On the third day of the 2018 US Open, Phil Mickelson quite incredibly struck his ball while it was in motion.
In an interview immediately following the completion of his round Michelson said:
‘… at that time I didn’t feel like going back and forth, hitting the same shot over … no question, it (the ball) was going to go down into the same spot behind the bunker and I wasn’t going to have a shot …’.He also said in respect to the action he took:
‘I tried to hit it as near the hole as possible to make the next one....’.At a later date he apparently issued statement wherein he said:
'I'm embarrassed and disappointed by my actions.My anger and frustration got the best of me last weekend.I'm embarrassed and disappointed by my actions. It was clearly not my finest moment and I'm sorry.’Mickelson had committed the most obvious and blatant breach of Rule 1-2 that could be imagined.
He suffered a brain-fade!
The USGA, when confronted with this incident, latched (with alacrity) onto Mickelson’s assertion that he tried to hit the moving ball near to the hole … was aware of the fact that he would incur a two stroke penalty … and that he was happy to take it as he judged it to be of significant advantage to him. In this way they felt that they were required to invoke Exception 1 to Rule 1-2 and move the offence from Rule 1-2 (which could have led to Mickelson’s disqualification) to the less penal Rule 14-5 (Paying Moving Ball) which limits the potential penalty to two strokes.
Mickelson was issued with a two stroke penalty and continued in the tournament.
Rule 1-2
In the Rules of Golf (Rule Book) ‘As Approved by the The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, Scotland (R&A) and The United States Golf Association (USGA), Effective January 1956’ a Rule dealing with ‘Exerting Influence On Ball’ was included as Rule 35.1.h.
Rule 35 covered ‘PUTTING GREEN AND WITHIN TWENTY YARDS OF HOLE and section 1.h stated:
Any player or caddie engaged in the match may stand at the hole, but no player or caddie shall take any action to influence the position or the movement of the ball.The Penalty for breach of Rule 35.1 was two strokes.
In the Rule Book as Effective 1968 and Amended to January 1970, ‘Exerting Influence On Ball’ appeared as part of Rule 17: IMPROVING LIE or STANCE and INFLUENCING BALL PROHIBITED.
Rule 17.4 stated:
No player or caddie shall take any action to influence the position or the movement of a ball except in accordance with the Rules.The Penalty statement for Rule 17 was amended to provide that:
In case of a serious breach of Rule 17-4, the Committee may impose a penalty of disqualification.In the 1996 Rules, ‘Exerting Influence on Ball’ became Rule 1-2 and replicated exactly the provisions of the 1970 book.
The 2000 Rule Book again replicated Rule 1-2, but it now included:
(Removal of movable obstructions – see Rule 24-1)This provision continued in the 2004 Rule Book but by 2008 the following was added:
(Removable of loose impediment – see Rule 23-1)And the following Note was included:
A player is deemed to have committed a serious s breach of Rule 1-2 if the Committee considers that his act of influencing the position or movement of the ball has allowed him or another player to gain a significant advantage or has placed another player, other than his partner, at a disadvantage.In the Rule Book issued in 2012 Rule 1-2 was re-titled ‘Exerting influence on Movement of Ball or Altering Physical Conditions’ and was modified to read:
A player must not (i) take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play or (ii) alter any physical condition with the intent of affecting the play of a hole.
Exceptions:
1. An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not Rule 1-2
2. Any action taken for the sole purpose of caring for the course is not a breach of Rule 1-2.
Note 2:In stroke play, except where a serious breach resulting in disqualification is involved, a player in breach of Rule 1-2 in relation to his own ball must play the ball from where it was stopped, or, if the ball was deflected, from where it came to rest. If the movement of a player’s ball has been intentionally influenced by a fellow-competitor or other outside agency, Rule 1-4 applies to the player.The R&A and USGA (Ruling Bodies) explained the changes to Rule 1-2 in the 2012 Book in the following terms:
The Rule is amended to establish more clearly that if a player intentionally takes an action to influence the movement of a ball or to alter physical conditions affecting the playing of a hole in a way that is not permitted by the Rules, Rule 1-2 applies only where the action is not already covered in another Rule. For example, a player improving the lie of his ball is in breach of Rule 13-2 and therefore that Rule would apply, whereas a player intentionally improving the lie of a fellow-competitor’s ball is not a situation covered by Rule 13-2 and, therefore, is governed by Rule 1-2.With the introduction of Exception 1, parenthetical references to other Rules was removed. It is my contention that over the years myriad Decisions (see below) had been issued relating to circumstances caught by Rule 1-2 and that the more efficient way to incorporate these Decisions into the Rules was to frame a general Exception rather than to continue the policy of listing relevant exceptions separately. A result of such generalisation is, of course, that it opens the way for there to be unintended consequences.
Rule 1-2, as modified in 2012 is replicated in the current Rule Book.
Decisions
The application of Rule 1-2 has, over time, been clarified and expanded by several Decisions.
Such Decisions published between 2006 and 2011, which influenced the introduction of Exception 1 into Rule 1-2 included:
- Line of Putt Altered Purposely by Opponent or Fellow-Competitor by Stepping on It Competitor Alters Line of Play of Fellow-Competitor
- Shielding Line of Putt from Wind
- Flagstick Lying on Putting Green Removed by Player to Prevent Another Player’s Ball from Striking It
- Player Repairs Hole After Holing Out But Before Opponent or Fellow-Competitor or Partner Holes Out
- Player Removes Loose Impediment Affecting Lie of Opponent or Fellow-Competitor in Hazard
- Player Jumps Close to Hole to Cause Ball to Drop: Ball Does not Drop or Ball Moves
- Player Purposely Deflects Partner’s Ball in Motion on Putting Green
- Player Presses Down Turf as Ball Is Rolling Towards Area
There are also several other Decisions which are referenced covering such issues as: Deliberately failing to remove flagstick; Removal of loose impediment or obstruction affecting play; Replacing lifted ball on green while another ball in motion; Casting shadow on ball overhanging the hole; Caddie holds back tree branch to prevent branch deflecting or stopping ball; and Caddie stops dropped ball before it comes to rest.
Since the introduction of Exception 1 similar Decisions covering pressing a ball into the putting surface and wrapping a towel around self to gain protection from cactus have been added.
It will be noted that all of these Decisions relate to actions which are essentially indirect in nature: that is, there is no involvement of action applied by the player directly to his ball.
It should be further noted that not one of the more than forty Decisions relating to ‘exerting an influence’ in the current Decisions Book refers to Rule 14, indicating that it has never been a contemplated or envisaged that this Rule could, would or might be of relevance to the application of Rule 1-2, particularly in the way that it has now been.
Thus the clarifications on the application of Rule 1-2 which led to the framing of Exception 1 related entirely to indirect actions, with three exceptions.
Decision 1-2/5 which provides that a player who putts with one hand and catches the ball with the other before it comes to rest in the hole is in breach of Rule 1-2 for purposely stopping a moving ball. This is a self-evident, though somewhat pedantic, application of the Rule but which provides a telling comparison between the consequence of this seemingly innocuous action and that suffered by Mickelson.
More significantly, Decision 1-2/5.5 states:
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. … In stroke play if a serious breach has occurred, the player is disqualified.And further, Decision 1-2/0.5, promulgated in 2012 makes it quite clear that a player stopping the ball from entering a water hazard is guilty of a serious breach of Rule 1-2 and should be disqualified. On the application of the precedent established by the Mickelson interpretation the player could smack his ball towards the green avoid the one stroke hazard penalty, overcome the necessity to drop his ball behind the hazard and escape disqualification.
I think it entirely reasonable to assert that the purpose of Exception 1 to Rule 1-2 is to ensure that actions essentially indirect in nature are dealt with under a more appropriate Rule and that dealing with direct and deliberate contraventions of Rule 1-2 by an unintended application of the Exception is entirely inappropriate.
Stroke
That Mickelson breached Rule 1-2 is completely self-evident on the basis of both the vision available for all to see and the verbal evidence provided by the player himself.
However the USGA apparently chose to ignore all of the evidence, as required in the application of any and every Rule, and to take the player’s off-hand comment that ‘I tried to hit it as near the hole as possible to make the next one....’ as clear evidence that he had made a stroke at a ball in motion and was therefore caught by the Exception and subject thereby to the provisions of Rule 14.5.
But does this stand up?
In the Rule Book of 1956, the essential feature of a stroke was defined as:
‘… the forward movement of the club with the intention of fairly striking at and moving the ball’.While the subsequently added caveat – dealing with checking a swing before the club reaches the ball – serves to confuse the issue and has since been ignored, the essential features of a stroke remain the same today.
To confuse the issue, Decision 14/6 published in the 1995, jointly published by the USGA and the R&A, which addressed the case of a player swinging at a ball which ‘popped up’ when he made a stroke at it in tree roots states that this is not a stroke, despite a forward movement of the club having been made with the intention of striking the ball.
The plot thickens, however, when we see that this Decision which was reproduced in every Decisions Book up to, and including 2010-2011, was suddenly re-classified as ‘Reserved’ in the body and ‘Withdrawn’ in the ‘Amendments’ summary, of the 2012-2013 Decisions Book.
The standing of this Decision and the reason for its change in status are not immediately obvious.
Conclusion
In consideration of the nature of the offence, the admissions of the player, the principles of the game, the history and development of the relevant rules and decisions, and the specious basis upon which it based its decision it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the USGA failed spectacularly in its duty as a custodian of the integrity of the game in its handling of what can only be described as a blatant and outrageous action by a player.
The USGA suffered a brain-fade!
No comments:
Post a Comment