Mickelson hitting putt while ball was still moving?

[nsxguy]

Phil's apology is a bit late (4 days) and doesn't really address what he's apologizing for. His anger and frustration got the better of him so does that mean this wasn't the calculated use of the rules he claimed on Saturday? What actions is he embarrassed and disappointed by, chasing down a crappy putt he made and hitting it while it was still in motion, or lying during the post round interview claiming he had done it intentionally to avoid having to play from behind the bunker?

 

I asked a club pro today if someone did what Phil did during a local tournament how would he handle it, he said if they chased the ball down like Phil did given similar conditions (ball rolling off the green), DQ, no question.

 

I'll accept the apology, but I have lost some respect for him (not that he cares) and I don't think the media is going to forget about this any time soon, so i'll be interested to see how he handles their questions in 2 weeks when he plays again.

 

You asked a CLUB PRO ? Now THAT'S just good comedy. :lol:

 

What makes you think HE knows the Rules ?

 

Did you ask him what he thought about 14-5 which CLEARLY states the action and the resultant penalty with NO reference to DQ ?

 

Sheesh. How many times to you have to hear it ?!?!?!

[lowheel]

I imagine a few sponsors told him it was a good idea to apologize. ;)

 

Why would his sponsors tell him to apologize? Sunday morning of the Open was basically the Phil Mickelson golf show and his image (with all of the prominently displayed sponsors) has been all over media the past few days. I think his sponsors might ask him to do it again.

 

Considering the negative press he has been getting..... of course they would want him to apologize. Using your logic, all of Tiger's sponsors should have been thrilled about his marital problems and negative press he received. Yet many dropped him.

 

Not really the same thing though...

[lowheel]

Phil single handedly gave the most epic finger of all time to the usga. Sure it was unprofessional but it was born out of shear frustration for how the usga hosed up another USO. The usga heard the message loud and clear. Hopefully the countdown clock has started for Davis's career.

 

Normally i'm very anti-Mike Davis. So if he goes then great.

 

But i think Phil over the years has been especially childish when it comes to US Open setups. His interview a few years back where he said guys were going to stop playing the event out of fear their wrists would get damaged playing out of the rough was just one of the most asinine things i've heard. He also went out of his way to play the Ping Eye2 wedge after the groove rule, forcing Ping to agree to waive their clause and make it illegal. No one else did that and he wasn't playing it beforehand , he literally just did it to be difficult

 

I think the USGA mismanaged things too, i just think Phil has been childish over the years. And what he did here was just another example. I'm not really on his side, and that's coming from someone who thinks the USGA is terrible

 

Phil has always had strong opinions about the game and its rules. this is nothing new. He uses hyperbole to get sound bites and yes he was a smart a** to pull out the ping eye 2 lobber to show the hypocrisy of the rule. he used that club for the first 6 years of his career FYI... he forced golfs and pings hand which was a good thing. being a nice guy doesnt get it done all the time. He was wrong to act this way however hes 48 and has played in nearly 30 of these ( us opens). he earned the right to lose his cool and he didnt care if he was DQed or not. USGA knew it was a PR nightmare and let him finish on sunday.His stupid move didnt affect the outcome of the championship so the point should be moot. The golf bodies might rewrite this rule now which would be hilarious. Like in 2004 they lost 3-4 greens and on those greens their pin placements caused carnage. Phil will be fine and all this will be laughed at in very short order. I will say he has big stones to do that

[brew4eagle]

Phil's apology is a bit late (4 days) and doesn't really address what he's apologizing for. His anger and frustration got the better of him so does that mean this wasn't the calculated use of the rules he claimed on Saturday? What actions is he embarrassed and disappointed by, chasing down a crappy putt he made and hitting it while it was still in motion, or lying during the post round interview claiming he had done it intentionally to avoid having to play from behind the bunker?

 

I asked a club pro today if someone did what Phil did during a local tournament how would he handle it, he said if they chased the ball down like Phil did given similar conditions (ball rolling off the green), DQ, no question.

 

I'll accept the apology, but I have lost some respect for him (not that he cares) and I don't think the media is going to forget about this any time soon, so i'll be interested to see how he handles their questions in 2 weeks when he plays again.

 

You asked a CLUB PRO ? Now THAT'S just good comedy. :lol:

 

What makes you think HE knows the Rules ?

 

Did you ask him what he thought about 14-5 which CLEARLY states the action and the resultant penalty with NO reference to DQ ?

 

Sheesh. How many times to you have to hear it ?!?!?!

14-5 may be clear, but it doesn't clearly apply to this situation. No rule clearly applies to this situation, as this situation should never occur.

[ray9898]

 

14-5 may be clear, but it doesn't clearly apply to this situation. No rule clearly applies to this situation, as this situation should never occur.

 

I agree. I would say the intent of that rule is to cover instances where it arises in the normal course of the game. This was an intentional violation to avoid the potential of even greater peril brought into play by a missed shot. It was a blatant attempt at cheating and something virtually unheard of in pro golf.

[tiderider]

Phil's apology is a bit late (4 days) and doesn't really address what he's apologizing for. His anger and frustration got the better of him so does that mean this wasn't the calculated use of the rules he claimed on Saturday? What actions is he embarrassed and disappointed by, chasing down a crappy putt he made and hitting it while it was still in motion, or lying during the post round interview claiming he had done it intentionally to avoid having to play from behind the bunker?

 

I asked a club pro today if someone did what Phil did during a local tournament how would he handle it, he said if they chased the ball down like Phil did given similar conditions (ball rolling off the green), DQ, no question.

 

I'll accept the apology, but I have lost some respect for him (not that he cares) and I don't think the media is going to forget about this any time soon, so i'll be interested to see how he handles their questions in 2 weeks when he plays again.

 

You asked a CLUB PRO ? Now THAT'S just good comedy. :lol:

 

What makes you think HE knows the Rules ?

 

Did you ask him what he thought about 14-5 which CLEARLY states the action and the resultant penalty with NO reference to DQ ?

 

Sheesh. How many times to you have to hear it ?!?!?!

 

because he's a pga professional? ... they tend to know more about golf related things than non-pga professionals? ....

[bladehunter]

Man, Phil's latest apology is really the worst possible outcome... he admits that he lied to cover it up, and also implicates himself to the USGA when he "called to explain" his reasoning in the morning.

 

Essentially he was ticked off at the USGA for ruining the event so he decided to make a mockery of them.. Ouch.

 

Phil shouldn't have apologized for anything. Rule 14-5 is so ambiguous as to accident or purpose, he was ok with what he did. And the USGA concurred.

 

Don't blame Phil, even though he's probably in the wrong. Bottom line, he probably should have been DQ'd. Blame the inconsistent rules, between 14 and 1. This is what caused this problem.

 

Look it up, if you don't know in the first place.

 

But, then again, realize the consequence of DQing a marquee player. It's Huuuuuuuuuuuuge. Unlike an unknown player. Yeah, get it?

Ambiguous? Really?

 

A player must not make a stroke at his ball while it is moving.

 

The only question is why they seem it to be a two stroke penalty rather than DQ. If I had to guess it's to protect the player who continues his stroke of the tee(11-3) or moving in water (14-6) or the double hit.

 

Rule 1-2 it's interesting the actual rule itself does not say anything about deflected or stopped.

 

A player must not (i) take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play or (ii) alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of a hole.

 

When we try to get too deep in defining the rule rather than taking the rule itself at heart we get bad rulings.

 

Say 2 shots. No mention of DQ.

[tiderider]

14-5 may be clear, but it doesn't clearly apply to this situation. No rule clearly applies to this situation, as this situation should never occur.

 

I agree. I would say the intent of that rule is to cover instances where it arises in the normal course of the game. This was an intentional violation to avoid the potential of even greater peril brought into play by a missed shot. It was a blatant attempt at cheating and something virtually unheard of in pro golf.

 

he wasn't cheating ... c'mon ... he was ticked off and lost his head ... i've called for dq from the minute he did this, but 'cheating' means he was trying to get away with something without people knowing about it ...

[bladehunter]

Phil's apology is a bit late (4 days) and doesn't really address what he's apologizing for. His anger and frustration got the better of him so does that mean this wasn't the calculated use of the rules he claimed on Saturday? What actions is he embarrassed and disappointed by, chasing down a crappy putt he made and hitting it while it was still in motion, or lying during the post round interview claiming he had done it intentionally to avoid having to play from behind the bunker?

 

I asked a club pro today if someone did what Phil did during a local tournament how would he handle it, he said if they chased the ball down like Phil did given similar conditions (ball rolling off the green), DQ, no question.

 

I'll accept the apology, but I have lost some respect for him (not that he cares) and I don't think the media is going to forget about this any time soon, so i'll be interested to see how he handles their questions in 2 weeks when he plays again.

 

You asked a CLUB PRO ? Now THAT'S just good comedy. :lol:

 

What makes you think HE knows the Rules ?

 

Did you ask him what he thought about 14-5 which CLEARLY states the action and the resultant penalty with NO reference to DQ ?

 

Sheesh. How many times to you have to hear it ?!?!?!

 

because he's a pga professional? ... they tend to know more about golf related things than non-pga professionals? ....

 

I don’t know about that. They act like they know. But a lot are just as ignorant as me when I ask. I know 1 to each extreme. One knows the rules in and out. And hates the usga as he’s had arguments in ruling with them. The other spouts All kinds of nonsense until you show him the rule and then he backs up and Side steps away.

[Lagavulin62]

Phil doesn't type his own tweets. I don't even know why I follow his public relations firm? But they have not even posted the apology, which is really not needed. This whole thing has become so stupid. Like I said before, nothing will ever change as far as rules. It's all about Phil being a child. But he apologized so everything is just hunky dory and we can all go back to our gentleman's game. The only thing that happened was the course was too difficult and poor Phil had a tantrum. He broke a rule, some rule, one of two possible rules. And he got punished two stokes, but he could have been punished by DQ, but then again maybe not because the officials said 2 strokes was fine because he may or may not have broken a rule, one of two possibilities, or maybe both?

 

What a freakin game. Why even keep score?

 

the rule says "2 strokes"...wasnt an officials decision., there is an actual rule..and it says 2 stroke penalty... why is this so hard people ?

 

 

criticizing a celebrity for not running his own twitter account is like criticizing a wealthy man for not doing his own taxes... hed be an idiot to do so. No good comes from any celebrity having an open avenue to the public or the media

 

 

The exact rule applied has been argued this whole thread. It’s even been argued if his swipe was an actual stroke and even his intentions, as hard as that is to believe. So there are issues with how the rules are applied. You have made your points clear but not everyone agrees, whether you care or not.

 

I wasn’t really criticizing Phil for not tweeting himself. Just stating I prefer following only those that tweet themselves. Many celebrities do and they do just fine with it. I don’t follow but two other golfers, Jack and John Daly. As far as I can tell both tweet themselves and never read or heard of anything that was irresponsible. It’s all about being accountable and thinking before posting.

 

That is your opinion about personal postings. Mine is that those that post themselves, even if they never respond to followers, show a willingness to interact on a more personal level. It means a lot to their fans. It’s not mandatory and it doesn’t give him a black eye in my book for appointing someone. He is still my favorite active player. The only reason I still follow him is to know when he is playing, and that’s useful.

 

Your analogy is laughable. Were you drinking? A wealthy man uses an accountant because he doesn’t have the expertise to do them himself. It has nothing to do with thinking and re reading before posting.

[new2g0lf]

Phil's apology is a bit late (4 days) and doesn't really address what he's apologizing for. His anger and frustration got the better of him so does that mean this wasn't the calculated use of the rules he claimed on Saturday? What actions is he embarrassed and disappointed by, chasing down a crappy putt he made and hitting it while it was still in motion, or lying during the post round interview claiming he had done it intentionally to avoid having to play from behind the bunker?

 

I asked a club pro today if someone did what Phil did during a local tournament how would he handle it, he said if they chased the ball down like Phil did given similar conditions (ball rolling off the green), DQ, no question.

 

I'll accept the apology, but I have lost some respect for him (not that he cares) and I don't think the media is going to forget about this any time soon, so i'll be interested to see how he handles their questions in 2 weeks when he plays again.

 

You asked a CLUB PRO ? Now THAT'S just good comedy. :lol:

 

What makes you think HE knows the Rules ?

 

Did you ask him what he thought about 14-5 which CLEARLY states the action and the resultant penalty with NO reference to DQ ?

 

Sheesh. How many times to you have to hear it ?!?!?!

 

Because he's the guy that runs club tournaments and oversees rules violations. You refuse to acknowledge the rule doesn't address actions that might benefit a golfer who intentionally hits his moving ball. Many of the rules are written to address situations that might occur during the normal course of play not those which are broken intentionally to gain an advantage.

 

We all seem to agree the unplayable lie rule would have been a potential remedy for Phil had the ball been allowed to roll down the hill behind the bunker, but how many times have you seen someone use it in that way? We see pros hit putts that roll off the green into very difficult locations that would surely benefit from using the rule at that time yet they don't.

 

The rules assume personal integrity, in the absence of personal integrity 1-2 should apply.

[hdr_ric]

Well, I’d see Phil finally apologized (5 days later) and admitted that he just lost his cool - and that crapola he was spouting in his post round press conference was just a bunch of phony baloney.

 

Should have just told the truth to begin with.

[Lagavulin62]

Well, I’d see Phil finally apologized (5 days later) and admitted that he just lost his cool - and that crapola he was spouting in his post round press conference was just a bunch of phony baloney.

 

Should have just told the truth to begin with.

 

Only I don’t think it was phony balony. I think he really felt he was doing the right thing strategically. He apparently didn’t know all the sublties of how these rules can play out. And I have a feeling there are many many competitors who feel the same way, tour or otherwise.

[ray9898]

he wasn't cheating ... c'mon ... he was ticked off and lost his head ... i've called for dq from the minute he did this, but 'cheating' means he was trying to get away with something without people knowing about it ...

 

To me....if a bad shot he had the potential of adding 3 or 4 shots to his score and he chooses to break a rule to ensure it is limited to 2 shots it is cheating.

 

He didn't play for the win but he still cheated someone behind him in the field out of a stroke or two.

[Lagavulin62]

 

14-5 may be clear, but it doesn't clearly apply to this situation. No rule clearly applies to this situation, as this situation should never occur.

 

I agree. I would say the intent of that rule is to cover instances where it arises in the normal course of the game. This was an intentional violation to avoid the potential of even greater peril brought into play by a missed shot. It was a blatant attempt at cheating and something virtually unheard of in pro golf.

 

 

Whatever we disagree on as far as the rules, we should at least agree Phil was clearly not cheating. Cheating is an act to deceive in order to achieve some benefit thought to be unobtainable by honest means. Obviously Phil was not attempting to hide or disguise his actions. He was doing what any competitor would do, making a calculated decision that would work best to his advantage given the dire situation he found himself in. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

[cxx]

Phil's apology is a bit late (4 days) and doesn't really address what he's apologizing for. His anger and frustration got the better of him so does that mean this wasn't the calculated use of the rules he claimed on Saturday? What actions is he embarrassed and disappointed by, chasing down a crappy putt he made and hitting it while it was still in motion, or lying during the post round interview claiming he had done it intentionally to avoid having to play from behind the bunker?

 

I asked a club pro today if someone did what Phil did during a local tournament how would he handle it, he said if they chased the ball down like Phil did given similar conditions (ball rolling off the green), DQ, no question.

 

I'll accept the apology, but I have lost some respect for him (not that he cares) and I don't think the media is going to forget about this any time soon, so i'll be interested to see how he handles their questions in 2 weeks when he plays again.

 

You asked a CLUB PRO ? Now THAT'S just good comedy. :lol:

 

What makes you think HE knows the Rules ?

 

Did you ask him what he thought about 14-5 which CLEARLY states the action and the resultant penalty with NO reference to DQ ?

 

Sheesh. How many times to you have to hear it ?!?!?!

 

Because he's the guy that runs club tournaments and oversees rules violations. You refuse to acknowledge the rule doesn't address actions that might benefit a golfer who intentionally hits his moving ball. Many of the rules are written to address situations that might occur during the normal course of play not those which are broken intentionally to gain an advantage.

 

We all seem to agree the unplayable lie rule would have been a potential remedy for Phil had the ball been allowed to roll down the hill behind the bunker, but how many times have you seen someone use it in that way? We see pros hit putts that roll off the green into very difficult locations that would surely benefit from using the rule at that time yet they don't.

 

The rules assume personal integrity, in the absence of personal integrity 1-2 should apply.

 

 

And you would be... wrong.

 

It's a very small percentage of PGA members that know the rules in detail. Definitely not like the rules guys here, or the definitive authority, the USGA. Don't see how you can argue anything else.

[Lagavulin62]

Phil's apology is a bit late (4 days) and doesn't really address what he's apologizing for. His anger and frustration got the better of him so does that mean this wasn't the calculated use of the rules he claimed on Saturday? What actions is he embarrassed and disappointed by, chasing down a crappy putt he made and hitting it while it was still in motion, or lying during the post round interview claiming he had done it intentionally to avoid having to play from behind the bunker?

 

I asked a club pro today if someone did what Phil did during a local tournament how would he handle it, he said if they chased the ball down like Phil did given similar conditions (ball rolling off the green), DQ, no question.

 

I'll accept the apology, but I have lost some respect for him (not that he cares) and I don't think the media is going to forget about this any time soon, so i'll be interested to see how he handles their questions in 2 weeks when he plays again.

Very good post, and it mimics my feelings exactly. There should have been no hesitation in disqualifying Phil for what he did!

EDIT

It also surprises me that the type of golf fans that populate these forums wood back Phil's actions and actually say they are within the rules. What a low-down, immature, disgraceful thing he did on national TV at the USGA open.

 

 

 

I think you are guilty of glorifying this “gentleman’s” game and a bit naive to what really goes on in professional sports. Don’t take this the wrong way, not saying golfers are the sleazbags that are more common with the big three sports. But as the tour becomes more mainstream sports and the prize money continues to escalate, it may be time for the game to get up to “par” with easily applied, more objective rules, understood by the competitors and fans. This notion of “sacredness” and players “policing themselves” is a bit archaic and probably no longer the ideal fit for today’s game? I really believe what we saw this past weekend was an example of that. One has to ask why so few that play understand completely all the rule subtlties.

[NDS55]

he wasn't cheating ... c'mon ... he was ticked off and lost his head ... i've called for dq from the minute he did this, but 'cheating' means he was trying to get away with something without people knowing about it ...

 

To me....if a bad shot he had the potential of adding 3 or 4 shots to his score and he chooses to break a rule to ensure it is limited to 2 shots it is cheating.

 

He didn't play for the win but he still cheated someone behind him in the field out of a stroke or two.

 

Phil struck the moving ball, then took two more strokes to hole out, plus two penalty strokes. That is five strokes in total. It is possible, but very unlikely that he would have needed six or seven jabs at it if he had let it roll out.

If anything, it allowed some to move up a notch.

The two stroke penalty negated the advantage that he gained by chasing it down.

It was definitely a highlight reel moment, and certainly humorous, but way too much is being made of the situation.

For those crusading against him,they're very fortunate to have the internet to prevent this thing from dying down.

[NPVWhiz]

Phil's apology is a bit late (4 days) and doesn't really address what he's apologizing for. His anger and frustration got the better of him so does that mean this wasn't the calculated use of the rules he claimed on Saturday? What actions is he embarrassed and disappointed by, chasing down a crappy putt he made and hitting it while it was still in motion, or lying during the post round interview claiming he had done it intentionally to avoid having to play from behind the bunker?

 

I asked a club pro today if someone did what Phil did during a local tournament how would he handle it, he said if they chased the ball down like Phil did given similar conditions (ball rolling off the green), DQ, no question.

 

I'll accept the apology, but I have lost some respect for him (not that he cares) and I don't think the media is going to forget about this any time soon, so i'll be interested to see how he handles their questions in 2 weeks when he plays again.

 

You asked a CLUB PRO ? Now THAT'S just good comedy. :lol:

 

What makes you think HE knows the Rules ?

 

Did you ask him what he thought about 14-5 which CLEARLY states the action and the resultant penalty with NO reference to DQ ?

 

Sheesh. How many times to you have to hear it ?!?!?!

 

Because he's the guy that runs club tournaments and oversees rules violations. You refuse to acknowledge the rule doesn't address actions that might benefit a golfer who intentionally hits his moving ball. Many of the rules are written to address situations that might occur during the normal course of play not those which are broken intentionally to gain an advantage.

 

We all seem to agree the unplayable lie rule would have been a potential remedy for Phil had the ball been allowed to roll down the hill behind the bunker, but how many times have you seen someone use it in that way? We see pros hit putts that roll off the green into very difficult locations that would surely benefit from using the rule at that time yet they don't.

 

The rules assume personal integrity, in the absence of personal integrity 1-2 should apply.

 

 

And you would be... wrong.

 

It's a very small percentage of PGA members that know the rules in detail. Definitely not like the rules guys here, or the definitive authority, the USGA. Don't see how you can argue anything else.

 

No, he's right. The Committee, under the Rules of Golf, has considerable discretion. Discretion means that in some cases, they can just decide to waive the penalty for a rule, or they can use their discretion to botch a ruling and allow something wrong to stand. That's what the USGA did in Phil's case.

 

This type of discretion that is built into the rule structure is ostensibly meant to allow for a subjective, judicious approach to specific circumstances where a correct application of the rules wouldn't sit well with the members of the Committee. Such has happened at very high profile tournaments, albeit rarely.

 

We all know Phil feigned a stroke in order to put himself under Rule 14. A feigned stroke to accomplish the breach of a different rule (to deflect a moving ball from ending up in a worse lie once the ball came to rest) should be a DQ under 1-2. The Committee just didn't want the negative publicity. Case closed.

 

Phil's intent in making a stroke like motion at a moving ball could not have been an authentic effort to make a stroke, because we can make a reasonable presumption that a professional wouldn't do that. Instead, it was a feigned effort to make a deflection APPEAR to be a "stroke" as defined under the rules. How this is not apparent to folks is hard to comprehend.

 

Look at the way Phil has gone about preparing and making the last 100 authentic strokes made at a ball at rest on a putting green. Then look at that "stroke" and tell me it was authentic..that he was acting within the normal range of his own routine and behavior. He wasn't, and didn't.

 

I bet the Committee didn't even ask him whether he truly and honestly intended to make a stroke at the ball. The didn't want to, because that would have put Phil in the position of lying to the Committee and everyone would have known it.

 

Heck, he even got that sheepish Phil grin for just a microsecond when the ball almost went into the hole...which in and of itself belied the idea that he truly intended to make an authentic stroke at the ball. That's the key to understanding Phil

 

What would Phil have done if the ball he swatted at had gone into the hole? He would have gotten that big sheepish grin on his face like he would look if Mike Davis dressed as a clown popped out of a big birthday cake, and he would have raised his hands in the air and soaked in the adulation of a clapping hand or two. Would a pro have an expectation that a six foot put would go in the hole under normal circumstances? Yes. That's reasonable. Did Phil expect the swatted ball to go in the hole. Clearly not. That shows that it was truly an authentic stroke. That's why they should have DQ'd him.

 

His intent was to deflect the ball to a more advantageous playing position. That is the spirit and intent of 1.2. That's where the Committee should have ruled. They erred by not doing so.

[North Butte]

My interpretation is two-fold. Phil make an uncharacteristically stupid and ugly move by running up and hitting the ball.

 

And having done that, he tried to spin it as some sort of combined genius-level stroke saving rules lawyering and protest against the way the course was set up. That sort of thing, unfortunately, is entirely characteristic of Phil who has to always be a know-it-all even when he don't.

[Lagavulin62]

Phil's apology is a bit late (4 days) and doesn't really address what he's apologizing for. His anger and frustration got the better of him so does that mean this wasn't the calculated use of the rules he claimed on Saturday? What actions is he embarrassed and disappointed by, chasing down a crappy putt he made and hitting it while it was still in motion, or lying during the post round interview claiming he had done it intentionally to avoid having to play from behind the bunker?

 

I asked a club pro today if someone did what Phil did during a local tournament how would he handle it, he said if they chased the ball down like Phil did given similar conditions (ball rolling off the green), DQ, no question.

 

I'll accept the apology, but I have lost some respect for him (not that he cares) and I don't think the media is going to forget about this any time soon, so i'll be interested to see how he handles their questions in 2 weeks when he plays again.

 

You asked a CLUB PRO ? Now THAT'S just good comedy. :lol:

 

What makes you think HE knows the Rules ?

 

Did you ask him what he thought about 14-5 which CLEARLY states the action and the resultant penalty with NO reference to DQ ?

 

Sheesh. How many times to you have to hear it ?!?!?!

 

Because he's the guy that runs club tournaments and oversees rules violations. You refuse to acknowledge the rule doesn't address actions that might benefit a golfer who intentionally hits his moving ball. Many of the rules are written to address situations that might occur during the normal course of play not those which are broken intentionally to gain an advantage.

 

We all seem to agree the unplayable lie rule would have been a potential remedy for Phil had the ball been allowed to roll down the hill behind the bunker, but how many times have you seen someone use it in that way? We see pros hit putts that roll off the green into very difficult locations that would surely benefit from using the rule at that time yet they don't.

 

The rules assume personal integrity, in the absence of personal integrity 1-2 should apply.

 

 

And you would be... wrong.

 

It's a very small percentage of PGA members that know the rules in detail. Definitely not like the rules guys here, or the definitive authority, the USGA. Don't see how you can argue anything else.

 

No, he's right. The Committee, under the Rules of Golf, has considerable discretion. Discretion means that in some cases, they can just decide to waive the penalty for a rule, or they can use their discretion to botch a ruling and allow something wrong to stand. That's what the USGA did in Phil's case.

 

This type of discretion that is built into the rule structure is ostensibly meant to allow for a subjective, judicious approach to specific circumstances where a correct application of the rules wouldn't sit well with the members of the Committee. Such has happened at very high profile tournaments, albeit rarely.

 

We all know Phil feigned a stroke in order to put himself under Rule 14. A feigned stroke to accomplish the breach of a different rule (to deflect a moving ball from ending up in a worse lie once the ball came to rest) should be a DQ under 1-2. The Committee just didn't want the negative publicity. Case closed.

 

Phil's intent in making a stroke like motion at a moving ball could not have been an authentic effort to make a stroke, because we can make a reasonable presumption that a professional wouldn't do that. Instead, it was a feigned effort to make a deflection APPEAR to be a "stroke" as defined under the rules. How this is not apparent to folks is hard to comprehend.

 

Look at the way Phil has gone about preparing and making the last 100 authentic strokes made at a ball at rest on a putting green. Then look at that "stroke" and tell me it was authentic..that he was acting within the normal range of his own routine and behavior. He wasn't, and didn't.

 

I bet the Committee didn't even ask him whether he truly and honestly intended to make a stroke at the ball. The didn't want to, because that would have put Phil in the position of lying to the Committee and everyone would have known it.

 

Heck, he even got that sheepish Phil grin for just a microsecond when the ball almost went into the hole...which in and of itself belied the idea that he truly intended to make an authentic stroke at the ball. That's the key to understanding Phil

 

What would Phil have done if the ball he swatted at had gone into the hole? He would have gotten that big sheepish grin on his face like he would look if Mike Davis dressed as a clown popped out of a big birthday cake, and he would have raised his hands in the air and soaked in the adulation of a clapping hand or two. Would a pro have an expectation that a six foot put would go in the hole under normal circumstances? Yes. That's reasonable. Did Phil expect the swatted ball to go in the hole. Clearly not. That shows that it was truly an authentic stroke. That's why they should have DQ'd him.

 

His intent was to deflect the ball to a more advantageous playing position. That is the spirit and intent of 1.2. That's where the Committee should have ruled. They erred by not doing so.

 

 

Although I don’t agree with your assumptions on Phil’s thought process, I do agree with the committee part. Good post.

[hybrid25]

I'd love to see the fan start heckling Mickelson for his behavior over every shot he takes. This would straighten him out and make him realize that he's not bigger than the game. In fact, maybe this very post will be the catalyst of such heckling?

[legitimategolf]

I'd love to see the fan start heckling Mickelson for his behavior over every shot he takes. This would straighten him out and make him realize that he's not bigger than the game. In fact, maybe this very post will be the catalyst of such heckling?

 

I think it will be fun going forward, to yell "RUN!" at Phil anytime a ball starts to roll down a slope.

[cxx]

Phil's apology is a bit late (4 days) and doesn't really address what he's apologizing for. His anger and frustration got the better of him so does that mean this wasn't the calculated use of the rules he claimed on Saturday? What actions is he embarrassed and disappointed by, chasing down a crappy putt he made and hitting it while it was still in motion, or lying during the post round interview claiming he had done it intentionally to avoid having to play from behind the bunker?

 

I asked a club pro today if someone did what Phil did during a local tournament how would he handle it, he said if they chased the ball down like Phil did given similar conditions (ball rolling off the green), DQ, no question.

 

I'll accept the apology, but I have lost some respect for him (not that he cares) and I don't think the media is going to forget about this any time soon, so i'll be interested to see how he handles their questions in 2 weeks when he plays again.

 

You asked a CLUB PRO ? Now THAT'S just good comedy. :lol:

 

What makes you think HE knows the Rules ?

 

Did you ask him what he thought about 14-5 which CLEARLY states the action and the resultant penalty with NO reference to DQ ?

 

Sheesh. How many times to you have to hear it ?!?!?!

 

Because he's the guy that runs club tournaments and oversees rules violations. You refuse to acknowledge the rule doesn't address actions that might benefit a golfer who intentionally hits his moving ball. Many of the rules are written to address situations that might occur during the normal course of play not those which are broken intentionally to gain an advantage.

 

We all seem to agree the unplayable lie rule would have been a potential remedy for Phil had the ball been allowed to roll down the hill behind the bunker, but how many times have you seen someone use it in that way? We see pros hit putts that roll off the green into very difficult locations that would surely benefit from using the rule at that time yet they don't.

 

The rules assume personal integrity, in the absence of personal integrity 1-2 should apply.

 

 

And you would be... wrong.

 

It's a very small percentage of PGA members that know the rules in detail. Definitely not like the rules guys here, or the definitive authority, the USGA. Don't see how you can argue anything else.

 

No, he's right. The Committee, under the Rules of Golf, has considerable discretion. Discretion means that in some cases, they can just decide to waive the penalty for a rule, or they can use their discretion to botch a ruling and allow something wrong to stand. That's what the USGA did in Phil's case.

 

This type of discretion that is built into the rule structure is ostensibly meant to allow for a subjective, judicious approach to specific circumstances where a correct application of the rules wouldn't sit well with the members of the Committee. Such has happened at very high profile tournaments, albeit rarely.

 

We all know Phil feigned a stroke in order to put himself under Rule 14. A feigned stroke to accomplish the breach of a different rule (to deflect a moving ball from ending up in a worse lie once the ball came to rest) should be a DQ under 1-2. The Committee just didn't want the negative publicity. Case closed.

 

Phil's intent in making a stroke like motion at a moving ball could not have been an authentic effort to make a stroke, because we can make a reasonable presumption that a professional wouldn't do that. Instead, it was a feigned effort to make a deflection APPEAR to be a "stroke" as defined under the rules. How this is not apparent to folks is hard to comprehend.

 

Look at the way Phil has gone about preparing and making the last 100 authentic strokes made at a ball at rest on a putting green. Then look at that "stroke" and tell me it was authentic..that he was acting within the normal range of his own routine and behavior. He wasn't, and didn't.

 

I bet the Committee didn't even ask him whether he truly and honestly intended to make a stroke at the ball. The didn't want to, because that would have put Phil in the position of lying to the Committee and everyone would have known it.

 

Heck, he even got that sheepish Phil grin for just a microsecond when the ball almost went into the hole...which in and of itself belied the idea that he truly intended to make an authentic stroke at the ball. That's the key to understanding Phil

 

What would Phil have done if the ball he swatted at had gone into the hole? He would have gotten that big sheepish grin on his face like he would look if Mike Davis dressed as a clown popped out of a big birthday cake, and he would have raised his hands in the air and soaked in the adulation of a clapping hand or two. Would a pro have an expectation that a six foot put would go in the hole under normal circumstances? Yes. That's reasonable. Did Phil expect the swatted ball to go in the hole. Clearly not. That shows that it was truly an authentic stroke. That's why they should have DQ'd him.

 

His intent was to deflect the ball to a more advantageous playing position. That is the spirit and intent of 1.2. That's where the Committee should have ruled. They erred by not doing so.

 

It seems you are claiming it was not a stroke, like the putter got in the way. He didn't throw the putter in front of the ball or reach out to stop the ball, he hit the ball with the face of the club. It was a stroke and almost went in. The ruling was correct. Some might not like it, but that's always the case.

[nichho]

I'd love to see the fan start heckling Mickelson for his behavior over every shot he takes. This would straighten him out and make him realize that he's not bigger than the game. In fact, maybe this very post will be the catalyst of such heckling?

 

I think it will be fun going forward, to yell "RUN!" at Phil anytime a ball starts to roll down a slope.

 

And moments after the call to "RUN" he will produce "that" grin.

[Shilgy]

Well, I'd see Phil finally apologized (5 days later) and admitted that he just lost his cool - and that crapola he was spouting in his post round press conference was just a bunch of phony baloney.

 

Should have just told the truth to begin with.

 

Only I don't think it was phony balony. I think he really felt he was doing the right thing strategically. He apparently didn't know all the sublties of how these rules can play out. And I have a feeling there are many many competitors who feel the same way, tour or otherwise.

He told Beef he did not know and did not care what the penalty was. How is that strategic?

[nsxguy]

Phil's apology is a bit late (4 days) and doesn't really address what he's apologizing for. His anger and frustration got the better of him so does that mean this wasn't the calculated use of the rules he claimed on Saturday? What actions is he embarrassed and disappointed by, chasing down a crappy putt he made and hitting it while it was still in motion, or lying during the post round interview claiming he had done it intentionally to avoid having to play from behind the bunker?

 

I asked a club pro today if someone did what Phil did during a local tournament how would he handle it, he said if they chased the ball down like Phil did given similar conditions (ball rolling off the green), DQ, no question.

 

I'll accept the apology, but I have lost some respect for him (not that he cares) and I don't think the media is going to forget about this any time soon, so i'll be interested to see how he handles their questions in 2 weeks when he plays again.

 

You asked a CLUB PRO ? Now THAT'S just good comedy. :lol:

 

What makes you think HE knows the Rules ?

 

Did you ask him what he thought about 14-5 which CLEARLY states the action and the resultant penalty with NO reference to DQ ?

 

Sheesh. How many times to you have to hear it ?!?!?!

 

Because he's the guy that runs club tournaments and oversees rules violations. You refuse to acknowledge the rule doesn't address actions that might benefit a golfer who intentionally hits his moving ball. Many of the rules are written to address situations that might occur during the normal course of play not those which are broken intentionally to gain an advantage.

 

We all seem to agree the unplayable lie rule would have been a potential remedy for Phil had the ball been allowed to roll down the hill behind the bunker, but how many times have you seen someone use it in that way? We see pros hit putts that roll off the green into very difficult locations that would surely benefit from using the rule at that time yet they don't.

 

The rules assume personal integrity, in the absence of personal integrity 1-2 should apply.

 

 

And you would be... wrong.

 

It's a very small percentage of PGA members that know the rules in detail. Definitely not like the rules guys here, or the definitive authority, the USGA. Don't see how you can argue anything else.

 

No, he's right. The Committee, under the Rules of Golf, has considerable discretion. Discretion means that in some cases, they can just decide to waive the penalty for a rule, or they can use their discretion to botch a ruling and allow something wrong to stand. That's what the USGA did in Phil's case.

 

This type of discretion that is built into the rule structure is ostensibly meant to allow for a subjective, judicious approach to specific circumstances where a correct application of the rules wouldn't sit well with the members of the Committee. Such has happened at very high profile tournaments, albeit rarely.

 

We all know Phil feigned a stroke in order to put himself under Rule 14. A feigned stroke to accomplish the breach of a different rule (to deflect a moving ball from ending up in a worse lie once the ball came to rest) should be a DQ under 1-2. The Committee just didn't want the negative publicity. Case closed.

 

Phil's intent in making a stroke like motion at a moving ball could not have been an authentic effort to make a stroke, because we can make a reasonable presumption that a professional wouldn't do that. Instead, it was a feigned effort to make a deflection APPEAR to be a "stroke" as defined under the rules. How this is not apparent to folks is hard to comprehend.

 

Look at the way Phil has gone about preparing and making the last 100 authentic strokes made at a ball at rest on a putting green. Then look at that "stroke" and tell me it was authentic..that he was acting within the normal range of his own routine and behavior. He wasn't, and didn't.

 

I bet the Committee didn't even ask him whether he truly and honestly intended to make a stroke at the ball. The didn't want to, because that would have put Phil in the position of lying to the Committee and everyone would have known it.

 

Heck, he even got that sheepish Phil grin for just a microsecond when the ball almost went into the hole...which in and of itself belied the idea that he truly intended to make an authentic stroke at the ball. That's the key to understanding Phil

 

What would Phil have done if the ball he swatted at had gone into the hole? He would have gotten that big sheepish grin on his face like he would look if Mike Davis dressed as a clown popped out of a big birthday cake, and he would have raised his hands in the air and soaked in the adulation of a clapping hand or two. Would a pro have an expectation that a six foot put would go in the hole under normal circumstances? Yes. That's reasonable. Did Phil expect the swatted ball to go in the hole. Clearly not. That shows that it was truly an authentic stroke. That's why they should have DQ'd him.

 

His intent was to deflect the ball to a more advantageous playing position. That is the spirit and intent of 1.2. That's where the Committee should have ruled. They erred by not doing so.

 

No, he's RIGHT, if only because he explained what the previous poster was wrong about - that the PGA Pros know more about the Rules than,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

The PGA Pros at golf courses are trained,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, in selling memberships, greens fees, clubs and balls. They also give lessons. The Rules ? Not so much. I'd wager my life savings that there are at least 5 Rules Guys around here than know more about the Rules than the average Pro Shop/Golf Course PRO.

 

Secondly,,,,,,,, "feigned" ??? Seriously ?

 

feign - pretend to be affected by (a feeling, state, or injury).

"she feigned nervousness"

synonyms: simulate, fake, sham, affect, give the appearance of, make a pretense of

 

 

Stroke - A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball.

 

 

You think he FAKED a stroke at the ball ? Why would the Committee even ask him about it ? The video CLEARLY shows he hit the ball intentionally, i.e. a "stroke" by the definition in the RULES.

 

 

14-5. Playing Moving Ball

A player must not make a stroke at his ball while it is moving. (Exceptions deleted for brevity(?))

 

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, but he is not exempt from any penalty under Rule 18-2 (Ball at rest moved by player).

 

 

14-5 NO DOUBT exists because players HAVE and (apparently) DO make strokes at a moving ball and the penalty for doing so is CLEARLY spelled out and, in this case, as in the case of John Daly in 1999 (which was far more egregious if you ask me), applied absolutely correctly.

 

There are FEW Rules, and penalties for breaking them, MORE clearly written in the ROG.

 

 

I GET that you're "agog and aghast" (Has Mario found love at last ? LOL) at Phil's loss of composure but you obviously feel strongly both ways. First you say he made an authentic stroke and in the very next sentence you use the word "deflect" as the cause of your argument for DQ. Make up my mind, will ya ?

 

What would have happened had that stroke gone into the hole ? Phil would have smiled sheepishly and made a an embarrassing 8.

 

And finally (you're ALL welcome), perhaps you can explain how ANYBODY is advantaged by taking a 2 stroke penalty. (Pro Tip - don't bother. You can't.)

[Lagavulin62]

Well, I'd see Phil finally apologized (5 days later) and admitted that he just lost his cool - and that crapola he was spouting in his post round press conference was just a bunch of phony baloney.

 

Should have just told the truth to begin with.

 

Only I don't think it was phony balony. I think he really felt he was doing the right thing strategically. He apparently didn't know all the sublties of how these rules can play out. And I have a feeling there are many many competitors who feel the same way, tour or otherwise.

He told Beef he did not know and did not care what the penalty was. How is that strategic?

 

 

He thought the 2 stroke penalty would apply but as nobody really knows how the pinheads would rule he didn’t care what they came up with. In his mind he was playing strategically based on his understanding. Now he was frustrated too but the real issue, as I have stated many times, is that one never kniws how this will play out until it happens. And THAT is a big probllem. I think Phil and many players probably feel the same. Unfortunately this is all lost so it will happen again. Golf in that sense is a good reflection on issues we have outside the game. But getting back to golf he simply acted based on his understanding of the rules and attempted to play it to his advantage. He was not all that invested in the consequences and thats why he blew it off. Obviously he would not have tried that had he been near the lead. Not much more to it than that.

[nsxguy]

Phil's apology is a bit late (4 days) and doesn't really address what he's apologizing for. His anger and frustration got the better of him so does that mean this wasn't the calculated use of the rules he claimed on Saturday? What actions is he embarrassed and disappointed by, chasing down a crappy putt he made and hitting it while it was still in motion, or lying during the post round interview claiming he had done it intentionally to avoid having to play from behind the bunker?

 

I asked a club pro today if someone did what Phil did during a local tournament how would he handle it, he said if they chased the ball down like Phil did given similar conditions (ball rolling off the green), DQ, no question.

 

I'll accept the apology, but I have lost some respect for him (not that he cares) and I don't think the media is going to forget about this any time soon, so i'll be interested to see how he handles their questions in 2 weeks when he plays again.

 

You asked a CLUB PRO ? Now THAT'S just good comedy. :lol:

 

What makes you think HE knows the Rules ?

 

Did you ask him what he thought about 14-5 which CLEARLY states the action and the resultant penalty with NO reference to DQ ?

 

Sheesh. How many times to you have to hear it ?!?!?!

 

Because he's the guy that runs club tournaments and oversees rules violations. You refuse to acknowledge the rule doesn't address actions that might benefit a golfer who intentionally hits his moving ball. Many of the rules are written to address situations that might occur during the normal course of play not those which are broken intentionally to gain an advantage.

 

We all seem to agree the unplayable lie rule would have been a potential remedy for Phil had the ball been allowed to roll down the hill behind the bunker, but how many times have you seen someone use it in that way? We see pros hit putts that roll off the green into very difficult locations that would surely benefit from using the rule at that time yet they don't.

 

The rules assume personal integrity, in the absence of personal integrity 1-2 should apply.

 

I personally would consider personal integrity following the Rules AND accepting the appropriate penalty if I break them.

 

The Rules guide the game. How to play. How not to play. And what to do if you break them. Following the Rules is fine by me. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.

 

I "refuse to address to acknowledge the rule doesn't address actions that might benefit a golfer who intentionally hits his moving ball. Many of the rules are written to address situations that might occur during the normal course of play not those which are broken intentionally to gain an advantage."

 

Re-read 14-5 (or my last post LOL). There is seldom a more CLEAR rule and penalty for breaking it in the ROG.

 

I think it is actually YOU who refuses to believe that a stroke, BY DEFINITION, is intentional and that 14-5 COVERS IT.

 

And neither you nor anyone else to this point has shown anybody HOW the 2 stroke penalty EVER helps the player.

[MC7470]

Phil's apology is a bit late (4 days) and doesn't really address what he's apologizing for. His anger and frustration got the better of him so does that mean this wasn't the calculated use of the rules he claimed on Saturday? What actions is he embarrassed and disappointed by, chasing down a crappy putt he made and hitting it while it was still in motion, or lying during the post round interview claiming he had done it intentionally to avoid having to play from behind the bunker?

 

I asked a club pro today if someone did what Phil did during a local tournament how would he handle it, he said if they chased the ball down like Phil did given similar conditions (ball rolling off the green), DQ, no question.

 

I'll accept the apology, but I have lost some respect for him (not that he cares) and I don't think the media is going to forget about this any time soon, so i'll be interested to see how he handles their questions in 2 weeks when he plays again.

 

You asked a CLUB PRO ? Now THAT'S just good comedy. :lol:

 

What makes you think HE knows the Rules ?

 

Did you ask him what he thought about 14-5 which CLEARLY states the action and the resultant penalty with NO reference to DQ ?

 

Sheesh. How many times to you have to hear it ?!?!?!

 

Because he's the guy that runs club tournaments and oversees rules violations. You refuse to acknowledge the rule doesn't address actions that might benefit a golfer who intentionally hits his moving ball. Many of the rules are written to address situations that might occur during the normal course of play not those which are broken intentionally to gain an advantage.

 

We all seem to agree the unplayable lie rule would have been a potential remedy for Phil had the ball been allowed to roll down the hill behind the bunker, but how many times have you seen someone use it in that way? We see pros hit putts that roll off the green into very difficult locations that would surely benefit from using the rule at that time yet they don't.

 

The rules assume personal integrity, in the absence of personal integrity 1-2 should apply.

 

 

And you would be... wrong.

 

It's a very small percentage of PGA members that know the rules in detail. Definitely not like the rules guys here, or the definitive authority, the USGA. Don't see how you can argue anything else.

 

No, he's right. The Committee, under the Rules of Golf, has considerable discretion. Discretion means that in some cases, they can just decide to waive the penalty for a rule, or they can use their discretion to botch a ruling and allow something wrong to stand. That's what the USGA did in Phil's case.

 

This type of discretion that is built into the rule structure is ostensibly meant to allow for a subjective, judicious approach to specific circumstances where a correct application of the rules wouldn't sit well with the members of the Committee. Such has happened at very high profile tournaments, albeit rarely.

 

We all know Phil feigned a stroke in order to put himself under Rule 14. A feigned stroke to accomplish the breach of a different rule (to deflect a moving ball from ending up in a worse lie once the ball came to rest) should be a DQ under 1-2. The Committee just didn't want the negative publicity. Case closed.

 

Phil's intent in making a stroke like motion at a moving ball could not have been an authentic effort to make a stroke, because we can make a reasonable presumption that a professional wouldn't do that. Instead, it was a feigned effort to make a deflection APPEAR to be a "stroke" as defined under the rules. How this is not apparent to folks is hard to comprehend.

 

Look at the way Phil has gone about preparing and making the last 100 authentic strokes made at a ball at rest on a putting green. Then look at that "stroke" and tell me it was authentic..that he was acting within the normal range of his own routine and behavior. He wasn't, and didn't.

 

I bet the Committee didn't even ask him whether he truly and honestly intended to make a stroke at the ball. The didn't want to, because that would have put Phil in the position of lying to the Committee and everyone would have known it.

 

Heck, he even got that sheepish Phil grin for just a microsecond when the ball almost went into the hole...which in and of itself belied the idea that he truly intended to make an authentic stroke at the ball. That's the key to understanding Phil

 

What would Phil have done if the ball he swatted at had gone into the hole? He would have gotten that big sheepish grin on his face like he would look if Mike Davis dressed as a clown popped out of a big birthday cake, and he would have raised his hands in the air and soaked in the adulation of a clapping hand or two. Would a pro have an expectation that a six foot put would go in the hole under normal circumstances? Yes. That's reasonable. Did Phil expect the swatted ball to go in the hole. Clearly not. That shows that it was truly an authentic stroke. That's why they should have DQ'd him.

 

His intent was to deflect the ball to a more advantageous playing position. That is the spirit and intent of 1.2. That's where the Committee should have ruled. They erred by not doing so.

 

You have 2 flaws in your argument:

 

1. You cannot prove that Mickelson’s stroke was “feigned,” no matter what inferences you make from his statements or the way he usually addresses the ball (the word “authentic” does not appear in the language of Rule 14-5)—unless, of course, you have the ability to read minds.

 

2. The Rules of Golf do not give the Commitee carte blanche for interpretation of the rules. It is bound by the language in the rule book.

 

The USGA has a free Rules of Golf app available if you might find that useful.