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

[Augster]

It wasn’t against the rules. It wasn’t cheating.

 

If it’s in the rule book, how can it be against the rules? Please read 14-5.

[LeoLeo99]

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.

 

Or aren't biased because we're talking about Phil.

[Sawgrass]

If you intentionally cheat, you should be disqualified. It's just that simple!

There’s a difference between cheating and breaking a rule.

[LeoLeo99]

If you intentionally cheat, you should be disqualified. It's just that simple!

There's a difference between cheating and breaking a rule.

 

DJ got a 1 stroke penalty because his ball moved slightly while he was standing next to it. Phil gets two strokes for hockey sticking. Seems inequitable to me. But that's golf for you.

[Mr. Bean]

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

 

Here you go:

 

https://bleacherrepo...oversial-stroke

 

or (same content, different source)

 

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

 

(google is your friend :-)

 

Could not open either of those links.

[LeoLeo99]

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

 

Here you go:

 

https://bleacherrepo...oversial-stroke

 

or (same content, different source)

 

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

 

(google is your friend :-)

 

Could not open either of those links.

They work for me.

[Mr. Bean]

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.

 

 

 

Well, having discussed this case with a couple of extremely experienced guys and having read quite a few comments by others I am convinced USGA made a bad ruling (and it was not the only one in that competition, as I stated before...).

 

Besides, nobody (here) has been able to explain why deflecting one's ball with a stroke should be less heavily penalized than deflecting with a foot. Can you, nxguy, with all your knowledge and trust on USGA..?

 

P.S. Your statement 'USGA is responsible for the RoG' is typical US condescension towards the rest of the world (or plain ignorance...). Rules of Golf are written jointly, not by USGA only.

[Mr. Bean]

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

 

Here you go:

 

https://bleacherrepo...oversial-stroke

 

or (same content, different source)

 

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

 

(google is your friend :-)

 

Could not open either of those links.

They work for me.

 

Good for you. I guess you are situated in the States?

 

They do not work for me on this side of the pond. Happens sometimes as certain pages are protected (as https hints...).

[Shilgy]

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

 

Here you go:

 

https://bleacherrepo...oversial-stroke

 

or (same content, different source)

 

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

 

(google is your friend :-)

There are so many contradictions in Phil's excuse/story it is laughable. But regardless the USGA version of events is what I have been saying. They had no choice based on the rules AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN. I am agreeing with Mr Bean and, by the way, David Fay, that feels the rule is not written succinctly enough to handle this situation and should be rewritten.

[Shilgy]

If you intentionally cheat, you should be disqualified. It's just that simple!

There's a difference between cheating and breaking a rule.

So is there such a thing as cheating in golf then? I am trying to think of one. Virtually every system of cheating is covered by a rule. Some the penalty is disqualification and some it is one or two strokes.

 

So there ya go guys... you can never be accused of cheating as there is a penalty for that.

[Sawgrass]

If you intentionally cheat, you should be disqualified. It's just that simple!

There's a difference between cheating and breaking a rule.

So is there such a thing as cheating in golf then? I am trying to think of one. Virtually every system of cheating is covered by a rule. Some the penalty is disqualification and some it is one or two strokes.

 

So there ya go guys... you can never be accused of cheating as there is a penalty for that.

Deliberately hiding haven broken a Rule fits “cheating “ in my book.

[Mikey5e]

If you intentionally cheat, you should be disqualified. It's just that simple!

There’s a difference between cheating and breaking a rule.

you are absolutely right, but I don't think rule 14 - 5 applies directly to what Phil had done. It talks about intentionally hitting a moving ball, but I don't think it alludes to the idea of intentionally hitting a moving ball with the added intention of the consequences Phil would have had to face, specifically the ball rolling 30 yards off the green and having to play down there. He intentionally hit a moving Ball, but he also intentionally tryed to manipulate his score bye not suffering the consequences of that putt that would have rolled off the green. He intentionally broke the rule that 14 - 5 alludes to, but with the added intention of, in my words, cheating. So that's when I think the other rule is at 1 - 2 comes in the play where disqualification is necessary. To put in the simplest of words or phrases, Phil cheated to lower his score. Phil actually broke more than one rule with his actions on that putting green, and should suffer the fate of two different rules, not just the one you folks are alluding to.

[Sawgrass]

If you intentionally cheat, you should be disqualified. It's just that simple!

There’s a difference between cheating and breaking a rule.

you are absolutely right, but I don't think rule 14 - 5 applies directly to what Phil had done. It talks about intentionally hitting a moving ball, but I don't think it alludes to the idea of intentionally hitting a moving ball with the added intention of the consequences Phil would have had to face, specifically the ball rolling 30 yards off the green and having to play down there. He intentionally hit a moving Ball, but he also intentionally tryed to manipulate his score bye not suffering the consequences of that putt that would have rolled off the green. He intentionally broke the rule that 14 - 5 alludes to, but with the added intention of, in my words, cheating. So that's when I think the other rule is at 1 - 2 comes in the play where disqualification is necessary. To put in the simplest of words or phrases, Phil cheated to lower his score. Phil actually broke more than one rule with his actions on that putting green, and should suffer the fate of two different rules, not just the one you folks are alluding to.

I guess you and the USGA will have to agree to disagree.

[LeoLeo99]

Just had to paste this from golf digest.

 

The USGA, god bless it, has become experts at transcending the self-image golf has manufactured for itself and exposing the sport’s absurdity in its most naked form. As a governing body, it elicits anger, censure and failure, and does so with a kind of brazen incompetence all its own. I will not try to claim the USGA is run by a group of comic geniuses, because I’m all but certain they aren’t acting intentionally. But I would pose this question: If they were a cabal of impish trolls with the mission of undermining the sport and all its players … well, how would they behave differently?

[DaveLeeNC]

It wasn't against the rules. It wasn't cheating.

 

If it's in the rule book, how can it be against the rules? Please read 14-5.

 

I used to think that, but now I am not so sure. I once asked the USGA about the scenario of hitting a couple balls OB, deciding that you are out of the hole (and posting your most likely, ESC adjusted score), but playing out the hole from somewhere handy (for example near where the last ball went OB) anyway just for practice. The answer from the USGA was that "I had played the hole outside the ROG so post par plus strokes".

 

My thinking had been that I had played the hole under the RoG until I 'gave up', calculated my most likely score, and from that point forward was 'practicing on the course' (which is covered by the RoG). Or maybe apply Rule 7-2 before determining your most likely score. But in the context of handicaps and posting, per the USGA, this is NOT within the RoG.

 

So what is and isn't within the RoG, as the USGA sees it, is no longer clear to me.

 

dave

[Mikey5e]

Just had to paste this from golf digest.

 

The USGA, god bless it, has become experts at transcending the self-image golf has manufactured for itself and exposing the sport’s absurdity in its most naked form. As a governing body, it elicits anger, censure and failure, and does so with a kind of brazen incompetence all its own. I will not try to claim the USGA is run by a group of comic geniuses, because I’m all but certain they aren’t acting intentionally. But I would pose this question: If they were a cabal of impish trolls with the mission of undermining the sport and all its players … well, how would they behave differently?

incompetence does what incompetence is, and visa versa.

[Stuart_G]

They do not work for me on this side of the pond. Happens sometimes as certain pages are protected (as https hints...).

 

you could try to remove the 's' and just try the same link with just http:/

 

Or try a google search (or whatever search engine you want to use) for:

 

"usga statement mickelson penalty"

 

That's all I did. But both those links quoted (or showed) a statement posted on twitter by the usga. (so you could also do a search on twitter for '@USGA_PR' account posts)

 

Or you could take my word for the fact that the following is an exact copy of the actual text:

 

 

There appears to be some continued uncertainty about the basis of the ruling with Phil Mickelson during the third round of the 118th U.S. Open, and we would like to further clarify previous statements. During play of the 13th hole

. As a result, he incurred a two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 14-5; the stroke made at the moving ball also counted. His score for the hole was 10. Rule 14-5 does not include a serious breach clause or disqualification as part of the penalty statement.

 

Rule 1-2 did not apply in this situation because Mickelson made a stroke at the ball (defined as the forward movement of the club with the intention of striking at and moving the ball) as opposed to another act to deflect or stop the ball in motion, which are two acts covered by Rule 1-2. Additionally, Exception 1 under Rule 1-2 states that “an action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule and not Rule 1-2.” As the act of making a stroke at a moving ball is expressly covered by Rule 14-5, that Rule and the penalty associated with that Rule were applied. The Committee looked at the facts of the situation and determined that there were no grounds under the Rules of Golf for any further penalty, including disqualification.

[Krt22]

If you intentionally cheat, you should be disqualified. It's just that simple!

 

Is it really "intentional cheating" if its done in front of millions of television viewers? There is no definition of cheating within the rules of golf

[Shilgy]

If you intentionally cheat, you should be disqualified. It's just that simple!

There's a difference between cheating and breaking a rule.

So is there such a thing as cheating in golf then? I am trying to think of one. Virtually every system of cheating is covered by a rule. Some the penalty is disqualification and some it is one or two strokes.

 

So there ya go guys... you can never be accused of cheating as there is a penalty for that.

Deliberately hiding haven broken a Rule fits “cheating “ in my book.

spell check issue?

[Augster]

It wasn't against the rules. It wasn't cheating.

 

If it's in the rule book, how can it be against the rules? Please read 14-5.

 

I used to think that, but now I am not so sure. I once asked the USGA about the scenario of hitting a couple balls OB, deciding that you are out of the hole (and posting your most likely, ESC adjusted score), but playing out the hole from somewhere handy (for example near where the last ball went OB) anyway just for practice. The answer from the USGA was that "I had played the hole outside the ROG so post par plus strokes".

 

My thinking had been that I had played the hole under the RoG until I 'gave up', calculated my most likely score, and from that point forward was 'practicing on the course' (which is covered by the RoG). Or maybe apply Rule 7-2 before determining your most likely score. But in the context of handicaps and posting, per the USGA, this is NOT within the RoG.

 

So what is and isn't within the RoG, as the USGA sees it, is no longer clear to me.

 

dave

 

The USGA position on your handicap scenario is crystal clear to me. You hit a ball OB, then dropped in a different location than you were allowed and played in from there. In a competition it’d be DQ. For posting purposes, because you deliberately broke a rule, it’s par plus any handicap strokes.

 

Phil didn’t deliberately break a rule. He deliberately followed a rule.

 

I’m shocked Mr. Bean can’t figure out there is a difference between deflecting/stopping a ball, and playing a stroke at it while it is moving. I’m actually baffled that he’s having such a hard time given that 14-5, and the definition of STROKE, describe exactly what Phil did.

 

Lastly, does anyone remember John Daly taking the DQ in the US Open for playing his moving ball? I think it was Pinehurst. I can’t find the clip on YouTube. I’d be interested to see if he made a stroke, or deflected/stopped the ball.

 

Here is the definition of Stroke (again):

A “stroke” is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball,

 

Deflected and stopped don’t have a definition as it isn’t needed as NEITHER deflected nor stopped is making a STROKE.

 

Then 14-5 says: A player must not make a STROKE at his ball while it is moving.

 

The penalty for making a STROKE at a moving ball is 2 penalty strokes.

 

Pretty simple, and easy, for the USGA to get correct. Which they did. I hate the rule, and the fact that he’s DQ if he deflects it or stops it, but is still in the competition when he makes a stroke at it.

 

It’d be a way simpler rule to say that if a player intentionally touches his ball at all while in motion after a stroke, he’s DQ. Because that’s not golf.

 

But we have what we have.

 

 

[LeoLeo99]

I was thinking of Daly and thought he did something similar but even more egregious.

[Spooky67]

I think this whole situation might just have a different slant to it.? We heard several players complain about the conditions, some openly, some thinly veiled. Phil is one of the elder statesmen at this point and I think he took it upon himself to speak for everyone. No one was happy with the conditions. I think Phil did this as a statement.

 

I don’t think anyone else on tour today could have done what he did and not taken a MUCH bigger hit reputation wise. I think everyone playing that course was fed up and Phil decided to make it known. Now he mentioned he’s thought of this before, couple that with guys complaining about the absurd conditions and we have a man making a statement that everyone else playing that event echoed.

 

I have heard LOTS of media speaking out against his actions....I haven’t heard one person that played the event do so.

[DaveLeeNC]

It wasn't against the rules. It wasn't cheating.

 

If it's in the rule book, how can it be against the rules? Please read 14-5.

 

I used to think that, but now I am not so sure. I once asked the USGA about the scenario of hitting a couple balls OB, deciding that you are out of the hole (and posting your most likely, ESC adjusted score), but playing out the hole from somewhere handy (for example near where the last ball went OB) anyway just for practice. The answer from the USGA was that "I had played the hole outside the ROG so post par plus strokes".

 

My thinking had been that I had played the hole under the RoG until I 'gave up', calculated my most likely score, and from that point forward was 'practicing on the course' (which is covered by the RoG). Or maybe apply Rule 7-2 before determining your most likely score. But in the context of handicaps and posting, per the USGA, this is NOT within the RoG.

 

So what is and isn't within the RoG, as the USGA sees it, is no longer clear to me.

 

dave

 

The USGA position on your handicap scenario is crystal clear to me. You hit a ball OB, then dropped in a different location than you were allowed and played in from there. In a competition it'd be DQ. For posting purposes, because you deliberately broke a rule, it's par plus any handicap strokes.

 

snip

 

 

I guess that is the way the USGA views it, but it is NOT what I did. I abandoned the hole (well handled by the handicap system) and then I practiced. THAT is what I did (and I was there, BTW :-) ). It is even what I told the USGA that I did.

 

But no reason to side track to handicap oddities.

 

dave..

[HeadonaStick]

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

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

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

"Deflecting" isn't taking a stroke. They are different actions.

[Augster]

Daly’s in 1999 looked more like a deflected ball. He was walking and hit it with 1 hand. I don’t think he finished out the hole though, which is the DQ. Was 14-5 on the books in 1999? Time to do some research. Not that it matters. If he doesn’t finish the hole he’s DQ’d for that.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEWw1FiModA

 

[DaveLeeNC]

Daly's in 1999 looked more like a deflected ball. He was walking and hit it with 1 hand. I don't think he finished out the hole though, which is the DQ. Was 14-5 on the books in 1999? Time to do some research. Not that it matters. If he doesn't finish the hole he's DQ'd for that.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEWw1FiModA

 

That is not right - it is par plus strokes :busted_cop: :busted_cop: :busted_cop: :busted_cop: :busted_cop:

 

Sorry - just could not resist.

 

dave

 

ps. I guess if you treat the last 'stroke' as a deflection, then it is most likely score. Based on what I have seen of his play to that point, looks like about a 39 to me.

[Shilgy]

It wasn't against the rules. It wasn't cheating.

 

If it's in the rule book, how can it be against the rules? Please read 14-5.

 

I used to think that, but now I am not so sure. I once asked the USGA about the scenario of hitting a couple balls OB, deciding that you are out of the hole (and posting your most likely, ESC adjusted score), but playing out the hole from somewhere handy (for example near where the last ball went OB) anyway just for practice. The answer from the USGA was that "I had played the hole outside the ROG so post par plus strokes".

 

My thinking had been that I had played the hole under the RoG until I 'gave up', calculated my most likely score, and from that point forward was 'practicing on the course' (which is covered by the RoG). Or maybe apply Rule 7-2 before determining your most likely score. But in the context of handicaps and posting, per the USGA, this is NOT within the RoG.

 

So what is and isn't within the RoG, as the USGA sees it, is no longer clear to me.

 

dave

 

The USGA position on your handicap scenario is crystal clear to me. You hit a ball OB, then dropped in a different location than you were allowed and played in from there. In a competition it’d be DQ. For posting purposes, because you deliberately broke a rule, it’s par plus any handicap strokes.

 

Phil didn’t deliberately break a rule. He deliberately followed a rule.

 

I’m shocked Mr. Bean can’t figure out there is a difference between deflecting/stopping a ball, and playing a stroke at it while it is moving. I’m actually baffled that he’s having such a hard time given that 14-5, and the definition of STROKE, describe exactly what Phil did.

 

Lastly, does anyone remember John Daly taking the DQ in the US Open for playing his moving ball? I think it was Pinehurst. I can’t find the clip on YouTube. I’d be interested to see if he made a stroke, or deflected/stopped the ball.

 

Here is the definition of Stroke (again):

A “stroke” is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball,

 

Deflected and stopped don’t have a definition as it isn’t needed as NEITHER deflected nor stopped is making a STROKE.

 

Then 14-5 says: A player must not make a STROKE at his ball while it is moving.

 

The penalty for making a STROKE at a moving ball is 2 penalty strokes.

 

Pretty simple, and easy, for the USGA to get correct. Which they did. I hate the rule, and the fact that he’s DQ if he deflects it or stops it, but is still in the competition when he makes a stroke at it.

 

It’d be a way simpler rule to say that if a player intentionally touches his ball at all while in motion after a stroke, he’s DQ. Because that’s not golf.

 

But we have what we have.

Does anyone else think that 14-5 is not meant the way it's being interpreted? Yes, you could argue that Phil made a stroke at a moving ball. You could also argue that rule is meant for instances quite unlike the Phil one.

 

From your post...

Here is the definition of Stroke (again):

A “stroke” is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball,

 

It would be easier in this case to say that Phil's "intention" was to stop the ball from going the direction it was headed. That was his primary objective on that stroke. Anything else was just fluff.

 

Your last paragraph about a possible wording is what David Fay was alluding to when interviewed.

[Colin L]

........ I hate the rule, and the fact that he's DQ if he deflects it or stops it, but is still in the competition when he makes a stroke at it.

 

It is not a fact that a player is disqualified if he deliberately deflects or stops his ball. The Rule 1-2 penalty is 2 strokes. DQ is given as an option for the committee if the breach gave the player a significant advantage.

[Augster]

........ I hate the rule, and the fact that he's DQ if he deflects it or stops it, but is still in the competition when he makes a stroke at it.

 

It is not a fact that a player is disqualified if he deliberately deflects or stops his ball. The Rule 1-2 penalty is 2 strokes. DQ is given as an option for the committee if the breach gave the player a significant advantage.

 

You are correct, of course, but it would be up to the committee whether he had a 2sp or a DQ. And the DQ only kicks in with a serious breach.

 

With 14-5, the committee doesn’t need to make a decision like that.

 

The exception in 1-2 points specifically to 14-5:

 

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

 

I really don’t understand the push for a DQ for Mickelson when looking at the video, and looking at 14-5 and 1-2.

 

Was what he did ugly and childish? Of course. Bad optics, absolutely. A gaping loophole in the rules? Yes. But the rules are on the books. 1-2, where there is a possible DQ, says to use 14-5 where there is no DQ.

 

 

 

 

[Colin L]

Does anyone else think that 14-5 is not meant the way it's being interpreted? .........

 

As rule statements go, they don't come any simpler or clearer than 14-5:

 

A player must not make a stroke at his ball while it is moving.

 

How difficult is it? Your ball is moving. You make a stroke at it. You have breached Rule 14-5.