Time to get back to architecture!

[Jon Wiggett]

Lou,


yes my example did happen. It was way back in 1984 and if I remember correctly the rule was altered the following year. As for the rules intention then I would suggest it is exactly due to what I have said as it is clearly stated that

A player must not make a stroke at his ball while it is moving [/size]and there is therefore[/color][/size][/font]

no concept that a player would deliberately try to play a ball that is in motion. Ergo, the rule is there to cover situations where the player is making a stroke in accordance with the rules (ball at rest) but the ball starts to move once the swing has started.


Put simply, there are three ways the rules work. 1. A player plays in accordance with a rule such as unplayable ball which is seen a using the rule and receives a one stroke penalty. 2. A player breaks a rule such as striking a moving ball which has started to move after the swing has started. This is seen as unintentional and carries a two stroke penalty. 3. A player knowingly breaks a rule such as Phil did which is cheating and therefore against the spirit of the game and should be dealt with by DQ.


Phil is correct that breaking the hitting a moving ball rule carries a 2 stroke penalty but that is not the rule that he broke. I really do not think that Phil thought his stunt through properly or even really understood what he was doing. It certainly is not good form to put the USGA in the awkward position of having to decide whether to call out one of the games biggest names and ambassadors as a cheat.


Jon

[Kalen Braley]

Jon,

Your point #2 is false.  This is stated as apart of rule 14-5


"When the ball begins to move only after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of his club for the stroke], he incurs no penalty under this Rule for playing a moving ball,"

Ergo, since accidental strikes are already covered as a 2nd part of the rule, what else could the main part of the rule be referring to?

[Jonathan Mallard]

Victor,


Tiger famously putted into Rae's Creek on 13. How could you forget?

Which came after he putted his ball into the pond at Valderrama, no?

[Pete_Pittock]

I just re-read 14-5.... and still can't find the part that differentiates between intentionally and accidentally hit the ball while moving.


P.S.  As was mentioned a few posts above, freezing out your partner for nearly 30 minutes who is terrific position to win a major with only a few holes left....seems a far bigger violation of conduct unbecoming.

Kalen,
You won't find it in 14-5. Look at the definition of stroke.

[Peter Flory]

Interesting that there was a similar argument that is occurring here about the spirit of the game. His opponents argued loudly that he could not declare a ball unplayable when it was clearly playable.  He said he was only taking advantage of the rules to prevent him making some ungodly number on the hole. If Phil had done the same and then said he was taking advantage of the rules to prevent making a big number, would the yelling and screaming about how he should be disqualified be happening now?

That seems similar to many drops out of a water hazard.  Of course the ball is theoretically playable on many occasions (say it is half submerged or sitting upon rocks), but the player deems it to be in his best interest to take the free drop. 


That must have been a pretty nasty pot bunker for him to elect to take a penalty and face such a precarious putt again.

[BHoover]

I wonder what the ruling will be when someone chips from behind the green on 15 at ANGC, then runs to stop the ball from going in the pond by hitting the moving ball?

[Peter Flory]

Whatever the ruling, there would probably not be an invite the next year. 

[astavrides]

Up until now, I thought what he did was grounds for disqualification or at least against the spirit of the rules.


But now I have rethought it. I think what he did makes perfect sense (but may still be against the spirit of the rules or etiquette of the game. This is a different question). And at first I thought his claim that he had thought about doing it before, in other situations was b.s., but now I think he was probably telling the truth.


Let's simplify the math. Let's say he was putting for birdie. He putts it by the hole and seeing it is headed off the green down the hill, he moves very fast and when it is 1 foot past the hole and still moving, taps it in for par+2 strokes penalty, a double bogey 6. If he had let the ball go and declared it unplayable, he would have had to 2 putt from the same spot to make a 6. Not sure how hard a 2 putt would have been from where he was, but in some spots, like above the hole on #18 on Saturday, a 2 putt was very difficult indeed. His other option, to let the ball roll down to where it would have been would mean he would have to get down in 3 from that spot to make the same 6. A player could very well judge that hitting the moving ball was his best option--certainly the simplest and quickest one.


The USGA needs to change that rule as soon as possible. Hitting a moving ball intentionally should never be an option.

[Kevin_Reilly]

I wonder what the ruling will be when someone chips from behind the green on 15 at ANGC, then runs to stop the ball from going in the pond by hitting the moving ball?

Lee Westwood:  https://twitter.com/WestwoodLee/status/1008341002665562112

[Peter Flory]

I played in a US am qualifier many years ago and there were conditions where this would have been the best option.


There was a very steeply pitched green on a par 3 hole.  At some point during the day, the conditions evolved so that the ball would no longer come to rest anywhere near the hole (even if placed) and would run back off the front of the green.  When I played the hole, I attempted the same putt several times until I finally holed out from about 12 feet.  i.e. it was a do or die putt with an automatic ball return.  After many groups played the hole like that and a huge backup was forming, they actually moved the pin location during the tournament to another spot on the green further back where the ball could come to rest.  Some players had already carded very high scores on the hole. 


That is a case where the Phil approach could have easily saved some players half a dozen strokes. 


After watching this week, I could imagine this nightmare situation happening in a US Open, where they would have no choice but to recut a hole location during the middle of a round.  They should probably do their best to avoid that. 

[Peter Pallotta]

AG - re: your post #89, I've often marveled that Phil has won as often as he has with that kind of mind/temperament, one that's so different than, say, Jack Nicklaus'. That need for the adrenaline rush and for a constant engagement of *all* his faculties in a game that is (mostly) a measured, plodding & repetitive affair. I didn't see the incident, but when I read about it I thought: for a brief moment, he just got really angry and frustrated and defeated and said "f--k it', just like a John Daly often has -- but to recognize/admit to that was so far from his 'brand' and his own self-understanding that he actually made up all the rest (about rules and thought processes) on the spot, for the benefit of the reporters, and to keep things interesting.   

[Jason Topp]

I am surprised the USGA did not alter the rule after the Daly incident to make it a DQ.  It is hard to imagine them ruling differently here absent a rule or decision change.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I am surprised the USGA did not alter the rule after the Daly incident to make it a DQ.  It is hard to imagine them ruling differently here absent a rule or decision change.

Maybe they assumed (rightly, until Saturday) that it was only ever really going to be a John Daly type to do it… and that no serious golfer would ever contemplate doing it on purpose.

Here's to hoping it's changed for the 2019 Rules, which are "finalized" but not necessarily finalized. Plus, 1-2 is now:

• There is no penalty under the Rules for failing to act in this way, except that the Committeemay disqualify a player for acting contrary to the spirit of the game if it finds that the player has committed serious misconduct.

[BCrosby]

The USGA needs to change that rule as soon as possible. Hitting a moving ball intentionally should never be an option.

Yep.

[Frank M]

I stopped reading this thread when the OP mentioned the concept of Rule of Law in the original post and when I saw people imply this “Rule of Law” is somehow connected to the spirit of our game.

[Bruce Katona]

Frank M:


TOUCHE!

[Rick Shefchik]

Maybe Phil was playing Calvinball: https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2018/06/17?ct=v&cti=2202342

[Dan Moore]

Intentionally violating a rule should either be a DQ or he should have been forced to play from where the ball would have ended up but for his rule violation plus a two stroke penalty. Trying to compare this to Spieth last year or taking an unplayable after the fact ignores how egregious it was to intentionally violate a rule.  I'm in the DQ, never an option camp. 

[Kalen Braley]

Frank M:

Double Touche' from me as well. 

Why is Phil not deemed "smart" for using the rules, which is very explicit in its language for this situation... to both speed things up and finish the hole when he was way far back out of contention.  In a way we should be thanking him for helping pace of play on a otherwise brutal day...


P.S.  Jordan very deliberately stomped all over rule 6-7, and no one had an issue with that...


6-7:

The player must play without undue delay and in accordance with any pace of play guidelines

[Phil McDade]

I'm not sure anything Mickelson did in the third round was more egregious -- in terms of "spirit of the game/rules" -- than what Dustin Johnson did on the 17th green in the final round.

[BHoover]

I'm not sure anything Mickelson did in the third round was more egregious -- in terms of "spirit of the game/rules" -- than what Dustin Johnson did on the 17th green in the final round.

What did he do?

[Phil McDade]

I'm not sure anything Mickelson did in the third round was more egregious -- in terms of "spirit of the game/rules" -- than what Dustin Johnson did on the 17th green in the final round.

What did he do?

Spent an eternity looking at his putt -- well beyond anything that anyone could argue was reasonable. Playing with the leader. Pace of play violations have been called in majors for far less.

[Kalen Braley]

Supposedly Phil offered to withdraw, but was told not necessary.


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/mickelson-shoots-69-wife-says-offered-withdraw-032207836--golf.html

[George Pazin]

...Those who have a problem with the Phil ruling are the same people I tend to have the least fun playing golf with and indeed try to avoid playing golf with.

I know we've never met, but I can say I've played golf with posters on both sides of this issue in this thread, and to a man, they are all terrific people and great fun to play golf with. They're not at all as you seem to presume, they just care about different things, I'd guess, and while they enjoy a good debate on here, they're all a pleasure on the course.

[Sean_A]

The USGA needs to change that rule as soon as possible. Hitting a moving ball intentionally should never be an option.

Yep.

Yes, I would advocate for something like this IF intent was dead obvious such as was in Phil's case.  However, because the situation is so rare and demonstrating intent can be so difficlt, I would be minded not to get the rules entangled in intent. Its simply not worth what will be an endless quagmire of arguments concerning intent us so some folks can vent their disgust. At least now the rule is clean and clear.  In fact, I am generally against any sort of rule whose punishment is DQ.  It would have to be something far more harsh than what Phil did.

Ciao