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

[nsxguy]

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.

 

1) Convinced you may be but the ruling's been made according to the Rule book. I get you don't like it but,,,,,,

 

2) I have no idea no don't really care. There are any number of rules I don't quite understand the logic behind but I'm not losing sleep over it.

 

P.S. Has nothing to do with "condescension" as that would imply intent. Perhaps instead YOU are "paranoid" ? But I guess you needed a "win".

 

Instead of "The USGA is responsible for the ROG", how about "The USGA publishes the Rules of Golf here in the USA". That better ?

[Krt22]

There is no such thing as "deflecting" a ball with a stroke, you either deflect it or you make a 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."

[Sawgrass]

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.

While it's true that the Rules are jointly issued, the USGA is the entity responsible for their administration in the US, and most notably during/for the US Open.

 

I'd bet that the R&A agrees with the USGA's ruling. Have they spoken? If not, can you inspire them to respond?

[Sawgrass]

There is no such thing as "deflecting" a ball with a stroke, you either deflect it or you make a 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."

Yes.

 

I once deflected a ball that was sitting innocently on my tee within the Teeing Ground on a par three directly into the hole, but as you say, I call it a stroke.

[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).

 

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

 

I doubt it.

 

I doubt it as well. If the rules where changed to DQ everyone who did something stupid out of frustration, it would be a very lonely game.

[Deceptively Short]

Thinking about this, I just got to wondering if any of us has deliberately broken a rule of golf. I realise most of us may have called penalties on ourselves for accidental breaches or elected to take an option (S&D for example) that may mean a one shot penalty but these are options under the rules and not deliberate breaches.

It is my, maybe poor, understanding that a 2 shot penalty/loss of hole is normally considered more of a breach hence the larger penalty (this is of course before next year’s changes where 2 short penalties are likely to be more frequent).

 

But have you ever deliberately broken a rule and incurred a 2 shot penalty?

[sui generis]

Thinking about this, I just got to wondering if any of us has deliberately broken a rule of golf. I realise most of us may have called penalties on ourselves for accidental breaches or elected to take an option (S&D for example) that may mean a one shot penalty but these are options under the rules and not deliberate breaches.

It is my, maybe poor, understanding that a 2 shot penalty/loss of hole is normally considered more of a breach hence the larger penalty (this is of course before next year’s changes where 2 short penalties are likely to be more frequent).

 

But have you ever deliberately broken a rule and incurred a 2 shot penalty?

 

In stroke play, I once scraped (R14-1a) the ball away from a course boundary wall at a cost of two penalty strokes because the R28 options b and c weren't good and didn't want to do a.

[Sawgrass]

Thinking about this, I just got to wondering if any of us has deliberately broken a rule of golf. I realise most of us may have called penalties on ourselves for accidental breaches or elected to take an option (S&D for example) that may mean a one shot penalty but these are options under the rules and not deliberate breaches.

It is my, maybe poor, understanding that a 2 shot penalty/loss of hole is normally considered more of a breach hence the larger penalty (this is of course before next year’s changes where 2 short penalties are likely to be more frequent).

 

But have you ever deliberately broken a rule and incurred a 2 shot penalty?

It seems to me that the 2sp is prescribed in order to deliberately influence you to not make any of these violations intentionally. And beyond the social consequences, I don't think Phil should have done so for that very (scoring) reason.

[Sawgrass]

Thinking about this, I just got to wondering if any of us has deliberately broken a rule of golf. I realise most of us may have called penalties on ourselves for accidental breaches or elected to take an option (S&D for example) that may mean a one shot penalty but these are options under the rules and not deliberate breaches.

It is my, maybe poor, understanding that a 2 shot penalty/loss of hole is normally considered more of a breach hence the larger penalty (this is of course before next year’s changes where 2 short penalties are likely to be more frequent).

 

But have you ever deliberately broken a rule and incurred a 2 shot penalty?

 

In stroke play, I once scraped (R14-1a) the ball away from a course boundary wall at a cost of two penalty strokes because the R28 options b and c weren't good and didn't want to do a.

That's a thoughtful take, but wouldn't it likely have been better to go the S&D route?

 

Yesterday, a f/c told me of an occasion where his ball ended up in the corner of a right-angle chain like fence marking the boundary of a course, and thereby couldn't even take a sideways swipe at the ball to knock it away from the fence, and the unplayable options other than S&D were unavailable given the situation. Your "scoop" might have helped him -- at least if he was too tired to walk back.

[Stuart_G]

And beyond the social consequences, I don't think Phil should have done so for that very (scoring) reason.

 

Despite the initial report to the press, I think the reality is that Phil's priorities were not focused on the score at the point he made that decision.

 

I suspect the same applies to Sui when he made his decision.

[sui generis]

Thinking about this, I just got to wondering if any of us has deliberately broken a rule of golf. I realise most of us may have called penalties on ourselves for accidental breaches or elected to take an option (S&D for example) that may mean a one shot penalty but these are options under the rules and not deliberate breaches.

It is my, maybe poor, understanding that a 2 shot penalty/loss of hole is normally considered more of a breach hence the larger penalty (this is of course before next year’s changes where 2 short penalties are likely to be more frequent).

 

But have you ever deliberately broken a rule and incurred a 2 shot penalty?

 

In stroke play, I once scraped (R14-1a) the ball away from a course boundary wall at a cost of two penalty strokes because the R28 options b and c weren't good and didn't want to do a.

That's a thoughtful take, but wouldn't it likely have been better to go the S&D route?

 

Yesterday, a f/c told me of an occasion where his ball ended up in the corner of a right-angle chain like fence marking the boundary of a course, and thereby couldn't even take a sideways swipe at the ball to knock it away from the fence, and the unplayable options other than S&D were unavailable given the situation. Your "scoop" might have helped him -- at least if he was too tired to walk back.

 

The back of a Ping Anser is a formidable instrument for a scrape or spoon. Some days 28a just isn't in the cards. :)

[Deceptively Short]

Perhaps then there should be a different sanction for deliberate breach of a 2sp rule.

 

If you are not prepared to take the only manageable option in the recently quoted examples then an NR is always available in a medal round or a 0 points in a Stableford or conceding the hole in matchplay or the ’esc’ score in a US handicap round.

 

I assume it would be difficult to assess if an action was deliberate but probably similar to gauging intent.

 

This may be an answer to the ‘spirit of the game’ angle of the controversy raging in the pages above.

[Sawgrass]

Perhaps then there should be a different sanction for deliberate breach of a 2sp rule.

 

If you are not prepared to take the only manageable option in the recently quoted examples then an NR is always available in a medal round or a 0 points in a Stableford or conceding the hole in matchplay or the ’esc’ score in a US handicap round.

 

I assume it would be difficult to assess if an action was deliberate but probably similar to gauging intent.

 

This may be an answer to the ‘spirit of the game’ angle of the controversy raging in the pages above.

There is no doubt that many agree with you, but I can't get past the question as to why we should bother making up a new rule when they currently work just fine. Because we don't like "the look?" Remember the outcry when the RBs made up the anchor ban for, perhaps in part, "the look" -- and that had even more meaningful aspects to it than just the visual.

[bladehunter]

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.

 

So you agree that the ruling was correct and that the only thing maybe needed is a rethinking of 14-5 ?

[nsxguy]

Thinking about this, I just got to wondering if any of us has deliberately broken a rule of golf. I realise most of us may have called penalties on ourselves for accidental breaches or elected to take an option (S&D for example) that may mean a one shot penalty but these are options under the rules and not deliberate breaches.

It is my, maybe poor, understanding that a 2 shot penalty/loss of hole is normally considered more of a breach hence the larger penalty (this is of course before next year’s changes where 2 short penalties are likely to be more frequent).

 

But have you ever deliberately broken a rule and incurred a 2 shot penalty?

 

In stroke play, I once scraped (R14-1a) the ball away from a course boundary wall at a cost of two penalty strokes because the R28 options b and c weren't good and didn't want to do a.

 

Could you please describe what a "scrape" actually is ?

 

TIA

[nsxguy]

Thinking about this, I just got to wondering if any of us has deliberately broken a rule of golf. I realise most of us may have called penalties on ourselves for accidental breaches or elected to take an option (S&D for example) that may mean a one shot penalty but these are options under the rules and not deliberate breaches.

It is my, maybe poor, understanding that a 2 shot penalty/loss of hole is normally considered more of a breach hence the larger penalty (this is of course before next year’s changes where 2 short penalties are likely to be more frequent).

 

But have you ever deliberately broken a rule and incurred a 2 shot penalty?

 

You know, I've thought about this a bit and i really can't think of any time I would consider it. Then again, what would be the point ? Nobody yet has come up with a situation where intentionally incurring a 2 SP HELPS your score.

 

But the only thing I could think of might be leaving the ball in a bunker and, "losing it" as Phil did, angrily smacking the sand in the bunker.

[sui generis]

Thinking about this, I just got to wondering if any of us has deliberately broken a rule of golf. I realise most of us may have called penalties on ourselves for accidental breaches or elected to take an option (S&D for example) that may mean a one shot penalty but these are options under the rules and not deliberate breaches.

It is my, maybe poor, understanding that a 2 shot penalty/loss of hole is normally considered more of a breach hence the larger penalty (this is of course before next year’s changes where 2 short penalties are likely to be more frequent).

 

But have you ever deliberately broken a rule and incurred a 2 shot penalty?

 

In stroke play, I once scraped (R14-1a) the ball away from a course boundary wall at a cost of two penalty strokes because the R28 options b and c weren't good and didn't want to do a.

 

Could you please describe what a "scrape" actually is ?

 

TIA

 

Something between a push and a spoon. ;) Back of a Ping Anser, no backswing, just a vigorous scrape resulting in the ball zooming back into play. A smooth 8 was the final result.

[nsxguy]

Thinking about this, I just got to wondering if any of us has deliberately broken a rule of golf. I realise most of us may have called penalties on ourselves for accidental breaches or elected to take an option (S&D for example) that may mean a one shot penalty but these are options under the rules and not deliberate breaches.

It is my, maybe poor, understanding that a 2 shot penalty/loss of hole is normally considered more of a breach hence the larger penalty (this is of course before next year’s changes where 2 short penalties are likely to be more frequent).

 

But have you ever deliberately broken a rule and incurred a 2 shot penalty?

 

In stroke play, I once scraped (R14-1a) the ball away from a course boundary wall at a cost of two penalty strokes because the R28 options b and c weren't good and didn't want to do a.

 

Could you please describe what a "scrape" actually is ?

 

TIA

 

Something between a push and a spoon. ;) Back of a Ping Anser, no backswing, just a vigorous scrape resulting in the ball zooming back into play. A smooth 8 was the final result.

 

OK, not exactly sure what a spoon is (wasn't that an old golf club ? LOL).

 

Would it be fair to describe a "scrape" as a forward motion of the club without a backward motion of any kind ?

[sui generis]

Thinking about this, I just got to wondering if any of us has deliberately broken a rule of golf. I realise most of us may have called penalties on ourselves for accidental breaches or elected to take an option (S&D for example) that may mean a one shot penalty but these are options under the rules and not deliberate breaches.

It is my, maybe poor, understanding that a 2 shot penalty/loss of hole is normally considered more of a breach hence the larger penalty (this is of course before next year’s changes where 2 short penalties are likely to be more frequent).

 

But have you ever deliberately broken a rule and incurred a 2 shot penalty?

 

In stroke play, I once scraped (R14-1a) the ball away from a course boundary wall at a cost of two penalty strokes because the R28 options b and c weren't good and didn't want to do a.

 

Could you please describe what a "scrape" actually is ?

 

TIA

 

Something between a push and a spoon. ;) Back of a Ping Anser, no backswing, just a vigorous scrape resulting in the ball zooming back into play. A smooth 8 was the final result.

 

OK, not exactly sure what a spoon is (wasn't that an old golf club ? LOL).

 

Would it be fair to describe a "scrape" as a forward motion of the club without a backward motion of any kind ?

 

Spoon in 2019 will be called a scoop.

 

Maybe, unless it's a push.

 

None of the three penalized methods of moving the ball is very often useful. R28 gives us three remedies which should be better options.

[nsxguy]

 

In stroke play, I once scraped (R14-1a) the ball away from a course boundary wall at a cost of two penalty strokes because the R28 options b and c weren't good and didn't want to do a.

 

Could you please describe what a "scrape" actually is ?

 

TIA

 

Something between a push and a spoon. ;) Back of a Ping Anser, no backswing, just a vigorous scrape resulting in the ball zooming back into play. A smooth 8 was the final result.

 

OK, not exactly sure what a spoon is (wasn't that an old golf club ? LOL).

 

Would it be fair to describe a "scrape" as a forward motion of the club without a backward motion of any kind ?

 

Spoon in 2019 will be called a scoop.

 

Maybe, unless it's a push.

 

None of the three penalized methods of moving the ball is very often useful. R28 gives us three remedies which should be better options.

 

OK, not really concerned with a spoon/scoop.

 

"Push" sounds like one would place the club just behind the ball and push it forward.

 

You said earlier you "scraped" the ball. I'm looking for a definition of "scrape".

 

Would it be fair to describe a "scrape" as a forward motion of the club without a backward motion of any kind ? Similar to a "push" but with the club further behind the ball than a push.

[Colin L]

There is no such thing as "deflecting" a ball with a stroke, you either deflect it or you make a stroke.

 

I suspect a shank is something of a deflection of the ball after a stroke. :)

 

(And to absolutely clear, that's just a light-hearted aside not a disagreemnt with what Krt22 said)

[Colin L]

 

I'd bet that the R&A agrees with the USGA's ruling. Have they spoken? If not, can you inspire them to respond?

 

I wouldn't expect either body to disagree publicly over anything.

[Stuart_G]

You said earlier you "scraped" the ball. I'm looking for a definition of "scrape".

 

Would it be fair to describe a "scrape" as a forward motion of the club without a backward motion of any kind ? Similar to a "push" but with the club further behind the ball than a push.

 

I think of a 'scrape' as moving the club along the ground to guide the club to the ball. It's the ground (not the ball) that's being scraped during the action of trying to hit the ball.

[nsxguy]

I'd bet that the R&A agrees with the USGA's ruling. Have they spoken? If not, can you inspire them to respond?

 

I wouldn't expect either body to disagree publicly over anything.

 

Are you suggesting that a failure on the R&A's part to express an opinion is a disagreement with the ruling ?

[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.

 

So you agree that the ruling was correct and that the only thing maybe needed is a rethinking of 14-5 ?

If you believe he was actually making a stroke and not deflecting the ball from where it was headed. Problem is the rule does not really differentiate between the two.

[DaveLeeNC]

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.

 

So you agree that the ruling was correct and that the only thing maybe needed is a rethinking of 14-5 ?

Of you believe he was actually making a stroke and not deflecting the ball from where it was headed. Problem is the role does not really differentiate between the two.

 

I am assuming that you meant to say "IF you believe he was ..." and "Problem is the RULE. ...." Correct me if I am wrong.

 

If you make a stroke at a moving ball (barring a whiff) you are going to deflect the ball from its path. So I don't see where additional clarification would be required. Strokes made at moving balls deflect them.

 

dave

[Shilgy]

 

 

I am assuming that you meant to say "IF you believe he was ..." and "Problem is the RULE. ...." Correct me if I am wrong.

 

If you make a stroke at a moving ball (barring a whiff) you are going to deflect the ball from its path. So I don't see where additional clarification would be required. Strokes made at moving balls deflect them.

 

dave

Spell check, thanks. And yes, therein is the rub, eh? In many folks opinion based on these various threads, and the sentiments from David Fay during the telecast, the rule is certainly not intended as it was interpreted in this case.

Golf is not polo. The ability to stroke a moving ball is not something that should be rewarded in golf.

[nsxguy]

I am assuming that you meant to say "IF you believe he was ..." and "Problem is the RULE. ...." Correct me if I am wrong.

 

If you make a stroke at a moving ball (barring a whiff) you are going to deflect the ball from its path. So I don't see where additional clarification would be required. Strokes made at moving balls deflect them.

 

dave

Spell check, thanks. And yes, therein is the rub, eh? In many folks opinion based on these various threads, and the sentiments from David Fay during the telecast, the rule is certainly not intended as it was interpreted in this case.

Golf is not polo. The ability to stroke a moving ball is not something that should be rewarded in golf.

 

Again ???

 

I'm sorry, WHEREin lies the rub ? The rule did not NEED to be interpreted. A situation/rule is seldom as CLEAR as this one.

 

And where was the "reward" again ?

 

If you feel the rule is not fair or needs revising, that's one thing. But right now, it is what it is and it was "interpreted" and applied correctly.

[Sawgrass]

I am assuming that you meant to say "IF you believe he was ..." and "Problem is the RULE. ...." Correct me if I am wrong.

 

If you make a stroke at a moving ball (barring a whiff) you are going to deflect the ball from its path. So I don't see where additional clarification would be required. Strokes made at moving balls deflect them.

 

dave

Spell check, thanks. And yes, therein is the rub, eh? In many folks opinion based on these various threads, and the sentiments from David Fay during the telecast, the rule is certainly not intended as it was interpreted in this case.

Golf is not polo. The ability to stroke a moving ball is not something that should be rewarded in golf.

It has been acknowledged that Fay was, quite simply, mistaken. So the Rule was intended to be interpreted as it was interpreted.

[Shilgy]

The penalty given to Phil was correct. No question and I don't believe I've stated otherwise. Perhaps some interpreted my words incorrectly. :)

 

That said... David Fay in his interview, myself and many many others feel the intent of 14-5 is for a different situation. To run after a rolling ball and stop/stroke/deflect it is not golf.

Funny thing...I asked this in another thread and received, at least to me, interesting answers. If Phil did this two, three, four... even more... holes in a row most folks seem to agree he would be DQ'd.

Why??? If the given two stroke penalty is "by the rules" how could you dq someone for playing by the rules?

 

I'm not debating the correctness of the ruling "as the rule is written".

 

NSX, there does not need to be a "reward" as you have asked other posters, repeatedly. This has nothing to do with whether Phil benefited by his actions.

 

Anyways guys. Thanks for reading. I'm sure most of you are shaking your heads thinking "Shilgy and those other guys just don't get it". And that's fine. If y'all are content knowing this type of behavior is condoned with a relatively minor penalty for moving a basic tenet of the game that's fine. I'll stay here on my high horse and disagree.