Jordan Spieth Drops from Casual Water on a Cart Path at the 2016 PGA

[Fourputt]

51 minutes ago, vasaribm said:

I have not seen what Jordan showed the RO, but my opinion is he did take full relief.  The ball is not touching the water, the water is not on his intended swing path; so we are debating whether his toes over the water "interferes" his stance the same as it did originally.  Again, without seeing the initial condition, it appears OK to me.

It doesn't matter whether or not it causes a physical interference.  The rule requires that he take complete relief from the condition, which means that he cannot even touch it.  The only time that partial relief is allowed is in a bunker when it is not possible to take complete relief without moving closer to the hole.

In my opinion, he did not take complete relief.  He should have dropped 4 or 5 inches farther back from the spot where he actually played the shot.

[bkuehn1952]

Well, here is the PGA's explanation:

The PGA of America later sent out an explanation for why Spieth did not receive a penalty, under Decision 20-2c/0.8.

"Once the ball was dropped and in play," the PGA said, "Jordan had the option to select another type of stroke or another type of club to actually play the shot and he chose to play a stroke to the right of a tree in an attempt to try to hook the ball toward the green.

“Jordan was entitled to either play the ball as it lay, even if his stance was still in the casual water, or he could have elected to take relief again from the casual water under this different type of stroke that he then elected to play.” 

[vasaribm]

58 minutes ago, iacas said:

We aren't debating whether it interferes "the same as it did originally." His stance was unaffected before - it was his ball in casual water.

 

11 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

It doesn't matter whether or not it causes a physical interference.  The rule requires that he take complete relief from the condition, which means that he cannot even touch it.  The only time that partial relief is allowed is in a bunker when it is not possible to take complete relief without moving closer to the hole.

In my opinion, he did not take complete relief.  He should have dropped 4 or 5 inches farther back from the spot where he actually played the shot.

The abnormal ground conditions rule is full of OR statements; i.e. ball OR stance OR line of play not necessarily all 3 together.  If he was seeking relief for the ball or line of play, why does it matter where he stands.  If he was asking for relief for his stance then, I would agree he did not take the proper relief, but as for relief for the lie of the ball, it seems to me he did so fully.

 

10 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

Well, here is the PGA's explanation:

The PGA of America later sent out an explanation for why Spieth did not receive a penalty, under Decision 20-2c/0.8.

"Once the ball was dropped and in play," the PGA said, "Jordan had the option to select another type of stroke or another type of club to actually play the shot and he chose to play a stroke to the right of a tree in an attempt to try to hook the ball toward the green.

“Jordan was entitled to either play the ball as it lay, even if his stance was still in the casual water, or he could have elected to take relief again from the casual water under this different type of stroke that he then elected to play.” 

Yes, this is along the lines of what I was trying to say.

[Gunther]

8 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

Well, here is the PGA's explanation:

The PGA of America later sent out an explanation for why Spieth did not receive a penalty, under Decision 20-2c/0.8.

"Once the ball was dropped and in play," the PGA said, "Jordan had the option to select another type of stroke or another type of club to actually play the shot and he chose to play a stroke to the right of a tree in an attempt to try to hook the ball toward the green.

“Jordan was entitled to either play the ball as it lay, even if his stance was still in the casual water, or he could have elected to take relief again from the casual water under this different type of stroke that he then elected to play.” 

So, essentially, everyone here was right.  Not often a discussion ends this way on this forum.  I like it.

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

In my opinion, he did not take complete relief.  He should have dropped 4 or 5 inches farther back from the spot where he actually played the shot.

He couldn't, actually: it would have been outside of one club length.

2 minutes ago, vasaribm said:

The abnormal ground conditions rule is full of OR statements; i.e. ball OR stance OR line of play not necessarily all 3 together.  If he was seeking relief for the ball or line of play, why does it matter where he stands.

It matters. You don't get to take relief for your ball being in the casual water and then stand in the same casual water, even if your ball is dry.

2 minutes ago, vasaribm said:

If he was asking for relief for his stance then, I would agree he did not take the proper relief, but as for relief for the lie of the ball, it seems to me he did so fully.

That's not how the rule works. Check out https://www.usga.org/RulesFAQ/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=96&Rule=24.

11 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

Well, here is the PGA's explanation:

"Once the ball was dropped and in play," the PGA said, "Jordan had the option to select another type of stroke or another type of club to actually play the shot and he chose to play a stroke to the right of a tree in an attempt to try to hook the ball toward the green.

“Jordan was entitled to either play the ball as it lay, even if his stance was still in the casual water, or he could have elected to take relief again from the casual water under this different type of stroke that he then elected to play.” 

Hmmmm. It's not like he played a drastically different shot in an entirely different direction, or because he was granted a very different situation, had to invent a different type of shot. His ball was about a foot to the right of where it was (and a few feet back). We're talking about a matter of a few degrees, and the definition for "line of play" includes a reasonable distance on both sides.

[Rulesman]

16 minutes ago, Gunther said:

So, essentially, everyone here was right.  Not often a discussion ends this way on this forum.  I like it.

I don't think anyone was right. No one mentioned the key change of club.

Edit: Erik mentioned his using a driver but the pictures show him using an iron.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Rulesman

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

I don't think anyone was right. No one mentioned the key change of club.

Edit: Iacas mentioned his using a driver but the pictures show him using an iron.

I said he used a driver to measure the one club length. He had an iron in his hands when he was asked what type of shot he was going to hit so that they could determine the NPR.

Quote

"Ultimately I still ended up playing with a toe in the water," Spieth said. "Because of the angle had changed from the angle of my stance looking at the pin, he said he was very happy with it, that it was relief and I was altering my stance to play a different shot, which is true."

The episode comes a little more than a month after Dustin Johnson's final round was clouded by a penalty for his ball moving on the green, and just a few weeks after a playoff in the U.S. Women's Open was decided when Sweden's Anna Nordqvist, grounded her club in the bunker. It also occurred on a day in which the PGA issued an apology for giving players an incorrect hole location sheet.

According to a USGA rules official, Spieth's drop Friday at the PGA was permissible not only because of his altered stance, but because his foot was sufficiently out of the puddle.

"The margin for casual water is different than for out of bounds. If his foot is just hanging over the puddle, he has complete relief," the official said. "I didn't see any ripples."

For his part, Spieth said he didn't think much of the drop on seven until the round was over and he faced questions from reporters. He added there were no further discussions with rules officials.

"I would have never hit it if I was not told it was OK by a rules official," Spieth said. "He told me it was fine. Really don't know why we're talking about it to be honest."

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/heres-why-jordan-spieth-wasnt-penalized-on-the-seventh-hole

---

In other words, I suppose he sufficiently altered his play based on the new location of his drop, even though neither the adjustment nor the change in location of his ball was significant.

This wasn't apparent watching even the Live coverage in the dedicated stream.

[Gunther]

15 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

I don't think anyone was right. No one mentioned the key change of club.

Edit: Erik mentioned his using a driver but the pictures show him using an iron.

Hear you but I was referring to his toe in the CW, that was correct.  And the others who said his stance was not interfered, essentially were also correct.  Kind of a win-win, with largest win being that my boy didn't have a penalty assessed.

[Rulesman]

Erik

I think it was point 6 in your review where the change of club was not mentioned/recognised but that brought the decision into force.

The original quote "The margin for casual water is different than for out of bounds. If his foot is just hanging over the puddle, he has complete relief," the official said. "I didn't see any ripples." may or may not have been the reasoning of the official but it isn't what the PGA are now saying.

Edit:

The article linked in post #25 has now been updated with the PGA statement

Edited July 29, 2016 by Rulesman

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Gunther said:

And the others who said his stance was not interfered, essentially were also correct.

They weren't. I think the casual water still interfered. It just happens to have interfered with his (minimally?) different choice of club and line, but not his original.

8 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

I think it was point 6 in your review where the change of club was not mentioned/recognised but that brought the decision into force.

Yeah, I wasn't paying 100% rapt attention but I was watching, and I didn't notice they changed clubs or discussed a different line. If anyone recorded the online stream they could play that whole part back again.

8 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

The original quote "The margin for casual water is different than for out of bounds. If his foot is just hanging over the puddle, he has complete relief," the official said. "I didn't see any ripples." may or may not have been the reasoning of the official but it isn't what the PGA are now saying.

Right. The statements are somewhat in conflict with each other.

[bkuehn1952]

Well, I appreciate @iacas bringing this situation up as well as all the thoughtful opinions and contributions by everyone.  These type of discussions make us all more aware of the Rules.  In this instance, the general importance of taking complete relief in most situations.

[Rulesman]

Here is the full show. No change of club it seems!!!

http://golfweek.com/2016/07/29/babineau-spieths-overblown-drop-controversy-shows-the-rules-of-golf-are-way-too-complicated/

 

[Rulesman]

Oops, wrong link

 

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Rulesman said:

Here is the full show. No change of club it seems!!!

http://golfweek.com/2016/07/29/babineau-spieths-overblown-drop-controversy-shows-the-rules-of-golf-are-way-too-complicated/

I disagree with Jeff on that one: they're not too complicated.

This situation was only complicated because Spieth was determined to get relief to the right of the puddle. Then failed, IMO, to take complete relief from the puddle, perhaps being saved because he sufficiently altered his line of play (I don't know that I buy that part enough).

I'm all for taking advantage of the rules, when possible, but in this case I'd have not given more than two seconds (enough time to measure to see it wasn't going to work) thought to dropping RIGHT of the puddle.

Also look at that screenshot in the Babineau post: the area he was standing on was CLEARLY part of the casual water.

[Gunther]

Talking with my buddy about this last night and he brought up a good question I couldn't answer.  

What if you didn't have a stance righty so you take your stance lefty to determine relief.  Once the ball is dropped, it's "in play" but now you have a great shot right handed.  Based on the explanation given for Jordan's situation, it seems it would be ok to play the shot righty.  Yes?

[Jeremie Boop]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

I disagree with Jeff on that one: they're not too complicated.

This situation was only complicated because Spieth was determined to get relief to the right of the puddle. Then failed, IMO, to take complete relief from the puddle, perhaps being saved because he sufficiently altered his line of play (I don't know that I buy that part enough).

I'm all for taking advantage of the rules, when possible, but in this case I'd have not given more than two seconds (enough time to measure to see it wasn't going to work) thought to dropping RIGHT of the puddle.

Also look at that screenshot in the Babineau post: the area he was standing on was CLEARLY part of the casual water.

Didn't Jordan even kind of complain "this is really complicated" or something during the exchange as well? I remember when I was watching this live I thought, it's not that complicated. You drop in the area designated, if it goes in the water you place it and if you are then standing in the water you go through the process again to get out of the water. Not complicated, just a process.

[bubble]

27 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Talking with my buddy about this last night and he brought up a good question I couldn't answer.  

What if you didn't have a stance righty so you take your stance lefty to determine relief.  Once the ball is dropped, it's "in play" but now you have a great shot right handed.  Based on the explanation given for Jordan's situation, it seems it would be ok to play the shot righty.  Yes?

of course.

your' only supposed to search the closest point of relief with the club you could be playing most obviously.

rules allow then golfing things to happen, like the ball rolls 10 inches and you have total relief, it's in play, finally it's sitting on a rock, so finally you choose another shot shape or club.

I dont even understand why this discussion is going on ?

[Gunther]

51 minutes ago, bubble said:

of course.

your' only supposed to search the closest point of relief with the club you could be playing most obviously.

rules allow then golfing things to happen, like the ball rolls 10 inches and you have total relief, it's in play, finally it's sitting on a rock, so finally you choose another shot shape or club.

I dont even understand why this discussion is going on ?

Just seems like in this situation it goes against the spirit of the game, never seen it happen but it could and I think a pro would be ripped for it.