Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Note: This thread is 1659 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

This topic is for the discussion of what happened at the 2016 PGA Championship to Jordan Spieth on the 7th hole.

Jordan was on the cart path but didn't want to take relief from that as it would put him behind a big pine tree. His ball was also sitting in a puddle, so he wanted to take relief from casual water.

After a protracted discussion with the RO, during which Jordan indicated his line of play to be to the right a little (to miss the tree), and attempted to drop several times toward the right near a second smaller puddle, Jordan finally dropped to the right somewhat and back a fair amount and, in taking his stance, was standing outside the casual water. He ostensibly used the club he'd use to hit the shot, and the RO cleared his play as he was not standing in the water, nor was his ball in the water, or the area of his swing.

But when he played the ball his toes were "over" the water. I don't know if they touched much (or any?) water, but they were visibly within the boundary of the casual water. This was pointed out on the telecast immediately, as you'll see in the video, and later by Gary McCord in suggesting that people would be calling in.

What do you think? To be clear, I'm not asking whether you think he gained an advantage, whether the rule is lame, whether call-ins should be allowed (the commentators didn't need to "call in" but they, too, aren't rules officials or members of the committee)… This discussion is solely about the Rules of Golf as it applies to this topic, and whether Jordan should be penalized.


As best as I can, the order of events:

  1. Jordan finds his ball in a puddle on the cart path.
  2. He indicates to the RO he wishes to take relief.
  3. The RO indicates that this puddle is the instance of casual water they need to get away from.
  4. Jordan indicates his line of play, and the RO indicates the nearest point of relief (to the left of the puddle).
  5. Jordan measures one club length with his driver to the right and then tries to drop as far right as possible as it will leave him an easier shot. He even drops once or twice outside of a driver club length and is told to re-drop.
  6. He eventually drops and places, then takes a stance to show the RO that his foot is not in the casual water. (I believe this is also on tape - I saw the entire thing on the the live stream. The TNT coverage had less than the whole saga.).
  7. When he makes his swing, his foot (toes) is as you see above: in or over the casual water from which he took relief.

So again, does this meet the definition of complete relief? Or does he deserve a penalty? Did he alter his stance from what he showed the RO? What do you think of this, as it relates to the application of the Rules of Golf?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Can a player alter his stance in order to not be in the casual water?-How much? Could he just pull his foot back even if that is not his normal stance? Can he move the ball forward in his stance? What if he just lifts half his foot off the ground and stands on his heel only?-What if he hits with one foot?

I am not a rules geek-Admire those who are-But it would seem to me it is a violation because he did not stand how he said he would stand. He did not take complete relief. How you stand to get the OK from the RO should only matter if it is how you stand when you play it.

DOes it matter that he changed his mind on the line after he got the OK to the point where he was still in the same casual water?

This should be interesting.-Hopefully people can follow the directions and stick to the rules only-This time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

No penalty is my initial response based on your post and on the wording of Rule 25 which says, in part, " when the condition interferes with the player's stance "  If his feet are not touching the CW, it is not interfering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the view from behind as he plays the shot and his left foot pivots show that he had the ball of his feet on the casual water as well as the toes over it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Wansteadimp said:

Doesn't the view from behind as he plays the shot and his left foot pivots show that he had the ball of his feet on the casual water as well as the toes over it?

I think it does. Can someone make closeup photos to show this?

12 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

No penalty is my initial response based on your post and on the wording of Rule 25 which says, in part, " when the condition interferes with the player's stance "  If his feet are not touching the CW, it is not interfering.

So if you have to curl your toes up to try to keep the cleats of your shoe from touching the water that is not the same as interfering?-Jordan demonstrated a different stance to get the OK but then did not in my opinion take complete relief.

Where does that end?-Can I stand on my heel because I like the lie a drop gave me?

What if there is a rock sticking up in some casual water and I stand lightly on that with my foot over the casual water-Is that okay too if I am taking relief from the same blob of casual water?

It seems you are saying touching = interfering and I do not think I agree-Especially if it makes you alter your stance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

When I stand flat footed wearing my golf shoes, the toes sort of curl up.  I suspect the soft spike on the toe of the shoe does not touch the ground until I step forward as I walk.  So when a player takes his/her stance, if the spike/soft spike is not touching the water, even though it may be overhanging the water, there is complete relief.  Yes?  Once the player begins his/her stroke, presumably part or all of the shoe may contact the water.

I wouldn't think one could create a unique stance (think Sadaharu Oh batting) in order to create complete relief but if one's "normal" stance leaves one's toes hovering over the water, you should be good to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Last I read about it was there was no post round discussion with the ROs . Can they get him after the fact?  Tomorrow? The ball of his foot appears to be in the CW during the final part of his swing. Then again, was he standing on non CW  turf, and his foot movement brought the water out of the ground? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
9 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I wouldn't think one could create a unique stance (think Sadaharu Oh batting) in order to create complete relief but if one's "normal" stance leaves one's toes hovering over the water, you should be good to go.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I will point out that the stance he demonstrated to get the OK was in a noticeably different position.

Is it your position that he lucked out because he was on relatively firm ground (the cart path), as he'd have sunk down and definitely contacted the water if he was in softer grass/dirt.

I'm not certain of this one, except to say that I'd have not pushed the boundaries as much as he did, and certainly not as long as he did. I'd have taken my relief to the left and said "well, you're the idiot who hit the ball here." I don't even like to get close to these types of situations.

P.S. In taking relief Jordan initially indicated that his nearest point was really close to the water's edge, and the RO indicated it was about two inches farther to the left, away from the casual water. So technically, even if his toes are above the water, was the ball of his foot inside that two-inch margin over which Jordan and the RO disagreed constituted complete relief for the NPR?

P.S. Jordan was just interviewed and despite McCord and Ian Baker-Finch mentioning it and perhaps others, it wasn't brought up in the post-round interview (nor would I expect it to be… I'm viewing this almost as a bit more of a hypothetical discussion, just with a bit of grounding in reality).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

spieth.jpg

I connected the same point in two frames here. What's that stuff to the left where the purple arrow points? It appears to be the same color as the casual water.

spieth2.jpg

3 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.

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

My impression is that the underside of his shoe was not touching the water.

The definition says "A ball is in casual water when it lies in or any part of it touches the casual water presumably this applies to a players foot also. It says "on the course" and it makes no mention of the margin extending vertically upwards.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rulesman said:

My impression is that the underside of his shoe was not touching the water.

The definition says "A ball is in casual water when it lies in or any part of it touches the casual water presumably this applies to a players foot also. It says "on the course" and it makes no mention of the margin extending vertically upwards.

You do not think the purple arrow is water?

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

spieth2.jpg
 

 

If you look at the water you can see it ripple or move when his foot twists out of the way. Look at the first picture @iacas posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

23 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

My impression is that the underside of his shoe was not touching the water.

The definition says "A ball is in casual water when it lies in or any part of it touches the casual water presumably this applies to a players foot also. It says "on the course" and it makes no mention of the margin extending vertically upwards.

I'm sure there is a Jordan walks on water joke to be had somewhere.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, iacas said:

Is it your position that he lucked out because he was on relatively firm ground (the cart path), as he'd have sunk down and definitely contacted the water if he was in softer grass/dirt.

Yes.  The surface appears to allow the tip of his shoe to not be in contact with the water.  Even a tightly cut area of fairway might not keep the tip of the shoe from contact but the hard surface could.  

I also agree with you that one should not typically try to gain a favorable position by coming within a 1/4 inch of touching the casual water.  Take full relief and play on, don't try to game the situation.  We don't need micrometers to become standard golf equipment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

19 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

You do not think the purple arrow is water?

 

If you look at the water you can see it ripple or move when his foot twists out of the way. Look at the first picture @iacas posted.

It clearly is the same water in the larger puddle.  

The next question would be if his weight combined with turning his foot through the shot caused the ground under his feet to move and allowed the water to backflow to where his foot was 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

8 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

Yes.  The surface appears to allow the tip of his shoe to not be in contact with the water.  Even a tightly cut area of fairway might not keep the tip of the shoe from contact but the hard surface could. 

What about the area by the purple arrow

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

spieth2.jpg

I do not even think it was his toes only over the water.-I think the ball of his foot was in the water.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 1659 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • 6 or 7 iron?   I guess it kind of depends on what club is versatile for you.   You could have anything from pitch shots to full on shots to get back into play.   Maybe whatever you would use in a one club tournament?
    • Which is why @iacas and TST instructors in general recommend priority pieces. This could really screw someone up who’s hip rotation wasn’t a priority piece or who’s hand/wrists movements were. I vote D-. Not an F purely because of his enthusiasm…lol.
    • For the record and for what it’s worth, I’m not a Xander fan. I just think he’s pretty good. 
    • Maybe. Maybe not. That’s why I said it “could be.” Statistically things aren’t in his favor because, as you mentioned, the field is pretty good. But he’s also pretty good—one of the best statistically-speaking. Sometimes just a little bit of success can spur one on to do more. He looks like he has the talent, so I guess we will just have to wait and see.  Curious: is there something in his game or swing you see that you don’t like? You’d know better than I, for sure. To me, he looks very solid. I didn’t know if maybe you saw something he needs to fix, just based it purely on the numbers, or the fact that you don’t like him and that your dislike of him could have tainted your view of him (even if deserved!). 
    • And I'd wager that within a reasonable version of "launching pad" it won't be. He won a weak, limited-field event. I'm sure it feels great - it's one event every FOUR years instead of majors which are four events every year (usually). But it's not even as good as winning a WGC event or the Masters or something (also limited field events) as an actual achievement. I'd be willing to wager that simply because: There are a lot of other good golfers out there. He hasn't done it yet, and for "this" to be the catalyst, he'd have to do it within the next year or so for this to be the "launching pad." Who cares if he, like Sergio, wins a major 15 years later? The 1999 PGA was not the launching pad for Sergio's Masters win. Nor were any of the Ryder Cups in which he played so well, etc.
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. ercxi
      ercxi
      (33 years old)
    2. Garea51
      Garea51
      (70 years old)
    3. iamwardicus
      iamwardicus
      (37 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...