Explaining the Wyndham Clark controversy at the Arnold Palmer Invitational

There was a bit of controversy during the second round of the Arnold Palmer Invitational on Friday, as television commentators and pundits alike attempted to dissect what Wyndham Clark did or did not do and what should have happened or not happened.

The PGA Tour later put out a press release explaining why he was not penalized and an explanation. Clark began Saturday’s third round in second place at Bay Hill, two shots behind Shane Lowry.

Let us start with the facts of what happened.

Clark hit driver off the third tee, successfully finding the fairway. When he got to his ball, however, he found it to be in a pitch mark. He believed it to be the pitch mark from his own shot, and since part of the ball was below the level of the ground, he proceeded under Rule 16.3, took relief with no penalty, took a drop, and moved on.

Later, a question arose of whether it was his pitch mark or not. Tournament officials eventually determined no rules were broken and that no penalty would be assessed.

So, what is the controversy?

Why Wyndham Clark's drop at Bay Hill was controversial

Whether or not the pitch mark was Clark's is the key here.

If it was his, he proceeded correctly. If it was not, he should have been penalized (with a host of other potential issues). Tee shots with a driver that finish in the fairway tend not to be in their own pitch mark except for wet conditions.

What should Clark have done?

This is where it gets tough. It is not reasonable for Clark to know the exact path of travel of his golf ball from 280-plus yards away and precisely how it eventually stops. Doing so would be complete guesswork (like trying to guess where exactly a tee shot entered a creek).

Should Clark have called for a Rules Official?

Relief from an embedded ball is one of the simplest rules in the game. The pace of play in PGA Tour events is quite slow, so to call for a Rules Official for something basic would unnecessarily delay the proceedings.

Had he done so, the Rules Official would have asked Clark, his caddie, and the others in the group what information they had. They would have made a bunch of guesses of what they thought since they were 280-plus yards away.

Had Clark not called for a Rules Official, not much would have changed, as the same discussion would have been had with his caddie and the other players in the group.

Since hindsight is 20/20, what should have happened?

Why Clark did not call for a Rules Official is understandable, as there does not seem to be a reason. Had he called for one and been given the exact same free relief, Clark would have been absolved from a penalty, even if later determined to be incorrect.

What about the use of video or other technology?

Rule 20.2.C contains a section about using video. The verbiage in the USGA Rules of Golf states, “When the Committee is deciding questions of fact in making a ruling, the use of video evidence is limited by the ‘naked eye’ standard … if the facts shown on the video could not reasonably have been seen with the naked eye, that video evidence would be disregarded even if it indicates a breach of the Rules.”

The PGA Tour Rules Committee determined the ball landed, bounced out, and rolled back into its own pitch mark using its Shotlink technology.

Whether video replay or Shotlink, it appears no penalty or its own pitch mark would be the eventual decision.