Phil Mickelson Rule

[krupa]

12 minutes ago, FlappyGilmore said:

I feel that clear documentation in the form of words is needed. Simply having a verbally passed down policy, "When x occurs apply y." is not enough. There needs to be plain language defining the exact penalty. Having a ruling be at the mercy of the official at hand it not sufficient. It is either a 2 stroke penalty or a DQ, a rules official should not be relied upon to decide.

 

I disagree about you disagreeing. You can look a the situation without the input of the media by asking simple questions:

 

1. Is what Phil did against the spirit of how the game should be played?

3. What should the penalty be for committing those actions?

 

Quote

33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion

A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.

Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.

If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.

What isn't clear enough here?

[FlappyGilmore]

20 minutes ago, krupa said:

 

What isn't clear enough here?

People saying the committee is wrong.

[krupa]

11 minutes ago, FlappyGilmore said:

People saying the committee is wrong.

I don't understand what you're saying.

[FlappyGilmore]

6 minutes ago, krupa said:

I don't understand what you're saying.

There are people who think the USGA did not make the correct ruling based on how the rules are currently written. This includes a former president of the USGA.

 

So apparently the rules aren't as cut and dry as they need to be.

Edited June 20, 2018 by FlappyGilmore

[krupa]

1 hour ago, FlappyGilmore said:

There are people who think the USGA did not make the correct ruling based on how the rules are currently written. This includes a former president of the USGA.

 

So apparently the rules aren't as cut and dry as they need to be.

The rules can't possibly cover every possible scenario.  That's why rules like 33-7 exist.

[iacas]

All I think is that the differences between 11.2 and 10.2 (in 2019+) or 1-2 and 14-5 (now) should be eliminated. The overlap.

I think you can make  case that 1-2 applies, but you can obviously also make a case for 14-5. Ditto in the future for 10.2 and 11.2, both of which have a two-stroke penalty.

The USGA missed an opportunity to set the standard for applying 33-7 in such a case.

Oh well.

[Fourputt]

21 hours ago, fishgolf said:

In light of the Phil Mickelson "event" at the U.S Open, should the rules be changed resulting in a disqualification?  It's clear from the thread/discussion on the "Tour" forum that many feel only getting a two stroke penalty is unjust and unfair to other players.  It's very clear that Phil set the ball in motion and also hit the ball in motion.  It's also clear that it was done to prevent the ball from travelling to its likely point of rest.  We're not talking about a ball moving from an earthquake, blade of grass flexing below it, wind, etc. - but rather deliberate action on the part of the player. 

My opinion:  In this case, Phil could actually have replayed the shot under stroke and distance, ensuring that the second time he didn't hit the ball as hard, thus escaping with just a one stroke penalty.  Since he incurred 2 strokes for playing a stroke at a ball in motion, he was actually being punished more harshly, thus DQ is unwarranted.  It's something of a judgement call, but the rule does not require DQ. 

Just because it was intentional, that doesn't automatically make it a serious breach, in my opinion.  If that was the case, the rule would be more definite on it.  It allows the committee some leeway for using their judgement.  Armchair umpires can make all the noise they want, no matter what their past experiences are, but it's still up to the committee. 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Since he incurred 2 strokes for playing a stroke at a ball in motion, he was actually being punished more harshly, thus DQ is unwarranted.

You don't know that he wouldn't have taken eight putts from there, so you can't say he's "actually" punished more harshly. Nor can you say that if he had let the ball go and played from there, he'd get down in fewer than he did.

4 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Just because it was intentional, that doesn't automatically make it a serious breach, in my opinion.  If that was the case, the rule would be more definite on it.  It allows the committee some leeway for using their judgement.  Armchair umpires can make all the noise they want, no matter what their past experiences are, but it's still up to the committee. 

What makes it a serious breach, IMO, is that the ball was going to go to a significantly different location on the golf course, to a place where Phil said he had "no shot" and his only other option was to re-play the shot he just putted off the green.

He didn't stop a ball or putt a moving ball that was only going to go a few more inches.

[Fourputt]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

You don't know that he wouldn't have taken eight putts from there, so you can't say he's "actually" punished more harshly. Nor can you say that if he had let the ball go and played from there, he'd get down in fewer than he did.

What makes it a serious breach, IMO, is that the ball was going to go to a significantly different location on the golf course, to a place where Phil said he had "no shot" and his only other option was to re-play the shot he just putted off the green.

He didn't stop a ball or putt a moving ball that was only going to go a few more inches.

Somehow we always seem to be on opposite sides in these debates.  If I'm arguing for the stiffer penalty you go for the lighter punishment most of the time.  Now I can't see any reason to DQ the player, yet you want to lop off his head.  I guess we will just have to leave it to guys who were actually there and had to make the decision.  I think they were right. 

[David in FL]

I believe that the rules, as written adequately cover the matter.

[David in FL]

19 hours ago, iacas said:

You don't know that he wouldn't have taken eight putts from there, so you can't say he's "actually" punished more harshly. Nor can you say that if he had let the ball go and played from there, he'd get down in fewer than he did.

What makes it a serious breach, IMO, is that the ball was going to go to a significantly different location on the golf course, to a place where Phil said he had "no shot" and his only other option was to re-play the shot he just putted off the green.

He didn't stop a ball or putt a moving ball that was only going to go a few more inches.

Although I think the rules are fine as written, I’ve changed my mind with respect to Phil.

It seems to me that his actions gave him a significant advantage over what he would have had had he not breached the rule.  As such it qualifies as a serious breach and should have resulted in DQ.

[iacas]

8 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Somehow we always seem to be on opposite sides in these debates.  If I'm arguing for the stiffer penalty you go for the lighter punishment most of the time.  Now I can't see any reason to DQ the player, yet you want to lop off his head.  I guess we will just have to leave it to guys who were actually there and had to make the decision.  I think they were right. 

I don't think they were. I don't think 14-5 was written to deal with someone intentionally doing what Phil did. I think it was a 1-2 issue. I don't think Mike Davis was clear in his explanations (saying that if someone stopped the ball from going OB, that would be a DQ under 1-2… but again, what if they "made a stroke" in doing so?), and I don't think the penalty was absolutely at least equal to the worst that Phil could have scored had he not incurred it - thus I think he could have gotten an advantage by breaching the rules.

5 hours ago, David in FL said:

I believe that the rules, as written adequately cover the matter.

You changed your mind a few hours later?

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I don't think they were. I don't think 14-5 was written to deal with someone intentionally doing what Phil did. I think it was a 1-2 issue. I don't think Mike Davis was clear in his explanations (saying that if someone stopped the ball from going OB, that would be a DQ under 1-2… but again, what if they "made a stroke" in doing so?), and I don't think the penalty was absolutely at least equal to the worst that Phil could have scored had he not incurred it - thus I think he could have gotten an advantage by breaching the rules.

You changed your mind a few hours later?

I believe the rules are fine, as written.  I changed my mind as to how they apply to Phil’s unique situation.

[Aflighter]

On 6/20/2018 at 6:28 PM, Fourputt said:

My opinion:  In this case, Phil could actually have replayed the shot under stroke and distance, ensuring that the second time he didn't hit the ball as hard, thus escaping with just a one stroke penalty.  Since he incurred 2 strokes for playing a stroke at a ball in motion, he was actually being punished more harshly, thus DQ is unwarranted.  It's something of a judgement call, but the rule does not require DQ. 

Just because it was intentional, that doesn't automatically make it a serious breach, in my opinion.  If that was the case, the rule would be more definite on it.  It allows the committee some leeway for using their judgement.  Armchair umpires can make all the noise they want, no matter what their past experiences are, but it's still up to the committee. 

Thank You.That's why there isn't a DQ and just 2 strokes because they already have the unplayable rule in place which should keep anyone from doing what Phil did.Phil punished himself in the end because he was done.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

Thank You.That's why there isn't a DQ and just 2 strokes because they already have the unplayable rule in place which should keep anyone from doing what Phil did.Phil punished himself in the end because he was done.

No. The unplayable clearly didn’t keep Phil from doing it, nor can you declare your ball unplayable when it’s in a WH or OB.

[Aflighter]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

No. The unplayable clearly didn’t keep Phil from doing it, nor can you declare your ball unplayable when it’s in a WH or OB.

?????Sorry they already said he could've declared unplayable and reputted with stroke penalty therefore not having to stop ball in first place from rolling off green.Also even if it would have rolled off and headed to OB beside green then he would still be able to repute from last position.The water hazard is where he couldn't cause he would have to drop it from where it went in I believe with stroke.

Edited June 23, 2018 by Aflighter

[iacas]

Read what you and I both wrote man.

Why do people who don’t know the Rules comment on them so frequently?

[Aflighter]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

Read what you and I both wrote man.

Why do people who don’t know the Rules comment on them so frequently?

Ok I guess your right and everyone else is wrong.Its all good.You tell me.If Phil doesn't stop his putt then what are his next options after its come to rest behind bunker like he said it would?