Absolutely agree. :thumbup:

I watched the Open every day and I didn't see any missed three footers rolling ten feet by or off the green. Do you have specific examples of this? I'm sure that it could happen on a US Open golf course, but that's part of solving the problem. Hitting your ball on the green is not good enough. It has to be in a specific location on the green. Or more importantly, it can't be in certain specific locations. It's the same at The Masters. if you get your ball above the hole on some holes, you either have to hole it or you're going to have a long comeback putt.

This is major championship golf. Brooks Koepka won by shooting one over. Dustin Johnson could have won, but he putted horribly. He hit the ball on the green and in the right spot for the most part, but couldn't find the line. Had he putted just decently, (and that's 30 putts at the tour level) he would have won easily. Tommy Fleetwood shot 63 so how can anyone say that the golf course was unfair or too difficult. It's supposed to be extremely difficult.

Phil screwed up but then, no one is perfect. For those who condemn him I pose the question, all the years we endured Tigers temper tantrums, swearing, throwing clubs, kicking his bag, etc. Etc. Did you condemn his actions and if not, why?

The two stroke penalty was the rule. However, if there is a possibility that the tournament officials have the option to disqualify Phil then the verbiage needs to be in the rule that the officials have the discretion to use their own judgement that includes up to being disqualified. But since the rules do not have that option listed then you can't disqualify him.

The course setup by the PGA on Saturday was not a fair one. By the time the last groups of golfers got to some holes the “right spot” was either completely gone or almost minuscule. Good shots were Time and again not biting and rolling off the greens. Phill the Hall of Fame senior statesmen made a statement for his fellow competitors. The USGA got the message and had the course set up in a fair way on Sunday. Yeah, Tommy Fleetwood shot a 63 on Sunday. What did that same golfer shoot on Saturday. 78!

[emoji106]

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Ohiobuckeye
 

You know, I can see everyone's disapproval what Phil did but if Phil wanted to tank his match, it was his money that he was losing not ours. There's no rule in golf that says he can't tank a golf match. To me it was just not very professional for a pro golfer to do something like this. Why are so many people getting down on Phil? Haven't we all started something & just finally say I quit! He could of just walked off the course but maybe this was his way of saying the greens are crap. Would that of been the right thing to do, NO! Why is it that when someone does something like this, it's news for the next 6 months. What Phil did has been done before!

I like Phil very m uch, but intentionally doing what he did should have warranted a DQ.

Again, everyone who is suggesting he should have been DQ'ed needs to read the decisions on the rules of golf, rule 1-2, specifically the example given:


1-2/5.5 Player Purposely Stops or Deflects Ball; Where Next Stroke Must Be Played from
Q.A player's ball lies through the green. After playing a pitch shot up a slope, the player sees his ball start to roll back towards him. He places his club in front of the ball and stops it. The ball would have rolled only a few yards more and remained through the green. What is the ruling?
A.Since the player purposely stopped the ball, he is in breach of Rule 1-2. As the breach was not serious, the player incurs a penalty of loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play. In stroke play, he must play the ball from the point where he stopped it with his club - see Note 2 to Rule 1-2.

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.