I don't think I realized that mr. cool Stenson was such a frequent club breaker and thrower. He even has his own special technique for it.
Phil scenario - hypothetical
11,531 Views |
235 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by jja79
Sergio always generates great lag in his golf swing, and then even his club throw generated great lag.Cen-Tex said:
At least Sergio used his legs (2:08)
watty said:
It's no more childish or petulant than any of the myriad golfers who slam a club down, or cuss, or toss a club into the lake. These are human beings playing a game. The idea that golfers are somehow not subject to emotions is dumb.
In my opinion, Phil's act went beyond those examples. You're certainly free to have your own opinion.
Their office is the golf course. It's a game to you and me. It's their career.
I hate to keep revisiting this topic, but your statement is dead wrong (and still got 5 stars....) The rules are replete with the requirement for intent.DannyDuberstein said:
Again, his intent is moot. The rules don't cover intent, nor should they. He made a stroke on a moving ball and incurred the penalty for it.
I've not said it was a smart play. I think the smartest play would have been letting it roll down the hill and then taking the unplayable.
Intent requirement: 14-5. Playing Moving Ball:
A player must not make a stroke at his ball while it is moving.
The defined term is stroke: A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the INTENTION of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke.
Any by the way 14-5 clearly lists: "Ball PURPOSELY deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie - see Rule 1-2" as an exception to Rule 14-5.
And, more intent requirement:
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.
And, more intent requirement:
19-2. By Player, Partner, Caddie or Equipment
If a player's ball is ACCIDENTALLY deflected or stopped by himself, his partner or either of their caddies or equipment, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke.
I come back to my original point: if a player stops the ball with his foot purposefully -- he would get DQ'd. But he if runs across the green and hits the ball with a golf club, he gets a 2 stroke penalty. As another poster said: that's a bad rule and I would be surprised if a rule change is not forthcoming because the current rules simply do not contemplate what Phil Mickeslon did at the U.S. Open.
And to everyone saying it did matter because he wasn't in contention: What about the guys 20 guys that finished tied with or behind Mickelson? Do you think it matters to them if they're trying to keep their card? What if that happened on Friday and Phil made the cut while Speith missed the cut by 1 shot? You think Speith would be OK with that?
Just because it's "Phil", people want to laugh and shrug it off. But it was a chicken sh*t move on the weekend in a major. I would be all in favor of DQing guys that purposefully interfere with the course of their shots -- otherwise, where do you draw the line?
What if a Patrick Reed is in contention on a Sunday and hits a 40 yard pitch to a false front and it's about to roll all the way back to him -- but instead of waiting on the ball he runs up and stops it with his wedge on the edge of the green. Everyone here would be screaming for a DQ, but that's precisely what Phil Mickelson just did.
It's. a. bad. rule.
Quote:
What if a Patrick Reed is in contention on a Sunday and hits a 40 yard pitch to a false front and it's about to roll all the way back to him -- but instead of waiting on the ball he runs up and stops it with his wedge on the edge of the green. Everyone here would be screaming for a DQ, but that's precisely what Phil Mickelson just did.
No, it would have been a 2 stroke penalty and it would be mathematically stupid of him to do it, just like it was for Phil, but well within the rules of the game if he made a stroke. The only people calling for a DQ would be the subset of people who think that some sort of mystical honor and moral quality needs to be policed above and beyond the rules which already address such penalties. And they'd be wrong, just like they're wrong now.
This is very clear cut. It really is.
It is a game to everyone, they just get paid to play.Duckhook said:
Their office is the golf course. It's a game to you and me. It's their career.
Your profession has different standards than theirs. I highly doubt you could throw your computer into a crowd of customers and keep your job.
Mystical honor? You mean taking your next stroke from where you hit the ball?watty said:Quote:
What if a Patrick Reed is in contention on a Sunday and hits a 40 yard pitch to a false front and it's about to roll all the way back to him -- but instead of waiting on the ball he runs up and stops it with his wedge on the edge of the green. Everyone here would be screaming for a DQ, but that's precisely what Phil Mickelson just did.
No, it would have been a 2 stroke penalty and it would be mathematically stupid of him to do it, just like it was for Phil, but well within the rules of the game if he made a stroke. The only people calling for a DQ would be the subset of people who think that some sort of mystical honor and moral quality needs to be policed above and beyond the rules which already address such penalties. And they'd be wrong, just like they're wrong now.
This is very clear cut. It really is.
No, that's not called mystical honor or moral quality -- it's called GOLF.
Challenge accepted.powerbelly said:It is a game to everyone, they just get paid to play.Duckhook said:
Their office is the golf course. It's a game to you and me. It's their career.
Your profession has different standards than theirs. I highly doubt you could throw your computer into a crowd of customers and keep your job.
Phil would've had more credibility by announcing he was withdrawing the next morning. What was his purse..$3,700 ?
Terrible analogy.AgPrognosticator said:
What if a Patrick Reed is in contention on a Sunday and hits a 40 yard pitch to a false front and it's about to roll all the way back to him -- but instead of waiting on the ball he runs up and stops it with his wedge on the edge of the green. Everyone here would be screaming for a DQ, but that's precisely what Phil Mickelson just did.
And in the rules of GOLF, they specifically address this issue and give it a very stiff penalty, one which anyone is free to take at any time. People never intentionally take it because it's mathematically stupid to do so, but it's an option.
How? If he feels like it will save him strokes by stopping the ball, why not?Chipotlemonger said:Terrible analogy.AgPrognosticator said:
What if a Patrick Reed is in contention on a Sunday and hits a 40 yard pitch to a false front and it's about to roll all the way back to him -- but instead of waiting on the ball he runs up and stops it with his wedge on the edge of the green. Everyone here would be screaming for a DQ, but that's precisely what Phil Mickelson just did.
That's my issue with the rule. If a player feels they can save strokes by running up to their balls and stop/hit it -- that's fair game.
To which I say, bull sh*t.
It's a bad rule.
To expand on this -- if a player runs up and uses their foot to stop the ball -- guess what?! DQ!AgPrognosticator said:How? If he feels like it will save him strokes by stopping the ball, why not?Chipotlemonger said:Terrible analogy.AgPrognosticator said:
What if a Patrick Reed is in contention on a Sunday and hits a 40 yard pitch to a false front and it's about to roll all the way back to him -- but instead of waiting on the ball he runs up and stops it with his wedge on the edge of the green. Everyone here would be screaming for a DQ, but that's precisely what Phil Mickelson just did.
That's my issue with the rule. If a player feels they can save strokes by running up to their balls and stop/hit it -- that's fair game.
To which I say, bull sh*t.
It's a bad rule.
What the hell is the difference?
Read the rules. "Stop it" =/= "stroke"
I actually posted the definition of the stroke a couple posts up -- feel read to "Read the rules".Chipotlemonger said:
Read the rules. "Stop it" =/= "stroke"
A stroke can be used to stop a ball. Herp derp.
AgPrognosticator said:How? If he feels like it will save him strokes by stopping the ball, why not?Chipotlemonger said:Terrible analogy.AgPrognosticator said:
What if a Patrick Reed is in contention on a Sunday and hits a 40 yard pitch to a false front and it's about to roll all the way back to him -- but instead of waiting on the ball he runs up and stops it with his wedge on the edge of the green. Everyone here would be screaming for a DQ, but that's precisely what Phil Mickelson just did.
That's my issue with the rule. If a player feels they can save strokes by running up to their balls and stop/hit it -- that's fair game.
To which I say, bull sh*t.
It's a bad rule.
It's not a bad rule, because any player running up with that intention is making a stupid error, mathematically. It's not worth taking a two stroke penalty to save one stroke. They make it a two stroke penalty precisely so that it doesn't make any sense to do it, and if someone does do it, it hurts them. I can't come up with a single scenario in which taking that two stroke penalty gives the player an advantage. It certainly didn't for Phil.
Another analogy that would leave people screaming for a DQ.643coach said:
I'm still wondering why after he hit the putt he didn't run to meet the ball at the hole and then knock it in when it went past. Would've saved him 2 strokes.
What if he had made the comebacker? Hell, it almost went in. Then, what if he went on to play really well and finish in the top 10?
Folks keep saying to let it go because he wasn't in contention -- well, what if he was? Would that change your opinion? If so, that's the definition of a bad rule.
Where does it say a stroke can be used to stop a ball?AgPrognosticator said:I actually posted the definition of the stroke a couple posts up -- feel read to "Read the rules".Chipotlemonger said:
Read the rules. "Stop it" =/= "stroke"
A stroke can be used to stop a ball. Herp derp.
The defined term is stroke: A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the INTENTION of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke.
Seriously? It doesn't contain an exhaustive list of what a stroke can be used to do -- contrary to what other posters have said, the rule provides only for the intent of the player.RigsTx said:Where does it say a stroke can be used to stop a ball?AgPrognosticator said:I actually posted the definition of the stroke a couple posts up -- feel read to "Read the rules".Chipotlemonger said:
Read the rules. "Stop it" =/= "stroke"
A stroke can be used to stop a ball. Herp derp.
The defined term is stroke: A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the INTENTION of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke.
powerbelly said:It is a game to everyone, they just get paid to play.Duckhook said:
Their office is the golf course. It's a game to you and me. It's their career.
Your profession has different standards than theirs. I highly doubt you could throw your computer into a crowd of customers and keep your job.
And there's degrees of unprofessionalism. Me hanging up on somebody is not the same as me punching somebody. Throwing a club is different than hitting a moving ball.
It was childish and unprofessional, not in keeping with the spirit of the game, and startling to me that it would come from one of the elites. It was also funny as hell. I'm done now.
People would be calling for a 2 stroke penalty per 1-2. The committee could then decide if it warranted a DQ per the rules.AgPrognosticator said:To expand on this -- if a player runs up and uses their foot to stop the ball -- guess what?! DQ!AgPrognosticator said:How? If he feels like it will save him strokes by stopping the ball, why not?Chipotlemonger said:Terrible analogy.AgPrognosticator said:
What if a Patrick Reed is in contention on a Sunday and hits a 40 yard pitch to a false front and it's about to roll all the way back to him -- but instead of waiting on the ball he runs up and stops it with his wedge on the edge of the green. Everyone here would be screaming for a DQ, but that's precisely what Phil Mickelson just did.
That's my issue with the rule. If a player feels they can save strokes by running up to their balls and stop/hit it -- that's fair game.
To which I say, bull sh*t.
It's a bad rule.
What the hell is the difference?
AgPrognosticator said:Another analogy that would leave people screaming for a DQ.643coach said:
I'm still wondering why after he hit the putt he didn't run to meet the ball at the hole and then knock it in when it went past. Would've saved him 2 strokes.
What if he had made the comebacker? Hell, it almost went in. Then, what if he went on to play really well and finish in the top 10?
Folks keep saying to let it go because he wasn't in contention -- well, what if he was? Would that change your opinion? If so, that's the definition of a bad rule.
Why would our opinions change if he was in contention? The rules are the rules no matter what, and it was applied properly. If any golfer is stupid enough to give themselves a two stroke penalty at any point, go for it.
Yea, okay.
A rule that results in taking 3 strokes to hit a ball in motion once isn't a bad rule. To think so is ridiculous. If you think that is a bad rule, then you must HATE the unplayable rule. Sorry you didn't get the blood you hoped. USGA ruled correctly.
I wasn't offended by Philgate, but think they could have just as easily argued in support of a DQ as they did the 2 stroke penalty.
Despite how he spun it in post-round interview, I don't think Phil would have been at all upset with USGA had they DQ'd him for Sunday's round. In fact, I think he was probably expecting that to be the case until they told him they were going with the 2 stroke rule. USGA knew that pin was bs and I think let Phil off easy as a mia culpa of sorts. Would they have done the same for another golfer, who knows. Probably a bad precedent to set though.
Despite how he spun it in post-round interview, I don't think Phil would have been at all upset with USGA had they DQ'd him for Sunday's round. In fact, I think he was probably expecting that to be the case until they told him they were going with the 2 stroke rule. USGA knew that pin was bs and I think let Phil off easy as a mia culpa of sorts. Would they have done the same for another golfer, who knows. Probably a bad precedent to set though.
Based on what rule?Quote:
I wasn't offended by Philgate, but think they could have just as easily argued in support of a DQ as they did the 2 stroke penalty.
powerbelly said:Based on what rule?Quote:
I wasn't offended by Philgate, but think they could have just as easily argued in support of a DQ as they did the 2 stroke penalty.
Ah, you stepped in it now Swollen.
Clearly some people have a difficult time with math. Phil got penalized appropriately, and the math (ie, 2 strokes) incentivizes people not to do it. Phil did it to get the hole over with, not because he was trying to manipulate or improve his score in some way.
We all know that. It looked bad, wasn't really good sportsmanship and I'm sure he's embarrassed by his behavior.
I know you all have already dissected the rule language and I am anything but a rule aficionado, so not looking to stir the pot.powerbelly said:Based on what rule?Quote:
I wasn't offended by Philgate, but think they could have just as easily argued in support of a DQ as they did the 2 stroke penalty.
I guess my common sense thought is that you could argue that he intentionally deflected/stopped the ball (by virtue of a jogging double handed club flip at the ball as it's rolling down the hill). Or you can call the jogging double-handed club flip motion a "stroke" at a moving ball. One calls for a DQ and one calls for a 2 shot penalty.
I'm not saying one or the other is correct (and there appears a bit of dispute on that judging from this thread). I'm only saying one could certainly argue either way (correctly or incorrectly in another's opinion).
Again, in real-time, I totally understood where Phil was coming from and didn't blame him nor was I offended. The pin was bs, he was out of contention, frustrated and said f*** it, get me off this bs hole. I get it and don't think it was a big deal. But I do bet that he probably expected a DQ after the round....and at that point simply didn't give a f***.
Aside from the response and excessive coverage that has resulted from the moral authority that is the golf media, I could argue it was good sportsmanship to the other players because he got the hole over with so the rest of his group and the groups that followed did not have to wait for him to go off the green 20 yards away and then hit another shot and then putt and finish the hole. Instead, he essentially did what a lot of other weekend golfers do when they feel they are holding everyone up on a hole, which is pick up and say I am done with this hole so everyone can move on.
Interesting take -- because that's exactly opposite of what he said.rosco511 said:
Clearly some people have a difficult time with math. Phil got penalized appropriately, and the math (ie, 2 strokes) incentivizes people not to do it. Phil did it to get the hole over with, not because he was trying to manipulate or improve his score in some way.
He claimed he was trying to take advantage of the rules to his benefit....
I'm still perplexed by all the blue stars cheering on Phil-pumpers.
And that matters....why?AgPrognosticator said:
He claimed he was trying to take advantage of the rules to his benefit....
If 14-5 doesn't apply to this situation, then what on Earth does it apply to? I'm having trouble coming up with situations where a moving ball can be stroked at.
Featured Stories
See All
9:11
5h ago
2.7k
42:45
13h ago
3.0k
The Good Ol' Days: Reminiscing on Texas A&M's magical spring of '89
by David Sandhop
35:53
16h ago
3.4k