Every Monday Alex Miceli will share what he learned from the previous week in golf.
What I learned this week is that anyone can be skewered and barbecued for an action that occurs daily on the PGA Tour.
The incident this time involved Wyndham Clark on the 18th hole in the third round of the Arnold Palmer Invitational at Bay Hill.
After a wayward drive into the right rough, Clark put a club behind the ball, as many players do—and that was the start of the brouhaha.
Using a close-up view before and after a layup shot, both the announcers on NBC’s coverage and Brandel Chamblee on Golf Channel's post-round coverage went after Clark for both moving the ball when he placed the club behind the ball and improving his lie as the clubhead mashed down the rough behind the ball.
Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images
After review by his playing competitor Scottie Scheffler and PGA Tour rules officials, it was determined that no penalty would be assessed.
Was that decision wrong? Yes, if you listen to social media, which blew up after the round universally saying Clark's actions were egregious and demanding of a penalty.
Chamblee agreed, but what everyone seemed to forget is the action by Clark was a typical one on the PGA Tour.
By habit, players firmly place their club behind the ball, which more often than not improves the lie, but not many are on television as Clark’s incident was.
NBC analyst Luke Donald made the most salient point when he asked during the broadcast why Clark would try to improve his lie if he was going just layup anyway?
The answer is habit.
When a man shaves his face, he starts on one side or the other every time. A person puts a sock on either the left or right foot first, all the time. Habits.
Habit evidence is so persuasive in court that it is one of the exceptions to the use of hearsay rule, which does not allow gossip to be included as testimony.
Pros put their clubhead behind the ball almost every time, especially in the rough to test the lie, which inherently provides a better lie and at times may move the ball.
To question Clark’s intent is legitimate, but not before questioning every player’s intent when they do the same exact thing.
Should Clark have been penalized? Clearly he improved his lie, maybe by just a few blades of grass, but improve it he did.
In almost every scenario where a player places the clubhead behind the ball, the lie is improved to a small or large degree.
To what degree of altering the lie is unclear in the rules and while 8.1(a) of the Rules of Golf cites that altering the surface of the ground is a penalty, it does not state to what degree of altering is a penalty, leaving the decision to the player.
While subjectivity works in many situations, a rules call by the potential rule breaker himself, with potentially millions on the line, is not one of them.
Rule 8.1 needs to be changed and clearly needs to not allow players the ability to place a clubhead behind a ball in the rough. Just make it a violation, period.
Then we don’t have a question if the ball moved or if the lie was altered. We go from a subjective to an objective rule, with no need for long-lens cameras and slow motion. If you do it, it's a penalty.
Then maybe we can get back to playing golf as it was supposed to be.
