Mickleson 2_shot or DQ?

[duncan mackie]

My last post on this thread.

What is the difference between knowingly and deliberately -
1. Making a stroke at a moving ball for a designated penalty of 2 additional strokes
2. Picking up your ball and replacing it from where you played your previous stroke for a penaltynof 1 additional stroke
3. Electing to replay your shot for a penalty of 1 additional stroke when you consider that it it could be a better option than finding your first stroke

Note, all are expressly covered in the rules and the penalty designated, so it's not that bit....but for some reason I can't fathom people who would do 2 of the 3 without blinking, and be mortified if someone suggested they were cheating, are referencing cheating in respect of one of these.

Weird.

 

[Foxholer]

...

What is the difference between knowingly and deliberately -
1. Making a stroke at a moving ball for a designated penalty of 2 additional strokes
2. Picking up your ball and replacing it from where you played your previous stroke for a penaltynof 1 additional stroke
3. Electing to replay your shot for a penalty of 1 additional stroke when you consider that it it could be a better option than finding your first stroke

Note, all are expressly covered in the rules and the penalty designated, so it's not that bit....but for some reason I can't fathom people who would do 2 of the 3 without blinking, and be mortified if someone suggested they were cheating, are referencing cheating in respect of one of these.

Weird.

:thup:

The only Rule that provides for DQ for 'Exerting Influence on Movement of Ball....' (1-2) specifically excludes its use if another Rule applies - which it does (14-5)!

 

[dewsweeper]

Lucky it was not Tiger Woods that did this, certain of our group may well have had a heart attack.

 

[GeeJay]

My last post on this thread.

What is the difference between knowingly and deliberately -
1. Making a stroke at a moving ball for a designated penalty of 2 additional strokes
2. Picking up your ball and replacing it from where you played your previous stroke for a penaltynof 1 additional stroke
3. Electing to replay your shot for a penalty of 1 additional stroke when you consider that it it could be a better option than finding your first stroke

Note, all are expressly covered in the rules and the penalty designated, so it's not that bit....but for some reason I can't fathom people who would do 2 of the 3 without blinking, and be mortified if someone suggested they were cheating, are referencing cheating in respect of one of these.

Weird.

That's a good point.

 

[woofers]

I would have thought the second part of the answer in decision 1-2 5.5 covers it, although I'd also like to know in this context what would be considered a 'serious breach'.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Did he say that he had cheated?

By my definition of cheating - which includes knowing/hoping that his infraction won't be noticed/penalised - he didn't! The integrity of deciding to actually do what he did, on the other, hand, is ill-considered - a term that covers both his action and the (2 shot versus 1 shot (for subsequent ball being 'unplayable') penalty for doing what he did!

The dictionery definition I looked at defines cheating as: "acting dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage". He said he knew the rules and deliberately decided to break them so I think that makes him a cheat.

My real worry is the precident - if it goes unpunished then in future anyone can use the excuse "well Phil did it!"

Next step is the equivalent of "professional" fouls in football being used in golf

 

[Deleted member 15344]

For me he should be DQ Under Rule 2-1 , his actions where deliberate and it was to try and gain and advantage ( limit the damage ) , he knew that the ball was going to end up going down to below the bunker giving him another impossible shot and by hitting the ball he stopped it doing that.

He knew exactly what he was doing and if the USGA had any nuts about them they should have DQ’d him but just like Woods at Augusta they aren’t going to DQ the top players when there is a cop out for them to grab

 

[Foxholer]

The dictionery definition I looked at defines cheating as: "acting dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage". He said he knew the rules and deliberately decided to break them so I think that makes him a cheat.
...

Not imo! It merely makes him a Rule-Breaker!

He didn't act 'dishonestly', nor 'unfairly'! He broke a Rule. If that makes him a cheat, the you'd have to call who breaks a Rule a cheat, as 'knowingly' is irrelevant to The Rules!

The difference between Golf and many other sports/games is that Golfers are expected to call any breach of the Rules they make. In other sports/games, it's quite legitimate to not do so! If a Golfer doesn't call a breach they know they've made, that's when they become a cheat. That's certainly not something to this case!

 

[Foxholer]

For me he should be DQ Under Rule 2-1...

Rule 2.1 is about Matchplay! Presumably you really mean 1.2! However, that Rule specifically excludes its use if a situation covered by another Rule (in this case 14-5) applies!

Exceptions:
1. An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not Rule 1-2.

 

[Jacko_G]

Deliberate action to break the rules of golf in order to gain an advantage. DQ all day long. Sets an awful precedent for the game and a bad example to anyone watching.

As mentioned he could have simply placed another ball as near as possible to his original and repeated the putt under a penalty of one stroke.

This.

Maybe if the players boycott entry into next year's US Open or state that they're not playing until they agree to set up the course fairly.

I'm all for challenging the Pro's and enjoy seeing them struggling but at least make it a sporting challenge and fair.

 

[woofers]

Rule 2.1 is about Matchplay! Presumably you really mean 1.2! However, that Rule specifically excludes its use if a situation covered by another Rule (in this case 14-5) applies!

Exceptions:
1. An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not Rule 1-2.

Except Rule 14-5 includes -

(Ball purposely deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie – see Rule 1-2)

 

[TH63]

In my opinion there is a world of difference in accidentally picking up a penalty through the normal course of play - going ob, unplayable lie, accidentally moving your ball etc and what Mickelson did.
He cheated. Made a conscious decision to do it.
if he had any integrity he’d withdraw.

What’s next?
Sending your caddy up to the green on 12 at Augusta to catch your ball if it starts rolling back to the water?

 

[Hobbit]

In my opinion there is a world of difference in accidentally picking up a penalty through the normal course of play - going ob, unplayable lie, accidentally moving your ball etc and what Mickelson did.
He cheated. Made a conscious decision to do it.
if he had any integrity he’d withdraw.

What’s next?
Sending your caddy up to the green on 12 at Augusta to catch your ball if it starts rolling back to the water?

100% agree. He knowingly knew he was breaking a rule. Having options dropping from a path may well be, as some have said, using a rule to their advantage.

But knowingly breaking a rule?! People can argue it any way they want but in my eyes he cheated.

 

[Foxholer]

Except Rule 14-5 includes -

(Ball purposely deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie – see Rule 1-2)

Which doesn't apply here! He made a stroke at it! It wasn't 'purposely deflected or stopped by player....'! Had he stepped on it, or kicked it back, then that exception would have applied. Otherwise there would be no instance where the body of 14-5 would apply, without the exception you refer to also applying (whether deliberate or not!)!

 

[TH63]

Which doesn't apply here! He made a stroke at it! It wasn't 'purposely deflected or stopped by player....'! Had he stepped on it, or kicked it back, then that exception would have applied. Otherwise there would be no instance where the body of 14-5 would apply, without the exception you refer to also applying (whether deliberate or not!)!

If he’d left it short, and in frustration hit it again while it was still moving, I’d agree.

but this was a deliberate attempt to deflect the path of the ball.

i agree it’s debatable but against the etiquette of the game imho

 

[Pin-seeker]

100% agree. He knowingly knew he was breaking a rule. Having options dropping from a path may well be, as some have said, using a rule to their advantage.

But knowingly breaking a rule?! People can argue it any way they want but in my eyes he cheated.

Of course he cheated,and anyone that says otherwise is an idiot.

 

[bobmac]

Of course he cheated,and anyone that says otherwise is an idiot.

So he's the same as the guy who loses his ball in the rough and drops another down his trouser leg, or the guy who kicks his ball into a better lie in the rough or the guy who rolls his ball out of its plug mark in a bunker?

 

[Pin-seeker]

So he's the same as the guy who loses his ball in the rough and drops another down his trouser leg, or the guy who kicks his ball into a better lie in the rough or the guy who rolls his ball out of its plug mark in a bunker?

You been in the sauce bob?

Where have I said he’s the same as those guys/girls?

 

[bobmac]

You been in the sauce bob?

Where have I said he’s the same as those guys/girls?

You said he was a cheat.
Are the examples I gave not cheats ?

 

[Foxholer]

You been in the sauce bob?

Where have I said he’s the same as those guys/girls?

I think the Question Mark at the end of Bob's post indicates something!