US Open 3rd Round 2018

Greg, technically, I think Phil blew the argument for the 2-shot penalty when he opened his mouth afterwards indicating "he has been wanting to do this for a while now, and just did".  He confirmed it wasn't just an un-intentional outburst, it was done with forethought.  Which takes it from the 2-shot penalty rule (for breach due to accidental, unintentional, impulse, etc) to the possible DQ for serious breach of rules (intentional).  As stated in a few radio commentaries yesterday, Tiger and Phil are perhaps like the 'Teflon-don' of the golf world; any other mortals would have been DQ'd instantly.  There is probably some truth to that. I wish he just said, I got frustrated at this lousy setup, messing up another US Open, and I just acted on impulse....that would have added to the commentary on the US Open conditions....but his explanation about 'trying to save a stroke', ehh, pretty lame. I was annoyed that it provided/attracted so much discussion in spite of the eventual champion and his story.

This is what the 2018 US Open will be remembered for:

Bad stuff from 2018 US Open:
1. lousy USGA course setup
2. Phil's dumb move stopping the ball

Good stuff from 2018 US Open:
1. Bruce Kepka wins after recent injury that kept him out of Masters
2. Dude with long hair that tied US Open record

gregoryc wrote:dortt, CoJack, briedfox --

You have all lost your mind. Find a rule book and read it. Phil broke a rule, it has a penalty, the penalty was enforced. What you're are all calling for is unwarranted and not even possible under the rules as written. If you think it is, please quote the language and rule you are referring to, and I'll happily explain to how you are misguided.

What Phil did was obviously impatient and unwise --- there's no doubt that he cost himself at least one stroke for violating a rule. Breaking a rule to save yourself stokes --- which is what Phil thought he was doing --- is smart. Breaking a rule to cost yourself stokes --- which is what Phil did --- is dumb. Calling for a DQ when it's not even a possible penalty under the rules --- what the three of you seem to be clamoring for --- is ignorant.  

-Greg

bulls9999 -

With respect, you cite to no rule that allows for or even contemplates a DQ for Phil's rule violation. Do you have any authority for your position, or are you (like most) operating on a gut feeling about what you think the rules should be? I would guess the latter, as in this case the rules, once they are fully worked through, are very clear. "Intent" plays no part in the available for a penalty for making a stroke at a moving ball. If you have contrary authority, let me know. If there's one thing I love, it's a healthy discussion about the rules of golf.

I fully admit that immediately after the violation, I had the same gut reaction you and many others had. I thought, "that's got to be a DQ." I started poking around the rule book and found 1-2 and thought, "Yep, a definite DQ." But then I found 14-5, and realized, "Wait a minute, there's no way to not apply 14-5 in this situation." Because 14-5 doesn't allow for a DQ, 33-7 doesn't either. Be sure to read the second paragraph: "Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified." Further, understand that the final paragraph applies only to breaches of etiquette, which is not what we are dealing with here. I would encourage you to read all the applicable rules (1-2, 14-5, 33-7, and the definition of a "stroke") with an open mind and I think you'll find that the USGA's job is harder than you think. In nearly all cases they faithfully apply the rules as written to the situation at hand. They did so in this case and should be commended, not condemned.  

As to your supposition that other's would have been disqualified instantly, I strongly disagree. The only similar (though not identical) situation I'm aware of is John Daly's violation in at the 1999 US Open (youtube link). In the case of  Daly's violation it was far less clear as to whether he "made a stroke" or "deflected" a moving ball, than in Phil's situation, which I believe was unambiguously a stroke. Daly was assessed a two-stroke penalty and took an 11 on that hole. It's not clear to me whether the assessment was under 14-5 or 1-2, but in either event, he was not disqualified. Daly finished the tournament in last place and vowed to never compete again in a US Open (espn story). He has broken that vow three times, with a withdrawal, a T70, and a T73. Hopefully, Phil's story ends differently. I'm hopeful that it will.

Cheers,
-Greg

But Rule 14-5 cites otherwise accidental deflections of a moving ball 1-2 when the ball is 'purposely deflected', not accidentally or from a fit or frustration. Phil later indicated his 'intent was to do it to save strokes' when he was facing the media which is equivocal to 'purposely deflected'. Phil out-smarted himself, lol.

14-5. Playing Moving Ball

A player must not make a stroke at his ball while it is moving.

Exceptions:
- Ball falling off tee – Rule 11-3
- Striking the ball more than once – Rule 14-4
- Ball moving in water – Rule 14-6

When the ball begins to move only after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of his club for the stroke, he incurs no penalty under this Rule for playing a moving ball, but he is not exempt from any penalty under Rule 18-2 (Ball at rest moved by player).

(Ball purposely deflected or stopped by player, partner or caddie – see Rule 1-2 ('serious breach, DQ')

Well, he indicated what his intentions were, to stop the ball before it went off the putting green and rolled down into a place that he very conceivably might not have had a shot. It was his intent, if he wouldn’t have divulged what his intent was, if he would have just said, “Hey, I clearly struck a ball in motion. I did what I did, and that was it”, and not taken it any further than that, then it would have been pretty clear-cut that it was a two shot penalty. But when he expressed his intent to breach the rules, then that’s where the disqualification would have come into play.

gregoryc wrote:bulls9999 -

With respect, you cite to no rule that allows for or even contemplates a DQ for Phil's rule violation. Do you have any authority for your position, or are you (like most) operating on a gut feeling about what you think the rules should be? I would guess the latter, as in this case the rules, once they are fully worked through, are very clear. "Intent" plays no part in the available for a penalty for making a stroke at a moving ball. If you have contrary authority, let me know. If there's one thing I love, it's a healthy discussion about the rules of golf.

I fully admit that immediately after the violation, I had the same gut reaction you and many others had. I thought, "that's got to be a DQ." I started poking around the rule book and found 1-2 and thought, "Yep, a definite DQ." But then I found 14-5, and realized, "Wait a minute, there's no way to not apply 14-5 in this situation." Because 14-5 doesn't allow for a DQ, 33-7 doesn't either. Be sure to read the second paragraph: "Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified." Further, understand that the final paragraph applies only to breaches of etiquette, which is not what we are dealing with here. I would encourage you to read all the applicable rules (1-2, 14-5, 33-7, and the definition of a "stroke") with an open mind and I think you'll find that the USGA's job is harder than you think. In nearly all cases they faithfully apply the rules as written to the situation at hand. They did so in this case and should be commended, not condemned.  

As to your supposition that other's would have been disqualified instantly, I strongly disagree. The only similar (though not identical) situation I'm aware of is John Daly's violation in at the 1999 US Open (youtube link). In the case of  Daly's violation it was far less clear as to whether he "made a stroke" or "deflected" a moving ball, than in Phil's situation, which I believe was unambiguously a stroke. Daly was assessed a two-stroke penalty and took an 11 on that hole. It's not clear to me whether the assessment was under 14-5 or 1-2, but in either event, he was not disqualified. Daly finished the tournament in last place and vowed to never compete again in a US Open (espn story). He has broken that vow three times, with a withdrawal, a T70, and a T73. Hopefully, Phil's story ends differently. I'm hopeful that it will.

Cheers,
-Greg

Could it be that Phil finally realized the debacle he created, the hole he put himself in with his explanation:

But Rule 14-5 cites otherwise accidental deflections of a moving ball 1-2 when the ball is 'purposely deflected', not accidentally or from a fit or frustration. Phil later indicated his 'intent was to do it to save strokes' when he was facing the media which is equivocal to 'purposely deflected'. Phil out-smarted himself, lol.

Now that Phil 'apologized', he seems to be back-tracking on his original statements to the press as to why he did it (i.e., originally to 'save strokes', something he's wanted to do for a long time and finally did it'.... that is intentional). His apology (below) now makes it out as a fit of frustration, which is different than intentional.

Mickelson apology: “I know this should've come sooner, but it's taken me a few days to calm down,” Mickelson said in a statement regarding his decision to hit a moving golf ball on the 13th green at Shinnecock Hills. “My anger and frustration got the best of me last weekend. I'm embarrassed and disappointed by my actions. It was clearly not my finest moment and I’m sorry.”

What happened to the calculating 'did it to save strokes and use the rules to his advantage' (or as he actually said, "to take advantage of the rules")? Yes, clearly not Phil's finest hour.

I think his explanation was off the cuff and not what happened. JMO. Rory doesn't care. I want to move on myself, but everyone's opinion is interesting.

To those that continue to think that rule 1-2 is the correct rule to apply in this case, please consider the following

1-2 states: "An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not Rule 1-2."

Is there another rule that expressly prohibits what Phil did? Hmmm. 14-5 looks close, lets read it: 14-5: "A player must not make a stroke at his ball while it is moving." Did Phil Mickelson do this? If the answer is yes (spoiler alert: I think it is), 14-5 must apply. Two stroke penalty, end of story. Because 14-5 applies, 1-2, by its very terms, cannot apply. The "deflected or stopped" under 14-5 must be something *other* than a stroke.

To those that insist on examining "intent," it has no application to rule 14-5. You simply have to decide if his actions fit that prohibition. The rule does not ask what he was thinking when he did it and does not care. The only question of intent here is whether there was intent to make a stroke ("A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball..."). Assuming that certain rules require a specific mindset to be broken (or not) is a mistake that people often make. This one is like speeding. Either you were or you weren't. The cops don't care why.