OT - Phil Mickelson

scout said:

Phil's action was bush league. For some, it seems like a good strategy with football analogies. I don't think we will see professional golfers stopping rolling balls as a strategy. Although, wouldn't be surprised to see members here taking advantage of it this weekend.

Click to expand...

To me the football analogy to what Phil did is the 70's Steelers. Technically steroids were legal and the Steelers did have "prescriptions". So....

I don't think it was a good look for Phil or for the USGA.

Phil Mickelson takes a stand against plastic straws

WinstonSmith said:

I don't disagree that this is a bad look for Phil , my issue is with your choice of using the negatively loaded term cheating.

He played a ball while it was moving for all to see. The tournament official correctly assessed a 2 stroke penalty. I wouldn't have had an issue if he was disqualified, but he wasn't. Although his actions may have been calculated they weren't deceptive (He knew the world was watching). So why the need to play morality police and label him a cheater?

Click to expand...

It’s still cheating. He was penalized 2 strokes for cheating. Cheating does not require deception.

QuantumMechanic said:

Highly amused to see NE fans of all people calling that cheating and saying he should have been DQ'd. He didn't hide anything and he got the penalty the rules specify for what he did.

What's next? Calling it "cheating" if you line someone up with an eligible number in an ineligible position?

Or calling it "cheating" when you mug and hammer receivers when you know there's no way the refs will call them all?

Or (to use a non-NE example), calling it "cheating" when a receiving team member stands OOB and reaches out onto the field of play to touch a kicked-off ball and create a kickoff-OOB penalty on the kicking team?

This team's coaching staff is all about pushing the rules to the legal limit -- and I love them for doing it! Just like the rules say Mickelson gets a 2-stroke penalty for doing that. If he believes the 2-stroke penalty for doing that will cost him fewer strokes than letting it come to a stop, more power to him for doing what he did. If the USGA, etc. don't like it, they can change the rule going forward.

Click to expand...

You are caught up in rhetoric.
Jumping off sides is cheating, that’s why they assess a penalty.

Mickelson has always been impulsive, both on the course and off. It seems to be "who he is." Unlike other athletes who carefully manage their images, with Mickelson it's always been "what you see is what you get."

He's gotten away with shots that more "prudent" players wouldn't dream of making because he's so darn good and has won more than 50 times in the US and Europe. But, with all his talent, it took him 12 years on Tour to win a major. Then he seemed to settle down a bit as he got older and won five in eight years. But, the US Open has always eluded him (T2 * 6).

He's also a very serious gambler...you don't think his foursome with Brady, Fowler and their Investment Banker friend had anything less than six figures on the table do you (with Phil and Ricky playing to"plus-something" and the other two to "minus-something")?

In addition, he skated on the slimmest of technicalities in a serious Insider Trading case.

So, what he did on Saturday is pretty consistent with who he is. He knew that another US Open was out of his grasp. He was frustrated and acted impulsively...but in a calculated way. He knew that the two-stroke penalty under the circumstance would a DQ and already knew the answer when he called the head of the USGA to ask whether he was disqualified.

The ball he stopped was going to roll way off the green and give him a problem coming back, but not a problem that a golfer of his caliber couldn't handle with two additional strokes anyway. Then, he lost his cool and did what many of us have done playing with our buddies without money on the table.

However, if the ball was somehow in danger of rolling OB or into a Water Hazard, I think that the DQ rule would have taken precedence.

As his wife said later, it wasn't his "finest moment." But, I still love Phil.

QuantumMechanic said:

Highly amused to see NE fans of all people calling that cheating and saying he should have been DQ'd. He didn't hide anything and he got the penalty the rules specify for what he did.

What's next? Calling it "cheating" if you line someone up with an eligible number in an ineligible position?

Or calling it "cheating" when you mug and hammer receivers when you know there's no way the refs will call them all?

Or (to use a non-NE example), calling it "cheating" when a receiving team member stands OOB and reaches out onto the field of play to touch a kicked-off ball and create a kickoff-OOB penalty on the kicking team?

This team's coaching staff is all about pushing the rules to the legal limit -- and I love them for doing it! Just like the rules say Mickelson gets a 2-stroke penalty for doing that. If he believes the 2-stroke penalty for doing that will cost him fewer strokes than letting it come to a stop, more power to him for doing what he did. If the USGA, etc. don't like it, they can change the rule going forward.

Click to expand...

I like the way you are thinking here. Following this logic, the biggest cheaters are those that are penalized the most, right?

robertweathers said:

Had a debate after my Friday golf league....

Paulina or Rickie's girl, Allison Stokke.

Really can't go wrong.

Click to expand...

Matt Jones' wife isn't too shabby

robertweathers said:

Yea she's a cutie.

Dufner's ex is still my favorite. She was wild. Every PGA WAG funtion she'd get smashed and hit on all the guys on tour.

She was chaos

Click to expand...

Did I hear correctly that Tiger got his claws into that one?

AndyJohnson said:

It’s still cheating. He was penalized 2 strokes for cheating. Cheating does not require deception.

Click to expand...

He was penalized for hitting a moving ball.

This is the definition of cheating;

1. to defraud; swindle:He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud:He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected:He cheated the law by suicide.

I'll be curious to see how this goes moving forward. What if a situation comes up that would actually help a player if he were to do the same thing?

The USGA has clarified their ruling. Since Mickelson took a stroke at a moving ball, DQ and rule 1-2 was not an option, only rule 14-5. If he had impeded the ball in other ways, like kicking it for example, rule 1-2 would apply and he could have been DQ-ed.

The USGA, for all their faults, decided not to make up rules on the fly to bow to media and/or public pressure. That sort of BS is only in the realm of crooked tyrants like Roger Goodell.

USGA tweet:

1960Pats said:

Did I hear correctly that Tiger got his claws into that one?

Click to expand...

I was told by a somewhat reliable source (buddy of mine who has been in Q- school for 10 years and never on the Tour) that she hit on Tiger at a function but shockingly, Tiger chose not to pursue her. I guess the guy has some self-control.

1960Pats said:

He was penalized for hitting a moving ball.

This is the definition of cheating;

1. to defraud; swindle:He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud:He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected:He cheated the law by suicide.

I'll be curious to see how this goes moving forward. What if a situation comes up that would actually help a player if he were to do the same thing?

Click to expand...

This is the definition of cheat i am referring to

cheat
CHēt/
verb
verb: cheat; 3rd person present: cheats; past tense: cheated; past participle: cheated; gerund or present participle: cheating

1. 1.
   act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination.
   
   
   Breaking the rules is cheating and in sports you are assessed a penalty.

Elijah said:

It's a trust fund sport like lacrosse.

Click to expand...

Say what? I don’t have a trust fund, was raised in a middle-class Irish Catholic family, and enjoy both.

KontradictioN said:

Say what? I don’t have a trust fund, was raised in a middle-class Irish Catholic family, and enjoy both.

Click to expand...

I was making an unfair generalization. Having gone to one of those prestigious liberal arts colleges in the Northeastern US where the trust fund kids play out their fantasies, I observed that they tended to participate in lacrosse and golf.

Not that it's always a bad thing. I was neighbors with a lacrosse player whose family was, in fact, loaded, and we're still friends post-graduation. One of the nicest guys I've ever met.

Elijah said:

I was making an unfair generalization. Having gone to one of those prestigious liberal arts colleges in the Northeastern US where the trust fund kids play out their fantasies, I observed that they tended to participate in lacrosse and golf.

Not that it's always a bad thing. I was neighbors with a lacrosse player whose family was, in fact, loaded, and we're still friends post-graduation. One of the nicest guys I've ever met.

Click to expand...

Yeah I think that’s just a Massachusetts thing. White, white, and more white with a ton of money. I think you’ll find it a little bit different outside of that vacuum.

KontradictioN said:

Yeah I think that’s just a Massachusetts thing. White, white, and more white with a ton of money. I think you’ll find it a little bit different outside of that vacuum.

Click to expand...

Was actually Poughkeepsie NY but that's not far from the MA state line and definitely has cultural similarities.

robertweathers said:

I was told by a somewhat reliable source (buddy of mine who has been in Q- school for 10 years and never on the Tour) that she hit on Tiger at a function but shockingly, Tiger chose not to pursue her. I guess the guy has some self-control.

Click to expand...

Tiger just doesn’t have it anymore.

Elijah said:

I was making an unfair generalization. Having gone to one of those prestigious liberal arts colleges in the Northeastern US where the trust fund kids play out their fantasies, I observed that they tended to participate in lacrosse and golf.

Not that it's always a bad thing. I was neighbors with a lacrosse player whose family was, in fact, loaded, and we're still friends post-graduation. One of the nicest guys I've ever met.

Click to expand...

No doubt they grew up on the means streets of Dover, MA.

sb1 said:

To me the football analogy to what Phil did is the 70's Steelers. Technically steroids were legal and the Steelers did have "prescriptions". So....

I don't think it was a good look for Phil or for the USGA.

Click to expand...

To me it is the equivalent of a DB who has been toasted, ball is in the air, and he can either tackle the WR or let the WR make the catch for the TD. Most/all DB's in that situation tackle the WR and give up the penalty yards.

So that's breaking the rules. Is it cheating? Is it a smart play? Is it an honorable play? Some combination of the above?

XLIX said:

To me it is the equivalent of a DB who has been toasted, ball is in the air, and he can either tackle the WR or let the WR make the catch for the TD. Most/all DB's in that situation tackle the WR and give up the penalty yards.

So that's breaking the rules. Is it cheating? Is it a smart play? Is it an honorable play? Some combination of the above?

Click to expand...

We have seen the DB take the penalty versus giving up the TD many times. How many times have we seen a professional golfer stop the ball? I've never seen it before and I grew up watching golf. It's not golf strategy, its embarrassing, its bush league. You will never, ever see Phil Michelson stop a ball again.