Chipotlemonger said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

He claimed he was trying to take advantage of the rules to his benefit....

---

And that matters....why?

---

Do you even bother to read posts, or do you just try to stir sh*t up?

The previous poster said Phil wasn't trying to manipulate his score, when that's the opposite to what he said during his interview. I was simply pointing that tidbit out that people that continue to post things that are clearly inaccurate. That's the only reason it mattered.

aggietony2010 said:

---

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.

---

Stop trying to "stir the pot" with that logic

I do not believe he meant benefit in the sense of I am going to do this action so it will save me actual strokes and give me a better round at the end of the day. He merely believed the cost of his actions (the two stroke penalty) did not exceed the benefits he got from his actions (getting the hole over) given that he was well out of contention at that point.

aggietony2010 said:

---

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.

---

Well, it used to apply when players addressed a ball that moved, i.e., more than oscillated on the green. A player used to get the penalty for addressing a moving ball in that context, and that rule was enforced several times each season on the PGA. That was a bad rule, and it got changed accordingly.


The same rule still applies if you were about to hit the ball and it started moving before your backstroke, and you hit it anyways.

The distinction I draw is hitting a moving ball vs. interfering with a shot. Those are two different things.

All golf shots result in a moving ball (hopefully), but not all moving balls are golf shots.

But even if the USGA comes out and confirms that 14-5 is the correct rule to be applied, I stand by my previous assertion that it is a bad rule. It leaves the door open for someone to take advantage of it. Every other rule that concerns the intentional interference with a shot provides for DQ. It strikes me as very odd that the only way a player can intentionally interfere with a golf shot without risking DQ is by taking a stroke at the moving ball. It's a bad rule.

Is that you Slugger?

The only one I read about where it could potentially be used and result in some advantage is if the ball would have otherwise ended up in a water hazard, such as on the 15th at Augusta if you are off the back of the green.

The potential advantage of doing a repeat of Phil is to avoid the potential of a really big number on such hole because you would either have to replay from the prior spot or go drop and hit over the water again if ball actually went into the water hazard. Now, if a player drops and gets up and down after going in water hazard, they would still be in better shape than doing the Phil, so I doubt a player at this level is really going to risk an shot or two to avoid a really treacherous big number because then that means such player does not trust his wedge game to get up and down in one or two.

If you're over the green in two shots on #15 at Augusta and hit one (your third) that might roll into the water, you run up and hit it again (your fourth), and then let's say that you even make your next shot, your fifth, you end up with a 7. At a minimum.

If you let it go in, you drop four, hit five, get it on the green on your fifth and two putt for a seven. No advantage gained. If the idea is that you gain strokes because you would just keep hitting it in the water over and over from behind the green, I would merely say, show me who has done that, and not only done that, but done it in a way that they would be in position to actually run across the green and get to the ball before it got wet.

It's an infinitely small chance that this dream scenario would ever happen. And, even if it did, it would be ok. The penalty is in place for a reason. They decided two shots is what that penalty is worth. Could you theoretically gain an advantage? Yes. Just like taking an unplayable lie penalty sometimes gets you a double bogey instead of a 10. Sometimes the ball is so unplayable that there are literally no options. Is it against the spirit of the rules to take the stroke and distance penalty and get back to a good lie? No, it's what you're entitled to under the rules. It's penal but it also, in some cases, gives you an out. And that's ok. That's what the whole concept of these penalties is for. You have options, and they come at a price, and you can determine the value of the potential strokes lost or saved.

So to be the guy standing on the side of the green counting his strokes after the hole in this scenario:

Phil "Just end this god forsaken hole" Method:
Initial stroke (stroke), run to tap it back (3 strokes), then finish it off (1-2 strokes). So looking at 5-6 strokes

The method a player contending would use:
Initial stroke (stroke), ball in water drop (stroke), chip (stroke), then could 3-jack and end up no worse than Phil.

watty said:

---

Quote:

---

It leaves the door open for someone to take advantage of it.

---

How?

I can't come up with a single scenario in which that would benefit a player.

---

Here's one.
http://www.golf.com/tour-news/2018/06/19/phil-mickelson-rule-coming-usga

Edited to add: looks like somebody else already read this and posted. How likely? Probably not very likely, but ask Sergio if he would have liked the opportunity to run up there and keep his 3rd, 4th or 5th shot from rolling back into the pond.

I completely agree, and I do not think tour players would actually consider it an advantage if they think through it.

I just described that exact situation in my post above. It would be incredibly unlikely that a player would gain an advantage by using that technique, and hey, even if he did.... SO? Go read my last post.

That is the one I was discussing, and as we have pointed out, it is not really advantage...unless you are a tour player who truly believes you would walk away from hole with a score worse than 7...which will be none of the tour players if they truly believe they have a shot of competing to win.

a player close enough on 15 to stop his ball would rehit.

Sergio was hitting those from the other side of the water. He couldn't have run up there due to it being impossible.

Danny's post two posts ago hits the nail on the head.

This was also brought up above, and I just want to make sure i have it straight:

I can take a "stroke" at a moving ball that is in play for a 2 shot penalty, but if I just put my putter down and let the moving ball hit it and bounce off back toward the hole (redirecting it), it's an automatic DQ. Is that correct?

Not a rhetorical question. I'm a relative novice, so want to be sure I'm not missing anything because that doesn't seem to make much sense.

Correct

watty said:

---

Sergio was hitting those from the other side of the water. He couldn't have run up there due to it being impossible.

Danny's post two posts ago hits the nail on the head.

---

Yeah, I know he was. Not impossible because there is a bridge there on the left side of the green. Just like it's not likely somebody can sprint from behind the green and make it to the front. But, we're just discussing possibilities, as unlikely as they might be.

You guys amaze me. Phil damn near made that 'moving putt'. Someone in Phil's shoes could easily make a double bogey. Birdie putt misses and they run to stop the ball and sink the 'moving putt'. That's would be 4 strokes with a 2 stroke penalty for a 6.

That's equivalent to what would have otherwise been a potential wedge and two-putt from the fairway.

The water hazard example is even more compelling where a player had a birdie putt into the water. Drops 5 on the opposite side of the hazard, hit wedge for 6, and potential 2 putt for an 8.

Look, I get it that the 2 stroke penalty is going to be adequate 99% of the time, but the 14-5 ability of a player to intentionally interfere with their own shot and not get DQ'd is contrary to every other 'intentional interference' rule currently on the books.

I still maintain that it is a bad rule that is not in keeping with the spirit of the game.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

There's a reason this hasn't been a problem and wasn't a problem this weekend either.

---

Seriously? So, let's wait for someone to win a major using this rule to help them win then it will be time to change the rule?

Got it.


(And as it turns out, it looks like the folks at golf.com don't agree with you either judging by their article of today.)

DannyDuberstein said:

---

There's a reason this hasn't been a problem and wasn't a problem this weekend either.

---

You think the rules are the reason it hasn't been a problem. In actuality it's because nobody else (that we know of) has behaved like a petulant child in the midst of a championship event and ran after and hit a deliberately hit a moving ball.

Cen-Tex said:

---

Phil would've had more credibility by announcing he was withdrawing the next morning. What was his purse..$3,700 ?

---

More like $28,000, but your point stands that that kind of money doesn't affect Phil like it would affect one of us.

AgPrognosticator said:

---

From golf.com:

" Because of the precedent now set, a new rule should address the simple fact that hitting a moving ball just isn't a part of golf. The so-called Phil Rule will be simple: anyone who intentionally strikes a moving ball will be disqualified."

Bingo.

Stated far more eloquently than I did at any point today.

---

Whats funny is that "simple rule" is woefully inadequate. It conflicts with the examples incorrectly brought up as the reason for 14-5. Ball in deep rough, ball moves during backswing, an intentional stroke is made on a moving ball. DQ'd.

(I know I know that's not what the writer means. But that's what he wrote, and guess what, that's the whole ****ing point of this argument)

The important distinction between 14-5 and 1-2, is that golf is a game of stroking the ball with a club. That's why all other interactions with the ball are covered under 1-2.

I like how the goal posts have been moved from 1-2 is the applicable rule, to 1-2 applies instead of 14-5, to 14-5 is the correct rule, but we need a new rule to fix this disgraceful, disgraceful act.

watty said:

---

If you're over the green in two shots on #15 at Augusta and hit one (your third) that might roll into the water, you run up and hit it again (your fourth), and then let's say that you even make your next shot, your fifth, you end up with a 7. At a minimum.

If you let it go in, you drop four, hit five, get it on the green on your fifth and two putt for a seven. No advantage gained. If the idea is that you gain strokes because you would just keep hitting it in the water over and over from behind the green, I would merely say, show me who has done that, and not only done that, but done it in a way that they would be in position to actually run across the green and get to the ball before it got wet.

It's an infinitely small chance that this dream scenario would ever happen. And, even if it did, it would be ok. The penalty is in place for a reason. They decided two shots is what that penalty is worth. Could you theoretically gain an advantage? Yes. Just like taking an unplayable lie penalty sometimes gets you a double bogey instead of a 10. Sometimes the ball is so unplayable that there are literally no options. Is it against the spirit of the rules to take the stroke and distance penalty and get back to a good lie? No, it's what you're entitled to under the rules. It's penal but it also, in some cases, gives you an out. And that's ok. That's what the whole concept of these penalties is for. You have options, and they come at a price, and you can determine the value of the potential strokes lost or saved.

---

Taking an unplayable and hitting a moving ball are totally different animals. The analysis currently circulating the internet is precisely what I've been saying all day: hitting a moving ball isn't a part of golf. Intentionally interfering with a golf shot should be absolutely prohibited in all forms without some special exception for a player running across a green to take a "stroke".

Someone who disagrees, please explain why I would get disqualified for using my foot, but only a two stroke penalty for using my club?

aggietony2010 said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

From golf.com:

" Because of the precedent now set, a new rule should address the simple fact that hitting a moving ball just isn't a part of golf. The so-called Phil Rule will be simple: anyone who intentionally strikes a moving ball will be disqualified."

Bingo.

Stated far more eloquently than I did at any point today.

---

Whats funny is that "simple rule" is woefully inadequate. It conflicts with the examples incorrectly brought up as the reason for 14-5. Ball in deep rough, ball moves during backswing, an intentional stroke is made on a moving ball. DQ'd.

(I know I know that's not what the writer means. But that's what he wrote, and guess what, that's the whole ****ing point of this argument)

The important distinction between 14-5 and 1-2, is that golf is a game of stroking the ball with a club. That's why all other interactions with the ball are covered under 1-2.

I like how the goal posts have been moved from 1-2 is the applicable rule, to 1-2 applies instead of 14-5, to 14-5 is the correct rule, but we need a new rule to fix this disgraceful, disgraceful act.

---

I think the intentional part the author is speaking of is knowing th ball is moving, not knowingly swinging the club.

AgPrognosticator said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

From golf.com:

" Because of the precedent now set, a new rule should address the simple fact that hitting a moving ball just isn't a part of golf. The so-called Phil Rule will be simple: anyone who intentionally strikes a moving ball will be disqualified."

Bingo.

Stated far more eloquently than I did at any point today.

---

Whats funny is that "simple rule" is woefully inadequate. It conflicts with the examples incorrectly brought up as the reason for 14-5. Ball in deep rough, ball moves during backswing, an intentional stroke is made on a moving ball. DQ'd.

(I know I know that's not what the writer means. But that's what he wrote, and guess what, that's the whole ****ing point of this argument)

The important distinction between 14-5 and 1-2, is that golf is a game of stroking the ball with a club. That's why all other interactions with the ball are covered under 1-2.

I like how the goal posts have been moved from 1-2 is the applicable rule, to 1-2 applies instead of 14-5, to 14-5 is the correct rule, but we need a new rule to fix this disgraceful, disgraceful act.

---

I think the intentional part the author is speaking of is knowing th ball is moving, not knowingly swinging the club.

---

Exactly. But this simple has existed in his world for what, 24 hours, and there's already a flaw with how it's written.

aggietony2010 said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

From golf.com:

" Because of the precedent now set, a new rule should address the simple fact that hitting a moving ball just isn't a part of golf. The so-called Phil Rule will be simple: anyone who intentionally strikes a moving ball will be disqualified."

Bingo.

Stated far more eloquently than I did at any point today.

---

Whats funny is that "simple rule" is woefully inadequate. It conflicts with the examples incorrectly brought up as the reason for 14-5. Ball in deep rough, ball moves during backswing, an intentional stroke is made on a moving ball. DQ'd.

(I know I know that's not what the writer means. But that's what he wrote, and guess what, that's the whole ****ing point of this argument)

The important distinction between 14-5 and 1-2, is that golf is a game of stroking the ball with a club. That's why all other interactions with the ball are covered under 1-2.

I like how the goal posts have been moved from 1-2 is the applicable rule, to 1-2 applies instead of 14-5, to 14-5 is the correct rule, but we need a new rule to fix this disgraceful, disgraceful act.

---

I think the intentional part the author is speaking of is knowing th ball is moving, not knowingly swinging the club.

---

Exactly. But this simple has existed in his world for what, 24 hours, and there's already a flaw with how it's written.

---

Agreed, but the USGA will take far more time to artfully draft a rule that is in keeping with the spirit of the game so that any intentional interference with a golf shot will DQ a player.

AgPrognosticator said:

---

watty said:

---

If you're over the green in two shots on #15 at Augusta and hit one (your third) that might roll into the water, you run up and hit it again (your fourth), and then let's say that you even make your next shot, your fifth, you end up with a 7. At a minimum.

If you let it go in, you drop four, hit five, get it on the green on your fifth and two putt for a seven. No advantage gained. If the idea is that you gain strokes because you would just keep hitting it in the water over and over from behind the green, I would merely say, show me who has done that, and not only done that, but done it in a way that they would be in position to actually run across the green and get to the ball before it got wet.

It's an infinitely small chance that this dream scenario would ever happen. And, even if it did, it would be ok. The penalty is in place for a reason. They decided two shots is what that penalty is worth. Could you theoretically gain an advantage? Yes. Just like taking an unplayable lie penalty sometimes gets you a double bogey instead of a 10. Sometimes the ball is so unplayable that there are literally no options. Is it against the spirit of the rules to take the stroke and distance penalty and get back to a good lie? No, it's what you're entitled to under the rules. It's penal but it also, in some cases, gives you an out. And that's ok. That's what the whole concept of these penalties is for. You have options, and they come at a price, and you can determine the value of the potential strokes lost or saved.

---

Taking an unplayable and hitting a moving ball are totally different animals. The analysis currently circulating the internet is precisely what I've been saying all day: hitting a moving ball isn't a part of golf. Intentionally interfering with a golf shot should be absolutely prohibited in all forms without some special exception for a player running across a green to take a "stroke".

Someone who disagrees, please explain why I would get disqualified for using my foot, but only a two stroke penalty for using my club?

---

Yes. Taking an unplayable is a different animal from hitting a moving ball. That's why the former is covered under rule 28, and the latter is covered under 14-5. And interacting with the ball in a non-stroke way is covered under 1-2. All different animals.

And the very existence of 14-5 is proof that hitting a moving ball is part of golf.