Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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

 

heymikey.jpg?w=200

Callaway Epic Flash SZ 9.0 Ventus Blue 6S

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP 6X

Ping G425 MAX 20.5 7 wood Diamana Blue 70 S

Titleist 716 AP-1  5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, DGS300

Taylormade MG3 52*, 56*, TW 60* DGS200

LAB Mezz Max 34*, RED, BGT Stability

Titleist Pro V1X

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

You will just go to whatever lengths you can to not be wrong, won't you ?

 

Dec 1-2/5.5 specifically says "purposely stops or deflects ball". He did NEITHER since he clearly made a STROKE at a moving ball, something covered quite clearly in 14-5 along with the penalty for same.

 

Completely illogical to exclude SB ? How's THIS for logical ? If it was a DQ for making a STROKE at a moving ball the penalty would have been spelled out as such in 14-5 instead of 2 strokes.

 

And you STILL haven't pointed out the "advantage", significant or otherwise, he gained from making the stroke at the moving ball. The most likely score he would have made had he NOT hit the moving ball would have been somewhere between 7 to 9, NOT the 10 he actually made.

 

With apologies to Kenny Rogers, "You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em". Clearly you do not.

 

Stop betting into a losing hand. Even you can't be right ALL the time.

Callaway Epic Flash SZ 9.0 Ventus Blue 6S

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP 6X

Ping G425 MAX 20.5 7 wood Diamana Blue 70 S

Titleist 716 AP-1  5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, DGS300

Taylormade MG3 52*, 56*, TW 60* DGS200

LAB Mezz Max 34*, RED, BGT Stability

Titleist Pro V1X

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m with NSX on this. If 14-5 isn’t on the books for EXACTLY what Phil did, why is it on the books?

 

How can it be a serious etiquette breach when there is a RULE that covers exactly this situation, and the penalty for breaking that Rule?

 

What advantage was gained? I can’t make that out. The ball wasn’t going to roll OB. Wasn’t going to roll into a pond. Wasn’t going to be lost.

 

And EVEN if any of those things happened, Phil would have taken a 1-stroke penalty and played from the previous place. He’d likely hole that putt, or get it much closer, now that he knew the exact speed and line. So instead of 10, he makes 8 or 9. He saves 1 or 2 shots.

 

It’s really hard to argue an advantage gained when he took a score that was 1 or 2 shots worse than his MLS if he had let the ball roll out and taken an unplayable. Never mind that he may have chosen to play it as it lied, down by the bunker, and holed that shot or got it up and down. He’s Phil Mickelson. Now we’re talking about him making a 6 or 7.

 

Could he have been there all day? Putting it off the green, then taking an unplayable, and putt it off the green, rinse and repeat, for a long time? Say he puts up a 20 on that hole. It just doesn’t sound plausible. What is the likelihood of him taking more than 10 on that hole if he doesn’t play the moving ball? Less than 1% of the time I’d say.

 

Most importantly though, there is a Rule that covers exactly this situation. Not somewhat. Not in equity. Exactly. And the penalty for doing so is 2 strokes.

 

I don’t like the Rule, but there are a lot of rules I don’t like. I do play by them though, whether I like them or not. That’s all Phil did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I was trying to come up with a situation where Phil's action COULD have helped his score.

 

What I thought about was, say a par 3 with OB right near the green with the green sloping hard towards the OB.

 

Player hits his tee shot right and getting a very fortuitous and soft bounce, and miraculously it stays inbounds by a couple of feet.

 

So he's got at least 30 feet or so to a green well above him. He chips the ball up, it hits short of the green and doesn't quite make it and it starts rolling back to his feet (sound familiar ?) but the ball clearly is NOT going to stop IN bounds so he chips at the moving ball, makes great contact, it gets up near the top of the slope and kicks forward to 2 feet.

 

So he makes triple bogey 6, getting very lucky. (The ball certainly could, in fact more than likely should, have gone pretty much anywhere, and he could have easily made 7 or 8, yes ?).

 

If he didn't hit the moving ball, let the ball go OB and dropped and, all things being equal of course, then makes the "same" chip up the hill to 2 feet he would have made 5. So he still lost a shot (or possibly a lot more) by hitting a moving ball that was going to go OB !!!

 

Net-net I'm still trying to figure out a situation where hitting a moving ball knowing it's going to cost you 2, is likely to gain any advantage at all.

Callaway Epic Flash SZ 9.0 Ventus Blue 6S

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP 6X

Ping G425 MAX 20.5 7 wood Diamana Blue 70 S

Titleist 716 AP-1  5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, DGS300

Taylormade MG3 52*, 56*, TW 60* DGS200

LAB Mezz Max 34*, RED, BGT Stability

Titleist Pro V1X

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Which is the gist of this conversation for me. This is the rules forum. Much of this debate has centered on "they got the penalty correct" per the rules. This conversation to me is more shot the rule that should be.

As you just noted he played at the wrong moment. So wrong, imo, that it calls for DQ. Not in the current rules but in the rules that should be. Has nothing to do with gaining an advantage or not. The anchored putter rule proves the usga will change a rule because of the optics. No advantage but banned the stroke.

In this case he broke a basic tenet of the game. Wait for the ball to come to rest before attempting your next shot.

 

Should be banned/dq'd.

Titleist TSR4 9° Tensei AV White 65

Titleist TSi3 strong 3w 13.5° Tensei AV White 70

Titleist TS3 19°  hybrid Tensei Blue/Titleist TSR3 24° Diamana Ahina

Titleist T150 5-pw Nippon Pro Modus 125

Vokey SM8 50° F & 56° M SM9 60°M

Cameron Newport w/ flow neck by Lamont/ Cameron Del Mar

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Which is the gist of this conversation for me. This is the rules forum. Much of this debate has centered on "they got the penalty correct" per the rules. This conversation to me is more shot the rule that should be.

As you just noted he played at the wrong moment. So wrong, imo, that it calls for DQ. Not in the current rules but in the rules that should be. Has nothing to do with gaining an advantage or not. The anchored putter rule proves the usga will change a rule because of the optics. No advantage but banned the stroke.

In this case he broke a basic tenet of the game. Wait for the ball to come to rest before attempting your next shot.

 

Should be banned/dq'd.

Hey, even the anchored stroke rule doesn't land you with a DQ!

 

You DQ guys are mean! (Reasonable people may disagree on this, and I say we're exactly that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you just noted he played at the wrong moment. So wrong, imo, that it calls for DQ. Not in the current rules but in the rules that should be. Has nothing to do with gaining an advantage or not. The anchored putter rule proves the usga will change a rule because of the optics. No advantage but banned the stroke.

In this case he broke a basic tenet of the game. Wait for the ball to come to rest before attempting your next shot.

 

Should be banned/dq'd.

 

I agree it's a valid point of discussion although I can't say I agree with your view points (which is fine, different perspectives are to be expected).

 

Every rule could be considered or argued "a basic tenet of the game". So what you are saying is that every breach of every rule should be a DQ? Sounds a bit harsh to me.

 

But as a counter argument, according to Tufts, waiting until your ball comes to rest is not one of the "two great principles of golf." And there is even a few exceptions where it is allowed to hit a moving ball. In fact, I found it curious that I didn't see any reference to 14-5 in Tuft's - but I may have missed something as I only took a quick look.

 

So you might consider that maybe you are putting that "principle" a bit higher up on a pedestal then the ruling bodies really intended?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that there are a few people here who do not understand the concept of 'serious breach' nor 'advantage' from the Rules point of view. My last attempt: Penalty strokes are disregarded when evaluating whether a player has gained advantage or committed a serious breach. They are only included afterwards, i.e if the player is NOT DQ'd.

 

Then I would like to ask all of you, why in the very end of Rule 14-5 there is this text:

 

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

 

If Rule 14-5 ONLY deals with making a stroke at a ball AND making a stroke at a moving ball is NOT deflecting that ball, why has that reference to R1-2 been added?

 

Is it just possible that making a stroke at a ball is just one form of deflecting that ball..?

 

P.S. The referees made at least one error in that competition (Dustin Johnson dropping instead of placing thus gaining advantage) so another reg. PM would not be a surprise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that there are a few people here who do not understand the concept of 'serious breach' nor 'advantage' from the Rules point of view. My last attempt: Penalty strokes are disregarded when evaluating whether a player has gained advantage or committed a serious breach. They are only included afterwards, i.e if the player is NOT DQ'd.

 

Then I would like to ask all of you, why in the very end of Rule 14-5 there is this text:

 

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

 

If Rule 14-5 ONLY deals with making a stroke at a ball AND making a stroke at a moving ball is NOT deflecting that ball, why has that reference to R1-2 been added?

 

Is it just possible that making a stroke at a ball is just one form of deflecting that ball..?

 

P.S. The referees made at least one error in that competition (Dustin Johnson dropping instead of placing thus gaining advantage) so another reg. PM would not be a surprise...

 

It is there to help direct the person using the Rules Book to the correct Rule and to emphasize there really is a difference between deflecting and making a stroke at a moving ball. If you look at Rule 19-4, for example, it redirects you to Rules 19-1 and 17-3b depending on the situation and in my mind this case is no different with regards to how the Rule Book is designed to work and help people looking for answers and finding the correct Rule.

Swing DNA: 91/4/3/6/6
Woods: ST 180 or MP-650 - Irons: MP-H5 / MP-53 / MP-4, KBS Tour S - 50º: MP-T5 / 55º: FG Tour PMP  / 60º: RTX ZipCore - Mizuno Bettinardi BC-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that there are a few people here who do not understand the concept of 'serious breach' nor 'advantage' from the Rules point of view. My last attempt: Penalty strokes are disregarded when evaluating whether a player has gained advantage or committed a serious breach. They are only included afterwards, i.e if the player is NOT DQ'd.

 

Then I would like to ask all of you, why in the very end of Rule 14-5 there is this text:

 

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

 

If Rule 14-5 ONLY deals with making a stroke at a ball AND making a stroke at a moving ball is NOT deflecting that ball, why has that reference to R1-2 been added?

 

Is it just possible that making a stroke at a ball is just one form of deflecting that ball..?

 

P.S. The referees made at least one error in that competition (Dustin Johnson dropping instead of placing thus gaining advantage) so another reg. PM would not be a surprise...

 

It is there to help direct the person using the Rules Book to the correct Rule and to emphasize there really is a difference between deflecting and making a stroke at a moving ball.

 

Indeed, to find the correct Rule, which IMO is 1-2.

 

One further example. Take the Camilo Villegas case few years back. He chipped his ball towards an elevated green but failed to reach the green and the ball started to roll down. Now, let us imagine that very situation and there is a chance the ball would roll OB. In order to prevent that the player

A) stops the ball with his club at point X

B) makes a stroke at the ball at point X causing the ball to roll onto the green.'

 

Now, in both cases the penalty clause is 2 strokes but ONLY in case A the player could be disqualified. Where is the logic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has already been covered several times, It gives a reference to another similar rule that might apply. It's not an exception to 14-5. To see which one is really applicable requires reading each of the rules.

 

The DQ in rule 1-2 and the evaluation of a serious breach can only be considered after it's determined that rule 1-2 is the applicable rule. The nature of a serious breach (or not) does not play a part in determining which rule is applicable.

 

In this case, exception #1 in rule 1-2 is very explicit and doesn't really leave any room for any other interpretation. The action of taking a stroke at a moving ball is very clearly covered by another rule. Therefore, 1-2 is not the correct rule for the case and can not be applied.

 

Now, in both cases the penalty clause is 2 strokes but ONLY in case A the player could be disqualified. Where is the logic?

 

I wont say it's not a good question (although I might argue that that particular example would not warrant DQ for the 1-2 variant so there really isn't any difference). But you'd have to ask the ruling bodies about that one, anything I could provide would be a guess at best (and I already covered those guesses in one of my previous posts). Regardless, we can only work with the rules as they give them to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that there are a few people here who do not understand the concept of 'serious breach' nor 'advantage' from the Rules point of view. My last attempt: Penalty strokes are disregarded when evaluating whether a player has gained advantage or committed a serious breach. They are only included afterwards, i.e if the player is NOT DQ'd.

 

Then I would like to ask all of you, why in the very end of Rule 14-5 there is this text:

 

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

 

If Rule 14-5 ONLY deals with making a stroke at a ball AND making a stroke at a moving ball is NOT deflecting that ball, why has that reference to R1-2 been added?

 

Is it just possible that making a stroke at a ball is just one form of deflecting that ball..?

 

P.S. The referees made at least one error in that competition (Dustin Johnson dropping instead of placing thus gaining advantage) so another reg. PM would not be a surprise...

 

It is there to help direct the person using the Rules Book to the correct Rule and to emphasize there really is a difference between deflecting and making a stroke at a moving ball.

 

Indeed, to find the correct Rule, which IMO is 1-2.

 

One further example. Take the Camilo Villegas case few years back. He chipped his ball towards an elevated green but failed to reach the green and the ball started to roll down. Now, let us imagine that very situation and there is a chance the ball would roll OB. In order to prevent that the player

A) stops the ball with his club at point X

B) makes a stroke at the ball at point X causing the ball to roll onto the green.'

 

Now, in both cases the penalty clause is 2 strokes but ONLY in case A the player could be disqualified. Where is the logic?

 

Clearly you and those responsible for the Rules have a differing opinion on the subject matter.

 

I haven't personally dug too deep into it nor formed my own opinion as to how the Rule should be as I worked as a Rules Official last week in a Finnish Tour event and I switched off my brains when leaving the clubhouse each day. Too bad I didn't discuss the matter during the tournament with the colleagues, who most certainly would've had strong opinions about it one way or the other.

Swing DNA: 91/4/3/6/6
Woods: ST 180 or MP-650 - Irons: MP-H5 / MP-53 / MP-4, KBS Tour S - 50º: MP-T5 / 55º: FG Tour PMP  / 60º: RTX ZipCore - Mizuno Bettinardi BC-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Thanks for the quote from the rule book.

 

It's funny. When I read it, I see a couple of key phrases, "disciplined manner" and "irrespective of how competitive they may be". Phil's actions were undisciplined. And even though he was not going to win and he wasn't hurting anyone else's chances of winning, the above excerpt does not give him a pass to make a mockery of the game. In fact, the excerpt seems to remind the player that even if they are not in the running, they should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner. Another person may have a different interpretation of the excerpt, but that is what I see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Now, in both cases the penalty clause is 2 strokes but ONLY in case A the player could be disqualified. Where is the logic?

 

My assumption as to why there is no SB language in 14-5 is that the RBs don't want us to have to subjectively decide when hitting a moving ball is a terrible thing to do. Purposefully deflecting a ball seems more clear cut.

 

But in any case, I'm confident that their decision in Phil's situation is not an error, it's a clearly/heavily thought out determination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My assumption as to why there is no SB language in 14-5 is that the RBs don't want us to have to subjectively decide when hitting a moving ball is a terrible thing to do. Purposefully deflecting a ball seems more clear cut.

 

Well, 1-2 also encompasses much more then just purposely deflecting the ball. I suspect those 'other' actions might have had a bigger part to play in the DQ addition - but can't say for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly you and those responsible for the Rules have a differing opinion on the subject matter.

 

 

So far I have not seen anywhere any statement from people responsible for the Rules. If you have, pls. post a link.

 

The ruling given in US Open was made by the Committee consisting of very knowledgeable people ruleswise but they make mistakes as well, especially when they face potential DQ of one Phil Mickelsson in US Open...

 

Btw, has anyone seen any statement from the US Open Committee telling which Rule they invoked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly you and those responsible for the Rules have a differing opinion on the subject matter.

 

 

So far I have not seen anywhere any statement from people responsible for the Rules. If you have, pls. post a link.

 

The ruling given in US Open was made by the Committee consisting of very knowledgeable people ruleswise but they make mistakes as well, especially when they face potential DQ of one Phil Mickelsson in US Open...

 

Btw, has anyone seen any statement from the US Open Committee telling which Rule they invoked?

 

The statement issued on TV was 14-5

SIM 2 Max 9.0 turned 7.0
TM Sim2 Titaniu, 13.5
TM RBZ 19* hybrid

TM RBZ 22* hybrid
Mizuno JPX 900 HM 5-PW
Vokey SM7 48* F Grind
Vokey SM7 54* F Grind
Vokey SM7 58* M Grind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, in both cases the penalty clause is 2 strokes but ONLY in case A the player could be disqualified. Where is the logic?

 

My assumption as to why there is no SB language in 14-5 is that the RBs don't want us to have to subjectively decide when hitting a moving ball is a terrible thing to do. Purposefully deflecting a ball seems more clear cut.

 

 

My understanding is that R14-5 deals with situations where a player makes a stroke at a moving ball when trying to play it towards the hole. R1-2 deals with situations where a player tries to avoid their ball ending up in an undesired spot. That is why there is a reference to R1-2 at the end of R14-5 to distinguish those two things, just as there is the same reference after R19-2 and 19-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with NSX on this. If 14-5 isn't on the books for EXACTLY what Phil did, why is it on the books?

 

How can it be a serious etiquette breach when there is a RULE that covers exactly this situation, and the penalty for breaking that Rule?

 

What advantage was gained? I can't make that out. The ball wasn't going to roll OB. Wasn't going to roll into a pond. Wasn't going to be lost.

 

And EVEN if any of those things happened, Phil would have taken a 1-stroke penalty and played from the previous place. He'd likely hole that putt, or get it much closer, now that he knew the exact speed and line. So instead of 10, he makes 8 or 9. He saves 1 or 2 shots.

 

It's really hard to argue an advantage gained when he took a score that was 1 or 2 shots worse than his MLS if he had let the ball roll out and taken an unplayable. Never mind that he may have chosen to play it as it lied, down by the bunker, and holed that shot or got it up and down. He's Phil Mickelson. Now we're talking about him making a 6 or 7.

 

Could he have been there all day? Putting it off the green, then taking an unplayable, and putt it off the green, rinse and repeat, for a long time? Say he puts up a 20 on that hole. It just doesn't sound plausible. What is the likelihood of him taking more than 10 on that hole if he doesn't play the moving ball? Less than 1% of the time I'd say.

 

Most importantly though, there is a Rule that covers exactly this situation. Not somewhat. Not in equity. Exactly. And the penalty for doing so is 2 strokes.

 

I don't like the Rule, but there are a lot of rules I don't like. I do play by them though, whether I like them or not. That's all Phil did.

 

I can't believe you, Mr. DQ, is against DQ in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly you and those responsible for the Rules have a differing opinion on the subject matter.

 

 

So far I have not seen anywhere any statement from people responsible for the Rules. If you have, pls. post a link.

 

The ruling given in US Open was made by the Committee consisting of very knowledgeable people ruleswise but they make mistakes as well, especially when they face potential DQ of one Phil Mickelsson in US Open...

 

Btw, has anyone seen any statement from the US Open Committee telling which Rule they invoked?

 

The statement issued on TV was 14-5

SIM 2 Max 9.0 turned 7.0
TM Sim2 Titaniu, 13.5
TM RBZ 19* hybrid

TM RBZ 22* hybrid
Mizuno JPX 900 HM 5-PW
Vokey SM7 48* F Grind
Vokey SM7 54* F Grind
Vokey SM7 58* M Grind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly you and those responsible for the Rules have a differing opinion on the subject matter.

 

 

So far I have not seen anywhere any statement from people responsible for the Rules. If you have, pls. post a link.

 

The ruling given in US Open was made by the Committee consisting of very knowledgeable people ruleswise but they make mistakes as well, especially when they face potential DQ of one Phil Mickelsson in US Open...

 

Btw, has anyone seen any statement from the US Open Committee telling which Rule they invoked?

 

I'm talking about the Rules of Golf, you didn't see a difference between intentionally stopping or deflecting a ball and making a stroke at a moving ball, or should I say were unable to find any logic in the differences between the two scenarios.

 

The Ruling Bodies certainly seem to think those acts should be treated differently, hence the different Rules and penalties for the situations.

Swing DNA: 91/4/3/6/6
Woods: ST 180 or MP-650 - Irons: MP-H5 / MP-53 / MP-4, KBS Tour S - 50º: MP-T5 / 55º: FG Tour PMP  / 60º: RTX ZipCore - Mizuno Bettinardi BC-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far I have not seen anywhere any statement from people responsible for the Rules. If you have, pls. post a link.

 

https://bleacherrepo...oversial-stroke

 

or (same content, different source)

 

https://thewsga.org/...round-u-s-open/

 

(google is your friend :-)

 

Good find. Thank you Stuart. :good:

I could be wrong
I've been wrong before
I'll be wrong again
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have any problem with it. I see it no differently than intentionally fouling someone so they don't get a shot off and making them shoot 2 free throws.

 

...Except if you do it enough in basketball you get DQ'ed.

 

Golf can be the same (potentially at least thanks to rule 33-7). The difference is there is no fixed limit - you never know how many times it will take to piss off the committee enough to invoke that rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly you and those responsible for the Rules have a differing opinion on the subject matter.

 

 

So far I have not seen anywhere any statement from people responsible for the Rules. If you have, pls. post a link.

 

The ruling given in US Open was made by the Committee consisting of very knowledgeable people ruleswise but they make mistakes as well, especially when they face potential DQ of one Phil Mickelsson in US Open...

 

Btw, has anyone seen any statement from the US Open Committee telling which Rule they invoked?

 

Brother, I'll give you one thing. Even when faced with all the evidence one needs, you will STILL insist you're right.

 

The USGA runs the US Open. The USGA is responsible for the ROG. The USGA hit him with 2 strokes.

 

The only "statement" you need is that PM was hit with 2 strokes.

 

But you keep on fighting the good poor fight.

 

tenor.gif

Callaway Epic Flash SZ 9.0 Ventus Blue 6S

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP 6X

Ping G425 MAX 20.5 7 wood Diamana Blue 70 S

Titleist 716 AP-1  5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, DGS300

Taylormade MG3 52*, 56*, TW 60* DGS200

LAB Mezz Max 34*, RED, BGT Stability

Titleist Pro V1X

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with NSX on this. If 14-5 isn't on the books for EXACTLY what Phil did, why is it on the books?

 

How can it be a serious etiquette breach when there is a RULE that covers exactly this situation, and the penalty for breaking that Rule?

 

What advantage was gained? I can't make that out. The ball wasn't going to roll OB. Wasn't going to roll into a pond. Wasn't going to be lost.

 

And EVEN if any of those things happened, Phil would have taken a 1-stroke penalty and played from the previous place. He'd likely hole that putt, or get it much closer, now that he knew the exact speed and line. So instead of 10, he makes 8 or 9. He saves 1 or 2 shots.

 

It's really hard to argue an advantage gained when he took a score that was 1 or 2 shots worse than his MLS if he had let the ball roll out and taken an unplayable. Never mind that he may have chosen to play it as it lied, down by the bunker, and holed that shot or got it up and down. He's Phil Mickelson. Now we're talking about him making a 6 or 7.

 

Could he have been there all day? Putting it off the green, then taking an unplayable, and putt it off the green, rinse and repeat, for a long time? Say he puts up a 20 on that hole. It just doesn't sound plausible. What is the likelihood of him taking more than 10 on that hole if he doesn't play the moving ball? Less than 1% of the time I'd say.

 

Most importantly though, there is a Rule that covers exactly this situation. Not somewhat. Not in equity. Exactly. And the penalty for doing so is 2 strokes.

 

I don't like the Rule, but there are a lot of rules I don't like. I do play by them though, whether I like them or not. That's all Phil did.

 

I can't believe you, Mr. DQ, is against DQ in this situation.

 

I think he covered that quite nicely "I don't like the Rule, but there are a lot of rules I don't like. I do play by them though, whether I like them or not. That's all Phil did."

Callaway Epic Flash SZ 9.0 Ventus Blue 6S

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP 6X

Ping G425 MAX 20.5 7 wood Diamana Blue 70 S

Titleist 716 AP-1  5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, DGS300

Taylormade MG3 52*, 56*, TW 60* DGS200

LAB Mezz Max 34*, RED, BGT Stability

Titleist Pro V1X

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with NSX on this. If 14-5 isn't on the books for EXACTLY what Phil did, why is it on the books?

 

How can it be a serious etiquette breach when there is a RULE that covers exactly this situation, and the penalty for breaking that Rule?

 

What advantage was gained? I can't make that out. The ball wasn't going to roll OB. Wasn't going to roll into a pond. Wasn't going to be lost.

 

And EVEN if any of those things happened, Phil would have taken a 1-stroke penalty and played from the previous place. He'd likely hole that putt, or get it much closer, now that he knew the exact speed and line. So instead of 10, he makes 8 or 9. He saves 1 or 2 shots.

 

It's really hard to argue an advantage gained when he took a score that was 1 or 2 shots worse than his MLS if he had let the ball roll out and taken an unplayable. Never mind that he may have chosen to play it as it lied, down by the bunker, and holed that shot or got it up and down. He's Phil Mickelson. Now we're talking about him making a 6 or 7.

 

Could he have been there all day? Putting it off the green, then taking an unplayable, and putt it off the green, rinse and repeat, for a long time? Say he puts up a 20 on that hole. It just doesn't sound plausible. What is the likelihood of him taking more than 10 on that hole if he doesn't play the moving ball? Less than 1% of the time I'd say.

 

Most importantly though, there is a Rule that covers exactly this situation. Not somewhat. Not in equity. Exactly. And the penalty for doing so is 2 strokes.

 

I don't like the Rule, but there are a lot of rules I don't like. I do play by them though, whether I like them or not. That's all Phil did.

 

I can't believe you, Mr. DQ, is against DQ in this situation.

 

I think he covered that quite nicely "I don't like the Rule, but there are a lot of rules I don't like. I do play by them though, whether I like them or not. That's all Phil did."

 

I know what he wrote. Point being, and I'm not going to search, Auguster often suggests DQ for what I consider much less egregious infractions. I thought he would pounce on this and finally be able to shout DQ loud and proud. It's disappointing, is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respectfully, can everyone just chill out? Yes it was a little tacky, but if anyone in the game of golf has earned the right to screw up once, it's Phil (I'm not saying he screwed up). There is no one who competes harder, respects the game more, treats the fans better or cares for the game more than he. Yes it may be absurd to stop a rolling putt as many have contended, but nowhere near as absurd as on of the best putters on earth giving the ball a decent roll from inside ten feet for par and then having 60 feet or 60 yards for his fifth. And please stop lecturing on ethics, examples for kids and integrity. If you're that offended and worry that your kids may do something similar, just say "Hey Bobby, that's against the rules, don't ever do that" and move on with life. Those that argue for disqualification either don't understand the rules, are trying to stir the pot, or are just negative in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies
    • 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put and questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Monday #1
      2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Monday #2
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Ben Taylor - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Garrick Higgo - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Billy Horschel - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Justin Lower - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Lanto Griffin - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Bud Cauley - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Corbin Burnes (2021 NL Cy Young) - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Greyson Sigg - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Charley Hoffman - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Nico Echavarria - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Victor Perez - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Sami Valimaki - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Ryo Hisatsune - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
       
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Jake Knapp's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      New Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Tyler Duncan's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Greyson Sigg's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Sunjae Im's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Ping's Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Vincent Whaley's custom Cameron - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Odyssey Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Super Stroke custom grips - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Zac Blair's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Bettinardi Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
       
       
       
       
       
       

       
      • 12 replies

×
×
  • Create New...