Time to get back to architecture!

[MClutterbuck]

The math is off. It was 2 strokes less and 4 feet further back on the same line had he taken unplayable. I would choose that any time.

[Charlie_Bell]

Woulda been fun to be in the grill room at Augusta National when this went down. 

[Tim_Cronin]

I've spoken, e-mailed and texted with a bunch of rules gurus and tournament directors about this.


None could believe Mickelson acted so rashly (whether or not he had this card in his mind to play someday).


One noted a major miscue on the USGA's part: A failure to interview him before he signed his card.


The question he would have asked: "What were you thinking?" If the answer was similar to the one he gave Curtis Strange and then the rest of the news media, he said it would have been an instant DQ for a serious breach.


I agree. I would have hit him with two originally and DQed him on his comments of intent. Play golf, for the love of God.


Cheers to all. Carry on.

[Pete_Pittock]

If Phil were as smart as he thinks he is, he would know that rather than hitting a moving ball, he could let it run out, see where it ends up, and then declare it unplayable and re-hit from where it had been.  That's a one shot penalty, not two.  And it is more within the spirit of the rules.

This is the second or third time I've seen this comment, and I really don't get where this comes from. Declaring a ball that's clearly playable -- unplayable? That's maybe the most unsporting thing a golfer can do.
I don't want to carry the argument for Mickelson here -- what he did was clearly goofy, and I'm pretty sure (partially) done in spite toward Davis/the USGA -- but declaring a playable ball as unplayable is just as easily unsporting as what he did.

Phil,
It all depends.
       I was doing rules at a tournament at Gearhart GC that included senior women. On the 13th hole a player had a lie
amongst trees near a OB line, about 100 yards short of the green complex. She hit a goodish shot that ended up in a greenside bunker full of beach sand. She had a good lie in the middle of the bunker. She declared her ball unplayable, took S&D back to the lie amongst the trees, then completed the hole. Puzzled, I asked her about what she had done. Her answer - I've been in that …ing trap in the practice round and it took me 6 or 7 shots to get out.
       

[Phil McDade]

If Phil were as smart as he thinks he is, he would know that rather than hitting a moving ball, he could let it run out, see where it ends up, and then declare it unplayable and re-hit from where it had been.  That's a one shot penalty, not two.  And it is more within the spirit of the rules.

This is the second or third time I've seen this comment, and I really don't get where this comes from. Declaring a ball that's clearly playable -- unplayable? That's maybe the most unsporting thing a golfer can do.
I don't want to carry the argument for Mickelson here -- what he did was clearly goofy, and I'm pretty sure (partially) done in spite toward Davis/the USGA -- but declaring a playable ball as unplayable is just as easily unsporting as what he did.

Phil,
It all depends.
       I was doing rules at a tournament at Gearhart GC that included senior women. On the 13th hole a player had a lie
amongst trees near a OB line, about 100 yards short of the green complex. She hit a goodish shot that ended up in a greenside bunker full of beach sand. She had a good lie in the middle of the bunker. She declared her ball unplayable, took S&D back to the lie amongst the trees, then completed the hole. Puzzled, I asked her about what she had done. Her answer - I've been in that …ing trap in the practice round and it took me 6 or 7 shots to get out.
     

Then perhaps she shouldn't have tried a shot that risked landing in a bunker from which she could not escape.


Didn't some notable pro take several swipes to get out of the Road bunker at TOC's 17th at an Open Championship? Took his medicine, as I recall.


Unlike the inferences of some here, I understand the rule. But simply pointing to a rule -- and justifying its use in some instance -- doesn't make utilizing it any more sporting. I find the woman taking her ball out of a bunker after her shot just as unsportsmanlike as Lefty chasing a missed putt down the hill and stopping its roll. Both accepted their fates and penalties. Whether Mickelson should've been DQd is another matter, one I'm not inclined to debate much, and one having little to do with the interface between rules and architecture.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Didn't some notable pro take several swipes to get out of the Road bunker at TOC's 17th at an Open Championship? Took his medicine, as I recall.

David Duval took four shots to get out in 2000.

[Pete_Pittock]

Didn't some notable pro take several swipes to get out of the Road bunker at TOC's 17th at an Open Championship? Took his medicine, as I recall.

David Duval took four shots to get out in 2000.

the Sands of Nakajima

[Jim Nugent]

Didn't some notable pro take several swipes to get out of the Road bunker at TOC's 17th at an Open Championship?

In 1995, John Daly hit his approach to the 71st into the RB, less than a foot from the front wall.  It looked impossible, but somehow he got the ball on the green.  At the time I thought it was one of the best pressure shots I'd ever seen. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I find the woman taking her ball out of a bunker after her shot just as unsportsmanlike as Lefty chasing a missed putt down the hill and stopping its roll.

[Jim_Coleman]

   The problem with any rule requiring intent is that it seems the only way the USGA (or either tour) finds the requisite intent is with a confession.  And there is rarely, if ever, a confession.  Tim's view that if Phil hadn't confessed, no intent could be found, would empty our jails.  Intent is pretty much always proved by circumstantial evidence.  Phil did what he did to protest the USGA's set up.  Nothing he says otherwise is believable.  If that's enough intent to warrant a DQ, then he should have been DQ'd.  If not, the penalty was correctly assessed.

[archie_struthers]

 


Cheating ?  How can some people  think Phil was cheating ?


Cheating is mismarking the ball on purpose, not saying when you were in the woods and you moved it accidentally . Kicking it into a better spot and so on and so on .


There's a rule in place it's a two shot penalty . Until they change it it's the rule. So if you hit a moving ball it's two shots . Maybe I'm wrong but intent isn't addressed relative to this rule.


If they want to DQ him for conduct unbecoming they are going to have a lot more stuff to consider that's on he same level . Wasn't Phil's best moment but it's two shots period in my view.

[Sean_A]

I think its ridiculous that people don't believe a huge percentage of golfers wouldn't have considered Phil a p....... for taking an unplayable lie from the fairway. 

Besides, I really do think people are missing the point of Phil's "display".

Ciao 

[Tony_Muldoon]

I think its ridulous that people don't believe a huge percentage of golfers wouldn't have considered Phil a p....... for taking an unplayable lie from the fairway. 

Besides, I really do think people are missing the point of Phil's "display".

Ciao

Sorry you will have to explain to me what his point was.


Perhaps it was


Two wrongs make a right ...when I decide it does!

[Niall C]

I think it safe to say that we have all inadvertently broken the rules and in doing so incurred a penalty. In accepting the penalty we are playing to the rules.

On the other hand, deliberately breaking the rules (as opposed to applying the rules in the case of subsequently taking a penalty for your actions) in an attempt to gain a material advantage is cheating irrespective of whether he was subsequently penalised. At the very least it is contrary to the spirit of the game.

I suspect that Phil might come to realise that and regret his actions or at least I certainly hope he does.

Niall

[Tom Ferrell]

I have found myself far more worked up about this than I would care to be.  So I'll get it off my chest and move on...

A) Intent?  The intent was obvious in the action.  No interview required.  This is a Rule 1-2 call, plain and simple, and no amount of mental gymnastics can make it anything else.  What is the highest spirit of the game of golf?  Play the ball as it lies.  However, there is a principle that comes before even that: allow the shot, once struck, to come to rest.  We can debate whether Phil's intent was to protest/catcall/embarrass the USGA or not.  But the intent of the action was to stop the progress of a shot struck.  That is NOT up for debate.

B) Penalty.  DQ.  How can there be any question to this?  Not a 14-5 issue.  Rule 1-2.  A SERIOUS breach of rules and etiquette.  The USGA is a farcical organization run by amateurs.  Did their management of the golf course suck?  Yes, it did.  But the impotence of their failure to address a clear seminal moment in terms of respect for the game's rules, etiquette, comport and spirit is even more pathetic.  Because of it, more rules will need to be re-written.  What are we going to tell junior golfers who now believe that Phil's inane "strategy" is actually a viable one?  That situation is coming - maybe it occurred in a tournament yesterday.  But mark my words, this is going to spill over.

C) Character (on the stage of golf).  In his masterful poem, The Circus Animals' Desertion, Yeats wrote of "character isolated by a deed/to engross the present and dominate memory."  Phil Mickelson demonstrated exactly why he has never and will never be the U.S. Open champion.  I think the U.S. Open is silly golf, personally, run by a silly, self-important and antiquated organization.  BUT that's the same that it's ever been, and if Phil wanted to protest that, he should have done what he did, then picked the ball up, shaken Johnston's hand and retired to the clubhouse.  THAT would have been a protest.  So the USGA creates a psychological rubric and uses its armchair hack approach to torment the best golfers in the world.  You know that when you pay the entry fee.  You enter the den, and the most mentally tough and resilient player of the week more often than not emerges to take the trophy.  Phil Mickelson is not and will not ever be the most mentally tough and resilient player.

Does golf matter?  I don't know.  I've spent the better part of my life attempting to serve the game and what I perceive to be its highest ideals through study, writing and working with facilities and golfing communities.  Those ideals are fellowship, striving, growth, redemption and appreciation of the the beauty of open spaces and quality people.  And sometimes I get the feeling that we're just a bunch of poodles at a dog show.  Other times - when a member comes to me and tells me that he and his son will never forget finishing up at Cabot Cliffs as the sun sinks into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or a wife who is dying of cancer tells me - with her husband at her side - that she lies in her hospital bed and thinks of the view from Dornoch. Or maybes especially when a kid in a muni clinic lights up after getting the ball airborne for the first time.  In those moments, I can believe it matters.  What Phil did doesn't change any of that.  He was just collapsing under a greater weight - the way all erosion begins.
 
Golf, like life,  isn't about perfection.  It's about the pursuit of ideals.  Step up, Phil, if you have it in you.  This game has humbled all of us.  Drop the bullshit about taking advantage of an option provided by the rules and admit your shortcoming.  Then get on with your telling of the greatest tale of all: redemption.

[Jim Hoak]

Tom--Beautiful.  Well written and well thought!!

[Tony_Muldoon]

Thanks to those who pointed out the smart move is to wait until the ball stops moving, declare an unplayable and replace your ball on the green.  I don’t think it will be too long before we see that happen.
 
What a signal that would have sent out.  Its been almost 2 decades since someone pulled the hit the moving ball trick. The USGA was obviously not concerned. But once players start replacing balls on the green the issue will be about course set up and not the legality of the move.  Now that would be a protest and maybe we should thank Phil for making it obvious what a smart player should do when that situation arises. I’ll bet several are thinking of doing that now.

[Sean_A]

I think its ridulous that people don't believe a huge percentage of golfers wouldn't have considered Phil a p....... for taking an unplayable lie from the fairway. 

Besides, I really do think people are missing the point of Phil's "display".

Ciao

Sorry you will have to explain to me what his point was.

Perhaps it was

Two wrongs make a right ...when I decide it does!

Spangles


I am not sure what two wrongs make a right means...please explain.


Phil being Phil, I think his actions was his way to protest, let the USGA know what he thinks, whatever you want to call it. Maybe he will come to regret it, I don't know, frankly, I don't care.  As is usually the case these days, people get bent out of shape over stupid stuff...and what Phil did was stupid.  But hey, it was his choice and he made it. He paid the required penalty...end of story.  He didn't send me any signal other than one of frustration for the USGA and perhaps he didn't even do that.  To me it was funny more than anything, but I guess I am not one to make mountains out of molehills.


Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The problem with any rule requiring intent is that it seems the only way the USGA (or either tour) finds the requisite intent is with a confession.

a) There is no need here for a confession. The actions belie the intent.
b) Phil's statements are a confession, though one he dreamed up after the fact.

But no, the actions belied the intent here. He wasn't falling down, he wasn't swatting at a bee and happened to hit his ball… he intended to and took an action to deflect his ball.

I think it safe to say that we have all inadvertently broken the rules and in doing so incurred a penalty. In accepting the penalty we are playing to the rules.

On the other hand, deliberately breaking the rules (as opposed to applying the rules in the case of subsequently taking a penalty for your actions) in an attempt to gain a material advantage is cheating irrespective of whether he was subsequently penalised. At the very least it is contrary to the spirit of the game.

A million times this.

If I hit the ball OB, and re-tee, I incur a penalty. If I take an unplayable lie and proceed properly, I also incur a penalty. But in both cases I'm not breaching the rules, I'm playing within them.

Phil did not play within the Rules. He incurred a penalty by taking an action that directly breached them.

B) Penalty.  DQ.  How can there be any question to this?  Not a 14-5 issue.  Rule 1-2.  A SERIOUS breach of rules and etiquette.  The USGA is a farcical organization run by amateurs.  Did their management of the golf course suck?  Yes, it did.  But the impotence of their failure to address a clear seminal moment in terms of respect for the game's rules, etiquette, comport and spirit is even more pathetic.  Because of it, more rules will need to be re-written.  What are we going to tell junior golfers who now believe that Phil's inane "strategy" is actually a viable one?  That situation is coming - maybe it occurred in a tournament yesterday.  But mark my words, this is going to spill over.

I'm mostly with you. Have you seen the 2019 rules? Look at 10.2 and 11.2…

Phil being Phil, I think his actions was his way to protest, let the USGA know what he thinks, whatever you want to call it. Maybe he will come to regret it, I don't know, frankly, I don't care.  As is usually the case these days, people get bent out of shape over stupid stuff...and what Phil did was stupid.  But hey, it was his choice and he made it. He paid the required penalty...end of story.  He didn't send me any signal other than one of frustration for the USGA and perhaps he didn't even do that.  To me it was funny more than anything, but I guess I am not one to make mountains out of molehills.

It's not the end of the story, because Phil chose to lie through his teeth after the fact, and insult people who thought that what he did was in poor taste with a "toughen up" comment, when "toughness" has nothing to do with it (and applies more to Phil himself than those who think he erred in hitting a moving ball).

[Thomas Dai]

Another side to the rules in professional sport is money.
A DQ would presumably mean no prize money to the naughty person. A shots based penalty imposed on a naughty person would mean they continue to be involved in the event and will continue to be in a position to win some money.
But what about protecting the rest of the field and protecting the share of the prize money that others in the field could win (and use to pay the mortgage and put food on the table) if the naughty persons antics had been ruled on differently.
Atb

[Sean_A]

Phil being Phil, I think his actions was his way to protest, let the USGA know what he thinks, whatever you want to call it. Maybe he will come to regret it, I don't know, frankly, I don't care.  As is usually the case these days, people get bent out of shape over stupid stuff...and what Phil did was stupid.  But hey, it was his choice and he made it. He paid the required penalty...end of story.  He didn't send me any signal other than one of frustration for the USGA and perhaps he didn't even do that.  To me it was funny more than anything, but I guess I am not one to make mountains out of molehills.

It's not the end of the story, because Phil chose to lie through his teeth after the fact, and insult people who thought that what he did was in poor taste with a "toughen up" comment, when "toughness" has nothing to do with it (and applies more to Phil himself than those who think he erred in hitting a moving ball).

If thay day comes Phil will only have himself to blame...there will certainly be no sympathy from my corner.  But, it is down to Phil to cut his own head off and not the job of the USGA...until the rules are changed.  The USGA can't pick and choose which rules to enforce or how they should be enforced.  If the USGA thought stroking a ball in motion was a gross violation of the rules which deserved a DQ it would be the penalty, but that is plainly not the case as the penalty is +2.  Do people think breaching any rule could result in a DQ...or is it just some of the rules?  Please list the rules which if broken are deserving of a DQ despite the penalty as outlined in the rules.  Then we can simply state the penalty is a DQ for breaking those rules.  The bottom line is Phil badly exposed a poorly conceived rule, hopefully it will be altered.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,


Agreed 100%. The rule couldn't be any more explicit in its application, regardless of how its read.


Only thing I can figure is Phil haters gonna hate...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If thay day comes Phil will only have himself to blame...there will certainly be no sympathy from my corner.  But, it is down to Phil to cut his own head off and not the job of the USGA...until the rules are changed.  The USGA can't pick and choose which rules to enforce or how they should be enforced.  If the USGA thought stroking a ball in motion was a gross violation of the rules which deserved a DQ it would be the penalty, but that is plainly not the case as the penalty is +2.  Do people think breaching any rule could result in a DQ...or is it just some of the rules?  Please list the rules which if broken are deserving of a DQ despite the penalty as outlined in the rules.  Then we can simply state the penalty is a DQ for breaking those rules.  The bottom line is Phil badly exposed a poorly conceived rule, hopefully it will be altered.

I'm not sure why you quoted me. My post was not about the rules at all, really, but about Phil lying and calling people names (telling them to "toughen up") after the fact.

But to the rules, I think 1-2 applied as well as 33-7. I don't think it was a 14-5 only issue. And sorry, Kalen, I was not a Phil "hater" and am not now.

[David Federman]

Just in from Phil via Dave Shedloski:





Dave Shedloski@DaveShedloski


Just received a note from Phil Mickelson. “I know this should've come sooner, but it's taken me a few days to calm down. My anger and frustration got the best of me last weekend. I'm embarrassed and disappointed by my actions. It was clearly not my finest moment and I'm sorry. “
9:52 AM - Jun 20, 2018
[/size]165

• 
  [/size]139 people are talking about this

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,


I still don't understand why 1-2 keeps being brought up when it states this in the rule..


Exceptions:
1. An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not Rule 1-2.