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.
No need to cite Rule 28. 27-1 would have sufficed avoiding another inane dispute as to what constitutes an unplayable lie (it is at the player's sole discretion). Or is taking a stroke and distance penalty also cheating or immoral?
I am not sure why, from a rules standpoint, this is such a complicated issue. A rule exists, 14-5, which covers the situation in its entirety. Mickelson made a stroke at a moving ball. Since the ball was not falling from the tee, it didn't begin moving while he was making the stroke or the backwards motion for the stroke, he is penalized two strokes.
It is up to the USGA officials and, ultimately, the Rules Committee to determine what rule (s) apply in each situation. I am told by someone onsite who was involved in the ruling that a) it was unanimous, and b) that it took little discussion.
Had the committee DQed PM, it would have been as a populist response in violation of its own rules and at at tremendous cost to its credibility. While we see this done with expediency in the political arena and much too regularly, thankfully, not so in golf. To the credit of the USGA and he R&A, the rules are reviewed continuously, modified periodically, and nearly always as it is humanly possible, applied fairly.
As to PM, I suspect his image will take a hit, and maybe even his pocket book. Yes, he acted poorly and quite possibly tried to rationalize his behavior instead of just falling on the sword. Maybe a WD would have been a good idea.
I am curious, if he just watched his putt run off the green then placed another ball on the original spot per 27-1 and lagged it to the hole, would he be pilloried with such passion? Seems to me that he would be saving 3 strokes and still be in full compliance with the rules. Are the additional 3 strokes he incurred sufficient punishment for hitting a moving ball? I think so.