Jump to content


 

Photo

Phil....2 Strokes Or Dq?


  • Please log in to reply
224 replies to this topic

#196 Weetbix

Weetbix

    Par in my sight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 41994 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Queensland

Posted 07 July 2018 - 10:59 AM

You’d think it would be a consideration Jon

Handicap
Best result: 2 over 74 at Hills International on 13 Feb 2016
Eagles: 21/10/16 17th Keysborough, 24/10/16 18th Woodlands, 15/4/18 16th Carbrook
Goal: A round at par or better!
Brisbane Fairways 2015 Club Champion

2018 Nationals 4BBB Champion with Commish
Winner: 2015 Nationals day 5 round at Links Hope Island
Winner: 2016 Nationals day 5 round at Woodlands
Winner: 2017 Nationals day 5 round at Bonnie Doon

​Winner: 2018 Nationals day 2 round at Kooralbyn

​Winner: 2018 Nationals day 3 round at Sanctuary Cove Pines
South East Queensland Golf Group - Treasurer
http://www.brisbanef...ssocialgolf.com - Treasurer


#197 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1599 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 09 July 2018 - 10:02 AM

Acting with integrity – for example, by following the Rules, applying all penalties, and being honest in all aspects of play.

 

What a lot of people are failing to understand is that what Phil did does not constitute as a failure to follow the rules.

 

In contrary, he actually followed the rules quite perfectly and applied the applicable penalties to his score as per the rules.

 

Failing to follow the rules would be more like not counting the penalty strokes for hitting a moving ball.

 

 

I could care less about whether its a stroke or not - it's a breach that should have been determined to be serious and under 33-7 led to a DQ

 

That's about the only argument we can make for DQ. However, that would mean we are considering this incident to be a "serious breach of etiquette".

 

People will have mixed opinions on whether or not it is but the ruling bodies (which i agree with) do not consider it to be one.

 

As others have said, serious breaches of etiquette are more along the lines of attacking other players, intentionally putting off other players, etc. Not breaching a rule and applying the appropriate penalty strokes to your score.


| GolfLink 


#198 Weetbix

Weetbix

    Par in my sight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 41994 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Queensland

Posted 09 July 2018 - 10:58 AM

Deliberately breaching a rule should be considered differently to just breaching a rule

Am I misinformed that preventing a bal from entering a hazard is in the Decisions as serious? If it is then I cannot see how what he did would be any different.

Handicap
Best result: 2 over 74 at Hills International on 13 Feb 2016
Eagles: 21/10/16 17th Keysborough, 24/10/16 18th Woodlands, 15/4/18 16th Carbrook
Goal: A round at par or better!
Brisbane Fairways 2015 Club Champion

2018 Nationals 4BBB Champion with Commish
Winner: 2015 Nationals day 5 round at Links Hope Island
Winner: 2016 Nationals day 5 round at Woodlands
Winner: 2017 Nationals day 5 round at Bonnie Doon

​Winner: 2018 Nationals day 2 round at Kooralbyn

​Winner: 2018 Nationals day 3 round at Sanctuary Cove Pines
South East Queensland Golf Group - Treasurer
http://www.brisbanef...ssocialgolf.com - Treasurer


#199 Goldy

Goldy

    Ed Rayner's love child

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38976 posts
  • Location20m closer than you expected

Posted 09 July 2018 - 11:17 AM

Deliberately breaching a rule should be considered differently to just breaching a rule

Am I misinformed that preventing a bal from entering a hazard is in the Decisions as serious? If it is then I cannot see how what he did would be any different.

 

I think those of us who look at what occurred and the intent look at it differently to those who are adamant that the correct ruling was made as determined by the USGA at the time.

 

It was straight out cheating as far as I'm concerned. DQ. See ya later.

 

We'll have the usual responses that we've had from the usual suspects 100 times over by now. If it's for my benefit....don't bother.


  • Weetbix likes this

Winner Moonah Legends 2013 ISG Nationals | Winner The National 2013 ISG Nationals | Winner 4BBB 2013 ISG Nationals
Winner Stink's 3 Club Challenge 2015 | Winner C grade OOM The Sands 2016

Hole-in-one Growling Frog 14/1/17 5th hole 137m TM RBZ 5 hybrid, Srixon AD333 ball | Growling Frog GC Matchplay Champion 2017

Winner B grade OOM Curlewis 2018

Other, less impressive stuff...(I know...it's marginal...)
R/Up ISG Nationals 2013 | C Grade LD Growling Frog 8/2/14, 11th hole, TM R1, HOF Patriot shaft, testicles of steel | NTP 2nd hole Kooindah Waters 2014 ISG Nationals

3 Birdies in one round The Glades 2015 ISG Nationals | R/Up 4BBB 2015 ISG Nationals | NTP 16th hole Growling Frog OOM 2017 

C Grade LD Growling Frog 26/12/17, 15th hole, Callaway BB Alpha, HOF Patriot shaft, same old testicles of steel
C Grade LD Growling Frog 11/8/18, blah blah blah,,,,this is getting to be almost monotonous..... 

C Grade LD Growling Frog 1/9/18,...maybe these are now so commonplace I should just stop listing them

Never contended for the trophy named for me

 

Low Handicap point 12.7 9/4/16

Finally...and most importantly...
Smoldy....when only the best will do.


#200 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1599 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 09 July 2018 - 11:51 AM

Deliberately breaching a rule should be considered differently to just breaching a rule

 

Maybe.

 

In what context then could rule 14-5 be breached in way that was not deliberate? In order to make a stroke at a ball, the action must be deliberate. Considering you think the penalty for deliberately breaching a rule is DQ, what then is the purpose of including a 2-stroke penalty as part of that rule?

 

Am I misinformed that preventing a bal from entering a hazard is in the Decisions as serious? If it is then I cannot see how what he did would be any different.

 

Yes you are. First, Phil's ball wasn't entering a hazard and second, whether or not the actions are as serious as one another is irrelevant. The rules deal with making a stroke at a moving ball and deflecting a moving ball as different entities, so the decision relating to stopping a ball entering a hazard has no bearing on the actions made by Phil when he made a stroke at a moving ball.

 

If you have a problem with that, talk with the R&A and get them to write the rules differently.


| GolfLink 


#201 golfguy33

golfguy33

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2493 posts

Posted 10 July 2018 - 09:44 PM

 

Yes you are. First, Phil's ball wasn't entering a hazard and second, whether or not the actions are as serious as one another is irrelevant. The rules deal with making a stroke at a moving ball and deflecting a moving ball as different entities, so the decision relating to stopping a ball entering a hazard has no bearing on the actions made by Phil when he made a stroke at a moving ball.

 

 

I'm enjoying your presumption that the moving ball wasn't going to finish in the hazard, not at the point of impact. Because he hit his ball whilst it was still moving only takes into account the penalty for hitting a moving ball. Unless you are a clairvoyant or have ESP, then how do "you" know with any certainty what the end product of where Phil's ball was going to finish ? If it was headed for the hazard and he made his move, should he not have been also sanctioned for a serious breach because the ball may have gone into the hazard ?

Jon...

ps: Unfortunately we will never know, but his first statement after the round was that he'd thought of doing this several times in the past, so it was preconceived and was always going to bring the game into disrepute. This statement from Phil in isolation is enough to warrant the use of other rules to have had him DQ'd and the USGA were weak in their final ruling !      


  • Goldy likes this

#202 OldBogey

OldBogey

    Defining and analysing humour is a pastime of humourless people

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24295 posts
  • LocationRegional Victoria

Posted 10 July 2018 - 10:48 PM

Jon, I agree that there's no practical difference between stopping your ball with your foot or stopping it with a moving club. But the rules do differentiate between the two.

If you stop the ball with a club in some manner that resembles making a stroke, then you're hitting a moving ball, take a penalty and play on.

But if you stop the ball with your foot, then it seems one must estimate where the ball may have continued to and the whole picture and consequences are entirely different.

The right decision was made in terms of the rules, but the rules are wildly out of sync with each other. Phil M could have let the ball go, deemed it unplayable and then replayed the putt, without complications.

On that context, the 'stopping the ball' procedures are excessively penal compared to the alternatives.

As Phil had said that he had previously contemplated such an action, one would assume that he had full knowledge of expected outcomes and knew that he had to use a club.
  • Monty85 likes this

Golflink

Olinda Golf Club

Warragul Country Club

People say that nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.


#203 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1599 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 10 July 2018 - 10:53 PM

I'm enjoying your presumption that the moving ball wasn't going to finish in the hazard, not at the point of impact. Because he hit his ball whilst it was still moving only takes into account the penalty for hitting a moving ball. Unless you are a clairvoyant or have ESP, then how do "you" know with any certainty what the end product of where Phil's ball was going to finish ? 

 

The fact is irrelevant to the scenario anyway but as it was not virtually certain the ball was going in to a hazard, it therefore wasn't. 

 

If it was headed for the hazard and he made his move, should he not have been also sanctioned for a serious breach because the ball may have gone into the hazard ?

 

 

No. This has already been explained countless times. The rules deal with making a stroke at a moving ball and deflecting a moving ball differently. The decision regarding a ball going in to a hazard is only relevant if you stop or deflect the ball. NOT if you make a stroke at a moving ball. 

 

Again, this has been explained over and over again in this thread.

 

so it was preconceived and was always going to bring the game into disrepute.

 

 

It was a poor decision by Phil and was a bad look in general but it's hardly bringing the game in to disrepute. People need to stop being so melodramatic.

 

This statement from Phil in isolation is enough to warrant the use of other rules to have had him DQ'd and the USGA were weak in their final ruling !     

 

The only other rule available and the only way he could have possibly been DQ'd is via rule 33-7. As we've discussed already, this is reserved for serious breaches of etiquette and even then only for repeat offences. 

 

33-7/8

 

Meaning of "Serious Breach of Etiquette"

Q.In Rule 33-7, what is meant by a "serious breach of etiquette"?

A.A serious breach of etiquette is behavior by a player that shows a significant disregard for an aspect of the Etiquette Section, such as intentionally distracting another player or intentionally offending someone.

Although a Committee may disqualify a player under Rule 33-7 for a single act that it considers to be a serious breach of etiquette, in most cases it is recommended that such a penalty should be imposed only in the event of a further serious breach.

Ultimately, the application of a penalty for a serious breach of etiquette under Rule 33-7 is at the discretion of the Committee. 


  • OldBogey and languid like this

| GolfLink 


#204 Rodent

Rodent

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 461 posts

Posted 11 July 2018 - 09:56 AM

As far as I am concerned, making a stroke at a moving ball is when you ground your club, the ball starts moving and then you take a swipe at it.

 There is no way in hell that the striking a moving ball rule was conceived to address dummy spitters putting their ball when it was travelling at speed.

 How would we all like to play with someone who did this? If it is not a serious breach of etiquette, then it should be.



#205 ColinCL

ColinCL

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • LocationEdinburgh, Scotland

Posted 11 July 2018 - 04:21 PM

Jon, I agree that there's no practical difference between stopping your ball with your foot or stopping it with a moving club. But the rules do differentiate between the two.  They don't.  Rule 19-2  makes no mention of how a moving ball is stopped or deflected by a player - it could be a foot, a club, the brolly he left lying on the ground, any item of his equipment.

If you stop the ball with a club in some manner that resembles making a stroke, then you're hitting a moving ball, take a penalty and play on. Hitting a moving ball with a club is only a stroke if it meets the definition of a stroke.  Doing so "in some manner resembling a stroke" is unlikely to be a stroke.  An annoyed swipe at your ball might well "resemble" a stroke without being one and R14-5 would not apply.

But if you stop the ball with your foot, then it seems one must estimate where the ball may have continued to and the whole picture and consequences are entirely different. Not so. You are getting confused between a moving ball stopped or deflected deliberately by an outside agency [R19-1] and one stopped or deflected by the player [R19-2]

The right decision was made in terms of the rules, but the rules are wildly out of sync with each other. Phil M could have let the ball go, deemed it unplayable and then replayed the putt, without complications.  That is matter of the player's choices and does not reflect on the rules.  The rules and penalties do not take any account of the possible outcomes of any other course of action a player might have taken.  They deal only with what has happened.

On that context, the 'stopping the ball' procedures are excessively penal compared to the alternatives. As said above, alternative courses of action are irrelevant: a rule is concerned only with what the player does, not what he might otherwise have done.

As Phil had said that he had previously contemplated such an action, one would assume that  he had full knowledge of expected outcomes and knew that he had to use a club.  Perhaps you mean "knew he had to make a stroke"?

 

 

 

As always. I hope that's helpful.

Edited by ColinCL, 11 July 2018 - 04:25 PM.

  • CaNadiAn MiCk, languid and Monty85 like this

#206 Goldy

Goldy

    Ed Rayner's love child

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38976 posts
  • Location20m closer than you expected

Posted 11 July 2018 - 04:49 PM

OB...as usual, all over it.

 

At least he tried, I guess.


Winner Moonah Legends 2013 ISG Nationals | Winner The National 2013 ISG Nationals | Winner 4BBB 2013 ISG Nationals
Winner Stink's 3 Club Challenge 2015 | Winner C grade OOM The Sands 2016

Hole-in-one Growling Frog 14/1/17 5th hole 137m TM RBZ 5 hybrid, Srixon AD333 ball | Growling Frog GC Matchplay Champion 2017

Winner B grade OOM Curlewis 2018

Other, less impressive stuff...(I know...it's marginal...)
R/Up ISG Nationals 2013 | C Grade LD Growling Frog 8/2/14, 11th hole, TM R1, HOF Patriot shaft, testicles of steel | NTP 2nd hole Kooindah Waters 2014 ISG Nationals

3 Birdies in one round The Glades 2015 ISG Nationals | R/Up 4BBB 2015 ISG Nationals | NTP 16th hole Growling Frog OOM 2017 

C Grade LD Growling Frog 26/12/17, 15th hole, Callaway BB Alpha, HOF Patriot shaft, same old testicles of steel
C Grade LD Growling Frog 11/8/18, blah blah blah,,,,this is getting to be almost monotonous..... 

C Grade LD Growling Frog 1/9/18,...maybe these are now so commonplace I should just stop listing them

Never contended for the trophy named for me

 

Low Handicap point 12.7 9/4/16

Finally...and most importantly...
Smoldy....when only the best will do.


#207 languid

languid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1901 posts

Posted 11 July 2018 - 08:23 PM

Here is another angle.
So far all the discussion concerns a stipulated round ina 72 Hole Competition.

Suppose playing a stroke such as Phil M did was you versus me in a match.

I played at moving ball, deliberately of course.

You would win the hole. No argument.

Would you then report me to the Committee and demand I be disqualified?

If so it might be the first case of a standard 2 stroke penalty being morphed into DQ.

MACH OT EVENT.

#208 OldBogey

OldBogey

    Defining and analysing humour is a pastime of humourless people

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24295 posts
  • LocationRegional Victoria

Posted 11 July 2018 - 08:41 PM

As always. I hope that's helpful.


Not really, but it's nice to see an oblique view.

All this discussion just identifies how poorly the rules can be interpreted by various knowledgeable people. Revision, not just next year's, is clearly warranted.

Golflink

Olinda Golf Club

Warragul Country Club

People say that nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.


#209 ColinCL

ColinCL

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • LocationEdinburgh, Scotland

Posted 11 July 2018 - 09:59 PM

Not really, but it's nice to see an oblique view.

All this discussion just identifies how poorly the rules can be interpreted by various knowledgeable people. Revision, not just next year's, is clearly warranted.

 

I wasn't presenting an oblique view.  I wasn't presenting any kind of "view".  I was just  offering you a straight on explanation of the rules which you were misunderstanding.   Done for your guidance.

 

 But if it wasn't helpful, just ask about anything  that's unclear.


  • languid and Monty85 like this

#210 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1599 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 12 July 2018 - 08:52 AM

As far as I am concerned, making a stroke at a moving ball is when you ground your club, the ball starts moving and then you take a swipe at it.

 

There is no way in hell that the striking a moving ball rule was conceived to address dummy spitters putting their ball when it was travelling at speed.

 

So you think the definition of a stroke should be different for when the ball is moving and when it isn't?

 

You are welcome to think that but that doesn't make you right. The rules currently only offer one definition of what constitutes a stroke and they make no mention of the status of the ball when doing so.

 

 

 How would we all like to play with someone who did this? If it is not a serious breach of etiquette, then it should be.

 

Please feel free to do this all you like. I could not care less how many players do this during a round because the 2 stroke penalty is more than enough to make it not a feasible strategy.


Edited by Monty85, 12 July 2018 - 09:02 AM.

  • languid likes this

| GolfLink 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users