Is Phil Mickelson Going Nuts?: Hitting a moving ball at US Open

[Hardluckster]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

What Phil did I think warrants 1-2 consideration.

While I think that DQ should be the result for any action like the one Phil pulled on Saturday, does this exception to rule 1-2 not prohibit the use of 1-2 in dealing with this case?

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

If so I personally think that the wording needs to be changed to allow for 1-2 to be used (admittedly without much thought into other ramifications). 

[iacas]

@Hardluckster you’re on page 9. Stuff like that was discussed already. It’s somewhat circular.

[Hardluckster]

Well, forgive me. 😳

Edited June 18, 2018 by Hardluckster

[shakogolfer78]

As a lifelong Phil fan, I am really saddened that Phil did that and then tried to explain he did it to get an advantage.  I can see losing it and apologizing for the mistake to some extent, but toughen up...... come on Phil I thought you were better than that.

 

[Big C]

Phil should just have Amy make all public comments for him going forward. Her statement on the matter was more heartfelt and authentic then anything Phil said. 

 

[Braivo]

Vintage Phil. I had a good laugh when I heard what he did. Legend. 

[Aflighter]

37 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Vintage Phil. I had a good laugh when I heard what he did. Legend. 

I thought it was funny too.Guy has the guts to do that where others are scared too.He's different from the rest of them heads down stiffs.Sad thing is even if he had been dqed or withdrew people would still bitch about it.

[iacas]

Just now, Aflighter said:

I thought it was funny too.Guy has the guts to do that where others are scared too.He's different from the rest of them heads down stiffs.Sad thing is even if he had been dqed or withdrew people would still bitch about it.

That wasn’t about “guts.” Give me a break.

And you’re missing out on the fact that many people are bothered more by the lying than the original act.

[Hardluckster]

Just now, Aflighter said:

I thought it was funny too.Guy has the guts to do that where others are scared too.He's different from the rest of them heads down stiffs.Sad thing is even if he had been dqed or withdrew people would still bitch about it.

I didn't find it to be funny.  

I don't think it showed guts.  I think that it showed a complete meltdown mentally.  I also think that it reflects poorly on his character (and I've always liked Phil).  What bothers me the most, really, is that I think he was dishonest in his representation of what his thought process was concerning the action.

If following the rules and showing internal fortitude makes someone a "heads down stiff", then I guess I would be one who would admire the "stiffs".

You are correct, I suspect, about there being backlash regardless of the ruling.  There are always folks with different views and opinions (and that isn't a bad thing - it adds diversity to the world).  Had he been DQ'd, some people would have been upset by it while others would have applauded it.  While I respect the views that are different from mine, I do not agree with them.

Personally, had I been the committee, I would have DQ'd him under rule 1-2. Having said that, the rules concerning this issue are not as straightforward as I think they should be (but I'm no rules expert).  I would expect that the governing bodies might now consider making changes to the wording concerning this issue - at least I would hope that they would.

[rehmwa]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

No.

It was on the 13th hole, and Phil waited in the scoring tent with a BS reason about "getting a little to eat and drink" for half an hour before coming out to meet with the press.

No self-respecting member of the press would "wait" until the next morning or something to ask about an event that's hot news.

no - but 'self respecting' is a misnomer.  Phil could have declined and not let himself be forced to answer these until he was truly ready.  It's on him for being available.  He clearly wasn't ready to speak even if he thought he was.

All other stuff aside - This highlighted an unclear rule, and people keep talking about intention instead of action => this indicates an opportunity to clean up the rules relating.

Edited June 18, 2018 by rehmwa

[Fidelio]

20 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't think it is. I think the lying after the fact is exactly his character.

You're seemingly also giving him a pass on the insider trading scandal, and the $900k in ill-gotten gains there, I guess.

 

Insider trading is a crime in the same way jaywalking is a crime, which is to say it is not a real crime. There is no victim involved in insider trading. One of the key ideas in economics is that prices communicate information. Banning insider trading means prices don't fully discount the fundamentals of a company. Insider trading laws actually help perpetuate frauds.

Disobeying immoral laws does not show a lack of character.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Fidelio

[70sSanO]

I've been on the fence about Phil over the years.  The USGA should have DQ'd Phil, but not DQing him was probably the harsher penalty.  Think about it.  I think Phil played the "Phil card".  He was pretty much not going to win the US Open, he was fed up with the course setup, and between the frustration and failure, decided to protest it and dare the USGA to DQ him, the future HOFer. Mike Davis basically forced Phil to have to play it out or be a poor sport and withdraw.

We have all been in a position to have to continue on despite the inevitable loss.  It takes character to continue correctly.  Phil's character showed up and Phil had to come back Sunday and face that inevitable loss.

Phil has made the US Open his career defining event.  By putting so much importance on it each year, it puts more pressure on him and will define his career.  His actions on Saturday will only accentuate that "never won the US Open."

John

[boogielicious]

1 minute ago, Fidelio said:

Insider trading is a crime in the same way jaywalking is a crime, which is to say it is not a real crime. There is no victim involved in insider trading. One of the key ideas in economics is that prices communicate information. Banning insider trading means prices don't fully discount the fundamentals of a company. Insider trading laws actually help perpetuate frauds.

Disobeying immoral laws does not show a lack of character.

 

 

Let's please stick to the golf topic.

[Braivo]

Funny how this stuff always devolves to judging the "character" of the individual in question.

We want so badly to label the individual as either the protagonist or antagonist, when in reality it's neither. 

Phil is an exceptional golfer, and a flawed human being. 

We should focus our discussion on the integrity of the game rather than the integrity of the individual. 

Any discussion, if any is warranted, should center around the rules and how such situations should be handled in the future. 

[boogielicious]

7 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Funny how this stuff always devolves to judging the "character" of the individual in question.

We want so badly to label the individual as either the protagonist or antagonist, when in reality it's neither. 

Phil is an exceptional golfer, and a flawed human being. 

We should focus our discussion on the integrity of the game rather than the integrity of the individual. 

Any discussion, if any is warranted, should center around the rules and how such situations should be handled in the future. 

Phil violated a rule with blatant disregard and should have been DQ'd. That has been the majority of the discussion. It speaks to his character as a competitive golfer and is perfectly relevant.

[Braivo]

7 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Phil violated a rule with blatant disregard and should have been DQ'd. That has been the majority of the discussion. It speaks to his character as a competitive golfer and is perfectly relevant.

Whether he should have been DQ'd is not relevant to his character. 

His character is only relevant to your opinion of him, arguing opinions on the character of an individual is an exercise in futility. 

He purposely broke the rules and accepted the consequences handed to him. 

[Aflighter]

I do actually agree they should change the rule to DQ but it was up to the committee even if they decided to go to the other rule.It said in serious breach he "Could be dq not must be dq".

[iacas]

3 hours ago, rehmwa said:

All other stuff aside - This highlighted an unclear rule, and people keep talking about intention instead of action => this indicates an opportunity to clean up the rules relating.

I am not really talking about intent. I've only talked about how there's overlap, basically, between 1-2 and 14-5.

2 hours ago, Fidelio said:

There is no victim involved in insider trading.

Sure there is. But that's off topic. Feel free to start another topic on this in the Grill Room.

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

Funny how this stuff always devolves to judging the "character" of the individual in question.

I think it speaks to his character.

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

Whether he should have been DQ'd is not relevant to his character.

No, but these do:

• Cheating at his profession.
• Lying about it afterward.

Those speak to his character.

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

His character is only relevant to your opinion of him, arguing opinions on the character of an individual is an exercise in futility.

This is in Tour Talk, not the Rules of Golf forum. Discussion of Phil is relevant here @Braivo.