Originally Posted by top6
You are confusing two issues (and people often confuse these 2 issues when discussing the law). You are right that he almost certainly did not know that what he had done was against the rules.* However, he did know that he had committed the act that was in violations of the rules--he just did not know it was against the rules.
It is virtually never a defense to claim that you did not know that what you did was illegal. It is a defense to say that you didn't know you committed the act in question. So, if I dump garbage in my neighbor's lawn, but claim I was unaware that this was a crime, I am still liable (ignorance of the law is no excuse). If I am moving a ladder and accidentally knock over a garbage can, causing garbage to spill on my neighbor's lawn (and I don't see the garbage can fall over), then (in some cases) I have a defense if charged with illegal dumping, as I did not realize I had committed the act that violated the law.
Here, Tiger admitted that he knowingly did not drop the ball as close as possible to his previous shot. Clearly, he thought that this was within the rules. He now realizes it was not. This has nothing to do with video replay or anything. He should disqualify himself.
*Because we all know Tiger would never knowingly cheat... oh wait.
I understand the difference. Obviously, the rules officials of the game of golf disagree with you. They don't think he should be DQ'ed.
I'm not arguing the actual rules themselves, but how outrage makes no sense given the entire scenario. The rules themselves are asinine. They should be changed, and this is why. It's an ambiguous rule and I think he could make the case that even with his comments, it would still fit within the rule using a standard of reasonableness. If you know the law so well, you also know that ambiguously written laws are not always open to interpretation and a standard of reasonableness generally applies.
Before his comments, they thought his drop was legal. So they looked at the evidence and thought his drop fit within the language of "as close as possible". That's an awfully difficult piece of evidence to get around if the very people there to interpret the rules said he did nothing wrong. What if he would have said 1 yard instead of 2? What if he would have said a few feet? Why is it that 2 yards all of sudden makes it glaringly obvious that he broke the rule and it's somehow outrageous that he would still play in the tournament.
Seriously, the DQ rules in golf are ridiculous. I've been saying as much on here for years. Why should something like that make a guy not even be able to play in the tournament. There's a reason the USGA made an attempt to amend the rule.