Mickleson 2_shot or DQ?

[Deleted member 15344]

I think he would have had a better score. As it was, he had the alledged putt that knocked the ball back, the putt he holed, and the two shot penalty, so 4 shots.
If he had dropped under stroke and distance, 1 shot, and then anything better than a 3 putt, on a line he has just seen. His first putt was aggressive too, so he could have dribbled it down, tapped in and saved a shot.

#worstcheatintheworld.

I actually think he knew exactly where that ball would finish up and that was in an awful position in front of the bunker that would easily have ended up with a lot more than he got so he took the two shots

 

[USER1999]

I actually think he knew exactly where that ball would finish up and that was in an awful position in front of the bunker that would easily have ended up with a lot more than he got so he took the two shots

But he could still have taken stroke and distance, and put it back under a one shot penalty.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

I don't believe he was cheating, it was just petulance.

I also find it hard to imagine a scenario where being in breach of this rule gives a better answer for the player than simply going back to the site of the previous shot at cost of one penalty stroke.

On the basis I don't consider there to have been a dangerous precedent set, I don't think there was a need to DQ him.

However, had they done so, it would have been difficult to argue with. At best it was poor sportsmanship and petulance, and not in the spirit of the game, which we all know is based on playing the ball as it lies.

If he'd come out and, in my view told the truth, saying he was frustrated with the ridiculous pin positions and speed of the greens, and lost his rag and just wanted to get out of there, I suspect most would have had some sympathy for him. It would also have put the lense more intensely on the way the USGA have managed the tournament. Really, it's his post round interview that digs him into a deeper hole than he needed to be in.

 

[Foxholer]

You’re right, you do not apply a sanction beyond what the rules state. It then comes down to was Mickleson’s deliberate act a serious breach of the rule. The exception, covered by rule 1-2 states that a committee can DQ a player if they feel it’s a serious breach.

For me, a deliberate breach of a rule is serious enough for a DQ.

You need to read Rule 1-2 again then!

But to clarify...

The Exception in Rule 1-2 (about another Rule applying) specifically excludes 1-2 applying!

'Serious Breach' is defined in Note 1 - and would not, of itself, apply to Mickelson's action even if 1-2 was applicable!

 

[r0wly86]

Has a precedent now been set? Does golf work that way or is it down to the rules officials at each comp?

Plenty of examples have been given, Westwood posted a question relating to a ball about to go into the water at Augusta and can you now run around and keep it in play? Can players point to this ruling and officials have to copy it?

If anything what PM has done will just bring this loophole to the attention of the rule makers and it will be altered. Like any rule or law they have to evolve as it is interpreted in different ways or manipulated to what the rule makers wanted.

They very well may add in a addendum to the rule that says deliberately hitting a moving ball is a DQ then that's it no more issue

 

[Canary_Yellow]

If anything what PM has done will just bring this loophole to the attention of the rule makers and it will be altered. Like any rule or law they have to evolve as it is interpreted in different ways or manipulated to what the rule makers wanted.

They very well may add in a addendum to the rule that says deliberately hitting a moving ball is a DQ then that's it no more issue

What scenarios have been suggested where this approach gives a better outcome than simply going back to the where the first shot was played at the cost of a stroke?

I just can't see it, perhaps I lack imagination!

Realistically, hitting a moving ball like this could only arise when putting or chipping from close range as otherwise the player wouldn't be able to get to the ball before the disaster they are trying to avoid occurs.

I think the only one I can think of is where the player is able to tap the ball in the hole, where it would otherwise run off into water.

 

[r0wly86]

What scenarios have been suggested where this approach gives a better outcome than simply going back to the where the first shot was played at the cost of a stroke?

I just can't see it, perhaps I lack imagination!

Realistically, hitting a moving ball like this could only arise when putting or chipping from close range as otherwise the player wouldn't be able to get to the ball before the disaster they are trying to avoid occurs.

I think the only one I can think of is where the player is able to tap the ball in the hole, where it would otherwise run off into water.

But for the addition of a simple addendum it would solve the problem once and for all and take out any potential grey area.

Once example I could think off would be hitting over a large lake the ball is nestled on the bank on the green side. As the player arrives to his ball, the ball starts to move again and will end up rolling in to the water, so the player already with club in hand quickly chips the ball onto the green. 2 shot penalty, or a 1 shot penalty and having to play his next shot from the other side of the large lake.

But as I say just a simple addendum and debates like this cease

 

[garyinderry]

Its probably intended to stop people hitting the ball once then walking along side and continuing to keep it in motion.

Or as mentioned a ball running back down a slope.


What Phil did was within the rules but it was plain daft and should be completely outlawed. Makes a nonsense out of the game.

 

[backwoodsman]

You need to read Rule 1-2 again then!

But to clarify...

The Exception in Rule 1-2 (about another Rule applying) specifically excludes 1-2 applying!

'Serious Breach' is defined in Note 1 - and would not, of itself, apply to Mickelson's action even if 1-2 was applicable!

I offer the following, claiming to be neither right nor wrong, but l find it odd that 14-5 (as indeed does 19-2) makes specific reference to "Ball purposely deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie" and refers one to rule 1-2. Ie, the content of one rule refers to a second rule but then the second rules states, "ah, but no, l am excluded from being applicable..." And, in any case, is it not possible to purposely deflect or stop a ball by making a stroke at it? I perceive a difference in the purpose of making a stroke at a ball (whether moving or not) in order to set the ball on a (presumably desirable) trajectory - as opposed to stopping a ball from continuing on an existing (presumably undesirable) trajectory

 

[Canary_Yellow]

But for the addition of a simple addendum it would solve the problem once and for all and take out any potential grey area.

Once example I could think off would be hitting over a large lake the ball is nestled on the bank on the green side. As the player arrives to his ball, the ball starts to move again and will end up rolling in to the water, so the player already with club in hand quickly chips the ball onto the green. 2 shot penalty, or a 1 shot penalty and having to play his next shot from the other side of the large lake.

But as I say just a simple addendum and debates like this cease

That is quite an extreme example, wouldn't that be a serious breach of rule 1-2 and a DQ anyway? Perhaps adding some explanatory examples to the rule of what might constitute a "significant advantage" in the context of a serious breach would suffice.

I don't think the rule needs to be that deliberately hitting a moving ball is a DQ, but I do agree there could be some further clarity on what constitutes a "significant advantage".

 

[pogle]

With all this talk of the rules need to be changed etc, it's worth looking forward to 1st Jan when the rule for making a stroke at a moving ball has been removed and the situation would be dealt with under the "person stops or deflects the ball" rule. Under the new rules the player will get a two stroke penalty, but for a deliberate breach, the spot where the ball would have ended up will have to be estimated and a ball dropped at that spot. Hence, a two stroke penalty for no advantage.

 

[pogle]

A point I made elsewhere is that the ruling bodies have stated that there is an assumption that players act with integrity and honesty and therefore requirements to allow a fellow competitor to observe when a player lifts his ball to identify it or to decide whether a ball is unfit for play have been removed.

We had the Jimmy Walker admission that he'll leave his ball close to the pin when his mates are chipping, but will lift it when he's playing with people he doesn't like and now this.

I wonder how the USGA and R&A feel now. One bad apple and all that ....

 

[Sports_Fanatic]

But he could still have taken stroke and distance, and put it back under a one shot penalty.

But you're making an assumption on the outcome there. Yes he could take it back stroke and distance, but then you've assumed he won't make the mistake again. I'm guessing he wouldn't but these aren't normal greens and he's clearly in a position where he's lost his head. He could easily hit it too hard or catch the edge of the cup and swerve out down a slope. Arguably Phil thought this was a real possibility as paraphrasing his words "he knew the rules and used them to his advantage", if he does he's considered your option risky.

I think Westwood's masters example with the downhill chip over a fast green to water is the one that is effectively the same scenario but would cause a real issue if same ruling.

Just to add to that point, pro's replaying a shot doesn't always result in the perfect outcome. Plenty down the line, with Sergio at the Masters putting 3 or 4 in the water from the same spot - yes longer shot, but still demonstrates the point. End of the day, 20 odd players don't know whether or not they would have finished higher than Phil had he let it roll and taken the shot as etiquette dictates and have potentially lost money and ranking points as a result.

But it's done now, looking at twitter, some thought it awesome, others consider him a cheat, he'll live with it for the next tournament and then it's probably forgotten about.

 

[Blakey]

Does it make a difference that he wasn't in contention, both in his decision to play a moving ball, and also the penalty that was given?

if he was leading by 4 strokes i doubt he would have done it, and if he did I also think the penalty would have be DQ,

At least it was resolved on the course straight away and their wasn't a repeat of the DJ situation when he had to play on for a few holes not knowing if he was to be penalised.

 

[Sports_Fanatic]

Does it make a difference that he wasn't in contention, both in his decision to play a moving ball, and also the penalty that was given?

if he was leading by 4 strokes i doubt he would have done it, and if he did I also think the penalty would have be DQ,

At least it was resolved on the course straight away and their wasn't a repeat of the DJ situation when he had to play on for a few holes not knowing if he was to be penalised.

I hope not. For me, no difference or you're getting very arbitrary. Do you not penalise people who aren't leading in the second round but what happens if they then come through the field on the weekend to win? Would you retrospectively penalise at that point and DQ for winning.

What's the bit on material advantage - winning only, significant money, ranking points etc - it just becomes too hard.

Luckily I doubt it's going to happen particularly in the future so probably a mute point on this one.

 

[Orikoru]

I hope not. For me, no difference or you're getting very arbitrary. Do you not penalise people who aren't leading in the second round but what happens if they then come through the field on the weekend to win? Would you retrospectively penalise at that point and DQ for winning.

What's the bit on material advantage - winning only, significant money, ranking points etc - it just becomes too hard.

Luckily I doubt it's going to happen particularly in the future so probably a mute point on this one.

Of course the penalty would be the same. They can't DQ him just because he was leading when he did it, if the rules don't say that the punishment for that offence is DQ. As I said earlier, you can't make it up as you go along. The punishment is 2 shots, so that's what they did.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I don't really have an issue with what Mickelson did. No way was it cheating, it was just frustration. Let's be honest, I expect pretty much everyone on this forum has at some time had a shocker and then knocked their ball away in disgust instead of holing out.

 

[Foxholer]

I offer the following, claiming to be neither right nor wrong, but l find it odd that 14-5 (as indeed does 19-2) makes specific reference to "Ball purposely deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie" and refers one to rule 1-2. Ie, the content of one rule refers to a second rule but then the second rules states, "ah, but no, l am excluded from being applicable..." And, in any case, is it not possible to purposely deflect or stop a ball by making a stroke at it? I perceive a difference in the purpose of making a stroke at a ball (whether moving or not) in order to set the ball on a (presumably desirable) trajectory - as opposed to stopping a ball from continuing on an existing (presumably undesirable) trajectory

That's the way I see it too!

Had PM kicked it back or not made a stroke as defined in RoG (say, simply stopping the ball with his putter), then 1-2 would apply and, I believe, would have been subject to a DQ - under the Serious Breach portion of 1-2!

 

[Sports_Fanatic]

Of course the penalty would be the same. They can't DQ him just because he was leading when he did it, if the rules don't say that the punishment for that offence is DQ. As I said earlier, you can't make it up as you go along. The punishment is 2 shots, so that's what they did.

I’m not a rules official so don’t know, I was merely responding to Blakey asking whether being out of contention changes the penalty which I agree it should not.

On the actual penalty of whether DQ was an option, then this links seems to run through locigally. I know journalists aren’t always correct but I’m struggling to see a floor in the workings that DQ wasn’t an option. Can you explain which bit of the rules in the article is incorrect? (Apologies GM for referencing a rival but they’re overseas)

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/us...-got-it-wrong-when-it-didnt-dq-phil-mickelson

 

[Blakey]

Maybe i didn't make my point clear.

What he did was in my opinion an act of petulance, had he been in contention and done the same it could be interpreted differently and seen as trying to gain an advantage by breaking the rules.