was made aware of the fact that he had broken the rule in my opinion is that HE should have brought this to the attention of the Committee and admitted to signing an incorrect scorecard and offered to take a DQ....but he was instead notified the next morning by the Committee and then after a long conversation they all decided to use rule 33-7 would be justification to keep Tiger in the tournament......ratings, looking to get to 18 majors, and all that stuff.

So in the end both of us are right he is entitled based on the interpretation of 33-7, while at the same time the integrity of the game would have had him DQ himself.....both of these positions are correct technically but INTEGRITY only has one answer.........that is MY point!

Very well said. :thumbup: I play a lot of competitive type golf in the mens club at Black Gold in Yorba Linda and other clubs in the area. Seems like every time I play someone has a different opinion on the local rules and the official rules. :headscratch:

 

[Buoy]

Very well said. :thumbup: I play a lot of competitive type golf in the mens club at Black Gold in Yorba Linda and other clubs in the area. Seems like every time I play someone has a different opinion on the local rules and the official rules. :headscratch:

Kind of like shooting pool.
I feel the need to call my shot. I sit down if I get a "slop" shot that just incidentally goes in.

 

[Paul65k]

Very well said. :thumbup: I play a lot of competitive type golf in the mens club at Black Gold in Yorba Linda and other clubs in the area. Seems like every time I play someone has a different opinion on the local rules and the official rules. :headscratch:

Yeah I agree....I play(ed) quite a bit when I was a member at Pacific Golf Club (now Bella Collina) in San Clemente. I played team golf almost every year for the 24 years I was a member there until moving to Havasu last year!

Competitive golf is some of the most fun I ever had.....I sure wish there was something like that in or around Havasu!!!


This is turning into a great Masters....I hope tomorrow has all the usual drama.....could be great:thumbup:

 

[chaser]

Hey Paul65
You believe that tiger broke the rules andshould DQ himself for a bad drop. What do you think VJ should do with himself about the drug use that he admited to on TV ?
If tiger would have dropped the ball 2 feet forward of his drop and it rolled back 2 feet because of a imperfection on the ground it would have been the same outcome.
Per the rules as i play by, drop no closer to the hole. I do not believe that 2 feet gave him ANY advantage. But im not that good.

 

[Paul65k]

Hey Paul65
You believe that tiger broke the rules and should DQ himself for a bad drop. What do you think VJ should do with himself about the drug use that he admitted to on TV ?
If tiger would have dropped the ball 2 feet forward of his drop and it rolled back 2 feet because of a imperfection on the ground it would have been the same outcome.
Per the rules as i play by, drop no closer to the hole. I do not believe that 2 feet gave him ANY advantage. But I'm not that good.

Couple points here;

• I could give a fuck what VJ does it has nothing to do with this unless you go through life justifying your actions by those of others
• Actually you are wrong here as the rule has to do with where the ball is played from NOT where it is dropped
• Finally I play by the Rules of Golf....those are defined by the USGA and the R&A (stands for the Royal and Ancient, which is the governing body in Europe) so personally I couldn't give 2 shits which rules you play by as I play by the rules of golf not the rules of Chaser.

Cheers:rules

 

[Sleek-Jet]

Hey Paul65
You believe that tiger broke the rules andshould DQ himself for a bad drop. What do you think VJ should do with himself about the drug use that he admited to on TV ?
If tiger would have dropped the ball 2 feet forward of his drop and it rolled back 2 feet because of a imperfection on the ground it would have been the same outcome.
Per the rules as i play by, drop no closer to the hole. I do not believe that 2 feet gave him ANY advantage. But im not that good.

Da rules are da rules. It wasn't two feet it was 2 yards. Though he moved the ball two yards farther from the hole the rule states you play it as close as possible to the original lie.

There is also now a rule saying the USGA can simPly assess an extra stroke penalty and allow him to play.

Is it bullshit? I don't know. I think because he fessed up and didn't make any excuses it was an honest mistake. Especially since there is an official right there, he didn't pick up on it either. It was only later when someone noticed.

If it was anyone but Tiger this wouldn't even have made the highlight reel.

 

[Buoy]

The real question here is,
Is the steering wheel pink, or faded red?
Of course, I mean according to the rulez?

 

[Skyskier]

Garcia DQ'd from PGA Championship for signing incorrect scorecard :.......................
http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/pgachampionship07/news/story?id=2969945


Roberto De Vicenzo won hundreds of tournaments around the world, including a major, but the one that got away is often what he is remembered for.:

http://golf.about.com/od/golfers/p/robertodevicenz.htm

 

[TPC]

26-1. Relief For Ball In Water Hazard
It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke:
a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or:

b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or

c. As additional options available only if the ball last crossed the margin of a lateral water hazard, drop a ball outside the water hazard within two club-lengths of and not nearer the hole than (i) the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard or (ii) a point on the opposite margin of the water hazard equidistant from the hole.
When proceeding under this Rule, the player may lift and clean his ball or substitute a ball.

THE DECISION
33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion
A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.
Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.
If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.

THE RATIONALE
33-7/4.5. Competitor Unaware of Penalty Returns Wrong Score; Whether Waiving or Modifying Disqualification Penalty Justified
Q. A competitor returns his score card. It later transpires that the score for one hole is lower than actually taken due to his failure to include a penalty stroke(s) which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered before the competition has closed.
Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7, in waiving or modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule 6-6d?
--Generally, the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.
However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would be justified in waiving the disqualification penalty:
-- A competitor makes a short chip from the greenside rough. At the time, he and his fellow-competitors have no reason to suspect that the competitor has double-hit his ball in breach of Rule 14-4. After the competitor has signed and returned his score card, a close-up, super-slow-motion video replay reveals that the competitor struck his ball twice during the course of the stroke. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the one-stroke penalty under Rule 14-4 to the competitor's score at the hole in question.

-- After a competitor has signed and returned his score card, it becomes known, through the use of a high-definition video replay, that the competitor unknowingly touched a few grains of sand with his club at the top of his backswing on a wall of the bunker. The touching of the sand was so light that, at the time, it was reasonable for the competitor to have been unaware that he had breached Rule 13-4. It would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty and apply the two-stroke penalty to the competitor's score at the hole in question.

-- A competitor moves his ball on the putting green with his finger in the act of removing his ball-marker. The competitor sees the ball move slightly forward but is certain that it has returned to the original spot, and he plays the ball as it lies. After the competitor signs and returns his score card, video footage is brought to the attention of the Committee that reveals that the ball did not precisely return to its original spot. When questioned by the Committee, the competitor cites the fact that the position of the logo on the ball appeared to be in exactly the same position as it was when he replaced the ball and this was the reason for him believing that the ball returned to the original spot. As it was reasonable in these circumstances for the competitor to have no doubt that the ball had returned to the original spot, and because the competitor could not himself have reasonably discovered otherwise prior to signing and returning his score card, it would be appropriate for the Committee to waive the disqualification penalty. The two-stroke penalty under Rule 20-3a for playing from a wrong place would, however, be applied to the competitor's score at the hole in question.

A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the competitor's failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the competitor could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.

For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:
-- As a competitor's ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the competitor fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the competitor was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.

-- A competitor's ball lies in a water hazard. In making his backswing for the stroke, the competitor is aware that his club touched a branch in the hazard. Not realizing at the time that the branch was detached, the competitor did not include the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4 in his score for the hole. As the competitor could have reasonably determined the status of the branch prior to signing and returning his score card, the competitor should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4. (Revised)