From Barry Rhodes, someone who knows the rules.
Moving Balls - Phil Mickelson and Zach Johnson
Posted: 27 Jun 2018 10:01 AM PDT
Mickelson Strikes His Moving Ball
By now most readers will have made up their own mind about the Mickelson incident at the 2018 US Open at Shinnecock Hills. Some may not have seen this updated statement from USGA PR, which in my opinion shows why there was never any possibility of an alternative ruling;
There appears to be some continued uncertainty about the basis of the ruling with Phil Mickelson during the third round of the 118th U.S. Open, and we would like to further clarify previous statements. During play of the 13th hole Mickelson made a stroke on the putting green at his ball, which was moving. As a result, he incurred a two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 14-5; the stroke made at the moving ball also counted. His score for the hole was 10. Rule 14-5 does not include a serious breach clause or disqualification as part of the penalty statement.
Rule 1-2 did not apply in this situation because Mickelson made a stroke at the ball (defined as the forward movement of the club with the intention of striking at and moving the ball) as opposed to another act to deflect or stop the ball in motion, which are two acts covered by Rule 1-2. Additionally, Exception 1 under Rule 1-2 states that “an action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule and not Rule 1-2.” As the act of making a stroke at a moving ball is expressly covered by Rule 14-5, that Rule and the penalty associated with that Rule were applied. The Committee looked at the facts of the situation and determined that there were no grounds under the Rules of Golf for any further penalty, including disqualification.
The key point is that Mickelson made a stroke at his ball in motion, the forward movement of his club made with the intent of striking it to the hole. Rule 1-2, which many have been confused by, relates to a player deflecting or stopping a ball. An example of this would be when a player, after chipping their ball up a steep slope, sees it roll back down the slope and to avoid it ending up in the water of a water hazard, they either stop it or deflect it sideways.
Interestingly, the ruling on this incident would be the same under the new Rules of Golf - 2019, as they are currently drafted.
Agreeing with the USGA ruling does not mean that I condone Mickelson's action, which in my opinion was unbecoming of a professional golfer. I would have preferred if he had apologised and withdrawn before the next round commenced. At least he has since had the sense to correct his original assertion that he had made a deliberate action to “take advantage of the Rules”. In a tweet to a GolfDigest reporter he said,
“I know this should've come sooner, but it's taken me a few days to calm down. My anger and frustration got the best of me last weekend. I'm embarrassed and disappointed by my actions. It was clearly not my finest moment and I'm sorry“.
Not that it is relevant, but I would still like to know how PM gained an advantage by making a stroke at a moving ball. Someone may argue that Meat was disadvantaged as a result of PM's craziness, but he seemed to be having a good time with it. I would bet the farm that if he was asked about it, he would just say it is all part of the circus.