PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

First, let it be said that Phil Mickelson is one of my favorite professional golfers in a sport I love.

Second, what Mickelson did on Saturday in the U.S. Open at Shinnecock Hills in New York defies explanation.

Do I need to add my comments to what already is under way on regular and social media? Perhaps not.

But, I will anyway.

Here is what happened. On the 13^th hole on Saturday, when it had been reported that the United States Golf Association (USGA) “lost the course” because of a combination of heat and wind, Mickelson putted his ball toward the hall and, then, when it missed, he took a couple walking steps, then ran after the ball as it continued to roll past the hole.

And, then, as the ball was still moving toward a position that would have been off the green, he hit it back toward the hole.

After the round, Mickelson explained his actions by saying, “At that time, I didn’t feel like going back and forth and hitting the same shot over. I took the two-shot penalty and moved on. It’s my understanding of the rules. I’ve had multiple times where I’ve wanted to do that. I just finally did.”

But there was an ensuing controversy over whether Mickelson deserved a two-stroke penalty – that’s what he received – or whether he should have been disqualified.

In other words, did the punishment fit the crime?

It was reported that Mickelson called USGA executive director Mike Davis on Saturday evening and offered to withdraw. But the USGA determined that the two-stroke penalty was enough punishment, and Mickelson completed the tournament Sunday with a 69, finishing in a tie for 48th place.

According to Phil’s wife, Amy, who communicated with social media reporters, her husband called the USGA because “he really did want to understand how the rule operates and because he didn’t want to play in this championship if he should have been disqualified.”

The USGA then clarified that, Mickelson made a stroke at a moving ball, and so it would have to apply a rule violation for a two-stroke penalty. That’s different, the USGA said, if Mickelson had deliberately stopped the ball or whacked it in another direction or something like that, which, if true, could have meant disqualification.

All of this revolves around THE golf rules, which are very complicated and arcane (though it should be added that, as of May 1, 2019, the rules will be updated and made more simple). Some believed the USGA was displaying deference to one of golf’s most popular figures by making a very narrow interpretation of the rule – Rule 14-5 – which says, “A player must not make a stroke at his ball while it is moving.”

To me, after watching video of the incident, it looked like Mickelson took an intentional swing at the ball while it was moving, which could have fallen under another rule – Rule 1-2 – which says that “a player must not take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play.”

The penalty for a violation of rule 1-2 is also a two-stroke penalty, but the language adds another provision stating that, “In the case of a serious breach of rule 1-2, the Committee may impose a penalty of disqualification.” A serious breach could occur if the action allows a player to “gain a significant advantage,” and the advantage gained by Mickelson was arguably just that since he prevented his ball from sliding off the green, after which he would have to chip it back up, putt again and possibly lose even more strokes.

On Sunday morning, the USGA issued another statement clarifying its position, contending that because Mickelson “made a stroke at the ball, as opposed to another act to deflect or stop the ball in motion,” his act specifically fell under rule 14-5 and not 1-2. Thus, the USGA said, there were no grounds for disqualification.

The USGA’s comments came after Mickelson’s “moment of madness,” as Saturday playing partner Andrew Johnston described it. The action became not only the talk of the tournament, but of the entire sports world and beyond.

I guess I am part of the “sports world” because of this blog on the situation, which, while not earthshaking, is of particular interest to those of us who play golf for recreation.

The issue may revolve around the definition of the word “intent.” Did Mickelson intend to gain an advantage by hitting the moving back toward the hole? His own comments indicate that, in fact, he did intend to do what he did for its advantage.

So, for me, if I would have been a rules official on the scene, I would have imposed disqualification. Or, when Mickelson called to ask about the situation, I would have said it would be better to withdraw “to protect the field.”

But, because this ranks as “moment of madness,” not a routine or something more serious, Mickelson still is one of my favorite golfers.