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

[DaveLeeNC]

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!

 

I don't have an opinion on PM's fitness. But I would say that NOBODY should have to putt on a green after Tim Herron has tried to sprint across it while wearing golf spikes.

 

dave

[15th Club]

I will say; my gut told me that it was the wrong thing, what Mickelson did. But I agree with Stuart G. and that the USGA made the right call.

 

The most persuasive-sounding argument that Mickielson did not fall within the standard 2-stroke penalty of 14-5, was that he didn't actually make a stroke. That he didn't take a stance, and didn't address the ball before swinging. But that is not the actual definition of a "stroke." Here is the definition:

 

 

 

Stroke

 

A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke.

 

 

Mickelson, even in mid-stride and with barely both feet on the ground, used a forward motion with the intention striking and moving the ball. And that is what he did. It didn't look like much of a "stroke," but it met the definition.

[Mr. Bean]

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

 

The way I read that Rule is that the Committee may impose a penalty of disqualification to a player. Period.

 

The D33-7/8 deals ONLY with breaches of Etiquette, not with breaches of Rules.

 

Big difference.

[Mr. Bean]

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."

 

Sawgrass, please....

 

The significant advantage is NOT reflected to the penalty of a Rule being breached but to the situations with and without the breach.For example, dropping one's ball 100 meters closer to the hole gives that player a significant advantage ( at least in the majority of cases) but in strokes it is maybe one single stroke or no stroke at all. Nothing to do with 2 ps for playing from a wrong place BUT giving the player a significant advantage. (numerous Decisions available)

[Sawgrass]

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."

 

Sawgrass, please....

 

The significant advantage is NOT reflected to the penalty of a Rule being breached but to the situations with and without the breach.For example, dropping one's ball 100 meters closer to the hole gives that player a significant advantage ( at least in the majority of cases) but in strokes it is maybe one single stroke or no stroke at all. Nothing to do with 2 ps for playing from a wrong place BUT giving the player a significant advantage. (numerous Decisions available)

Back to my point, do you agree that it is to your advantage if a competing player makes a stroke at his moving ball and gets charged three strokes for his trouble?

[Mr. Bean]

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."

 

Sawgrass, please....

 

The significant advantage is NOT reflected to the penalty of a Rule being breached but to the situations with and without the breach.For example, dropping one's ball 100 meters closer to the hole gives that player a significant advantage ( at least in the majority of cases) but in strokes it is maybe one single stroke or no stroke at all. Nothing to do with 2 ps for playing from a wrong place BUT giving the player a significant advantage. (numerous Decisions available)

Back to my point, do you agree that it is to your advantage if a competing player makes a stroke at his moving ball and gets charged three strokes for his trouble?

 

I do not see any relevance. It is not a question how much other players benefit relatively from a player's penalties but a question of a player not getting significant advantage.

[irvnasty]

I'll also add that it simply cannot be that "advantage" is calculated only in strokes gained, with all strokes counting equally.

 

If you imagine CityGame's slider scenario (but even without such an extreme green), and you imagine a player on the 72nd hole with 4 or more strokes to win, using the "rolling stroke strategy" may not be optimal to reduce the total number of strokes taken, but may effectively eliminate any possibility of passing a certain threshold of strokes.

 

In that case, making the putt in one stroke or four is the same. Making it in four (or however many) guaranteed, while likely hurting the player's score, accrues an "advantage", because it avoids making it in whatever the threshold number of strokes is to not win outright.

 

Now, let's say that you take the player who does this, and scramble all of his hole scores over the course of the tournament, such that it is an alternate universe where he did this not on the 72nd hole, but on the 1st. While he may have lost strokes by so doing, he also completed the hole in few enough strokes to ultimately win, 71 holes later, by having eliminated the risk of a truly giant blow up hole on the 1st. No way to know that his strategy would work, but it turns out that it did.

 

Irrespective of whether his strategy ultimately reduced the expected average number of strokes which he would take, that player accrued an "advantage" by eliminating the rare cases in which he would have scored far more strokes, did he not?

 

EDIT: I will add, from a purely technical standpoint, that Phil might have been this player. While we all suspected, we could not know, when the penalty was decided, that Phil would not win the tournament. We could not know if he would win provided he scored no more than 10 on that hole. And we could not know what he would have scored using some other method of trying to hole his ball. At a lesser level, we couldn't know any of those things with regard to any placement relative to another player or players (and the consequent changes in money or points or prestige or whatever). All we could know, for certain, is that he intentionally broke a rule, and that it ended up eliminating possible other scenarios in which he scored 11 or more.

[Sawgrass]

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."

 

Sawgrass, please....

 

The significant advantage is NOT reflected to the penalty of a Rule being breached but to the situations with and without the breach.For example, dropping one's ball 100 meters closer to the hole gives that player a significant advantage ( at least in the majority of cases) but in strokes it is maybe one single stroke or no stroke at all. Nothing to do with 2 ps for playing from a wrong place BUT giving the player a significant advantage. (numerous Decisions available)

Back to my point, do you agree that it is to your advantage if a competing player makes a stroke at his moving ball and gets charged three strokes for his trouble?

 

I do not see any relevance. It is not a question how much other players benefit relatively from a player's penalties but a question of a player not getting significant advantage.

Very evasive!

[DaveLeeNC]

I will say; my gut told me that it was the wrong thing, what Mickelson did. But I agree with Stuart G. and that the USGA made the right call.

 

The most persuasive-sounding argument that Mickielson did not fall within the standard 2-stroke penalty of 14-5, was that he didn't actually make a stroke. That he didn't take a stance, and didn't address the ball before swinging. But that is not the actual definition of a "stroke." Here is the definition:

 

 

 

Stroke

 

A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke.

 

 

Mickelson, even in mid-stride and with barely both feet on the ground, used a forward motion with the intention striking and moving the ball. And that is what he did. It didn't look like much of a "stroke," but it met the definition.

 

And it was still better than the putting stroke of some of my golf buddies :-)

 

dave

[2putttom]

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!

being swift in flight is critical. I was taught this Phil factor years ago by a class A teacher @ Bandon. Ya gotta be quick to get in front before in runs off the green.

[HitEmTrue]

Back to my point, do you agree that it is to your advantage if a competing player makes a stroke at his moving ball and gets charged three strokes for his trouble?

 

I'm not sure of the relevance of the 2SP. Would you ever take that into account when deciding if someone committed a serious breach while playing from the wrong place?

[DaveLeeNC]

Back to my point, do you agree that it is to your advantage if a competing player makes a stroke at his moving ball and gets charged three strokes for his trouble?

 

I'm not sure of the relevance of the 2SP. Would you ever take that into account when deciding if someone committed a serious breach while playing from the wrong place?

 

Then here is an interesting question. Could you have made a decision WRT PM on basis of him having played from the wrong place, as the right place is where the ball stops. There is always the judgment, I suppose, that the ball would have ended where he actually took the stroke .. but that seem ludicrous even by bizarre RoG situations.

 

dave

[HitEmTrue]

Then here is an interesting question. Could you have made a decision WRT PM on basis of him having played from the wrong place, as the right place is where the ball stops. There is always the judgment, I suppose, that the ball would have ended where he actually took the stroke .. but that seem ludicrous even by bizarre RoG situations.

 

I don't know if I could make that decision.

 

Let's assume 14-5 did have serious breach clause. Would a committee member be allowed to go back to that green and slowly roll the ball at the location and see where it may have ended up?

[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.

 

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.

even Phil said he should have been disqualified!

[Sawgrass]

Back to my point, do you agree that it is to your advantage if a competing player makes a stroke at his moving ball and gets charged three strokes for his trouble?

 

I'm not sure of the relevance of the 2SP. Would you ever take that into account when deciding if someone committed a serious breach while playing from the wrong place?

My above sentence is meant to show that while Phil upset people, IMO he did nothing to advantage himself, even though he might have been trying -- and that should be taken into consideration when it comes to contemplating making a new/revised Rule.

 

Regarding the wrong place, the 2sp applies at the bare minimum -- so I would only look to see how advantageous the particular wrong place was in determining a SB.

 

I can see many wrong place circumstances where a DQ would be appropriate. But not if another Rule takes precedence.

[Sawgrass]

Back to my point, do you agree that it is to your advantage if a competing player makes a stroke at his moving ball and gets charged three strokes for his trouble?

 

I'm not sure of the relevance of the 2SP. Would you ever take that into account when deciding if someone committed a serious breach while playing from the wrong place?

 

Then here is an interesting question. Could you have made a decision WRT PM on basis of him having played from the wrong place, as the right place is where the ball stops. There is always the judgment, I suppose, that the ball would have ended where he actually took the stroke .. but that seem ludicrous even by bizarre RoG situations.

 

dave

Since there's another rule which governs anyway, there's no point in predicting where Phil's ball would have ended up.

[DaveLeeNC]

Back to my point, do you agree that it is to your advantage if a competing player makes a stroke at his moving ball and gets charged three strokes for his trouble?

 

I'm not sure of the relevance of the 2SP. Would you ever take that into account when deciding if someone committed a serious breach while playing from the wrong place?

 

Then here is an interesting question. Could you have made a decision WRT PM on basis of him having played from the wrong place, as the right place is where the ball stops. There is always the judgment, I suppose, that the ball would have ended where he actually took the stroke .. but that seem ludicrous even by bizarre RoG situations.

 

dave

Since there's another rule which governs anyway, there's no point in predicting where Phil's ball would have ended up.

 

Why would Rule 15 take precedence over Rule 20? At a glance it seems like an obvious Rule 15 scenario, but the whole point here was to play the next stroke from "the wrong place". Hitting a moving ball was simply the means to achieving hitting the ball from the wrong place.

 

dave

[Sawgrass]

Back to my point, do you agree that it is to your advantage if a competing player makes a stroke at his moving ball and gets charged three strokes for his trouble?

 

I'm not sure of the relevance of the 2SP. Would you ever take that into account when deciding if someone committed a serious breach while playing from the wrong place?

 

Then here is an interesting question. Could you have made a decision WRT PM on basis of him having played from the wrong place, as the right place is where the ball stops. There is always the judgment, I suppose, that the ball would have ended where he actually took the stroke .. but that seem ludicrous even by bizarre RoG situations.

 

dave

Since there's another rule which governs anyway, there's no point in predicting where Phil's ball would have ended up.

 

Why would Rule 15 take precedence over Rule 20? At a glance it seems like an obvious Rule 15 scenario, but the whole point here was to play the next stroke from "the wrong place". Hitting a moving ball was simply the means to achieving hitting the ball from the wrong place.

 

dave

I'm saying that R 14-5 covers Phil's situation, so R 20-7 clearly does not apply. He didn't play from a Wrong Place. But he did play at a Wrong Moment!

[DaveLeeNC]

SG, if he didn't play from the wrong place (which is not in the definitions even though wrong ball and wrong green is there), that would imply that he played from the right place, which seems wrong.

 

But I will admit that this definition is not what the RoG folks had in mind when they wrote Rules 15 and 20. OTOH, I am not sure that what Phil did was what they had in mind either.

 

dave

 

ps. Rule 20-7 seems more limited that I would have guessed as it seems to apply only to drops

 

pps. Late edit - now that I think about it. as written 'wrong place' really does not apply.

[sui generis]

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.

 

There's considerable merit in knowing what one is talking about before posting stupid things here. :swoon:

[Stuart_G]

The way I read that Rule is that the Committee may impose a penalty of disqualification to a player. Period.

 

True - but nothing I said was really contrary to that. 33-7 does not actually restrict when a committee can give a DQ penalty - but it does provide a lot of 'guidance' on how the rule should be used - hence my use of the generalities based on those recommendations.

 

The D33-7/8 deals ONLY with breaches of Etiquette, not with breaches of Rules.

 

Big difference.

 

For a breach of the rules, the rule itself dictates the penalty. To go above and beyond that specified penalty generally takes more then just a simple breach of the rules and the only possibility that I'm aware of for that is 33-7. And one such possibility is dealing with an intentional disregard for the rules - which is a matter of etiquette.

 

So there is nothing else (at least that I could think of) that would fit the rule MadGolfer was trying to remember seeing.

[Stuart_G]

even Phil said he should have been disqualified!

 

actually, he said he didn't want to play IF he should really have been disqualified.

 

https://www.golfchan...g-dq-rumblings/

[2putttom]

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.

even Phil said he should have been disqualified!

he did ... http://www.golfwrx.com/520410/watch-phil-mickelson-gets-the-happy-gilmore-meme-treatment/?utm_source=Front&utm_medium=Featured_Latest&utm_campaign=GolfWRX_OnSite&utm_content=unused

[Mikey5e]

even Phil said he should have been disqualified!

 

actually, he said he didn't want to play IF he should really have been disqualified.

 

https://www.golfchan...g-dq-rumblings/

same diff

[Stuart_G]

even Phil said he should have been disqualified!

 

actually, he said he didn't want to play IF he should really have been disqualified.

 

https://www.golfchan...g-dq-rumblings/

same diff

 

Only to those ignorant of the actual rules.

[Stuart_G]

[same diff

 

Only to those ignorant of the actual rules.

A little cross are we?

 

Not even a little bit. A bit bored maybe, but nothing stronger than that. Don't worry, it takes a LOT more then that to bother me.

[deadsolid...shank]

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."

 

Sawgrass, please....

 

The significant advantage is NOT reflected to the penalty of a Rule being breached but to the situations with and without the breach.For example, dropping one's ball 100 meters closer to the hole gives that player a significant advantage ( at least in the majority of cases) but in strokes it is maybe one single stroke or no stroke at all. Nothing to do with 2 ps for playing from a wrong place BUT giving the player a significant advantage. (numerous Decisions available)

Back to my point, do you agree that it is to your advantage if a competing player makes a stroke at his moving ball and gets charged three strokes for his trouble?

 

Not if he was more likely to take four or more from the original spot. Point is, we really don't know how many he saved himself.

[golfnoob25]

Can you take an unplayable lie from a clearly playable lie?

[DaveLeeNC]

Can you take an unplayable lie from a clearly playable lie?

 

Yes - see Rule 28 (a very short/simple rule, BTW). http://www.usga.org/...s.html#!rule-28

 

dave

 

ps. For completeness there is one exception here (inside a water hazard)

[Krt22]

Can you take an unplayable lie from a clearly playable lie?

 

Yes.