Phil Mickelson Rule

[fishgolf]

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. 

[MrGolfguy67]

I'm sure the powers that be will take it under serious consideration.

[Vinsk]

I think ‘intentionally’ needs to be there. If another player gets hit by a moving ball he is clearly the cause of the deflection but certainly doesn’t warrant DQ. Basically I’m trying to exclude moments of clutziness that may not occur on the tour but happens on munis. 

I hope I didn’t complicate this. I do think that if a player intentionally breaks a rule with the hopes of gaining advantage..DQ.

[Patch]

I voted "no" because PM has already got away with not being DQ'd. Why DQ someone else after the fact?

Now, if other players start using what PM did, on a semi regular basis, to possibly save themselves strokes, then I probably would change my current opinion. 

[Vinsk]

1 minute ago, Patch said:

I voted "no" because PM has already got away with not being DQ'd. Why DQ someone else after the fact?

Now, if other players start using what PM did, on a semi regular basis, to possibly save themselves strokes, then I probably would change my current opinion. 

Yeah ..kinda like..’back stopping.?

[DeadMan]

Yes, I think so. I think they can just add to Rule 14-5 that a serious breach will result in disqualification, like there is in Rule 20-7. Pretty simple fix.

[Moxley]

No, the rules have this covered, they can decide whether it's a 14-5 or a 33-7. I think 33-7 is more appropriate than 1-2. 

In the PM case, I think a warning under 33-7 and 2 strokes under 14-5 is reasonable, just as Dq under 33-7 would have been too. I lean towards a warning & 2 stroke penalty because I think he only harmed himself in the protest, but I respect the view others have expressed that it was serious enough for Dq too. Either way, they considered Dq and decided against, so I don't see why amendments are needed. 

@fishgolf , I don't really get why this is unfair to other competitors, he gained no advantage, and regardless of where the ball ended up, he'd have been better off taking an unplayable than doing what he did. What he did cost him strokes to the benefit of other players. 

[boogielicious]

8 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Yes, I think so. I think they can just add to Rule 14-5 that a serious breach will result in disqualification, like there is in Rule 20-7. Pretty simple fix.

Agree. Phil had clear intent. Revise the rule to state that clear intent should result in a DQ. To me, it is similar to improving your lie when no one is watching and trying to get away with it. 

The out is already in the rules with the "unplayable" provision. There was no need for PM to do this.

[krupa]

I voted no for two reasons.

1. Rule 33-7 already says "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." so the rules already support DQ'ing. In my opinion, the USGA didn't DQ Phil because he's a fan favorite and knew they'd get worse press for the DQ than if they just said "nope, 14-5 applies here."
2. The powers-that-be need to stop quickly adding/changing rules in the aftermath of a controversial/high-profile events.

 

[Groucho Valentine]

No. I don't think you should get into legislating whats in a players head. Its just a knee-jerk reaction to something that may not happen again for 20 years.

[rehmwa]

11 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I think ‘intentionally’ needs to be there. If another player gets hit by a moving ball he is clearly the cause of the deflection but certainly doesn’t warrant DQ. Basically I’m trying to exclude moments of clutziness that may not occur on the tour but happens on munis. 

I hope I didn’t complicate this. I do think that if a player intentionally breaks a rule with the hopes of gaining advantage..DQ.

 

(the title of the thread was essentially affecting your own ball, not another's....but I'd rather consider any ball in motion as you did here)

I agree with what you mean, but I'd want to remove "intent" from any rule.  The list of exceptions should be very specific rather than put in an intent statement in the basic rule.  They already include exceptions for double hit, ball falling from tee, etc...

Edited June 20, 2018 by rehmwa

[jamo]

I voted no because, as people have noted in this thread and in the other, the Rules seem to already allow for him to be DQ'd.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, krupa said:

The powers-that-be need to stop quickly adding/changing rules in the aftermath of a controversial/high-profile events.

That’s a good time to do it when they highlight a hole in the Rules.

1 hour ago, Groucho Valentine said:

No. I don't think you should get into legislating whats in a players head.

Phil’s actions didn’t require mind reading.

[FlappyGilmore]

1 hour ago, krupa said:

I voted no for two reasons.

1. Rule 33-7 already says "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." so the rules already support DQ'ing. In my opinion, the USGA didn't DQ Phil because he's a fan favorite and knew they'd get worse press for the DQ than if they just said "nope, 14-5 applies here."
2. The powers-that-be need to stop quickly adding/changing rules in the aftermath of a controversial/high-profile events.

 

1. I guess we have established that the application of the current rule will not be applied fairly to all players. Purposefully hitting your ball while it is still in motion due to a stroke should have a pretty cut and dry penalty.

2. No, now would be a great time to change it.

[krupa]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

That’s a good time to do it when they highlight a hole in the Rules.

True but my argument against that is in the immediate aftermath of a high-profile infraction (e.g., DJ's accidental ball movement a couple years back) do they have the correct perspective to make the best change?

[FlappyGilmore]

2 minutes ago, krupa said:

True but my argument against that is in the immediate aftermath of a high-profile infraction (e.g., DJ's accidental ball movement a couple years back) do they have the correct perspective to make the best change?

In Phil's case, yes.

[krupa]

36 minutes ago, FlappyGilmore said:

1. I guess we have established that the application of the current rule will not be applied fairly to all players. Purposefully hitting your ball while it is still in motion due to a stroke should have a pretty cut and dry penalty.

There are clearly defined penalties for 1-2 and 14-5 (the two rules that could have applied to Phil). In my opinion, purposefully breaking any rule is a breach of etiquette and we don't need a new rule to address that.

37 minutes ago, FlappyGilmore said:

In Phil's case, yes.

I disagree. There is enough being made about this in the press and social media that I don't believe the rules-makers wouldn't be influenced by it all.

Document it now and work it into the next rules-review cycle.

[FlappyGilmore]

21 minutes ago, krupa said:

There are clearly defined penalties for 1-2 and 14-5 (the two rules that could have applied to Phil). In my opinion, purposefully breaking any rule is a breach of etiquette and we don't need a new rule to address that.

I disagree. There is enough being made about this in the press and social media that I don't believe the rules-makers wouldn't be influenced by it all.

Document it now and work it into the next rules-review cycle.

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?