ゴルフ: Mickelson's （死）刑の執行猶予（をする） a 黒人／ボイコット 示す for 法律 men

They may have been playing ゴルフ for over half a millennium, but it is 安全な to assume that at the NEC Invitational in Ohio on Saturday we 証言，証人／目撃するd a first for the sport, indeed perhaps a first for any sport.

After all, can you 解任する an 出来事/事件 in any game where two 公式の／役人s 任命するd to 支持する the 支配するs 現実に encouraged a player to break them?

That this should happen in ゴルフ of all games, of course, was 特に 乱すing and the whole 事柄 should be the 支配する of an 調査 by the 治める／統治するing 団体／死体 in America, the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs ゴルフ 協会. Certainly I shall be referring the 出来事/事件 to them.

Here are the circumstances. On the 16th 穴を開ける at Firestone, Phil Mickelson sprayed a 運動 into the 激しい rough. At first he could not find his ball, but then a course volunteer spotted something and the American duly marched over.

Mickelson 公式文書，認めるd that the brand was 権利, as was the number, but since there were 非，不，無 of his usual 場内取引員／株価s on the ball he could not be sure it was his and so 宣言するd that the search should go on.

事実上 every golfer on the 惑星 knows what should have happened next. Mickelson should have continued to search for five minutes and then, if no ball was 設立する, 長，率いるd 支援する to the tee to reload.

What happened in this instance is that the all-seeing 注目する，もくろむ of television decided that while Mickelson could not identify the ball as his, TV could. A 支配するs 公式の／役人 （機の）カム over and 報告（する）／憶測d the word of television. Mickelson 繰り返し言うd that he still was not 確かな .

The 法律 on this could hardly be clearer. 支配する 12-2 明言する／公表するs: 'The 責任／義務 for playing the proper ball 残り／休憩（する）s with the player. Each player should put an 身元確認，身分証明 示す on his ball.'

Mickelson and his caddie either forgot to put an 身元確認，身分証明 示す on this particular ball or it wasn't his ball. In either instance the 公式の／役人 should have told him to search on or go 支援する to the tee.

Instead, in （疑いを）晴らす 違反 of his 簡潔な／要約する, he said: 'Is there any chance that you or your caddie forgot to 示す the ball?' Mickelson could see where this was 長，率いるing. He replied: '井戸／弁護士席, いつかs we forget to 示す them.'

Surprisingly, all this was given the thumbs-up by John Paramor, the European 小旅行する's 長，指導者 審判（をする）, sitting in some ビデオ booth, and にもかかわらず Mickelson's 不確定 it became his ball and he was 許すd to play without 刑罰，罰則.

Mickelson said later: 'I wasn't able to identify the ball but television was there to help out.'

Now, I 港／避難所't searched every paragraph in the 支配するs but I feel 確信して in assuming there is not some obscure sub-条項 that qualifies the fact that the player has 単独の 責任／義務 for identifying the ball with the words: 'Or television.'

And what if Mickelson had not been の中で the leaders and not of 利益／興味 to the cameras? There is no question that under those circumstances he would have had the same 初期の conversation with the volunteer but then would have marched 支援する and played three from the tee. How can that be 権利?

Thankfully, Mickelson neither went on to 勝利，勝つ nor finish on the same final 得点する／非難する／２０ as any European, who would therefore have been 否定するd 決定的な Ryder Cup qualifying points, さもなければ the stench from this unsavoury 出来事/事件 would have been unbearable.

All this happened in the week I received a letter from a reader disgruntled with one プロの／賛成の's approach to this very 支配する in a プロの／賛成の-am.

The reader had 設立する a ball in the rough which was his make and number and felt sure that it was his. But because he had put no 身元確認，身分証明 場内取引員／株価s on it, the プロの／賛成の had argued that he could not be 絶対 確かな and so had sent him 支援する to the tee to play another. The unhappy reader 手配中の，お尋ね者 to know if the プロの／賛成の had 行為／法令／行動するd 適切に.

You can see where the プロの／賛成の is coming from, given the 支配する 特に 明言する／公表するs balls should have 身元確認，身分証明 示すs, although if the reader was 確かな that it was his ball that would have been good enough for me. But what must the プロの／賛成の in question have thought of Saturday's 出来事/事件 伴う／関わるing Mickelson, who was anything but 確かな ? Probably the same as golfers everywhere once they hear about it - shaking their 長，率いるs in utter 不信 that in such a high-profile event a player should have been encouraged to break the 支配するs.

Let's hope the USGA do not sweep this under the carpet, because a precedent has been 始める，決める here that 緊急に needs 公式の／役人 激しい非難.