Fred Ridley Speaks

[Steve_ Shaffer]

AUGUSTA, GEORGIA | Augusta National chairman Fred Ridley is thoughtful and measured, whether being asked if Greg Norman will ever be welcomed back to Augusta National (he was understandably non-committal) or if lengthening the par-5 13th hole may diminish the drama on the far end of Amen Corner (let’s see what the weather does, he suggested).
Maybe it’s the lawyer in Ridley, who is smart enough to think before he speaks, especially since his voice can ring like a cannon shot on a quiet night. He doesn’t throw verbal firebombs but there is a gravity to what he says, knowing its potential impact, which makes his annual question-and-answer session with the Masters media more than a tradition.
So it was Wednesday morning when the chairman settled into a leather chair behind the dark wood desk framed by a moat of red azaleas at the front of the interview room in the club’s palatial media center.


Read more:



https://www.globalgolfpost.com/featured/fred-ridley-offers-masters-prelude/

[Kalen Braley]

Right on point IMO

“We did not extend an invitation to Mr. Norman,” he said. “The primary issue and the driver there is that I want the focus this week to be on the Masters competition, on the great players that are participating, the greatest players in the world, which, by our decision in December, we ensured that we were going to honor and be consistent with our invitation criteria. I would also add that, in the last 10 years, Greg Norman has only been here twice, and I believe one of those was as a commentator for Sirius Radio [in 2021].”

[Tim Martin]

Ridley says that the Masters will take their cue from the USGA and R&A on the proposed ball rollback. That leaves the PGA of America(PGA) and the PGA Tour(Tour Events) to make a decision. Seems like ANGC(Masters) adds quite a bit of weight to the decision.

[Ian Mackenzie]

It also says that the Masters will use the OWGR system to determine who gets an invite if they do not already qualify in other categories.


So, all the LIVers who have not won the Masters or majors in the last XX years, now know that they may be playing ANGC for the last time this week. Actions, meet consequences.


What's that old expression...."A fish stinks from the head"...?


Aren't Great White Sharks some of the the biggest fish on the planet?

[Anthony Butler]

For many years, I thought Ridley was a pompous doofus (an opinion shared by a couple of prominent members of this forum) especially after he bungled the Tiger Woods ruling on 15 a bunch of years ago...

The year after he became Chairman of Augusta National, I played in a group behind him at Philadelphia Cricket Club. The group in front of his was playing slowly that day, so we spent some time waiting on the tees at the Par 3s together. Much to my surprise, he seemed like a nice, approachable guy and took the time to complement our foursome on any good shots he'd seen as we approached.

He appears to have 'grown in the job' as he's hardly put a foot wrong in the last 8 years.

[Bill Shamleffer]

For many years, I thought Ridley was a pompous doofus (an opinion shared by a couple of prominent members of this forum) especially after he bungled the Tiger Woods ruling on 15 a bunch of years ago...

Anthony, I am a volunteer Rules official for regional golf association.


I would make the same ruling for any golfer, under the same circumstances that The Master's Rules Comm. made for Tiger.
If I (or any Rules Official), knew a player had a possible Rules situation, and we did not bring it to the attention of that player before signing that scorecard, we cannot penalize that player with a DQ for turning in an incorrect score.

[Michael Moore]

If I (or any Rules Official), knew a player had a possible Rules situation, and we did not bring it to the attention of that player before signing that scorecard, we cannot penalize that player with a DQ for turning in an incorrect score.

Can you, as Fred Ridley should have, disqualify a player who goes on television and tells the world about his illegal drop?

[JohnVDB]

If I (or any Rules Official), knew a player had a possible Rules situation, and we did not bring it to the attention of that player before signing that scorecard, we cannot penalize that player with a DQ for turning in an incorrect score.

Can you, as Fred Ridley should have, disqualify a player who goes on television and tells the world about his illegal drop?

Back then, only if we’d been unaware of it before then.  The problem was the Masters Rules Committee was aware of possibility of it before Tiger turned in his card and chose not to ask him why he dropped where he did.  You can’t trap a player into a DQ like that.


Because of the Rules changes since then, it wouldn’t be a DQ today, he would just get the penalty added to his score unless he had been aware it was a penalty before returning his card.

[Michael Moore]

I'll never understand this. The committee decided that there was no rules violation. Then the player said that there was. I just think we have to side with the player.

[Jim Sherma]

Somewhat off topic but I wonder what Bobby Jones would have thought of an “amateur” having paid for logos all over his shirt and hat. College golf has certainly jumped the shark as far as any classical definition of amateurism.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Somewhat off topic but I wonder what Bobby Jones would have thought of an “amateur” having paid for logos all over his shirt and hat. College golf has certainly jumped the shark as far as any classical definition of amateurism.

Bobby Jones was almost as "sponsored" as anyone and did several things which skirted the definition of "amateur."

Tiger knew he broke the Rules.

[Jim Sherma]

Jones might not have been the best bastion of pure amateurism to reference. Still doesn’t contradict or question the claim that big time college golf in any way is representative of any amateur ideal. Unless the case is being made that his perfidy is reason to abandon holding anyone accountable.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Jones might not have been the best bastion of pure amateurism to reference. Still doesn’t contradict or question the claim that big time college golf in any way is representative of any amateur ideal. Unless the case is being made that his perfidy is reason to abandon holding anyone accountable.

Times change. It's 2023. NIL deals are real, and particularly in the case of football, basketball, etc.… very much a thing I think is "right." Football programs for example have long made millions of the work of "student athletes" while granting them degrees in "communication" or "international studies" or whatever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0

That's eight years old, but just as relevant now as then, IMO. And, good luck saying "oh, you can do this for football and basketball, but for the other sports, nah!"

[JohnVDB]

I'll never understand this. The committee decided that there was no rules violation. Then the player said that there was. I just think we have to side with the player.

Tiger didn’t say there was a Rules violation.  He described what he did, which he did not know was a violation.  He conflated two options Back-on-the-line with stroke and distance and made a mistake.


The Committee were aware of where he dropped the ball and just thought he’d made a minor mistake that could be considered to be using reasonable judgment, when he intentionally dropped where he did.  They erred by not  questioning him. Had they done so, he would have had the two strokes added before he turned in the card.


Any time they Committee becomes aware of something like this, they need to do their job and ask the player before the card is returned.  These days it isn’t as big a deal with the rules changes to just allow them to add the penalty.

[JohnVDB]

Tiger knew he broke the Rules.

Do you really think Tiger is smart enough to know he broke the rule but stupid enough to immediately admit it to the press after the round?

[Jim_Coleman]

   No way he knew he broke a rule. He was just showing off how much better he was than everyone else. His ego done him in.
  I doubt the committee had a thought that there was a rule violation until after he “confessed,” which happened after he signed his card. I don’t think the Committee played any part in his signing for the wrong score.

[Michael Moore]

They erred by not  questioning him. Had they done so, he would have had the two strokes added before he turned in the card.

Really? At the 2018 Hero World Challenge, Woods took an iron and scraped his ball out from under a bush. When they showed it to him in the scoring tent, he said that in real time it was more like a strike. I feel like Woods and Ridley might have worked out something similar. That in his heart of hearts it was as near as possible.

[Kalen Braley]

John,

I understand Tiger is Tiger and will get special treatment, perhaps even moreso than the other pros.

But I didn't think ignorance to the rules meant you aren't subject to them....

Once again, all the more reason why the Tour and the Majors need to get serious about actual on course officiating. Just yesterday another case where they even had video evidence, and yet nothing.  https://golf.com/news/masters-ruling-brooks-koepka-caddie-video/

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Do you really think Tiger is smart enough to know he broke the rule but stupid enough to immediately admit it to the press after the round?

I didn't mean to imply that he knew in the moment. If you asked him a rules question on this, I think he'd have gotten it correct.

I doubt the committee had a thought that there was a rule violation until after he “confessed,” which happened after he signed his card. I don’t think the Committee played any part in his signing for the wrong score.

I know when they found out. It was about ten minutes after his press conference.

But I didn't think ignorance to the rules meant you aren't subject to them....

Problem is (IMO), now, that you're only subject to the original penalty if you reasonably declare ignorance, and if nobody catches you, you "get away" with it. And, given the Brooks thing, even sometimes when you are caught… you can still get away with it. 

[Thomas Dai]

The phrase “economical with the truth” comes to mind. As indeed do words like credibility, respect, trust, integrity, honesty etc etc
Atb

PS - a recent piece by about the Tiger drop by Golf Digest - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hDtOjsn8ZlA

[John Kavanaugh]

There is rare honor in believing people.

[Sven Nilsen]

I doubt the committee had a thought that there was a rule violation until after he “confessed,” which happened after he signed his card. I don’t think the Committee played any part in his signing for the wrong score.

I know when they found out. It was about ten minutes after his press conference.

The committee knew there was a rules violation when David Eger called it in, prior to Tiger completing his round.


The forgiveness occurred because Tiger was not notified that he had taken an illegal drop prior to signing his card, contrary to what David suggested they should do in his call.

[Sean_A]

Jones might not have been the best bastion of pure amateurism to reference. Still doesn’t contradict or question the claim that big time college golf in any way is representative of any amateur ideal. Unless the case is being made that his perfidy is reason to abandon holding anyone accountable.

Times change. It's 2023. NIL deals are real, and particularly in the case of football, basketball, etc.… very much a thing I think is "right." Football programs for example have long made millions of the work of "student athletes" while granting them degrees in "communication" or "international studies" or whatever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0

That's eight years old, but just as relevant now as then, IMO. And, good luck saying "oh, you can do this for football and basketball, but for the other sports, nah!"

While paying college players doesn't set well with me, if they are paid then they should be called professionals. The NCAA, USGA etc can then wangle some way to make pros of a certain age eligible. I think this is what the USGA essentially did, without calling these guys pros. I would rather the correct language be used to make it all more transparent.

Ciao

[Sean_A]

I doubt the committee had a thought that there was a rule violation until after he “confessed,” which happened after he signed his card. I don’t think the Committee played any part in his signing for the wrong score.

I know when they found out. It was about ten minutes after his press conference.

The committee knew there was a rules violation when David Eger called it in, prior to Tiger completing his round.


The forgiveness occurred because Tiger was not notified that he had taken an illegal drop prior to signing his card, contrary to what David suggested they should do in his call.

I have long wondered why there is card signing after 18 holes for a multiple round televised pro event. Why have four separate scores? Why not one score to be signed at the end? If an infraction occurs there is until the 72 hole card is signed to sort out. Just seems a bit silly and complicated for there to be four opportunities for a screwup in a 72 hole event where only the final score matters. The rules of golf are a major downer for anybody taking up the game. It's no wonder so many folks play by their own rules.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

While paying college players doesn't set well with me, if they are paid then they should be called professionals. The NCAA, USGA etc can then wangle some way to make pros of a certain age eligible. I think this is what the USGA essentially did, without calling these guys pros. I would rather the correct language be used to make it all more transparent.

They're not paid for their play, though. They're paid for their name, image, or likeness. Pros receive prize money (or for their teaching, etc.).

I have long wondered why there is card signing after 18 holes for a multiple round televised pro event. Why have four separate scores? Why not one score to be signed at the end? If an infraction occurs there is until the 72 hole card is signed to sort out. Just seems a bit silly and complicated for there to be four opportunities for a screwup in a 72 hole event where only the final score matters.

The bold is incorrect.

In the simplest examples:

• Your score determines your pairing/grouping in rounds 3 and 4.
• Being one down or one up on 15 might change how your opponent plays.
• Your score on each hole determines the order of play on the next.
• Etc.