Time to get back to architecture!

[Michael Blake]

This thread should be DQ’d!

[JESII]

Sean,


14-5 says you must not make a stroke at the ball whe it’s moving...then what?


There’s no guidance about penalty or what to do...


Whereas 1-2 addresses this situation exactly if you consider deflect and hit to be the same.

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,


14-5 says you must not make a stroke at the ball whe it’s moving...then what?


There’s no guidance about penalty or what to do...


Whereas 1-2 addresses this situation exactly if you consider deflect and hit to be the same.

Jim,


This is where you lose me...again.  It states very clearly right in the rules...


"Penalty for Breach of Rule 14-5 or 14-6:
Match play - Loss of hole; Stroke play - Two strokes.

[JESII]

Believe it or not, I never read beyond the first sentence of 14-6 so didn’t see that...


Whoops


Still a 1-2 issue in my opinion. Haha

[Kalen Braley]

Its all good Jim,


I've done that before as well! 


P.S.  I would be curious to know why Phil's stroke wasn't a stroke. 

[JESII]

The way it will be treated after this years revision shows that the USGA doesn’t think of it as a stroke either...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

No, not for a stroke made from on the putting green. You put the ball back and add the penalty.

11.2 and 10.1 apply in the new 2019 Rules, IIRC. With 10.1 I believe taking the place of 14-5.

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

I agree.

The way it will be treated after this years revision shows that the USGA doesn’t think of it as a stroke either...

Huh? 10.1?

[JESII]

11-2 I believe

[Erik J. Barzeski]

11-2 I believe

What about it? Look also at 10.1d.

[Pete_Pittock]

For what it is worth, "stance" was taken out of the rule book a few years ago. It used to be part of the definition of what constituted a "stroke". Now it isn't.


Question for the people commenting on the compass. Was it used while Bryson was on the green, in the fairway/rough or both? 

[Kalen Braley]

Looks like its just to determine pin locations...


But assuming he gets the pin sheets in advance, don't know why he couldn't do this in advance as well, instead of while on the course.  Who knows!?


https://www.pgatour.com/news/2018/06/26/bryson-dechambeau-allowed-to-use-compass.html

[Edward Glidewell]

When I first saw a headline about Dechambeau, I was trying to figure out how knowing which way was north was in any way helpful to his golf game. Then I realized they weren't talking about a navigational compass -- although I still don't think his use of a drawing compass constitutes an unfair advantage/aid in any way.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm guessing the guide books on tour are far more precise/detailed/accurate than those $8 ones at the local course....


I'm also guessing he isn't the only one who can get his hands on a compass... 

[Bruce Katona]

Thirteen pages in and below is what I think is closest to spot on.......


PS: While I have a few years on Phil  I could have also caught up to the ball as I may well be very middle-aged, but not much of a fat man.

I, personally, thought he displayed a quite remarkable turn of speed for a middle-aged, fat man.
Apologies if this had been previously noted. I can't be arsed wading through 22 pages of non-architectural chat.
Cheers,
F.


PS yes, I know it's only eleven. Feels like twice that!

[Jon Wiggett]

P.S.  I would be curious to know why Phil's stroke wasn't a stroke.

Because Phil was trying to prevent his ball rolling off the green thus his motivation for what he did was to 'stop' the ball not to fairly strike the ball. Ergo, stop or deflect not make a stroke.

[Kalen Braley]

Jon,


I thought we had already established the rules on this don't cover intent, just the action...and that was the grief many were having.  If they want to update the rules with "On purpose" or "Intentionally" with a DQ penalty, then by all means they should do this...


But to claim he stopped or deflected it wasn't what actually happened...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I thought we had already established the rules on this don't cover intent, just the action...and that was the grief many were having.  If they want to update the rules with "On purpose" or "Intentionally" with a DQ penalty, then by all means they should do this...

Intent matters throughout the Rules (more often than I'd like), including the very definition of "stroke." 1-2 also has "intent" but you don't need to get inside Phil's mind: he took an action with the clear intent to deflect or stop the ball.

But to claim he stopped or deflected it wasn't what actually happened...

No, I think he absolutely "deflected" the ball. You can say he made a stroke, but a stroke "deflects" the ball. It also "hits" it or "pummels" it or whatever. But it was moving in one direction, and after his stroke, it had been deflected in another direction.

Again, it's not as clear-cut as y'all want to make it, to the point that David Fay and other USGA people thought it was a DQ. My bigger issue is still with Phil's lying, but I'd have DQed under 1-2, and so would many others. I'm talking about rules officials. Not just "golfers" or whatever.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,


I thought we had already established the rules on this don't cover intent, just the action...and that was the grief many were having.  If they want to update the rules with "On purpose" or "Intentionally" with a DQ penalty, then by all means they should do this...


But to claim he stopped or deflected it wasn't what actually happened...

The rules mention intent often and so intent is very relevant. Phil was clearly trying to prevent (stop) his ball ending up off the green so his actions can only be seen as deflecting or stopping his ball not making a stroke. He also clearly felt he would have been in a much worse position without his actions so he gained a significant advantage and so DQ is the appropriate action.


The USGA bottled it or do not understand how to implement the rules within the spirit of the game. Either the rules need to be made much simpler even if this means more occasions when the rules impose a harsh outcome or they need to step back as a governing body and leave the R&A as the single world body.




Erik,


spot on,




Jon

[Jeff Schley]

Either the rules need to be made much simpler even if this means more occasions when the rules impose a harsh outcome or they need to step back as a governing body and leave the R&A as the single world body.

Agreed.

The rules need to be made much simpler, it shouldn't be like looking up the US tax code to determine what the ruling is.  Simplification of rules/regulations in just about all aspects of life are never a bad thing.  When they are complex, it leads to having to hire a lawyer to know what it actually means.... similar to a accountant for taxes and ..... oh yes, a USGA rules official for this ruling. 

Simplicity.

[A.G._Crockett]

Either the rules need to be made much simpler even if this means more occasions when the rules impose a harsh outcome or they need to step back as a governing body and leave the R&A as the single world body.

Agreed.

The rules need to be made much simpler, it shouldn't be like looking up the US tax code to determine what the ruling is.  Simplification of rules/regulations in just about all aspects of life are never a bad thing.  When they are complex, it leads to having to hire a lawyer to know what it actually means.... similar to a accountant for taxes and ..... oh yes, a USGA rules official for this ruling. 

Simplicity.

In rule-making for sports (I'm speaking as a career basketball coach here) there are generally two guiding principles:
1. Limit "judgement calls" wherever possible.
2. Treat like situations alike.
I'll stipulate that the sport is golf is unique among sports in that the playing field is not only huge, but not uniform, and that there are not referees present in the manner that they are in other sports.  That said, I've never thought that the Rules of Golf are especially good at either of those two guiding principles, and I think the upcoming Rules changes are at least a start in the right direction. 

I don't think it's a stretch of logic to say that the distinction between hitting a moving ball and a deflection is not only confusing, but likely pointless.  If your club touches a moving ball, there's a penalty and you go from there; what you meant to do could simply be ignored.

However, I'll give the Rules a pass on the Mickelson case, because I don't think there was any way to anticipate what he did, nor should there be.  That neither of two rules seems to apply exactly to what he did is more of a commentary on him than the Rules, at least to me.
That the USGA deemed what he did NOT to be a serious enough breach of the Rules to DQ him is regrettable, but wholly consistent with who and what the USGA is.  That Mickelson did not withdraw after sleeping on it Saturday night is, likewise, wholly consistent with who HE is.
Which RULE should apply to Mickelson is interesting but trivia, really.  For the good of the game, as a message to juniors watching, for the integrity of the USGA, give that entitled asshat the boot, especially after his post-round comments.
All it takes is a spine.

[Kalen Braley]

AG,


I can appreciate the sentiment of making an example of someone when they cheat or otherwise get away with something...


But when Phil took an 11 and sabatoged his round and removed any shimmer of hope of getting back in it, i'm not sure what the lesson is here.  "Hey kids, don't be a dumbass like Phil and blow up your chances to win" ??  Does this really need to be said?

[Jon Wiggett]

AG,


the situation is clearly covered by the rules. Phil deliberately deflected a moving ball in order to gain an advantage all of which is beyond dispute.


1. Was the ball moving when Phil struck it? Yes
2. Did his actions alter the direction of the ball and where it would have ended up without intervention? Yes
3. Did he gain an advantage through his actions? Yes


Clear and serious breach of the rules which should lead to disqualification.

[MClutterbuck]

AG,


the situation is clearly covered by the rules. Phil deliberately deflected a moving ball in order to gain an advantage all of which is beyond dispute.


1. Was the ball moving when Phil struck it? Yes
2. Did his actions alter the direction of the ball and where it would have ended up without intervention? Yes
3. Did he gain an advantage through his actions? Yes


Clear and serious breach of the rules which should lead to disqualification.

Jon,


I am not against a DQ, but you cannot DQ under rule 1-2 in this case. (I would have applied 1-2 and not 14-5 by the way, but I can see the ambiguity).


He did not gain an advantage due to his actions. Had he not broken the rule with his "stroke", taking an allowed unplayable would have put him back on the green, 2 strokes less and 4 feet behind from where he eventually played. The advantage wording in the rules is there to cover situations where the 2 stroke penalty is clearly not enough. For example, dropping 200 yards closer to the pin than what is entitled.


If you want to DQ Phil, the rules are quite clear that you can do it under 33-7 and it would be difficult to argue against that.

[JESII]

Marcus, this is what the USGA suggests as possibly being serious enough to warrant a DQ...


A.In deciding whether a player has committed a serious breach of Rule 1-2, the Committee should consider all aspects of the incident. Given the different impact on players in match play and stroke play, it is possible for the same act to constitute a serious breach of Rule 1-2 in stroke play but not in match play. In many cases in match play (e.g., a player who intentionally stops his ball from entering a water hazard), a penalty of loss of hole is sufficient while in stroke play the player should be disqualified for a serious breach. In some cases (e.g., the purposeful act of damaging the line of putt referred to in Decision 1-2/1), a penalty of disqualification in match play may be appropriate.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,


I can appreciate the sentiment of making an example of someone when they cheat or otherwise get away with something...


But when Phil took an 11 and sabatoged his round and removed any shimmer of hope of getting back in it, i'm not sure what the lesson is here.  "Hey kids, don't be a dumbass like Phil and blow up your chances to win" ??  Does this really need to be said?

Kalen,The message to junior golfers is "If things aren't going your way, screw it; have some fun and get it off your chest.  Screw everybody else."
I promise you that kids didn't see what Mickelson did as taking him out of the tournament.  They see it as sticking it to the man, or as "Phil is a petulant, self-absorbed, entitled D-bag, and HE'S in the Hall of Fame!  So it's ok for me to be all of those highly desirable things."