Mickelson hitting putt while ball was still moving?

[wobgon]

Does anyone think Phil would have cared if they disqualified him?

[Dpavs]

Phil should withdraw from the tournament at least. He should have been disqualified when he justified his intention of putting a moving ball during the interview. If this was done by a no name PGA tour player, it would have been a different outcome.

WHY? Which rule would they have used to do so?

 

If it had been up to me he would have been DQ'd under the following sections and rules-

 

"Section I - Etiquette; Behavior on the Course

 

Introduction

 

This section provides guidelines on the manner in which the game of golf should be played. If they are followed, all players will gain maximum enjoyment from the game. The overriding principle is that consideration should be shown to others on the course at all times.

The Spirit of the Game

 

Golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and "to abide by the Rules". All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf. .....

 

Conclusion; Penalties for Breach

 

If players follow the guidelines in this section, it will make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

 

If a player consistently disregards these guidelines during a round or over a period of time to the detriment of others, it is recommended that the Committee considers taking appropriate disciplinary action against the offending player. Such action may, for example, include prohibiting play for a limited time on the course or in a certain number of competitions. This is considered to be justifiable in terms of protecting the interests of the majority of golfers who wish to play in accordance with these guidelines.

 

In the case of a serious breach of etiquette, the Committee may disqualify a player under Rule 33-7."

 

 

 

"33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion

 

A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.

 

Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.

 

 

If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule."

 

 

 

How what Phil did (i.e. consciously choosing to violate rule 14-5) was not considered a serious breach of etiquette is beyond me.

I will respect your point.....Lets start DQing everyone who anyone thinks is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette and see how it goes......I personally would not be upset if they DQ'd him as long as they took Joe Buck with him.......Joe buck announcing golf is like me announcing a world cup soccer game or a curling match....Absolutely no knowledge of the game.

 

Keeping it genuine... under rule 33-7 it's not up to "anyone" it's up to the Committee... and IMO this time they definitely made the wrong decision.

 

As far as Joe Buck... I'll second that. I haven't a clue why they have him as a commentator for golf. Truthfully, I'm not a fan of his regardless of the sport.

[Dpavs]

Does anyone think Phil would have cared if they disqualified him?

 

I think that is a good question... and I honestly don't think he would have. I really believe he would have been good with any decision made. He was pure out frustrated and as he said... it was not his best moment.

[wobgon]

Phil should withdraw from the tournament at least. He should have been disqualified when he justified his intention of putting a moving ball during the interview. If this was done by a no name PGA tour player, it would have been a different outcome.

WHY? Which rule would they have used to do so?

 

If it had been up to me he would have been DQ'd under the following sections and rules-

 

"Section I - Etiquette; Behavior on the Course

 

Introduction

 

This section provides guidelines on the manner in which the game of golf should be played. If they are followed, all players will gain maximum enjoyment from the game. The overriding principle is that consideration should be shown to others on the course at all times.

The Spirit of the Game

 

Golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and "to abide by the Rules". All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf. .....

 

Conclusion; Penalties for Breach

 

If players follow the guidelines in this section, it will make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

 

If a player consistently disregards these guidelines during a round or over a period of time to the detriment of others, it is recommended that the Committee considers taking appropriate disciplinary action against the offending player. Such action may, for example, include prohibiting play for a limited time on the course or in a certain number of competitions. This is considered to be justifiable in terms of protecting the interests of the majority of golfers who wish to play in accordance with these guidelines.

 

In the case of a serious breach of etiquette, the Committee may disqualify a player under Rule 33-7."

 

 

 

"33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion

 

A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.

 

Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.

 

 

If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule."

 

 

 

How what Phil did (i.e. consciously choosing to violate rule 14-5) was not considered a serious breach of etiquette is beyond me.

I will respect your point.....Lets start DQing everyone who anyone thinks is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette and see how it goes......I personally would not be upset if they DQ'd him as long as they took Joe Buck with him.......Joe buck announcing golf is like me announcing a world cup soccer game or a curling match....Absolutely no knowledge of the game.

 

Keeping it genuine... under rule 33-7 it's not up to "anyone" it's up to the Committee... and IMO this time they definitely made the wrong decision.

 

As far as Joe Buck... I'll second that. I haven't a clue why they have him as a commentator for golf. Truthfully, I'm not a fan of his regardless of the sport.

Agreed, but from what I have seen, the committee is just a bunch of anyone's.

[Holy Moses]

Does anyone think Phil would have cared if they disqualified him?

 

He wanted to get DQ’d. That would have raised the spectacle of what yesterday was and made the USGA look more stupid. It might have pressures Mike Davis to let up on course setup in the coming years. I think the USGA did not DQ Phil so that they weren’t put in that position.

[CCTxGolf]

Phil is probably going to pick up his ball on 18th green and WD

[tiderider]

Bottom line, Phil was unwilling to accept the consequences of a putt that he obviously hit too hard.

 

which flies in the face of the fundamental underpinning of the game ... everyone arguing about this or that rule seems to be intentionally missing that point, which says quite a bit ...

[toddba11]

Tainted his legacy for sure with the debacle, Pat Perez or another lesser name would have been DQ. He is -1 today thru 14 and Rickie is -4, so will we see two courses again today?

[ssfranny]

DQ. Bad for golf. As simple as that.

 

 

You think what he did and having course in this ridiculous condition will grow the game....big fat NO.

[Doc420]

His claim that he was just taking advantage of the rules is as believable as he not knowing he was insider trading.

[HitEmTrue]

There is no debate. There isn't even room for interpretation. Look at the video and listen to Phil's own remarks:

 

- The actual act: Phil putts, then runs after the ball and hits it before it rolls any further, breaching Rule 14-5. Rule 14-5 goes on to state, if it's done purposely, see Rule 1-2

 

- Phil's post round remarks:

• "I've had multiple times I wanted to do that, I just finally did it."
  
• "No question it was gonna go down, into the same spot, behind the bunker, was gonna have no shot."
  

A clear breach of Rule 1-2. However, there is a stipulation that the Committee may impose a DQ in the case of a serious breach. Phil's own acts and remarks are clearly a serious breach.

 

The USGA either decided to ignore Rule 1-2 or were just sackless.

 

Rule 14-5 does not say what you say it says.

 

A stroke, is by definition, intent. A breach of 14-5 is ALWAYS and intentional stroke at a moving ball. There is no such thing as an accidental stroke.

 

Rule 14-5 points back to 1-2 for intentionally deflecting or stopping the moving ball. That is not the same as a stroke.

 

If he had set his club down to stop or deflect the ball, or done the same thing with his foot, that would be a breach of 1-2.

 

Now, we can all question why breaching the two different rules can have different outcomes.

[Naptime]

Maybe the R&A will have a chat with him before he tees off at Carnoustie.

[new2g0lf]

Phil should have been DQ'd and the hitting the moving ball rule needs to be clarified to address intent to manipulate score.

[new2g0lf]

For what it's worth. I've aaid fo over a year that the rules of golf were being exposed by zooming TV and Social media and that they can't survive in their current form. The blanket has been pulled back and the flaws are being exposed.

 

But that isn't Phil's fault. It's the usga. The rule needs re wording. But as is phil isn't wrong.

 

It was bad form for Phil to admit he used the rules to post a lower score, imo it violates the spirit of the game. What if everyone started running after they struck a putt to hit their moving ball back towards the hole or tried to rebound a missed putt into the hole? Do we now need to review every rule to insure there isn't a way for a golfer to manipulate to produce in a lower score?

[Naptime]

If someone did that in our 4some he'd get a ton of grief. Maybe the Mickelson will replace the Mulligan. Has a ring to it. :swoon:

[legitimategolf]

Nefarious Phil

Lyin' Phil

Field Hockey Phil

[bladehunter]

Bottom line, Phil was unwilling to accept the consequences of a putt that he obviously hit too hard.

 

which flies in the face of the fundamental underpinning of the game ... everyone arguing about this or that rule seems to be intentionally missing that point, which says quite a bit ...

 

nope... just reading and going by the actual rules

[Carl Spackler3]

Just spoke with Phil, he’s following this thread intently

[bladehunter]

For what it's worth. I've aaid fo over a year that the rules of golf were being exposed by zooming TV and Social media and that they can't survive in their current form. The blanket has been pulled back and the flaws are being exposed.

 

But that isn't Phil's fault. It's the usga. The rule needs re wording. But as is phil isn't wrong.

 

It was bad form for Phil to admit he used the rules to post a lower score, imo it violates the spirit of the game. What if everyone started running after they struck a putt to hit their moving ball back towards the hole or tried to rebound a missed putt into the hole? Do we now need to review every rule to insure there isn't a way for a golfer to manipulate to produce in a lower score?

 

yes. I would think that youd want to ask youself just that when writing any rule..no?

 

and that scenario makes no sense.. we rarely see anything that doing that would actually help. so its not as if this can be adopted as a widely use strategy . We just dont like how it looks.. "bad optics" which has been proven time and time again as not against the rules automatically

[straightshot7]

For what it's worth. I've aaid fo over a year that the rules of golf were being exposed by zooming TV and Social media and that they can't survive in their current form. The blanket has been pulled back and the flaws are being exposed.

 

But that isn't Phil's fault. It's the usga. The rule needs re wording. But as is phil isn't wrong.

 

It was bad form for Phil to admit he used the rules to post a lower score, imo it violates the spirit of the game. What if everyone started running after they struck a putt to hit their moving ball back towards the hole or tried to rebound a missed putt into the hole? Do we now need to review every rule to insure there isn't a way for a golfer to manipulate to produce in a lower score?

 

Except he never said that he did it to produce a lower score.

 

Do you have a quote you can provide where he ever said that?

[Dr. Block]

As a life long Phil fan and supporter I’m still perplexed that he would do such a thing. I guess it was a moment of pure frustration that scrambled his brain.

 

I think he should have disqualified himself the very moment he did what he did. I think if he had and he hadn’t given an excuse that I don’t think was true or respectful to the game, he could have mitigated a lot of the fall out that he has coming. Fall out he now deserves to bare fully.

[bladehunter]

i dont think theres any fallout coming.. he will take a month off and todays pea brained 3 minute attention span facebook folks will be onto the next social injustice that melts their sensibilities

[TCWhite]

It wasn't about the conditions, it was about the hole placements being on a slope. I don't blame him for giving the USGA the finger.

 

"A little revolution every once in a while is a good thing, don't you think?"

[new2g0lf]

For what it's worth. I've aaid fo over a year that the rules of golf were being exposed by zooming TV and Social media and that they can't survive in their current form. The blanket has been pulled back and the flaws are being exposed.

 

But that isn't Phil's fault. It's the usga. The rule needs re wording. But as is phil isn't wrong.

 

It was bad form for Phil to admit he used the rules to post a lower score, imo it violates the spirit of the game. What if everyone started running after they struck a putt to hit their moving ball back towards the hole or tried to rebound a missed putt into the hole? Do we now need to review every rule to insure there isn't a way for a golfer to manipulate to produce in a lower score?

 

Except he never said that he did it to produce a lower score.

 

Do you have a quote you can provide where he ever said that?

 

He said he knew the rule and used it to his advantage because he knew the ball would roll down the hill.

 

Mickelson said there was “no question” that his ball was going to roll off the green and possibly wind up behind a bunker.

“I wasn’t going to have a shot,” he said.

[Ignatius Reilly]

i dont think theres any fallout coming.. he will take a month off and todays pea brained 3 minute attention span facebook folks will be onto the next social injustice that melts their sensibilities

 

I might have put it nicer than that, but you're right.

 

And Phil has already borne the fallout: 2 strokes.

 

For now, this remains as a means to play out your round on or near a green. Of course on any course I've ever seen, this wouldn't help you. It really only comes into play on a course that's set up with ridiculous speeds on greens with severe slopes. To date, no groundskeeper (outside of USGA) has been dumb enough to do that, so it just doesn't make any difference to the game.

[bullie76]

Just spoke with Phil, he’s following this thread intently

 

Hey Phil.......what you did yesterday was crazy!

[straightshot7]

For what it's worth. I've aaid fo over a year that the rules of golf were being exposed by zooming TV and Social media and that they can't survive in their current form. The blanket has been pulled back and the flaws are being exposed.

 

But that isn't Phil's fault. It's the usga. The rule needs re wording. But as is phil isn't wrong.

 

It was bad form for Phil to admit he used the rules to post a lower score, imo it violates the spirit of the game. What if everyone started running after they struck a putt to hit their moving ball back towards the hole or tried to rebound a missed putt into the hole? Do we now need to review every rule to insure there isn't a way for a golfer to manipulate to produce in a lower score?

 

Except he never said that he did it to produce a lower score.

 

Do you have a quote you can provide where he ever said that?

 

He said he knew the rule and used it to his advantage because he knew the ball would roll down the hill.

 

Mickelson said there was “no question” that his ball was going to roll off the green and possibly wind up behind a bunker.

“I wasn’t going to have a shot,” he said.

 

So, no: you don't have a quote where he ever "admit[ted] he used the rules to post a lower score".

 

He made the comment about the ball going behind the bunker after he was specifically asked if he knew were the ball would end up. He never says that his motivation was to post a lower score. In fact, he says:

 

"I don't know if I would've been able to save the shot or whatnot, but I know it's a two-shot penalty hitting a moving ball. I tried to hit it as close to the hole as I could to make the next one, and you know, you take the two shots and you move on."

 

So, according to Phil, he didn't know whether it would be better or worse for his score.

 

He never said his motivation was to produce a lower score. He clearly said, repeatedly, that his motive was to "end the display".

[MuskieCy]

 

Hey Phil, found this replay from a different angle.

 

Enjoy.

[new2g0lf]

 

 

It was bad form for Phil to admit he used the rules to post a lower score, imo it violates the spirit of the game. What if everyone started running after they struck a putt to hit their moving ball back towards the hole or tried to rebound a missed putt into the hole? Do we now need to review every rule to insure there isn't a way for a golfer to manipulate to produce in a lower score?

 

Except he never said that he did it to produce a lower score.

 

Do you have a quote you can provide where he ever said that?

 

He said he knew the rule and used it to his advantage because he knew the ball would roll down the hill.

 

Mickelson said there was “no question” that his ball was going to roll off the green and possibly wind up behind a bunker.

“I wasn’t going to have a shot,” he said.

 

So, no: you don't have a quote where he ever "admit[ted] he used the rules to post a lower score".

 

He made the comment about the ball going behind the bunker after he was specifically asked if he knew were the ball would end up. He never says that his motivation was to post a lower score. In fact, he says:

 

"I don't know if I would've been able to save the shot or whatnot, but I know it's a two-shot penalty hitting a moving ball. I tried to hit it as close to the hole as I could to make the next one, and you know, you take the two shots and you move on."

 

So, according to Phil, he didn't know whether it would be better or worse for his score.

 

He never said his motivation was to produce a lower score. He clearly said, repeatedly, that his motive was to "end the display".

Mickelson freely admits that he knew the rule and did it on purpose.

“It was meant to take advantage of the rules as best as you can. In that situation, I was just going back and forth. I’d gladly take the two shots over continuing that display,” he told FOX after his round ended.

Mickelson ran after his ball. Even before he explained himself to the USGA and later to the media, it was clear that he knew what he was doing. The front of the 13th green slopes downward, and if he’d waited longer, his ball could have rolled for a while. He prevented that — and gained an advantage, for sure — by breaking the rules.

[Teetoogrn]

i dont think theres any fallout coming.. he will take a month off and todays pea brained 3 minute attention span facebook folks will be onto the next social injustice that melts their sensibilities

 

Blade, while I agree with you that our collective attention span is far too short, I have a question for you. You're good with social injustices? Or is it we haven't come upon one that impacts you?