Phil Mickelson: Rules Czar?
by Ryan Ballengee on Sep 1, 2010 11:47 AM EDT
in Pro Golf
Email
PrintPhil doesn't make the rules, and maybe that's why he has found gripes with several of them.
Mickelson exploited the USGA and PGA Tour settlements with Karsten Manufacturing to play wedges with non-compliant-but-approved-for-play grooves earlier in the year. His mockery/protest of the grooves regulations led to an agreement by all parties to permanently close the loophole.
Just last week, Mickelson went on the offensive (and, as reader em66 points out, to bat for his sponsor Barclays) about the ridiculous notion of disqualifying players that fail to make their pro-am tee time on the dot. This week, the Tour announced a suspension of that rule for the remainder of 2010 - almost surely leading to a review and change of the rule for 2011.
It seems like Mickelson is selective, though, in the rules he chooses to pounce upon. He went after the grooves issue primarily because the USGA rejected grooves which he and Callaway submitted to the rulemaking body because they violated the spirit of the grooves rule. Lefty tackled the pro-am rule because (a) he is a great player and always pulled into them and (b) he had his own exemption from the rule, thus seeing it as lacking teeth.
Nothing from Mickelson on Dustin Johnson's bunker situation, even after so many pros came out in support of his interpretation of that clump of dirt and sand.
Lefty is silent on the "designated tournaments" concept quietly working its way through iterations before it is implemented.
Like it or not, Mickelson can carry out his vendettas in a way that will get him the result he wants. The methods may be very public, but that's often how things get done in golf. Quiet is the norm. Under the breath comments are expected. But when someone makes a big, loud stink about something, that's when things change.
So, what will Phil do next?
62 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
First of all, let’s separate the Rules of Golf from the Tour Rule of playing in a pro-am. The RoG or its Decisions have nothing to do with that…but a lot of people are co-mingling the two.
This is true – an important distinction to make: RoG v. Tour policies.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Sep 1, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Charles is a man of distinction. He can't help it.
Very good writer too.
Phil's a whiner
He went after the grooves, why ? Because it affected HIS game. No more bomb and gouge. Or in his case, a normal drive well off the fairway and gouge.
He went after the pro-am rule, even though he was on the Tour when it was passed, because he sees an opportunity for his own damn self to take advantage and skip the pro-ams.
He’s not going off on Dustin Johnson because it’s one tournament in 5 years with those conditions, and it was a local rule. You can bet that he’ll be working to force Kohler and Dye and the PGA to change the course.
Phil’s an opportunist – he’ll go after whatever affects him next…after the fact.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Wow Court...when did you get your
degree in Psychology…I thought you had been an English Teacher in your former life…Just when did you sit down with Phil and do you interview…We seem to have missed it here….Hey Ryan….something all married men know, and you I am sure will also….PICK YOU BATTLES…your not going to win everyone, but go after those you have a realistic chance of winning….Phil is doing the same thing….Court was wrong, as he sometime is, the grooves issue was not for Phils game….He was making a statement to show how stupid it was in the first place…..I’ll take all Court wants to bet on the forcing Kohler and Dye to change….These two don’t give a flying fig over that bunker issue….I think Court should stay with ranting about reporters and announcers, these are heavy weights, and he’s only a light weight….jist sayin mind ya…and oh yea,,,,these are my opinions…..STUB
since when do you need a degree in psychology to know when someone is an opportunist ? did you miss the early life lesson of “actions speak louder than words” ?
If it was s stupid rule, why didn’t Phil make a big stink of it when he was stuck in Arkansas and couldn’t get airborne to make his pro-am the next day ? Why hasn’t he been complaining about it since it went into effect ? You DO realize that Furyk isn’t the first player to have been DQ’d for missing a pro-am, right ?
Phil was against a rule that might affect his ability to score. He didn’t have a chance of winning the groove battle. It was childish. The only thing he accomplished was to get Ping a competitive edge going forward. He found out that the old Ping Eye 2 grooves weren’t an advantage with the new balls. Ooops. He didn’t win until he got rid of them and went to the new clubs.
Not sure what you’re trying to bet on the Kohler/Dye situation.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Ryan...I'm not sure, but
isn’t Phil sponsored by Barclays? I read somewhere that Barclays was VERY unhappy that Furyk was DQ’d and maybe Phil was carrying the banner for his sponsor. Just a thought.
The Saints ARE the SUPER BOWL CHAMPS....WHO DAT!
My comment wasn't meant to be
critical of Phil. Actually, I applaud him for supporting his sponsors the way he has.
The Saints ARE the SUPER BOWL CHAMPS....WHO DAT!
you would prefer that he stand by his paycheck over the rules of the game ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Court.....In the Callaway and Barclays instance.....Yes
His opinion of the “rules” in these two cases seemed to get attention, and he was not alone in either situation. Whether they changed the rules because of Phil, is pure speculation, but it would seem to me that “When Phil speaks, People listen”.
The Saints ARE the SUPER BOWL CHAMPS....WHO DAT!
wow – I’m really surprised to hear you say that. The sponsors are bigger than the game.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Not really.
Your question implies that his sponsors held a gun to his head and threatened to cut him off if he didn’t speak for them. I don’t believe that for a moment, but instead I think he showed loyalty to them. “The sponsors are bigger than the game”…..what is that? A statement or a question? Whatz up with that?
The Saints ARE the SUPER BOWL CHAMPS....WHO DAT!
no it doesn’t – how do you figure that ? I asked if YOU prefered that he chose his paycheck over the rules.
Sorry – guess that could be a little confusing. It seems to me that you’re placing the sponsors above the game. Are you ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Bubba.....this is a little far out there, even for you!!:)
Are you suggesting he would cheat to get a bigger paycheck?? I don’t have a clue what you are asking.
“Placing the sponsors above the game”……where do you get that. The sponsors are an important, integral and NECESSARY part of the game. Somebody once said that without sponsors….“Phil is left playing blackjack for a living”……anybody know who that was?….:)
The Saints ARE the SUPER BOWL CHAMPS....WHO DAT!
would you prefer sports betting ? :-D (he actually did pretty well with that a few years back)
Your comment suggested to me that you willing willing to let sponsors dictate the rules of the Tour on the equipment issue. However, you’re not willing to keep the sponsors happy on the DQ issue. I’m confused.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
No, No, No........I just commented that Phil was loyal to his sponsors.
I don’t think I mentioned sponsors dictating rules on equipment or their happiness about the DQ issue……as least I didn’t mean to.
The Saints ARE the SUPER BOWL CHAMPS....WHO DAT!
I would think that is a very distinct possibility.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Sep 1, 2010 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the majority of us (not all, granted)
thought the DQ was over the top. I said all along, if someone is a little late, let him join his amateur group as soon as he can, & possibly have to do some penance to the sponsor. (There’s precedence for that). I’m inclined to think the majority of pros thought the same, but most of them felt they had to tow the party line. Maybe Phil feels as the World No. 2 that he can afford to speak out w/o penalty for dissent?
You’ve never run a business before, have you ? I wish I had bosses like you. Just show up when it’s convenient. Never mind the customers – they don’t mind waiting or getting less than they paid for.
Notice that you don’t hear Furyk complaining ? He knows he screwed up.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Indeed I have Court
as well as being a middle manager in a pretty successful company prior to that. As a boss I think I was that cliche “hard but fair”. You don’t fire someone with a hitherto excellent work record for a genuine mistake. Of course Furyk screwed up – no-one’s denying it, least of him as you say. I think the customers in this particular case would have been happier for Furyk to join them on the 2nd hole, and make amends to them, in addition, on his own time/pay – and the Tour now thinks the same way.
You’re probably right – given a preference – they probably wanted Furyk – but Furyk screwed up. So now, do you want no pro at all or Mark Leishman…or maybe you’d complain and demand your money back ? Thnk about it. When in his professional career has Furyk jumped out of his car and run straight to the first tee ? For a pro – on time isn’t when it’s time for your ball to be in the air. Pros show up hours ahead of time to warm up.
Just because The Tour did what they did, don’t for a second think that they are going to take the pro-ams any less seriously.
Furyk wasn’t fired. He’s still on the Tour. He was docked – and you can bet he’ll never make this mistake again.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Court, Court - do you have high blood pressure by any chance?
Obviously Leishman over no-one. I don’t want the Tour to take the pro-ams less seriously. A DQ for a no-show is fine by me. " The Committee may provide in the conditions of a competion that, if the player arrives at his starting point, ready to play, within five minutes after his starting time …… the penalty for failure to start on time….is two strokes at the first hole in stroke play instead of disqualification." I’m suggesting a double whammy for Jim (& others) who miss their pro-am time by 5 minutes or less. Has to make up to the amateurs with social time and still gets a two stroke penalty for the tournament.
Have your pound of flesh if you must – but it’s not for me.
that’s a condition of tournament play – not a customer service issue.
you’re not considering the reason the Tour HAD to put the rule into place. Players were blowing off the pro-am with no punishment. Fines were a slap on the wrist and players continued to blow them off. The, the tour AND the players, finally agreed to the DQ rule – regardless. Furyk didn’t call and tell anybody he was on the way. He had his caddy and the tournament people very concerned about him.
The shotgun start was underway WITH Leishman in Furyk’s place. (by the way – Furyk got TO the course 6 minutes late, if you want to pick nits – and AT the course isn’t the same as being at the tee)
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Don't tell me what I'm considering or not
I totally agree with appropriate punishment for blowing off pro-ams. I know Leishman was playing – you know that I know he was playing unless you’re suffering from short-term memory loss from previous posts. A two-stroke penalty for late show for the pro tournament is appropriate punishment in my book. DQ for no-show ditto. The 5 minute allowance is for official tournaments. Wuss that I am, I might even extend it to 6 mins. for a pro-am ;o)
Wendy,
Court is not really interested in a pound of flesh. He would much rather have
5 golden rings,
4 calling birds
3 french hens
2 turtle doves and a
partridge in a pear tree……
The Saints ARE the SUPER BOWL CHAMPS....WHO DAT!
HEY ! that’s not nice – no maids a milking ?
I’m sorry – but this whining that rules should be subjective and relative are what drives me nuts about our government. Furyk isn’t above the rules and he knows it – but you guys think that he should be excused. And you think Dustin Johnson should be excused from the bunker rule because he was in the lead. And Michelle Wie should be excused because she was wearing a white skirt. Mickelnuts gets involved in a really stupid protest (and he wasn’t even the one who started it) that backfired on him and helped a company other than the one paying him.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
You talkin too me??
I don’t think I’ve commented or whined about these things, but maybe I will now…..
1. Rules should not be subjective or relative……but they should use some common sense.
2. Furyk broke the rule and was penalized accordingly…….rule needs to be changed using a little common sense.
3. Dustin screwed up. I believe he knew it when he stepped up to the bunker and set his club down and then quickly picked it up. He then played the shot as though it were not a hazard, hoping it was a waste area….remember he didn’t read the rule sheet.
4. White skirt…..I don’t wear white skirts so I have no opinion, other than she broke the rule and was penalized….not intentional, but that doesn’t matter.
5. Mickleson and Callaway submitted a wedge that conformed to the rules and it was rejected. This torked Phil and Callaway off and so he used the loop-hole to embarrass the USGA and PGA……he was successful. They didn’t care that it helped Ping.
And no….you get no milking maids……maybe drummers drumming, as they may drive you nuts….:)
The Saints ARE the SUPER BOWL CHAMPS....WHO DAT!
1-4 – NOW you’re talkin’ !
- - Callaway followed the rules – then went about going around the rules – basically giving the finger to the USGA and what they were trying to accomplish. yes – the Callaway geeks were smarter than the USGA – but the people who don’t think the rules apply to them usually do things like that. You can laugh at things like “the spirit of the rules” if you want – but Callaway was disregarding the intent. You can’t legislate every possible permutation of a rule – you have to trust the people involved to understand what’s going on and live within those rules. Callaway didn’t.
Damn – and I had heard really good things about those maids ! :-/
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Spirit and intent are meaningless..
golf rules are for the most part black or white……Dustin, Michelle, Jim…..no intent to circumvent the rules…..spirit and intent meant nothing….the rules are the rules and they paid. Every manufacturer is pushing the envelope on all the clubs they are designing. If there is a loop hole they will find it and use it.
The Saints ARE the SUPER BOWL CHAMPS....WHO DAT!
wow – I’d hate to have to carry a copy of your rule book. It would make the decisions book look like a post card. Dustin, Michelle, Jim – absolutely broke the rule. Not sure what your argument is. Callaway started with the rule then went around it to do something the USGA was trying to accomplish. The science guys used their computers to obliterate the rule – that’s cheating. They were being the smartass kid in junior high school who wanted to annoy the teacher with an unending stream of comments.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
"You guys"?
You lump anyone who makes a reasonable argument against a Tour policy as someone who thinks anyone and everyone should be excused from golf rules. You even try to drag politics into it. You are totally irrational.
Wendy......it's no use.
I’ve just realized that Court can’t read…..:)
The Saints ARE the SUPER BOWL CHAMPS....WHO DAT!
This from someone who thinks life is supposed to be fair and full of hugs ? I can handle that criticism from you.
EM – she didn’t say what she was talking about – STILL hasn’t said what she was talking about – just pointed at an entire post.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Let me help you court...
No one here said Furyk should have been excused on the rules as they currently stand. Just that the rule needs looking at. Hope that’s clear enough mate :)
Better look again, Eas. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth – crying that Furyk was treated unfairly ? That’s people saying he should have been excused.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
They said the rule was unfair
not that Furyk was treated unfair. He was by the current rule, which people here don’t agree with.
OK, let's make it really simple for you Court
You said:
“Furyk isn’t above the rules and he knows it, but you guys think he should be excused. And you think DJ should be excused from the bunker rule because he was in the lead. And Michelle Wie should be excused because she was wearing a white skirt …”.
I have read most if not all of the posts on these topics and no-one has said any of these things. I know you were speaking hyperbolically but it doesn’t strengthen your points in doing so; on the contrary, it weakens it.
Because some of us put a reasonable case against the Tour policy regarding DQ/Pro-ams (and even you must admit this has been accepted by the Tour) you try to lump us altogether into “You guys think everyone should be excused the rules”. Not so fast, Moriarty!
Clueless. Wendy – when you run around screaming that FURYK was treated unfairly – you are not talking about the rule – you are talking about the instance. Screaming that this shouldn’t happen in the playoffs AFTER it had already happend is not the same as saying “wow – we need to look at changing this going forward.”
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I never scream Court
not even at you and not even when you are at your most gormless, as you are now. I couldn’t have raised my voice before the play-offs because I was not aware of the DQ being applied in these circumstances.
I have no idea what “gormless” means – but I’m going to look it up and find a way to use it – definitely a cool sounding word.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Gormless means clueless
Court, you seemed trapped in the world of “I’m in Obamaland and I can’t do anything about it” For the last time…the rule , in most people’s opinon is unfair. Furyk was the victim this time, nothing more, nothing less.
Please, Easing, let's be more polite
Gormless means" lacking in intellectual acuity" – Oh alright, the English version of " clueless". But Court is right that gormless has a ring to it. I equate his reply to a witty riposte RB made to me some time agoon Twitter which was along the lines of never letting truth get in the way of a good one-liner. CG can sometimes be disarming in that way.
Personally I don't care who runs America
I can’t control it, Presidents in the past from both sides can be nutters and press the button. They are more like movie stars than politicians anyway, the money that is used to elect them is crazy, they swing one way then the next, whatever court says about Obama, means little in the grand scheme of things, court still has a life on this planet that the vast majority of people living on it would envy. Me ? I do ok too, glad I have my job in the factory and hope I don’t get too bitter with age. Nice day today…think I’ll go out and practise a little.
It was indeed a beautiful day today
and we used that buggy token from a year ago. Erratic round as usual; but loved it. It’ll all be OK Court. Fret less!
Golf Central just reported that Phil
withdrew from the Pro-Am. They explained that there is a rule that allows top 30??? or some other criteria, to be able to withdraw from 2 pro ams a year, so he was within the rules. They didn’t say why he withdrew.
The Saints ARE the SUPER BOWL CHAMPS....WHO DAT!
did they say he was still in the tournament ? puts some scary/sad thoughts in the head if he pulled out of both.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Still in the Tourney. What he did was within the rules.
You’ll have to watch Golf Central to get the facts of the rule, but I think Top 30 was one of the criteria to get the 2 wd’s and still play.
The Saints ARE the SUPER BOWL CHAMPS....WHO DAT!
I know the rule – the top 30 guys get those two outs because they start the pro-am list at the top of the rankings list, so they get called more than the rest. Odd thing is, the top 30 guys are usually the guys who play the fewest tournaments that actually have pro-ams (except for guys like Vijay who play as much as they can).
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
