Jordan Spieth’s making a run back into contention on Friday’s second round of the PGA Championship. He’s at 3-under on the day, just two shots behind Henrik Stenson, Patrick Reed and Martin Kaymer. Or, he might be at 2-under. RULES OF GOLF BACK, BABY.
Jordan Spieth’s miraculous cart-path shot avoids a controversial penalty
What was an incredible shot from the cart part has created yet another rules controversy at a major championship.
On the 7th hole -- his 16th after starting on the back nine -- Spieth hit this fantastic recovery shot from off the cart path and inside treeline jail to just behind the green. He made bogey after a difficult up-and-in, but it was much better than the big number that could’ve been coming.
Soooooo...this just happened with @JordanSpieth. #PGAChamp https://t.co/48L7WHwYYg
— PGA.COM (@PGAcom) July 29, 2016
That was just an awesome shot off a cart path — just a cool highlight, should be nothing else to see here, right?
Well, not exactly.
When his ball came to rest both on a cart path and in casual water, Spieth was trying to use the rules of golf as best he could to find a favorable lie and angle of attack around the trees toward the 7th green. That’s totally normal, and there’s nothing improper or lacking in integrity about it. Every player that’s competed at any sort of high level has tried to achieve the best possible within-the-rules lie during a drop. If you haven’t, well, try harder. If you’re just a weekend hacker, you’ve probably done this a million times with your foot while friends aren’t looking.
Ordinarily, if a player is on casual water while on the cart path, it’s not an issue because the player is going to take relief from both the water and the path. However, Spieth’s nearest point of relief under the obstruction of the larger cart path under Rule 24-2 would have put him back into the large pine tree to his left and gave himself no opportunity to hit the ball with a full swing at all. So, he simply just took relief from one of the two obstructions — the casual water (standing water that shouldn’t be there) on the path.
The multiple puddles complicated that process and left him dropping and re-dropping the golf ball through the ordeal, while the PGA of America rules official supervised and walked him through all the options. The entire mess of a process took 15 minutes to resolve, fun for basically no one involved.
Not an ideal situation for Spieth pic.twitter.com/2dOYrutwDZ
— Michael Shamburger (@mshamburger1) July 29, 2016
Eventually, he found a dry lie on the loose-gravel path and hit the fantastic shot above to just over the green. Good recovery, take your bogey, move on, right?
Well, not quite.
this is a very stupid rule but i'm not sure spieth took complete relief there pic.twitter.com/TzVWB9nP92
— Kyle Robbins (@kylerrobbins) July 29, 2016
The same Rule 24-2 dictates that Spieth can not only take relief from the obstructions (the casual water and the cart path, if he had chosen) but he must take complete relief from the obstructions. That means he’s not allowed to drop the ball in an area where his stance or swing is affected by the original obstruction. Camera angles can do weird things, but from the slow-motion screenshot above, it seems that Spieth’s front foot is still in the puddle. If the PGA of America agrees, that will likely cost him a shot. Gary McCord on the TNT broadcast noted the same observation.
It seems like a bit of a dumb rule, but there’s some sense to it. The complete relief language ensures that a player can’t game the rules to his advantage by taking “relief” only for the purpose of improving a lie or angle of attack toward a green, when there’s really no adverse ground condition hampering the shot in the eyes of the player.
Stay tuned -- we’ll update when the PGA makes a ruling later or after the round.
UPDATE: The PGA of America released a statement on the Spieth situation, noting that he won’t be hit with a penalty because he changed the type of shot he was going to play after the drop -- something he was well-able to do within the rules. So, some gamesmanship likely happened here, but nothing illegal. And we won’t have to mess with a late added penalty. That’s good. Here’s the full statement, with tediously long rules language, from the PGA Rules Committee.
Jordan Spieth Ruling -€” Hole #7
Jordan Spieth's ball came to rest in casual water on an artificially surfaced path. He called for a Rules Official and Brad Gregory, former PGA of America Rules Chair, was present to provide help.
Jordan selected a club and demonstrated a swing and direction that he would have used, if there were no casual water present (Decision 24-2b/1). This stroke and direction was toward the hole. After going thru the relief procedure, the ball was in play on the artificially surfaced path and clear from his stance and swing for the direction and type of shot he originally chose to play. Once the ball was dropped and in play, 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.
In this case, Jordan elected to play in a different direction of play based on Decision 20-2c/0.8. 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.
Decision 24-2b/1
Determining "Nearest Point of Relief"
Q.The Note to the Definition of "Nearest Point of Relief" provides that the player should determine this point by using "the club with which he would have made his next stroke if the condition were not there to simulate the address position, direction of play and swing for such stroke." May the player use any club, address position, direction of play or swing in determining the nearest point of relief?
A.No. In determining the nearest point of relief accurately it is recommended that the player use the club, address position, direction of play and swing (right or left-handed) that he would have used had the obstruction or condition not been there. For example, the player has interference from an immovable obstruction and, were it not for the obstruction, he would have used a right-handed stroke with a 4-iron to play the ball from its original position towards the green. To determine the nearest point of relief accurately, he should use a right-handed stroke with a 4-iron and the direction of play should be towards the green. See also Decisions 20-2c/0.7 and 20-2c/0.8.
Decision 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.
This reflects what we heard after the round, where Spieth sure made it sound like a settled matter afterward.The media, as you’d expect, questioned him repeatedly about it and he insisted there was no issue, even while admitting his toe was in the water.
Jordan Spieth re:his drop on the cart path on the 7th hole. #PGAChamp pic.twitter.com/Q4RQFd5k74
— Alex Miceli (@alexmiceli) July 29, 2016
Jordan Spieth: "I trust my rules official there. I don't think there's any problem with it. If there is, It isn't on me" #PGAChampionship
— Bill Nichols (@BillNicholsDMN) July 29, 2016
Jordan Spieth says there was no post-round discussion with officials about any potential violation on the seventh hole ruling.
— Jason Sobel (@JasonSobelESPN) July 29, 2016
See More:
