Mickelson Misses 3-Stroke Opportunity

Even Pros suffer mental lapses …as evidenced by Phil Mickelson Saturday during the U.S. Open. Rather than slowly pace as he did and strike the ball only as it gathered speed some 10-12 feet past the hole (missing the hole with that stroke and again missing on a subsequent stroke with the ball at rest), PM should have simply raced to the hole and stroked the ball into the hole as it passed the hole the first time! Certainly, with this foresight and prompt action, he would have avoided the last two misses and scored an 8 on the hole rather than a 10. In fact, Foremost thinks he could have made a 7!

At least, this is F’s conclusion after reviewing the assessed penalty.

The final Committee Ruling on the matter was that PM violated R14-5 which prohibits striking a ball in motion. This prohibition carries a two-stroke penalty.

The Committee chose not to impose the harsher sanction in this Rule, which by reference to R1-2 authorizes a Committee in its discretion to DQ a player for a “serious breach” of taking “an action with an intent to influence a ball in play.” In determining whether a player has committed a “serious breach” under R1-2 (“exerting influence”), the Committee must consider “all aspects of the incident.” Dec 1-2/0.5. Where stopping the ball from entering a water hazard should be a ‘serious breach” in stroke play (Ibid), stopping a ball rolling back from a fat pitch shot when it might only go another couple of yards is not serious. Dec 1-2/5.5.

The Committee in its discretion also declined to DQ PM for “a serious breach of etiquette.” R33-7. A serious breach of etiquette might be found where there is a “significant disregard” for an aspect of the Etiquette Section. Dec33-7/8.

It is obvious to F why this action was not a “serious breach” in the eyes of the Committee. The first and most obvious reason is that the player who initiated the action was Phil Mickelson. (The situation is not unlike the FBI giving Hillary a pass on the private email server violations, when all know that any other government official would have been indicted). If Pro Joe Blow had swiped a ball in motion, most suspect he would have been escorted from Shinnecock by his ears.

The second reason the action was not a “serious breach” is that PM was smart enough to miss the swipe and his next putt. Certainly, if he had made either, the decision by the Committee would have been more difficult… the Committee might have had to consider whether PM would have still been in the hunt with a quadruple 8 or a 9.

And finally, PM kept smiling! It’s hard to find a “serious” breach when an offender is so light-hearted! Golf is a game, and smiling sets a wonderful example! PM’s partner, Beef Johnston was smiling…how could the Committee not smile? 😇

Could this Ruling change the face of golf? For arguments sake, let’s assume PM instead had raced to the hole and simply deflected the ball into the cup as it passed. In this case, under the Committee finding of no ”serious breach”, PM would have scored a 7 since the Committee would not have been able to conclude the deflection was a stroke. Under R14-1, a ball must be “fairly struck”, and must not be “pushed, scraped, or spooned.” Further, by definition, a stroke must involve “the forward movement of the club with the intention of striking at and moving the ball.” (Def” Stroke”). Accordingly, it seems to F that a mere deflection of the ball with a club at rest would not be a stroke at a ball in motion (R14-5), but rather, “an action with an intent to influence a ball in play” necessitating the imposition of R1-2 (cited above) rather than R14-5. But in either case, if not a “serious breach”, the penalty would have been 2 strokes. In other words, if PM had been thinking, rather than making a stroke, he should have deflected the ball at the hole into the hole (no stroke) for a respectable 7.

With this decision, players in the future might consider in advance whether and how to stop a meandering, runaway putt. Most players have faced putts that offer a like predicament where a miss simply isn’t going to stop and will run off the green. Commentators quickly cited the 15th hole at Augusta where a missed putt might find the pond fronting the green leaving the player with a difficult shot back over the water to simply find the putting green. Deflecting the ball into or next to the hole with a 2-stroke penalty might be a bargain! A player on the green in regulation 3 could perhaps deflect a moving putt into the hole for a 4 (net 6 with penalty under R1-2 if the Committee found there was not a stroke) or stroke it into the hole while moving for a 5 (net 7 with penalty under R14-5) rather than play the conventional way by crossing the pond, taking a penalty stroke and dropping 5, and then making 7 or 8 the hard way … it is said that the 15th at Augusta can be hard green to hit and hold even with a pitch shot!

Ok, of course a Masters Committee would never tolerate this type of play! We know that! They would find a “serious breach” in a second, and quickly DQ the offender… unless perhaps it was Tiger…. remember his drop on 15?

F thinks future Committees will not adopt this finding as precedent. This rules breach was “serious.”

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome!*

Respectfully submitted,

F

 

*See comments-F corrects himself