Time to get back to architecture!

[Thomas Dai]

A different tack.....should some form of suspension from future events, whether tour or future US Opens, be imposed? Say for bringing the game/tour into disrepute?
Just asking.
Atb

[Sean_A]

A different tack.....should some form of suspension from future events, whether tour or future US Opens, be imposed? Say for bringing the game/tour into disrepute?
Just asking.
Atb

Yes, if it is written into the rule, but then why not DQ the player for breaching the rule?  As the rule stands now, no. The penalty for breaching 14-5 is clearly defined.  Why woulda guy deserve added sanctions?  I can't see how that particular rule can be violated except under the circumstances in which Phil did so.

Ciao

[JESII]

Sean, could you explain how you see 14-5 relating to this specific incident? The only thing I see in 14-5 that relates is when it refers the player that intentionally plays a moving ball to rule 1-2.

[Kalen Braley]

Dechambeau gains far more advantage week in and week out than Phil did by taking on two penalty strokes.  Where is the outrage from the treehouse!!


DQ/suspend him now!!!! 


https://golfweek.com/2018/06/24/pga-tour-reportedly-looking-into-bryson-dechambeau-use-of-compass/

[Peter Flory]

So, how exactly is he using it? 


Obviously it has something to do with creating an equidistant arc.  But is he thinking that if a pin sheet says +10 and the pin isn't in the center of the green side-to-side that the PGA tour should make an adjustment based on how the distance to the pin from the center of the fairway would change vs a side-to-side center location?  Or am I still underestimating his level of crazy? 

[JESII]

I’m sure he’s using it to match against his green slope book...which should be banned, so two birds!

[Sean_A]

Sean, could you explain how you see 14-5 relating to this specific incident? The only thing I see in 14-5 that relates is when it refers the player that intentionally plays a moving ball to rule 1-2.

It might be easier if you explain why Phil's action wasn't a stroke.


Ciao

[Pete_Pittock]

A ball is seldom in the middle of the fairway. A while ago I made a chart to determine how much extra yardage was involved when I, and the pin position, were off center. It was in 10 yard increments, both sideways and depth, up to 200 yards. It was legal.

[JESII]

Sean, it was a stroke, made intentionally at a ball that was still in motion. It doesn’t fit any of the criteria for 14-5. It says specifically that balls intentionally stopped or deflected are treated with 1-2.

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean, could you explain how you see 14-5 relating to this specific incident? The only thing I see in 14-5 that relates is when it refers the player that intentionally plays a moving ball to rule 1-2.

It might be easier if you explain why Phil's action wasn't a stroke.


Ciao

Not taken a stance so has not addressed the ball so is not a stroke. It was intentionally deflecting a moving ball to gain advantage so DQ all day. Still it was Phil and  the USGA so I guess a fudge was always on the cards.

[Terry Lavin]

Whether or not it was a stroke is beside the point. Phil IS a stroke, in the colloquial sense, and his behavior is entirely consistent with that personality pathology.

[Kalen Braley]

More Alt reality...


Straight from the official rules of golf:


A "[stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke


No mention of stance, or if the ball is moving...

[Pat Burke]

I’m sure he’s using it to match against his green slope book...which should be banned, so two birds!

With an assumption that the greens books used on tour ruffle a lot of feathers...
The detail in these books is amazing.


For years, hole locations given to tour players very clearly stated they were in steps or paces.  No pretense to being exact.


At Erin Hills, the hole locations were very precise, and hole locations sheets very accurate.  Which helped make the greens books even more helpful.  I'm not certain in any way, but there haven't been too many (if any) tournaments where the locations were that accurate for the entire field.  Augusta could be an exception, but there are no detailed greens books available like other events.


Getting the hole location as well as your own ball location as accurate as possible makes  the greens books even more effective.  Being off by even a little on some locations can change the read of a putt enough to even have a ball go opposite directions.


Greens books pro and con is not my point, but the better you can locate on them, the more precise your data.  Fyi

[Sean_A]

Sean, it was a stroke, made intentionally at a ball that was still in motion. It doesn’t fit any of the criteria for 14-5. It says specifically that balls intentionally stopped or deflected are treated with 1-2.

So Phil made a stroke at a moving ball?  If you are saying this then 14-5 applies...."A player must not make a stroke
at his ball while it is moving." None of the exceptions take the rule back to 1-2 because the ball wasn't deflected or stopped, it was stroked.  So far as I understand it, one cannot, by the rules, stroke, deflect and/or stop the ball with the same motion.  Phil either stroked the ball, deflected it and/or stopped it.   It is clear Phil intended to hit his ball and the club was in a forward motion...the definition of a stroke.  Again, I am not clear as to why there is a difference so far as the penalty is concerned, but there is.

Ciao 

[Jon Wiggett]

More Alt reality...


Straight from the official rules of golf:


A "[stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke


No mention of stance, or if the ball is moving...

But a player may not make a stroke at his ball whilst it is moving therefore a stroke can not be made.

[Sean_A]

More Alt reality...

Straight from the official rules of golf:

A "[stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke

No mention of stance, or if the ball is moving...

But a player may not make a stroke at his ball whilst it is moving therefore a stroke can not be made.

Jon

The player still makes a stroke, but its a stroke which breaks the rules. 

Can anybody enlighten me as to why there is a different penalty for stoking a ball in motion VS deflecting/stopping a ball. 

Ciao

[JESII]

In truth Sean, I was thinking of Phil's body action when I answered your question about whether it was a stroke or not. In that context, it was a stroke.


I think Jon has it right when he says the fact that the ball was moving (not so much the stance part), precludes this from even being considered a stroke...a legal stroke. It's more akin to standing on the tee and throwing the ball in the air and hitting it out of the air. Would that be considered a stroke in your opinion?


I think you're over playing the hand by trying to delineate between deflect and stroke because at that point a stroke is impossible.


Apparently the revised rules address this appropriately by telling Phil to take the ball down to where it was going anyway and add 2...unless they deem it a serious breach which would carry DQ.


I think this was DQ worthy simply because it was a clear swipe at their course and he knew it would garner a tremendous amount of negative attention.


Best of all scenarios would have been for him to WD after the round...he could have even used that forum to protest the course setup mistakes that have become prevalent.

[Kalen Braley]

This is hilarious, some of you guys should work for Fox News.


Because somewhere along the way..."A player must not make a stroke a this ball while it is moving"....has become "Its not possible for a player to make a stroke at his ball while it is moving"

[JMEvensky]

I think this was DQ worthy simply because it was a clear swipe at their course and he knew it would garner a tremendous amount of negative attention.



Best of all scenarios would have been for him to WD after the round...he could have even used that forum to protest the course setup mistakes that have become prevalent.

I think the bigger question/problem for the USGA is if this isn't a serious breach, then what is? If they're not willing to DQ for this, what rises to the level of DQ? What will they do when some 15 year old plays box hockey at the US Junior and claims he was only imitating PM?


Agree that a WD would've been PM's most honorable move, but I don't think the USGA should've given him the opportunity.

[JESII]

The example of a serious breach, worthy of a DQ, in the Decisions was less egregious than this in my opinion.

[Kalen Braley]

At two strokes extra per hockey hack...that junior won't last very long...


Unless he's just looking to get on SportsCenter and go out in a blaze of glory...

[JESII]

Kalen - how do you feel about the fungo?




That’s when you toss the ball up and smash it...

[Peter Pallotta]

Used to be I only didn't understand half of Jaka's posts -- now I gotta add Jim's and Sean's and Kalen's to that. And by don't understand I don't mean perturbed or confused -- I mean as in English as a 2nd language. Jim used to be rock of clarity and insight, till he got mixed up in this rules business. Hey, why not jump into the Coul Links thread too...
Doesn't *anyone* want to beard pull about architecture anymore? At least there was no being right or wrong back then, and English as a 2nd language worked just fine...
Must have something to do with Trump...
I flourished in the days when TE Paul and Bob Crosby had time on their hands, and when Tom D had a lull in new construction

[Kalen Braley]

Jim,


A fungo bat?  Great tool for older coaches who tire out easy or can't poke it out there anymore!!

[Sean_A]

In truth Sean, I was thinking of Phil's body action when I answered your question about whether it was a stroke or not. In that context, it was a stroke.

I think Jon has it right when he says the fact that the ball was moving (not so much the stance part), precludes this from even being considered a stroke...a legal stroke. It's more akin to standing on the tee and throwing the ball in the air and hitting it out of the air. Would that be considered a stroke in your opinion?

I think you're over playing the hand by trying to delineate between deflect and stroke because at that point a stroke is impossible.

Apparently the revised rules address this appropriately by telling Phil to take the ball down to where it was going anyway and add 2...unless they deem it a serious breach which would carry DQ.

I think this was DQ worthy simply because it was a clear swipe at their course and he knew it would garner a tremendous amount of negative attention.

Best of all scenarios would have been for him to WD after the round...he could have even used that forum to protest the course setup mistakes that have become prevalent.

Jim

It has nothing to do with me trying to dileneate or not.  The USGA already did the job.  I could understand if you don't think Phil made a stroke, though I would disagree (and I think Jon is well off the mark if we are to examine the definition of a stroke) as the rule is very open ended...as it should be imo. But you do seem to agree Phil made a stroke, in which case there can only be one conclusion...14-5.  I understand and agree that this isn't very satisfactory, but thats golf.  I look at this way, if the rules can find a way to rob the elegant Roberto DiVicenzo of the 1968 Masters then all else is small beer where golf is concerned as that surely was the biggest travesty the rules of golf ever managed to deliver. The ever positive Roberto took it in better stride than I do today...what a man he was...rip.

Pietro

If you can't understand my posts, I must surely not be communicating very effectively.  Or perhaps you are astonished that I am backing the USGA...it is unusual no?  Well, I truly don't go in for all this faux outraged reaction to every tid bit.  Golf is not special in the world of sport so we can all save ourselves the trouble of throwing red flags everytime we see something disagreable. 

Ciao