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

[Golfingdad]

1 hour 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?

Yes.  Similar situation to which you are referring discussed here: 

 

[Fourputt]

49 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Yes.  Similar situation to which you are referring discussed here: 

 

But only if the left handed shot is "reasonable".  For me it never would be reasonable, for the simple fact that I couldn't hit a basketball left handed, much less a golf ball.

[bubble]

2 hours ago, Gunther said:

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.

it actually totally complies with the spirit (depending on point of view of course I understand your opinion)

the things that rule impose relief and you search relief in a standard way to not loose time and comply to rules. (and we can obviously see here the ref is pressing time) then all of golfs madness and creativity in shot choice can change a lot when the ball is in play. 

I.E. before the ball is in play your' searching relief, once it is in play the shot can be very different.

spieth played it good.

imagine your in water in a bunker. you search relief in a position with a shot in mind to the green and a club. you drop and the ball rolls in play very close to the lip and have to play backwards not the green intended before the drop (or it plug dead on drop and have to o the same). well thats the spirit. you can't known the exact shot until you see that ball in it's place.

[Missouri Swede]

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

But only if the left handed shot is "reasonable".  For me it never would be reasonable, for the simple fact that I couldn't hit a basketball left handed, much less a golf ball.

So grab a club and a couple of balls, head out to the back yard, and practice a left handed shot so it's a reasonable shot. I know I've had occasion to use it to get away from a tree trunk. I'm not great at it, but I can bump it back into play. If being able to honestly set up for a lefty shot allows me to take relief, which then sets me up to take relief again under the RoG, so much the better.

Yeah, 

At least Spieth did this with a rules official advising/directing.

[iacas]

9 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

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.

You don't go through the process. You take relief for the ball, your stance, etc. the same time.

[Golfingdad]

8 hours ago, Fourputt said:

But only if the left handed shot is "reasonable".  For me it never would be reasonable, for the simple fact that I couldn't hit a basketball left handed, much less a golf ball.

Oh, absolutely.  And good point, because I think @Gunther's subsequent post about it being against the spirit of the game and that a pro would get ripped for doing it might have been made under the frame of mind that the pro in question in his hypothetical is trying to demonstrate an unreasonable swing.

And he's right.  I've seen something like that once - it was David Frost a few years ago at a British or British Senior Open trying to convince a rules official that the stance he was taking was reasonable (and caused something, cart path or sprinkler or whatever) to interfere and should be granted relief and the rules official told him no.  That little incident has partially helped frame my opinion of that guy.

[Big C]

Good call @Golfingdad. Perhaps OT, but here is the incident in question. 

Quite a stretch to call it "reasonable," but to his credit, Frost actually played (and executed) the shot he was trying to get relief for.

 

[Golfingdad]

6 minutes ago, Big C said:

Good call @Golfingdad. Perhaps OT, but here is the incident in question. 

Quite a stretch to call it "reasonable," but to his credit, Frost actually played (and executed) the shot he was trying to get relief for.

 

LOL ... great find!  The internet is an astounding thing!

This brings up a new question though:

Doesn't the fact that he went ahead and played it prove that, by definition, it was a reasonable stroke?  (Unless there was also some question as to whether or not his foot was actually on the path)  If not, perhaps we think that he didn't really want to play that shot, but was forced to because he argued for it?   If you don't want people to call your bluff, you'd better not bluff ...

 

[natureboy]

56 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

LOL ... great find!  The internet is an astounding thing!

This brings up a new question though:

Doesn't the fact that he went ahead and played it prove that, by definition, it was a reasonable stroke?  (Unless there was also some question as to whether or not his foot was actually on the path)  If not, perhaps we think that he didn't really want to play that shot, but was forced to because he argued for it?   If you don't want people to call your bluff, you'd better not bluff ...

 

Great Seinfeld reference. 

Given how nasty the lie was, playing to the cart path was definitely a reasonable play. How wide his stance had to be for the amount the ball was below his feet was the more questionable part to me.

[Fourputt]

Most people, rather than playing toward the path, would have declared the ball unplayable and dropped on the path, which would have been a much safer solution and cost the same number of strokes.  After all the haranguing, if you watch where his ball ends up, he doesn't advance the ball all that far, and almost misses the path.  If he was just playing that shot to prove a point, he may have gotten lucky - it could have been quite costly.

[CarlSpackler]

On 7/30/2016 at 0:22 PM, Fourputt said:

But only if the left handed shot is "reasonable".  For me it never would be reasonable, for the simple fact that I couldn't hit a basketball left handed, much less a golf ball.

I did that a few weekends ago because I couldn't swing righty because of a tree. I whiffed the first time, so it actually cost me two to get back to the fairway. Such is life. 

As far as the topic at hand, I have no issue with Spieth since he followed the instructions of the RO. That is what they are there for.

[iacas]

So we just covered this in the rules seminar. Basically the rules official on the scene said it was apparent that even that one foot made a big difference in what type of shot Jordan could play. He said it wasn't apparent on tv at all, too.

[Whiner]

On 1/14/2017 at 3:00 PM, iacas said:

So we just covered this in the rules seminar. Basically the rules official on the scene said it was apparent that even that one foot made a big difference in what type of shot Jordan could play. He said it wasn't apparent on tv at all, too.

20-2c/0.8 Player Takes Relief from an Area of Ground Under Repair; Whether Re-Drop Required if Condition Interferes for Stroke with Club Not Used to Determine "Nearest Point of Relief"
Q.A player finds his ball in heavy rough approximately 230 yards from the green. He selects a wedge to play his next shot and finds that his stance touches a line defining an area of ground under repair. He determines the nearest point of relief and drops the ball within one club-length of this point. The ball rolls into a good lie from where he believes he can play a 3-wood for his next stroke. If the player used a wedge for his next stroke he would not have interference from the ground under repair, but adopting a normal stance with the 3-wood, he again touches the ground under repair with his foot. Must the player re-drop his ball under Rule 20-2c?

A.No. The player proceeded in accordance with Rule 25-1b by determining his nearest point of relief using the club with which he expected to play his next stroke and he would only be required to re-drop the ball under Rule 20-2c if interference still existed for a stroke with this club - see analogous Decision 20-2c/0.7.

As it was expedient for the player to play his next stroke with another club, which resulted in interference from the condition, he would have the option of playing the ball as it lies or proceeding again under Rule 25-1b.

Did they explain why the decision uses "a" stroke and "this" club.  In rules speak "a" should mean "any" as in "a ball".  And "this" (the) as in "drop the ball"?

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Whiner said:

Did they explain why the decision uses "a" stroke and "this" club.  In rules speak "a" should mean "any" as in "a ball".  And "this" (the) as in "drop the ball"?

I don't understand why you're asking. The Decision makes sense to me, and consistent with the rest of the Rules and Decisions.