Sunday, April 14, 2013

Recent posts I've made, moving me to "Bring Back the Blog!"

On "Tiger Taints the Masters"

Tiger's game. Tiger's rules. Tiger has pwoned the PGA for years. The PGA will not even sniff at the hand that feeds them. They're trading a level of integrity self-imposed by players for years for advertising money and exposure. I used to applaud their attempts to reach out to a greater audience and expand the numbers of young amateur golfers who would eventually feed the pro system. Now they just suck. I can see my dad, my uncle Jim C., and their fellow BHCC players all collectively turning in their graves at this obvious dismissal of integrity by the world's greatest professional representative of the game. My dad always stressed the importance of fair play, usually on the football field but especially on the golf course, where the player is responsible for being his own judge, referee, official. Today, no Masters for me. I'll watch some highlights, unless somebody actually attempts to restore integrity to the Green Jacket. Instead I'm gonna watch some honest-toGod hockey, where rules are rules and nobody gives a shit but everybody knows it. They play in the light even when there's no "spotlight." and they make no excuses for it.


I think the conversation about whether Woods should have been disqualified and/or should withdraw on his own turns on how the rule is applied. The question is whether this part of the rules applies to Tiger's situation: "Facts that he or she didn't know and cannot reasonably have discovered prior to returning his scorecard." Whether or not the rules in general apply to Tiger Woods is a discussion for another day!

In this situation, Tiger himself triggered the controversy. He said in an interview that he changed the position of his drop because it would provide him a better opportunity to stay on the green with his next shot. That makes it an intentional and strategic violation of the rule to gain an advantage. YOU JUST CAN'T DO THAT!!!

It makes his score on that hole questionable because, by his own admission, Tiger knowingly broke the rule and was not at the mercy of a fact he didn't know or couldn't reasonably have known. Few of us can be convinced that the world's greatest golfer, after having played thousands of rounds of golf, wouldn't know his drop was illegal, making his recorded score incorrect, making his signing and presenting his scorecard a direct violation.


Tiger ADMITTED to putting his ball away from the spot it should have been, and that his action gave him an advantage. In golf, where players pride themselves on fair play and integrity, this is called cheating. Then he lied about it on Twitter.

Tiger, after his match:..
"So I went back to where I had played it from but I went two yards further back and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of where I felt I hit. And that should land me short of the flag and not have it either hit the flag or skip over the back."

Anybody who plays a sport where ball placement is key KNOWS there are rules regarding that placement at the start of the next shot. That's why all major sports have specific rules about ball placement in specific situations.

Tiger, on Twitter AFTER being busted by a viewer, who reported his move and being assigned a penalty, is lying, saying he didn't realize what he did was a violation.  Really? The "world's greatest golfer" doesn't know an illegal drop when he makes one?


On Gun Control

In response to the following post, it also needs to be considered that we are now well protected by a real regulated milita in the development of the armed forces as well as official reserve forces. Civilians who depend on the Second Amendment aren't arming themselves against tyranny and foreign invaders, as much as they want to delude themselves or us into believing they are. They are arming themselves against each other and the rest of us. You can own as many guns as you want. I don't have a problem with responsible gun ownership! Just don't hide behind the second amendment because, as written, it doesn't truly apply today and imparting it at every turn lessens the impact of your arguments.  We don't want to take your guns away, we just want responsibility and an end to reckless and negligent owners. And to stop hearing about rights being based on a situation that is centuries in the past. I think the Second Amendment needs to be , itself, amended. I would retain the phrase " the right to bear arms" but I would update the rest to apply to the current atmosphere and weapons technology.

 On Facebook:  "Hans Guth:
 Knite Wolf - what kind of "arms" do you think they were referring to 200+ years ago? Musket rifles? By all means - have as many of those as you want. The definition of what the 2nd amendment refers to MUST be reevaluated based on the development of technology."




No comments: