Ok go - should Phil have been DQ’ed?


#1

IMHO, it seems pretty clear. He admitted in his post-round interview that he stopped the ball to prevent it from rolling off the green and leaving him with a harder shot. To me this puts him under the governance of Rule 1-2, preventing a player from deflecting, altering, or influencing the movement of a ball in play. A serious breach of this results in DQ. Instead, the USGA went with Rule 14-5 stating one must not hit a moving ball (2-stroke penalty). His intent seemed to be to improve his situation by avoiding the fate of his ball leaving the putting surface. And of course, I haven’t even scratched the surface of the spirit of the game, golf course etiquette, respect for competitors, etc etc. But I would love to hear both sides and what the rest of you guys think!


#2

It’s not even a question, in my opinion. He hung himself in the interview with Curtis Strange. He should have been, and still should be, DQ’d.


#3

It’s not too late, right? He could still get the boot.


#4

DQ. Obviously tried to gain an illegal advantage. Definition of cheating.


#5

I don’t see how anyone can say dq. He didn’t try to get an illegal advantage. He determined that being penalized for a violation would be better than playing his ball as it would come to rest. It’s no different than in football when a DB intentionally does pass interference instead of giving up an easy TD. He was punished for the rule he broke.


#6

Probably a DQ by the letter of the law, but I don’t think strongly enough in either direction to say definitively he should’ve been DQ’d. It’s not like he didn’t take the 2 shot penalty immediately.

For the litigious out there, the USGA does have precedent. If they didn’t toss Kirk Triplett during the '98 US Open, they won’t toss Phil here.


#7

I remember John Daly doing it in 99 at the open as a chip rolled back to his feet. Don’t believe he was dqd


#8

I can see why he isn’t DQ’d with the way the rule is written. The rule just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t understand why actually stroking the ball is considered acceptable (2 strokes) while stopping or deflecting it is a DQ. I don’t really care either way, but if I were running the tourney I would definitely drop the hammer pretty quickly.


#9

This is the same thing I thought. Why is deflecting (very loose verb btw) a disqualification, but stroking it isn’t? We all talk about the rules needing to be simplified, and yet when the USGA finally did something about it, they changed a lot of things that didn’t need changing, when examples like this are still clear as mud.

I don’t think it was worth a DQ based on 14-5, but it’s been blown out of proportion. He wasn’t going to win the tournament anyway, and Phil’s status is the only reason why it’s been talked about the way it has. I’m not sure if it’s a DQ if Pat Perez or whoever else does it, but I’d much rather direct my thoughts towards the leaders than a guy who not in the Top 60.


#10

I don’t care either way and can understand both sides completely. A lot of this comes back on the USGA as the rule book seems to have two different rules that can apply and it’s open to interpretation.


#11

Wasn’t this basically a quick rake? It was a long version, as he had to jog to his ball. No DQ for quick raking.


#12

I’m in the boat of not caring either way. Yes this is a hit to his reputation and from an integrity standpoint pretty poor.

With that said, and as @djpie has realized recently, EVERYTHING Phil does is calculated. I 100% believe Phil’s logic in his interview, he knows he’ll get the benefit of the doubt from the USGA and I think he was proving a point and wanted to bring attention to the course setup today. He was frustrated, knew he wasn’t going to contend and this was his way of throwing pie into the face of the USGA even if he takes some much deserved wrath (and yes pun intended on the “pie” comment)


#13

Playing that course again tomorrow starting +15 with nothing to play for is punishment enough.


#14

this isn’t going to impact his reputation. in 5, 10, 50 years no one is going to say “Hey remember that one open Phil did this…”

They’re gonna talk about the 5 majors, 40+ wins, fan love, etc


#15

If anything we should be thanking Phil for believing pace of play is important and not holding up his fellow competitors lol


#16

I just listened to the “Live from” (Jacksonville) NLU post round discussion and they actually discuss my take. I apologize for being late to that “take party” boys but I do think that was the case and it will come out that it was totally the reason


#17

I don’t disagree that this is some recency bias… it wont be on his tombstone but it’ll be a sentence in his obit. He dug himself a hole with the interview, it was egregious and will be a mark on his US Open resume, which everyone will talk about, UNLESS he wins one (and I do think he will contend at Pebble… glory’s last shot. I don’t think he stands a chance at Winged Foot in 2 years)


#18

People are acting like he took his pants off and finished out naked. Let’s uhhh…let’s move on folks.


#19

#20

What it really shows is how poorly written the rules are. The DJ fiasco and now this. Both times there have been legitimate arguments either way from smart golfers. The rules of golf are very gray.