Mickelson hitting putt while ball was still moving?

[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.

 

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

The committee has the ability to determine if a DQ is warranted given the situation, not what might have happened in a different situation. They determined that a DQ was not warranted.

[hardcaliber]

The 2 shot penalty is not nearly penal enough.

 

There should never be a situation where someone can use this rule to their advantage.

 

Compare recent infamous penalties such as Lexi ball marking or DJ grounding the club. This seems much more serious of an infraction in that it was intentional and to gain an advantage, but the penalty is the same.

 

Make the penalty 6 strokes or something.

[Shilgy]

 

You're twisting his words. He never said "it was advantageous to him to not have allowed the ball to roll back down to the same position".

 

He said:

 

“At that time, I just didn’t feel like going back and forth and hitting the same shot over”, “I took the two-shot penalty and moved on. It’s my understanding of the rules. I’ve had multiple times where I’ve wanted to do that. I just finally did.”

 

"I just wanted to get on to the next hole, and I didn’t see that happening at the time. I’d gladly take my two strokes and move on.”

 

“In that situation, I was just going back and forth,” he said. “I would gladly take the two shots over continuing that display".

 

Only when the interviewer specifically asked him if he knew where the ball was going to end up, did he say:

 

“No question, it was going to go down in the same spot behind the bunker,” he said. “I wasn’t going to have a shot.”

 

So he never explicitly said what you said he did.

 

If you want to try to read between the lines and judge his motives, that's up to you. But when he described his motivation, he never said anything about doing it to gain an advantage.

Frankly I do not care what his motivations were. INTENTIONALLY stopping a moving ball should be an automatic DQ.

 

Please give me an example of where you would think it would be allowable for a player to make a stroke and intentionally stop it. And to add to that he even started he was trying to hit it back "as near the hole as possible".

 

I've never been a big fan but respected his game and record and treatment of the game.

 

Now, I guess two out of three ain't bad. ?

[masegolf1978]

I think he should be dq’d. But how do you call him a cheater? To me, cheating is improving your lie when no one is looking or knowingly using a non-conforming club and gettin away with it. It’s hard to “cheat” with all those cameras on you. Instead, it’s up to the usga to penalize him appropriately, and they failed.

[jjr]

Phil Michelson, never won a US Open, runner-up 6 times and 1 of 2 too hit a moving putt during the Open, yes he's added to his golf legacy.

 

Can you imagine how many posts there would be if Tiger did this!

[HitEmTrue]

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.

 

Maybe this has been covered in the next several pages...he breached Rule 14-5, not Rule 1-2. Breach of 14-5 is 2 stroke penalty.

 

When I first saw it, I too thought he was going to be DQ for serious breach of 1-2.

 

[mosesgolf]

Phil would've NEVER done this at Augusta and imo it was to show his disdain towards the USGA.

[mootrail]

Big Phil fan. but without a doubt, he should be DQ'd. Another poor decision by USGA suits and another stone cast at an archaic organization that should be abolished.

 

Might as well do it the way we do; just have your playing partner (or caddie or run) stop the ball with their foot and play it as it lies.

[SurfDuffer]

It should be a DQ. No two ways about it.

[Uhit]

How many shots would it have taken Phil if the ball had been allowed to come to rest? This was a clean cut DQ imho, but the USGA spent the last three months trying to figure out how to set the course up so that Phil could win! They couldn't DQ him under those circumstances, could they?

 

On a serious note, I looked at the decisions and found nothing close. What would constitute a serious breach of 1-2? How much more serious can it get than stopping the ball to prevent a bunch of additional strokes? Shouldn't it be "serious" if the two stroke penalty is a much better score than the alternative? If that's a reasonable conclusion, that he would likely/reasonably have made a much worse score if he had played the ball from where it would have some to rest, how could they NOT DQ him? That's like tucking a few birdies in your pocket with one swat, on a course where they're hard to come by. If that doesn't disadvantage the field, then I don't know what scenario would.

 

I think maybe the Committee was a bit too well-watered, unlike the course, to manage the right decision on this one. I like Phil, but that was a flagrant foul. But I'll admit when Daly did it, it was awesome. When Phil does it, it reminds me of that line in the Feherty interview, where he says you have to be either really smart or really stupid.

 

In order for him to make worse than a 10, he would have had to take 6 or more shots from wherever it ended up.

 

Phil Mickelson, one of the greatest short games ever, taking 6 or more from within 50 yards of the green? Not likely.

 

It was a stupid, rash move by Phil. But I don't think he did it because he was afraid of what he might score. He did it because he was pissed and wanted to give a middle finger to the USGA.

 

Yes, Phil has a great short game, but 50 yards off these greens, on this day? He could hit it past the hole and putted it off the green again. I'm not defending the course conditions...far from it. But this was Phil staking his claim to "bigger than the game status", and I'm sorry, being that close to the lead and doing that was just a sign of of a deficit in the kind of thing the USGA is trying to get at with these players. It's why he never won one. His explanation about using the rules to his advantage should be a clear indication to the committee that he disadvantaged others in the field with the intentional violation of the rule. Hence, grounds for a DQ. But even without the DQ, it was a beyond a lack of sportsmanship with respect to the rest of the field. It was just classless, on the order of Daly and golf's handful of other spoiled sports.

 

Phil said that it was advantageous to him to not have allowed the ball to roll back down to the same position "because I'd have no shot". So he broke a rule to gain an advantage on the field. How does one describe a person that breaks rules to gain an advantage on the field of play?

 

Like Phil said, really smart or really dumb.

 

You're twisting his words. He never said "it was advantageous to him to not have allowed the ball to roll back down to the same position".

 

He said:

 

“At that time, I just didn’t feel like going back and forth and hitting the same shot over”, “I took the two-shot penalty and moved on. It’s my understanding of the rules. I’ve had multiple times where I’ve wanted to do that. I just finally did.”

 

"I just wanted to get on to the next hole, and I didn’t see that happening at the time. I’d gladly take my two strokes and move on.”

 

“In that situation, I was just going back and forth,” he said. “I would gladly take the two shots over continuing that display".

 

Only when the interviewer specifically asked him if he knew where the ball was going to end up, did he say:

 

“No question, it was going to go down in the same spot behind the bunker,” he said. “I wasn’t going to have a shot.”

 

So he never explicitly said what you said he did.

 

If you want to try to read between the lines and judge his motives, that's up to you. But when he described his motivation, he never said anything about doing it to gain an advantage. He said he "used the rule to his advantage". That's not cheating. And it's different from his motivation being to gain an advantage/lower his score. His motivation was just to get the hole over with, according to him. And he said he wasn't sure what affect it would have on his score one way or the other.

 

You don't have to read between the lines in this case, because the sentences, you quoted, contain the information.

 

"...and hitting the same shot over" implies, that he thought, that he may have to hit the same shot repeatedly - without knowing how often he would have to repeat it until it would be successful...

...1 time, 2 times, 3 times, 4 times etc...

...which could lead to a score well beyond 10 for that hole.

 

He obviously was well aware, that the position the ball ("...was going down in the same spot... ...wasn't going to have a shot") was going to reach, would ruin (at least) the whole tournament for him.

 

So, he probably decided to take the risk of being DQ in the worst case, or ending (temporarily) up as a laughing stock - like Ernie Els with his famous putting disaster.

[Dornoch]

DQ. Bad for golf. As simple as that.

[straightshot7]

You're twisting his words. He never said "it was advantageous to him to not have allowed the ball to roll back down to the same position".

 

He said:

 

"At that time, I just didn't feel like going back and forth and hitting the same shot over", "I took the two-shot penalty and moved on. It's my understanding of the rules. I've had multiple times where I've wanted to do that. I just finally did."

 

"I just wanted to get on to the next hole, and I didn't see that happening at the time. I'd gladly take my two strokes and move on."

 

"In that situation, I was just going back and forth," he said. "I would gladly take the two shots over continuing that display".

 

Only when the interviewer specifically asked him if he knew where the ball was going to end up, did he say:

 

"No question, it was going to go down in the same spot behind the bunker," he said. "I wasn't going to have a shot."

 

So he never explicitly said what you said he did.

 

If you want to try to read between the lines and judge his motives, that's up to you. But when he described his motivation, he never said anything about doing it to gain an advantage.

Frankly I do not care what his motivations were. INTENTIONALLY stopping a moving ball should be an automatic DQ.

 

Please give me an example of where you would think it would be allowable for a player to make a stroke and intentionally stop it. And to add to that he even started he was trying to hit it back "as near the hole as possible".

 

I've never been a big fan but respected his game and record and treatment of the game.

 

Now, I guess two out of three ain't bad.

 

He hit a moving ball. That action is judged according to Rule 14-5 where the penalty is 2 strokes.

 

If you want it to be an automatic DQ, write to the USGA and suggest they change the rule.

[RoryGenius]

What could be a clearer case of DQ than this? I'm pretty stunned that it's only a two-shot penalty. Then Phil brags afterwards that he should have done it at Augusta. Guy has lost his marbles or is having a mid-life crisis.

[CasualLie]

We will never really know if this was Phil's way to give the USGA the finger, but I doubt it. It seems a little weird for a tour pro to be so petty that it would jump to mind that while in the midst of a horrid 3rd round he would think here's my chance to f with the rules. But it is Phil, and wouldn't surprise me if he had really researched this years ago and what a coincidence there was his chance.

 

Before his interview I had chalked it up to his mental implosion on a tough day, two strokes and move on. But that smug attitude in the interview and back handed apology changed it all. He could have just apologized for having a brain freeze and losing composure then leave it at that, but no, we had to get another lecture of look how smart I am even though he sprinkled in an apology.

 

I'm surprised the USGA does not DQ him. Since when do they shy away from controversy?! Phil's actions we can live with, the rules had a remedy. Phil's explanation risks a bad precedent and to me is at the least a serious breach of etiquette. Rule 33-7 has a remedy for that too and the USGA failed.

 

Too bad, I like Phil, and in the long run this just adds to him as an enigma, but hard to side with that smugness.

 

 

[CaseyC]

He would have been better off taking an unplayable and replaying the stroke

[straightshot7]

You're twisting his words. He never said "it was advantageous to him to not have allowed the ball to roll back down to the same position".

 

He said:

 

“At that time, I just didn’t feel like going back and forth and hitting the same shot over”, “I took the two-shot penalty and moved on. It’s my understanding of the rules. I’ve had multiple times where I’ve wanted to do that. I just finally did.”

 

"I just wanted to get on to the next hole, and I didn’t see that happening at the time. I’d gladly take my two strokes and move on.”

 

“In that situation, I was just going back and forth,” he said. “I would gladly take the two shots over continuing that display".

 

Only when the interviewer specifically asked him if he knew where the ball was going to end up, did he say:

 

“No question, it was going to go down in the same spot behind the bunker,” he said. “I wasn’t going to have a shot.”

 

So he never explicitly said what you said he did.

 

If you want to try to read between the lines and judge his motives, that's up to you. But when he described his motivation, he never said anything about doing it to gain an advantage. He said he "used the rule to his advantage". That's not cheating. And it's different from his motivation being to gain an advantage/lower his score. His motivation was just to get the hole over with, according to him. And he said he wasn't sure what affect it would have on his score one way or the other.

 

You don't have to read between the lines in this case, because the sentences, you quoted, contain the information.

 

"...and hitting the same shot over" implies, that he thought, that he may have to hit the same shot repeatedly - without knowing how often he would have to repeat it until it would be successful...

...1 time, 2 times, 3 times, 4 times etc...

...which could lead to a score well beyond 10 for that hole.

 

He obviously was well aware, that the position the ball ("...was going down in the same spot... ...wasn't going to have a shot") was going to reach, would ruin (at least) the whole tournament for him.

 

So, he probably decided to take the risk of being DQ in the worst case, or ending (temporarily) up as a laughing stock - like Ernie Els with his famous putting disaster.

 

It's very clear that according to him, his motive was more about ending the hole ASAP than it was about getting a better score.

 

His score was already +10 before this hole. He knew his chances of winning were over either way.

 

He said that he wasn't sure how his score would be affected. I'm going to stop repeating myself since i already said that but you conveniently ignore that part.

[golfnoob25]

After seeing how the course played.

 

Fk it, everything goes

[gvogel]

Calculated move. Peak Phil.

 

People losing their mind over this and saying he should be DQ'd need to take it down a level.

 

The Committee has the right to DQ him under another rule. And they could do just that.

 

Very poor etiquette on Phil's part.

[PeanutsDaddy]

Cookies and Cream Blizzards all around.

 

DQ baby.

[gvogel]

DQ. Bad for golf. As simple as that.

 

Now that Phil pulled those shenanigans, I have to think that he should have spent some time behind bars for the insider trading deal.

[bigchucksr]

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.

I agree one hundred percent--I'm not a Phil fan, I've always thought there was something phony about him--this incident just reinforces that opinion. He obviously, considering his late run at the missed putt, recognized where it was going to end up and took the easy way out--a two stroke penalty saving what easily could have been a four stroke recovery. Disqualify him--there was nothing in that behavior that the PGA should tolerate from the oldest, most experienced golfer on the course today.

[DavePelz4]

Mrs. Pelz smacks me all the time when I'm moving. She'll do anything for a marriage DQ.

[golfnoob25]

Imagine it Tiger did this

[hdr_ric]

I get a knick out of posts on this thread. Especially the posts about all knowing what Phil's intentions really were. Lol's

 

???? He told everyone his intentions in the interview after the round. He calculated that his score would be better swatting the ball while moving than it would be if he let it roll down and played it from where it came to rest.

 

How that scenario (which he admitted to) is not a DQ is beyond me. I guess it pays to be FIGJAM.

[Uhit]

You're twisting his words. He never said "it was advantageous to him to not have allowed the ball to roll back down to the same position".

 

He said:

 

“At that time, I just didn’t feel like going back and forth and hitting the same shot over”, “I took the two-shot penalty and moved on. It’s my understanding of the rules. I’ve had multiple times where I’ve wanted to do that. I just finally did.”

 

"I just wanted to get on to the next hole, and I didn’t see that happening at the time. I’d gladly take my two strokes and move on.”

 

“In that situation, I was just going back and forth,” he said. “I would gladly take the two shots over continuing that display".

 

Only when the interviewer specifically asked him if he knew where the ball was going to end up, did he say:

 

“No question, it was going to go down in the same spot behind the bunker,” he said. “I wasn’t going to have a shot.”

 

So he never explicitly said what you said he did.

 

If you want to try to read between the lines and judge his motives, that's up to you. But when he described his motivation, he never said anything about doing it to gain an advantage. He said he "used the rule to his advantage". That's not cheating. And it's different from his motivation being to gain an advantage/lower his score. His motivation was just to get the hole over with, according to him. And he said he wasn't sure what affect it would have on his score one way or the other.

 

You don't have to read between the lines in this case, because the sentences, you quoted, contain the information.

 

"...and hitting the same shot over" implies, that he thought, that he may have to hit the same shot repeatedly - without knowing how often he would have to repeat it until it would be successful...

...1 time, 2 times, 3 times, 4 times etc...

...which could lead to a score well beyond 10 for that hole.

 

He obviously was well aware, that the position the ball ("...was going down in the same spot... ...wasn't going to have a shot") was going to reach, would ruin (at least) the whole tournament for him.

 

So, he probably decided to take the risk of being DQ in the worst case, or ending (temporarily) up as a laughing stock - like Ernie Els with his famous putting disaster.

 

It's very clear that according to him, his motive was more about ending the hole ASAP than it was about getting a better score.

 

His score was already +10 before this hole. He knew his chances of winning were over either way.

 

He said that he wasn't sure how his score would be affected. I'm going to stop repeating myself since i already said that but you conveniently ignore that part.

 

Of course, he can't be sure how his score would be affected - he could have made a 20 on that hole...

 

...and if the priority in a pro tournament is to end a hole ASAP, then what else is allowed, to reach that goal?

 

It is at least a bad display what he did, and not good for the game - no matter what his intentions really were.

 

-

 

And you can be sure, that everything but a DQ, would open a can of worms for the game of golf.

[the_saint_siwa]

Phil is not in contention in this US Open. So he'd figured, WTH lol.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

No DQ...14.5. Those claiming 1.2 don't know what their talking about. They got it right.

[Ghost of Snead]

Can't wait until for the Masters next year and the players chipping behind the 15th green sprinting for the front of the green to hit their balls toward the hole before they go into the water.

[legitimategolf]

Field Hockey Phil

[DavePelz4]

Christina Kim needs to STHU.

 

Want to go through your career lowlights???