Time to get back to architecture!

[Jim Hoak]

If Phil were as smart as he thinks he is, he would know that rather than hitting a moving ball, he could let it run out, see where it ends up, and then declare it unplayable and re-hit from where it had been.  That's a one shot penalty, not two.  And it is more within the spirit of the rules.

[MClutterbuck]

If Phil were as smart as he thinks he is, he would know that rather than hitting a moving ball, he could let it run out, see where it ends up, and then declare it unplayable and re-hit from where it had been.  That's a one shot penalty, not two.  And it is more within the spirit of the rules.

+1

[Phil McDade]

If Phil were as smart as he thinks he is, he would know that rather than hitting a moving ball, he could let it run out, see where it ends up, and then declare it unplayable and re-hit from where it had been.  That's a one shot penalty, not two.  And it is more within the spirit of the rules.

This is the second or third time I've seen this comment, and I really don't get where this comes from. Declaring a ball that's clearly playable -- unplayable? That's maybe the most unsporting thing a golfer can do.


I don't want to carry the argument for Mickelson here -- what he did was clearly goofy, and I'm pretty sure (partially) done in spite toward Davis/the USGA -- but declaring a playable ball as unplayable is just as easily unsporting as what he did.

[George Pazin]

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

I'd guess most of us have no desire to see intent inserted into the rules. But when a Hall of Fame tour pro spits in the face of everyone, then takes pride in that spitting, condemns those who object, and furthermore even receives support from some for doing so, some feel compelled to act, and I can't see faulting them for that. If they'd have DQ'd him, I doubt anyone would be calling for a change in the rules, but they didn't, so..........


-----



Phil, if you can't see the difference, I doubt anyone on here can explain it to you.

[Jon McSweeny]

Declaring a ball that's clearly playable -- unplayable? That's maybe the most unsporting thing a golfer can do.

We may be in to angels on the head of a pin territory, but I'm fairly sure that doing as much is regarded as perfectly acceptable. Declaring a playable ball unplayable, or more typically, making no effort to determine if the original ball is playable or not, seems to be generally in keeping with the spirit of the game according to those people who worry about such things, no?

[Jim Hoak]

Phil, we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.  I see nothing at all unsportsman-like in declaring a ball unplayable whenever you want.  It is totally your judgment--and the right thing is to trust a person's opinion of his situation.  Intentionally breaking a rule as Phil did is an entirely different situation--and stupid when the alternative is a one-shot penalty only.

[Alex Miller]

Phil, we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.  I see nothing at all sportsman-like in declaring a ball unplayable whenever you want.  It is totally your judgment--and the right thing is to trust a person's opinion of his situation.  Intentionally breaking a rule as Phil did is an entirely different situation--and stupid when the alternative is a one-shot penalty only.

+1


Rules are meant to be accessed between shots to my mind. Golfing is done when hitting a non-moving golf ball and what Phil did violated both these things. Hopefully the rules simplifications coming in the future help clear this up.

[Kalen Braley]

Phil, we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.  I see nothing at all sportsman-like in declaring a ball unplayable whenever you want.  It is totally your judgment--and the right thing is to trust a person's opinion of his situation.  Intentionally breaking a rule as Phil did is an entirely different situation--and stupid when the alternative is a one-shot penalty only.

+1


Rules are meant to be accessed between shots to my mind. Golfing is done when hitting a non-moving golf ball and what Phil did violated both these things. Hopefully the rules simplifications coming in the future help clear this up.

Alex,


The honorable Judge Levin can correct if i'm wrong, but typically when you kill someone, its a lesser penalty if you just get caught up in the heat of the moment (manslaughter) as opposed to carefully and meticulously planning/scheming to do your dirty work (Murder 1 or 2).


Phil did clarify that he meant no disrespect to anyone and said the frustration got the best of him.  I'd gladly take that over one who carefully and methodically plots a plan that freezes out a competitor for a Major win.

[George Pazin]

Kalen, you are aware that Phil essentially admitted to a premeditated act, are you not? Your analogy could not be more wrong if you tried.

[Alex Miller]

Kalen, you are aware that Phil essentially admitted to a premeditated act, are you not? Your analogy could not be more wrong if you tried.

Sorry judge, didn't mean to offend anyone with all my murdering! - Phil in Kalen's analogy...


In any case probably not a necessary place to go to with this. It's a golf tournament and we don't need to compare it to loss of human life to have a discussion about it. Your 80% of the way to Godwin's Law here, Kalen.


Anyway looking forward to my next round of golf this weekend - let me know how field hockey goes!

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, you are aware that Phil essentially admitted to a premeditated act, are you not? Your analogy could not be more wrong if you tried.

So George, you're telling me he intended to do it at the start of the round?  On the tee of that hole?  He wasn't even thinking about it when he struck the putt.  It was a flash realization the ball was rolling off the green and a second later the phil shuffle commenced.


Pretty sure that's not premeditated even if he's thought about doing it at other times in his career...

[Jim Hoak]

Kalen, I'm on George's side on this.  I suspect you are probably right that Phil's actions were done out of frustration and in the heat of the moment.  But, Phil being Phil, he had to manufacture a smart-guy answer and say that he was doing it intentionally--because he after-all is smarter than the rest of us.  I'm just saying that if he were really as smart as he thinks he is, he could have gotten the same or better result for one shot less.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, I'm on George's side on this.  I suspect you are probably right that Phil's actions were done out of frustration and in the heat of the moment.  But, Phil being Phil, he had to manufacture a smart-guy answer and say that he was doing it intentionally--because he after-all is smarter than the rest of us.  I'm just saying that if he were really as smart as he thinks he is, he could have gotten the same or better result for one shot less.

Jim,


I wholeheartedly agree with that, and if anything it shows it wasn't pre-meditated because he didn't think all of his options out.


My only real point in this thread is this.


 Who is the victim?  No one suffered, he was already long gone out of the tournament, it affected no one else nor the eventual end result of the tournament.  The only loser was Phil with the 2 stroke penalty and his pride.  Anything above and beyond that like a DQ would just be unnecessarily punitive.

[BHoover]

All-time FIGJAM moment on Saturday.

[George Pazin]

Kalen, I'm on George's side on this.  I suspect you are probably right that Phil's actions were done out of frustration and in the heat of the moment.  But, Phil being Phil, he had to manufacture a smart-guy answer and say that he was doing it intentionally--because he after-all is smarter than the rest of us.  I'm just saying that if he were really as smart as he thinks he is, he could have gotten the same or better result for one shot less.

Jim,


I wholeheartedly agree with that, and if anything it shows it wasn't pre-meditated because he didn't think all of his options out.


My only real point in this thread is this.


 Who is the victim?  No one suffered, he was already long gone out of the tournament, it affected no one else nor the eventual end result of the tournament.  The only loser was Phil with the 2 stroke penalty and his pride.  Anything above and beyond that like a DQ would just be unnecessarily punitive.

Who is the victim? The guy that gets screwed when some other jackass beats his ball to the hole and taps it in with the 2 stroke penalty, and eliminates him from whatever.


You can't seem to understand the difference between using the rules to your advantage, and breaking them to your advantage. That doesn't speak well of you, and yet you still keep digging...


You're right, Phil was out of it, all the more reason for him to WD. There is a small, in calculus we'd call it infinitesimal, chance that Phil showed up Sunday because he's a John Kav stand-up guy, willing to take the heat, welcoming it, in fact and deed. (There's a better chance I win the powerball this week, and I don't really play it, I think I bought tix once when the total pushed near a billion. But as Lloyd said, so you're saying there's a chance...)


You don't write the rules for the bozo who's not in contention. You write them for those who are. Phil exposed a hole in the rules that no one really saw anyone else doing (BECAUSE MOST PLAYERS AREN'T JACKASSES), so it's time to close that hole. It would be nice if we didn't have to, BECAUSE MOST PLAYERS AREN'T JACKASSES, but now that Phil has chosen to take a stand THAT NO GOLFER IN THE LAST CENTURY PLUS would have taken, we have to think about amending the rule.


And that's why he should have been DQ'd.

[Kalen Braley]

George,


I'm still waiting for someone to explain in detail a scenario where one is better off by taking two strokes instead of something else.  I wouldn't rule out the possibility one actually exists, but I can't think of one.


As for the rule, i've stated very early on.  If they don't like it, then by all means they should change it.  But Phil followed the rule exactly how its written.


P.S.  This isn't unprecedented.  John Daly and Kirk Tripplet have done exact same things, I believe in US Opens as well.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This is the second or third time I've seen this comment, and I really don't get where this comes from. Declaring a ball that's clearly playable -- unplayable? That's maybe the most unsporting thing a golfer can do.

It's not. The player is the sole judge of whether his ball is playable (except in a water hazard) on the course, and so if he wants to take stroke and distance and re-play a shot with a penalty, he is welcome to do so.

Who is the victim?  No one suffered, he was already long gone out of the tournament, it affected no one else nor the eventual end result of the tournament.  The only loser was Phil with the 2 stroke penalty and his pride.  Anything above and beyond that like a DQ would just be unnecessarily punitive.

Did he not win OWGR points and money, and distract/detract from the opportunity for his playing partner to have a working environment expected at a major championship?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain in detail a scenario where one is better off by taking two strokes instead of something else.  I wouldn't rule out the possibility one actually exists, but I can't think of one.

You can't imagine a scenario where it would take more than two strokes (or three, if you count the stroke of the ball that deflects it) to get down from a position where the ball was going?

I can. Heck, within the last few months I've seen a situation where a player would be better off taking the two stroke penalty than playing out the hole properly (the pin position was too extreme, and was later amended… but still, it's an example).

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,


I'm talking about a situation where something else could not be used.  You can take an unplayable lie pretty much anywhere and going back to your last spot is only a one stroke penalty.


How could this possibly not be better than taking a two stroke penalty?


P.S.  Once again, please detail a specific scenario where taking rule 14-5 is better...

[James Reader]

George,


‘I'm still waiting for someone to explain in detail a scenario where one is better off by taking two strokes instead of something else.  I wouldn't rule out the possibility one actually exists, but I can't think of one.’






The scenario is one where one of the best players in the world doesn’t believe he stands any chance of getting down in less than three more shots if his first putt misses - in which case he’s better off running after the ball and hitting it into the hole as soon as it goes past.  (And there’s where I don’t buy the idea that Phil was smart; if he was that clever and had thought it through properly he’d have got there quicker and made absolutely sure he holed it with his putt of the moving ball.)


Self evidently for this scenario to exist there has to be a serious problem with the pin placement.  You’d have to be close enough to the hole to catch up with the ball but believe you’ve got no chance of anything better than a 4 putt.


You’d hope this would be a very rare occurrence, but I’d be for changing the rules anyway - perhaps a two shot penalty plus replay your previous shot, which would mean it was always a worse option than calling an unplayable, and therefore a really stupid thing to do.

[Kalen Braley]

James,


I will agree, Phil didn't take the best option... to let the ball go and take an unplayable and redo his putt with only a one stroke penalty...instead of two!


Once again.  Please explain a specific scenario where doing this is better than something else available!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm talking about a situation where something else could not be used.  You can take an unplayable lie pretty much anywhere and going back to your last spot is only a one stroke penalty.

So am I.

A college tournament had a pin placed in a bad spot. One girl took a dozen putts to hole out, and several took 6+. So there you go. One such scenario.

James outlined almost the same thing as I was typing this up.

Once again.  Please explain a specific scenario where doing this is better than something else available!

He did.

[Kalen Braley]

Since when does striking a moving ball mean automatic hole out!  I certainly didn't see that anywhere in 14-5.


Unless you're saying after striking the ball, the golfer should immediately run down next to the hole and try to time it exactly right to putt the ball with your next stroke while its moving.  I supposed thats plausible, but would take some good timing and coordination...heaven forbid you miss it and make your plight that much worse.


But this would clearly be a setup issue.  How often can you never stop the ball near the hole? 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But this would clearly be a setup issue.  How often can you never stop the ball near the hole?

You asked for a situation, one was given. Now you're moving the goalposts.

What you describe is basically what Phil did or could have done.

[Kalen Braley]

But this would clearly be a setup issue.  How often can you never stop the ball near the hole?

You asked for a situation, one was given. Now you're moving the goalposts.

What you describe is basically what Phil did or could have done.

No actually, I will stipulate this is plausible, even if rare and difficult to do. 


In Phils case, he clearly had a better option and didn't take it.  And to boot, no one else in the field had this issue, just him.

[Alex Miller]

But this would clearly be a setup issue.  How often can you never stop the ball near the hole?

You asked for a situation, one was given. Now you're moving the goalposts.

What you describe is basically what Phil did or could have done.

No actually, I will stipulate this is plausible, even if rare and difficult to do. 


In Phils case, he clearly had a better option and didn't take it.  And to boot, no one else in the field had this issue, just him.

You sure about that? In the outlined scenario it'd be 4 total shots (original, on the move, plus 2 penalty shots). Phil would have to 2 putt from the original spot if taking an unplayable and that's no given.