What exactly does it mean to "gain an advantage?" How does that differ from "cheating?" Why is it that professional athletes who are doing something to gain an advantage are actually considered "cheaters?"
When you look long and hard at the world of professional sports, there has always been one constant through the years: Things change. Players change. Technology changes. Rules change. Expectations change. As fans, we cheer for our favorite teams, our favorite players, and our favorite games. So, why is it that we find ourselves with feelings of anger and betrayal when we see players get caught trying to improve themselves?
Ryan Braun's suspension for the remainder of the 2013 MLB season is just the latest in what has been a decade-long battle to "clean up" the game of baseball. Other sports have also "improved" their performance-enhancing substance testing in an effort to purify their games. But the microscope remains fixated on the game of baseball. But why?
It's not a popular opinion by any stretch of the imagination, but realistically, there's one question that continues to cross my mind as I see big names and All-Stars continue to find themselves on the wrong side of baseball law:
Should we really care?
Sports purists will argue that performance-enhancing substances "change" their respective games for the worse. Mostly, their angst is centered around the record books. Nowhere is this more evident than Major League Baseball, whose record book is considered almost biblical to some. But why keep record books if we're afraid to have the records within them broken? And, if we're being honest, a lot of the records being broken were aided by some sort of "change."
Babe Ruth used a bat that was 40 ounces in weight during the 1927 season when he hit 60 home runs, setting the record which would stand for 34 years before being broken by Roger Maris. Strangely, what people don't talk about is the advantages that Maris had. Sure, they bring up the additional eight games added to the schedule, which is one advantage. But no one brings up the fact that the Yankee Stadium dimensions changed from the time Ruth played to the time Maris played. In 1927, Babe Ruth was hitting balls to center and right field walls that were 520 and 425 feet from home plate, respectively. In 1961, those same walls were only 461 and 407 feet from home plate. Ruth used a bat that weighed 40 ounces and was 35 inches in length. In 1961, Maris's bat was one inch longer (36) and weighed 4-5 ounces less, allowing him to swing it faster. Needless to say, there were other factors to Roger Maris breaking Babe Ruth's home run record than just an additional eight games.
In today's game, similar changes have been made. Bats weight less than before and are made of different material. Many suggest they're actually weaker pieces of lumber than were used throughout 50's, 60's, and even 70's. The baseballs themselves are manufactured and woven differently than 50 or 60 years ago. Similar to the dimension changes made at Yankee Stadium throughout the years, many ballparks have brought their fences in to increase offense.
Couldn't performance-enhancing substances just be considered another "change" in the game? Why not embrace them and regulate them rather than fear them? If everyone is allowed to play the game the same way, is it possible that no true advantage would be had? And, is it possible the game may actually be better off?
Records were made to be broken. If sports continue to improve their games by altering equipment, changing rules, and expanding leagues, the records we've all grown accustomed to are truly not the same as they were. So, what is one more change? If it provides fans with a better product and a more exciting experience, who are we to judge?
I, for one, would prefer a game where I don't have to guess who is using a substance to gain an advantage, but rather a game where I don't have to concern myself with it and can just enjoy being a fan.
Should we really care otherwise?
Monday, July 22, 2013
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Tiger & The 2013 Masters: Completely New Meaning To "Dropping The Ball"
For something that, at first glance, seemed pretty cut and dry early Saturday morning, now has grown many new tentacles that make the debate about Tiger Woods 2013 Masters experience even more interesting.
For starters, let's take a look at the actual "rules" in question, as they are written, from the USGA's Offical Rulebook:
Now that we have the rules in front of us, let's take a look at the facts. There is no debate: Tiger Woods took an illegal drop for his fifth shot on the 15th hole in the Second Round of the 2013 Masters. That is 100% fact. Based on that, many uneducated golf fans were calling for Tiger to be disqualified, or with that knowledge, were at least asking for Tiger to withdraw from The Masters for what they considered "cheating".
Let's get something straight before we move on. Unknowingly taking an illegal drop in golf is not "cheating." If that were the case, it would be safe to assume that probably 90% of casual golfers, league golfers, amateur golfers, and even professional golfers have "cheated." I know, myself, that I've inadvertently dropped incorrectly and illegally, playing from a drop zone when I should've actually re-teed from the tee box, or taking a drop at a water hazard on the line where I believed the ball crossed, even though it may have cross 15 yards further up. It's something that happens in just about every round. Yes, some people (mostly casual players) will take a drop where they shouldn't because they either don't care, or actually want an advantage. Because, in this instance, the perpetrator was Tiger Woods, the #1 ranked golfer in the world, the "Tiger haters" out there believe there is no way he was unaware of the rules, and that his drop was an intentional violation of the rules to "cheat" and gain an advantage.
Does anyone really think Tiger Woods would have openly admit to "cheating" in a post-round interview if he actually believed he had cheated? If you answer "Yes" to that question, then you clearly have an issue with Mr. Woods, and have already made your mind up that because of his off-the-course transgressions, he is the most evil human being on the planet.
What Tiger was guilty of was confusing the rule, not ignoring it. Had he gone to the point of entry into the water, he could have brought his ball back from that point as far as he wanted to. Instead, he chose to hit from the original spot, and dropped his ball "2 yards further back." Did he think he was violating the rule? Obviously not. If he had, he wouldn't have openly admit it after the round. Again, if you think that Tiger Woods intentionally tried to "cheat" to gain an advantage...on national TV...in front of millions of fans watching...at the biggest golf tournament of his season...with history in the balance...you probably ought to think again.
The debate about whether Tiger should've been disqualified, or at least should've withdrawn from The Masters, doesn't have to do with the illegal drop, but actually with the signing of an illegal scorecard at the end of his round. Taking an illegal drop does not warrant disqualification. Again, the uneducated golf fans out there, along with the "Tiger haters", were calling for his disqualification based on the drop. The only reason Tiger would've been disqualified was for signing his scorecard for a "6" on the 15th hole, rather than an "8." The "golf purists" believe he should have then withdrawn for signing an incorrect scorecard, since that is historically what has happened. But, if he didn't believe he did anything wrong, and was not informed that he had when he signed his card, how exactly can he be held accountable for signing for an incorrect score?
The Masters committee was notified of the infraction by a TV viewer. It was not brought to their attention by one of Tiger's playing partners that day. It was not brought to their attention by the rules official on that hole. It was brought to their attention by a viewer. That's a debate for another day. The committee reviewed the footage while Woods was playing the 18th hole, and it was determined at that point that no advantage had been gained, and therefore, they opted to not bring this potential infraction to Tiger's attention. Let me repeat that. It was determined by the Masters rules committee that no infraction had occurred, and therefore, they did not bring it to Woods' attention prior to his signing his scorecard. At that point, upon signing the scorecard, Tiger still had not done anything that warranted disqualification. He had, in fact, signed a correct scorecard.
It was only after his post-round interview, where Tiger volunteered information to the contrary, stating that he took his drop two yards further back so he could hit the same shot, but get the right distance, did the Masters committee realize that he did, in fact, gain an advantage from his drop. Based on that, the committee notified Woods on Saturday morning that they wanted to talk with him about his comments. After that discussion, it was determined that a 2-stroke penalty was the correct action to take.
Here's why, after thinking about this for a good majority of Saturday while watching the Masters, I completely, 100% agree with this decision:
The Masters committee had every opportunity to at least bring it to Woods' attention prior to his signing of the scorecard, that there may have been some question about the drop. If, in fact, they had done this, Tiger would have no doubt explained his thought process, realized it was against the rules, and would've been assessed a 2-stroke penalty at that time, then signed his card with an "8" on the 15th hole, rather than a "6." And, had that happened, Tiger would've been playing Saturday at -1 par, just as he ended up doing.
The Masters committee didn't disqualify Woods because they realized they were the ones that made the true mistake, not Tiger. They utilized a new rule (Rule 33-7) which was put into effect last year, to help them correct that mistake. Rules are changed or enacted for a variety of different reasons. If during a World Series game, a ball gets hit into the corner and is ruled a foul ball, the umpires utilize instant replay to determine if it actually crossed in front or behind the foul pole. If, after reviewing it, they determine that it did, in fact, cross behind the pole, and rule it a home run...should the team being awarded the home run decline the run, saying that had this been prior to instant replay, it would've been considered a foul ball? Of course not. In this case, the rule was changed to "protect the players" from situations just like this.
The "Tiger haters" out there believe that had this been any other player, this ruling would never have happened. I completely disagree. To me, what's funny about those that believe that this was done solely because it was Tiger, are failing to realize one other key factor. The only reason this was ever an issue in the first place was because it was Tiger, and when Tiger is in contention for a tournament, especially The Masters, 90-100% of his shots are televised, scrutinized, and analyzed. So, had this been "any other player", the odds of their drop actually being shown on TV for a viewer to call in and bring the attention of the Masters committee to it, are probably very slim.
The "Tiger haters" out there need to realize that "illegal", in this case, does not mean "cheated." The "golf purists" out there need to realize that rules change. And the Masters rules committee needs to realize that what occurred during the 2013 Masters is something that must never happen again.
For starters, let's take a look at the actual "rules" in question, as they are written, from the USGA's Offical Rulebook:
26-1. Relief For Ball In Water Hazard
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;
27-1. Stroke And Distance; Ball Out Of Bounds; Ball Not Found Within Five Minutes
a. Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance
At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule20-5), i.e., proceed under penalty of stroke and distance.
Except as otherwise provided in the Rules, if a player makes a stroke at a ball from the spot at which the original ball was last played, he is deemed to have proceeded under penalty of stroke and distance.
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.
Now that we have the rules in front of us, let's take a look at the facts. There is no debate: Tiger Woods took an illegal drop for his fifth shot on the 15th hole in the Second Round of the 2013 Masters. That is 100% fact. Based on that, many uneducated golf fans were calling for Tiger to be disqualified, or with that knowledge, were at least asking for Tiger to withdraw from The Masters for what they considered "cheating".
Let's get something straight before we move on. Unknowingly taking an illegal drop in golf is not "cheating." If that were the case, it would be safe to assume that probably 90% of casual golfers, league golfers, amateur golfers, and even professional golfers have "cheated." I know, myself, that I've inadvertently dropped incorrectly and illegally, playing from a drop zone when I should've actually re-teed from the tee box, or taking a drop at a water hazard on the line where I believed the ball crossed, even though it may have cross 15 yards further up. It's something that happens in just about every round. Yes, some people (mostly casual players) will take a drop where they shouldn't because they either don't care, or actually want an advantage. Because, in this instance, the perpetrator was Tiger Woods, the #1 ranked golfer in the world, the "Tiger haters" out there believe there is no way he was unaware of the rules, and that his drop was an intentional violation of the rules to "cheat" and gain an advantage.
Does anyone really think Tiger Woods would have openly admit to "cheating" in a post-round interview if he actually believed he had cheated? If you answer "Yes" to that question, then you clearly have an issue with Mr. Woods, and have already made your mind up that because of his off-the-course transgressions, he is the most evil human being on the planet.
What Tiger was guilty of was confusing the rule, not ignoring it. Had he gone to the point of entry into the water, he could have brought his ball back from that point as far as he wanted to. Instead, he chose to hit from the original spot, and dropped his ball "2 yards further back." Did he think he was violating the rule? Obviously not. If he had, he wouldn't have openly admit it after the round. Again, if you think that Tiger Woods intentionally tried to "cheat" to gain an advantage...on national TV...in front of millions of fans watching...at the biggest golf tournament of his season...with history in the balance...you probably ought to think again.
The debate about whether Tiger should've been disqualified, or at least should've withdrawn from The Masters, doesn't have to do with the illegal drop, but actually with the signing of an illegal scorecard at the end of his round. Taking an illegal drop does not warrant disqualification. Again, the uneducated golf fans out there, along with the "Tiger haters", were calling for his disqualification based on the drop. The only reason Tiger would've been disqualified was for signing his scorecard for a "6" on the 15th hole, rather than an "8." The "golf purists" believe he should have then withdrawn for signing an incorrect scorecard, since that is historically what has happened. But, if he didn't believe he did anything wrong, and was not informed that he had when he signed his card, how exactly can he be held accountable for signing for an incorrect score?
The Masters committee was notified of the infraction by a TV viewer. It was not brought to their attention by one of Tiger's playing partners that day. It was not brought to their attention by the rules official on that hole. It was brought to their attention by a viewer. That's a debate for another day. The committee reviewed the footage while Woods was playing the 18th hole, and it was determined at that point that no advantage had been gained, and therefore, they opted to not bring this potential infraction to Tiger's attention. Let me repeat that. It was determined by the Masters rules committee that no infraction had occurred, and therefore, they did not bring it to Woods' attention prior to his signing his scorecard. At that point, upon signing the scorecard, Tiger still had not done anything that warranted disqualification. He had, in fact, signed a correct scorecard.
It was only after his post-round interview, where Tiger volunteered information to the contrary, stating that he took his drop two yards further back so he could hit the same shot, but get the right distance, did the Masters committee realize that he did, in fact, gain an advantage from his drop. Based on that, the committee notified Woods on Saturday morning that they wanted to talk with him about his comments. After that discussion, it was determined that a 2-stroke penalty was the correct action to take.
Here's why, after thinking about this for a good majority of Saturday while watching the Masters, I completely, 100% agree with this decision:
The Masters committee had every opportunity to at least bring it to Woods' attention prior to his signing of the scorecard, that there may have been some question about the drop. If, in fact, they had done this, Tiger would have no doubt explained his thought process, realized it was against the rules, and would've been assessed a 2-stroke penalty at that time, then signed his card with an "8" on the 15th hole, rather than a "6." And, had that happened, Tiger would've been playing Saturday at -1 par, just as he ended up doing.
The Masters committee didn't disqualify Woods because they realized they were the ones that made the true mistake, not Tiger. They utilized a new rule (Rule 33-7) which was put into effect last year, to help them correct that mistake. Rules are changed or enacted for a variety of different reasons. If during a World Series game, a ball gets hit into the corner and is ruled a foul ball, the umpires utilize instant replay to determine if it actually crossed in front or behind the foul pole. If, after reviewing it, they determine that it did, in fact, cross behind the pole, and rule it a home run...should the team being awarded the home run decline the run, saying that had this been prior to instant replay, it would've been considered a foul ball? Of course not. In this case, the rule was changed to "protect the players" from situations just like this.
The "Tiger haters" out there believe that had this been any other player, this ruling would never have happened. I completely disagree. To me, what's funny about those that believe that this was done solely because it was Tiger, are failing to realize one other key factor. The only reason this was ever an issue in the first place was because it was Tiger, and when Tiger is in contention for a tournament, especially The Masters, 90-100% of his shots are televised, scrutinized, and analyzed. So, had this been "any other player", the odds of their drop actually being shown on TV for a viewer to call in and bring the attention of the Masters committee to it, are probably very slim.
The "Tiger haters" out there need to realize that "illegal", in this case, does not mean "cheated." The "golf purists" out there need to realize that rules change. And the Masters rules committee needs to realize that what occurred during the 2013 Masters is something that must never happen again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)