Phil Mickelson Rule

[arturo28mx]

Even in a water hazard you can go back and hit again from the last position with one shot penalty.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Aflighter said:

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?

You said "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" and that's not accurate.

It didn't stop PHIL from doing it.

And if your ball is in a position from which you're absolutely toast (for example there was no way for Phil to have putted and kept the ball from going into the water unless it hits the back of the hole and pops up), there's still an incentive to just putt it near the hole and then go down and try to tap it in when it's near the hole.

There are other situations where taking the two strokes might be an advantage. There should never be an incentive to breach the rules to gain an actual advantage.

[Fourputt]

14 hours ago, Aflighter said:

?????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.

Water hazard still offers the stroke and distance option, just like the other penalty drop rules.  Aside from that, I agree with what you wrote.  2 strokes was a sufficient penalty for the breach he committed. 

[Vinsk]

31 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

2 strokes was a sufficient penalty for the breach he committed. 

For what the rule was intended for yes. But with what Phil did, who knows? As @iacas has said, the penalty shouldn't give the player an advantage. Again, using a rule is different than intentionally breaking one. For all we know it may have taken Phil a dozen shots to finish the hole had he played it out.

When DJ took that drop at Oakmont US OPEN due to the TV tower blocking his line of flight he got a better lie..then proceeded to fire the ball right over the tower. Perfectly legitimate for using a rule. He didn’t break a rule and get an advantage. 

[Pretzel]

I'm of the opinion that while the rules shouldn't be written to give someone a potential advantage by "gaming" them, you should also make sure to utilize the rules to your full advantage in a tournament if there are rules written poorly. 

Reason being that poorly written rules will be written better if people start to take advantage of it, and you're only doing both yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by intentionally and knowingly raising your score from what it could or should have been under the rules as written.

[Asheville]

What's with the endless parade of critics decrying "stupid " and/or "poorly written" Rules? Yet, they never offer up a solution. Back up the big talk. Go read Tufts and then put pen to paper. 

[iacas]

BTW I may have mentioned it before, but…

Quote

1-2/0.5 - Serious Breach of Rule 1-2

Q.Should the standard for determining whether a serious breach of Rule 1-2 has occurred be the same in match play and stroke play?

A.In deciding whether a player has committed a serious breach of Rule 1-2, the Committee should consider all aspects of the incident. Given the different impact on players in match play and stroke play, it is possible for the same act to constitute a serious breach of Rule 1-2 in stroke play but not in match play. In many cases in match play (e.g., a player who intentionally stops his ball from entering a water hazard), a penalty of loss of hole is sufficient while in stroke play the player should be disqualified for a serious breach. In some cases (e.g., the purposeful act of damaging the line of putt referred to in Decision 1-2/1), a penalty of disqualification in match play may be appropriate.

This is part of what confuses me about the USGA's decision.

Stopping your ball from going into a water hazard is a serious breach warranting a DQ. Not just the two strokes in 1-2 (or 14-5), but a straight out DQ. Given that you can always take stroke and distance from a water hazard (there are other options available, too, which may be less penal), then, I'm not sure why a DQ wasn't imposed.

If the USGA folks who want to stand by the ruling (there are many USGA folks who would have DQed him) are hiding behind 14-5 and the fact that he "made a stroke" instead of kicking it or something instead, then they've got to at least admit that there's an overlap here between 14-5 and 1-2.

What Phil did was the equivalent of "a player who intentionally stops his ball from entering a water hazard" - he said he had "no shot" from where his ball was going to wind up, and yet he chose to take an action that the USGA says should be a DQ, before they turned around and hid behind 14-5 instead (because it was Phil? Because they goofed up on John Daly and didn't think anyone else would be so stupid a to do this in a high-profile situation?).

[boogielicious]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

BTW I may have mentioned it before, but…

This is part of what confuses me about the USGA's decision.

Stopping your ball from going into a water hazard is a serious breach warranting a DQ. Not just the two strokes in 1-2 (or 14-5), but a straight out DQ. Given that you can always take stroke and distance from a water hazard (there are other options available, too, which may be less penal), then, I'm not sure why a DQ wasn't imposed.

If the USGA folks who want to stand by the ruling (there are many USGA folks who would have DQed him) are hiding behind 14-5 and the fact that he "made a stroke" instead of kicking it or something instead, then they've got to at least admit that there's an overlap here between 14-5 and 1-2.

What Phil did was the equivalent of "a player who intentionally stops his ball from entering a water hazard" - he said he had "no shot" from where his ball was going to wind up, and yet he chose to take an action that the USGA says should be a DQ, before they turned around and hid behind 14-5 instead (because it was Phil? Because they goofed up on John Daly and didn't think anyone else would be so stupid a to do this in a high-profile situation?).

I think the precident is was the real issue. They made a mistake before and now it is almost like a decision. They have to admit they made a mistake in both cases to set it straight for future occurrences. It is just like case law.

[bkuehn1952]

I voted "No" but I believe it would have been most appropriate for the US Open Committee to have disqualified Phil.  He flagrantly broke the Rules to gain an advantage.  The penalty has to be more severe than 2 strokes.

[Rulesman]

Apparently, John Daly's case was a precedent case in a USGA ruling. But it was not published as a Decision in the Decision Book.

[Vinsk]

Maybe it’s a technicality in that Daly took a swat at the ball with the club in one hand. It wasn’t really your normal ‘stroke’. Phil did make a normal ‘stroke motion’ if you will. I dunno. But the overlap sure seems to be present here.

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

Maybe it’s a technicality in that Daly took a swat at the ball with the club in one hand. It wasn’t really your normal ‘stroke’. Phil did make a normal ‘stroke motion’ if you will. I dunno. But the overlap sure seems to be present here.

A stroke is defined as "the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at, and moving the ball".  Both JD and Phil equally made a stroke at the ball.

[Vinsk]

1 minute ago, David in FL said:

A stroke is defined as "the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at, and moving the ball".  Both JD and Phil equally made a stroke at the ball.

Well all those things are present in an anchored putt. Which is illegal. And by that, how else would one use a club to deflect a ball headed towards a hazard? It would always be a ‘stroke’ as long as it moves forward?

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, David in FL said:

A stroke is defined as "the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at, and moving the ball".  Both JD and Phil equally made a stroke at the ball.

He also took an action that intentionally deflected the ball.

Like I’ve said several times now David these two rules overlap.

[Martyn W]

On 6/25/2018 at 4:34 PM, David in FL said:

A stroke is defined as "the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at, and moving the ball".  Both JD and Phil equally made a stroke at the ball.

@David in FLThe definition of a stroke used to include 'fairly' From 1996: A 'stroke' is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of fairly striking at and moving the ball.

I wonder why the wording was changed. I don't believe PM's action would fit that definition.

There are also decisions which tell us that a ball struck in anger (or frustration) is not a stroke. 18-2/23 for example:

Q.In stroke play, a competitor's ball stops on the lip of the hole. In disgust the competitor knocks his ball off the green with the back of his putter. What is the ruling?

A.The competitor must replace the ball under penalty of one stroke (Rule 18-2). The competitor is not considered to have made a stroke.

[David in FL]

On 7/1/2018 at 2:50 PM, Martyn W said:

@David in FLThe definition of a stroke used to include 'fairly' From 1996: A 'stroke' is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of fairly striking at and moving the ball.

I wonder why the wording was changed. I don't believe PM's action would fit that definition.

There are also decisions which tell us that a ball struck in anger (or frustration) is not a stroke. 18-2/23 for example:

Q.In stroke play, a competitor's ball stops on the lip of the hole. In disgust the competitor knocks his ball off the green with the back of his putter. What is the ruling?

A.The competitor must replace the ball under penalty of one stroke (Rule 18-2). The competitor is not considered to have made a stroke.

Interesting.  Try to apply that in Phil’s case.  How/where would you “replace” a moving ball?  Given where it was headed, placing it where he struck it under penalty of 1 stroke could have been quite an advantage...

[Martyn W]

7 hours ago, David in FL said:

Interesting.  Try to apply that in Phil’s case.  How/where would you “replace” a moving ball?  Given where it was headed, placing it where he struck it under penalty of 1 stroke could have been quite an advantage...

I quoted the decision to make the case that PM did not make a stroke. If that is the case (as I believe it is), 14-5 cannot apply, meaning 1-2 must.

[Asheville]

45 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

I quoted the decision to make the case that PM did not make a stroke. If that is the case (as I believe it is), 14-5 cannot apply, meaning 1-2 must.

I ruled 1-2 at the time, only to be overridden by those smarty pants on the Committee. :)