Purposely taking a penalty to prevent a higher score (Phil)

[vbb]

Lots of discussion in the tournament thread but I'd figure I'd ask the experts in here. What's the read on intentionally taking a penalty in order to avoid an even higher score in a tournament round? Phil hit his putt before it stopped rolling to keep it on the green, and potentially avoid a higher score. That's gotta be a DQ right? If not, why don't more people employ that "strategy"? Two strokes don't seem like enough.

[QEight]

DQ if it was serious. And I guess it was.

[Edaw68]

Well he just said in an interview that he knew the ball was going to roll off the green and he purposely took the 2 stroke penalty to avoid a worse score. Of course that's an hour later after already being told by the USGA what the penalty was.

[Stuart_G]

It may be a DQ but It doesn't have to be. Completely up to the committee.

 

*In the case of a serious breach of Rule 1-2, the Committee may impose a penalty of disqualification.

 

And that's only if they determine a violation of 1-2 is appropriate.

[DLiver]

Lots of discussion in the tournament thread but I'd figure I'd ask the experts in here. What's the read on intentionally taking a penalty in order to avoid an even higher score in a tournament round? Phil hit his putt before it stopped rolling to keep it on the green, and potentially avoid a higher score. That's gotta be a DQ right? If not, why don't more people employ that "strategy"? Two strokes don't seem like enough.

 

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you take an unplayable lie?

[TheCityGame]

Lots of discussion in the tournament thread but I'd figure I'd ask the experts in here. What's the read on intentionally taking a penalty in order to avoid an even higher score in a tournament round? Phil hit his putt before it stopped rolling to keep it on the green, and potentially avoid a higher score. That's gotta be a DQ right? If not, why don't more people employ that "strategy"? Two strokes don't seem like enough.

 

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you take an unplayable lie?

no

[vbb]

If he purposely deflected a shot, say with his foot, then he'd be DQ'd...yet when he purposely deflected the shot with his putter, it was treated as a "hitting a moving ball" penalty and he was assessed a 2 stroke penalty. I'm confused.

[HeadonaStick]

If he purposely deflected a shot, say with his foot, then he'd be DQ'd...yet when he purposely deflected the shot with his putter, it was treated as a "hitting a moving ball" penalty and he was assessed a 2 stroke penalty. I'm confused.

Your foot isn't a club so you can't take a stroke with it. And I am not sure deflecting the ball with your foot would automatically be a DQ.

[slprince67]

I like Phil, but that should be a dq in my opinion. He just added 3 more pages to the decisions book with that move....

[QEight]

I like Phil, but that should be a dq in my opinion. He just added 3 more pages to the decisions book with that move....

 

No decision book next year.

[Big Ben]

I like Phil but he should take some s??t for this. This was a DQ all day

[Hardluckster]

Another Phil fan here who would DQ him from this championship. Bush league move that he probably wishes that he hadn't done. He definitely deserves criticism for this antic.

[Edaw68]

Does anyone think if it would have been some random sectional qualifier and not Mickelson then he would have been DQ'd? I do.

[vbb]

If he purposely deflected a shot, say with his foot, then he'd be DQ'd...yet when he purposely deflected the shot with his putter, it was treated as a "hitting a moving ball" penalty and he was assessed a 2 stroke penalty. I'm confused.

Your foot isn't a club so you can't take a stroke with it. And I am not sure deflecting the ball with your foot would automatically be a DQ.

OK so maybe not a foot...but another club. Say you putt one too firm and it will go past the hole, so you run over and deflect it INTO the hole (like Phil tried to do). The +2 penalty would likely be the "smart" play, but obviously it wouldn't be in the spirit of the game.

[DaveLeeNC]

Lots of discussion in the tournament thread but I'd figure I'd ask the experts in here. What's the read on intentionally taking a penalty in order to avoid an even higher score in a tournament round? Phil hit his putt before it stopped rolling to keep it on the green, and potentially avoid a higher score. That's gotta be a DQ right? If not, why don't more people employ that "strategy"? Two strokes don't seem like enough.

 

Given that he could have taken an unplayayble and replay for one stroke, I don't see how this could be judged as an advantageous play. If he had stopped/deflected (not a stroke) the ball below the cup then maybe. But putting at a moving ball with no prep time, i would bet that the unplayable lie approach wins the vast majority of the time.

 

dave

[sui generis]

Rule 1-2 governs.

 

1-2. Exerting Influence on Movement of Ball or Altering Physical Conditions

 

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.

 

2. An action taken for the sole purpose of caring for the course is not a breach of Rule 1-2.

 

*Penalty for Breach of Rule 1-2:

Match play - Loss of hole; Stroke play - Two strokes.

 

*In the case of a serious breach of Rule 1-2, the Committee may impose a penalty of disqualification.

 

Note 1: 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.

 

Note 2: In stroke play, except where a serious breach resulting in disqualification is involved, a player in breach of Rule 1-2 in relation to the movement of his own ball must play the ball from where it was stopped, or, if the ball was deflected, from where it came to rest. If the movement of a player's ball has been intentionally influenced by a fellow-competitor or other outside agency, Rule 1-4 applies to the player (see Note to Rule 19-1).

[Stuart_G]

Rule 1-2 governs.

 

I don't believe so in this case

 

Exceptions:

 

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

 

14-5 would be that other rule.

 

If they did want to pursue a DQ penalty, it would have to be under 33-7.

[Fade]

Rule 1-2 governs.

 

I don't believe so in this case

 

Exceptions:

 

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

 

14-5 would be that other rule.

 

If they did want to pursue a DQ penalty, it would have to be under 33-7.

 

14-5 refers back to 1.2 if "Ball purposely deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie".

 

1.2 - Note 1 seems to be based on outcome, not intent. Not clear cut.

 

So 33-7 might indeed be the route to a DQ. It refers back to "etiquette". From there, this could be considered a violation to the spirit of the game, perhaps?

[TheCityGame]

Funny hypothetical this situation made me think of....

 

You have a downhill 2 foot slider. Very fast greens. You have a 3 shot lead and you're worried about the putt getting away from you.

 

You decide to take an unplayable and drop the ball 2 feet, 1 inch below the hole. On the other side of the hole.

 

You know it's going to roll away more than 2 clubs. So you drop, redrop, then place it, then sink the 2 foot, 1 incher.

 

Is there anything wrong with what I outlined? You can take an unplayable on a green. The rule states that you have two club lengths and the ball must come to rest not nearer the hole but it doesn't say you can't cross over the hole.

[sui generis]

Rule 1-2 governs.

 

I don't believe so in this case

 

Exceptions:

 

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

 

14-5 would be that other rule.

 

If they did want to pursue a DQ penalty, it would have to be under 33-7.

 

The Exceptions to R19-2 suggest that R1-2 governs.

[Stuart_G]

14-5 refers back to 1.2 if "Ball purposely deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie".

 

That last line in parenthesis

 

(Ball purposely deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie - see Rule 1-2)

 

is only a helpful hint on where to look in the context of such similar interference when it's not actually done by making a stroke at the ball. That's why it's in parenthesis. If it really was an exception or redirection to 1-2, 1) it would have it's own exception number and 2) there would be no point to rule 14-5. A stroke, by definition, is always a purposeful act.

 

So 33-7 might indeed be the route to a DQ. It refers back to "etiquette". From there, this could be considered a violation to the spirit of the game, perhaps?

 

Agree - but it still requires the committee to rule it as a serious breach - which with respect to 33-7 is typically only reserved for multiple violations, not a single violation.

[sui generis]

14-5 refers back to 1.2 if "Ball purposely deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie".

 

Not the way I read it. That last line in parenthesis

 

(Ball purposely deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie - see Rule 1-2)

 

is only a helpful hint on where to look in the context of such interference when it's not done by making a stroke at the ball. That's why it's in parenthesis. If it really was an exception or redirection to 1-2, 1) it would have it's own exception number and 2) there would be no point to rule 14-5. A stroke, by definition, is a purposeful act.

 

So 33-7 might indeed be the route to a DQ. It refers back to "etiquette". From there, this could be considered a violation to the spirit of the game, perhaps?

 

Agree - but it still requires the committee to rule it as a serious breach - which with respect to 33-7 is typically only reserved for multiple violations, not a single violation.

 

Davis and Bodenhamer agree with you. I now do, too. :)

[Colin L]

Rule 1-2 governs.

 

I don't believe so in this case

 

Exceptions:

 

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

 

14-5 would be that other rule.

 

If they did want to pursue a DQ penalty, it would have to be under 33-7.

 

Agreed.

[deadsolid...shank]

Funny hypothetical this situation made me think of....

 

You have a downhill 2 foot slider. Very fast greens. You have a 3 shot lead and you're worried about the putt getting away from you.

 

You decide to take an unplayable and drop the ball 2 feet, 1 inch below the hole. On the other side of the hole.

 

You know it's going to roll away more than 2 clubs. So you drop, redrop, then place it, then sink the 2 foot, 1 incher.

 

Is there anything wrong with what I outlined? You can take an unplayable on a green. The rule states that you have two club lengths and the ball must come to rest not nearer the hole but it doesn't say you can't cross over the hole.

 

What a great question/scenario. I'm really interested to hear what the real knowledgable guys think.

[TheCityGame]

Rule 1-2 governs.

 

I don't believe so in this case

 

Exceptions:

 

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

 

14-5 would be that other rule.

 

If they did want to pursue a DQ penalty, it would have to be under 33-7.

 

14-5 refers back to 1.2 if "Ball purposely deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie".

 

1.2 - Note 1 seems to be based on outcome, not intent. Not clear cut.

 

So 33-7 might indeed be the route to a DQ. It refers back to "etiquette". From there, this could be considered a violation to the spirit of the game, perhaps?

yeah, that's what I don't get. Guy keeps saying that 14-5 takes precedence because of that clause in 1-2 but 14-5 sends it back to 1-2 when purposely deflected. I really don't get it.

[HitEmTrue]

City, he made a stroke at the ball, which is not the same as deflecting or stopping the ball.

 

Stopping or deflecting would be putting something out there to stop/deflect it....your foot, or even a club.

 

[DavePelz4]

I just checked Phil's TWENTY THREE AND ME account. Turns out he's human.

[HitEmTrue]

I do find it odd that deflecting/stopping a moving ball potentially carries a bigger penalty than making a stroke at it.

 

 

[sui generis]

City, he made a stroke at the ball, which is not the same as deflecting or stopping the ball.

 

Stopping or deflecting would be putting something out there to stop/deflect it....your foot, or even a club.

 

That's it. My R1-2 was made without seeing a replay of the event.

[NDS55]

It sure SEEMS like an offence worthy of a DQ, but the rules call for 2 strokes. Nonetheless people aren't going to let it go and will debate their individual interpretations of the rule because they don't think justice was served.

I wish it had been rolling a little slower so that he could have judged the pace a little better and holed the damn thing. THAT would have caused WRX to explode.