Time to get back to architecture!

[Mark Kiely]

I'm confused by how Rule 1-2 is ever enforced if the exception says only if no other rule applies. Wouldn't 14-5 always apply, therefore making 1-2 useless?


To me, what Phil did seems more in line with the Decision on 1-2 than how I interpret 14-5. But if 1-2 only applies if no other rule does, I'm just confused.

[Thomas Dai]

I wonder what he will do to celebrate his next birthday!
atb

[James Reader]

I'm confused by how Rule 1-2 is ever enforced if the exception says only if no other rule applies. Wouldn't 14-5 always apply, therefore making 1-2 useless?


To me, what Phil did seems more in line with the Decision on 1-2 than how I interpret 14-5. But if 1-2 only applies if no other rule does, I'm just confused.

Presumably if he’d stopped it with his foot or thrown his cap on it he’d have been disqualified, but because he used his putter it’s only 2 shots!  By the letter of 1.2 and 14.5 that might be right but it’s not golf as I understand it. 

[Brock Lynch]

Phil should be disqualified. He intentionally hit a ball that was still moving after he struck the ball so that he could avoid the consequences of his shot. Terrible example of sportmanship and certainly is not what this or any competition is about. Do you think Tom Watson would have done something like this?

[Greg Chambers]

Phil’s a douche.  What he did today just exposes his true character.

[Brock Lynch]

Phil’s a douche.  What he did today just exposes his true character.

+1

[Mark Kiely]

I'm confused by how Rule 1-2 is ever enforced if the exception says only if no other rule applies. Wouldn't 14-5 always apply, therefore making 1-2 useless?


To me, what Phil did seems more in line with the Decision on 1-2 than how I interpret 14-5. But if 1-2 only applies if no other rule does, I'm just confused.

Presumably if he’d stopped it with his foot or thrown his cap on it he’d have been disqualified, but because he used his putter it’s only 2 shots!  By the letter of 1.2 and 14.5 that might be right but it’s not golf as I understand it.

Yeah, after watching a couple hours of "Live from the U.S. Open" I figured that out, too. Thanks! (Seems stupid, though, when the end result is virtually the same.)

[Mark Pearce]

I'm genuinely astonished that there are people here (some who I know and respect) who appear to think what Mickelson did was OK.  He cheated.  He then claimed (I'm not sure I believe him) that he cheated deliberately, knowing the penalty that would apply and having made the calculation.  If he had altered a score on his card, or kicked a ball into a better lie, he'd be banned.  Yet people here who claim to love the game think he should be allowed to continue playing in this tournament?  No wonder golf is screwed.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mark,


I am with you in that he deliberately broke a rule which is not in the spirit of the game. It would have been better for the USGA to let the player himself apply the penalty and had he not done so then DQed him for returning an incorrect scorecard. As it is, once again the USGA have made a mess of implementing the rules and maybe they should finally admit they are not up to it and leave it to the R&A

[Sean_A]

Rules are rules and it is quite clear what the penalty is for Phil's infraction  The USGA got it right. What people are outraged about is the clear intent to break the rule. Intent should not play a part in the rules because it is very rarely the case that intent can be determined. Phil exposed a weakness in the rules, quite straightforward imo.


Ciao

[James Boon]

Rules are rules and it is quite clear what the penalty is for Phil's infraction  The USGA got it right. What people are outraged about is the clear intent to break the rule. Intent should not play a part in the rules because it is very rarely the case that intent can be determined. Phil exposed a weakness in the rules, quite straightforward imo.
Ciao

But it can be determined if the numpty involved tells everyone afterwards that he intended to do it? 


Cheers,


James

[Dean Stokes]

I came in just as this had happened and was told he had “cheated” and was in the process of saying he was happy to carry on as a marker for Beef. Is that incorrect? If it is it would appear to me he knew he’d cheated and was going to be disqualified.
What Phil did do in essence-cheating or not-was to throw a middle finger to the USGA. The players are tiring of the continual joke set ups-Stenson said the same-but they continue to play because it’s the US Open. If this were a regular tour event it was be cancelled annually due to lack of participation!
The expert analysts on Sky said he should be DQ’d so that will do for me🤔

[Sean_A]

Rules are rules and it is quite clear what the penalty is for Phil's infraction  The USGA got it right. What people are outraged about is the clear intent to break the rule. Intent should not play a part in the rules because it is very rarely the case that intent can be determined. Phil exposed a weakness in the rules, quite straightforward imo.
Ciao

But it can be determined if the numpty involved tells everyone afterwards that he intended to do it? 

Cheers,

James

Imagine if Phil said he didn't try to hit his ball.  The fallout would be far worse 

I remain convinced that Phil thought this through very carefully and I wouldn't be surprised if he discussed the potential situation with rules officials.  He knew that hitting the ball was +2 and that stopping it was a potential DQ.  To me its a silly division between this and rule 1-2, at least in this case, but thats that.  There is no such thing as perfect rules.  In which case why not make them far less complicated?

Phil is a shrewd chap.  Who thinks this was a subtle dig at the USGA? 

Ciao

[James Boon]

Rules are rules and it is quite clear what the penalty is for Phil's infraction  The USGA got it right. What people are outraged about is the clear intent to break the rule. Intent should not play a part in the rules because it is very rarely the case that intent can be determined. Phil exposed a weakness in the rules, quite straightforward imo.
Ciao

But it can be determined if the numpty involved tells everyone afterwards that he intended to do it? 

Cheers,

James

Imagine if Phil said he didn't try to hit his ball.  The fallout would be far worse 

I remain convinced that Phil thought this through very carefully and I wouldn't be surprised if he discussed the potential situation with rules officials.  He knew that hitting the ball was +2 and that stopping it was a potential DQ.  To me its a silly division between this and rule 1-2, at least in this case, but thats that.  There is no such thing as perfect rules.  In which case why not make them far less complicated?

Phil is a shrewd chap.  Who thinks this was a subtle dig at the USGA? 

Ciao

Sean,


Its possible you may be confusing two issues here. The first issue being the need to simplify the rules on which I completely agree with you. Now that's out of the way, you cant honestly be condoning Phil's actions here?


Of course if he came out and said he didnt try to hit the ball things would get silly, but that in itself is silly and not the issue.[/size] Its not his intention to hit the ball that's at question, its his reasoning for doing so. If its a brainfart then 2 shot penalty and lets move on, silly Phil! If the guy comes out afterwards and says he did it deliberately then thats far worse in my view. Its then ridiculous that he tells people afterwards to toughen up over his view on this when he wasnt tough enough to accept where his ball was about to end up!


[size=78%]Cheers,[/size][/font]


James

[Sean_A]

Boony

Do you think Phil does anything on a brain fart?  As I say, Phil thought this through and exposed a weakness in the rules and I am sure relieved some frustration 

Ciao

[Mike Feeney]

Does anybody really think the USGA would listen to Tyler Duncan's (T54) or "Beef" Johnston's (dead last) weak taking-full-advantage-of-the-rules explanation?   Equal justice under The Rules of Golf is now old news. TV ratings more important.

Full advantage of the rules by Phil would have been as follows:

-- After his astray putt came to rest, declare it as unplayable
-- Take the stroke & distance option within the Unplayable Lie rule..by replaying the shot/putt from original position.

Not a Phil hater, I like him.   He should DQ/Withdraw...sustaining integrity worth more in many ways.  If I was CEO of Callaway or KPMG, I would be on the phone with Phil's agent helping him understand how much more the valuable sustaining the public & fellow competitors respect is vs. 40th place prize $$ ($75k?)

[Carl Rogers]

Like his gambling and insider trader issues, the rules of ..............(whatever fill in the blank) do not apply to him.  DQ and ban him from next year's event at PB.

[Jeff Johnston]

It should be a fundamental principle of the game that a player is obliged to accept the full consequences of a shot without the ability to intervene in this manner. That Phil was able to intervene in this way and escape with a mere two shot penalty exposes the idiocy and unfitness for purpose of the rule - however I cannot see that Phil’s actions were anything other than fairly disgraceful, all the more so given his position in the game (which has been more than good to him). His post round two-fingers also do him little credit.

[Mark Pearce]

Full advantage of the rules by Phil would have been as follows:

-- After his astray putt came to rest, declare it as unplayable
-- Take the stroke & distance option within the Unplayable Lie rule..by replaying the shot/putt from original position.

This, of course, is completely correct.

[Sean_A]

Full advantage of the rules by Phil would have been as follows:

-- After his astray putt came to rest, declare it as unplayable
-- Take the stroke & distance option within the Unplayable Lie rule..by replaying the shot/putt from original position.

This, of course, is completely correct.

Right, and of course there would be no fallout for taking full advantage of the rules with an unplayable from the fairway.  As I say, Phil was doing more than playing golf, he was making a statement about the USGA.  Thats my take anyway about the "display". 


Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Initially I would have applied a DQ. Upon careful review, 2 strokes is appropriate.


2 strokes is the penalty for violation of Rule 1-2.


DQ in this situation can happen is it is a serious breach, defined as an action that allowed the player to gain significant advantage.


His actions ended up him standing 8 14 feet from the hole, on the same line that he would have stood in 6, had he allowed the ball to stop outside the green and declared an unplayable. Therefore, he gained no significant advantage.


Therefore 2 strokes apply. Now, under 33-7 we might go to DQ, not sure I would have.

Come on.  If this isn't a serious breach of 1-2, then what is?  The penalty for serious breach of 1-2 can be DQ.  If this isn't a sufficiently serious breach, then it's impossible to think of a more serious one, so that rule is redundant.  On the basis that if the rule has been written it is not intended to be redundant, then this case MUST be a DQ.

[Mark Pearce]

Right, and of course there would be no fallout for taking full advantage of the rules with an unplayable from the fairway.  As I say, Phil was doing more than playing golf, he was making a statement about the USGA.  Thats my take anyway about the "display". 

Rubbish.  He was showing disrespect for the game and his fellow competitors.  Your suggestion that this was some cleverly thought out protest is absurd.  Are you suggesting that he deliberately hit a putt that would go off the green, so that he could make his point?

[Mark Pearce]

Does anyone here genuinely believe that, if the player involved in the Mickelson issue was a journeyman pro, rather than one of the game's superstars, the ruling would have been handled in the same way?  The USGA lose far more respect in my book for letting Mickelson get away with this than for anything to do with the setup of the course.

[Jim Nugent]

Bad look for Phil's sponsors.  Won't surprise me if many dump him, costing him tens of millions of dollars or more.  (Tiger, e.g., lost $50 or more million per year when his troubles surfaced.)  Phil certainly fell a lot in my esteem. 

As Pete Pittock showed, the rules clearly state the penalty for hitting a moving ball.  2 strokes.  Not a word about disqualification. 

How can that same act then be grounds for DQ?  That would mean there are two possible penalties for hitting a moving ball: 2 strokes or DQ.  If that's true, which rule applies, under what circumstances, and why?  How does anyone, including the rules committee, know what to do? Does similar reasoning -- i.e. choice of penalty or DQ -- apply to any other infractions?     

You may feel hitting a moving ball is a serious breath of etiquette.  But then why have rule 14-5?

[Steve Salmen]

This is a USGA problem. They write the rules. How could they possibly create a penalty such that there is ever incentive to intentionally accept it? The penalty for moving a ball should be 3 or 4 shots or plain DQ. Leave no room for a player to even contemplate it.


Also, the rules of golf should be so simple that there would never be room for debate.


Making your opponent wait 20 minutes to play a shot in the final group is a far greater etiquette violation in my mind than playing your own moving ball with penalty. Under the rules, I would not have penalized Sprite.