Time to get back to architecture!

[Alex Miller]

I don't see anyone spinning but you Kalen...

Ditto. And I'm not a Phil hater. Wasn't before, am not now. I just don't like people who lie to me about golf. Or anything, really, but the only context in which I care about Phil Mickelson is golf. So he can lie to me about his gambling and I couldn't care less.

+1 million

[Sean_A]

This should have nothing to do with hating or liking Phil.  The correct ruling was made and the correct penalty was assessed.  If you don't like outcome, blame the rule makers.  Its not as if Phil actually gained anything, no matter how stupid his display was.  I honestly find it remarkable that people are personally attached to the incident.  It sort of reminds me of when people get offended if someone slights their home club.  Why get angry, upset or whatever it is people are doing?  Golf is entertainment.  Treat Phil like any other bad act...which basically means don't pay to see it again. Golf isn't life and life isn't golf. 


Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This should have nothing to do with hating or liking Phil.  The correct ruling was made and the correct penalty was assessed.

I don't think it was.

If you don't like outcome, blame the rule makers.

I do. I also blame Phil for lying about it after taking 30 minutes to do it, then ducking the reporters on Sunday, too.

Its not as if Phil actually gained anything, no matter how stupid his display was.

You don't know that he didn't.

I honestly find it remarkable that people are personally attached to the incident.

I think you're reading into it that which is not there. I'm not personally attached to it. Also, I believe I've posted less in this topic than you have. So if anyone is demonstrating personal attachment, it's you.

Golf isn't life and life isn't golf. 

Who here is acting like it is? I haven't seen anyone.

Nice straw man.

[Marty Bonnar]

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!

[Kalen Braley]

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!

You didn't miss nothing Bonnar,


Who knew peeps would be so bent out of shape cause a Tour Pro said a little fibber!! 

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm reminded of the famous quote attributed to Napoleon:


"Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake"


I'm surprised to see the Phil haters all spun up over this.  Given he clearly didn't think this thru and screwed himself even worse than if he declared an unplayable, I would have thought you guys would be laughing your asses off..

Kalen,To be clear:
I am not "spun up" over what Mickelson DID.  He's done weird stuff, on and off the golf course, for decades now, and I think we're all used to it.

I got, and will remain, "spun up" over a premeditated lie on TV afterwards, and then telling fans to "toughen up".  To make it worse, on Tuesday when he (sort of) apologized, there was no mention made of his comments afterwards.  Still hasn't been, has there?
Rules get broken all the time, intentionally and unintentionally, in all sports; golf is no different in that regard.  But it isn't a particularly high bar to expect Mickelson to own up to what he did, and there is NO bar that lets him tell fans to toughen up.  He's free to say that stuff and reveal who he's really been all along beneath the "Aw, shucks!" grin and all of that PR stuff he does.

And I'm likewise free, as a fan that has already had to toughen up, to hope that he suffers serious economic consequences for this, and that he can't even win his flight in a member-guest.
See?  I've toughened up, just like he told me to!

[Sean_A]

This should have nothing to do with hating or liking Phil.  The correct ruling was made and the correct penalty was assessed.

I don't think it was.

You are then mistaken.

If you don't like outcome, blame the rule makers.

I do. I also blame Phil for lying about it after taking 30 minutes to do it, then ducking the reporters on Sunday, too.

So now you are a mind reader, must be nice.

Its not as if Phil actually gained anything, no matter how stupid his display was.

You don't know that he didn't.

I can make an educated guess and I suspect at best Phil broke even.  At worst his display cost him two shots.

I honestly find it remarkable that people are personally attached to the incident.

I think you're reading into it that which is not there. I'm not personally attached to it. Also, I believe I've posted less in this topic than you have. So if anyone is demonstrating personal attachment, it's you.


I just find the head in the sand approach incredulous.

Golf isn't life and life isn't golf. 

Who here is acting like it is? I haven't seen anyone.


It would seem you are by refusing to accept the correct ruling.
Nice straw man.


Thank you?

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

Sean cool scrolling font!!!!!!  never seen that yet.... you win the argument just for that!

[Sean_A]

Sean cool scrolling font!!!!!!  never seen that yet.... you win the argument just for that!

Thanks, but I think the USGA won the argument...they had the microphone 
Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You are then mistaken.

That's not how that works. Plenty of people thought he should have been DQed, including David Fay. There's no "mistake" or "right/wrong" here - just opinions.

So now you are a mind reader, must be nice.

You don't have to be a mind-reader. What he said and his actions afterward shed all the light you need on his lie.

He lied. He had no idea what the penalty was, what would happen, etc. He even later called after having it explained to him by two rules officials to ask if he should be DQed. He had no idea at the time, and he lied afterward, while insulting people with his "toughen up" crap.

I can make an educated guess and I suspect at best Phil broke even.  At worst his display cost him two shots.

Again, you don't know that he didn't gain an advantage.

I just find the head in the sand approach incredulous.

Not even sure what that means.

It would seem you are by refusing to accept the correct ruling.

I disagree that it's the correct ruling. Several others disagree with the USGA's ruling, too.

[Niall C]

Apologies for digging this up again but having read a lot of the responses it seems that a lot of folks are missing the real point here and that's that Phil cheated. By cheating I mean a deliberate breaking of the rules, knowing full well he was breaking the rules.

That sort of thing might go on all the time in other sports but golf is supposed to be above that sort of thing is it not ?

Niall

[JESII]

Niall,


I think of cheating as intentionally breaking the rules AND trying to get away with it. I don’t think Phil was trying to get away with it. I do think he misunderstood the rules and the USGA let him off the hook.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I too feel that cheating includes trying to get away with it. This isn't just breaching the rules, but it's not all the way toward cheating.

[Jeff Evagues]

The only thing Phil has done since he was 5 years old is play golf. He certainly knew there was a penalty for hitting a moving ball.

[Peter Flory]

Apologies for digging this up again but having read a lot of the responses it seems that a lot of folks are missing the real point here and that's that Phil cheated. By cheating I mean a deliberate breaking of the rules, knowing full well he was breaking the rules.

That sort of thing might go on all the time in other sports but golf is supposed to be above that sort of thing is it not ?

Niall

Another way to look at it is that it is just as much cheating as it is when a basketball player intentionally fouls another player.  They are breaking the rules and they are willing to suffer the specified penalty.  Sometimes that can actually work to their benefit, like when they foul a poor FT shooter or when they are desperate to gain possession of the ball. 


The closest analogy that I can think of to this one was when Jon Harbaugh instructed his football team to intentionally hold the other team on a 4th down play toward the end of the game when they had the lead.  He knew that the they could milk the entire rest of the game clock out by intentionally committing multiple penalties, but that there was a loophole in the rule book that said that penalty for doing so is that time runs off the clock.  Since they were on offense, that penalty was to their benefit.  It wasn't what the rule was intended for, but he exploited it. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baCeMpAZIgI


Some rules call for DQ when broken- they are the "shall not" rules.  Athletes who break those rules usually try to get away with it (banned substances, foreign substances on baseballs, dropping a ball down your pant leg in the rough, etc).  Other rules call for a pre-determined penalty- they are the "if/then" rules: cross-checking = 2:00 minutes, fouling a player = 2 free throws, hitting a moving ball in golf = 2 stroke penalty.  When players break an if/then rule, they aren't generally considered cheaters.  They don't try to hide what they are doing because they aren't "breaking" the rules, they are triggering a rule. 


In golf, if they aren't going to enforce the spirit of the game catch-all rule, then they should just amend the rule book to state that if a player intentionally hits a moving ball, he is DQ'd in medal play.  That would be the end of it.  However, I don't see Phil's exploit as being advantageous in the least, so if they let him continue to do it, I don't think we're going to see him winning any golf tournaments by using his hockey skills. 

[Carl Rogers]

I keep telling our non-golfing friends that there are no controversies, so people have to invent controversies.


I have been singularly unsuccessful.

[Jon Wiggett]

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?

Kalen,


thread has moved on too far to read all of it. You are correct in your point. In Phil's case however my it was not relevant and he was guilty of deflecting a moving ball (rule 2-1 (1-2?)can't remember which). for which 2 strokes is the penalty.


I think the danger of allowing him to remain in the tournament is in a situation where missing the hole is likely to result in a further 2 or more strokes then the precedence has now been set to allow the player to cheat. Example could be: if I were through the back of the 15th at ANGC in 2 shots chipping back and there was a real danger of the ball going in the water then I would be seriously considering having my caddy stand by the hole to deflect the ball in should I miss thus ensuring a 5 which would be better than dropping the ball and almost certainly scoring 6 or 7. I should be disqualified but then the precedence has been set with Phil.


Jon

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think the danger of allowing him to remain in the tournament is in a situation where missing the hole is likely to result in a further 2 or more strokes then the precedence has now been set to allow the player to cheat. Example could be: if I were through the back of the 15th at ANGC in 2 shots chipping back and there was a real danger of the ball going in the water then I would be seriously considering having my caddy stand by the hole to deflect the ball in should I miss thus ensuring a 5 which would be better than dropping the ball and almost certainly scoring 6 or 7. I should be disqualified but then the precedence has been set with Phil.

Your caddie cannot make a "stroke" at the ball which, according to those who decided this one, was basically what "saved" Phil from not being DQed. You'd have to hit a chip and then run up there and deflect the ball in yourself while making a "stroke" to avoid the DQ… and even then, it's probably easier to just not chip it over the front of the green. Heck, chip it anywhere on the green and two-putt it.

While I can think of situations in which taking the two strokes is a good option (it may have been for Phil, had he holed it, if he feared that putt that much), having your caddie help changes the ruling.

[Jon Wiggett]

Erik,


Heck, chip it anywhere on the green and two putt it!!! So why did Phil no putt it anywhere on the green? I suggest that whilst my example is more far fetched the principle is very relevant. Phil should have rolled it up to the hole and kept close behind to tap in the moving ball.


You do not get disqualified by stopping and deflecting the ball but by the seriousness of the offence. I would suggest Phil's was premeditated in that he had thought such a scenario through and decided on the course of action should it arise. It would be the premeditation which would lead to the disqualification.


USGA made a mess of it. Now every player will be allowed to do this in the US Open

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Phil should have rolled it up to the hole and kept close behind to tap in the moving ball.

That's one of the bits that demonstrate that he was lying through his teeth with his post-round comments.

You do not get disqualified by stopping and deflecting the ball but by the seriousness of the offence. I would suggest Phil's was premeditated in that he had thought such a scenario through and decided on the course of action should it arise. It would be the premeditation which would lead to the disqualification.

It wasn't pre-meditated, but I think it was serious enough and that 1-2 should have applied. I've argued this a few times so will not write it all out again.

If a caddie deflected a ball in the scenario you describe I'm virtually certain that player would be DQed and/or shunned by all unless the caddie clearly acted on his own volition.

[Sean_A]

Apologies for digging this up again but having read a lot of the responses it seems that a lot of folks are missing the real point here and that's that Phil cheated. By cheating I mean a deliberate breaking of the rules, knowing full well he was breaking the rules.

That sort of thing might go on all the time in other sports but golf is supposed to be above that sort of thing is it not ?

Niall

Niall

I am not missing the point at all.  It is very clear and without a doubt that Phil was in breach of 14-5.  There is no question that Phil stroked a moving ball as determined by the rules.  The correct penalty for breaching that rule was assessed.  Once you introduce deliberate and intent it becomes a mess in a hurry, although to me it is obvious Phil intentionally broke the rule.  To me its a very strange there is a prescribed penalty for a breach of a rule, but people don't want that penalty assessed.  They have made up their minds that a DQ is in order and come up with wild stuff about 14-5 not being the correct ruling....so that a DQ can be assessed...its putting the cart in front of the horse by determining the penalty then trying to half ass a rule to fit the penalty.  Granted, I don't understand why the penalties are different for stroking a moving ball rather than deflecting or stopping it, but thats the rules.  Once again, over-complicated rules have caused controversy.  Except in this case the controversy boils down to a blatant breach of the rule, although I am not sure how stroking a moving ball couldn't be blatant.  Bottom line, some people want a DQ and some people want the correct ruling.  Either way, 14-5 and 1-2 are messy rules which need to be re-examined.  I wonder why there wasn't this huge outcry when this rule was broken previously? 

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I am not missing the point at all.  It is very clear and without a doubt that Phil was in breach of 14-5.

Continuing to say that it is "without a doubt" does not change the fact that many people very familiar with the Rules would have DQed Phil under 1-2. It is most certainly not "without a doubt" when David Fay himself was talking about how Phil could/should have been DQed.

You then go on to talk about how some people doubt that 14-5 is the best rule to cover Phil's breach.

In 2019, 10.1 and 11.2 still muddy the waters, even though the 1-2 equivalent seems to be missing.

Again, too, the bigger issue to me was the lying and calls to "toughen up" after the fact.

[JESII]

When someone walks in to your house and tells you to go screw yourself, do you offer them another beer?

[Jim_Coleman]

   I suspect pragmatism played a larger role than rules construction here.  The USGA was already in the world's cross hairs for the set up it would be defending after the round.  Disqualifying Phil would have been double the trouble.  So, a two stroke penalty shifted the focus to Phil.  The strategy worked, sort of.

[Charles Lund]

It did shift the focus to Phil, as evidenced by 11 pages here, and much less on other threads about the U.S. Open.


Charles Lund