Boston Bombing Persons Of Interest In Branded Golf Caps

/

The Smoking Gun makes the easy ID of a black Bridgestone cap on suspect number one while I'm pretty sure Daily Mail Reporter gets it wrong in claiming suspect 2 is wearing a Ralph Lauren hat (the hat they show has the "3" on the left side, the suspect's hat has the number, possibly a 7, on the right side).

Either way, they're both the lowest form of being on the planet and no companies are at fault here. Other released FBI images of the suspects can be seen here.

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.

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?
  
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.