He got the exact treatment spelled out in the rules.

powerbelly said:

---

He got the exact treatment spelled out in the rules.

---

Despite the mob mentality on this forum that agrees with you, almost all of the golf analysts around the country disagree with you. Most experts are saying they believe the USGA got it wrong, including those at golf.com and those at Golf Digest.

This does not require our acceptance. It was the rule. It was enforced as written. Done.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

This does not require our acceptance. It was the rule. It was enforced as written. Done.

---

You can't accept that people disagree with you.

They believe the rule should be changed, correct?

I havent seen many who actually read the rule disagree with its application

powerbelly said:

---

They believe the rule should be changed, correct?

I havent seen many who actually read the rule disagree with its application

---

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

https://www.nbcsports.com/video/phil-mickelson-shouldve-been-disqualified-us-open-says-dan-patrick

https://www.si.com/golf/2018/06/16/phil-mickelson-putting-moving-ball-disqualify-shinnecock-us-open

And there are a lot more....but I'm done with this topic. The USGA will change the rule and it will be a moot issue.

For those that think he should have been DQ'd, I'm curious what you believe is the proper penalty in this situation.

A player faces a very short "tap-in" putt and casually strokes it toward the hole and faollows it there all in a single motion. But instead of holing it, the ball violently horseshoes right back at him. In disbelief and possible disgust, the player strokes the ball into the hole before it had come to a complete stop. What's the appropriate penalty? 2 strokes or DQ?

Think of the children!!!!! (Which was basically Curtis Strange's last question to Phil)

USGA took out the emotion and went by the rule.

watty said:

---

As I said long ago, the hand wringing and moral posturing over this is why people make fun of the stuck up golf culture. He was penalized, and the rule, which was already in place to cover the offense, was applied properly. Any complaining beyond that is merely based on feelings and is completely subjective. There is an objective answer to this "problem": the rules of golf, which addressed the issue exactly as they were written to do.

This is truly a blcak and white situation. People are looking for gray where none exists.

---

It's interesting that you take such a firm position on this when tour players are taking to social media disagreeing with you. Molinari, Kim, and Appleby have all tweeted their disagreement with the USGa's ruling. Taken in addition to numerous authortarive golf outlets that believe he should have been DQ'd...and I really don't know what to say to you, other than, contrary to your staunch position many people (whose jobs and careers revolve around golf) disagree with you.

USGA and US Open. Don't care what some dirty foreigners think

DannyDuberstein said:

---

USGA and US Open. Don't care what some dirty foreigners think

---

And Butch Harmon? and Jason Sobel?

Phil's own former coach thinks he should have been DQ'd by the USGA, and if not DQ'd withdrawn.

WhoopN06 said:

---

I think Phil, rightly or wrongly, blames the USGA setup in 04 for costing him the win. This was a not so subtle form of protest of that and what he felt like was a very unfair pin location.

---

I haven't been following golf that long, mind explaining the 04 issue?

watty said:

---

Tons of golf insiders and players are guilty of the ridiculous moral posturing that I find so silly. Being in a field doesn't mean you're automatically right. Often times it makes you subject to deep biases and group think, actually.

---

Funny that you mention group think on this thread.

Do you one better i'll let Phil explain it. Remember in 04 he putted off the green on 7 to make double bogey. He finished 2 strokes back of Goosen.

AgPrognosticator said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

They believe the rule should be changed, correct?

I havent seen many who actually read the rule disagree with its application

---

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

https://www.nbcsports.com/video/phil-mickelson-shouldve-been-disqualified-us-open-says-dan-patrick

https://www.si.com/golf/2018/06/16/phil-mickelson-putting-moving-ball-disqualify-shinnecock-us-open

And there are a lot more....but I'm done with this topic. The USGA will change the rule and it will be a moot issue.

---

The first article's only potential novel argument is that he stopped the ball, then stroked it. If you can see that happening in the video, then we need you to analyze the Zapruder films to see if you can find the real assassin.

The 2nd is a video, and I don't feel like watching a video.

The third states that 1-2 should be applied, but ignores the part of 1-2 that defers to other rules.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

This does not require our acceptance. It was the rule. It was enforced as written. Done.

---

Dumb rule is dumb bro

AgPrognosticator said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

USGA and US Open. Don't care what some dirty foreigners think

---

And Butch Harmon? and Jason Sobel?

Phil's own former coach thinks he should have been DQ'd by the USGA, and if not DQ'd withdrawn.

---

And David Fay, former Exec. Director of the USGA. Said on the telecast that he would have lobbied for DQ, but probably would have lost.

Here is the situation:

Leading by 3 on the final hole. Ball rests 2 feet above the hole for birdie and the green drops of dramatically below the hole and into a hazard. Player knows he can do what Phil did. Player hits the ball and sees that it will miss and role down into the hazard where a drop brings into play the possibility of another hit into the hazard which would cost him the tournament (ala Sergio at 13 and Spieth at 12). Instead of risking that he just reaches out and swipes the moving ball into the cup. Birdie putt misses, hit of moving ball goes in, plus two shots for the penalty = double boggy and he wins by 1.

If that option exists within the current rules then they need to be changed.

Quote:

---

The third states that 1-2 should be applied, but ignores the part of 1-2 that defers to other rules.

---

Yep, just like almost everyone here is ignoring the parenthetical of 14-5 which refers back to 1-2.

Yanny or Laurel?

WhoopN06 said:

---

Do you one better i'll let Phil explain it. Remember in 04 he putted off the green on 7 to make double bogey. He finished 2 strokes back of Goosen.

---

Dang that sucks. I'd be pissed too.

watty said:

---

If the only possible way you can come up with this rule helping a player is to dream up an impossible hypothetical, I'd say it's a good rule.

---

I agree with this. My only hang up is that if you simply put your putter in the path of the ball and let it ricochet back toward the hole, it's an auto DQ, whereas if you in someway move your putter so that it can be called a "stroke" it's not. These two acts are accomplishing the same thing with the same intent, but treated completely different. I don't understand that logic.

If 2 shots is punitive enough (i.e. good rule per above) then it should also apply to stopping/redirecting a moving ball in play. On the other hand, if stopping/redirecting a moving ball in play warrants an auto DQ, then "stroking" a moving all in play (to redirect it) should warrant the same. I'm not here to argue which one would be appropriate, only saying that logically, what applies for one should also apply for the other.

Quote:

---

My only hang up is that if you simply put your putter in the path of the ball and let it ricochet back toward the hole, it's an auto DQ

---

It isn't an auto DQ. It is a 2 stroke penalty with the committee having the option to DQ the player.