FlappyGilmore

If you are mid swing and a sprinkler unexpectedly turns on and blasts you causing a whiff do you get relief? Do you get a unpenalized redo or nah?

Were you practicing your swing and knocked down a chandelier? Did a ball go flying and break your TV? Did someone sneak up on your and you whacked them in the face?

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.

People saying the committee is wrong.

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?

In Phil's case, yes.

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.

If accepting a stroke penalty for declaring a ball unplayable is within the rules of golf, but accepting a 2 stroke penalty for hitting a moving ball is not consider the same, the USGA needs to refine the language they use when writing the rules. If an act is within the rules of the game, why are you being applied a penalty stroke?

"Oh no, not again!"

are the 2 situations really that different in terms of intent and application of penalty strokes?

I think taking a shot towards the hole is slightly different than deflecting it to gain a better lie.

Sure he can have an opinion on the matter, he is no longer part of the USGA so all he has in an opinion. But, the USGA as a organization decided it was just a penalty. He even said he would have probably lost his lobbying point.

If it is right there how come the people IN CHARGE OF THE RULES OF THE GAME did not see it that way? Firstly, Phil did not stop his ball from entering a hazard. Secondly, the rule states the officials should take into consideration all aspects of the incident. Seems like they felt applying the 2 stroke penalty was good enough. You post this as if there has never been a putt where the optimal path to the hole is a break greater than 90 degrees.

If the rule is so vague that USGA officials don't think it requires a DQing, maybe the rule needs to be changed or a rule added stating, "If a player makes contact with a golf ball in motion in an attempt to better the lie, he shall be DQed." or "The golfer may not touch a ball that has been putted until it is at rest." The game has existed for how long? It shouldn't be hard to put those rules on the books.

I'd be too impressed that a fart had enough force to move a golf ball than anything.