Ethics CasesSport

Cases · Augusta National / USGA / R&A · 2011–2019

Two Yards Back: Tiger Woods, the 2013 Masters and Whether to Withdraw

At the 2013 Masters, Tiger Woods's shot struck the 15th flagstick and rolled into the water. He replayed from roughly the original spot but, by his own account, two yards further back. A television viewer alerted officials, who reviewed video and found no breach without speaking to him. Woods then described the drop in an interview after signing his scorecard. The next morning, the committee gave him a two-stroke penalty but waived disqualification under Rule 33-7 because it had made an initial mistake. Some critics, including Nick Faldo, said Woods should withdraw. He played on and tied for fourth. The case asks what integrity requires when officials allow you to continue.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. Padraig Harrington is disqualified in Abu Dhabi after video reveals a breach he did not know about.
  2. The R&A and USGA revise a decision to allow penalties without disqualification in such cases.
  3. Woods's third shot at the 15th hits the flagstick and goes into the water; he drops and plays again.
  4. Prompted by a viewer, the committee reviews video and finds no breach.
  5. After signing his card, Woods says he dropped two yards further back.
  6. After meeting Woods, the committee assesses a two-stroke penalty and waives disqualification.
  7. Adam Scott wins in a playoff; Woods ties for fourth.
  8. The governing bodies end the use of viewer call-ins and remove the extra scorecard penalty by Local Rule.

The ethical issues

  • Self-policing in sport.
  • Officials' errors and fairness.
  • Equal treatment of star players.
  • Viewer call-ins and video.
  • Integrity beyond the rules.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Tiger WoodsContinuing to compete under a lawful ruling.
The fieldRules applied equally.
Augusta National's committeeFair rulings and correcting its own error.
Governing bodiesConsistent, credible rules.
Fans and broadcastersA credible tournament.

The case

Background

Golf is unusual among elite sports because players are expected to call penalties on themselves. The scorecard captures that responsibility. Each player signs a card after the round, and under the rules in force in 2013, a player who returned a card with a score lower than he actually made was normally disqualified [3].

High-definition television complicated that system. In January 2011, Padraig Harrington was disqualified after an opening 65 in Abu Dhabi. A slow-motion replay showed that his ball had moved slightly as he replaced his marker, which he had not noticed and no one on the green had reported [4]. In April 2011, the R&A and USGA revised the relevant Decision. A player who could not reasonably have known of a breach would still get the penalty but would not be disqualified [4]. “Ignorance of the rules is not what this interpretation applies to,” said R&A chief executive Peter Dawson [4]. In another 2011 case, Camilo Villegas would still have been disqualified, the New York Times noted, because his breach came from not knowing a rule [4].

What happened

In the second round of the 2013 Masters, on Friday 12 April, Tiger Woods was sharing the lead when his third shot to the par-five 15th struck the flagstick and rolled back into the water [2][3]. He chose to play again from where he had hit his previous shot. Rule 26-1a required a drop “as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played” [3]. He made a six [3].

A television viewer called in. While Woods was playing the 18th, the competition committee reviewed the video and decided he had complied with the rules. It did not speak to him [1][2]. “The rule doesn’t prescribe what is right and what is wrong; in my best judgment at the time Tiger had complied with the rule,” said Fred Ridley, the committee chairman [2].

After signing his scorecard, Woods described the drop in interviews. “I went down to the drop area, that wasn’t going to be a good spot… So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards further back” [3]. Golf Channel quoted him adding that he “tried to take 2 yards off the shot of what I felt I hit” [2]. Ridley was recalled to the club at about 10 p.m. ET [2].

At about 8 a.m. on Saturday, the committee met Woods. “Tiger was very forthright and at the end of the discussion he confirmed he was trying to create a situation that was further from the hole,” Ridley said [2]. The committee ruled that he had violated Rule 26 and assessed a two-stroke penalty, turning his six into an eight [1][2]. It explained why he was not disqualified:

“The penalty of disqualification was waived by the Committee under Rule 33 as the Committee had previously reviewed the information and made its initial determination prior to the finish of the player’s round” [1]

“Committees make mistakes sometimes. I think he’s entitled to protection,” Ridley said [2].

Woods accepted the ruling. “I was unaware at that time I had violated any rules,” he tweeted. “I understand and accept the penalty and respect the Committee’s decision” [3].

The rules and governance

Rule 33-7 allowed that a penalty of disqualification “may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the committee considers such action warranted” [2]. The rules are written by the R&A and USGA, while the Masters committee runs the tournament and applies them [1][4]. BBC Sport reported that the committee applied the 2011 reinterpretation [3]. The committee’s own statement, however, based the waiver on its earlier review and initial finding rather than on Woods not knowing the facts [1]. That distinction mattered, because the 2011 change was not meant to protect players who did not know a rule [4].

Opinions split. Three-time Masters champion Nick Faldo told BBC Radio 5 Live that Woods “should withdraw. He took a drop to gain an advantage” [3]. On Golf Channel he called the decision “dreadful” and said Woods “would gain massive brownie points if he stood up and said, you know what, boys, I broke the rule” [2]. Graeme McDowell disagreed: “Take the fact that it was Tiger out of the equation and it is a fair ruling” [3].

Aftermath

Woods teed off for the third round five shots off the lead [2]. He finished tied for fourth at five under par, four shots behind Adam Scott and Ángel Cabrera, and Scott won the playoff [6]. Whether the penalty decided Woods’s finish cannot be known.

The debate over television evidence continued. In December 2017, after Lexi Thompson received a penalty that year at the ANA Inspiration, the R&A and USGA, working with the major tours, announced new protocols [5]:

  • Officials would monitor broadcasts.
  • Viewer call-ins would no longer be considered.
  • A Local Rule would remove the extra penalty for a scorecard error when a player was unaware of a breach.

The scorecard penalty was permanently removed when the modernized Rules of Golf took effect on 1 January 2019 [5]. The R&A’s David Rickman said players “should continue to be penalised for all breaches of the Rules” [5].

The core dilemma

Officials, within their authority, let Woods continue after he admitted an improper drop. Does integrity require a player to go beyond the official ruling and withdraw? Or is accepting a lawful decision enough?

Competing values

  • Self-policing: the sport depends on players’ honesty [2][3].
  • Rule of law: the committee holds authority to decide [1].
  • Equal treatment: suspicion that stars get better rulings [3].
  • Fair process: the committee’s earlier error affected the remedy [1][2].
  • Proportionality: a two-stroke penalty against total disqualification.

Strongest arguments

Woods did enough: he volunteered the details, accepted the penalty and complied with the decision [2][3]. The committee erred by not speaking to him before he signed [1][2]. Withdrawing would have overruled the committee’s legitimate authority.

Woods should have withdrawn: he did not know the rule, which the 2011 change did not excuse [4]. Ridley said Woods confirmed he was trying to play from further back [2]. Golf’s tradition of self-reporting expects players to protect the field, not just to comply.

Applying the frameworks

Virtue

Virtue ethics asks what an honest competitor would do. Faldo’s view treats withdrawal as the virtuous act [2][3]. Another view is that candor and acceptance are the virtues on display.

Kantian

A Kantian asks whether “accept every favorable lawful ruling” could be a universal rule, or whether duty requires applying the rule’s intended penalty to oneself.

Justice

Justice asks whether the same ruling would have been given to any player in the field.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Identify the problem: a breach was confirmed after the card was signed.
  2. Gather the facts: the video, the player’s statements and the committee’s review.
  3. Identify the stakeholders: the player, the field, officials and fans.
  4. Consider the options: disqualification, a penalty only, or the player withdrawing.
  5. Apply values and frameworks: virtue, duty and fairness.
  6. Decide and review: reform the process, as golf did in 2017 and 2019 [5].

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: the drop, the review, the penalty and the waiver are documented [1][2][3].

Contested: whether waiving disqualification was right, and whether Woods should have withdrawn.

Why this case matters

Compare PGA Tour v. Martin: A Golf Cart and the Rules of the Game and Michigan’s Sign-Stealing Scheme and the Limits of Gamesmanship.

Key terms

Integrity
A commitment to honesty and ethical principle in competition and administration, including when nobody is watching.
Due process
Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.
Codes and guardrails
Written rules of conduct, backed by real consequences, that turn values into expected behavior. Without enforcement they are decoration.
Multiple points of view
Analyzing a dilemma from each stakeholder’s position in turn (athlete, parent, coach, administrator, official, bystander) before reaching your own reasoned view.
Trust
The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Should Woods have withdrawn?
  2. Was the committee right to waive disqualification?
  3. Would a lesser-known player have received the same ruling?
  4. Should TV viewers influence rulings?
  5. Is there a duty beyond complying with the ruling?

Sources

  1. Statement from Tournament Headquarters (Masters, 13 April 2013) — Today's Golfer (Augusta National statement)
  2. Woods' drop reviewed; assessed two-shot penalty — Golf Channel
  3. Masters 2013: Tiger Woods given two-shot Masters penalty — BBC Sport
  4. With Rule Revision, Golf Gives Back What Cameras Take Away — The New York Times
  5. R&A and USGA announce new video protocols for televised golf events — Sky Sports
  6. Masters 2013: Adam Scott beats Angel Cabrera in play-off — BBC Sport