turtleback

What Phil did had nothing to do with 'rulebook'. And using the rules properly to your advantage is not violating the spirit of the game. Good contribution.

And how many times was Tiger's stuff brought up even after he apologized AND subjected himself to a humiliating presser about his private life (NOT anything golf) and it is STILL brought up here - even in this very thread?

What a jerk he was for playing by the rules. Just because you don't seem to understand the rules doesn't mean he broke them. For me it is after he takes questions about it at his next tourney presser if he implicitly or explicitly denounces that whole BS, 'I knew what the penalty was and I'm so smart' line and sincerely apologizes to the golf world in person, not a tweet or having a reporter report it.

I agree. For something to be cheating there has to be an element of deception and trying to get away with something. This was just a blatant disregard of the rules, but with no intent to conceal anything. It was the blatant nature of what he did which should have gotten him DQed under 33-7, IMO. I hope the player behavior provisions under the new rules addresses this better.

I am willing to give him a provisional pass, subject to him being willing to address the issue at the next tournament he plays in at a presser, and if he is honest in what he says there. It would also be good for him as preparation for the inevitable grilling to which he will be put at the British Open.

While I don't fully agree with the sentiment you espouse, I kind of admire the passion and eloquence with which you present it.

You just can't help yourself, can you? I just hope you don't end up playing the "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?" card. LOL The problem with this 'message' theory is that it is contradicted by every (lying) word that came out of his mouth, afterwards. Jack would have loved anyone feeling they had a message to send. He always said that during a major, when he heard someone grumbling about the course, he always figured that THAT was someone he didn't have to worry about, that week.

Show your work. Because I don't think you have a clue what the words 'proven fact' mean.

And it wasn't just the lie, it was the fact that it was such an OBVIOUS lie. He disrespected the game on the course and then insulted the intelligence of the fans with the obvious lie. A modicum of contrition the next day would have gone a long way towards smoothing things over, but doubling down on lying and wisea$$ery will give this very very long legs. And someone should give the USGA a slab of steak to put on the black eye they gave themselves. IMO 33-7 gives them every justification to DQ him. It is hard to come up with a more exceptionally egregious breach of the rules. If this doesn't constitute an 'exceptional individual case' I can't imagine what would. His character is implicated by his bald faced lie about the situation.

You are making too big a deal over Phil making a travesty of the game and then lying through his teeth about it. Even those who minimize the initial offense have admitted his stated reason was BS and a lie. Why would he lie? Because he realized how bad this would look but rather than just admitting the truth he decided to brazen it out. Like you I have softened towards Phil in recent years and argued for him as being #3 behind Tiger & Jack. I wonder how those who use Tiger's failings against him in the rankings will take this faux pas by Phil into account.

It's not the act that is so damning, it is the lying cover-up.

1) If Phil is so smart why did he take the option that cost him an additional stroke? Stroke and distance would have cost him 2 strokes. What he did cost him 3 strokes - the one at the moving ball and the 2 penalty strokes. So much for his claim that he was somehow strategically using the rules to his advantage. 2) There is a big difference between a penalty stroke for an illegal action, and 'paying' a stroke in order avail yourself of a relief provision in the rules. 3) Phil won over the NY crowd when the Open was first played at Bethpage. It will be very interesting to see how they react today. 4) If he had a 3 stroke lead would he have done that? No. So much for his 'I didn't do it out of frustration' statement. He did it because he knew it made no difference to his competitive situation beyond costing him a few thousand bucks in prize money. The act was bad with horrible optics but that isn't the worst part of it. His explanation and his excuses, unless he recants, apologizes, and withdraws will be a permanent tarnish on his career and his character. It also has tarnished the US Open and the USGA. Remember back in the Masters kerfuffle with Tiger they first ruled in his favor, but then changed based on his comments afterwards. The same should happen here, as Phil's comment that he was preventing the ball from rolling into a difficult place is no different than the well understood situation of stopping a ball from going into a hazard. They also ignore their own footnote under 14-5 where it refers to 1-2 - "(Ball purposely deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie – see Rule 1-2). 'Purposely' seems to be the key, there, and his action was clearly purposeful. Is it out of character, or is it letting the mask slip? His excuses and explanations make me think the latter. But he claimed he was strategically using the rules to his advantage, while there was a controversy-free option available to him that would have cost him one fewer strokes.

And back in the day people thought Jack relied too much on the pre-measured yardages in his yardage book. Times change, practices change, but human nature stays the same. I think most players would rather win 13 majors with a caddie who is not inconspicuous than not win any with a Casper Milquetoast.

Which is why I don't use strength of field in my arguments in the Jack v Tiger thread. His accomplishments are unprecedented in so many ways and to such a degree that it is clear to anyone who looks at the data even remotely objectively thathe is the outlieingest outlieer golf has ever seen. Right before Tiger burst onto the pro scene Jack opined that the era of the superstar in golf was over - and he made darned good arguments. And then Tiger happened.

Yes. But not over and over and over again. Which is what would have had to happen. Insisting on proof of something this obvious, when you are positing things that you have not only not proven, but which don't meet the basic common sense test isn't making anyone angry - it just makes us dismiss a discredited argument. And I didn't say what you are saying at all. That you think I have just means you aren't paying attention to what I've said at all. Particularly when you bring up scoring averages, which are completely irrelevant to the whole discussion. Because it informs our judgement on how to slot Tiger's contemporaries in the all-time pantheon.