Mickelson hitting putt while ball was still moving?

[Roadking2003]

If they don't DQ Phil it sets a horrible precedent. Imagine a ball about to roll into a water hazard--two stroke penalty for running over and hitting a slap shot might not be such a bad option, if this behavior is to be allowed going forward.

 

Stopping moving balls from going into bad places is not golf IMO.

 

I couldn't agree more. Then combined with Phil admission this deliberate act is tantamount to cheating.

 

Cheating? Not even close. He played by the rules and took his penalty.

 

Choosing to violate a rule and taking a penalty is not cheating.

 

However, he would have been much better off taking an unplayable.

[Roadking2003]

Even if you think this deserves a DQ because it was intentionally for advantage etc, that doesn’t make it cheating. For it to be cheating, Phil had to know it was against the rules too. Based on his interview where he admitted to doing it on purpose, it’s pretty clear he believes that to be within the rules. So, at worst, even if he’s DQ’d it’s because he misinterpreted the rules, not because he was cheating. I’m not a fan of what Phil did, if he got DQ’d it wouldn’t seem wrong. But calling it cheating, no.

 

Correct. But he should have taken an unplayable.

[Johnny Upton]

Doesn't he have the option of taking an unplayable and use stroke and distance, to putt again?

 

Him stopping the ball confuses things with a different penalty, but I think he was just thinking along lines of I'll put it again under penalty rather than try and get up and down....which I am pretty sure (though could be wrong) is within the rules.

[GolfGuitarsCars]

This was done in pure frustration after accepting the reality he will never win a U. S. Open.

[Shilgy]

What Phil did calls for a dq. And yes, that may be irrational and not what called for in the rules but what he did is a serious breach.

The game of golf is hit it, wait for it to stop moving and hit it again. Not hit it and if you don't like where it's headed just go ahead and stop it.

 

I would have expected better from Phil.

[Roadking2003]

Doesn't he have the option of taking an unplayable and use stroke and distance, to putt again?

 

 

 

Yes. That would have been a better choice.

[golfgirlrobin]

I honestly don’t know how Phil could now ever be considered as a Ryder Cup captain.

 

Easy now, dont get over dramatic.

 

Too late.

[John L.]

I don't agree with what Phil did at all, but I won't burn down his career like some of the holy rollers on here.

 

He's human just like the rest of us.

[dmb3535]

What are the furguson remarks for? What am I missing, I’m sure it’s a lot. Btw, Phil is the idiot you gotta love. Uncle Eddie with loads of cash

[Holy Moses]

Phil said he hit the moving ball intentionally so it wouldn't get behind the bunker again. If he's that defiant, he should be DQ'd. That's cheating, plain and simple.

 

Why would that be cheating? He willingly accepted the two stroke penalty. If it were cheating then there would be a rule against it besides a two stroke penalty.

 

In the big scheme of things it doesn't really matter since he finished +17.

 

Because he broke rule 1-2. "A player is deemed to have committed a serious breach of Rule 1-2 if the Committee considers that the action taken in breach of this Rule has allowed him or another player to gain a significant advantage or has placed another player, other than his partner, at a significant disadvantage."

 

Phil admitted he stopped the ball because it was advantageous for him to do so, ie the ball was going past the hole and behind the bunker. Phil cheated to gain what he thought was a stroke or two. I am typically not a fan of the USGA, but they wimped out because of what has happened at 7 last time the US Open was here, the greens at Chambers Bay, penalizing DJ two years ago, and the low numbers last year.

 

But is he held to Rule1-2?

 

It says under rule 1 "Exceptions:

 

 

1. An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not Rule 1-2."

 

Which I believe is why he was judged by Rule 14, under which there is no option for DQ.

 

Also, Phil never said he did it to gain an advantage. He said he didn't know whether it would cost him a shot or two.

 

He said he just didn't want to keep going back and forth. Whether he was lying I don't know. But saying he "cheated to gain what he thought was a stroke or two" -- how do you know that? He never said that.

 

If he let his ball roll off the green he would be hitting 6 from there. With Phil's short game, he would not have likely scored higher than 10.

 

He did it because he was frustrated and didn't want to "continue that display". Which he said. Not to gain an advantage.

 

I think what he did was lame. But I don't think what you're saying is true.

 

Phil said that he didn’t want to keep going back and forth. He obviously did it to save strokes. And that’s cheating.

[HeadonaStick]

Phil said he hit the moving ball intentionally so it wouldn't get behind the bunker again. If he's that defiant, he should be DQ'd. That's cheating, plain and simple.

It's a 2 stroke penalty ... that is the rule

 

That's the minimum. Unless the exceptions noted in the previous posts occurred. And they did.

And it is still up to the committee. No requirement that a player be DQ'd in this situation. And no rule against being defiant.

[HaggisPXG]

If they don't DQ Phil it sets a horrible precedent. Imagine a ball about to roll into a water hazard--two stroke penalty for running over and hitting a slap shot might not be such a bad option, if this behavior is to be allowed going forward.

 

Stopping moving balls from going into bad places is not golf IMO.

 

I couldn't agree more. Then combined with Phil admission this deliberate act is tantamount to cheating.

 

Cheating to turn an 8 into a 10? some perspective please. Hes T-65. He was penalized accordingly.

 

Noted, but by PM’s own admission, the ball was running to an impossible position, 8 was by no means a certainty so by definition he was seeking an advantage not making a mistake - it is a DQ for me especially after he has admitted it.

[Fade]

I can only imagine what the reactions would have been like if Phil had been successful and knocked the moving ball in.

[HeadonaStick]

If they don't DQ Phil it sets a horrible precedent. Imagine a ball about to roll into a water hazard--two stroke penalty for running over and hitting a slap shot might not be such a bad option, if this behavior is to be allowed going forward.

 

Stopping moving balls from going into bad places is not golf IMO.

 

I couldn't agree more. Then combined with Phil admission this deliberate act is tantamount to cheating.

 

Cheating to turn an 8 into a 10? some perspective please. Hes T-65. He was penalized accordingly.

 

Noted, but by PM’s own admission, the ball was running to an impossible position, 8 was by no means a certainty so by definition he was seeking an advantage not making a mistake - it is a DQ for me especially after he has admitted it.

Considering he could have taken an unplayable and had the same putt he had after hitting the moving ball it is basically a wash - he didn't gain an advantage. In fact, he came out one or two strokes to the worse.

[HaggisPXG]

Phil said he hit the moving ball intentionally so it wouldn't get behind the bunker again. If he's that defiant, he should be DQ'd. That's cheating, plain and simple.

 

Why would that be cheating? He willingly accepted the two stroke penalty. If it were cheating then there would be a rule against it besides a two stroke penalty.

 

In the big scheme of things it doesn't really matter since he finished +17.

 

Because he broke rule 1-2. "A player is deemed to have committed a serious breach of Rule 1-2 if the Committee considers that the action taken in breach of this Rule has allowed him or another player to gain a significant advantage or has placed another player, other than his partner, at a significant disadvantage."

 

Phil admitted he stopped the ball because it was advantageous for him to do so, ie the ball was going past the hole and behind the bunker. Phil cheated to gain what he thought was a stroke or two. I am typically not a fan of the USGA, but they wimped out because of what has happened at 7 last time the US Open was here, the greens at Chambers Bay, penalizing DJ two years ago, and the low numbers last year.

 

But is he held to Rule1-2?

 

It says under rule 1 "Exceptions:

 

 

1. An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not Rule 1-2."

 

Which I believe is why he was judged by Rule 14, under which there is no option for DQ.

 

Also, Phil never said he did it to gain an advantage. He said he didn't know whether it would cost him a shot or two.

 

He said he just didn't want to keep going back and forth. Whether he was lying I don't know. But saying he "cheated to gain what he thought was a stroke or two" -- how do you know that? He never said that.

 

If he let his ball roll off the green he would be hitting 6 from there. With Phil's short game, he would not have likely scored higher than 10.

 

He did it because he was frustrated and didn't want to "continue that display". Which he said. Not to gain an advantage.

 

I think what he did was lame. But I don't think what you're saying is true.

 

Phil said that he didnt want to keep going back and forth. He obviously did it to save strokes. And thats cheating.

 

Agreed - he admitted this in the interview with Curtis Strange - DQ or he could just withdraw and save a little face.

 

[bscinstnct]

Alright, alright. Phil never did nothing before.

 

He just used a lifetime legend mulligan.

 

Plus, I think its his birthday.

 

 

[lowheel]

So many scalding hot takes im getting sun burned from my computer screen

[Holy Moses]

Even if you think this deserves a DQ because it was intentionally for advantage etc, that doesn’t make it cheating. For it to be cheating, Phil had to know it was against the rules too. Based on his interview where he admitted to doing it on purpose, it’s pretty clear he believes that to be within the rules. So, at worst, even if he’s DQ’d it’s because he misinterpreted the rules, not because he was cheating. I’m not a fan of what Phil did, if he got DQ’d it wouldn’t seem wrong. But calling it cheating, no.

 

Correct. But he should have taken an unplayable.

 

What does “within the rules” mean? What does “without the rules” mean? As if there was no rule for this?

 

Phil knew it was illegal to hit a moving ball and he did it intentionally to save more than two strokes. Going back and forth would havecost him more than two strokes.

[Roadking2003]

I don't agree with what Phil did at all, but I won't burn down his career like some of the holy rollers on here.

 

He's human just like the rest of us.

 

Some of use would have done severe physical damage to the green.

[Holy Moses]

Alright, alright. Phil never did nothing before.

 

He just used a lifetime legend mulligan.

 

Plus, I think its his birthday.

 

Bones has that override he can use. Maybe ask the USGA to use it.

[Rustynuts]

It's not within the rules as he incurred a penalty

[Holy Moses]

So many scalding hot takes im getting sun burned from my computer screen

 

Not a new phenomenon here

[Santiago Golf]

I'd LOOOOVE to see the USGA DQ him. It would light this forum on fire for weeks. It would likely damage Phil to the core, and destroy the US Open's fan base - especially in NY. A seriously sharp double edged sword if the USGA rules committee changes their minds on the penalty to move to a DQ.

 

they didnt DQ tiger in 2013 at the masters they wont DQ phil here.

 

Tiger's was just not knowing the rule. Unintentional. Phil knew the rule and deliberately broke it to get an advantage.

 

The reason why they didn't dq tiger in 2013 is because the Augusta Tournament Commitee brought up the issue with Tiger in scoring and determined when he signed his card that he didn't breach the rule before he signed the card, then deiced that they made a misjudgment after hearing Tiger's post round interview and brought him back into scoring in the morning to readdress the issue. Tiger did what he thought was within the rules, Phil thought he was using the rules to his advantage, but his advantage greatly affected his score.

[Sean2]

Well, Phil ended up with a 10 on the hole. His "cheating" obviously is keeping him in contention to win the tournament.

[HeadonaStick]

Even if you think this deserves a DQ because it was intentionally for advantage etc, that doesn't make it cheating. For it to be cheating, Phil had to know it was against the rules too. Based on his interview where he admitted to doing it on purpose, it's pretty clear he believes that to be within the rules. So, at worst, even if he's DQ'd it's because he misinterpreted the rules, not because he was cheating. I'm not a fan of what Phil did, if he got DQ'd it wouldn't seem wrong. But calling it cheating, no.

 

Correct. But he should have taken an unplayable.

 

What does "within the rules" mean? What does "without the rules mean"? As if there was no rule for this?

 

Phil knew it was illegal to hit a moving ball and he did it intentionally to save more than two strokes. Going back and forth would havecost him more than two strokes.

 

It would be "outside" the rules, not without the rules. There is a rule for this, consequently "within the rules."

 

What Phil did was illegal. That is why he received a 2-shot penalty. Penalties aren't assessed based on what might have happened in a different situation.

[Parker0065]

EXTREMELY UNPROFESSIONAL!!!!!

There is no reasoning or excuse for what that idiot did!

The saddest thing is he didn't aknowledge his ignorance after the round. You can love him if you want, but he expressed his complete ignorance in his after round interview by not just simply saying "I lost my mind out there"!

It is a sad day for golf because so many idiots follow him, but I'm not surprised at all. I could see this coming from day 1 of his career! He is NOT good for golf in any way, shape, or form!!!!

 

Phil = Scumbag Dork!!!!!!!!!!!

[sfiggins]

All should be swept under the rug. It’s not like he ever claimed a sprinkler head impacted his stance in a bush.

[straightshot7]

Phil said he hit the moving ball intentionally so it wouldn't get behind the bunker again. If he's that defiant, he should be DQ'd. That's cheating, plain and simple.

 

Why would that be cheating? He willingly accepted the two stroke penalty. If it were cheating then there would be a rule against it besides a two stroke penalty.

 

In the big scheme of things it doesn't really matter since he finished +17.

 

Because he broke rule 1-2. "A player is deemed to have committed a serious breach of Rule 1-2 if the Committee considers that the action taken in breach of this Rule has allowed him or another player to gain a significant advantage or has placed another player, other than his partner, at a significant disadvantage."

 

Phil admitted he stopped the ball because it was advantageous for him to do so, ie the ball was going past the hole and behind the bunker. Phil cheated to gain what he thought was a stroke or two. I am typically not a fan of the USGA, but they wimped out because of what has happened at 7 last time the US Open was here, the greens at Chambers Bay, penalizing DJ two years ago, and the low numbers last year.

 

But is he held to Rule1-2?

 

It says under rule 1 "Exceptions:

 

 

1. An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not Rule 1-2."

 

Which I believe is why he was judged by Rule 14, under which there is no option for DQ.

 

Also, Phil never said he did it to gain an advantage. He said he didn't know whether it would cost him a shot or two.

 

He said he just didn't want to keep going back and forth. Whether he was lying I don't know. But saying he "cheated to gain what he thought was a stroke or two" -- how do you know that? He never said that.

 

If he let his ball roll off the green he would be hitting 6 from there. With Phil's short game, he would not have likely scored higher than 10.

 

He did it because he was frustrated and didn't want to "continue that display". Which he said. Not to gain an advantage.

 

I think what he did was lame. But I don't think what you're saying is true.

 

Phil said that he didn't want to keep going back and forth. He obviously did it to save strokes. And that's cheating.

 

Except that statement can be interpreted as wanting to save time, avoid embarrassment, etc. Any number of things that have nothing to do with saving strokes.

 

He actually implied in the interview that he wasn't sure if he would save or lose strokes by invoking the rule.

 

But again, his action fell under rule 14 where there is no option for DQ.

[denvergolf]

All the hens are out today. Good grief

[Holy Moses]

I'd LOOOOVE to see the USGA DQ him. It would light this forum on fire for weeks. It would likely damage Phil to the core, and destroy the US Open's fan base - especially in NY. A seriously sharp double edged sword if the USGA rules committee changes their minds on the penalty to move to a DQ.

 

they didnt DQ tiger in 2013 at the masters they wont DQ phil here.

 

Tiger's was just not knowing the rule. Unintentional. Phil knew the rule and deliberately broke it to get an advantage.

 

The reason why they didn't dq tiger in 2013 is because the Augusta Tournament Commitee brought up the issue with Tiger in scoring and determined when he signed his card that he didn't breach the rule before he signed the card, then deiced that they made a misjudgment after hearing Tiger's post round interview and brought him back into scoring in the morning to readdress the issue. Tiger did what he thought was within the rules, Phil thought he was using the rules to his advantage, but his advantage greatly affected his score.

 

I disagree. Using a rule to your advantage is only if you are obeying a rule that is benefitting you without getting a penalty in the process. For instance, Tiger moving the boulder in Phoenix. Using a rule to keep you from getting more strokes that is deserved because of a poor stroke is the very reason the DQ is in place for this kind of thing.

 

Two strokes should have been given to Phil if the ball was slowing down and he hit it. A DQ should be given if the ball was picking up speed and moving behind a bunker (which it was).