tlfw378 said:

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/us-open-2018-the-usga-still-got-it-wrong-when-it-didnt-dq-phil-mickelson/amp

I like what Feinstein writes...bad week for Phil, worse week for USGA.

---

Except he has zero understanding of the rules of golf.

12thMan2012 said:

---

watty said:

---

People complaining about Phil and saying he should have been DQ'd are why people make fun of golf fans. He made a choice, got the penalty that goes with it, and moved on. It's just like a defensive back that blatantly interferes with a receiver and gets penalized for it. It's not cheating. It's making a choice in the moment. It doesn't matter what his intentions were. Completely irrelevant. It's a game with choices and scoring and penalties and the fact that anyone thinks this is even an issue is hilarious to me. And I'm as obsessed with golf as anyone here, lest I get the "you're not a REAL golf person" criticism.

Chill out. Like Phil said, toughen up. THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL.

---

Football fans argued for 2 years about air pressure in a ball, so spare me the "this is why golf fans are made fun of" BS.

He should've been DQ'd under 1-2. USGA would've DQ'd anybody else, byt they decided to call what he did a "stroke" instead of intentionally stopping the ball, which is complete BS.

---

He clearly made a stroke as defined by the RoG.

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!definitions

A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball

Exactly. It was a stroke that nearly went in the hole.

If what he did is DQ worthy, then the 2 stroke penalty for hitting a moving ball should be thrown out entirely. Just make it an auto DQ and call it a day. Make an inadvertently hitting a moving ball a one stroke penalty. No way should it be 2.

Wasn't a stroke. Ball was rolling down a hill, couldn't be stopped, had to be sent in another direction. Clear DQ for anybody not name Mickelson.

12thMan2012 said:

---

Sorry, you're wrong.

On top of it, just continues to show Phil's lack of integrity. Golf is a game where you call penalties on yourself. He can read the rules as well as anyone, any player with an ounce of integrity DQ's themself instead of being a smart ass.

---

Where am I wrong?

He is taking a stroke as defined by the RoG and hitting a moving ball. Rule 14-5 covers this scenario. Phil called the penalty on himself and confirmed the strokes with the rules officials.

Are you saying that wasn't a stroke?

12thMan2012 said:

---

Wasn't a stroke. Ball was rolling down a hill, couldn't be stopped, had to be sent in another direction. Clear DQ for anybody not name Mickelson.

---

You clearly haven't read the rules on this one. DQ is not a penalty under 14-5

You clearly haven't read 1-2.
Even the previous head of USGA has said it should've been a DQ.

Wasn't a stroke.

If you look at how he hit it, it was a stroke that we see players make every round when tapping a 6-8 inch putt in. And his nearly went in the hole even though he did it from about 8-10 feet. But I guess those aren't strokes either. They are just players moving a ball in a direction.

SmackDaddy said:

---

By all means let's make sure we believe the guy who committed insider trading (got off on a technicality that's since been closed) about what his intention was.

In any event, for those defending what Phil did, just ask yourself how proud you would be if it were your 12 year old doing the same thing in a tournament.

---

Intention plays no part in 14-5.

I wouldn't be proud, but that doesn't mean he should have been DQd.

Hell, I wouldn't be proud if my 12 year old cussed like tiger, but I don't see calls for him to be DQd each week.

While we're using David Fay as an expert, I'd point out that he didn't even know the right score on the hole with the 2 shot penalty. He called it a 9, and if you look at tournament thread at the time, I question "wasn't that a 10 vs. a 9?" at the time. Fox later came back and corrected him.

watty said:

---

All I know is that I was some amount of a Phil fan before, and I am more of a Phil fan now.

---

Always been a fan. Appreciation of the fans, great teacher, has made some really good videos over the years, crazy scrambling ability. This weekend became a bigger fan as well. I especially liked his response on the same green on Sunday.

The Sunday celebration was awesome. Also some nice logo marketing. All it needed was him catching 1/4" of air like he did at Augusta

watty said:

---

SmackDaddy said:

---

By all means let's make sure we believe the guy who committed insider trading (got off on a technicality that's since been closed) about what his intention was.

In any event, for those defending what Phil did, just ask yourself how proud you would be if it were your 12 year old doing the same thing in a tournament.

---

As long as he took the 2 stroke penalty and signed for the correct score, I'd be fine with it. People are acting like he got away with something. He didn't. There was a penalty involved. That penalty is the thing that penalizes the heinous act. There's no cheating. He did a thing that corresponds with a two stroke penalty, and he added the two stroke penalty to his score. Case closed.

---

Exactly! Just like I'm not cheating when I spray two OB! Take the penalty defined and move on.

Let's consider this situation - Kevin Kisner has been putting like crap for 2.5 rounds, misses what is basically a tap-in, and in disgust, quickly reaches out and taps the ball before it stops into the hole from the other direction. He didn't jog to do it. There's not some inferred statement about the USGA setup. It was just a frustrated guy that took a stroke to tap in a moving ball.

That might get a "oh, you may have missed this" at the end of the highlight reel. We're not talking about his legacy or a potential DQ. We're actually not talking about it at all.

powerbelly said:

---

SmackDaddy said:

---

jja79 said:

---

1-1. General

The Game of Golf consists of playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules.
1-2. Exerting Influence on Movement of Ball or Altering Physical Conditions
A player must not (i) take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play or (ii) alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of a hole.

*In the case of a serious breach of Rule 1-2, the Committee may impose a penalty of disqualification.

Forget the penalty. The guy wasn't going to win. The thing to me, and maybe no one else, was the blatant disregard for the rule. It doesn't say the player should not take an action with the intent of influencing the movement of a ball in play. It say he must not.

---

For all you "toughen up" guys, golf is different. He blatantly influenced the movement of a ball in play. The USGA chose the easy way out with a 2 stroke penalty. They should have enforced 1-2.

---

Why? He violated 14-5, not 1-2.

---

Huh?! How can you possibly say that Phil did not intend to alter the movement of a ball in play????

My head hurts.....

AgPrognosticator said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

SmackDaddy said:

---

jja79 said:

---

1-1. General

The Game of Golf consists of playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules.
1-2. Exerting Influence on Movement of Ball or Altering Physical Conditions
A player must not (i) take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play or (ii) alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of a hole.

*In the case of a serious breach of Rule 1-2, the Committee may impose a penalty of disqualification.

Forget the penalty. The guy wasn't going to win. The thing to me, and maybe no one else, was the blatant disregard for the rule. It doesn't say the player should not take an action with the intent of influencing the movement of a ball in play. It say he must not.

---

For all you "toughen up" guys, golf is different. He blatantly influenced the movement of a ball in play. The USGA chose the easy way out with a 2 stroke penalty. They should have enforced 1-2.

---

Why? He violated 14-5, not 1-2.

---

Huh?! How can you possibly say that Phil did not intend to alter the movement of a ball in play????

My head hurts.....

---

14-5 deals with taking a stroke at a ball that is moving. 1-2 deals with all other ways to interfere with a ball that is moving.

powerbelly said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

SmackDaddy said:

---

jja79 said:

---

1-1. General

The Game of Golf consists of playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules.
1-2. Exerting Influence on Movement of Ball or Altering Physical Conditions
A player must not (i) take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play or (ii) alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of a hole.

*In the case of a serious breach of Rule 1-2, the Committee may impose a penalty of disqualification.

Forget the penalty. The guy wasn't going to win. The thing to me, and maybe no one else, was the blatant disregard for the rule. It doesn't say the player should not take an action with the intent of influencing the movement of a ball in play. It say he must not.

---

For all you "toughen up" guys, golf is different. He blatantly influenced the movement of a ball in play. The USGA chose the easy way out with a 2 stroke penalty. They should have enforced 1-2.

---

Why? He violated 14-5, not 1-2.

---

Huh?! How can you possibly say that Phil did not intend to alter the movement of a ball in play????

My head hurts.....

---

14-5 deals with taking a stroke at a ball that is moving. 1-2 deals with all other ways to interfere with a ball that is moving.

---

Actually, 14-5 specifically exlcudes the purposeful stopping of a ball by a player. 14-5 addresses unintentional actions.

Phil's actions were intended to alter the movement of the ball. As such, rule 1-2 should have been applied.

Under that rule, the rules committee could have (and I believe should have) DQ'd him.

Golf is a game of rules. They must be enforced objectively.

AgPrognosticator said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

SmackDaddy said:

---

jja79 said:

---

1-1. General

The Game of Golf consists of playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules.
1-2. Exerting Influence on Movement of Ball or Altering Physical Conditions
A player must not (i) take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play or (ii) alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of a hole.

*In the case of a serious breach of Rule 1-2, the Committee may impose a penalty of disqualification.

Forget the penalty. The guy wasn't going to win. The thing to me, and maybe no one else, was the blatant disregard for the rule. It doesn't say the player should not take an action with the intent of influencing the movement of a ball in play. It say he must not.

---

For all you "toughen up" guys, golf is different. He blatantly influenced the movement of a ball in play. The USGA chose the easy way out with a 2 stroke penalty. They should have enforced 1-2.

---

Why? He violated 14-5, not 1-2.

---

Huh?! How can you possibly say that Phil did not intend to alter the movement of a ball in play????

My head hurts.....

---

14-5 deals with taking a stroke at a ball that is moving. 1-2 deals with all other ways to interfere with a ball that is moving.

---

Actually, 14-5 specifically exlcudes the purposeful stopping of a ball by a player. 14-5 addresses unintentional actions.

Phil's actions were intended to alter the movement of the ball. As such, rule 1-2 should have been applied.

Under that rule, the rules committee could have (and I believe should have) DQ'd him.

Golf is a game of rules. They must be enforced objectively.

---

That is incorrect. 14-5 is intentionally striking a moving ball. 14-4 is for unintentionally striking a ball twice (ie a double hit). 1-2 is touching a moving ball with a club (not making a stroke) shoe, caddie, etc.

I personally do not think he snapped. I think it is simply that he did not want to have to walk all the way down off the green and setup and hit another shot, which would have required his group and the group behind him to have to take extra time to wait on a guy who was not playing well and no longer in contention. I think he knew that if he did what he did that he would be penalized and wanted to simply avoid all the hassle that would have followed had he let his ball roll all the way down off the green and end up 20 yards away for his next shot.

And on the DQ topic, he should not have been DQ'd. There is a rule that is expressly on point that provides the penalty to be assessed, and it does not say anything about DQ.