During
the second round of the PGA Championship at Baltusrol, Jordan Spieth found his
ball lying in a very unique situation.
On hole #7, It was in the middle of an artificially-surfaced golf car
path, but also in the middle of a puddle of casual water in the middle of the
path.
Spieth
was presented with a unique conundrum, he was entitled to relief from the
immovable obstruction (path) or the abnormal ground condition (casual water).
He was not required to take relief from either and in fact, could take relief
from one and still end up in a position where there is interference from the
other. He discussed the options with
PGA of America Rules Official Brad Gregory, a former Chairman of the PGA Rules
Committee and one of the most knowledgeable Rules Officials in the world. Gregory
explained his nearest point of relief from the path would force him to stand in
the tree branches, so Spieth looked into taking relief from just the casual
water.
Gregory had Spieth demonstrate the
stroke, stance and direction of play with the club he would’ve used had the casual
water not been present. This club,
stance and direction of play was left of the tree in front of him and angled
slightly left. The determined the nearest point of relief on the left side of
the puddle, but Gregory explained that Spieth could measure the one club-length
in any direction, provided the ball is dropped in a position that avoids
interference from the puddle.
Spieth tried dropping on a spot
diagonally backward from the nearest point of relief, but it was determined
that the spot where the ball was dropped (after two drops and a place) was
actually in a position where there was still interference. So Rule 20-6
(Lifting Ball Incorrectly Substituted, Dropped or Place) wipes those drops out,
and Spieth’s “drop count” was still 0. Along with Gregory’s assistance, Spieth
tried to find a spot diagonally right from the nearest point of relief that did
have complete interference that was within one club-length. Spieth found the spot, dropped twice
(actually there were two proper drops, he dropped outside the applicable area
at one point also), each time rolling forward to a position where there was
still interference, and demonstrated to Gregory a stance with a new direction
of play. Gregory caught on to this
and had Spieth demonstrate the originally determined stance and direction of
play which was finally free of the casual water. The ball was finally in play properly and relief for that
particular situation was complete.
Spieth was then entitled to change
his direction of play, stance and/or club if desired to play the stroke. If interference occurred with the new
stroke, he would be entitled to relief for the new situation. When he played this new stroke his toe
hovered over the puddle, and judging by Gregory’s initial conversation with
Spieth that water was still visible on the surface just surrounding the edge of
the puddle his foot was definitely touching casual water, but that’s ok.
While many have cited various
Decisions in the Rules of Golf supporting this ruling, (all of which are
relevant and do support the ruling), the heart of the issue, boils down to the
Definitions, the most basic building blocks for the Rules of Golf.
The Definition of Nearest Point of
Relief is “the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies that is (i)
not nearer the hole and (ii) where, if the ball were so positioned, no
interference by the condition from which relief is sought would exist for the stroke the player would have made from
the original position if the condition were not there.”
From the very beginning, Gregory
had Spieth proceeding on the basis of a specific swing, stance and direction of
play – a specific stroke – that Spieth would have made if the casual water had
not been present. That specific stroke is what Spieth was entitled to relief
for and he had to obtain complete relief for that stroke, not a different
one. Gregory, through a bunch of
drops, discussion and demonstration successfully managed to get Spieth in a
position where complete relief was obtained for the stroke Spieth would have
made had the casual water not been present. Despite common belief, Spieth was
not then locked into actually using that original stroke for his next play. He
was entitled to change directions, stance or even clubs if he wished (this is
where Decisions 20-2c/0.8, 24-2b/4, 24-2b/17 and 25-1b/22 provide a lot of
support).
With the new position of the ball
further toward the middle of the path, he decided he was able to play a new
shot around the trees for a better play at the green. This new stance put his toe most likely in the casual water.
If Spieth wanted to go through the ordeal again and drop for this new type of
stroke, he was actually entitled to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment