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

[nsxguy]

The penalty given to Phil was correct. No question and I don't believe I've stated otherwise. Perhaps some interpreted my words incorrectly. :)

 

That said... David Fay in his interview, myself and many many others feel the intent of 14-5 is for a different situation. To room after a rolling ball and stop/stroke/deflect it is not golf.

Funny thing...I asked this in another thread and received, at least to me, interesting answers. If Phil did this two, three, four... even more... holes in a row most folks seem to agree he would be DQ'd.

Why??? If the given two stroke penalty is "by the rules" how could you dq someone for playing by the rules?

 

I'm not debating the correctness of the ruling "as the rule is written".

 

NSX, there does not need to be a "reward" as you have asked other posters, repeatedly. This has nothing to do with whether Phil benefited by his actions.

 

Anyways guys. Thanks for reading. I'm sure most of you are shaking your heads thinking "Shilgy and those other guys just don't get it". And that's fine. If y'all are content knowing this type of behavior is condoned with a relatively minor penalty for moving a basic tenet of the game that's fine. I'll stay here on my high horse and disagree.

 

My friend, YOU are the one who said, and I quote (again) "The ability to stroke a moving ball is not something that should be rewarded in golf." :taunt:

 

And if Phil did it 2 or more times I'm fairly confident the Committee could and would "interpret" repeated violations of this rule to be a serious breach of etiquette and DQ him under 33-7.

[Shilgy]

The penalty given to Phil was correct. No question and I don't believe I've stated otherwise. Perhaps some interpreted my words incorrectly. :)

 

That said... David Fay in his interview, myself and many many others feel the intent of 14-5 is for a different situation. To room after a rolling ball and stop/stroke/deflect it is not golf.

Funny thing...I asked this in another thread and received, at least to me, interesting answers. If Phil did this two, three, four... even more... holes in a row most folks seem to agree he would be DQ'd.

Why??? If the given two stroke penalty is "by the rules" how could you dq someone for playing by the rules?

 

I'm not debating the correctness of the ruling "as the rule is written".

 

NSX, there does not need to be a "reward" as you have asked other posters, repeatedly. This has nothing to do with whether Phil benefited by his actions.

 

Anyways guys. Thanks for reading. I'm sure most of you are shaking your heads thinking "Shilgy and those other guys just don't get it". And that's fine. If y'all are content knowing this type of behavior is condoned with a relatively minor penalty for moving a basic tenet of the game that's fine. I'll stay here on my high horse and disagree.

 

My friend, YOU are the one who said, and I quote (again) "The ability to stroke a moving ball is not something that should be rewarded in golf." :taunt:

 

And if Phil did it 2 or more times I'm fairly confident the Committee could and would "interpret" repeated violations of this rule to be a serious breach of etiquette and DQ him under 33-7.

Would you prefer "allowed"? Phil was rewarded by receiving a two stroke penalty.... He deserved to be DQ'd. :)

 

Why would you call it a "serious breach of etiquette" if you feel it's by the rules some would wonder? You acknowledge it's a breach of etiquette but once is relatively ok.

[Colin L]

I'd bet that the R&A agrees with the USGA's ruling. Have they spoken? If not, can you inspire them to respond?

 

I wouldn't expect either body to disagree publicly over anything.

 

Are you suggesting that a failure on the R&A's part to express an opinion is a disagreement with the ruling ?

 

No. And I wouldn't regard the fact that the R&A has not commented as a "failure". There is no reason whatsoever why it should have made any comment and good reason why it should not have.

[Stuart_G]

You acknowledge it's a breach of etiquette but once is relatively ok.

 

Generally Yes. But the seriousness of the breach wrt etiquette very subjective and completely up to the committee. So even those arguing for a 33-7 DQ in the event of multiple occurrences is still arguing largely based on opinion, not any hard validation from the rules themselves.

 

33-7/8

 

Meaning of "Serious Breach of Etiquette"

 

 

Q.In Rule 33-7, what is meant by a "serious breach of etiquette"?

 

A.A serious breach of etiquette is behavior by a player that shows a significant disregard for an aspect of the Etiquette Section, such as intentionally distracting another player or intentionally offending someone.

 

Although a Committee may disqualify a player under Rule 33-7 for a single act that it considers to be a serious breach of etiquette, in most cases it is recommended that such a penalty should be imposed only in the event of a further serious breach.

 

Ultimately, the application of a penalty for a serious breach of etiquette under Rule 33-7 is at the discretion of the Committee.

[nsxguy]

I'd bet that the R&A agrees with the USGA's ruling. Have they spoken? If not, can you inspire them to respond?

 

I wouldn't expect either body to disagree publicly over anything.

 

Are you suggesting that a failure on the R&A's part to express an opinion is a disagreement with the ruling ?

 

No. And I wouldn't regard the fact that the R&A has not commented as a "failure". There is no reason whatsoever why it should have made any comment and good reason why it should not have.

 

OK, fine. How about "choosing not to state an opinion" ? Better ?

 

Your wording of "I wouldn't expect either body to disagree publicly over anything" might suggest to some that the R&A would have disagreed with the decision.

 

At least as poor a choice of words as my using "failure".

[nsxguy]

The penalty given to Phil was correct. No question and I don't believe I've stated otherwise. Perhaps some interpreted my words incorrectly. :)

 

That said... David Fay in his interview, myself and many many others feel the intent of 14-5 is for a different situation. To room after a rolling ball and stop/stroke/deflect it is not golf.

Funny thing...I asked this in another thread and received, at least to me, interesting answers. If Phil did this two, three, four... even more... holes in a row most folks seem to agree he would be DQ'd.

Why??? If the given two stroke penalty is "by the rules" how could you dq someone for playing by the rules?

 

I'm not debating the correctness of the ruling "as the rule is written".

 

NSX, there does not need to be a "reward" as you have asked other posters, repeatedly. This has nothing to do with whether Phil benefited by his actions.

 

Anyways guys. Thanks for reading. I'm sure most of you are shaking your heads thinking "Shilgy and those other guys just don't get it". And that's fine. If y'all are content knowing this type of behavior is condoned with a relatively minor penalty for moving a basic tenet of the game that's fine. I'll stay here on my high horse and disagree.

 

My friend, YOU are the one who said, and I quote (again) "The ability to stroke a moving ball is not something that should be rewarded in golf." :taunt:

 

And if Phil did it 2 or more times I'm fairly confident the Committee could and would "interpret" repeated violations of this rule to be a serious breach of etiquette and DQ him under 33-7.

Would you prefer "allowed"? Phil was rewarded by receiving a two stroke penalty.... He deserved to be DQ'd. :)

 

Why would you call it a "serious breach of etiquette" if you feel it's by the rules some would wonder? You acknowledge it's a breach of etiquette but once is relatively ok.

 

No, I wouldn't (and didn't) call a SINGLE occurrence a "breach of etiquette" at all.

 

But multiple times ? I might (and the Committee might) consider it not in the spirit of the game, therefore, a "serious breach".

 

In the Etiquette section.

 

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

[Stuart_G]

Your wording of "I wouldn't expect either body to disagree publicly over anything" might suggest to some that the R&A would have disagreed with the decision.

 

Not really. It suggest that IF there were any disagreements, they would probably address them privately. But it doesn't imply there was any disagreement in any particular case. For example, what would be the point in saying anything or making a statement if they agreed with the USGA? From their perspective it would seem everything had already been covered adequately so no reason to add anything more to the discussion.

 

Plus it wasn't just that it was the USGA's jurisdiction, it was their tournament. Do you really think the USGA would make any kind of comments on a ruling that might occur at The Open - either whether they agreed with it or not?

[Vindog]

I'd bet that the R&A agrees with the USGA's ruling. Have they spoken? If not, can you inspire them to respond?

 

I wouldn't expect either body to disagree publicly over anything.

 

Are you suggesting that a failure on the R&A's part to express an opinion is a disagreement with the ruling ?

 

No. And I wouldn't regard the fact that the R&A has not commented as a "failure". There is no reason whatsoever why it should have made any comment and good reason why it should not have.

 

OK, fine. How about "choosing not to state an opinion" ? Better ?

 

Your wording of "I wouldn't expect either body to disagree publicly over anything" might suggest to some that the R&A would have disagreed with the decision.

 

At least as poor a choice of words as my using "failure".

 

Those people would be reaching for drama, in my opinion. The R&A have nothing to gain by commenting on the USGA's running of the US Open.

[Colin L]

Your wording of "I wouldn't expect either body to disagree publicly over anything" might suggest to some that the R&A would have disagreed with the decision.

 

The words suggest no such thing.

[nsxguy]

Your wording of "I wouldn't expect either body to disagree publicly over anything" might suggest to some that the R&A would have disagreed with the decision.

 

The words suggest no such thing.

 

When taken in the context of the discussion they certainly do can.

 

Hence my reason for asking you in the first place - you know, when you decided to "discuss" the definition of "failure". ;)

[nsxguy]

 

Are you suggesting that a failure on the R&A's part to express an opinion is a disagreement with the ruling ?

 

No. And I wouldn't regard the fact that the R&A has not commented as a "failure". There is no reason whatsoever why it should have made any comment and good reason why it should not have.

 

OK, fine. How about "choosing not to state an opinion" ? Better ?

 

Your wording of "I wouldn't expect either body to disagree publicly over anything" might suggest to some that the R&A would have disagreed with the decision.

 

At least as poor a choice of words as my using "failure".

 

Those people would be reaching for drama, in my opinion. The R&A have nothing to gain by commenting on the USGA's running of the US Open.

 

Agreed. Just like arguing with zealots, when there is zero upside, you just leave it alone.

 

It's why I seldom express a political or religious point of view.

[nsxguy]

You said earlier you "scraped" the ball. I'm looking for a definition of "scrape".

 

Would it be fair to describe a "scrape" as a forward motion of the club without a backward motion of any kind ? Similar to a "push" but with the club further behind the ball than a push.

 

I think of a 'scrape' as moving the club along the ground to guide the club to the ball. It's the ground (not the ball) that's being scraped during the action of trying to hit the ball.

 

So what would be the difference then between a "push" and a "scrape" ?

[Stuart_G]

I think of a 'scrape' as moving the club along the ground to guide the club to the ball. It's the ground (not the ball) that's being scraped during the action of trying to hit the ball.

 

So what would be the difference then between a "push" and a "scrape" ?

 

A scrape is about the interaction between the club and the ground (prior to impact)

 

A push is more about the interaction between the club and the ball (although it's also a bit more than that such as the type of force applied to the club to create impact).

 

A scrape can have 'normal' impact. Remember Big Break's Lepp's "Saucer Pass"?

 

 

that was later ruled to be a scrape:

https://www.golfchan...-ruled-illegal/

 

 

Bit again, that's just my interpretation. Fortunately, it doesn't really matter all that much. One only has to be able to identify whether the ball was fairly struck or not. Additional sub-categorization of shots that are not fairly struck is not a requirement.

[nsxguy]

I think of a 'scrape' as moving the club along the ground to guide the club to the ball. It's the ground (not the ball) that's being scraped during the action of trying to hit the ball.

 

So what would be the difference then between a "push" and a "scrape" ?

 

A scrape is about the interaction between the club and the ground (prior to impact)

 

A push is more about the interaction between the club and the ball (although it's also a bit more than that such as the type of force applied to the club to create impact).

 

A scrape can have 'normal' impact. Remember Big Break's Lepp's "Saucer Pass"?

 

 

that was later ruled to be a scrape:

https://www.golfchan...-ruled-illegal/

 

 

Bit again, that's just my interpretation. Fortunately, it doesn't really matter all that much. One only has to be able to identify whether the ball was fairly struck or not. Additional sub-categorization of shots that are not fairly struck is not a requirement.

 

Good point but I can't find a definition of "fairly struck" either.

 

And if that definition would exclude scraped pushed or spooned there wouldn't have been a need to say those 3 aren't permitted. :dntknw:

[Stuart_G]

I think of a 'scrape' as moving the club along the ground to guide the club to the ball. It's the ground (not the ball) that's being scraped during the action of trying to hit the ball.

 

So what would be the difference then between a "push" and a "scrape" ?

 

A scrape is about the interaction between the club and the ground (prior to impact)

 

A push is more about the interaction between the club and the ball (although it's also a bit more than that such as the type of force applied to the club to create impact).

 

A scrape can have 'normal' impact. Remember Big Break's Lepp's "Saucer Pass"?

 

 

that was later ruled to be a scrape:

https://www.golfchan...-ruled-illegal/

 

 

Bit again, that's just my interpretation. Fortunately, it doesn't really matter all that much. One only has to be able to identify whether the ball was fairly struck or not. Additional sub-categorization of shots that are not fairly struck is not a requirement.

 

Good point but I can't find a definition of "fairly struck" either.

 

And if that definition would exclude scraped pushed or spooned there wouldn't have been a need to say those 3 aren't permitted. :dntknw:

 

How would you define it? I see it as one of those things that's not so easy to define precisely in words but is one of those things that "you know it when you see it".

[757USMCVET]

I may be the only one but I thought it was genius. There’s a difference between using the rules to your advantage and cheating. Example: taking a drop from the cart path is using the rules to your advantage. Golf being low man wins, it’s not usual to see a player welcome a penalty. In this case he did.. But it was done within the rules. Players routinely use the rules to get better lies, hit from preferred spots, etc. On top of the fact he wanted to get off the course Asap and knew he wouldn’t make the cut. We know Phil’s a standup guy.

[sui generis]

I may be the only one but I thought it was genius. There's a difference between using the rules to your advantage and cheating. Example: taking a drop from the cart path is using the rules to your advantage. Golf being low man wins, it's not usual to see a player welcome a penalty. In this case he did.. But it was done within the rules. Players routinely use the rules to get better lies, hit from preferred spots, etc. On top of the fact he wanted to get off the course Asap and knew he wouldn't make the cut. We know Phil's a standup guy.

 

Not "genius." R27-1a would have been smart.