Mickelson hitting putt while ball was still moving?

[TheCityGame]

Just for the record, this isn't about rule 14.5, hitting a moving ball, which is what the rules guy said on TV.

 

This is about 1-2, which 14-5 points you to if you hit a moving ball intentionally (purposely deflected).

 

You can absolutely be dq'ed for serious breach of 1-2, and if this wasn't a serious breach I don't know what else you'd have to do. This wasn't an "ooopsie". Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty.

 

Can we all just race to the other side of a hole now on a down hill putt and tap it in if it looks like it's going to roll away?

[brew4eagle]

I think it was a very poor display and worthy of a DQ.

[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.

 

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.

 

They absolutely are and the rule book specifically gives the committee the ability to make that determination based on the situation

[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.

 

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).

 

If everyone thinks about 15 at Augusta and now have someone do the same thing phil just did, it really opens up the rabbit hole. You have to DQ phil or else it opens the door for anyone else to do this in the future.

[jli2636]

If everyone thinks about 15 at Augusta and now have someone do the same thing phil just did, it really opens up the rabbit hole. You have to DQ phil or else it opens the door for anyone else to do this in the future.

 

Omg someone finally gets it!!!!

 

Also I’m tired of people saying “well he’s already in last place, who cares?” The rest of the field cares, anyone playing competitive golf from now on cares. Because note 1 of rule 1-2 is specifically for this instance. Phil KNOWINGLY knew of the rule and did it anyway to his own advantage. That is to the T the definition of serious breach in the rule....

[golfheaven69]

Phil should WD and take last place cash for guys who made the cut.

[straightshot7]

Just for the record, this isn't about rule 14.5, hitting a moving ball, which is what the rules guy said on TV.

 

This is about 1-2, which 14-5 points you to if you hit a moving ball intentionally (purposely deflected).

 

You can absolutely be dq'ed for serious breach of 1-2, and if this wasn't a serious breach I don't know what else you'd have to do. This wasn't an "ooopsie". Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty.

 

Can we all just race to the other side of a hole now on a down hill putt and tap it in if it looks like it's going to roll away?

 

The rule book is confusing though. It seems to contradict itself because it says:

 

 

Rule 1 "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.

 

Exceptions:

 

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

 

So each rule points to the other rule.

 

Also, where's the evidence for this statement: "Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty."?

 

Phil said he did it to avoid having to keep going back and forth and essentially because of he was embarrassed and wanted to "end that display".

 

He would have been hitting 6. You don't think Phil Mickelson could make 10 from anywhere near the green? Put it on the green and 4 putt?

 

People keep saying he did it to save strokes when there's no evidence for that.

[Fade]

Just for the record, this isn't about rule 14.5, hitting a moving ball, which is what the rules guy said on TV.

 

This is about 1-2, which 14-5 points you to if you hit a moving ball intentionally (purposely deflected).

 

You can absolutely be dq'ed for serious breach of 1-2, and if this wasn't a serious breach I don't know what else you'd have to do. This wasn't an "ooopsie". Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty.

 

Can we all just race to the other side of a hole now on a down hill putt and tap it in if it looks like it's going to roll away?

 

Thanks! That seems like a solid analysis. I have nothing against Phil personally, but I am hoping for a DQ now.

[super20dan]

I agree they have to DQ him to preserve the integrity of the game. he blew it at the presser/ should have said he lost his temper instead

[Naptime]

DQ. Sad to see it but that seems appropriate.

[Naptime]

At least it moved backstopping from the top of the conversation. ?

[marmaduk]

I’m not a huge fan of Phill, never happened. But, the only thing that makes me laugh more than what he did is reading everyone’s responses. I hope you guys took your beta-blockers today; you’re eyeballs are pulsing.

 

I bet the people calling for his DQ are the same people who ask to speak to the manager at a MCDonalds.

[Santiago Golf]

If everyone thinks about 15 at Augusta and now have someone do the same thing phil just did, it really opens up the rabbit hole. You have to DQ phil or else it opens the door for anyone else to do this in the future.

 

Omg someone finally gets it!!!!

 

Also I'm tired of people saying "well he's already in last place, who cares?" The rest of the field cares, anyone playing competitive golf from now on cares. Because note 1 of rule 1-2 is specifically for this instance. Phil KNOWINGLY knew of the rule and did it anyway to his own advantage. That is to the T the definition of serious breach in the rule....

 

Now he gets to go back out tomorrow and climb the leaderboard taking Fedex Cup points away from someone who played within the rules. Honestly if you don't DQ him, you can never DQ someone for the same thing in the future.

[Holy Moses]

Just for the record, this isn't about rule 14.5, hitting a moving ball, which is what the rules guy said on TV.

 

This is about 1-2, which 14-5 points you to if you hit a moving ball intentionally (purposely deflected).

 

You can absolutely be dq'ed for serious breach of 1-2, and if this wasn't a serious breach I don't know what else you'd have to do. This wasn't an "ooopsie". Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty.

 

Can we all just race to the other side of a hole now on a down hill putt and tap it in if it looks like it's going to roll away?

 

The rule book is confusing though. It seems to contradict itself because it says:

 

 

Rule 1 "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.

 

Exceptions:

 

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

 

So each rule points to the other rule.

 

Also, where's the evidence for this statement: "Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty."?

 

Phil said he did it to avoid having to keep going back and forth and essentially because of he was embarrassed and wanted to "end that display".

 

He would have been hitting 6. You don't think Phil Mickelson could make 10 from anywhere near the green? Put it on the green and 4 putt?

 

People keep saying he did it to save strokes when there's no evidence for that.

 

Going back and forth repeatedly could have increased his score even more

[Sean2]

Well, if they are going to DQ him, they should do it now and not wait...if they do wait then it means there is some ambiguity to the rule and they can't agree on the interpretation.

[irvnasty]

Can you imagine if a player had four strokes to win from short range, hit a putt that wasn't going to go in, and then reached out and tapped it in on the move to win, say, the Masters?

 

It simply cannot be that players have the option to play hockey on the green if the situation dictates that it may be favorable.

[brew4eagle]

Just for the record, this isn't about rule 14.5, hitting a moving ball, which is what the rules guy said on TV.

 

This is about 1-2, which 14-5 points you to if you hit a moving ball intentionally (purposely deflected).

 

You can absolutely be dq'ed for serious breach of 1-2, and if this wasn't a serious breach I don't know what else you'd have to do. This wasn't an "ooopsie". Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty.

 

Can we all just race to the other side of a hole now on a down hill putt and tap it in if it looks like it's going to roll away?

 

The rule book is confusing though. It seems to contradict itself because it says:

 

 

Rule 1 "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.

 

Exceptions:

 

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

 

So each rule points to the other rule.

 

Also, where's the evidence for this statement: "Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty."?

 

Phil said he did it to avoid having to keep going back and forth and essentially because of he was embarrassed and wanted to "end that display".

 

He would have been hitting 6. You don't think Phil Mickelson could make 10 from anywhere near the green? Put it on the green and 4 putt?

 

People keep saying he did it to save strokes when there's no evidence for that.

Phil basically said he did it to save strokes

[soregongolfer]

Well, if they are going to DQ him, they should do it now and not wait...if they do wait then it means there is some ambiguity to the rule and they can't agree on the interpretation.

 

Nah, DQ him tomorrow on the 7th hole. This tournament is already a mockery. Why not go full bore?

[straightshot7]

Just for the record, this isn't about rule 14.5, hitting a moving ball, which is what the rules guy said on TV.

 

This is about 1-2, which 14-5 points you to if you hit a moving ball intentionally (purposely deflected).

 

You can absolutely be dq'ed for serious breach of 1-2, and if this wasn't a serious breach I don't know what else you'd have to do. This wasn't an "ooopsie". Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty.

 

Can we all just race to the other side of a hole now on a down hill putt and tap it in if it looks like it's going to roll away?

 

The rule book is confusing though. It seems to contradict itself because it says:

 

 

Rule 1 "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.

 

Exceptions:

 

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

 

So each rule points to the other rule.

 

Also, where's the evidence for this statement: "Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty."?

 

Phil said he did it to avoid having to keep going back and forth and essentially because of he was embarrassed and wanted to "end that display".

 

He would have been hitting 6. You don't think Phil Mickelson could make 10 from anywhere near the green? Put it on the green and 4 putt?

 

People keep saying he did it to save strokes when there's no evidence for that.

 

Going back and forth repeatedly could have increased his score even more

 

Could have. It also could have saved him strokes.

 

He'd be hitting 6. I highly doubt Phil ever makes more than 10 in that case. More likely he'd make an 8.

 

He obviously did it out of frustration and just to get the hole over with it. That doesn't make it right. But it's not the same as doing it to save strokes.

[straightshot7]

Just for the record, this isn't about rule 14.5, hitting a moving ball, which is what the rules guy said on TV.

 

This is about 1-2, which 14-5 points you to if you hit a moving ball intentionally (purposely deflected).

 

You can absolutely be dq'ed for serious breach of 1-2, and if this wasn't a serious breach I don't know what else you'd have to do. This wasn't an "ooopsie". Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty.

 

Can we all just race to the other side of a hole now on a down hill putt and tap it in if it looks like it's going to roll away?

 

The rule book is confusing though. It seems to contradict itself because it says:

 

 

Rule 1 "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.

 

Exceptions:

 

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

 

So each rule points to the other rule.

 

Also, where's the evidence for this statement: "Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty."?

 

Phil said he did it to avoid having to keep going back and forth and essentially because of he was embarrassed and wanted to "end that display".

 

He would have been hitting 6. You don't think Phil Mickelson could make 10 from anywhere near the green? Put it on the green and 4 putt?

 

People keep saying he did it to save strokes when there's no evidence for that.

Phil basically said he did it to save strokes

 

How? I heard him say differently. He said he did it to essentially get the hole over with, "end the display".

 

He said that he wasn't sure if his score would be higher or lower. That wasn't his reason for doing it.

[Holy Moses]

Just for the record, this isn't about rule 14.5, hitting a moving ball, which is what the rules guy said on TV.

 

This is about 1-2, which 14-5 points you to if you hit a moving ball intentionally (purposely deflected).

 

You can absolutely be dq'ed for serious breach of 1-2, and if this wasn't a serious breach I don't know what else you'd have to do. This wasn't an "ooopsie". Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty.

 

Can we all just race to the other side of a hole now on a down hill putt and tap it in if it looks like it's going to roll away?

 

The rule book is confusing though. It seems to contradict itself because it says:

 

 

Rule 1 "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.

 

Exceptions:

 

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

 

So each rule points to the other rule.

 

Also, where's the evidence for this statement: "Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty."?

 

Phil said he did it to avoid having to keep going back and forth and essentially because of he was embarrassed and wanted to "end that display".

 

He would have been hitting 6. You don't think Phil Mickelson could make 10 from anywhere near the green? Put it on the green and 4 putt?

 

People keep saying he did it to save strokes when there's no evidence for that.

 

Going back and forth repeatedly could have increased his score even more

 

Could have. It also could have saved him strokes.

 

He'd be hitting 6. I highly doubt Phil ever makes more than 10 in that case. More likely he'd make an 8.

 

He obviously did it out of frustration and just to get the hole over with it. That doesn't make it right. But it's not the same as doing it to save strokes.

 

It was out of frustration and to save strokes and to save humiliation

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I'm sure they will wait until he's teed off tomorrow to tell him they are thinking about making a ruling on whether he is DQ'd.

[straightshot7]

This is like the situation where Matsuyama stomped on his divot after his chunked pitch shot. And even though he said he did not do so with the intent of potentially improving the lie for his next shot, so many people on this board swore that he did.

 

Mickelson never said he hit the moving ball in order to save himself strokes. In fact, he said he wasn't sure if it would affect his score for the better or worse by taking the penalty. And yet, here we are again with so many people saying that his intention was to cheat and save strokes.

 

Why do people think they are mind readers and always assume that people are attempting to cheat?

[Divot2]

I’m not a huge fan of Phill, never happened. But, the only thing that makes me laugh more than what he did is reading everyone’s responses. I hope you guys took your beta-blockers today; you’re eyeballs are pulsing.

 

I bet the people calling for his DQ are the same people who ask to speak to the manager at a MCDonalds.

 

Ahahahahahah!!! Funny but true! I have always been a Phil fan though.

[straightshot7]

Just for the record, this isn't about rule 14.5, hitting a moving ball, which is what the rules guy said on TV.

 

This is about 1-2, which 14-5 points you to if you hit a moving ball intentionally (purposely deflected).

 

You can absolutely be dq'ed for serious breach of 1-2, and if this wasn't a serious breach I don't know what else you'd have to do. This wasn't an "ooopsie". Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty.

 

Can we all just race to the other side of a hole now on a down hill putt and tap it in if it looks like it's going to roll away?

 

The rule book is confusing though. It seems to contradict itself because it says:

 

 

Rule 1 "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.

 

Exceptions:

 

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

 

So each rule points to the other rule.

 

Also, where's the evidence for this statement: "Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty."?

 

Phil said he did it to avoid having to keep going back and forth and essentially because of he was embarrassed and wanted to "end that display".

 

He would have been hitting 6. You don't think Phil Mickelson could make 10 from anywhere near the green? Put it on the green and 4 putt?

 

People keep saying he did it to save strokes when there's no evidence for that.

 

Going back and forth repeatedly could have increased his score even more

 

Could have. It also could have saved him strokes.

 

He'd be hitting 6. I highly doubt Phil ever makes more than 10 in that case. More likely he'd make an 8.

 

He obviously did it out of frustration and just to get the hole over with it. That doesn't make it right. But it's not the same as doing it to save strokes.

 

It was out of frustration and to save strokes and to save humiliation

 

He said nothing to indicate that. In fact, he said the opposite when he said he wasn't sure how it would affect his score overall.

 

You are inferring his motive and essentially calling him a liar?

[Santiago Golf]

Just for the record, this isn't about rule 14.5, hitting a moving ball, which is what the rules guy said on TV.

 

This is about 1-2, which 14-5 points you to if you hit a moving ball intentionally (purposely deflected).

 

You can absolutely be dq'ed for serious breach of 1-2, and if this wasn't a serious breach I don't know what else you'd have to do. This wasn't an "ooopsie". Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty.

 

Can we all just race to the other side of a hole now on a down hill putt and tap it in if it looks like it's going to roll away?

 

The rule book is confusing though. It seems to contradict itself because it says:

 

 

Rule 1 "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.

 

Exceptions:

 

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

 

So each rule points to the other rule.

 

Also, where's the evidence for this statement: "Guy intentionally stopped his ball from rolling into a worse situation to save strokes even in the face of a 2 stroke penalty."?

 

Phil said he did it to avoid having to keep going back and forth and essentially because of he was embarrassed and wanted to "end that display".

 

He would have been hitting 6. You don't think Phil Mickelson could make 10 from anywhere near the green? Put it on the green and 4 putt?

 

People keep saying he did it to save strokes when there's no evidence for that.

 

Going back and forth repeatedly could have increased his score even more

 

Could have. It also could have saved him strokes.

 

He'd be hitting 6. I highly doubt Phil ever makes more than 10 in that case. More likely he'd make an 8.

 

He obviously did it out of frustration and just to get the hole over with it. That doesn't make it right. But it's not the same as doing it to save strokes.

 

You can't treat him like Phil Mickelson when making the rule though. You have to treat him like every other player in the field. Hell, i watched phil last week finish almost last in scrambling. I fully believe that phil would have made more than 10, if he let that ball roll out.

[Shilgy]

Can you imagine if a player had four strokes to win from short range, hit a putt that wasn't going to go in, and then reached out and tapped it in on the move to win, say, the Masters?

 

It simply cannot be that players have the option to play hockey on the green if the situation dictates that it may be favorable.

This post gets it. Let's say the greens are like this at Torrey Pines. Player has what, four putts to win the US Open from above the hole front left on 18. Player taps the ball then immediately runs down and as the ball is shot to go past the hole then roll down into the pond he taps it into the hole while it's moving. Wily veteran move or cheating?

[irvnasty]

Also, we can infer from his actions that he may not have been in the best emotional condition to play his next shot effectively.

 

We have no idea if he would have made 10, or 12, or 20, or if he would have snapped all of his clubs over his knee and withdrawn.

[Shilgy]

I don't care if it saved him strokes or not. Deliberately playing a moving ball is not golf.

[LifeAfterBogeys]

It is a disgraceful move by Phil.

 

I lost all respect,he is like a cheater. He should face disciplinary actions. Especially since he admitted doing it on purpose. Out of frustration is another story