Time to get back to architecture!

[Jim Nugent]

Come on.  If this isn't a serious breach of 1-2, then what is?  The penalty for serious breach of 1-2 can be DQ. 

Pete copied the rule that says, " An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not Rule 1-2."Why does that not apply here?

[Jonathan Mallard]

Isn't everyone proving the point that there exists the ability of some entity to make an

... Alice in Wonderland determination that there are such things as judicially determinable "essential" and "nonessential" rules of a made up game...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-24.ZS.html

[Ryan Coles]

So whats the difference between someone who exploits the rules and someone who merely uses them to their advantage?  Is someone who uses a tax loophole to avoid paying thier employees in a specific situation an exploiter or smart?  I think there is a fair amount of gray area on this one.

Hands up who wants to play golf with or work for this fella?


Hit balls on the move, stiff you for your salary and then go home and congratulate himself on being smart.

[George Pazin]

Initially I would have applied a DQ. Upon careful review, 2 strokes is appropriate.


2 strokes is the penalty for violation of Rule 1-2.


DQ in this situation can happen is it is a serious breach, defined as an action that allowed the player to gain significant advantage.


His actions ended up him standing 8 14 feet from the hole, on the same line that he would have stood in 6, had he allowed the ball to stop outside the green and declared an unplayable. Therefore, he gained no significant advantage.


Therefore 2 strokes apply. Now, under 33-7 we might go to DQ, not sure I would have.

Come on.  If this isn't a serious breach of 1-2, then what is?  The penalty for serious breach of 1-2 can be DQ.  If this isn't a sufficiently serious breach, then it's impossible to think of a more serious one, so that rule is redundant.  On the basis that if the rule has been written it is not intended to be redundant, then this case MUST be a DQ.

This is my feeling as well. And I'm generally a big Phil fan and supporter.


"He ain't gots to go home, but he gots to get the heck up outta here..." (and he should probably offer Mike Davis a ride home as well, but that's for another thread).


It's ironic, as just the other morning, I caught a clip of Phil on something - Morning Drive, Feherty, not sure what - where Phil said in order to be a really good golfer, you have to be either really smart or really dumb. I think he's mistaken as to which category he falls into, sadly.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Say you're leading a tournament by a couple of shots, and a putt slides past the hole on one of the closing holes and starts to pick up pace - it looks like running off the green.

Do we really want it to be okay for the player to run round and stop the ball with his putter, giving himself a straightforward putt back at the cost of only two shots?

The stupid thing is that, according to the USGA, if he had "stopped or deflected the ball," he may have been DQed under 1-2.

Again… what if he had "made a stroke" and holed the putt as it was near the hole?

Justin Leonard talked about how 14-5 is to cover a ball that starts moving in the rough, or rolling down a fairway in the wind… not to do what Phil did.

Rules are rules and it is quite clear what the penalty is for Phil's infraction  The USGA got it right.

I disagree. I think 1-2 applies here, not 14-5. Justin Leonard disagrees, too.

I remain convinced that Phil thought this through very carefully and I wouldn't be surprised if he discussed the potential situation with rules officials.

Ha, no. Phil had no idea what the penalty was, or what the process was. Even after the round, when he'd managed to lie to everyone and pretend it was pre-meditated, he called Mike Davis because he was still unsure.

You bought his act hook, line, and sinker.

[George Pazin]

Indeed, Erik, if Phil were half as clever as he pretended to be, he'd have declared the ball unplayable and putted again, lagging it short. He'd have saved himself several more strokes.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Indeed, Erik, if Phil were half as clever as he pretended to be, he'd have declared the ball unplayable and putted again, lagging it short. He'd have saved himself several more strokes.

Had he done that, I'd have applauded his knowledge of the Rules.

In a rules clinic one time the instructor said that he swatted away a tap-in par putt for some reason or another into a horrible spot, and then won a wager that he could still make double. He did so by declaring it unplayable and replacing the ball four inches from the cup and tapping in.

This wasn't that.

[Steve Lang]

   I agree with George.


... and while PM can certainly be clever, etc. I think he simply snapped, thought he'll never win the US Open with set-ups like this,,, and with synapses firing, thought for perhaps several milli-seconds and BAMMM,... game over, who cares?   


Perhaps he'll win the US SR. Open some day?


Does anyone know if he hates dogs?

[John Kavanaugh]

Does anyone else find it odd that he never got braces for his bottom teeth?

[Tim Martin]

Does anyone else find it odd that he never got braces for his bottom teeth?

 

[Lou_Duran]

If facing Mark Pearce as my judge and jury, I'd take the plea.

The law, 14-5 in this case, is quite clear- no scholarly analysis of original intent required or need to re-litigate what the meaning of the word "is" is.   Phil made a stroke at a moving ball and the penalty is two strokes.  The Rules 14 and 1 could not be more black and white in this regard.

Not that intent has any bearing, but my name ain't Solomon, so who am I to judge Phil's frame of mind?  I mean, if the ultra-smart, beyond reproach James Comey could not gleen "intent" to break the law over a long period of time in setting up a private server bypassing strict government policies and procedures involving tens of thousands of emails and numerous classified communications transmitted over the internet, who are we to divine what Phil intended to do?  Or is it reasonable to hold an aging professional golfer to a much higher standard than a cabinet level individual seeking to become the leader of the world?

A cleaner approach for Phil would have been to invoke 27-1. 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 Rule 20-5), i.e., proceed under penalty of stroke and distance."

That he started to walk toward the putt as it was passing the hole then proceeded to mock-run before stroking the moving ball leads me think that the deliberation was in milliseconds and without consideration of the consequences.  I would bet that he is embarrassed by his actions and he didn't do himself any favors by trying to justify them.

I have no doubt that if it had been George Pazin instead of Phil in the same exact situation, the penalty would still be 2 strokes, though George would probably have avoided the press until he could be more circumspect about what transpired. 

P.S.- I did find it precious that the well-coiffed Brandel Chamblee seemed to enjoy pointing out Phil's need to be the smartest guy in the room.  No need to accuse that panel of being Phil butt boys.  Thank God the Golf Channel was not around during The King's heydays. 

[Steve Lang]

Does anyone else find it odd that he never got braces for his bottom teeth?

He did have braces... wisdom teeth pushed em out of whack,  and of course were taken out!

[Jim Nugent]

Justin Leonard talked about how 14-5 is to cover a ball that starts moving in the rough, or rolling down a fairway in the wind… not to do what Phil did.

Can you point to something in the rules that says this, that makes this distinction?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Can you point to something in the rules that says this, that makes this distinction?

Probably not, but that's why there's a debate.

Can you point to a distinction between what Phil did and taking "an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play"? I don't think you can. He wasn't trying to play a stroke. He was trying to stop the ball from going back down in front of the bunker.

Mike Davis's explanation that because he deflected the ball toward the hole it doesn't count as a deflection doesn't hold water for me. Again, consider if he had instead hit the putt with a "stroke" as the ball was passing beside the hole and holed it. We'd be good with giving him an 8 there? (Putting for 5, "strokes" at it and holes it for 6 while it is moving past the hole and about to go 30 yards back down the fairway… two stroke penalty.) I doubt it. In that sense the fact that he missed and took two more putts probably helped him.

I see it as a 1-2 violation. He was trying to influence the movement of a ball in play. He was trying to prevent it from going back down 30 yards and behind that bunker.

[A.G._Crockett]

I admire the way Mickelson has handled various adversities in his personal life and career.  And he's entertaining as heck to watch play golf.
That said, he has been, throughout much of his personal life and career, his own worst enemy.  Gambling, insider trading, dopey comments about tax rates, carrying two drivers, carrying no driver, whacko club choices at key moments, and on and on and on.  I sort of like him, but I really, REALLY don't get him.
All of that said, that the USGA doesn't tell ANY player who did what he did yesterday to just head home is flat out wrong.  That was Saturday at the US Open, for crying out loud; I don't give a damn about which rule applies.  He disrespected the game, he disrespected the fans who had spend a gazillion dollars to see him; he pretty much disrespected everything, and then laughed about it as he left the green and dismissed it afterwards.  "I had wanted to do it several times before..."  The fans who object should toughen up?  Give me a break...
Honestly, I hoped last night when I went to bed that I'd get up today to find that Mickelson had removed himself from the 4th round, with a profound apology to the fans included.  He would have taken the high ground by doing so; now he just seems a crabby old man, likely to soon be yelling at kids to get off his lawn.

[John Kavanaugh]

In the trinity of douche which is worse, the cheater, quitter or snitch?  Phil had to show up today instead of relaxing at home. Anyone who plays competitively has been there themselves. WD'ing is the easy way out.


Now his sponsors are a different matter. Where is their courage and conviction. #droptheflop

[Jon Wiggett]

We need to be clear that the rule was designed to deal with the situation of a player addressing a ball which is 'at rest' but then starts to move once the swing has been started. It is not there to cover a player chasing after the ball having played a shot and striking it before it has come to rest in order to gain an advantage. Whether what the player did is technically covered by said rule it is clearly not in the spirit of the game and that should be the main point.


To put it another way. I played in a matchplay game for my local golf union against another union. Reaching the last hole I was one up in a must win match and had hit my ball in the middle of the fairway. My opponent then hit his first ball OOB, then teed up again, turned at right angles to the line of play, proceeded to chip his ball into my bag and claimed the hole under the then rule of if your opponents ball struck you, your equipment or caddy you lost the hole. This caused consternation on all sides with the opposing union forfeiting the entire match. The offending player was never picked for the union again and was banned from competitions for 12 months. What he did was not against the rules but was a clear misuse of them and the spirit in which the game SHOULD be played.


It is now up to both the USGA and the PGA Tour of whom Phil M is a member to decide if there should be anymore consequences to his act. If not, then it means they feel he was justified and the complaint his has made through his actions need to be addressed. I suspect however the attitude will be to ignore it in the hope it goes away.

[George Pazin]

Quite well said, Jon, kudos to you for understanding the real issue.

In the trinity of douche which is worse, the cheater, quitter or snitch?  Phil had to show up today instead of relaxing at home. Anyone who plays competitively has been there themselves. WD'ing is the easy way out.


Now his sponsors are a different matter. Where is their courage and conviction. #droptheflop

Well, given the crowd's reaction to Phil today, particularly on 13, it's pretty clear they agree with you.


Me, I'd go quitter, snitch, cheater from least bad to worst. Which of course means you'd go the other direction. I'd rather see someone harm themselves than others, but I'm a bit of a masochist in that regard, I guess.


-----


I'd never do what Phil did, simply because I know the unplayable option is much more favorable in every respect: more practical in terms of strokes saved, more honorable in terms of following both the letter and the spirit of the rules, and certainly far more effective in sending a message to the USGA about what proper playing conditions are.


And while I know Mark P and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum in many respects, I'd feel 100% comfortable with him on my jury. If he brought down the hammer, I probably deserved it...


Happy for a rare disagreement with my good friend Lou, even happier to see him chime in.

[Victor Donnay]

I was also thinking that if Phil was really following the rules to his advantage  (he claimed he had been thinking about this issue for many years )  he would have used the unplayable lie rule. We seem to think that would be a perfectly legal and sportsmanlike approach.


Does anyone know of a case in high level golf where someone has used the unplayable lie rule while putting? For example, they putted off the green or into a bunker, and took the 1 stroke penalty and redid the putt. Did that create a controversy?

[John Kavanaugh]

George,


Perhaps you are correct because I can't think of a single friend that is a quitter.


Victor,


Tiger famously putted into Rae's Creek on 13. How could you forget?

[Daryl David]

I was also thinking that if Phil was really following the rules to his advantage  (he claimed he had been thinking about this issue for many years )  he would have used the unplayable lie rule. We seem to think that would be a perfectly legal and sportsmanlike approach.


Does anyone know of a case in high level golf where someone has used the unplayable lie rule while putting? For example, they putted off the green or into a bunker, and took the 1 stroke penalty and redid the putt. Did that create a controversy?

Not high level golf, but I saw it in a club championship a few years ago.  Player was on fringe of a par three in one and putted about 70 feet across green to a hole very close to a deep pot bunker.  Ball rolled past hole and into bunker.  Player declared it unplayable.  Dropped with one stroke penalty near position of original shot, then two putted from there to make 5.  Went on to win tourney.


Interesting that there was a similar argument that is occurring here about the spirit of the game. His opponents argued loudly that he could not declare a ball unplayable when it was clearly playable.  He said he was only taking advantage of the rules to prevent him making some ungodly number on the hole. If Phil had done the same and then said he was taking advantage of the rules to prevent making a big number, would the yelling and screaming about how he should be disqualified be happening now?

[Victor Donnay]

John

Tiger famously putted into Rae's Creek on 13.
[/size]"Tiger famously putted into Rae's Creek on 13."  [/color]
Thanks for the great example (http://www.toledoblade.com/Golf/2005/04/08/Putt-into-water-was-Woods-lowlight.html).

[/size]How could you forget?[/color]
I wasn't  as much of a golf fanatic then as I am now

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Interesting that there was a similar argument that is occurring here about the spirit of the game. His opponents argued loudly that he could not declare a ball unplayable when it was clearly playable.  He said he was only taking advantage of the rules to prevent him making some ungodly number on the hole. If Phil had done the same and then said he was taking advantage of the rules to prevent making a big number, would the yelling and screaming about how he should be disqualified be happening now?

I can't speak for others, but had he declared his ball unplayable after letting it come to rest, I'd have applauded his knowledge of the rules in that case. Rule 28 is both within the rules and the spirit of the game. It's following the rules, not breaking them, which is what he actually did.

[Kalen Braley]

I just re-read 14-5.... and still can't find the part that differentiates between intentionally and accidentally hit the ball while moving.


P.S.  As was mentioned a few posts above, freezing out your partner for nearly 30 minutes who is terrific position to win a major with only a few holes left....seems a far bigger violation of conduct unbecoming.

[Lou_Duran]

We need to be clear that the rule was designed to deal with the situation of a player addressing a ball which is 'at rest' but then starts to move once the swing has been started.

To put it another way. I played in a matchplay game for my local golf union against another union. Reaching the last hole I was one up in a must win match and had hit my ball in the middle of the fairway. My opponent then hit his first ball OOB, then teed up again, turned at right angles to the line of play, proceeded to chip his ball into my bag and claimed the hole under the then rule of if your opponents ball struck you, your equipment or caddy you lost the hole. This caused consternation on all sides with the opposing union forfeiting the entire match. The offending player was never picked for the union again and was banned from competitions for 12 months. What he did was not against the rules but was a clear misuse of them and the spirit in which the game SHOULD be played.


It is now up to both the USGA and the PGA Tour of whom Phil M is a member to decide if there should be anymore consequences to his act. If not, then it means they feel he was justified and the complaint his has made through his actions need to be addressed. I suspect however the attitude will be to ignore it in the hope it goes away.

Partner-

How can you possibly know that the rule was designed as you allege?  Based on the exact language shown below, the rule was "designed" for reasons other than hitting a moving ball after starting the backstroke as doing so is not a violation and no strokes or other penalties are levied.

14-5. Playing Moving Ball
A player must not make a stroke at his ball while it is moving.

Exceptions:

•Ball falling off tee - Rule 11-3
•Striking the ball more than once - Rule 14-4
•Ball moving in water - Rule 14-6

When the ball begins to move only after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of his club for the stroke, he incurs no penalty under this Rule for playing a moving ball, but he is not exempt from any penalty under Rule 18-2 (Ball at rest moved by player).

(Ball purposely deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie - see Rule 1-2)

14-6. Ball Moving in Water

When a ball is moving in water in a water hazard, the player may, without penalty, make a stroke, but he must not delay making his stroke in order to allow the wind or current to improve the position of the ball. A ball moving in water in a water hazard may be lifted if the player elects to invoke Rule 26.

Penalty for Breach of Rule 14-5 or 14-6:

Match play - Loss of hole; Stroke play - Two strokes.

With regards to your match play example, did that really happen or is it anecdotal?  I don't remember the match play rules resulting in the opponent's loss of hole when the other's ball hits his equipment.  I was under the impression that the only options were to play the ball as it lies or drop one and hit it again with no penalty.  Perhaps a Michelson exception to 14-5 should be considered by the R & A and pushed during the next rules revision.