[blueash]

As the ball would have only rolled a few yards more... not a serious violation.

Whereas Mickelson said he volleyed the ball because he was convinced it was going to continue a very significant distance, so many yards that he felt he would save strokes by taking a two stroke penalty or stated more clearly he says he calculated that it would take at least 4 more strokes to play it from where it was likely to stop. With what he did he was looking at 3 strokes had his volley gone in the hole. Hardly a good example to support your position. And since this is the best rule you can find for only assessing him a two stroke penalty and it does not apply when the ball was going to roll more than "a few yards", DQ would seem more appropriate.

I doubt Mickelson would need four strokes from somewhere just off the green but if you believe his explanation was honest that it was a strategic choice to save strokes rather than a blatant breach of the spirit of golf then I wonder why no one else had employed this brilliant strategy. I don't believe I have seen a single other PGA player defend Mickelson's action as being clever strategy. I suspect had it been Woods the tone on this website would be very different. But some people are more equal.