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

[Vindog]

Not a good look, but I'm fine with the 2sp only. He does have to live with that being forever burned onto film/digital media.

[LeoLeo99]

Not a good look, but I'm fine with the 2sp only. He does have to live with that being forever burned onto film/digital media.

 

Phil's logo is his little jump when he won. He can use another logo of him jogging after his ball. I'd buy that shirt.

[LeoLeo99]

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.

 

Jason Day spoke out against Phil.

 

“It’s just unfortunate that it happened at the USGA’s tournament, where they enforce the rules, like the R&A. And I think they may have, they probably should have enforced a different outcome for Phil,”

[Shilgy]

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.

Curious if you read my explanation? Yes it's clear. But it's been interpreted wrong imo. Phil was not really making a stroke at the ball. Her was impeding it from continuing on its merry way.

 

But that's cool. As I mentioned earlier most on here just wish to regurgitate that the rule was applied correctly. And I agree. I also agree with David Fay that the rule needs more effective wording to be accurate.

[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.

Curious if you read my explanation? Yes it's clear. But it's been interpreted wrong imo. Phil was not really making a stroke at the ball. Her was impeding it from continuing on its merry way.

 

But that's cool. As I mentioned earlier most on here just wish to regurgitate that the rule was applied correctly. And I agree. I also agree with David Fay that the rule needs more effective wording to be accurate.

 

Just watch the action - he holds his club behind the ball for a moment, swings it back a little and then makes a forward movement to strike the ball towards the hole. That's not a stroke? He didn't just impede his ball, he whacked it back to the hole with, as he said himself, the intention of getting it as near as possible to make the next one.

[Stuart_G]

Was what he did ugly and childish? Of course. Bad optics, absolutely. A gaping loophole in the rules? Yes.

 

I'm not sure I would call it gaping. Yes, by taking a stroke instead of deflecting the ball, he avoided the possibility of that particular DQ clause in 1-2 being applicable. But I doubt the fact that it was left out of 14-5 was simply an accident. A stroke is the means by which one is supposed to move the ball around on the course (other actions are not) so not directly contrary to 1-1. Is there a DQ clause for 14-1? Even 14-3 now takes 2 violations to get a DQ.

 

And he really did break a rule - the rule says "a player must not make a stroke at his ball while it's moving", and he intentionally played contrary to that rule. But he also followed the rules in freely accepting the penalty for the breach. Fortunately it's rare, but the rules are a bit more tolerant of such misbehavior (to a point) than some people seem to think and sometimes the penalty imposed by the rules really is in the form of a punishment (and not always as a DQ).

[LeoLeo99]

Was what he did ugly and childish? Of course. Bad optics, absolutely. A gaping loophole in the rules? Yes.

 

I'm not sure I would call it gaping. Yes, by taking a stroke instead of deflecting the ball, he avoided the possibility of that particular DQ clause in 1-2 being applicable. But I doubt the fact that it was left out of 14-5 was simply an accident. A stroke is the means by which one is supposed to move the ball around on the course (other actions are not) so not directly contrary to 1-1. Is there a DQ clause for 14-1? Even 14-3 now takes 2 violations to get a DQ.

 

And he really did break a rule - the rule says "a player must not make a stroke at his ball while it's moving", and he intentionally played contrary to that rule. But he also followed the rules in freely accepting the penalty for the breach. Fortunately it's rare, but the rules are a bit more tolerant of such misbehavior (to a point) than some people seem to think and sometimes the penalty imposed by the rules really is in the form of a punishment (and not always as a DQ).

 

They changed the rule after DJ's fiasco two years ago. They'll change it to deal with Phil's stunt.

[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.

 

Jason Day spoke out against Phil.

 

“It’s just unfortunate that it happened at the USGA’s tournament, where they enforce the rules, like the R&A. And I think they may have, they probably should have enforced a different outcome for Phil,”

 

I think Day missed the cut..? He wasn't out there dealing with the weekend. T-98 I guess he needed to get some attention for himself.....

 

I guess instead of "played the event" I should have said "played the event on the weekend"....lol

[lappygamer]

John Daly did the same thing at Pinehurst in the 1999 US Open. Same ruling. I wouldn't be surprised if the USGA leaned on on that ruling as precedent. If they didn't DQ Daly, they're not going to DQ Phil.

[Mikey5e]

Not a good look, but I'm fine with the 2sp only. He does have to live with that being forever burned onto film/digital media.

although you may be right in the two-stroke penalty, but I think I prefer a dq, myself. My concern wasn't necessarily Phil getting penalized, but the game being disrespected at probably the biggest tournament the PGA has to offer.

[sui generis]

Not a good look, but I'm fine with the 2sp only. He does have to live with that being forever burned onto film/digital media.

although you may be right in the two-stroke penalty, but I think I prefer a dq, myself. My concern wasn't necessarily Phil getting penalized, but the game being disrespected at probably the biggest tournament the PGA has to offer.

 

Playing by the Rules is the ultimate in respect for the game of golf. (By the way, the PGA has nothing to do with this.)

[Mikey5e]

Not a good look, but I'm fine with the 2sp only. He does have to live with that being forever burned onto film/digital media.

although you may be right in the two-stroke penalty, but I think I prefer a dq, myself. My concern wasn't necessarily Phil getting penalized, but the game being disrespected at probably the biggest tournament the PGA has to offer.

 

Playing by the Rules is the ultimate in respect for the game of golf. (By the way, the PGA has nothing to do with this.)

Are you saying Phil played by the rules? If so, why was he penalized two strokes?

 

For breaking the rule!

[HitEmTrue]

Are you saying Phil played by the rules?

 

He didn't say that.

[Mikey5e]

Are you saying Phil played by the rules?

 

He didn't say that.

he insinuated that.

[lappygamer]

If I hit a shot OB and I take a S&D distance penalty, am I not playing by the rules? Just because you have incurred a penalty does not mean you aren't playing by the rules.

[Augster]

Are you saying Phil played by the rules? If so, why was he penalized two strokes?

 

For breaking the rule!

 

Correct that he broke a rule. The penalty for that is 2 penalty strokes. Which he took. Not DQ.

 

Should every player that accidentally moves a ball in play be DQ? They broke a rule also.

 

How about hitting sand in a bunker on your backswing? That’s breaking a rule. No DQ.

 

He broke a rule. He took the penalty for doing so.

 

Do people want the DQ because he intentionally broke a rule, whereas nearly all other rules breaches are accidental? 14-5’s nature is always going to be an intentional breach. To make a stroke you must intend to make a stroke. The ONLY way to breach 14-5 is to intentionally do it. The ruling bodies say it’s a 2-stroke penalty for the breach.

 

There is NO WAY to accidentally make a stroke at a ball.

[Fade]

Are you saying Phil played by the rules? If so, why was he penalized two strokes?

 

For breaking the rule!

 

Correct that he broke a rule. The penalty for that is 2 penalty strokes. Which he took. Not DQ.

 

Should every player that accidentally moves a ball in play be DQ? They broke a rule also.

 

How about hitting sand in a bunker on your backswing? That's breaking a rule. No DQ.

 

He broke a rule. He took the penalty for doing so.

 

Do people want the DQ because he intentionally broke a rule, whereas nearly all other rules breaches are accidental? 14-5's nature is always going to be an intentional breach. To make a stroke you must intend to make a stroke. The ONLY way to breach 14-5 is to intentionally do it. The ruling bodies say it's a 2-stroke penalty for the breach.

 

There is NO WAY to accidentally make a stroke at a ball.

 

You can accidentally make a stroke at a ball that you thought had come to rest but was actually still moving.

[DaveLeeNC]

John Daly did the same thing at Pinehurst in the 1999 US Open. Same ruling. I wouldn't be surprised if the USGA leaned on on that ruling as precedent. If they didn't DQ Daly, they're not going to DQ Phil.

 

JD walked off the course, so there was no ruling on his actions, IIRC.

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

Are you saying Phil played by the rules? If so, why was he penalized two strokes?

 

For breaking the rule!

 

Correct that he broke a rule. The penalty for that is 2 penalty strokes. Which he took. Not DQ.

 

Should every player that accidentally moves a ball in play be DQ? They broke a rule also.

 

How about hitting sand in a bunker on your backswing? That's breaking a rule. No DQ.

 

He broke a rule. He took the penalty for doing so.

 

Do people want the DQ because he intentionally broke a rule, whereas nearly all other rules breaches are accidental? 14-5's nature is always going to be an intentional breach. To make a stroke you must intend to make a stroke. The ONLY way to breach 14-5 is to intentionally do it. The ruling bodies say it's a 2-stroke penalty for the breach.

 

There is NO WAY to accidentally make a stroke at a ball.

 

You can accidentally make a stroke at a ball that you thought had come to rest but was actually still moving.

 

The stroke was still intentional, in this description. The golfer just made a (possibly understandable - or not) judgment error about the state of the ball.

 

dave

[Shilgy]

Not a good look, but I'm fine with the 2sp only. He does have to live with that being forever burned onto film/digital media.

although you may be right in the two-stroke penalty, but I think I prefer a dq, myself. My concern wasn't necessarily Phil getting penalized, but the game being disrespected at probably the biggest tournament the PGA has to offer.

 

Playing by the Rules is the ultimate in respect for the game of golf. (By the way, the PGA has nothing to do with this.)

Phil did not play by the rules. Which is why he was assessed a penalty. Playing by the rules is not the same as accepting the penalty for breaking one. The rule is:

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

The penalty is two stroke penalty.

 

Not all situations where a player gets penalty strokes are the same. Some, like hitting the ball ob or in a water hazard, are penalties for incompetence. :)

Others, like the Phil incident, are not for incompetence but are for intentionally not playing by the rules.

A question for those that insist he played by the rules. If he did it also on the previous green is he still ok? Hmm, previous green and next green? If he does it on every hole he'll get dq'd for a serious breach. Would you call that serious breach playing by the rules just because he accepted the DQ?

 

Speeding is against the law. Whether you pay the fine or not you broke the law.

[Fade]

Are you saying Phil played by the rules? If so, why was he penalized two strokes?

 

For breaking the rule!

 

Correct that he broke a rule. The penalty for that is 2 penalty strokes. Which he took. Not DQ.

 

Should every player that accidentally moves a ball in play be DQ? They broke a rule also.

 

How about hitting sand in a bunker on your backswing? That's breaking a rule. No DQ.

 

He broke a rule. He took the penalty for doing so.

 

Do people want the DQ because he intentionally broke a rule, whereas nearly all other rules breaches are accidental? 14-5's nature is always going to be an intentional breach. To make a stroke you must intend to make a stroke. The ONLY way to breach 14-5 is to intentionally do it. The ruling bodies say it's a 2-stroke penalty for the breach.

 

There is NO WAY to accidentally make a stroke at a ball.

 

You can accidentally make a stroke at a ball that you thought had come to rest but was actually still moving.

 

The stroke was still intentional, in this description. The golfer just made a (possibly understandable - or not) judgment error about the state of the ball.

 

dave

 

The stroke was intentional, but breaking the rule was not in my example. This may be the reason that the penalty is "only" two strokes.

[Augster]

Your example would not be a breach of 14-5. If the ball starts moving during your backswing, it’s not a breach of 14-5. It could be a breach of 18-2, if you caused it to move, but it’s not a breach of 14-5 and no 2 stroke penalty.

 

In order to break 14-5, the ball has to be moving before you start your backswing. If it starts moving after you start your backswing, and you don’t stop and hit it anyway, there is no penalty under 14-5.

 

The sole purpose of 14-5 is to tell us not to intentionally play a moving ball. It also tells us, if we intentionally break that rule, it’s a 2-stroke penalty.

 

As far as I can tell, there is no way to unintentionally break 14-5. Unless one is blind or plays with their eyes closed.

[Fade]

As far as I can tell, there is no way to unintentionally break 14-5. Unless one is blind or plays with their eyes closed.

 

You have a fair point there. Perhaps an overly hasty tap-in after a short miss is a more plausible 'accident'.

[Sawgrass]

I wonder if playing a wrong ball is an intentional or unintentional penalty, given the fact that the stroke itself was intentional.

 

And I wonder why I even wonder, given there's a Rules-based remedy in either case. Just like 14-5.

[Krt22]

I wonder if playing a wrong ball is an intentional or unintentional penalty, given the fact that the stroke itself was intentional.

 

And I wonder why I even wonder, given there's a Rules-based remedy in either case. Just like 14-5.

 

Or what if someone goes into a bunker, goes through their normal routine and grounds the club. Is that not typically intentional if they do it on every other shot?

[nsxguy]

Was what he did ugly and childish? Of course. Bad optics, absolutely. A gaping loophole in the rules? Yes.

 

I'm not sure I would call it gaping. Yes, by taking a stroke instead of deflecting the ball, he avoided the possibility of that particular DQ clause in 1-2 being applicable. But I doubt the fact that it was left out of 14-5 was simply an accident. A stroke is the means by which one is supposed to move the ball around on the course (other actions are not) so not directly contrary to 1-1. Is there a DQ clause for 14-1? Even 14-3 now takes 2 violations to get a DQ.

 

And he really did break a rule - the rule says "a player must not make a stroke at his ball while it's moving", and he intentionally played contrary to that rule. But he also followed the rules in freely accepting the penalty for the breach. Fortunately it's rare, but the rules are a bit more tolerant of such misbehavior (to a point) than some people seem to think and sometimes the penalty imposed by the rules really is in the form of a punishment (and not always as a DQ).

 

They changed the rule after DJ's fiasco two years ago. They'll change it to deal with Phil's stunt.

 

I doubt it.

 

DJ didn't DO anything and got penalized. Phil DID something and got penalized according to the Rule. No problem.

[nsxguy]

John Daly did the same thing at Pinehurst in the 1999 US Open. Same ruling. I wouldn't be surprised if the USGA leaned on on that ruling as precedent. If they didn't DQ Daly, they're not going to DQ Phil.

 

JD walked off the course, so there was no ruling on his actions, IIRC.

 

dave

 

I only vaguely remembered the incident so I looked it up.

 

2 strokes and he did finish. https://www.espn.com/golfonline/usopen99/news/1999/990620/00001467.html

[Sawgrass]

Was what he did ugly and childish? Of course. Bad optics, absolutely. A gaping loophole in the rules? Yes.

 

I'm not sure I would call it gaping. Yes, by taking a stroke instead of deflecting the ball, he avoided the possibility of that particular DQ clause in 1-2 being applicable. But I doubt the fact that it was left out of 14-5 was simply an accident. A stroke is the means by which one is supposed to move the ball around on the course (other actions are not) so not directly contrary to 1-1. Is there a DQ clause for 14-1? Even 14-3 now takes 2 violations to get a DQ.

 

And he really did break a rule - the rule says "a player must not make a stroke at his ball while it's moving", and he intentionally played contrary to that rule. But he also followed the rules in freely accepting the penalty for the breach. Fortunately it's rare, but the rules are a bit more tolerant of such misbehavior (to a point) than some people seem to think and sometimes the penalty imposed by the rules really is in the form of a punishment (and not always as a DQ).

 

They changed the rule after DJ's fiasco two years ago. They'll change it to deal with Phil's stunt.

 

I doubt it.

 

DJ didn't DO anything and got penalized. Phil DID something and got penalized according to the Rule. No problem.

DJ touched the ground near his ball.

[Vindog]

Not a good look, but I'm fine with the 2sp only. He does have to live with that being forever burned onto film/digital media.

although you may be right in the two-stroke penalty, but I think I prefer a dq, myself. My concern wasn't necessarily Phil getting penalized, but the game being disrespected at probably the biggest tournament the PGA has to offer.

 

I guess I don't feel as if the game was disrespected, and I'm not sure why anyone would. I'd more believe that maybe it was a slight on the USGA and the setup. He's done that before during a reg tour stop with the cell phone incident,

 

He broke a rule. He got a penalty. Not much more to it than that, imo.

[nsxguy]

Was what he did ugly and childish? Of course. Bad optics, absolutely. A gaping loophole in the rules? Yes.

 

I'm not sure I would call it gaping. Yes, by taking a stroke instead of deflecting the ball, he avoided the possibility of that particular DQ clause in 1-2 being applicable. But I doubt the fact that it was left out of 14-5 was simply an accident. A stroke is the means by which one is supposed to move the ball around on the course (other actions are not) so not directly contrary to 1-1. Is there a DQ clause for 14-1? Even 14-3 now takes 2 violations to get a DQ.

 

And he really did break a rule - the rule says "a player must not make a stroke at his ball while it's moving", and he intentionally played contrary to that rule. But he also followed the rules in freely accepting the penalty for the breach. Fortunately it's rare, but the rules are a bit more tolerant of such misbehavior (to a point) than some people seem to think and sometimes the penalty imposed by the rules really is in the form of a punishment (and not always as a DQ).

 

They changed the rule after DJ's fiasco two years ago. They'll change it to deal with Phil's stunt.

 

I doubt it.

 

DJ didn't DO anything and got penalized. Phil DID something and got penalized according to the Rule. No problem.

DJ touched the ground near his ball.

 

Well, I'm not getting into THAT again but he grounded his club to the SIDE of the ball and the ball moved BACKWARDS.

 

So IMO, he didn't "do" anything.