Thanks for clarifying.

The general point still stands though......just doesn't seem logical to treat these two scenarios differently. Would think that intentionally stopping/redirecting a moving ball in play by any means (club, shoe, flag, hand, stick, rock, towel, bag, hat, breath) and by any action (stroke, block, throw, kick, thump, slap, karate chop) would be viewed the same and thus penalized the same.

That isn't the case per current rules, which in my simple mind just doesn't make sense, regardless of how unlikely it might be for this to come up in actual play (even though it just did....in the US Open).

rosco511 said:

---

Yeah, people citing rule 1-2 seem to forget that a 2 stroke penalty is the default penalty and DQ is only if a player gained a "significant advantage" or put another player at a "significant disadvantage." Based on the math we have discussed, even if rule 1-2 applied, I do not see how any one can claim Phil achieved a "significant advantage" from his actions.

---

Agree with this 100%. I appreciate powerbelly clarifying this for me, and for the record I don't think Phil should have been DQ'd, even if that was an option under the 14-whatever rule. Others might argue differently, which is fine. But that is not the fundamental point I'm making in my previous two posts.

Phil apologizes

agsalaska said:

---

Im not sure he should be taking too much **** for it. But I would rather him just say that he was frustrated and pissed off which is probably a lot closer to the truth.

---

And he finally did. Glad he did this, albeit a little late.

We already knew it was against the rules, therefore, "wrong." No one has argued that. THAT'S WHY HE HAD TO ADD TWO STROKES TO HIS SCORE.

watty said:

---

Honestly I think a player should get disqualified if he has an impure though. This is a gentleman's game, after all.

---

Gonna need to ban cart girls then. Make it rule 69-69.

watty said:

---

We already knew it was against the rules, therefore, "wrong." No one has argued that. THAT'S WHY HE HAD TO ADD TWO STROKES TO HIS SCORE.

---

Seriously. So much emotion on this issue. He committed a violation. He scored the violation. And it was a big #. A really big #. Hard to argue any advantage was gained. Move on, folks. Move on.

The fact we just had a guy win back to back US Opens, but all anyone can focus on is this silly-ass double digit # and how we now need to fix golf with a rule change because it wasn't enough is completely nutballs.

jja79 said:

---

Why did a guy who didn't do anything wrong apologize?

---

He did do something wrong, and was penalized 2 strokes.

jja79 said:

---

Why did a guy who didn't do anything wrong apologize?

---

I wonder if Phil's daddy spanked his behind?

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Dang, you guys seem pretty upset that Phil apologized and that a USGA rule change is forthcoming.

Sucks to be wrong, eh?

---

Are you dense?! It's still clear that the rule was applied correctly. It doesn't matter if Phil kills himself with the offending putter out of guilt. The ruling is still correct.

And I haven't seen where in his apology he admits he should be DQ'd.

And straight from the USGA:

Quote:

---

Some called for Mickelson to be disqualified. He spoke with USGA officials after the round to discuss whether he should indeed play Sunday's final round.

"Phil really did want to understand how the rule operates because he didn't want to ... as he said to me, 'Mike, I don't want to play in this championship if I should have been disqualified,'" USGA chief executive Mike Davis said. "That's where we clarified that 'Phil, you make a stroke at a moving ball, so we have to apply that rule.'

"That's different than if he had deliberately just stopped the ball or whacked it in another direction or something like that. So it's just us applying the rules.''

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Dang, you guys seem pretty upset that Phil apologized and that a USGA rule change is forthcoming.

Sucks to be wrong, eh?

---

Are you dense?! It's still clear that the rule was applied correctly. It doesn't matter if Phil kills himself with the offending putter out of guilt. The ruling is still correct.

And I haven't seen where in his apology he admits he should be DQ'd.

And straight from the USGA:

Quote:

---

Some called for Mickelson to be disqualified. He spoke with USGA officials after the round to discuss whether he should indeed play Sunday's final round.

"Phil really did want to understand how the rule operates because he didn't want to ... as he said to me, 'Mike, I don't want to play in this championship if I should have been disqualified,'" USGA chief executive Mike Davis said. "That's where we clarified that 'Phil, you make a stroke at a moving ball, so we have to apply that rule.'

"That's different than if he had deliberately just stopped the ball or whacked it in another direction or something like that. So it's just us applying the rules.''

---

---

Perhaps Mike Davis should have consulted with a physicist before applying the USGA's rules....since he did stop the ball before hitting it the other direction.

After reading this thread I could have sworn he did nothing wrong.

aggietony2010 said:

---

Are you dense?! It's still clear that the rule was applied correctly. It doesn't matter if Phil kills himself with the offending putter out of guilt. The ruling is still correct.

---

SmackDaddy said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Dang, you guys seem pretty upset that Phil apologized and that a USGA rule change is forthcoming.

Sucks to be wrong, eh?

---

Are you dense?! It's still clear that the rule was applied correctly. It doesn't matter if Phil kills himself with the offending putter out of guilt. The ruling is still correct.

And I haven't seen where in his apology he admits he should be DQ'd.

And straight from the USGA:

Quote:

---

Some called for Mickelson to be disqualified. He spoke with USGA officials after the round to discuss whether he should indeed play Sunday's final round.

"Phil really did want to understand how the rule operates because he didn't want to ... as he said to me, 'Mike, I don't want to play in this championship if I should have been disqualified,'" USGA chief executive Mike Davis said. "That's where we clarified that 'Phil, you make a stroke at a moving ball, so we have to apply that rule.'

"That's different than if he had deliberately just stopped the ball or whacked it in another direction or something like that. So it's just us applying the rules.''

---

---

Perhaps Mike Davis should have consulted with a physicist before applying the USGA's rules....since he did stop the ball before hitting it the other direction.

---

Read the rule. If you stop the ball making a stroke it is a 2 stroke penalty (14-5)

If you stop the ball any other way it is a 2 stroke penalty (1-2) and if the penalty allowed them to gain advantage or put partner at disadvantage then the committee can DQ the offender.

jja79 said:

---

After reading this thread I could have sworn he did nothing wrong.

---

You need reading comprehension lessons. He clearly broke a rule and received the appropriate penalty.

I don't really care about the debate on whether he should have been disqualified or not, I originally was more upset with his demeanor after the round. Have never been a fan of Phil's so his attitude afterwards pissed me off.

But I will say the apology today was spot on. He was pissed off that day probably for many reasons, but the condition of the course was unfair and probably drove him over the edge. I have been there before. Whether it was on the course, at work or even at home. Sometimes I get worked up and takes me a while to cool off.

Phil Cooled Off and Apologized. He knows that is not the way to play the game and he is an ambassador for the game whether he wants to be or not. His apology was perfect and probably officially puts the matter to bed.

Now we will see highlight for years and years to come.....

powerbelly said:

---

Read the rule. If you stop the ball making a stroke it is a 2 stroke penalty (14-5)

If you stop the ball any other way it is a 2 stroke penalty (1-2) and if the penalty allowed them to gain advantage or put partner at disadvantage then the committee can DQ the offender.

---

Everything you say is correct. And Phil was properly penalized under the current rules. No argument with anyone here on that point.

But now read it again and tell me how the differentiation between these two actions makes any logical sense? Your intentionally stopping/redirecting the ball in both scenarios. But they are treated differently for some inexpiable reason.

I'm fine with either penalty (2 strokes, or 2 strokes with option to DQ). But pick one and apply it to both scenarios. That's my only contention on this whole thing.

Swollen Thumb said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

Read the rule. If you stop the ball making a stroke it is a 2 stroke penalty (14-5)

If you stop the ball any other way it is a 2 stroke penalty (1-2) and if the penalty allowed them to gain advantage or put partner at disadvantage then the committee can DQ the offender.

---

Everything you say is correct. And Phil was properly penalized under the current rules. No argument with anyone here on that point.

But now read it again and tell me how the differentiation between these two actions makes any logical sense? Your intentionally stopping/redirecting the ball in both scenarios. But they are treated differently for some inexpiable reason.

I'm fine with either penalty (2 strokes, or 2 strokes with option to DQ). But pick one and apply it to both scenarios. That's my only contention on this whole thing.

---

I understand your contention/frustration, but it doesn't really matter IMO. The rule is very clear and if it were to change I am fine with that.

You don't have much of a sense of humor fo you?