This is Phil being his holier than thou philosophy as to when he wants everyone to know he was unhappy with what was going on. He should have been DQ’d but then again that would mean the lords of golf would have to give up a star for tv.
The thing about Rule 1-2 is this bit:
“An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another rule is subject to that other rule, not rule 1-2”
What that means is that if the infringement is covered by another rule, then you can’t apply 1-2 as a solution. What he did was obviously covered by 14-5 and the penalty was given according to that rule.
Sorry, but that’s the end of the discussion.
You can talk about the rules being ambiguous but in this case they kinda aren’t. The only reason why we’re even having this conversation is because it’s a situation you’d almost never come across. Adding the actual stroke, which he failed to hole, Phil took a 3 shot hit on that. 4 if you count the holed putt. 99.999% of golfers would fully expect to get that ball into the hole from off the green in at least 2, so it’s a decision no pro golfer should ever really be expected to take. It was a really dumb idea.
Great find on the 1-2 rule exception there. Very interesting and does seem to sway this towards the 2-stroke penalty rather than the DQ. Thank you!