Time to get back to architecture!

[Kalen Braley]

jon,


I don't think anyone is arguing any of that.  The point is, a rule was broken,,,,BUT IT DID NOT go unpunished.  That's the disconnect I still see.  You guys talk like he got away with murder, when he took an 11 and embarrassed himself...but somehow this is not enough for the blood thirsty crowd....even thou he got EXACTLY what the rules said he was supposed to get.


Breaking the rules is only a big problem when you get away with it, without penalty, and without the field being protected.  Phil took his medicine willingly, without complaint, who is the victim other that what he inflicted on himself?


P.S.  I too remain flabbergasted as Lou pointed out this is in fact black and white....explicitly dealt with in the rule book!

[Mark Kiely]

This thread reminds me of the lone jury I ever served on. After seven days of testimony between two former business partners, half the jury felt badly for the plaintiff, believing he got screwed over in the dissolution of their company, and therefore was entitled to some sort of compensation. The other half realized that no matter how much he got screwed over, nowhere did the law actually call for any type of compensation to be awarded. He had no legal claim for any percentage of the company.


In general terms, I think we probably all agree what Phil did is terrible for the game and a serious breach of the rules. However, the way the rule book is written, he simply broke rule 14-5 and there’s no more to it than that. Had he kicked his ball instead of hitting it with his putter, we’d have a case for 1-2. But he didn’t. He made a stroke at it. So no matter how much we feel his punishment deserved a harsher penalty, that’s not what the rules call for. Just like the law didn’t provide any compensation for the guy in the trial.


(Also, if 1-2 didn’t have the stipulation about being superseded by another rule, we’d have a much stronger case for DQ. But because it does and he did make a stroke at a moving ball, 14-5 is end of story.)


If there’s fault here, it’s with the rules, not how they were interpreted or applied.


Btw, we deliberated for two and a half days before a hung jury was determined... Another reason why this thread reminded me of that trial.

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,

Sarcasm does not become you.  As far as I am concerned, people are welcomed to play by whatever rules they wish.  I am just not going to give strokes or play with them unless we agree to abide by a set we recognize.  I am of the "golf is to be enjoyed, not endured/life is too short" type.

Jon,

I am a big believer in the rule of law.  I am an even bigger believer that rules should be transparent, relatively few in number, easy to understand and fairly applied to one and all.

To understand the rules one has to know the definitions.  "Serious Breach" is not described in the Definitions section, but it is well-covered in the "Decisions On The Rules of Golf".   In the PM situation, it was a non-factor, period.

I can't remember seeing the word "cheating" in the rules, and I would not personally define it narrowly as the act of violating the rules with intent.  IMO, if one takes the medicine/incurs the penalty for violating a rule, that suffices- you commit the crime, you do the time.  In some cases, DQ is the penalty, though it is not the intent of the rules to kick people out of the competition for all but the most serious violations which are, for the most part, spelled out.

As to giving the player the benefit of the doubt, that is not true in all cases, and never without doing due diligence.  In your example of the player/marker disagreement, the committee would ask other players in the group about their view of the discrepancies, the caddies, and even bystanders.  Typically, a player is to report his score to the marker upon completing each hole.  If a marker fails to jot down the scores until some time later, the committee could very well side with the player in the absence of corroborating evidence.

Question:  let's say you are the superintendent at Carnoustie and Scotland has joined the no-inputs agreement being pursued in the EU.  The Open is coming up in X months and the only way to kill off some organisms which are eating away the greens is to spray with a banned chemical.  The cost of said chemical is nominal.  The fine for violating the agreement is likewise, say, £1000.  Do you "cheat", spray and pay the fine?  Or do you abide by the agreement at the potential cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds, personal disrepute, and ruthless criticism of the R & A?  BTW, there is a fairly well-known case study taught at Harvard Business School (and Ohio State where I went to school) which covers this issue (I think it was the Chiquita Bananas case).  Do you intentionally violate a law when the consequences/fines are less onerous than abiding by it?

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

Sarcasm does not become you.  As far as I am concerned, people are welcomed to play by whatever rules they wish.  I am just not going to give strokes or play with them unless we agree to abide by a set we recognize.  I am of the "golf is to be enjoyed, not endured/life is too short" type.

 

Lou I was trying to agree with you.
Clearly not easy.
I'm out -enjoy the banter.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Just for those who do not understand. Any deliberate breaking of a rule is a serious breach of the rules. It is nothing to do with what advantage is gained though why do it if you do not believe there is an advantage.

That's not accurate. For example in playing from a wrong place, there's a determination that needs to be made as to whether the player did so from a place warranting a DQ or just two strokes.

Note 1: A competitor is deemed to have committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule if the Committee considers he has gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong place.

Again, advantage or disadvantage is not relevant in this decision.  Erik and others can repeat themselves 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't take away from the fact that all PM had to do when the putt was going by the hole is place another ball on the spot from where he hit it and stroked it again with only a one stroke penalty (27-1).  When I was taught simple arithmetic in first grade, two is more than one, therefore taking an additional stroke penalty does not give anyone an advantage.

Lou, as you likely know one can almost always use stroke and distance, yet intentionally stopping a ball from going into a water hazard (you could still take stroke and distance there!) is enough to warrant a DQ. It's right there in a Decision. My argument isn't based on the idea that he could have used stroke and distance.

We could bounce back and forth from 1-2 to 14-5 until we get bored...ha...but this group doesn't get bored...

That's my only "rules" based issue with this - the two Rules overlap. Yes, he made a "stroke" at it, but he also "deflected" it. Since "deflected" isn't in the Rules of Golf definitions, we have to use the dictionary definition.

I still care(d) much more about the lying than the actual penalty. As a Rules Geek and Rules Official… I don't like the overlap. And in 2019, 11.2 and 10.1 (IIRC) still have this overlap.

I don't pretend to know or even have an opinion on whether Phil should be disqualified, but I'm a bit stunned that what Phil did requires an interpretation or even an explanation by the USGA.
Surely it has come up before that someone hit a moving ball on purpose and it should be addressed in either the rules or at least in a decision.

It did. John Daly was given two strokes. I think a lot of the USGA's "decision" here was based on that precedent… and maybe they figured nobody would ever really do that again, let alone someone like Phil Mickelson. So maybe they didn't add a Decision to Rule 1 or Rule 14 to clarify.

Yes, I can read 14-5, and yes, I agree he made a "stroke" by the definition… but he also deflected the ball, and I don't believe Rule 14-5 is intended to cover someone doing something like what Phil did. See below re: Mike Davis's poor explanation.

I recall watching an interview during the tournament where the head guy said the decision to use rule 14-5 to govern the violation..was both unanimous and took less than 2 minutes to discuss by the committee

The Mike Davis interview wasn't very clarifying. He was asked about an example of a serious breach warranting a DQ, and he said "well if someone were to stop or deflect a ball from going into a water hazard or OB… that would be a serious breach."
But he's talking out of both sides of his mouth because apparently, if the player made a "stroke" to deflect or stop the ball, even from going OB or into a water hazard, it would be only two strokes. So what if a player made a "sideways" movement of the clubhead with the intent to hit the ball… to stop it from going into a water hazard or as Phil said to a place from which he has "no shot." Is that a "serious breach" like in the Decision, or was the "motion" of the club they had in their hand sufficient to say they made a "stroke" at the ball? What if a player makes a "stroke" at a moving ball but whiffs and the ball hits their foot instead? They made a "stroke" at the ball but failed to "deflect" the ball with their stroke, instead "deflecting" the ball with their shoe.

This isn't as cut-and-dry as you want to make it. David Fay thought it was a DQ, and Mike Davis's own explanation exposed more holes.

[Jon Wiggett]

Lou,


if I were the Course Manager at Carnoustie I would bump the decision upwards. If I were then ordered to spray I would get that in writing and naturally refuse. Why would I get myself a criminal conviction for spraying a banned substance, lose my spraying permit and any chance of working as a Course Manager in the future?


I doubt the a club of that standing would ask such a thing of an employee as the tribunal costs, fines and damage to reputation would be far to great.


Jon

[A.G._Crockett]

Just for those who do not understand. Any deliberate breaking of a rule is a serious breach of the rules. It is nothing to do with what advantage is gained though why do it if you do not believe there is an advantage.

That's not accurate. For example in playing from a wrong place, there's a determination that needs to be made as to whether the player did so from a place warranting a DQ or just two strokes.

Note 1: A competitor is deemed to have committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule if the Committee considers he has gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong place.

Again, advantage or disadvantage is not relevant in this decision.  Erik and others can repeat themselves 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't take away from the fact that all PM had to do when the putt was going by the hole is place another ball on the spot from where he hit it and stroked it again with only a one stroke penalty (27-1).  When I was taught simple arithmetic in first grade, two is more than one, therefore taking an additional stroke penalty does not give anyone an advantage.

Lou, as you likely know one can almost always use stroke and distance, yet intentionally stopping a ball from going into a water hazard (you could still take stroke and distance there!) is enough to warrant a DQ. It's right there in a Decision. My argument isn't based on the idea that he could have used stroke and distance.

We could bounce back and forth from 1-2 to 14-5 until we get bored...ha...but this group doesn't get bored...

That's my only "rules" based issue with this - the two Rules overlap. Yes, he made a "stroke" at it, but he also "deflected" it. Since "deflected" isn't in the Rules of Golf definitions, we have to use the dictionary definition.

I still care(d) much more about the lying than the actual penalty. As a Rules Geek and Rules Official… I don't like the overlap. And in 2019, 11.2 and 10.1 (IIRC) still have this overlap.

I don't pretend to know or even have an opinion on whether Phil should be disqualified, but I'm a bit stunned that what Phil did requires an interpretation or even an explanation by the USGA.
Surely it has come up before that someone hit a moving ball on purpose and it should be addressed in either the rules or at least in a decision.

It did. John Daly was given two strokes. I think a lot of the USGA's "decision" here was based on that precedent… and maybe they figured nobody would ever really do that again, let alone someone like Phil Mickelson. So maybe they didn't add a Decision to Rule 1 or Rule 14 to clarify.

Yes, I can read 14-5, and yes, I agree he made a "stroke" by the definition… but he also deflected the ball, and I don't believe Rule 14-5 is intended to cover someone doing something like what Phil did. See below re: Mike Davis's poor explanation.

I recall watching an interview during the tournament where the head guy said the decision to use rule 14-5 to govern the violation..was both unanimous and took less than 2 minutes to discuss by the committee

The Mike Davis interview wasn't very clarifying. He was asked about an example of a serious breach warranting a DQ, and he said "well if someone were to stop or deflect a ball from going into a water hazard or OB… that would be a serious breach."
But he's talking out of both sides of his mouth because apparently, if the player made a "stroke" to deflect or stop the ball, even from going OB or into a water hazard, it would be only two strokes. So what if a player made a "sideways" movement of the clubhead with the intent to hit the ball… to stop it from going into a water hazard or as Phil said to a place from which he has "no shot." Is that a "serious breach" like in the Decision, or was the "motion" of the club they had in their hand sufficient to say they made a "stroke" at the ball? What if a player makes a "stroke" at a moving ball but whiffs and the ball hits their foot instead? They made a "stroke" at the ball but failed to "deflect" the ball with their stroke, instead "deflecting" the ball with their shoe.

This isn't as cut-and-dry as you want to make it. David Fay thought it was a DQ, and Mike Davis's own explanation exposed more holes.

This a great summary; thanks, Eric.
All along, it has been pointed out that there is an overlap of two rules, and there is nothing in the Decisons that applies perfectly  to what Mickelson did.
We all know that he made enough of a stroke to actually hit the hole, even though he didn't do ANY of the things that go into a "normal" routine for putting even in casual play, much less a US Open.
But there is ZERO doubt that he deflected that ball from going off the green; he said so himself.
So, at least to me, it is clear what rule should apply; what he did was about deflecting the ball from where he was headed.  Everything else is putting lipstick on a pig.
And those of you that want to say that the committee ruled quickly and unanimously and so MUST have gotten it right are assuming things about the USGA that are the opposite of what I assume about the USGA.  I assume in every case that the USGA will act to protect itself and the revenue stream, and that's exactly what they did by not stepping up and DQing Mickelson.  That is was quick and unanimous surprises me not at all.
An interesting thing about this discussion: 
At the beginning of this, I was mostly focused on Mickelson; that he did what he did, that he lied about it, and that he told fans to "toughen up".  I sort of thought the USGA had been caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place because of the overlapping rules.
But as the thread has gone on, I've come to believe more and more that the USGA folded and just took the easy way out.  My distaste for Mickelson isn't any less, but I think of the USGA as co-conspirators or accessories after the fact, rather than a ruling body with a difficult decision facing them.  If that wasn't a serious breach, then the term has no meaning.

[Michael Felton]

They took the easy way out by applying the rules as written. 1-2 clearly states that it doesn't apply if another rule covers it. 14-5 clearly covers this.

Here is the definition of a stroke: 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. Here is what 14-5 says:A player must not make a stroke at his ball while it is moving. To apply 1-2 here, what Mickelson did would have to not be covered by another rule. If it is covered by another rule, 1-2 does not apply, since it says as much directly.

So what part of 14-5 doesn't apply? It's fairly short, so should be fairly easy to figure out. Mickelson hit his ball while it was moving. Okay, so the only thing that could negate 14-5 applying is if what he did does not qualify as a stroke. So back to the definition of a stroke. When Mickelson hit that ball, the club was moving forward and it is pretty obvious that he was trying to strike the ball and move it. So it was a stroke. So 14-5 applies. So 1-2 doesn't. This isn't complicated.

Erik - as a rules geek, perhaps you could explain why it wasn't a stroke, because that's the only way 1-2 comes into it.

19-2 refers to deliberately deflecting or stopping the ball and points to 1-2. 1-2 points to 14-5, which covers this situation, so 19-2 is irrelevant. In any case, deflecting or stopping the ball would be using something else other than a club or putting a club in the way of the ball. If Mickelson had hit his first putt, then run forwards and held his putter beside the hole and kept it there to deflect his ball into the hole, then we would have a 1-2 situation. The reason we would have a 1-2 situation is because this would not be a stroke. No forward motion of the club, so no stroke, so no reason to apply 14-5. But that's not what happened here.

By the way, IMO cheating would be if he had done something and then tried to get away without the penalty. Either by lying about it or not reporting it. He did something and then he accepted the penalty. Therefore not cheating. I think a lot of people are looking at this and thinking "well, that's not right, he shouldn't be allowed to do that". For what it's worth, I agree with that. If they changed it to say that deliberately making a stroke at a moving ball that results in a significant advantage (in the opinion of the committee) is disqualification, I would be fine with that. I would not be at all surprised if they did change that. But that's not what the rules say right now.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik - as a rules geek, perhaps you could explain why it wasn't a stroke, because that's the only way 1-2 comes into it.

I've done so a few times already. I think others have, too. Long story short (ignoring that my bigger issue by far with all of this was Phil lying and telling people to "toughen up"); he also "deflected" the ball with his "stroke," and given the nature, I feel 1-2 applies more so. Even Mike Davis's explanation about what would warrant a DQ left open some holes. The Decision which points to DQing a player for stopping a ball from going into a water hazard doesn't say "unless they make a stroke to stop it."

And nobody, to my knowledge, has really talked about 19-2. That's for accidents, IIRC.

[Jon Wiggett]

They took the easy way out by applying the rules as written. 1-2 clearly states that it doesn't apply if another rule covers it. 14-5 clearly covers this.

Here is the definition of a stroke: A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball

Michael,


Phil was not trying to 'move' the ball as it was already moving. As it was already moving what he did was deflect it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Phil was not trying to 'move' the ball as it was already moving. As it was already moving what he did was deflect it.

I like that, and haven't seen anyone else say that yet. It won't change anything, though, or else you could never make a stroke at a moving ball; there would be no need for 14-5 at all.

[Michael Felton]

Erik - as a rules geek, perhaps you could explain why it wasn't a stroke, because that's the only way 1-2 comes into it.

I've done so a few times already. I think others have, too. Long story short (ignoring that my bigger issue by far with all of this was Phil lying and telling people to "toughen up"); he also "deflected" the ball with his "stroke," and given the nature, I feel 1-2 applies more so. Even Mike Davis's explanation about what would warrant a DQ left open some holes. The Decision which points to DQing a player for stopping a ball from going into a water hazard doesn't say "unless they make a stroke to stop it."

And nobody, to my knowledge, has really talked about 19-2. That's for accidents, IIRC.

Except 1-2 explicitly says it doesn't apply if another rule covers it. Since here another rule covers it, 1-2 explicitly says it doesn't apply, yet you want to.


Don't think the rule book says that a player should be disqualified for saying people should toughen up. I mentioned 19-2 because I don't think 1-2 really talks about deflecting the ball. 19-2 does and points to 1-2 if it's deliberate.

[Jon Wiggett]

Phil was not trying to 'move' the ball as it was already moving. As it was already moving what he did was deflect it.

I like that, and haven't seen anyone else say that yet. It won't change anything, though, or else you could never make a stroke at a moving ball; there would be no need for 14-5 at all.

Erik,


the rule just makes it clear the player must note make a stroke at a moving ball. Again, to me the serius part comes into it from Phil's premeditated and thought out decision to break a rule.

[A.G._Crockett]

They took the easy way out by applying the rules as written. 1-2 clearly states that it doesn't apply if another rule covers it. 14-5 clearly covers this.

Here is the definition of a stroke: 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. Here is what 14-5 says:A player must not make a stroke at his ball while it is moving. To apply 1-2 here, what Mickelson did would have to not be covered by another rule. If it is covered by another rule, 1-2 does not apply, since it says as much directly.

So what part of 14-5 doesn't apply? It's fairly short, so should be fairly easy to figure out. Mickelson hit his ball while it was moving. Okay, so the only thing that could negate 14-5 applying is if what he did does not qualify as a stroke. So back to the definition of a stroke. When Mickelson hit that ball, the club was moving forward and it is pretty obvious that he was trying to strike the ball and move it. So it was a stroke. So 14-5 applies. So 1-2 doesn't. This isn't complicated.

Erik - as a rules geek, perhaps you could explain why it wasn't a stroke, because that's the only way 1-2 comes into it.

19-2 refers to deliberately deflecting or stopping the ball and points to 1-2. 1-2 points to 14-5, which covers this situation, so 19-2 is irrelevant. In any case, deflecting or stopping the ball would be using something else other than a club or putting a club in the way of the ball. If Mickelson had hit his first putt, then run forwards and held his putter beside the hole and kept it there to deflect his ball into the hole, then we would have a 1-2 situation. The reason we would have a 1-2 situation is because this would not be a stroke. No forward motion of the club, so no stroke, so no reason to apply 14-5. But that's not what happened here.

By the way, IMO cheating would be if he had done something and then tried to get away without the penalty. Either by lying about it or not reporting it. He did something and then he accepted the penalty. Therefore not cheating. I think a lot of people are looking at this and thinking "well, that's not right, he shouldn't be allowed to do that". For what it's worth, I agree with that. If they changed it to say that deliberately making a stroke at a moving ball that results in a significant advantage (in the opinion of the committee) is disqualification, I would be fine with that. I would not be at all surprised if they did change that. But that's not what the rules say right now.

How about if we agree that the ONLY way in which this resembled a "stroke" was that it was a forward movement of the club?  In every other respect, Mickelson did NOT do the things that he normally does when playing ANY stroke, much less a putt on the green.  So what was he doing by not letting the ball come to rest, not lining up the next putt or shot, and so on?

Is it POSSIBLE to deflect a ball with a forward motion of the club?  I would say that of course the answer is yes; one could deflect with motion of the club in any direction, and forward motion to deflect would be the normal direction, wouldn't it?

So the question is, did Mickelson mean to play a stroke in the accepted sense of that term, or did he mean to deflect the ball?  And that is NOT a hard question to answer.

[Thomas Dai]

Perhaps we should forget about invoking this rule or that rule or whatever and just administer the kind of justice such antics deserved -
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YOW8zSVfpWg

Atb

[Lou_Duran]

Michael,

Thanks for repeating what I've tried to convey several times.  I now better understand why Justice Breyer sought to consult foreign law when the U.S. Constitution would not support his political sensitivities.  In the absence of the word "deflected" being defined in the rules book, we should look to Merriam Webster for guidance!  Even if the act in question is clearly cited and defined by the rules.  OK.  It is near 1:07 CDST and sunny and hot outside of my office.  I am sure that someone can argue with that for 15 pages.  Talk about futility.

Oh, btw, Daly swatting the ball away to parts unknown in frustration is analogous to PM stroking a moving ball toward the hole?  Well, at least he was speaking truth to power by being openly critical of the USGA and its setup of the course.  I don't know, did Daly ever whine about his taxes being too high?

Jon,

You mean that if I sprayed a small amount of a banned substance in Scotland that I would be committing a criminal offense?  I dare say half of the homeowners in the U.S. and a large majority of golf superintendents might be in jail if that was the case here and the laws were enforced.  If you are right and the consequences are as you state, I'd think twice about my occupation.

One of lessons from the case I cited was that the cost and consequences of actions should be evaluated relative to what is gained.  You drive 75 in a 60, you take into consideration the probability of getting caught and the resulting fine against the benefit of doing so.  Of course, if you are endangering the lives of others, that too is part of the calculation.  Other than Jerry here, maybe you as well, I don't know anyone willing to stipulate that whatever the environmental regulators promulgate and fellow travelers support blindly should not be subject to scrutiny and push-back. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Except 1-2 explicitly says it doesn't apply if another rule covers it. Since here another rule covers it, 1-2 explicitly says it doesn't apply, yet you want to.

And 14-5 refers back to 1-2.

Don't think the rule book says that a player should be disqualified for saying people should toughen up.

I never implied or said anything remotely close to that.

How about if we agree that the ONLY way in which this resembled a "stroke" was that it was a forward movement of the club?  In every other respect, Mickelson did NOT do the things that he normally does when playing ANY stroke, much less a putt on the green.  So what was he doing by not letting the ball come to rest, not lining up the next putt or shot, and so on?

You don't always do all of the normal things you usually do when you tap in a putt, either. Particularly if you're reaching across the hole to do it, or avoiding someone else's line, etc. We can't get into deciding what a "stroke" is in the way you seem to want to do it. I'm with the others on that one…

Again I don't have a big problem with the use of 14-5. I just think 1-2 applies as well and wish they'd get rid of the "overlap" as I call it. I wish they'd make it clearer that even if you make a "stroke" at a ball you can still be DQed if it is otherwise like the DQ decision in 1-2 (the Decisions under 1-2).

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm not taking credit for this, though I think it's perhaps a brilliant observation and question.

Not every "forward motion of the club with the intent to strike the ball" is a stroke, per the Rules.

Look at 18-2/23:

Q.In stroke play, a competitor's ball stops on the lip of the hole. In disgust the competitor knocks his ball off the green with the back of his putter. What is the ruling?

A.The competitor must replace the ball under penalty of one stroke (Rule 18-2). The competitor is not considered to have made a stroke.

The poster (a rules official in the Carolinas, IIRC) also pointed out that the definition of a stroke used to include the word "fairly." He believes Phil's "stroke" would not have met the definition had that word still been in there. (But it's not, so no, I'm not adding this for anything other than context on why some rules officials and rules geeks don't quite side with the USGA on this one.)

[MClutterbuck]

Rule 1-2 say - don't do anything to a moving ball - with a penalty of 2 strokes...unless the breach was deemed 'serious'. It provides an example of a serious breach which is well less than Phil's move.  Also says if any other rule expressly permits or prohibits an action, that other rule takes precedence...seemingly sending us to 14-5.


Rule 14-5 says - don't make a stroke while it's moving - with a penalty of 2 strokes...then says if the ball was purposely deflected or stopped you refer to Rule 1-2...if a stroke is simply the forward movement of the club, how would a deflection not fit inside that definition?


We could bounce back and forth from 1-2 to 14-5 until we get bored...ha...but this group doesn't get bored...

Regardless of 1-2 / 14-5 discussion, the application of 14-5 does not close the discussion on DQ. The USGA could have applied 33-7 on top of 14-5 and DQ'd Phil.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

You mean that if I sprayed a small amount of a banned substance in Scotland that I would be committing a criminal offense?  I dare say half of the homeowners in the U.S. and a large majority of golf superintendents might be in jail if that was the case here and the laws were enforced.  If you are right and the consequences are as you state, I'd think twice about my occupation.
 

Lou,


There is a big difference between homeowners and Course Managers. There are many chemical sprays that homeowners are allowed to use as private individuals in their private gardens that managers of sports facilities are not. In fact there are many chemical sprays which are allowed in certain industries but such as farming but not in others such as sports turf management. As a course manager you hold a commercial spraying licence which allows you to spray certain types of chemicals in certain areas. Mine for instance is for the use on sports and amenity surfaces with an addition one for rail and roadway including application from an aircraft.


Were I to unknowingly spray outside the parameters of my licence I would almost certainly get away with a reprimand and small fine as well as having to take some additional training on the area of the infringement. If my actions were to deliberately spray outside the parameters of my licence I would receive a fine and lose my licence. Deliberately breaking the rules are seen as been more serious as accidental which is why Phil M's actions are a serious breach. In the US it maybe the case that deliberately breaking the rules is not seen as any worse than an accidental breach but I doubt it.


Not sure what your point was with your last paragraph as it seems to be a bit 'all over the place'


Is it that in a 60 zone people should feel free to travel at 75 as long as they don't think it is dangerous and they won't get caught? Is it that you think regardless of what is the law people should be able to decide what it is okay to spray, when and where?


There in lies anarchy my friend 

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm not taking credit for this, though I think it's perhaps a brilliant observation and question.

Not every "forward motion of the club with the intent to strike the ball" is a stroke, per the Rules.

Look at 18-2/23:

Q.In stroke play, a competitor's ball stops on the lip of the hole. In disgust the competitor knocks his ball off the green with the back of his putter. What is the ruling?

A.The competitor must replace the ball under penalty of one stroke (Rule 18-2). The competitor is not considered to have made a stroke.

The poster (a rules official in the Carolinas, IIRC) also pointed out that the definition of a stroke used to include the word "fairly." He believes Phil's "stroke" would not have met the definition had that word still been in there. (But it's not, so no, I'm not adding this for anything other than context on why some rules officials and rules geeks don't quite side with the USGA on this one.)

Eric,I know that we agree, but isn't this kind of what I said a couple of posts back?  Mickelson moved his club forward, but that was the ONLY way in which what he did resembled a stroke, at least to me. 

His purpose was clear, and he even said it later when he said he just wanted to stop the "back and forth".
It is a MUCH bigger stretch of semantics to consider what he did as playing a stroke than it is to view it as deflecting the ball from the path that it was on; hell, he had to run after the damn ball to do it!  I just do not see what is so complex about that.

[John Kavanaugh]

Here is a new hero for the cheat police. Looks like a Fishers Island hat.


https://golfweek.com/2018/07/02/joel-dahmen-accuses-fellow-pga-tour-pro-of-cheating/

[Kalen Braley]

As this thread closes in on 20 pages, i'm sensing a Tumpian theme...


He's either directly divined by Jesus to be the savior of America, or Satans spawn destroying the world...and despite what is said or done, no one's opinion is going to change! 

[Rick Shefchik]

To be honest, Kalen, my opinion of Phil Mickelson did change after the incident at the Open. I had always liked the guy for his many efforts to be gracious to fans, and his golf game has always been fun to watch. But I was very disappointed in his Daly-like disregard for standards of behavior when he stopped his ball from rolling off the green, and even more disappointed that, after some time to reflect on his actions, he didn't withdraw. An offer to withdraw without actually doing it is weak. Had he removed himself from a tournament that obviously means a lot to him (even though he had no chance to win), I'd still be a Phil fan. Not now.

[A.G._Crockett]

To be honest, Kalen, my opinion of Phil Mickelson did change after the incident at the Open. I had always liked the guy for his many efforts to be gracious to fans, and his golf game has always been fun to watch. But I was very disappointed in his Daly-like disregard for standards of behavior when he stopped his ball from rolling off the green, and even more disappointed that, after some time to reflect on his actions, he didn't withdraw. An offer to withdraw without actually doing it is weak. Had he removed himself from a tournament that obviously means a lot to him (even though he had no chance to win), I'd still be a Phil fan. Not now.

Well said, Rick.
I'd add that his self-imposed WD should have been accompanied by an apology to the fans that he told to "toughen up".