Mickleson 2_shot or DQ?

[Bunkermagnet]

Cheating is cheating.
Whether you're Armstrong, Johnson,Lexi T, Little Jimmy using a leather wedge, or PM. If you do something knowing you are breaking the rules to your personal advantage you are cheating.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I missed all the coverage yesterday so just catching up with this. But OMG - it's blatant cheating and he was utterly shameless about it. Should have been a DQ and a ban from the tour.

 

[Backsticks]

Cheating is cheating.
Whether you're Armstrong, Johnson,Lexi T, Little Jimmy using a leather wedge, or PM. If you do something knowing you are breaking the rules to your personal advantage you are cheating.

Thats not cheating. Cheating is taking advantage and trying to get away with it without being penalised for it. When a particular action has a defined sanction already in the rules catering specifically for it, then, being in the rules, it is not cheating. Cheating would result in disqualification.
People need to distinguish between what the rules are, and what they might like them to be. A great strength of golf is that it applies it rules ruthlessly, even when seeming unfortunate or even unreasonable. Equally, you do not apply a sanction beyond what the rules state, no matter how much you dislike the end result.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Thats not cheating. Cheating is taking advantage and trying to get away with it without being penalised for it. When a particular action has a defined sanction already in the rules catering specifically for it, then, being in the rules, it is not cheating. Cheating would result in disqualification.
People need to distinguish between what the rules are, and what they might like them to be. A great strength of golf is that it applies it rules ruthlessly, even when seeming unfortunate or even unreasonable. Equally, you do not apply a sanction beyond what the rules state, no matter how much you dislike the end result.

So if I laid the flagstick behind the hole, my ball is stopped by it and I take the 2 shot penalty you would be fine with it?

or even better my bag as this is only a 1 stroke penalty.

 

[duncan mackie]

So if I laid the flagstick behind the hole, my ball is stopped by it and I take the 2 shot penalty you would be fine with it?

Yes. Most pepole are capable of 4 putting so setting out to 4 putt is hardly an advantage.

I would happily give any opponent 4 putts from anywhere.

 

[Backsticks]

So if I laid the flagstick behind the hole, my ball is stopped by it and I take the 2 shot penalty you would be fine with it?

or even better my bag as this is only a 1 stroke penalty.

No, because you would be disqualified. The difference is that Phil took a stroke at the ball, and so the rule on hitting a moving ball applies, and overrides Rule 1.2, as Rule 1.2 states explicitly. Using the flagstick doesnt have that 'out', so rule 1.2 applies to you and disqualifies you.

 

[Hobbit]

Thats not cheating. Cheating is taking advantage and trying to get away with it without being penalised for it. When a particular action has a defined sanction already in the rules catering specifically for it, then, being in the rules, it is not cheating. Cheating would result in disqualification.
People need to distinguish between what the rules are, and what they might like them to be. A great strength of golf is that it applies it rules ruthlessly, even when seeming unfortunate or even unreasonable. Equally, you do not apply a sanction beyond what the rules state, no matter how much you dislike the end result.

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.

 

[Sweep]

In my view PM didn’t know or care if he was going be DQ’d or penalised. Remember, this is the guy who, when his ball was buried in the rough earlier in the week, asked a rules official if there was a rule that stated he had to have sight of the ball when playing a stroke. He just didn’t want to be there. He had had enough. He didn’t care. We have probably all been there.
He could, as already has been mentioned, let his ball come to rest and declared it unplayable and replaced it where he last played from for half the penalty. However, this is an option rarely considered by most golfers IMHO including me. Usually it takes a genuinely unplayable lie for a golfer to declare it as such and even then they usually look for a place to drop close by.
But, he hasn’t cheated. His offence has been dealt with under the rules. He is entitled to continue. I would not be surprised if that aspect of the rules is looked at again though.
As for the USGA, well after last year’s debacle, the same course previously and now this, they need to take long hard look at themselves. Their obsession with par and making the US Open a tough test in the extreme is just daft now. Whilst it doesn’t excuse PM it caused this situation and it is impacting on the game itself.
We are expected to accept the R&A and the USGA as equals. This nonsense would never happen in the Open.

 

[Pin-seeker]

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

Yes,& so is he

 

[Sweep]

In my view PM didn’t know or care if he was going be DQ’d or penalised. Remember, this is the guy who, when his ball was buried in the rough earlier in the week, asked a rules official if there was a rule that stated he had to have sight of the ball when playing a stroke. He just didn’t want to be there. He had had enough. He didn’t care. We have probably all been there.
He could, as already has been mentioned, let his ball come to rest and declared it unplayable and replaced it where he last played from for half the penalty. However, this is an option rarely considered by most golfers IMHO including me. Usually it takes a genuinely unplayable lie for a golfer to declare it as such and even then they usually look for a place to drop close by.
But, he hasn’t cheated. His offence has been dealt with under the rules. He is entitled to continue. I would not be surprised if that aspect of the rules is looked at again though.
As for the USGA, well after last year’s debacle, the same course previously and now this, they need to take long hard look at themselves. Their obsession with par and making the US Open a tough test in the extreme is just daft now. Whilst it doesn’t excuse PM it caused this situation and it is impacting on the game itself.
We are expected to accept the R&A and the USGA as equals. This nonsense would never happen in the Open.

EDIT: 2016 Johnson debacle. Time flies

 

[TreeSeeker]

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.

With you on that bit, any other sport I play a deliberate breach of rules is DQ, everyone has honest mistakes but intentionally breaking the rules isn't on.

 

[Slab]

I have to concede it’s the correct penalty for the specific action… however given the conscious intent from him it just doesn’t seem like the punishment fits the crime when we see some of the other things that'll get you a DQ

 

[Kellfire]

He used the rules as laid out. No DQ for me.

 

[Orikoru]

If he broke a rule that explicitly carries a 2 shot penalty, then he gets a 2 shot penalty. You can't make up the rules as you go along. If it said a deliberate break of the rule is a DQ, then it would be a DQ. He's not like he broke a rule secretively in order to gain an advantage either, he was just fed up and pretty much giving up on the round, it seems like.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

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?

 

[USER1999]

Can it be cheating, if what you do results in a higher score than you would have got had you not cheated?

Can you make a stroke if you have not addressed the ball?

 

[Papas1982]

Can it be cheating, if what you do results in a higher score than you would have got had you not cheated?

Can you make a stroke if you have not addressed the ball?

Here nothing to say he would have beaten that score if he'd let the ball fond the button of that run off.

For me though he hasn't cheated, but he's manipulated the rules on a way that I don't think is right. A lesser player may well have been treated more harshly
I can't remember his name, but by remember the young lad at the masters a few years back getting a rougher deal than most seasons pros get fir slow play.

 

[USER1999]

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.

 

[Papas1982]

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 agree he likely would have beaten it, but the fact he attitude stank it what I think had most people aggrieved. I'd not be surprised if he made the excise up. It probably seemed better to say that than "I was fed up and couldn't careless about the comp".

 

[Bunkermagnet]

People will now look at PM in a different way now, no longer Mr Nice guy.