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

[Augster]

Old news now, I know. But, 14-5 has the word “MUST” in it.

 

Are there other rules that have MUST in them that the penalty isn’t DQ? I can’t recall. I’m sure they are in there, but the ruling bodies don’t throw around “must” very lightly.

 

I looked at the proposed rules for next year. Turns out, next year it’ll be 2 strokes also from what I could find. I wonder if the ruling bodies will get together and turn this fiasco into a DQ now that they’ve seen it at the highest level and how 2 strokes, while very fair, just doesn’t have the look. Intentionally stopping your own ball in motion, or playing it while it is rolling, should be DQ going forward. Simple. No need for 1-2, 1-4, or 33-7. Just DQ.

[Mr. Bean]

As to the discrepancy, I'd be fine with a 2sp/loss of hole being the end of both issues. I'm not convinced that a DQ is appropriate in any case. Why isn't a 2sp sufficient?

 

The concept of 'serious breach' is there to protect other players from an undue advantage / disadvantage created a player breaching the Rules. In D1-2/5.5 it is very clear that it is possible for a player to commit a serious breach when stopping a rolling ball if that ball would end up in a spot clearly worse than the one where the ball actually stopped (eg. out of bounds, WH, bunker, unplayable lie, etc.).

 

So, to answer Your question why 2 ps is not sufficient I refer to the concept of 'serious breach' and 'significant advantage'. Once a player creates significant advantage to him by breaching a Rule he commits a serious breach and may face DQ. To me PM created a significant advantage to him and should have been DQ'd. The problem seems to be that he got off the hook because 'making a stroke' is not 'deflecting', which I find extremely strange in this case.

 

And yes, I agree the outcome in both Cases should be the same and be decided whether there was a serious breach or not. It is IMO completely illogical to exclude SB in one Case and not in the other.

[Mr. Bean]

One more thing.

 

A serious breach does not mean an advantage of 5 or 10 strokes, it may be one single stroke. For example, dropping your ball outside a bunker when taking an unplayable. Or dropping your ball 100 meters too close to the hole when invoking R26 (Water Hazard). So there is no need to discuss whether that advantage is greater than 2 ps.

[ruca]

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.

 

Yeah, me too. I don't see anything in the rule or the decisions that would prohibit it.

Perfectly allowed I'm sure

It does raise another question. What if you drop just above the hole (not nearer) and it goes in? E.g. if you had a sidehill slider

Does it stay in?

[Stuart_G]

I don't have the specific language of the rule regarding a potential DQ in front of me, but I did remember reading words that "...the committee may" apply a DQ for intentional breach of the rule, or words to that effect.

 

It's rule 33-7. And decision 33-7/8 adds some additional clarification. The short answer is that a single instance is not usually enough to justify DQ. Now if someone made a habit of this practice and did it more than once, the committee would be fully justified in the DQ ruling under 33-7.

 

 

Are there other rules that have MUST in them that the penalty isn't DQ?

 

Didn't do a full count or anything, but it looks to me like "musts" are pretty prevalent. I could be wrong but there seemed to me to be more "must" rules that don't have a DQ penalty then those that do (along with a few that are DQ for 2nd offenses but not first).

 

 

As far as the "significant advantage" discussions - there seem to be two separate variations that might be getting mixed up.

 

1) Is it possible to gain a significant advantage making a stroke at a moving ball - and therefore should 14-5 also contain a DQ clause?

 

I'm not completely convinced the rule needs to change but I see it as a valid concern non-the-less.

 

 

2) Specifically did what Phil do give him a significant advantage and hypothetically would he have qualified for such a DQ if that clause did exist in the rule?

 

Considering he ended up in roughly the same place he would have if he had taken an unplayable - and at a 2 stroke penalty instead of a 1 stroke penalty. And it's also unlikely he could not have gotten back to that same positions with 2 actual strokes. It wasn't an advantageous position on the green either. He could have easily putted it off the green and he still ended needing 2 more putts to get in the hole. So I can't really see much support that his actions ended up giving him any kind of significant advantage.

 

 

P.S. His real argument to the media should have been that he did it for pace of play :-)

[DaveLeeNC]

I don't see how Phil (the way he executed things) gained an advantage over S/D or just playing the next shot.

 

However, if you do this 'correctly' where you putt and immediately head for the hole (assuming a VERY fast putt where the player can beat the ball to the hole), you can probably give yourself a less than one foot putt on a moving ball. And for some situations where the roll-off is very long or maybe even into a hazard, this could well be an advantage.

 

So I don't see 2 strokes as being adequate and DQ would seem to me to be the consistent answer here (rule change required, of course).

 

dave

[Stuart_G]

However, if you do this 'correctly' where you putt and immediately head for the hole (assuming a VERY fast putt where the player can beat the ball to the hole), you can probably give yourself a less than one foot putt on a moving ball. And for some situations where the roll-off is very long or maybe even into a hazard, this could well be an advantage.

 

So I don't see 2 strokes as being adequate and DQ would seem to me to be the consistent answer here (rule change required, of course).

 

Sorry, I'm not following that logic? Even in 1-2, the DQ determination is based on whether an actual significant advantage was gained, not whether it could have been gained had they done it "correctly"

[JohnnyCashForever]

I think the rules of golf are written with the assumption that a player intends to play the game within the spirit of the rules.

 

That is, at the most basic level, the rules assume that all golfers intend to hit the ball. Find it after it has come to rest. Hit it again as it lies. Repeat until holed.

 

If one plays the game in a lawyerly manner, disregarding the spirit of the game and trying to take advantage of loopholes in the rules, then there is a real danger of seeing something like what Phil did on Saturday, as I suspect there are numerous loopholes in the rules that can be exploited. The game becomes golf in name only. In my opinion, Phil's actions on Saturday were beyond the pale, and the fact that he wasn't DQ'ed by the USGA (the self-imposed stewards of the game) is even more shocking.

[DaveLeeNC]

However, if you do this 'correctly' where you putt and immediately head for the hole (assuming a VERY fast putt where the player can beat the ball to the hole), you can probably give yourself a less than one foot putt on a moving ball. And for some situations where the roll-off is very long or maybe even into a hazard, this could well be an advantage.

 

So I don't see 2 strokes as being adequate and DQ would seem to me to be the consistent answer here (rule change required, of course).

 

Sorry, I'm not following that logic? Even in 1-2, the DQ determination is based on whether an actual significant advantage was gained, not whether it could have been gained had they done it "correctly"

 

And that is the reason for the parenthetical statement of "rule change required". I don't think these actions should be allowed to happen, although I am not particularly incensed at what PM did.

 

dave

 

ps. I would also add that, given the current rules, I don't think the USGA had a viable option here.

[HatsForBats]

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.

 

Your post probably deserves it's own thread. My guess is they would not allow it with something along the lines of "the intent of the wording 'not nearer the hole' would prohibit this. While the proposed drop point is further from the hole than the original point of where the ball was declared unplayable the drop point can only be on the side of the hole where the ball was declared unplayable'.

 

If taken exactly as written I think you would be able to drop where you propose under 28c and 28b but IMO the USGA is not going to allow it. If it was at a PGA/LPGA tournament it would be interesting to see how they would handle it.

[sui generis]

I think the rules of golf are written with the assumption that a player intends to play the game within the spirit of the rules.

 

That is, at the most basic level, the rules assume that all golfers intend to hit the ball. Find it after it has come to rest. Hit it again as it lies. Repeat until holed.

 

If one plays the game in a lawyerly manner, disregarding the spirit of the game and trying to take advantage of loopholes in the rules, then there is a real danger of seeing something like what Phil did on Saturday, as I suspect there are numerous loopholes in the rules that can be exploited. The game becomes golf in name only. In my opinion, Phil's actions on Saturday were beyond the pale, and the fact that he wasn't DQ'ed by the USGA (the self-imposed stewards of the game) is even more shocking.

 

The "spirit of the game" requires that players abide by the Rules. Golf is not some morality play. Please, let's not interject new meanings to the statement in the Rules.

 

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.

 

http://www.usga.org/...tml#!rule-14252

[Stuart_G]

And that is the reason for the parenthetical statement of "rule change required". I don't think these actions should be allowed to happen, although I am not particularly incensed at what PM did.

 

Well there are quite a few who believe 14-5 should be changed to also include the same clause that's included in 1-2 - but that doesn't seem to be what I thought you were implying in your post - but I probably simply just misunderstood.

[DaveLeeNC]

And that is the reason for the parenthetical statement of "rule change required". I don't think these actions should be allowed to happen, although I am not particularly incensed at what PM did.

 

Well there are quite a few who believe 14-5 should be changed to also include the same clause that's included in 1-2 - but that doesn't seem to be what I thought you were implying in your post - but I probably simply just misunderstood.

 

I was just trying to say that I can envision cases where intentionally hitting a moving ball (plus 2 strokes) would gain an advantage (I don't think PM gained an advantage, however). Additionally I don't think that should be allowed and it should be more clearly excluded as a viable option.

 

dave

[WHC888]

by Mike Davis' definition, Phil made a "stroke"at a moving ball, therefore rule 14.5 applies and Phil gets 2 strokes penalty. If Phil made a "stroke" at a moving ball while the ball is heading off the green and may roll into red/yellow staked hazard, still 2 strokes penalty??

[Stuart_G]

by Mike Davis' definition, Phil made a "stroke"at a moving ball, therefore rule 14.5 applies and Phil gets 2 strokes penalty. If Phil made a "stroke" at a moving ball while the ball is heading off the green and may roll into red/yellow staked hazard, still 2 strokes penalty??

 

Yes. Where the ball would have gone or even where it ends up after the stroke, is not a consideration for a 14-5 penalty. Which is one reason many are arguing that rule should be changed.

[WHC888]

by Mike Davis' definition, Phil made a "stroke"at a moving ball, therefore rule 14.5 applies and Phil gets 2 strokes penalty. If Phil made a "stroke" at a moving ball while the ball is heading off the green and may roll into red/yellow staked hazard, still 2 strokes penalty??

 

Yes. Where the ball would have gone or even where it ends up after the stroke, is not a consideration for a 14-5 penalty. Which is one reason many are arguing that rule should be changed.

 

looking at 14-5 and 1-2, they both apply a 2 strokes penalty with exceptions of 1-2 states

 

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

 

What's considered as SERIOUS BREACH??

[Stuart_G]

What's considered as SERIOUS BREACH??

 

Unfortunately, that is not made very clear by the rules, IMO. There are various decisions that provide hints but no clear guidance (at least that I'm aware of).

 

e.g.

 

1-2/0.5

 

Serious Breach of Rule 1-2

 

Q.Should the standard for determining whether a serious breach of Rule 1-2 has occurred be the same in match play and stroke play?

 

A.In deciding whether a player has committed a serious breach of Rule 1-2, the Committee should consider all aspects of the incident. Given the different impact on players in match play and stroke play, it is possible for the same act to constitute a serious breach of Rule 1-2 in stroke play but not in match play. In many cases in match play (e.g., a player who intentionally stops his ball from entering a water hazard), a penalty of loss of hole is sufficient while in stroke play the player should be disqualified for a serious breach. In some cases (e.g., the purposeful act of damaging the line of putt referred to in Decision 1-2/1), a penalty of disqualification in match play may be appropriate.

[TheCityGame]

by Mike Davis' definition, Phil made a "stroke"at a moving ball, therefore rule 14.5 applies and Phil gets 2 strokes penalty. If Phil made a "stroke" at a moving ball while the ball is heading off the green and may roll into red/yellow staked hazard, still 2 strokes penalty??

 

Yes. Where the ball would have gone or even where it ends up after the stroke, is not a consideration for a 14-5 penalty. Which is one reason many are arguing that rule should be changed.

 

looking at 14-5 and 1-2, they both apply a 2 strokes penalty with exceptions of 1-2 states

 

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

 

What's considered as SERIOUS BREACH??

It's right after the sentence you copy & pasted. . .

 

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.

[Stuart_G]

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.

 

That doesn't really answer any questions to help make the judgement. That just trades one subjective evaluation for a slightly different subjective evaluation.

[Augster]

You are correct Stuart. I looked up a bunch and there are plenty of rules with “must” in it that are DQ and plenty that are 2 strokes.

 

A few:

 

7-2 practice.

8-1 advice.

12-2 lifting ball.

 

Thanks for the help.

[Sawgrass]

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.

 

Your post probably deserves it's own thread. My guess is they would not allow it with something along the lines of "the intent of the wording 'not nearer the hole' would prohibit this. While the proposed drop point is further from the hole than the original point of where the ball was declared unplayable the drop point can only be on the side of the hole where the ball was declared unplayable'.

 

If taken exactly as written I think you would be able to drop where you propose under 28c and 28b but IMO the USGA is not going to allow it. If it was at a PGA/LPGA tournament it would be interesting to see how they would handle it.

Folks, before you get too outraged by this, consider that if you declare a S&D penalty on yourself and the previous position of the ball was on the green, you must place rather than drop. Otherwise, a 2sp.

 

And now to comment to everyone: I know 2sp are very unpopular in this thread, what with all the support for the death penalty and all. But I must say that a 2sp in Phil's case did not provide a significant advantage over his choice of a S&D penalty. And while there are lots of torches and pitchforks around right now, I bet there is no one who wouldn't, appearances aside, enjoy a fellow competitor, who was close to you in score at the moment, trying this boneheaded move. It provides a "significant disadvantage."

[szaino]

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.

 

That doesn't really answer any questions to help make the judgement. That just trades one subjective evaluation for a slightly different subjective evaluation.

 

agree. The difference between a breach or a serious breach is subjective. This reminds me of Jack Nicholson in the movie "a few good men", when he said Santiago was in "danger", and Tom Cruise asked "grave Danger" and Nicholson replied "is there any other kind?".

 

If PM had run up and "stroked" the ball into the hole when it was still moving and just a few inches past the hole, would that be any more "serious" then what he actually did? This action is certainly more outrageous, but he would score an 8 on the hole with the penalty. The advantage from this outrageous action is no more significant then if Phil took an unplayable under 1 stroke penalty and scored either a 7 or 8.

[HatsForBats]

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.

 

Your post probably deserves it's own thread. My guess is they would not allow it with something along the lines of "the intent of the wording 'not nearer the hole' would prohibit this. While the proposed drop point is further from the hole than the original point of where the ball was declared unplayable the drop point can only be on the side of the hole where the ball was declared unplayable'.

 

If taken exactly as written I think you would be able to drop where you propose under 28c and 28b but IMO the USGA is not going to allow it. If it was at a PGA/LPGA tournament it would be interesting to see how they would handle it.

 

Folks, before you get too outraged by this, consider that if you declare a S&D penalty on yourself and the previous position of the ball was on the green, you must place rather than drop. Otherwise, a 2sp.

 

Good point but I don't think it changes TheCityGame's question much. It just takes the steps of dropping out of the equation. But again, it probably should be in it's own topic.

[Stuart_G]

If PM had run up and "stroked" the ball into the hole when it was still moving and just a few inches past the hole, would that be any more "serious" then what he actually did?

 

You tell me. It would have resulted in the same score as if he would have taken an unplayable and 2 putted. Would you call that a "significant advantage" ?

 

But I'd like to see it happen first. It's one thing to hold your putter in place and let the ball deflect in the hole. I would think that taking a true stroke at a moving ball (after having to run to get into place) is a completely different thing and much harder to get the ball in the hole (particularly on greens that fast). It would have to be a pretty slow moving putt to have any chance.

 

I'm almost tempted to give it a try to see how hard/easy it really is - but not sure I could run that fast :-)

[Deceptively Short]

I think that if, after hitting a par 3 in regulation, I have a really slippery cross hill, downhill putt that is almost impossible to stop on the green unless it hits the back of the hole, it is maybe better for me to putt it close to the hole then run to the hole and ‘stroke’ it into the hole as it slides close by. I have then played 3 shots and have 2 penalty shots - total 5. As opposed to my putt sliding by ending up off the green, maybe in a hazard or a bunker. If I decide to replay the original putt under penalty, I am then playing 4 with the same cross hill, downhill putt and the strong likelihood of racking up a number considerably higher than 5.

I am told above that this is not a significant advantage so the lack of a stronger sanction for Saturday’s histrionics has opened up this possibility in future play.

 

Time for a rule modification in a hurry.

[Golfnuck]

I think the rules of golf are written with the assumption that a player intends to play the game within the spirit of the rules.

 

That is, at the most basic level, the rules assume that all golfers intend to hit the ball. Find it after it has come to rest. Hit it again as it lies. Repeat until holed.

 

If one plays the game in a lawyerly manner, disregarding the spirit of the game and trying to take advantage of loopholes in the rules, then there is a real danger of seeing something like what Phil did on Saturday, as I suspect there are numerous loopholes in the rules that can be exploited. The game becomes golf in name only. In my opinion, Phil's actions on Saturday were beyond the pale, and the fact that he wasn't DQ'ed by the USGA (the self-imposed stewards of the game) is even more shocking.

 

The Rules of Golf is 231 pages long (pocket sized) and 324 pages (large print).

 

The Decisions on the Rules of golf is 752 pages long:

Title Decisions on the Rules of Golf Author R&a Championships Limited Edition revised Publisher Octopus Publishing Group, 2015 ISBN 0600632164, 9780600632160 Length 752 pages

 

 

I think the various golf organizations have moved the game to the "lawyerly manner" already.

 

So in Phil's case many are offended because they view it as somehow helping him but in most cases the USGA will apply a ruling that hurts a golfer.

 

Look at the Anna Nordqvist bunker ruling. High definition slow motion camera reply caught by a viewer noticed a few grains of sand were brushed in her back swing.

 

"A staff member onsite viewed the shot three times and didn’t see an infraction. Bodenhamer made his way to the compound, and after looking at a different camera angle, saw the violation." - https://golfweek.com/2016/07/10/us-womens-open-penalty-controversy-anna-nordqvist-bunker-grounds-club-two-shots-playoff-fiasco/

 

There was no way this would be noticed by the human eye or by the competitor or anyone else if not for the high definition slow motion replay.

 

Was this in the "spirit" of the rules?

 

Or was this a strict application of the rules to it's exact definition even though when the rule was written no-one could have contemplated the ability to see or notice this infraction.

 

So now we have a case where the rule was applied as it was written and penalty assessed as it was written and we are up in arms about the "spirit".

 

I think the "spirit" ship sailed a long time ago.

[Stuart_G]

I think that if, after hitting a par 3 in regulation, I have a really slippery cross hill, downhill putt that is almost impossible to stop on the green unless it hits the back of the hole, it is maybe better for me to putt it close to the hole then run to the hole and ‘stroke’ it into the hole as it slides close by. I have then played 3 shots and have 2 penalty shots - total 5. As opposed to my putt sliding by ending up off the green, maybe in a hazard or a bunker. If I decide to replay the original putt under penalty, I am then playing 4 with the same cross hill, downhill putt and the strong likelihood of racking up a number considerably higher than 5.

I am told above that this is not a significant advantage so the lack of a stronger sanction for Saturday’s histrionics has opened up this possibility in future play.

 

Time for a rule modification in a hurry.

 

I wont say it doesn't happen (I know it does - I ran across one placement that resulted in me 5-putting, and I'm not that bad of a putter)

 

... but a putt that can't stay on the green from above the hole AND typically takes more then 3 strokes to recover from is a course set-up problem, not a rules problem. The rules shouldn't have to be written with the expectation of such ridiculous playing conditions.

[Sawgrass]

 

I'm almost tempted to give it a try to see how hard/easy it really is - but not sure I could run that fast :-)

Who says Phil isn't fit? I guess this will put an end to that!

[Mikey5e]

Decisions for dq are usually biased in the direction of money. If the USGA/PGA were totally upright in their decision, Phil would have been dq'd. I was just starting to warn up to him, but he lost my respect somewhat.

[Stuart_G]

Decisions for dq are usually biased in the direction of money. If the USGA/PGA were totally upright in their decision, Phil would have been dq'd. I was just starting to warn up to him, but he lost my respect somewhat.

 

You obviously having been paying any attention to the content of this thread that deals with the actual rules. You might find that reviewing those posts before responding can help avoid further mistakes.