What happened when Phil Mickelson putted his moving ball

Mickelson got a two-stroke penalty, and only some fine print in the rulebook saved him from a possible disqualification.

SOUTHAMPTON, N.Y. — Phil Mickelson wasn’t in contention by Saturday afternoon, but he created the U.S. Open’s most stunning moment anyway. At the par-4 13th hole at Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, Mickelson sent a 7-foot bogey putt past the hole and toward a downslope that could’ve carried it off the green. The left-hander did what small children do at mini-golf courses around the country: He ran after the ball and hit it as it was moving:

Mickelson batted the ball around a few times and finally holed it in eight shots. He made a 10 on the hole, because the USGA assessed a two-stroke penalty for hitting a moving ball.

To punish Mickelson, the USGA used a rule that deals explicitly with these situations.

The organization cited its Rule 14-5:

Playing Moving Ball

A player must not make a stroke at his ball while it is moving.

The penalty for a violation is two strokes.

One rule could’ve gotten Mickelson disqualified, but fine print saved him.

This is Rule 1-2, which called into question if Mickelson should’ve been ejected:

Exerting Influence on Movement of Ball or Altering Physical Conditions

A player must not (i) take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play or (ii) alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of a hole.

The typical penalty for a violation of that rule is two strokes, the same as Mickelson got under Rule 14-5. But, if the USGA rules that a player has committed a “serious breach” of the rule, it can disqualify that player from an event. How’s that determined?

A player is deemed to have committed a serious breach of Rule 1-2 if the Committee considers that the action taken in breach of this Rule has allowed him or another player to gain a significant advantage or has placed another player, other than his partner, at a significant disadvantage.

Mickelson freely admits that he knew the rule and did it on purpose.

“It was meant to take advantage of the rules as best as you can. In that situation, I was just going back and forth. I’d gladly take the two shots over continuing that display,” he told FOX after his round ended.

Mickelson ran after his ball. Even before he explained himself to the USGA and later to the media, it was clear that he knew what he was doing. The front of the 13th green slopes downward, and if he’d waited longer, his ball could have rolled for a while. He prevented that — and gained an advantage, for sure — by breaking the rules.

But an exception to the rule makes clear that Mickelson was punished correctly:

An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not Rule 1-2.

The rule about hitting a moving ball (14-5) is pretty explicit. The punishment is two strokes, and the disqualification doesn’t come into play.

USGA officials later met Mickelson on the course and told him of his two-stroke penalty. Mickelson later said he didn’t want to fight it and intended no disrespect.

Though the USGA got it right, its explanation raises new issues.

The USGA’s senior managing director of championships and governance, John Bodenhamer, talked to reporters after the USGA assessed Mickelson’s penalty.

“Our committee mobilized quickly, our rules committee, and unanimously decided that this situation is specifically and explicitly covered under Rule 14-5,” he said.

Fair! The rulebook makes clear that this was the right ruling.

But Bodenhamer went on, and his explanation made only less sense.

“To go to [the disqualification rule], well, Phil didn’t purposefully deflect or stop the ball, which is talked about in the reference under 14-5 if you look at it. 14-5 explicitly covers a player making a stroke at a moving ball, so we operated under that rule.”

“What would a deflect look like?” a reporter asked.

“Well, if you stop the ball from going out of bounds,” Bodenhamer said.

“But if he’s stopping it from rolling down a hill?” the reporter followed.

“He didn’t deflect it or stop it. He played a moving ball,” Bodenhamer answered.

I asked Bodenhamer if it mattered that Mickelson ran after the ball.

“No. The fact that we dealt with was that he made a stroke at a moving ball.”

If the USGA needs to make the case that hitting a moving ball isn’t “purposefully deflecting” it, maybe it needs clearer rules. Because Mickelson changed the motion of the ball on purpose, and the USGA has a rule in place that lets it disqualify of players who break the rules to gain an edge. There’s just an exception that saved Mickelson from trouble.

“The rule is clear. He made a stroke at a moving ball, and we just operated under that,” Bodenhamer said. “We operated under what the rule said.”

Mickelson knew what the rule said, too, and he broke it to get an edge. He knew he could, because another part of the rulebook gave the USGA no teeth to punish him.