Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jim_Coleman on January 30, 2021, 03:51:53 PM
-
Patrick Reed just picked up his allegedly imbedded ball before official arrived. Showed him a pitch mark and was given relief. The ball bounced before it came to rest. Enough is enough.
-
He did nothing wrong. He is allowed to lift the ball to see if it is embedded. He wasn’t sure so he got a referee there to confirm it was. He was smart enough to set it down so he couldn’t be accused of cleaning it while waiting for the ruling
He said he was told it didn’t bounce, not that it matters. Balls can embed after they bounce and you still get relief.
-
Sorry, no way. You don’t pick a ball up and then ask for a ruling. You call a competitor over to confirm. The chances of a ball imbedding in deep rough after it bounces a couple of feet in the air are slim and none. Reed probably showed the official the first bounce. He’s got a history.
-
Nobilo and Faldo agree with me.
-
The rules allow you to lift a ball to see if it is embedded with calling anyone over.
If he pointed out a different location, I’m sure that can be figured out fro TV coverage. In which case he should be DQ’ed. He marked he location with a tee before lifting the ball. Unless he somehow moved the tee when no one was looking, he pointed to the correct location.
As for Nick’s statement about never seeing a ball plug on the second bounce, he is full of it as I’ve seen it plenty of times.
I don’t like Reed much, but I’m not going to start accusing him of anything unless there is some proof of it and you and others suspicions don’t amount to anything.
-
You really believe a ball can plug in deep rough after a 2 foot bounce?
-
When it was hit from a bunker so that it had a lot of spin and they got well over an inch of rain yesterday which might have puddled up agains the edge of the cart path that was right there, yes it’s possible. Also, the referee checked it and agreed there was an indentation. It doesn’t have to be deep, just as long as it broke the surface of the ground.
-
If he took the drop without calling in the official, I might have been more skeptical, but I’ll believe the tour official in this case.
-
Jim, do you know who you are arguing with? John is too modest but he recently retired as a rules official and has been an instructor at the USGA Rules Schools for many years. I suspect a lot of us don't trust Reed but if John gives you a rules opinion, you can almost invariably take it to the bank.
-
You can only lift your golf ball if you make it clear what you're doing (ie, you're identifying if it is your golf ball, or if it is plugged), and it did not seem like he did that to any of his playing competitors, and only mentioned it to the rules official AFTER he had done it, which is makes it seem like he was cheating
-
Chamblee just tweeted that he will address the ruling at 6:00 tonight. Watch for yourself. We haven’t heard the end of this.
Check out Chamblee’s tweet. For what it’s worth, the overwhelming consensus of his followers is that Reed cheated.
-
As for Nick’s statement about never seeing a ball plug on the second bounce, he is full of it as I’ve seen it plenty of times.
Of course he hasn't. He was usually 100+ yards away from where balls landed.
-
Sorry, no way. You don’t pick a ball up and then ask for a ruling. You call a competitor over to confirm. The chances of a ball imbedding in deep rough after it bounces a couple of feet in the air are slim and none. Reed probably showed the official the first bounce. He’s got a history.
I believe you no longer have to call over a competitor
-
As for Nick’s statement about never seeing a ball plug on the second bounce, he is full of it as I’ve seen it plenty of times.
Of course he hasn't. He was usually 100+ yards away from where balls landed.
I have to say that in the 46 years I’ve been playing golf I don’t think I’ve ever hit a shot that I saw bounce that ended up imbedded but I’m sure it’s possible if the ball lands on a dry or hard spot. You would think that if it’s that wet a ball wouldn’t bounce.
-
How does the prize money situation work?
If a player is DQ’d does that mean the rest of the field who make the cut receive more prize money? If so it should be a damn good incentive for playing partners to watch like a hawk what the other guys/gals in their group are doing including refusing to sign cards if necessary.
And one more thing ........ betting on golf ....... if a player does or doesn’t get away with something a bit naughty there could be a lot of angry punters around, including potentially some in the field or on the premises ...... Pandora’s Box time.
Atb
-
Chamblee will discuss at 6:00. Judge for yourself.
-
Sorry, no way. You don’t pick a ball up and then ask for a ruling. You call a competitor over to confirm. The chances of a ball imbedding in deep rough after it bounces a couple of feet in the air are slim and none. Reed probably showed the official the first bounce. He’s got a history.
I believe you no longer have to call over a competitor
Interesting. Not sure I like that. Everyone still does, though, at least at the events I play
-
I do too out of habit but I think they did away with it a few years ago to speed up play.
-
I hope Mr. Reed is being honest, but I wouldn't fly to Vegas to place that wager.
How does a ball bounce on grass 10 feet in the air a day after heavy rain, then travel maybe 40 feet from that point, and embed? Interesting drainage they have at Torrey Pines.
-
Faldo is always anti American players. If Rahm or some other European player had done the same thing he would have praised them.
-
At finals of q school one year in the last round, we were playing at Grenelefe.
I hit a tee shot on a par four that I saw bounce once and kick tot he right
It ended up in a pitch mark from a different shot in the middle of the fairway
Not saying it happened or did not for Reed, but he marked his ball and brought an official over who felt the pitch mark
If Reed didn’t see it bounce and no one else said it did this is what it is
But it is tough to carry past choices around
-
How does the prize money situation work?
If a player is DQ’d does that mean the rest of the field who make the cut receive more prize money? If so it should be a damn good incentive for playing partners to watch like a hawk what the other guys/gals in their group are doing including refusing to sign cards if necessary.
And one more thing ........ betting on golf ....... if a player does or doesn’t get away with something a bit naughty there could be a lot of angry punters around, including potentially some in the field or on the premises ...... Pandora’s Box time.
Atb
Typically after the. Cut, players received last place money (unofficial money though) when they did not play the full tournament. But that when I played
-
Reed said: “If the ball bounced, there’s no way it embedded.” End of discussion. The official was intimidated.
-
I believe you no longer have to call over a competitor
Who could have predicted that this change to the rule could be abused by cheaters. ::) ::)
the real problem here seems to be the rules being changed to allow cheaters like Reed to cheat.
This should be embarrassing for the USGA and PGA Tour. The constant softening of the rules is a big cause of all this.
EDIT: Not sure of the history of the embedded ball relief rule off the fairway but seems like more USGA/PGA Tour pandering to me too. We sure don't get it at my club.
-
Chamblee will discuss at 6:00. Judge for yourself.
I’m of a divided mind, as we say in the law.
I’m no fan of Reed. His past actions are consistent with those of a rules shirker. Having said that, the only opinion of Chamblee that I’d endorse would relate to hair products.
He says “the whole scene was tough to watch.” Chamblee is always hard to watch IMHO.
-
I hope Mr. Reed is being honest, but I wouldn't fly to Vegas to place that wager.
How does a ball bounce on grass two three feet in the air a day after heavy rain, and embed? Interesting drainage they have at Torrey Pines.
FYI – I managed to find the wrong replay of this shot originally. Still not buying his argument. And can't believe he didn't call for a rules official first. He has to know he's the most watched man in golf when it comes to the rules.
-
After watching the video I just can’t see any way that ball imbedded.
-
I don't know if there's a legal term for this, and 'benefit of the doubt' isn't quite what I'm looking for. What I mean to object to is the 'three strikes you're out' approach. For a person like Reed, who many of us are now pre-disposed to quickly find guilty, the 'due process' is even more important; the laws/rules are there -- or should be there -- to protect those who we are (consciously or not) most prejudiced against, and most likely to condemn as a matter of course. I choose to listen to someone like JohnVDB (instead of Brandel C or Nick F) not despite but precisely because I'm not a big fan of Reed's.
-
If he took the drop without calling in the official, I might have been more skeptical, but I’ll believe the tour official in this case.
John, did you see the replay of the bounce? It looked pretty soft. I think under the circumstances you have no choose but to let it go.
-
Seems like its all put away in a box until his next incident.
JohnVDB, any take away on how things could be improved? Seems to me the rules officials are technology-lite when making these decisions. If footage is available surely they would benefit from seeing it (via a hand held or going back to a central rules bunker), I think the benefit of the doubt would have skewed back to him not getting a drop.
-
Faldo is always anti American players. If Rahm or some other European player had done the same thing he would have praised them.
If Nick is a voice for foreign players (as opposed to anti American) its generally drowned out against the crushing weight of the pro US commentary and coverage.
We often think it may be possible for a foreign player to win without a shot being shown.
-
JohnVDB, any take away on how things could be improved?
Would be pretty simple to go back to a rule where you can't pick your ball up without first checking with your marker.
-
It was mentioned that Rory took an embedded ball drop on 18 and did so without calling the official. We assume he did so correctly and we trust his judgement that his ball was embedded. Patrick Reed checked to see if his ball was embedded, wasn't sure so he called over the official. The official agreed it was embedded and Reed took a drop. Seems simple to me. CBS made this situation and most of us fell for it. They will get more viewers because of it and I am as guilty as anyone as I went to the Golf Channel afterwards knowing that Brandel's hair would be on fire. They also implied that Reed played worse on the next 4 or 5 holes because he knew he did something wrong. What a bunch of crap! The entire field struggled on that stretch and Reed was no exception. Let it go boys and enjoy the golf course. Torrey was tough today and Carlos Ortiz played a great round that no one on CBS mentioned.
-
I don't know if there's a legal term for this, and 'benefit of the doubt' isn't quite what I'm looking for. What I mean to object to is the 'three strikes you're out' approach. For a person like Reed, who many of us are now pre-disposed to quickly find guilty, the 'due process' is even more important; the laws/rules are there -- or should be there -- to protect those who we are (consciously or not) most prejudiced against, and most likely to condemn as a matter of course. I choose to listen to someone like JohnVDB (instead of Brandel C or Nick F) not despite but precisely because I'm not a big fan of Reed's.
Peter - in US law, as a general rule, "Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait;" and "Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." There's all sorts of qualifications to those rules but is that the concept you're after?
-
The analysis is getting bogged down on whether Reed followed proper procedure. Apparently he did. What makes no sense is how he and a rules official found an indentation in the ground that didn’t exist.
I believe that Reed, as he has done before, lied to gain an advantage. (see the sand incident). As for the official, I suspect his instinct is to the err in favor of the player, and was either lazy or intimidated. But in this world where there are seemingly no longer any facts, it is a fact that a ball that fell from 2 feet into thick rough did not plug. As Reed said, that would be impossible.
-
Bernie: character evidence is admissible if the defendant puts his character into evidence in his defense. As for prior bad acts, they are admissible if they constitute evidence of a pattern.
-
The analysis is getting bogged down on whether Reed followed proper procedure. Apparently he did. What makes no sense is how he and a rules official found an indentation in the ground that didn’t exist.
I believe that Reed, as he has done before, lied to gain an advantage. (see the sand incident). As for the official, I suspect his instinct is to the err in favor of the player, and was either lazy or intimidated. But in this world where there are seemingly no longer any facts, it is a fact that a ball that fell from 2 feet into thick rough did not plug. As Reed said, that would be impossible.
Not saying he did this but he could easily have pressed the ball into the ground. He set a perfect body pick between the ball and the camera. I do believe that if it was almost anyone else this wouldn’t be a conversation.
-
Bernie: character evidence is admissible if the defendant puts his character into evidence in his defense. As for prior bad acts, they are admissible if they constitute evidence of a pattern.
Therefore, I surmise that this is not your first finger pointing incident.
-
You can only lift your golf ball if you make it clear what you're doing (ie, you're identifying if it is your golf ball, or if it is plugged), and it did not seem like he did that to any of his playing competitors, and only mentioned it to the rules official AFTER he had done it, which is makes it seem like he was cheating
You don’t have to announce or give the other players the opportunity to observe, but he did yell to the others to tell them he was lifting to See if it was plugged.
-
Chamblee will discuss at 6:00. Judge for yourself.
There’s a real rules expert
-
It was mentioned that Rory took an embedded ball drop on 18 and did so without calling the official. We assume he did so correctly and we trust his judgement that his ball was embedded. Patrick Reed checked to see if his ball was embedded, wasn't sure so he called over the official. The official agreed it was embedded and Reed took a drop. Seems simple to me. CBS made this situation and most of us fell for it. They will get more viewers because of it and I am as guilty as anyone as I went to the Golf Channel afterwards knowing that Brandel's hair would be on fire. They also implied that Reed played worse on the next 4 or 5 holes because he knew he did something wrong. What a bunch of crap! The entire field struggled on that stretch and Reed was no exception. Let it go boys and enjoy the golf course. Torrey was tough today and Carlos Ortiz played a great round that no one on CBS mentioned.
Well said Brock.
-
None of you, Sir Nick, Brandel or anyone else’s opinion matters. Reed did nothing wrong in checking to see if the ball was embedded (note to all who can’t spell, it isn’t imbedded). When he wasn’t sure, he called in a Rules Offical. Brad Fabel has been officiating out there for quite a few years and handled it perfectly. He felt that the ground was broken under the ball. That is the definition of embedded so Reed was entitled to relief.
If you want to dispute that, you are questioning either Fabel’s knowledge or integrity. I won’t question either of those.
-
He set a perfect body pick between the ball and the camera. I do believe that if it was almost anyone else this wouldn’t be a conversation.
Yep, Brandel accuse him of "hiding" the ball when he held it before he stood up to go place it on the ground so as not to clean it. Ridiculous! When asked if it was Rory or Adam Scott in this situation would it be treated differently, Brandel said that yes, they would have because they would have done it correctly. Wow!
-
None of you, Sir Nick, Brandel or anyone else’s opinion matters. Reed did nothing wrong in checking to see if the ball was embedded (note to all who can’t spell, it isn’t imbedded). When he wasn’t sure, he called in a Rules Offical. Brad Fabel has been officiating out there for quite a few years and handled it perfectly. He felt that the ground was broken under the ball. That is the definition of embedded so Reed was entitled to relief.
If you want to dispute that, you are questioning either Fabel’s knowledge or integrity. I won’t question either of those.
If Brad Fabel said the ground was broken there is no doubt in my mind that it was. The question after watching the bounce would be how did it get broken.
-
Why would Reed ask the witness if the ball had bounced before he got up to it?
-
Why would Reed ask the witness if the ball had bounced before he got up to it?
I don’t know. If he came up and saw it was deep in the grass, he might have wondered if it plugged so he asked, it is also possible that whoever saw it, volunteered the information as in, “it landed right there” while pointing to it so he interpreted it that way.
-
Interesting to know how many commenting have either officiated at tournament and/or attended Rules School. In my experience, I have had several circumstances where players claimed a ball was embedded and my examination revealed that it was not. It wasn't that hard to determine but maybe I was lucky. The problem here is the perception that Reed does not respect the spirit of the rules and may even violate their letter. The fact that certain media types are prepared to convict him on a moments notice makes it worse. That said, he earned his reputation and he will have to live with it. Each situation deserves to be evaluated on its own merits although I suspect that I would have to restrain myself from approaching Reed with a jaundiced eye if I were approached for a ruling.
-
Thanks, Bernie -- that rule of thumb captures most of what I was saying & asking about, in a 'legal' sense at least; the rest I meant in an 'ethical' sense.
I must say, though: those rules you reference didn't seem to apply when the Feds put all those mobsters in jail under the RICO laws! Not to say they didn't deserve to go to jail, but something didn't seem right to me about it. Which is kind of what some are doing with Reed here, ie treating him like Fat Tony Salerno or Carmine the Snake Persico, and focusing on a 'pattern' of behaviour.
-
I am not a fan of Reed's. And I know of and don't like some of the rules procedures he has gotten mixed up with in the past. But after looking all the evidence in this case, I believe he followed proper procedure. And I absolutely believe Fabel made the right call.
Even someone with Reed's background deserves the benefit of the doubt.
-
Why would Reed ask the witness if the ball had bounced before he got up to it?
I don’t know. If he came up and saw it was deep in the grass, he might have wondered if it plugged so he asked, it is also possible that whoever saw it, volunteered the information as in, “it landed right there” while pointing to it so he interpreted it that way.
He asked if it bounced. She replied no. She didn’t say she didn’t know. She said no.
-
This new culture of cheat shaming has made stroke play competition outside your primary group difficult to enjoy. None of us really understand the rules but at least when you see it with your own eyes you can take responsibility for your losses. Match play, match play, match play.
-
Interesting to know how many commenting have either officiated at tournament and/or attended Rules School. In my experience, I have had several circumstances where players claimed a ball was embedded and my examination revealed that it was not. It wasn't that hard to determine but maybe I was lucky. The problem here is the perception that Reed does not respect the spirit of the rules and may even violate their letter. The fact that certain media types are prepared to convict him on a moments notice makes it worse. That said, he earned his reputation and he will have to live with it. Each situation deserves to be evaluated on its own merits although I suspect that I would have to restrain myself from approaching Reed with a jaundiced eye if I were approached for a ruling.
Shel,
There was a time when I played in a lot of local and state events. I personally would never lift a ball I thought might be embedded without someone in my group watching and I would never take a drop unless they acknowledged it was embedded. That’s just me. Based on what’s happened in the past Reed would be smart to do the same.
-
Interesting to know how many commenting have either officiated at tournament and/or attended Rules School. In my experience, I have had several circumstances where players claimed a ball was embedded and my examination revealed that it was not. It wasn't that hard to determine but maybe I was lucky. The problem here is the perception that Reed does not respect the spirit of the rules and may even violate their letter. The fact that certain media types are prepared to convict him on a moments notice makes it worse. That said, he earned his reputation and he will have to live with it. Each situation deserves to be evaluated on its own merits although I suspect that I would have to restrain myself from approaching Reed with a jaundiced eye if I were approached for a ruling.
Shel,
There was a time when I played in a lot of local and state events. I personally would never lift a ball I thought might be embedded without someone in my group watching and I would never take a drop unless they acknowledged it was embedded. That’s just me. Based on what’s happened in the past Reed would be smart to do the same.
Rob, before 2019, you were required to tell another player and give them the opportunity to observe what you were doing. It’s not a bad idea. And Reed did tell another player and then when it was a question got an official which is better than another player.
Most of the time, the player yelled to another player that he was lifting his ball and the other player just said, ok, so it was felt that penalizing a player for a simple failure to follow a procedure wasn’t needed. Also, the basic premise of golf is that players are honest (I know, but that is the premise) so why do we need to watch them in this situation when we don’t watch them the rest of the time.
-
My question is why are people playing golf in a place with that kind of rough? But perhaps I'm on the wrong thread...
-
John: is it common to determine whether a ball is embedded to do it by feel? In my experience, it is always done by sight. The official here seemed to stick his finger in the ground and feel some kind of edge. He never looked to see if the surface was broken. I’ve always spread whatever grass is covering the ground to see the the surface has been broken.
If he actually did find a pitch mark, there is no way Reed’s ball caused it on a bounce.
-
I think he followed the procedure correctly. I also think he was cheating the entire time. I think we all know pretty good and well that his ball wasn't embedded, and yet he got himself a drop.
Then again, there are a few twitter accounts that say he's in the right. So maybe I'm just cynical.
-
FWIW
There is NO part of me that would believe Brad Fabel would cave to any “intimidation”
Marking the ball in the rough to check if it’s plugged is normal procedure, with deep grass, is very difficult otherwise.
If nobody said they saw it bounce first, it’s perfectly reasonable to think the ball plugged given the weather yesterday, and it seems he did this correctly
-
FWIW
There is NO part of me that would believe Brad Fabel would cave to any “intimidation”
Marking the ball in the rough to check if it’s plugged is normal procedure, with deep grass, is very difficult otherwise.
If nobody said they saw it bounce first, it’s perfectly reasonable to think the ball plugged given the weather yesterday, and it seems he did this correctly
I'm also having a hard time seeing what anyone would be complaining about if it weren't Patrick Reed.
-
I believe they mentioned that Reed was in with. the scorers for a long time after his round - I presume now that it was because of this. What was the final outcome? Do I understand that currently if the rules official was incorrect and Reed had signed his card that he would not be disqualified but he would be assessed the proper number of penalty strokes?
-
Question--
I was half watching the golf this afternoon and did not see this. Have read all the comments here and read the articles on TGC website... but cannot find a video showing the shot landing and bouncing once. Is it available someplace on the web? Where did you guys see it?
Thanks.
-
Bouncing landing: https://twitter.com/bennettevan/status/1355615370812518407?s=19 (https://twitter.com/bennettevan/status/1355615370812518407?s=19)
Full exchanges with spotter, playing partners, and official: https://twitter.com/PGATOUR/status/1355659901897486341?s=19 (https://twitter.com/PGATOUR/status/1355659901897486341?s=19)
I really like the parts where he asks if it bounced a good 10 secs before reaching the ball, spends 6 seconds lifting it while still moving quickly enough to make sure it's well out of the way by the time the official arrives, and then putting the onus on him immediately. It's James Harden-level shit.
This dude keeps showing us who he is. Hell, this drop isn't even the biggest Patrick Reed story of the day.
-
Having watched the errant approach shot and what Reed did, I am amazed that he is getting roasted on this one. There is no way he or his fellow players and caddies could see the ball land. And for those who know Torrey, it becomes a mud sanctuary after any rainfall. And even worse, the amount of water that drains from Scripps Green Hospital onto the 9th and 10th is very substantial, bordering upon epic during an inch plus rainfall. Unfortunately in the past, I spent quite a few rainy days at Scripps with my parents, so I have witnessed the water flows. If there was a spot that a bounced ball could plug, above the cart path would be ideal
-
Anybody else notice the tree support wire right behind his original plugged ball location. Looked to me that he would have received relief from that even if the plugged ball hadn't been ruled in his favor. Move along people. >:(
-
Wow, I'm shocked that the rules official agreed with Reed after he stuck his finger to check for a lip apparently. I can't see how a ball can create a lip so as to be classified as embedded from after falling from 2 feet in the air on a bounce into very high rough. I don't know if Reed saw the ball bounce or not, but when the volunteer incorrectly stated it didn't (when she should have said I'm not sure) it allowed Reed to "check" and he did alert his playing partners.
I guess the rules allow you to move the ball as well before a rules official or your playing partners witness it. If the ball is obviously embedded upon visual inspection, why not call over your playing partner to ask, or a rules official before moving it? I guess that isn't required, but I'd like to have at least your playing partners have to visually inspect the ball before being moved. Was this changed in 2019? Can I move the ball and then verbally tell you what I believe and allow the playing partner or rules official to only inspect the "crater or lip" of where the ball was?
I agree with several others here in that how in the heck did the ball become embedded off a bounce of 2 feet into very heavy rough? I don't see how that is physically possible, so both Reed's opinion and moving of the ball led the rules official to stick his finger in that crater to identify a lip apparently. I don't question the rules official's integrity, but I think it more possible that:
1. Reed perhaps pushed the ball into the ground before removing it. On video it is plausible he exerted some pressure onto the ball so as to make a lip or crater IMO. Why lift it and move it for heavens sakes, then call a rules official?
2. The rules official did a cursory evaluation of the crater to find the lip, and perhaps made an error in judgement (not in ethics).
I mean we are to the point with Patrick Reed where he almost should be mandated to wear a body cam like police officers. Make him and his caddie wear body cams and charge $9.99 a tournament for archival footage for all fans to inspect. Donate the funds to charity and at the end of the year I think you will have a robust fund to do some good.
-
I'm in complete agreement with Matt Cohn if anyone would be complaining if it weren't Patrick Reed. John VDB has acquitted himself perfectly well in this discussion but here I feel compelled to chime in. John is not just a "retired rules official" who has taught Rules of Golf workshops he is an acknowledged EXPERT on the Rules of Golf. He has helped and provided feedback on the actual drafting of the rules AND he was involved with creating the actual Rules of Golf qualifying exam that all serious and professional rules officials must take (and master). I'm telling you if John VDB says its righteous you can bank on it. Period. I do not make any judgment about Reed's character just the rules. I'll leave all the other stuff to Chamblee and Twitter.
-
I'm in complete agreement with Matt Cohn if anyone would be complaining if it weren't Patrick Reed.
Yet when Matt Kuchar tried to cheat the same way, everyone did complain. Anyone getting a free drop for an embedded ball on a ball that bounced is going to get roasted.
-
My question is why are people playing golf in a place with that kind of rough? But perhaps I'm on the wrong thread...
And why is a local rule used to give players relief from imbedded balls in that kind of rough?
Why not just play the normal rules of golf that were designed to keep things simple by not offering relief for an embedded ball in the rough?
-
Worth posting these for historic purposes -
https://twitter.com/i/status/1355660459655876612 (https://twitter.com/i/status/1355660459655876612) - ‘interesting’ how PR’s body is almost entirely aligned between the camera and the ball. Is there just visible some finger-ball-ground movement though?
and
https://twitter.com/i/status/1355661980355407872 (https://twitter.com/i/status/1355661980355407872)
Later edit - per the Golf Channel - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aIKObXgWpRY (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aIKObXgWpRY)
atb
PS - consider the implications for sports gambling.
PSS - another reason to have less manicured rough and more grass cut to fairway height?
-
My question is why are people playing golf in a place with that kind of rough? But perhaps I'm on the wrong thread...
And why is a local rule used to give players relief from imbedded balls in that kind of rough?
Why not just play the normal rules of golf that were designed to keep things simple by not offering relief for an embedded ball in the rough?
This isn’t a local rule. The new rules give relief for an embedded ball anywhere in the ‘general area’ - ie including the rough.
-
This isn’t a local rule. The new rules give relief for an embedded ball anywhere in the ‘general area’ - ie including the rough.
Thanks James, hadn't realised that. I guess that dovetails into the other poor rule changes.
-
This isn’t a local rule. The new rules give relief for an embedded ball anywhere in the ‘general area’ - ie including the rough.
Thanks James, hadn't realised that. I guess that dovetails into the other poor rule changes.
Agreed. “Play it as it lies” isn’t what it used to be.
-
I'm struggling to see where the rules infringement took place. If as John says, he was allowed to pick the ball up to check whether it was embedded, and then having done so conferred with a rules official and then Reed went along with the ruling given by the rules official, then where was the rules infringement ? And if you don't break the rules then how can that be cheating ?
John - perhaps you could answer this, if the rules official had decided that the ball hadn't imbedded then Reed could have put the ball back to where it was an played the shot without penalty ?
Niall
-
How does the prize money situation work?
If a player is DQ’d does that mean the rest of the field who make the cut receive more prize money? If so it should be a damn good incentive for playing partners to watch like a hawk what the other guys/gals in their group are doing including refusing to sign cards if necessary.
And one more thing ........ betting on golf ....... if a player does or doesn’t get away with something a bit naughty there could be a lot of angry punters around, including potentially some in the field or on the premises ...... Pandora’s Box time.
Atb
Thomas-I thought of the gambling angle also. DraftKings will soon have betting lines born out of Reed’s propensity to improve his lie.
-
I'm struggling to see where the rules infringement took place. If as John says, he was allowed to pick the ball up to check whether it was embedded, and then having done so conferred with a rules official and then Reed went along with the ruling given by the rules official, then where was the rules infringement ? And if you don't break the rules then how can that be cheating ?
Niall,
The most obvious potential rules infringement is Reed embedding his ball to get a free drop.
All the available evidence points to Reed's ball not embedding, Reed being pre-meditated in wanting to get ball in hand before he got to his ball, Reed spending about 5 seconds picking up his ball and then Reed getting relief for an embedded ball.
The most likely explanation is that he embedded his ball.
-
David
It seems to me you've presupposed that Reed cheated, and then tried to find evidence, of which there is none, that fits your assumption. Then in the absence of evidence you are trying to build a case based on supposition.
I do however agree with your last line about the likely explanation of what happened is that Reed embedded his ball. Where we probably differ is on how he did it.
Niall
-
Good morning conspiracy theorists! If Reed wanted to take a drop when he wasn't entitled, why call the official? We still don't know if Rory was actually entitled to a drop on 18 as he did not call an official. Thinking that someone would press their ball down to make it appear that the ball was embedded is the wildest rules situation thought I've ever heard. I'm having a hard time separating the reaction to this and what we are experiencing in the U.S. today. We are so quick to demonize people! Let it go and enjoy the tournament.
-
Does anyone who saw the shot think that a ball that bounced two feet in the air in heavy rough could possible embedded?
-
Good morning conspiracy theorists! If Reed wanted to take a drop when he wasn't entitled, why call the official? We still don't know if Rory was actually entitled to a drop on 18 as he did not call an official. Thinking that someone would press their ball down to make it appear that the ball was embedded is the wildest rules situation thought I've ever heard. I'm having a hard time separating the reaction to this and what we are experiencing in the U.S. today. We are so quick to demonize people! Let it go and enjoy the tournament.
Here's the difference. Earlier in the year while looking for Rory's ball in the deep rough a marshall stepped on it. Rory was allowed to place the ball. After he placed the ball the official said it was in play. They could now clearly see the ball. Rory looked at him and said (paraphrasing) "how can that be right when I couldn't even see the ball when we were looking for it?" The official then allowed him to push the ball deeper into the rough? Is Reed going to do that?, Kutcher?, Bryson?
I think Rory can do whatever he wants without being questioned IMO.
Reed has been caught numerous times on camera. Peter Kostis said he's seen him doing things numerous times. If he was smart he would never touch the ball without another player or official standing there.
I also agree with John, there is no penalty based on what you can see.
-
Does anyone who saw the shot think that a ball that bounced two feet in the air in heavy rough could possible embedded?
His playing competitors must have thought it was possible.
-
Anybody else notice the tree support wire right behind his original plugged ball location. Looked to me that he would have received relief from that even if the plugged ball hadn't been ruled in his favor. Move along people. >:(
There was first yesterday. While watching the telecast I heard Faldo compliment Lee Trevino. Amazing he said something nice about an American player.............. ;D
-
The real problem is not what Patrick did to the field, but rather, by picking it up BEFORE the rules official got there....
what he did to himself.
As Rob pointed out, Rory can proceed unassisted with a similar process as his past actions indicate is predisposed to do the right thing.
Patrick? not so much.
-
The real problem is not what Patrick did to the field, but rather, by picking it up BEFORE the rules official got there....
what he did to himself.
As Rob pointed out, Rory can proceed unassisted with a similar process as his past actions indicate is predisposed to do the right thing.
Patrick? not so much.
I will agree with you on the Reed point. He has to be aware that many are waiting behind the bushes to crucify him, and maybe he deserves it. Reed is definitely that guy at your club that you want to question in any and all rules situations. I just think that the level of scrutiny is way out of control here. CBS took this up several notches, not to mention Brandel and his outrageous comments.
-
I guess it's ok to question Reed's integrity if that's your thing, but I do not question the integrity of Brad Fabel and John Mutch who handled things on the scene and after the round. The only real rules question here is did Reed create the indentation during the drop process. All the other stuff about other players not observing or that Reed didn't mark the ball is just armchair rules flim flam and rubbish. Just to be clear when we talk about an embedded ball it does not have to be sunk significantly below ground level. All it has to do is break the plane at ground level and be observable by sight or touch. Reed could have cheated but we really don't know that. His playing partners and the volunteer said they did not see the ball bounce. And here a word about CBS... they brought in an on-air rules expert to help explain these rulings and he didn't want to challenge the announcers on his third day on the job. CBS (Faldo and Nantz) stirred the pot on this one and they sure got their money's worth.
-
"Play it as it lies", everywhere, all the time, would make rules simpler. Bad breaks are part of the game. Even eliminating marking on the green should be considered.
Speeds up play. Eliminates this sort of disagreement. Simplifies the rules greatly.
-
I guess it's ok to question Reed's integrity if that's your thing, but I do not question the integrity of Brad Fabel and John Mutch who handled things on the scene and after the round. The only real rules question here is did Reed create the indentation during the drop process. All the other stuff about other players not observing or that Reed didn't mark the ball is just armchair rules flim flam and rubbish. Just to be clear when we talk about an embedded ball it does not have to be sunk significantly below ground level. All it has to do is break the plane at ground level and be observable by sight or touch. Reed could have cheated but we really don't know that. His playing partners and the volunteer said they did not see the ball bounce. And here a word about CBS... they brought in an on-air rules expert to help explain these rulings and he didn't want to challenge the announcers on his third day on the job. CBS (Faldo and Nantz) stirred the pot on this one and they sure got their money's worth.
Mutch looked extremely uncomfortable on camera. Like a deer in the headlights.
-
Anybody else notice the tree support wire right behind his original plugged ball location. Looked to me that he would have received relief from that even if the plugged ball hadn't been ruled in his favor. Move along people. >:(
There was first yesterday. While watching the telecast I heard Faldo compliment Lee Trevino. Amazing he said something nice about an American player.............. ;D
Appalling behaviour by Sir Nick. Absolutely disgraceful. He’d better be damn careful or his Knighthood might get rescinded (sic)!
:):):)
Atb
PS - “play it as it lies” .... or ...... “lie about how it plays”? :)
-
So what are you going to do when it goes in the water ? Give them a snorkel and a pair of flippers or would the flippers constitute creating a stance ?
Niall
-
I don't think we're all having the same conversation.
Some of us think that the process followed was legitimate. The spotter misspoke when stating the ball didn't bounce, but she genuinely believed what she said. Reed followed an acceptable process. The official ruled fairly. No one should be penalized.
I'm in that group.
Others believe that the drop was suspect. That Reed claimed a ball was embedded, when it plainly and clearly bounced gently to its final resting spot. That he picked it up before anyone else could examine the lie, and moved it a couple yards away so that the official could poke the ground directly where Reed claimed that it lay, rather than actually looking at, you know... the ball lying in its lie.
I'm also in that group.
I've never heard of moving a ball out of its lie to examine its lie, nor have I ever seen a ball embedded in ankle-deep rough off a two-foot bounce. And I've never needed to call in a rules official to "let him make the call" to figure out if a ball is embedded... or rather, to be accurate - if a ball WAS embedded 45 seconds before the official got here and before I moved the ball out of its lie. I'm sure the official felt that lip where Reed told him to poke. There also wasn't a ball lying in it when he did.
Obviously the only person who really knows what happened is Patrick Reed. I think the scrutiny he faces is a small price to pay for the millions of dollars he has won in this game where he's been caught cheating, on camera, on multiple occasions. Even if I were head of the committee, I wouldn't penalize him. But do I BELIEVE him, or any of his Twitter aliases? LOL no.
-
Reed used to be plastered in Nike logos. Not seeming this year. Better deal$ available elsewhere or Nike preferring not to be associated with him anymore?
$$$$
Atb
-
I have no opinion of the incident yesterday.
However to those who say that that it must have been okay because his playing partners did not object and the Rules officials did not object, I would say you don't understand how these things work. Jason very well summarized the difference between getting penalized and bending the rules.
When I first got around the Tour in the early 1980's, I was surprised to hear that there were players who were generally considered to push the boundaries of the rules. They got away with it because the Tour did not want a cheating scandal and because it was hard to catch anyone red-handed -- the fellow competitor would have to put HIS reputation on the line to challenge them and there were very few who would want to deal with the fallout from that.
What's different today? More players and more holes are on TV, so incidents are more likely to be caught on camera, but there is still a disincentive for fellow players to object publicly, or for the Tour to do so.
Letting the players pick up their ball before conferring with a playing partner or an official is a green light to push the boundaries. If that's being done in the interest of "speeding up the game" they should go back to the old rule. A player would be much more empowered to tell a fellow player to ask an official, than they would to call it out after the fellow player has picked up his ball.
-
... I think the scrutiny he faces is a small price to pay for the millions of dollars he has won in this game where he's been caught cheating, on camera, on multiple occasions...
Outside of the Bahamas incident, when has he won millions after being caught cheating?
-
Before this happened, I was not aware the rules had changed to allow for relief of embedded balls outside of the fairway. At least in the fairway you can see it embedded and wouldn't have to actually touch the ball.
In that 4 inch rough, poking a finger around, without being able to see it could provide at least some doubt. And given it was Pat I wouldn't put it past him to have pushed it down to create the indentation, especially given we KNOW there is no way in hell a bounced ball from 2 feet could have embedded in that rough. I'd bet a significant amount of money on that one.
P.S. Faldo also made the point that what if every time someone went in the rough at Torrey, what is to stop them from going thru this same charade and checking to see if its embedded. It would grind the tournament down to a halt...
-
Good summary of the situation, Jason, with one exception--there was a ball lying in the alleged pitchmark when Brad Fabel examined it. And Brad is experienced enough, and completely honest enough, to not be mistaken in his examination.
Time to let this go. As someone said, if it were anyone other than Reed, this wouldn't even be an issue.
-
Good summary of the situation, Jason, with one exception--there was a ball lying in the alleged pitchmark when Brad Fabel examined it.
Not true. 1:45 mark of this video shows Fabel arriving on the scene, with the ball already lying two yards of so from the alleged location of original embedment at which Reed points and invites Fabel to feel.
https://twitter.com/PGATOUR/status/1355659901897486341?s=09
-
Don't hate the player, hate the game, seems appropriate right about now.. see Ryan Palmer in Hawaii
Patrick Reed, in all his glory, is a ferocious competitor. His wife, caddie, instructor, family deal...he doesn't give a wit, he wants to win. It's fascinating. Certainly it is not the way that many purists would like to see the game played. But the there are many, many aspects of the game currently that seem so off to the purist. Rules of Golf and the governing bodies right up at the top of the list.
HOWEVER- I have a theory with Reed.
There is a common theme. He gets himself into these bonehead situations only after he's hit a HORRENDOUS shot and subsequently in a really bad spot. He has ample time to steam whilst en route to the situation- so steamy that he gets into a furious rage and bends reality in an effort to repudiate the situation. And its absolutely possible within the rules of golf to do so. It's quite the genius, really, but at the same time off putting and his reactions and explanations further the latter.
-
Unfortunately we don't have a second set of rules for Patrick Reed. Just our speculation about possible chicanery.
-
My question is why are people playing golf in a place with that kind of rough? But perhaps I'm on the wrong thread...
And why is a local rule used to give players relief from imbedded balls in that kind of rough?
Why not just play the normal rules of golf that were designed to keep things simple by not offering relief for an embedded ball in the rough?
It is not a local rule. This was changed in 2019. There is now a local rule prohibiting relief in these cases.
-
Before this happened, I was not aware the rules had changed to allow for relief of embedded balls outside of the fairway. At least in the fairway you can see it embedded and wouldn't have to actually touch the ball.
In that 4 inch rough, poking a finger around, without being able to see it could provide at least some doubt. And given it was Pat I wouldn't put it past him to have pushed it down to create the indentation, especially given we KNOW there is no way in hell a bounced ball from 2 feet could have embedded in that rough. I'd bet a significant amount of money on that one.
P.S. Faldo also made the point that what if every time someone went in the rough at Torrey, what is to stop them from going thru this same charade and checking to see if its embedded. It would grind the tournament down to a halt...
My thoughts as well Kalen, if that ball embeds from 2 feet isn't every single shot into the rough going to pass that test as well?
-
Good summary of the situation, Jason, with one exception--there was a ball lying in the alleged pitchmark when Brad Fabel examined it.
What were you basing this assertion on? You couldn't be more wrong.
-
For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.
As for those who think you should always have to call someone to see what you are doing, that requirement was eliminated in 2019, because no other player ever went over to check on someone lifting a ball for identification or to see if he was entitled to relief. In soft conditions, calling an official over every time you suspect it is embedded would be a waste of time.
Also, if it was obvious that there was no way a ball could be embedded, under Rule 16.4 the player would get a penalty stroke for lifting it without a reason to do so. Patrick was given a reason to do so.
He set the ball down in the grass to the side because if he didn't, a bunch of people who don't like him would have claimed that he cleaned it while he was holding it if it was determined not to be embedded. Good practice.
-
Michael you said:
"Patrick Reed, in all his glory, is a ferocious competitor. His wife, caddie, instructor, family deal...he doesn't give a wit, he wants to win."
I think this narrative, which I agree with, works against him in situations like these. Given he doesn't give a wit about what anyone else thinks with anything else, it could also be inferred he doesn't care about if he's right or wrong in these situations, even if it may be a grey area. And this fits the pattern of his past deeds where he's done questionable things on the golf course.
P.S. I can't confirm if true on video but Brandel said he was also "palming the ball" after he picked it up, which if true would certainly act to have a cleaning affect on it...
-
I'm not a fan of Reed's but I wonder if folks don't go out of their way to find fault because of his abrasive personality.
-
For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.
As for those who think you should always have to call someone to see what you are doing, that requirement was eliminated in 2019, because no other player ever went over to check on someone lifting a ball for identification or to see if he was entitled to relief. In soft conditions, calling an official over every time you suspect it is embedded would be a waste of time.
Also, if it was obvious that there was no way a ball could be embedded, under Rule 16.4 the player would get a penalty stroke for lifting it without a reason to do so. Patrick was given a reason to do so.
He set the ball down in the grass to the side because if he didn't, a bunch of people who don't like him would have claimed that he cleaned it while he was holding it if it was determined not to be embedded. Good practice.
John,
I agree it would be good practice to set the ball down so no one would think you cleaned it but what about the fact that he was holding it in the palm of his hand and not in his fingers? Chamblee seemed to imply that in itself was a penalty.
-
I'm not a fan of Reed's but I wonder if folks don't go out of their way to find fault because of his abrasive personality.
Tommy,
I find guys like Brooks Koepka even more off putting than Pat, but i'm not aware of any situations where he's tried to pull this bush league stuff. His game is no doubt top notch, its when he opens his mouth that he needs to STFU more often that not!
P.S. By the same token, a guy like Jordan Spieth seems to be generally well liked by players and fans, but I was just as critical when he pulled that stunt in the British Open a few years back. And perhaps it is karma from the golf gods that has caught up with him since then..
-
P.S. I can't confirm if true on video but Brandel said he was also "palming the ball" after he picked it up, which if true would certainly act to have a cleaning affect on it...
That's bullshit. You can't say with certainty that the act of holding a ball cleans it ipso facto.
And Chamblee is bordering on getting sued for defamation
-
P.S. I can't confirm if true on video but Brandel said he was also "palming the ball" after he picked it up, which if true would certainly act to have a cleaning affect on it...
That's bullshit. You can't say with certainty that the act of holding a ball cleans it ipso facto.
And Chamblee is bordering on getting sued for defamation
John,
Its not bullshit, its science. Its a simple question of how much surface area of the ball is being touched and potentially cleaned by holding it with two fingers vs putting it in the palm of your hand, where you are touching most of the ball.
A defamation lawsuit, that could be interesting thou....
-
P.S. I can't confirm if true on video but Brandel said he was also "palming the ball" after he picked it up, which if true would certainly act to have a cleaning affect on it...
That's bullshit. You can't say with certainty that the act of holding a ball cleans it ipso facto.
And Chamblee is bordering on getting sued for defamation
John,
Its not bullshit, its science. Its a simple question of how much surface area of the ball is being touched and potentially cleaned by holding it with two fingers vs putting it in the palm of your hand, where you are touching most of the ball.
Taking that to its logical conclusion, the mere act of holding the ball cleans it at the two pressure points where the fingers touch the ball.
-
P.S. I can't confirm if true on video but Brandel said he was also "palming the ball" after he picked it up, which if true would certainly act to have a cleaning affect on it...
That's bullshit. You can't say with certainty that the act of holding a ball cleans it ipso facto.
And Chamblee is bordering on getting sued for defamation
John,
Its not bullshit, its science. Its a simple question of how much surface area of the ball is being touched and potentially cleaned by holding it with two fingers vs putting it in the palm of your hand, where you are touching most of the ball.
Taking that to its logical conclusion, the mere act of holding the ball cleans it at the two pressure points where the fingers touch the ball.
Agreed John,
But outside of mandating a special tool to pick up balls in these situations, its far less impactful to do it that way vs picking it up and holding it in your palm. Touching a very small % of the surface area, vs most of it....
-
Thanks John.
Though you are 100% right, you will not win this one. If you cite the rule, the response is that the rule is just plain wrong.
Based on my experience as a voluntary official for local and regional qualifiers, if every time a rules question came up an official had to come over to settle the matter, an already near-glacial game would be intolerable. It is not uncommon to get called over to clarify the simplest rules, e.g. how to drop from a penalty area. Especially with high level juniors, I always ask them what do they think they are allowed to do and what do they want to do.
We should expect golfers to know the rules, but beyond those they experience commonly, they really don't (an argument I made to your former colleagues in suggesting that the tuition for this year's remote rules schools was extreme and that they might consider teaching the rules as a loss-leader to encourage education- no response). More than a few players don't even bother to read the hard card.
So, what to do that will satisfy the haters. Hire 35+ full-time officials to have one with each group, arm them with audio/visual equipment connected to an expanded control room, and give each a whistle and a flag to halt and review play, and assess penalties as needed. Suspected offenders should be accompanied by large, imposing men, preferably former lawyers with trial experience who frequently ace the rules test. ::)
Oh, while we're in the realm of the absurd, why not subject Sir Nick and Brandel (who hasn't changed much since high school when he played occasionally in our weekend game) to the rigors of Tour golf by having them play in the next to the last group Thursday and Friday, with a one-day cut if not within five shots of the worst score. I've been around both. You couldn't pay me to follow them. The result of filling air time can be nauseating. Hard to overcome human nature and the innate desire to be part of the story (the impression I generally got watching Stevie Williams).
-
Cut more area at fairway height.
Slight of hand tricks are gonna be much harder to achieve when a ball is sitting on short grass than when a ball is sitting in manicured 2”, 3”, 4” etc etc rough.
And let’s return to the situation where you need a playing partner/marker/referee to be a witness if a player wishes to touch a ball that may be considered to be in play with his hand.
Atb
-
I'm certainly not a rules official but my first reactions were:
-there is no way a ball embeds after a hop in the rough
-why put your hands on the ball without "official" corroboration?
-wonder how many "embedded" lies I've played out of recently.
bottom line, a bad look for golf and its rules, whether it be the casual, amateur, or professional level.
-
Seems like an area where golf is not embracing technology. In today’s day and age, if you need a ruling you should just turn on your cellphone and start a zoom call with the official.
I would estimate 3/4 of the situations could be solved remotely. Lots of times they are asking just to be safe.
-
Faldo is always anti American players. If Rahm or some other European player had done the same thing he would have praised them.
Typical Sir Dick, they begin today's broadcast with McElroy doing the same damn thing on 18 yesterday and he doesn't say a word about the Euro and continues his attack on Reed. :o
-
Lou and I are starting to agree on more things. I suspect it will cause both of us to want to reconsider. But he has it right here. Much of what people are raising here really are criticisms of the rules and, in particular recent changes. While I can't say that I am in total accord with the modifications, they came after years of study by those who were expert in the rules and who had real experience in applying them. As for the suggestion that officials use technology to communicate, even in our Chicago District tournaments we communicate among officials via radio or, more recently, by cell or text to make sure we get it right. Finally, as for Reed, his reputation precedes him. But in this case he complied with the rules, at least procedurally. Since no one other than Reed actually saw the lie, we will never know whether the ball was embedded. Unfortunately, that is part of the cost of playing a game over a large acreage where players are expected to adhere to the rules. It tends to work pretty well. I note that in other games where officials are ubiquitous, players try to "bend" the rules and the officials are tasked with 'catching" them. I officiated basketball and I understand that gestalt. I prefer the golf approach and we will just have to figure out a way to deal with the occasional outlier.
-
For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.
As for those who think you should always have to call someone to see what you are doing, that requirement was eliminated in 2019, because no other player ever went over to check on someone lifting a ball for identification or to see if he was entitled to relief. In soft conditions, calling an official over every time you suspect it is embedded would be a waste of time.
Also, if it was obvious that there was no way a ball could be embedded, under Rule 16.4 the player would get a penalty stroke for lifting it without a reason to do so. Patrick was given a reason to do so.
He set the ball down in the grass to the side because if he didn't, a bunch of people who don't like him would have claimed that he cleaned it while he was holding it if it was determined not to be embedded. Good practice.
John,
I think most people understand that Reed followed the rules. The point that has been summarised several times on here is that the new rules are an invitation to cheat and Reed probably used them to cheat.
He got relief from an embedded ball when it was very likely his ball was not embedded.
-
What's different today? More players and more holes are on TV, so incidents are more likely to be caught on camera, but there is still a disincentive for fellow players to object publicly, or for the Tour to do so.
If anything there's less incentive today. Back in the early '80s, cheaters were taking legit money from the rest of the field. Today, there's so much going around on Tour that, while wins still matter, the difference between finishing 8th and 10th probably doesn't matter to most players. In 1983, Hal Sutton led the money list with about $426k. In today's dollars, that was just over $1MM. In all, 2 players in 1983 made what would translate to over a million dollars in 2020. In 2019 (last non-covid season), over 100 players made that much and that's not even considering endorsements. Why rock the boat?
-
Did anyone actually associated with the incident see the ball bounce?
It seems Reed was proceeding based on no one seeing the ball take its bounce
I understand Reed has Brought on the scrutiny himself
Good thing there are so many who do not invite the same scrutiny in their lives
-
To those absolutely certain that the ball could not have embedded after bouncing, you may be surprised at the huge variation in soil conditions throughout a golf course property.
Playing a course and experiencing your what your own ball encounters doesnt even come close to revealing what the course is like. Try talking to the guy or girl on the rough mower who might regularly cut every inch of the place and then finds themselves shouting the team beers for having to have the mower pulled out after getting stuck in a place they have cut 100 times!
-
Faldo is always anti American players. If Rahm or some other European player had done the same thing he would have praised them.
Typical Sir Dick, they begin today's broadcas with McElroy doing the same damn thing on 18 yesterday and he doesn't say a word about the Euro and continues his attack on Reed. :o
One's reputation is rock solid and the other is, let's just say not. This isn't a Euro USA debate.
-
For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.
As for those who think you should always have to call someone to see what you are doing, that requirement was eliminated in 2019, because no other player ever went over to check on someone lifting a ball for identification or to see if he was entitled to relief. In soft conditions, calling an official over every time you suspect it is embedded would be a waste of time.
Also, if it was obvious that there was no way a ball could be embedded, under Rule 16.4 the player would get a penalty stroke for lifting it without a reason to do so. Patrick was given a reason to do so.
He set the ball down in the grass to the side because if he didn't, a bunch of people who don't like him would have claimed that he cleaned it while he was holding it if it was determined not to be embedded. Good practice.
John,
I think most people understand that Reed followed the rules. The point that has been summarised several times on here is that the new rules are an invitation to cheat and Reed probably used them to cheat.
He got relief from an embedded ball when it was very likely his ball was not embedded.
David, you start by saying he followed the rules and then say he got relief that wasn’t deserved. Either he did or he didn’t. The fact the a tour official said it was embedded should end that argument.
Also, for those saying he cleaned the ball, it doesn’t matter since he was entitled to relief and could even have dropped a brand new ball if he wanted to.
-
David, you start by saying he followed the rules and then say he got relief that wasn’t deserved. Either he did or he didn’t. The fact the a tour official said it was embedded should end that argument.
Sorry, I should have said, "followed an acceptable procedure under the rules." The most likely scenario imo is that he embedded the ball himself and the rules are set up to let players do this because of the ability to pick one's ball up without oversight.
-
Faldo is always anti American players. If Rahm or some other European player had done the same thing he would have praised them.
Typical Sir Dick, they begin today's broadcas with McElroy doing the same damn thing on 18 yesterday and he doesn't say a word about the Euro and continues his attack on Reed. :o
One's reputation is rock solid and the other is, let's just say not. This isn't a Euro USA debate.
Sir Dick's reputation is far from rock solid. Ask his 3 ex wives and former girlfriend who beat up his high end Porsche with a golf club. :o
-
Faldo is always anti American players. If Rahm or some other European player had done the same thing he would have praised them.
Typical Sir Dick, they begin today's broadcas with McElroy doing the same damn thing on 18 yesterday and he doesn't say a word about the Euro and continues his attack on Reed. :o
One's reputation is rock solid and the other is, let's just say not. This isn't a Euro USA debate.
Sir Dick's reputation is far from rock solid. Ask his 3 ex wives and former girlfriend who beat up his high end Porsche with a golf club. :o
Really with that avatar you want to go there? Did you read Jeff Pearlman's article in USA Today this week?
-
Not having seen this yesterday, I watched the beginning of today's telecast with great interest.
Reed is being honest when he says that the volunteer told he the ball didn't bounce. And I think it is quite possible that AFTER he proceeded under the Rules and moved the ball, it dawned on Reed that the extra scrutiny that he is under would come into play, and so it called an official over to confirm that what he had already done was correct. Which the official did, though by the time he got there, Reed had not only moved the ball, but had also poked his finger in the ground where he had put a tee.
That said, Faldo, Baker-Finch, Nobilo, and Pepper were unanimous and had no doubt that Reed had behaved suspiciously. All four basically said that the ethic on Tour is that you call somebody over to look at it BEFORE you touch the golf ball. Could be an official, could be a fellow competitor, but somebody needs to look at that ball before you touch it. Rules aside, that's the way the game is played.
I could actually feel sorry for Reed for getting roasted in a situation where he apparently followed at least the letter of the law, if not the spirit. But Reed is well past that point as a person, and probably will never find his way back to where he gets ANY benefit of the doubt. I don't think that's unfair; he's a serial offender, with character issues that go all the way back to at least his early college days at UGA. No matter what happened yesterday, Reed has to live with that.
-
Faldo is always anti American players. If Rahm or some other European player had done the same thing he would have praised them.
Typical Sir Dick, they begin today's broadcas with McElroy doing the same damn thing on 18 yesterday and he doesn't say a word about the Euro and continues his attack on Reed. :o
One's reputation is rock solid and the other is, let's just say not. This isn't a Euro USA debate.
Sir Dick's reputation is far from rock solid. Ask his 3 ex wives and former girlfriend who beat up his high end Porsche with a golf club. :o
Really with that avatar you want to go there? Did you read Jeff Pearlman's article in USA Today this week?
I have never called Kobe's reputation rock solid. Aren't you the clown who supports Trump? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. :P
-
Faldo is always anti American players. If Rahm or some other European player had done the same thing he would have praised them.
Typical Sir Dick, they begin today's broadcas with McElroy doing the same damn thing on 18 yesterday and he doesn't say a word about the Euro and continues his attack on Reed. :o
One's reputation is rock solid and the other is, let's just say not. This isn't a Euro USA debate.
Sir Dick's reputation is far from rock solid. Ask his 3 ex wives and former girlfriend who beat up his high end Porsche with a golf club. :o
Really with that avatar you want to go there? Did you read Jeff Pearlman's article in USA Today this week?
I have never called Kobe's reputation rock solid. Aren't you the clown who supports Trump? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. :P
I simply pointed out the irony of your post. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess I hit a nerve.
-
Also, for those saying he cleaned the ball, it doesn’t matter since he was entitled to relief and could even have dropped a brand new ball if he wanted to.
Wow, that is something I never knew!
Would the same be true if you were asked to mark your ball in a fairway because it was in another player's line?
-
Also, for those saying he cleaned the ball, it doesn’t matter since he was entitled to relief and could even have dropped a brand new ball if he wanted to.
As a point of nuance here, I think this is the main disconnect that people are having:
1) He picked up the ball, palmed it, and set it down on the grass away from the spot where he found it.
2) He then called a rules official over to confirm it was embedded, which he did.
3) However, if the referee had said he was not entitled to relief, the ball would have already been mis-handled and potentially cleaned when he wouldn't have otherwise been entitled to it.
I believe it was Frank Nobilo who used the analogy of moving around the evidence at the scene of an accident scene before it could be processed by the authorities.
-
For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.
As for those who think you should always have to call someone to see what you are doing, that requirement was eliminated in 2019, because no other player ever went over to check on someone lifting a ball for identification or to see if he was entitled to relief. In soft conditions, calling an official over every time you suspect it is embedded would be a waste of time.
Also, if it was obvious that there was no way a ball could be embedded, under Rule 16.4 the player would get a penalty stroke for lifting it without a reason to do so. Patrick was given a reason to do so.
He set the ball down in the grass to the side because if he didn't, a bunch of people who don't like him would have claimed that he cleaned it while he was holding it if it was determined not to be embedded. Good practice.
I won't claim to know the rules in detail but I agree entirely with the sentiment about Reed following good practice. What's more he didn't waste any time doing it. He got on with it.
Niall
-
Would the same be true if you were asked to mark your ball in a fairway because it was in another player's line?
I learnt this one by marking my ball on the fairway and then asking JVDB about the specifics of the rule as I wiped my fingers all over the ball. Oops.
So I am pretty sure the answer is no, only when taking relief can you clean your ball in the general area.
-
Congrats to Patrick Reed for blitzing the field today. Don't poke the bear!
In Golf Channel's post tournament coverage, Rich Lerner starting by equating the Houston Astros and Barry Bonds chasing Hank Aaron to the situation involving Patrick Reed. I don't know what to say to this incredibly stupid intro other than to call it as such.
Players that were interviewed and asked how they would proceed. Most used the word "never" and "always" in their comments. Hopefully, they will be held to that. More likely that they will contradict themselves than it is that a ball that bounced will embed (Which is apparently very likely as it happened twice in one day!).
I was baffled by the reaction to the video of Rory's ball on 18 yesterday. What I heard was that the only difference between that and Patrick Reed's was their respective reputations. It looked very much the same to me. The comments from players saying that they don't touch the ball before calling the official were shown to be very false as Rory marked the ball, checked the lie for the ball being embedded, and took a drop. All of this without an official present. I'm sure that there are many drops without an official present. Moving forward, I wonder if this will change. Play is about to become slower because nobody wants to be the next guy to get roasted.
When did Rory become the darling? Wasn't he the guy who said he's not here to grow the game he's only here to win championships?
-
Did a link to the Rory video make it to this thread?
-
Congrats to Patrick Reed for blitzing the field today. Don't poke the bear!
In Golf Channel's post tournament coverage, Rich Lerner starting by equating the Houston Astros and Barry Bonds chasing Hank Aaron to the situation involving Patrick Reed. I don't know what to say to this incredibly stupid intro other than to call it as such.
Players that were interviewed and asked how they would proceed. Most used the word "never" and "always" in their comments. Hopefully, they will be held to that. More likely that they will contradict themselves than it is that a ball that bounced will embed (Which is apparently very likely as it happened twice in one day!).
I was baffled by the reaction to the video of Rory's ball on 18 yesterday. What I heard was that the only difference between that and Patrick Reed's was their respective reputations. It looked very much the same to me. The comments from players saying that they don't touch the ball before calling the official were shown to be very false as Rory marked the ball, checked the lie for the ball being embedded, and took a drop. All of this without an official present. I'm sure that there are many drops without an official present. Moving forward, I wonder if this will change. Play is about to become slower because nobody wants to be the next guy to get roasted.
When did Rory become the darling? Wasn't he the guy who said he's not here to grow the game he's only here to win championships?
Rory's ball bounced straight up in the air and came back down in his pitch mark. He asked his playing partner to take a look before he touched his ball. The playing partner said no need. Rory didn't remove his ball and ask the player to feel the hole in the ground. He never touched the ball until after he invited his marker to take a look.
-
Rory's ball bounced straight up in the air and came back down in his pitch mark. He asked his playing partner to take a look before he touched his ball. The playing partner said no need. Rory didn't remove his ball and ask the player to feel the hole in the ground. He never touched the ball until after he invited his marker to take a look.
Rory thought the ball was in its own pitch mark. He didn't see it bounce. No one came over to look at Rory's lie. He decided that it was embedded, notified his playing partners, and took a drop. No problem. Reed didn't ask the player to come over to feel the hole in the ground, he asked the official if he thought it was embedded and the official felt the hole. Again, I say that there are many situations that are handled by players without calling an official. Reed called the official over to be sure it was embedded before he took a drop. No problem, for almost everyone.
-
Patrick Reed likewise informed his fellow competitors of his intentionsl; although , that's no longer required by the rules
-
I will say I was amazed all day yesterday how many people were convinced that a ball that bounces, could not imbed, and what incredible emphasis they seemed to place on that-as if though it were a part of the rules.
I've seen a bouncing ball imbed-for instance it could land on a cartpath, bounce high in the air and land in mud, or even bounce a mere 4 feet in the air and plug in a super soft area.
I didn't see it, nor did I watch any of the golf this weekend,I ignored the topic(despite a mountain of "research" shoved my way) on my show today and focused on instruction as I'm confident it was covered to death by every other outlet.
-
Well, you can't lift and clean a ball that is not in the fairway. And it's plain bullshit that you get to "unplug" a ball...What a bunch of professional babies. The Tuesday Night Anaconda Country Club league would laugh at anyone unplugging a ball...and then they'd ban you from the league. Play it as it lies!
-
Well, you can't lift and clean a ball that is not in the fairway. And it's plain bullshit that you get to "unplug" a ball...What a bunch of professional babies. The Tuesday Night Anaconda Country Club league would laugh at anyone unplugging a ball...and then they'd ban you from the league. Play it as it lies!
The Tuesday night Anaconda league is not the only group that would laugh. In fact my group would do more than laugh. We have a guy that used put his hands in the ball all the time to “identify” it. Needless to say he no longer graces our group with his presence.
-
I will say I was amazed all day yesterday how many people were convinced that a ball that bounces, could not imbed, and what incredible emphasis they seemed to place on that-as if though it were a part of the rules.
Patrick Reed's quote from yesterday after being asked about the bounce on video:
"Now if the video or someone said 'we saw it bounce' then obviously I wouldn't have marked the ball or even attempted to ask for embedded ball, because as you know if the ball bounces, I mean, it's literally impossible for the ball to plug... at that point."
If his ball really had plugged after the first bounce, I wouldn't have expected him to admit that it was literally impossible. I'd expect him to say something like- "it's really crazy and the first time that I've ever seen it, but the ball was definitely plugged, so it must have been some really soft ground right there."
-
I have no opinion of the incident yesterday.
However to those who say that that it must have been okay because his playing partners did not object and the Rules officials did not object, I would say you don't understand how these things work. Jason very well summarized the difference between getting penalized and bending the rules.
When I first got around the Tour in the early 1980's, I was surprised to hear that there were players who were generally considered to push the boundaries of the rules. They got away with it because the Tour did not want a cheating scandal and because it was hard to catch anyone red-handed -- the fellow competitor would have to put HIS reputation on the line to challenge them and there were very few who would want to deal with the fallout from that.
What's different today? More players and more holes are on TV, so incidents are more likely to be caught on camera, but there is still a disincentive for fellow players to object publicly, or for the Tour to do so.
Letting the players pick up their ball before conferring with a playing partner or an official is a green light to push the boundaries. If that's being done in the interest of "speeding up the game" they should go back to the old rule. A player would be much more empowered to tell a fellow player to ask an official, than they would to call it out after the fellow player has picked up his ball.
The rule has to be functional for everyday golf. I don't think most golfers are interested in checking out lies for drops. Does it make sense to kick on or delay the game?
We need to think of the rules as an instrument for everyday golf. Too often things get wrapped around pro golf which makes little sense to me.
Ciao
-
This may be one of those cases where it really looks bad, but there’s a compensating reason Reed was allowed a free drop / not assessed a penalty even though it looks like he should have been.
I’ve played in the pro-am at Torrey last year and the year before and had a very similar situation occur with my second shot to the right of 18. My ball did bounce but the lie looked so bad I thought it might be embedded.
In Reed’s case, he did ask the spotter if it bounced and she said she didn’t see it bounce which is a problem as I think it can be interpreted as she didn’t see the ball hence didn’t see it bounce versus she didn’t see it directly plug.
My own sense is feeling the ground is iffy. Had he not asked the spotter and had she not said she didn’t see it bounce, I think things might/would/should be different.
-
The sports betting firm mainly involved is apparently saying they will 'refund' money placed pre-tournament on players other than Reed to win.
Curious though ...... is this a 'refund' as in you get your money back ... or is it a version where they hold onto the money to be used by you on a future bet?
atb
Publicity quote -
"If you bet on a different golfer, we have your back! PointsBet is refunding ALL pre-tournament outright winner wagers on all other golfers in Free Bets!"
-
I was baffled by the reaction to the video of Rory's ball on 18 yesterday. What I heard was that the only difference between that and Patrick Reed's was their respective reputations.
The biggest difference between Rory and Reed IMO was that Rory dropped his ball back in the thick stuff and chunked a wedge out short of the green whilst Patrick Reed was able to pick up his ball from the deep rough and drop it onto shorter grass and get up and down.
If Rory's ball was not plugged its hard to see him gaining even a minimal advantage from taking the drop he did. And his reputation for not only following the rules but not giving much of a f*ck makes it pretty unlikely he would bend the rules to get extrememely minimal advantage.
The advantage that Reed got from the drop was big and plain for everyone to see.
-
For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.
John,
Was just watching the video again and was wondering from a rules perspective, what you make of Reed pushing his ball into the ground before picking it up?
To me that should be a rule's breach but not sure how exactly?
What rule does it come under? I can't see where improving your chances of getting a drop comes under the definition of improving one's lie? How do the rules penalise someone for making their lie worse?
-
Watched both Reed & Rory video. Both handled their situations poorly & not in the interest of protecting their integrity or the field.
Even in a club match or a nassau, myself, nor guys I play with, faced with either scenario, would touch their ball without calling opponent over to look and discuss. Yeah, I know, the rules allow them to proceed without consultation -- but, applying our rules require interpretation and assessment...especially in deep rough & soft ground scenarios.
If Nicklaus or Bobby Jones took the same embedded ball relief, even with consultation, and later saw a replay of their ball bouncing, they would, I suspect, withdraw/DQ themselves.
"You might as well praise a man for not robbing a bank as to praise him for playing by the rules."
Impossible to know but, Reed's ball fiddling did look like he played a larger role, than gravity did, in the embedding. Exactly why he shouldn't have touched it without a competitor/official present.
-
I will say I was amazed all day yesterday how many people were convinced that a ball that bounces, could not imbed, and what incredible emphasis they seemed to place on that-as if though it were a part of the rules.
Patrick Reed's quote from yesterday after being asked about the bounce on video:
"Now if the video or someone said 'we saw it bounce' then obviously I wouldn't have marked the ball or even attempted to ask for embedded ball, because as you know if the ball bounces, I mean, it's literally impossible for the ball to plug... at that point."
If his ball really had plugged after the first bounce, I wouldn't have expected him to admit that it was literally impossible. I'd expect him to say something like- "it's really crazy and the first time that I've ever seen it, but the ball was definitely plugged, so it must have been some really soft ground right there."
Not sure I'd use any Reed clip to support any rules related debacle ;)
My point was that it is not in the rules.
So many were commenting that IT BOUNCED.
A ball can bounce and come down in area so soft it imbeds on that impact(not very common, but possible)
A ball can also bounce and spin back into its indentation(quite common on a green or fairway, less so in the rough it would seem)
Then it gets real dicey as to whose pitch mark the ball is actually in, as you don't get relief from someone else's-and that's a really tough one to know from a distance.
Again, no real comment on Reed, just that the rules don't say "if a ball bounces, it's ineligible for imbedded ball relief"
-
8) Let us not forget, Stadler, just trying to keep his pants from getting muddied...
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/the-man-who-took-the-call-that-dqd-craig-stadler-empowering-viewers-to-phone-in-rules-violations-for-next-30-years
-
For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.
John,
Was just watching the video again and was wondering from a rules perspective, what you make of Reed pushing his ball into the ground before picking it up?
To me that should be a rule's breach but not sure how exactly?
What rule does it come under? I can't see where improving your chances of getting a drop comes under the definition of improving one's lie? How do the rules penalise someone for making their lie worse?
I think this is the key point. Reed messes with the spot, either with the ball itself or his finger before he says anything to anybody. Not surprisingly, when the Rules official gets there, he is able to find the surface of the ground broken. What broke it is impossible to say, of course, but Reed did whatever he did (or didn't do, to give him the benefit of the doubt BEFORE he said anything to anybody, didn't he?
I don't see McIlroy's situation or behavior as comparable; he notifies his fellow competitors that his ball is embedded BEFORE he touches it; he states that as a matter of fact, and the other players just keep walking. THEN he picks up the ball and proceeds under the Rules.
I'll cop to a strong bias against Patrick Reed when it comes to honesty in general, and not just the Rules of Golf. You have to view what he did in the most charitable light possible for him to come away clean, and for me, it takes a LOT of imagination to do that. This is NOT a court of law, and I'm not on a jury, so I'm comfortable with my prejudices in the case of Patrick Reed.
To paraphrase Maya Angelou, when somebody shows you who they are, believe them the first time.
-
To be fair, Reed did yell over to his playing partners before getting down to the ball. He wasn't asking for help, but he did tell them he suspected it was embedded.
The rest is all through individual lenses. Legit by the letter of following a process...Suspect because it's Reed AND the ball did in fact bounce so it was not possibly embedded.
To JVB, and others, does it make any difference at all that the only source Reed sought out was a volunteer who very possibly never saw the ball at all?
-
I don’t think this is that complicated. If you believe it is possible for a ball to embed in it’s pitch mark in four inch rough after bouncing forward 2’ in the air, then everything is ok here. If you don’t believe that’s possible (and I don’t), then the only explanation for the ball being in a pitch mark is that it landed in a prior pitch mark, or Reed created the pitch mark when he was fiddling around for 20 seconds after picking up the ball. Easy choice for me.
-
For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.
John,
Was just watching the video again and was wondering from a rules perspective, what you make of Reed pushing his ball into the ground before picking it up?
To me that should be a rule's breach but not sure how exactly?
What rule does it come under? I can't see where improving your chances of getting a drop comes under the definition of improving one's lie? How do the rules penalise someone for making their lie worse?
I think this is the key point. Reed messes with the spot, either with the ball itself or his finger before he says anything to anybody. Not surprisingly, when the Rules official gets there, he is able to find the surface of the ground broken. What broke it is impossible to say, of course, but Reed did whatever he did (or didn't do, to give him the benefit of the doubt BEFORE he said anything to anybody, didn't he?
I don't see McIlroy's situation or behavior as comparable; he notifies his fellow competitors that his ball is embedded BEFORE he touches it; he states that as a matter of fact, and the other players just keep walking. THEN he picks up the ball and proceeds under the Rules.
I'll cop to a strong bias against Patrick Reed when it comes to honesty in general, and not just the Rules of Golf. You have to view what he did in the most charitable light possible for him to come away clean, and for me, it takes a LOT of imagination to do that. This is NOT a court of law, and I'm not on a jury, so I'm comfortable with my prejudices in the case of Patrick Reed.
Perhaps Rory is just better at it...
-
Looking at this thru the lens of a post-mortem analysis:
I wonder if the decision to change the rules to allow relief from an embedded ball in the rough was such a great idea. If your ball is nestled down in thick rough, is the expectation that everyone will now be digging it out to inspect it? Seems like a move in the wrong direction if the goal is to have people touching the ball less and speeding up play in general.
-
Kalen, I don't believe they really changed the rule on embedded balls in the rough that much in practice. I believe that the rule used to be to allow relief in closely mown areas only, but an allowable local rule allowed it through the green. Again, I believe, almost all courses adopted that local rule. What changed was to move it from an allowed rule to the general rule.
-
I don’t think this is that complicated. If you believe it is possible for a ball to embed in it’s pitch mark in four inch rough after bouncing forward 2’ in the air, then everything is ok here. If you don’t believe that’s possible (and I don’t), then the only explanation for the ball being in a pitch mark is that it landed in a prior pitch mark, or Reed created the pitch mark when he was fiddling around for 20 seconds after picking up the ball. Easy choice for me.
Occam's Razor.
-
Kalen, I don't believe they really changed the rule on embedded balls in the rough that much in practice. I believe that the rule used to be to allow relief in closely mown areas only, but an allowable local rule allowed it through the green. Again, I believe, almost all courses adopted that local rule. What changed was to move it from an allowed rule to the general rule.
Jim,
That's a good point and could certainly be plausible for clubs. As I've played most of my golf on publics, the local rules were typically printed on each scorecard, and I don't recall ever seeing one that addressed, but I may just be recalling that wrong. In practical reality thou, given the masses don't have spotters and tv cameras, when balls go in deep rough, especially on longer shots, they are rarely found much less assessed.
P.S. I believe Jim and AG are spot on from a plausible scenarios basis. Of course a ball can embed from 2 feet, but when there is 4 inches of rough to go thru, absorbing all of the little energy it has, that's a big ask...
-
Also, why would anyone suggest there's an interest in touching the ball less or purifying the playing conditions for the TV Guys? The Tour goes the other way by playing the ball up in the event rain is in the forecast. This is to make sure they minimize any potential disadvantage.
FWIW, Brad Fabel certainly seemed like he was wondering what the hell was going on there when he got there and the ball was already sitting to the side.
-
How would Reed have known the ball bounced after he hit it? It seems to me that many of the accusations revolve around the bouncing of the ball and the plausibility of it then plugging. Aside from that ...the Rules of Golf are not a truth detector as in Reed must be bad and Rory must be good. If someone is determined to cheat, there's not much we can do about that. The rules presume honesty even if it's not forthcoming from the player.
-
Looking at this thru the lens of a post-mortem analysis:
I wonder if the decision to change the rules to allow relief from an embedded ball in the rough was such a great idea. If your ball is nestled down in thick rough, is the expectation that everyone will now be digging it out to inspect it? Seems like a move in the wrong direction if the goal is to have people touching the ball less and speeding up play in general.
Hopefully JohnVBD will chime in on why the rule was amended and indeed what exactly was amended (if he has explained such earlier and I’ve missed it my apologies).
Once an issue has arisen however, something needs to be done to avoid it becoming an issue again.
Reed and Rory and then Hovland’s long drawn out saga. That’s 3 similar incidents in close time proximity .... I wonder what other similar scenarios were also going on that we didn’t get to see or about on TV?
Irrespective of the individuals involved such a situation must not be allowed to happen again.
Atb
-
How would Reed have known the ball bounced after he hit it? It seems to me that many of the accusations revolve around the bouncing of the ball and the plausibility of it then plugging. Aside from that ...the Rules of Golf are not a truth detector as in Reed must be bad and Rory must be good. If someone is determined to cheat, there's not much we can do about that. The rules presume honesty even if it's not forthcoming from the player.
Sinclair,
There are a great number of shots in which a player couldn't know for a fact if the ball bounced.
Wouldn't you like a player to be awful sure it's embedded before they go mucking around with it? In this case, there's zero chance the ball was deeper than a millimeter in it's own depression because it did in fact bounce about 18 inches in the air and a foot or so forward.
I'm not a fan of hypotheticals, but I wonder what would have happened if the TV guys got word to Fabel that the ball did in fact bounce.
Based on the information provided, Fabel did all he could do unless we want the TV cameras to work on every ruling.
-
The rules explicitly give the player the opportunity to lift the ball to determine if the ball is embedded and it must be replaced without cleaning if it is not. My point is this is an integrity question about Reed, not about the rules. If you believe Reed created the embedded condition let the cheating discussion rage on.
-
Witness here a VERY dead horse being flogged.
This thread should have ended pages ago...;-)
-
Why would Reed ask the witness if the ball had bounced before he got up to it?
I don’t know. If he came up and saw it was deep in the grass, he might have wondered if it plugged so he asked
I would suggest that walking to the known location of your ball and seeing if it plugged is a better way to find out whether it plugged than asking if it bounced.
-
Once an issue has arisen however, something needs to be done to avoid it becoming an issue again.
Reed and Rory and then Hovland’s long drawn out saga. That’s 3 similar incidents in close time proximity .... I wonder what other similar scenarios were also going on that we didn’t get to see or about on TV?
Irrespective of the individuals involved such a situation must not be allowed to happen again.
Atb
David
It seems to me that for a significant section on here the issue is Reed rather than the rules or the ruling that was made. If Reed had taken this week off would anyone be making comment on Rory or the other guy ? Probably not.
Niall
-
It seems to me that for a significant section on here the issue is Reed rather than the rules or the ruling that was made. If Reed had taken this week off would anyone be making comment on Rory or the other guy ? Probably not.
Niall
Fair point Niall. But things have happened and a great many seem to consider what happened unacceptable or inappropriate etc. I appreciate you are not on social media but there’s been a firestorm over these incidents and it’s still burning. Now if something goes array surely it’s best to ensure it doesn’t happen again?
As an aside, I happen to think that Reed is one hell of a player. Whether I’d buy a used car from him ....
Atb
-
For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.
John,
Was just watching the video again and was wondering from a rules perspective, what you make of Reed pushing his ball into the ground before picking it up?
To me that should be a rule's breach but not sure how exactly?
What rule does it come under? I can't see where improving your chances of getting a drop comes under the definition of improving one's lie? How do the rules penalise someone for making their lie worse?
David,
It is found in Rule 9. The ball was moved (vertically) by the player
-
PointsBet Sportsbook,[/size][/color][/size]NBC[/color][/size] and the [/color][/size]PGA Tour’s [/color][/size]top preferred gaming partner, announced a refund after [/color][/size]Patrick Reed’s[/color][/size][/color][/size]Farmers Insurance Open[/color][/size] win for those who bet pre-tournament on an outright winner other than Reed. [/color]
[/size](from Shackelford)[/color]
-
Can’t wait to see who gets paired with him in the Ryder Cup.
-
Based on the information provided, Fabel did all he could do unless we want the TV cameras to work on every ruling.
If gambling on the PGAT becomes popular I bet that's exactly what happens--TV cameras on every ruling.
-
For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.
John,
Was just watching the video again and was wondering from a rules perspective, what you make of Reed pushing his ball into the ground before picking it up?
To me that should be a rule's breach but not sure how exactly?
What rule does it come under? I can't see where improving your chances of getting a drop comes under the definition of improving one's lie? How do the rules penalise someone for making their lie worse?
David,
It is found in Rule 9. The ball was moved (vertically) by the player
Pete,
Isn't it always moved vertically in the process of picking it up?
-
For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.
John,
Was just watching the video again and was wondering from a rules perspective, what you make of Reed pushing his ball into the ground before picking it up?
To me that should be a rule's breach but not sure how exactly?
What rule does it come under? I can't see where improving your chances of getting a drop comes under the definition of improving one's lie? How do the rules penalise someone for making their lie worse?
David,
It is found in Rule 9. The ball was moved (vertically) by the player
Pete,
Isn't it always moved vertically in the process of picking it up?
you asked about pushing it into the ground (to make it seem embedded)
-
For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.
John,
Was just watching the video again and was wondering from a rules perspective, what you make of Reed pushing his ball into the ground before picking it up?
To me that should be a rule's breach but not sure how exactly?
What rule does it come under? I can't see where improving your chances of getting a drop comes under the definition of improving one's lie? How do the rules penalise someone for making their lie worse?
David,
It is found in Rule 9. The ball was moved (vertically) by the player
Pete,
Isn't it always moved vertically in the process of picking it up?
you asked about pushing it into the ground (to make it seem embedded)
Sure, but its in the process of picking up his ball so of course it is moving. Clearly if he replaces his ball in the depression before playing a shot he has moved his ball vertically, but if he takes a drop, that's not really the case, is it?
-
The rules explicitly give the player the opportunity to lift the ball to determine if the ball is embedded and it must be replaced without cleaning if it is not. My point is this is an integrity question about Reed, not about the rules. If you believe Reed created the embedded condition let the cheating discussion rage on.
Agree 100%. People want the rules to guarantee no cheating, or at least what they think of as no cheating. That isn't possible. Once we start chasing down this path the rules would be an even worse nightmare than is already the case. We must remember that the rules have to function for the average golfer and this is a perfect case for this. Find embedded ball, pick it up, drop it and carry on. Do I really want to be called over for a discussion of what is an embedded ball? Hell no. Get on with it. I trust golfers are doing the right thing the entire round, why would an embedded ball be a special case which in effect creates a delay of game?
The bottom line is golf isn't different from other sports. Guys push and break rules. It's not that big a deal.
Ciao
-
Agree that cheaters gonna cheat. Don’t agree it’s no big deal. If a cheater gets caught, he should be punished. If tv didn’t show Reed’s ball bounce forward, he wouldn’t have been caught. But we now know it bounced, so it couldn’t have embedded. Or at least it’s virtuously certain it didn’t embed, to use a golf term. Or, to use Reed’s own words, if a ball bounces it’s “almost impossible” for the ball to embed.
-
Agree that cheaters gonna cheat. Don’t agree it’s no big deal. If a cheater gets caught, he should be punished. If tv didn’t show Reed’s ball bounce forward, he wouldn’t have been caught. But we now know it bounced, so it couldn’t have embedded. Or at least it’s virtuously certain it didn’t embed, to use a golf term. Or, to use Reed’s own words, if a ball bounces it’s “almost impossible” for the ball to embed.
Jim
Sure, if caught there is a penalty to pay. However, Reed wasn't caught. I have my doubts, but to me that isn't enough because Reed can point blank ask where did the cheating definitely happen. Given the video I saw, nobody but Reed can say with certainty where cheating occurred. Its best guess kind of stuff...not good enough.
I see golf like any sport, dodgy stuff happens all the time. I ain't losing sleep over this stuff.
Ciao
-
Watched both Reed & Rory video. Both handled their situations poorly & not in the interest of protecting their integrity or the field.
Even in a club match or a nassau, myself, nor guys I play with, faced with either scenario, would touch their ball without calling opponent over to look and discuss. Yeah, I know, the rules allow them to proceed without consultation -- but, applying our rules require interpretation and assessment...especially in deep rough & soft ground scenarios.
If Nicklaus or Bobby Jones took the same embedded ball relief, even with consultation, and later saw a replay of their ball bouncing, they would, I suspect, withdraw/DQ themselves.
Oh my, no to all of that.
Neither Reed nor Rory did anything wrong here. They protected the field by, for all that we know, following the Rules. They didn’t drop three clublengths away, they didn’t lift their ball without marking it, etc.
Someone who knows the Rules may find you annoying and slow if you require people to look at your ball all the time. Do you require everyone present when you drop for an unplayable, to make sure you’re measuring properly? Do you require everyone present to agree on the specific location the ball crossed when you hit one past the red stakes? And someone who doesn’t know you but, like the Rules of Golf do, assume that you’re playing with integrity, might start to wonder why you need so many people to watch your every move. (That’s part of the reason I think Patrick called over the RO - he may have thought “people might think I’m trying to cheat here, so I’ll have an RO confirm that he feels it was embedded too, and that’ll help me.”).
And balls can embed even after they bounce: Nicklaus and Jones would likely have known that and played on guilt-free, as they followed the rules of golf.
People insist on putting these extra restrictions on that don’t exist, under some guise of “integrity” or just pure “showmanship” or something. Just be honest and play golf and follow the Rules and get on with it. Neither Rory nor Patrick did anything, under the Rules, wrong here (that we know about), nor are either of them obligated to do anything else beyond what they did, under the Rules or even “morally” or whatever. They don’t even have to announce it to their playing partners, so they both actually went above and beyond: Patrick by announcing AND confirming with a RO, Rory by announcing and giving time to a fellow competitor if they chose to look.
Also, how the heck do some of you expect to determine if a ball is embedded in 4-6” rough without marking and lifting it? If Reed had left the ball there, Fabel would have surely had him remove it at some point to check the ground beneath. He’s not going to get in there and pry the grass apart to try to look under the ball.
To JVB, and others, does it make any difference at all that the only source Reed sought out was a volunteer who very possibly never saw the ball at all?
Why would it?
I wonder if the decision to change the rules to allow relief from an embedded ball in the rough was such a great idea. If your ball is nestled down in thick rough, is the expectation that everyone will now be digging it out to inspect it? Seems like a move in the wrong direction if the goal is to have people touching the ball less and speeding up play in general.
The PGA Tour and I think the USGA almost always had this rule in effect, as did colleges, amateur events, etc. via the Local Rule. It’s the R&A that wanted it kept as a Local Rule, but since 2019, they’ve flipped. Maybe they’re giving the USGA a turn to have their rule be the standard for awhile. :)
JVB would know a billion times more about this than me, but that’s what I’ve heard from a few people. That in the U.S., the Local Rule was almost always in effect. And on the PGA Tour, I think it’s been on their hard card for a loooooong time.
FWIW, Brad Fabel certainly seemed like he was wondering what the hell was going on there when he got there and the ball was already sitting to the side.
And yet they said Patrick handled everything just fine.
I'm not a fan of hypotheticals, but I wonder what would have happened if the TV guys got word to Fabel that the ball did in fact bounce.
Did you miss the part on the first page (IIRC) where JVB pointed out that a bounced ball could embed and relief would be granted?
-
Can someone explain the gambling stuff to me? Why are people getting their money back? How is this different from that pass interference non-call in the NFL playoffs a couple of years ago? Why is Joe Punter's wallet suddenly a deciding factor in how the PGA Tour conducts a tournament? I honestly don't get it. Thanks.
-
Did you miss the part on the first page (IIRC) where JVB pointed out that a bounced ball could embed and relief would be granted?
The ball did not bounce, Reed mentions this five times.
-
If, after seeing the video, you believe Reed’s ball could have embedded, then nothing untoward happened. I just don’t see how that was even remotely possible.
-
A bad lie is wholly different than an embedded ball.
The simple fact that the ball bounced to about the same height he ultimately dropped from (about 2 feet away) illustrates the issue.
At some point, Reed saw the video and stated that if it bounced it's impossible to have plugged.
Wouldn't we love Captain America to call a 2 shot penalty on himself?
-
At some point, Reed saw the video and stated that if it bounced it's impossible to have plugged.
The fact that Reed asked the volunteer “Did it bounce?” before he’d even reached his ball and inspected the lie was indicative of how he intended to proceed in this situation.
-
Wouldn't we love Captain America to call a 2 shot penalty on himself?
Why would he or should he have done that? Should Rory have done the same?
If his ball was embedded - and Brad Fabel said it was - then to me it’s almost entirely because you don’t like Patrick Reed that you think he should penalize himself.
If you think he pushed the ball into the ground or something, to make it embedded, then I’ll only say you have no real proof of that at all, and thus that isn’t something you know to be true at all.
The fact that Reed asked the volunteer “Did it bounce?” before he’d even reached his ball and inspected the lie was indicative of how he intended to proceed in this situation.
No, it’s because the conditions were soft and it’s a normal question to ask. If she said “yes,” then he’s less likely to think that it’s plugged and so is everyone else. If she says “no, it didn’t bounce” then he’s more likely to think “maybe it’s embedded?” Just like Rory, who didn’t see it bounce, but it did.
When I am playing on a soft fairway, and I hit a tee shot, if I see it bounce I almost am done watching it. I might look away, because I know I’ll find the ball on top of the ground. Even if I don’t see it bounce, but a buddy says he saw it, I go up to it looking for a ball on top of the ground. When nobody sees it bounce, though, I’m looking for the top half of the ball (or less). I expect it to be embedded, or at least have higher odds it’s embedded.
I’d guess if you could look past your anti-Reed bias, you’d admit something similar.
Attend the Memorial every year, with the rain storms they often get, and you’ll hear plenty of guys asking if the ball bounced.
-
If, after seeing the video, you believe Reed’s ball could have embedded, then nothing untoward happened. I just don’t see how that was even remotely possible.
So far as I know, it isn't a question of whether it was unlikely the ball was embedded. What I believe is irrelevant. In this case, all we have is the word of Reed. Because he has had run ins with rules previously, doesn't mean he is treated differently under the rules. As I said before, if you can prove the ball wasn't embedded, fair enough.
Ciao
-
Sean: Under that analysis, only a confession is sufficient evidence to find cheating. Too high a standard for me. The video is sufficient proof for me. If not for you, so be it.
-
Attend the Memorial every year, with the rain storms they often get, and you’ll hear plenty of guys asking if the ball bounced.
Not if they already know where the ball is.
-
Erik,
Take Brad Fabel out of this for a minute. He acted on certain information and was put in a bad spot.
Knowing the ball bounced, what is the likelihood the ball was actually embedded in that rough? I have played golf my entire life and spent a good number of years caddying full time. I can't think of a single instance in which a ball bounces 18" in the air then plugs in healthy rough several inches tall.
This is not a dislike of Patrick Reed. This is a desire to have these guys do the right thing on occasion.
I have disliked Rory for years because I think he underachieves...until the drop at Harding Park after the walking scorer stepped on his ball last fall. I have not yet seen the video for this one, but if the ball bounced away from it's pitch mark, he too should have called a penalty on himself once he saw it.
How would we feel about Reed if he'd called that penalty on himself Saturday night and he came back to win on Sunday?
-
At some point the tour has to get some balls and do something to straighten Reed out. He's obviously not embarrassed by his own actions. There are documented cases on film. Peter Kostis has said that he saw him improve his lie multiple times. He's stealing from the other players and he and his brother-in-law caddie basically throw the finger at anyone who takes issue with them.
It wouldn't surprise me if the PGA and Steve Stricker are talking about finding a way to leave him off the Ryder Cup team. As Xander said the boys are talking about him in the locker room. You want to partner up with a guy who you know is stealing from you?
This is really making the game look bad imo.
-
Sean: Under that analysis, only a confession is sufficient evidence to find cheating. Too high a standard for me.
Absent definitive video or eye witness evidence, what else is there? Even if there is an eye witness it can be difficult to call. I guess my real point is, this rule, like many, is designed for golfers to trust each other. Its fine if you don't like the rule, but the rule is the rule. I watched Rory's video. There is no way I can tell if the ball was embedded...and I wouldn't expect to have definitive proof of the embedded ball. Its the same for me with Reed. I don't know what all the finger in the hole business was about...assumiong that is what he was doing...I couldn't tell. I admit that was very odd because in my experience once the ball is lifted it is easy to tell if the surface was broken. Maybe this wasn't the case with Reed. Regardless, I didn't care for what he did, but I can't say with any confidence that the ball wasn't embedded. Its one of those things in life. Ya just have to accept it and move on. It is what it is.
Ciao
-
Erik,
Take Brad Fabel out of this for a minute. He acted on certain information and was put in a bad spot.
Knowing the ball bounced, what is the likelihood the ball was actually embedded in that rough? I have played golf my entire life and spent a good number of years caddying full time. I can't think of a single instance in which a ball bounces 18" in the air then plugs in healthy rough several inches tall.
This is not a dislike of Patrick Reed. This is a desire to have these guys do the right thing on occasion.
I have disliked Rory for years because I think he underachieves...until the drop at Harding Park after the walking scorer stepped on his ball last fall. I have not yet seen the video for this one, but if the ball bounced away from it's pitch mark, he too should have called a penalty on himself once he saw it.
How would we feel about Reed if he'd called that penalty on himself Saturday night and he came back to win on Sunday?
You can't tell if Rory's ball pitches forward. He said the shot ballooned and was coming straight down. He said it probably came back into it's own pitch mark. You can't tell either way from the video.
-
Not if they already know where the ball is.
Yes, even if they know where the ball is. They’ll do just about like Patrick did - because it’s far more likely to be embedded if it just landed and didn’t bounce than if it did.
I’ve heard it. Seen it. Many times. The Memorial is hilly and often soft. Pros, generally, know how to proceed under some of the simpler rules, particularly those where they get an advantage. They’re looking for those constantly. Bad lie? “Hmmmm, I wonder if my left pinkie toe is close to that drain…”
Take Brad Fabel out of this for a minute. He acted on certain information and was put in a bad spot.
What “information” did he act on, exactly?
He determined that Patrick’s ball was embedded, agreeing with Patrick Reed. He wasn’t “acting on information” other than “hey, do you agree”? Do you think that if he felt nothing that he wouldn’t say “I don’t feel anything, please replace your ball and play away.”?
If you think the “information” is that the ball didn’t bounce, then I’m not sure Patrick even says that to him, but also… it’s irrelevant whether it bounced or not.
Knowing the ball bounced, what is the likelihood the ball was actually embedded in that rough?
I don’t know, and neither do you. Nobody here does. We don’t know how high it bounced (it bounced downhill, and the camera is elevated, so I think it bounced > 2’), we don’t know what the ground was like where it landed, we don’t know how much spin it had, we don’t know much of anything.
I have played golf my entire life and spent a good number of years caddying full time. I can't think of a single instance in which a ball bounces 18" in the air then plugs in healthy rough several inches tall.
I can. And if it was 36” the math changes.
This is not a dislike of Patrick Reed.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
I have not yet seen the video for this one, but if the ball bounced away from it's pitch mark, he too should have called a penalty on himself once he saw it.
No, he shouldn’t have.
How would we feel about Reed if he'd called that penalty on himself Saturday night and he came back to win on Sunday?
I’d think he was stupid, and caved to Internet warriors and people who don’t understand the Rules of Golf. :) I’d appreciate the “f&#( you all” attitude it would display. But he displayed plenty of that in winning by five, too.
Question for the group:
- What if the volunteer stepped on the ball slightly, all completely unbeknownst to Patrick, his caddie, etc. when she put the flag in the ground by his ball? Patrick hears that it didn’t bounce, sees his ball well down in the turf, marks and lifts it, confirms with an RO, and takes his drop.
All legitimate, under the Rules, based on what he thought to be true. His reasonable knowledge and judgment. Yes?
Would that absolve him entirely in this situation? Or would you still insist that he do way more than is required under the Rules, either by playing it without lifting it, calling his playing partners over from 50 yards away, getting a RO involved before he’s even lifted the ball himself, etc.?
Where’s the footage of the woman marking the location of the ball with a flag. If she didn’t see it bounce, maybe she didn’t see where the ball was and accidentally stepped on it, then was reluctant to say anything about having done so. That theory seems at least as plausible to me as the random other Internet warrior theories I’ve seen (mostly elsewhere) online.
-
At some point the tour has to get some balls and do something to straighten Reed out.
For what?
He knowingly cheated, and was penalized, one time in a hit-and-giggle silly season event. Has he been penalized any other times? Tiger Woods was penalized multiple times the one year. Others have been penalized. Phil Mickelson whacked a rolling ball and smugly told fans to worry about themselves or something.
Did you listen to Brandel Chamblee? Phil Mickelson? Guys apparently are cheating all the time, and nobody calls anybody out for anything. Look at the backstopping problem. Look at what Jimmy Walker said about it.
Peter Kostis might have an axe to grind: I certainly don’t think his word carries the weight of God here.
You can't tell if Rory's ball pitches forward. He said the shot ballooned and was coming straight down. He said it probably came back into it's own pitch mark. You can't tell either way from the video.
None of us know if it ended up in the “same” pitch mark. The odds are against it, though. Rory’s took LESS action to confirm that his ball was embedded than Patrick, as Rory didn’t get confirmation from an RO.
-
I don’t think this is that complicated. If you believe it is possible for a ball to embed in it’s pitch mark in four inch rough after bouncing forward 2’ in the air, then everything is ok here. If you don’t believe that’s possible (and I don’t), then the only explanation for the ball being in a pitch mark is that it landed in a prior pitch mark, or Reed created the pitch mark when he was fiddling around for 20 seconds after picking up the ball. Easy choice for me.
+1
-
Erik,
Phil actually did take a lot of heat for what he did at Shinnecock AND he never even tried to avoid the penalty and fully accepted the consequence of his act.
Pat on the other hand, to this day remains defiant on all of it....so this is not exactly apples to apples here.
-
Erik,
Do you have a sense for how insulting you are to have these conversations with? The response you get each time you engage in one should be an indicator.
You suggest my motivation in this conversation is a dislike for Reed. I tell you that's not it and you disagree?
And you've seen a ball embed in healthy rough after an 18" fall? RIIIIGHT!!!
-
Yes, even if they know where the ball is. They’ll do just about like Patrick did - because it’s far more likely to be embedded if it just landed and didn’t bounce than if it did.
Are you saying that in addition to using two eyes to see whether the ball is embedded, tour players take the having-bounced-ness of the ball as a determining factor as to whether the ball is embedded?
-
Another benefit of blind shots...
Need the eyes wide shut emoji...
-
Phil actually did take a lot of heat for what he did at Shinnecock AND he never even tried to avoid the penalty and fully accepted the consequence of his act.
Phil was a total ass about that whole thing, and didn’t know the Rules but claimed he had been “planning” to do it for years, and told fans to not worry about it or something, and whatever.
I’m also talking about the times Phil has said how many cheats are out on Tour, marking their ball closer to the hole, etc.
And you've seen a ball embed in healthy rough after an 18" fall? RIIIIGHT!!!
I have. It was into near mud. Did Reed’s ball fall from 18”? Or was it 24”? How about 36”?Do you know for a fact the volunteer didn’t step on the ball, and embed it that way?
And I apologize for saying that you dislike Patrick after you said you didn’t. Plenty of people do, and I mistakenly lumped you in with the vocal majority. Maybe, however, instead of attacking me or my posts, you could look at the content of the post, not whatever tone you add to them, and discuss that?
What “information” was Brad Fabel “acting on” and what information did he use to determine that the ball was, indeed, embedded (regardless of how it got to be that way)? Does your question imply that Patrick Reed was steering him in a direction, and that Brad is a poor official in that he’d let himself be steered into saying “yeah, that’s embedded” when he doesn’t truly feel that way?
Because that’s the only part of the Brad Fabel thing that matters: what he felt (literally with his fingers and his opinion) about whether the ball was embedded or not.
Are you saying that in addition to using two eyes to see whether the ball is embedded, tour players take the having-bounced-ness of the ball as a determining factor as to whether the ball is embedded?
No, I feel I’ve been pretty clear about this. If they know a ball rolled to a spot, they assume it’s not embedded. If the ball flies to a spot and lands without bouncing, they start to consider that it may very well be embedded.
-
they start to consider that it may very well be embedded
They most certainly do!
-
At some point the tour has to get some balls and do something to straighten Reed out.
For what?
He knowingly cheated, and was penalized, one time in a hit-and-giggle silly season event. Has he been penalized any other times? Tiger Woods was penalized multiple times the one year. Others have been penalized. Phil Mickelson whacked a rolling ball and smugly told fans to worry about themselves or something.
Did you listen to Brandel Chamblee? Phil Mickelson? Guys apparently are cheating all the time, and nobody calls anybody out for anything. Look at the backstopping problem. Look at what Jimmy Walker said about it.
Peter Kostis might have an axe to grind: I certainly don’t think his word carries the weight of God here.
You can't tell if Rory's ball pitches forward. He said the shot ballooned and was coming straight down. He said it probably came back into it's own pitch mark. You can't tell either way from the video.
None of us know if it ended up in the “same” pitch mark. The odds are against it, though. Rory’s took LESS action to confirm that his ball was embedded than Patrick, as Rory didn’t get confirmation from an RO.
There is a difference in being penalized and cheating just like there is a difference in saying you have a degree in physics and actually having a degree in physics.
-
Erik,
Reed clearly said to Fabel that the ball didn't bounce.
He adjusted what he asked the volunteer, "did it bounce?" and her answer of "No, I didn't see it bounce" to telling Fabel she said it didn't bounce. These are two different things.
Fabel arrives with the understanding that the ball didn't bounce. Period, Full Stop.
When you reach down to touch the ground in wet rough there are all sorts of micro bumps and holes, including the crown of the grass itself. Fabel had nothing to do. The minimum limit for a ball qualifying as embedded is to simply break the surface. Easy to find supporting evidence and nearly impossible to refute.
Humorously, the higher you want the ball to have bounced, the firmer the ground must have been...making it all the less likely to have embedded.
My simple position on this is that the ball did not in fact plug and that became clear to all involved before the start of Round 4...and I would have absolutely loved for him to say..."well damn, based on everything we knew or thought, we acted appropriately. Upon further evidence, the ball must not have embedded so please add 2". Then it would have been great to see him go out and flat out win the tournament.
-
There is a difference in being penalized and cheating just like there is a difference in saying you have a degree in physics and actually having a degree in physics.
You keep bringing that up as if it's some sort of "winning point" or something. 15 years ago or whatever, in response to a post about how the ball gets "squeezed" between the clubhead and the ground at impact, I said I have a degree in physics in one post on my forum that wasn't a response to you. I was trying to get to the meat of the discussion, and rather than list the six or seven physics classes (depending on how you classify p-chem), I was basically saying I knew enough about physics to speak on the subject with knowledge, but without being so wordy as even that.
But, I applaud you for never having misspoken or glossing over some irrelevant point to get to the actual meat of the conversation in your life, even if it leads to trolling me instead of actually discussing the topic here.
To the actual topic, Rob, please prove that Patrick Reed has cheated more than the time he was penalized. I doubt you can.
Reed clearly said to Fabel that the ball didn't bounce.
And what's the relevance of that? So long as the ball didn't roll to its spot, basically, it landed from the air, and thus can make a pitch mark and embed in it. Brad thus has to make the same assessment whether the ball landed from 90' or 3'.
He adjusted what he asked the volunteer, "did it bounce?" and her answer of "No, I didn't see it bounce" to telling Fabel she said it didn't bounce. These are two different things.
We're getting deep into semantics here, but he asked "did it bounce" and she said "no". And you can read "I didn't see it bounce" as literally: I did not see a bounce, or you can cut it off and have her saying "I didn't see it." But cutting it off contradicts "No" in response to "did it bounce?" and requires removing the word "bounce" from the second part of her answer. If you were the volunteer, and you didn't see it at all, the answer one might think you'd give to the question "did it bounce?" is "Uhhh, I don't know. I didn't see it land."
If referees huddle up and one says "Did you see a hold there on #94"? and the other replies "I didn't see a hold" that doesn't mean he didn't see the play, it means he didn't see a hold. She might have meant (even though we all saw it bounce) "I didn't see a bounce." Particularly since she says "no."
But anyway, except for a brief trip down Semantic Lane, this is still irrelevant information. Unless Reed said "it rolled to a stop here" (in which case it can't be in its own pitch mark), it wouldn't have affected what Fabel determined. Because a ball only has to fall from the air to possibly embed.
Fabel arrives with the understanding that the ball didn't bounce. Period, Full Stop.
Let's pretend Fabel wasn't given this information at all: what about his process or the determination he makes changes?
The answer is… nothing. Right?
When you reach down to touch the ground in wet rough there are all sorts of micro bumps and holes, including the crown of the grass itself. Fabel had nothing to do. The minimum limit for a ball qualifying as embedded is to simply break the surface. Easy to find supporting evidence and nearly impossible to refute.
Let's stipulate that you're correct here: how does Reed saying that affect what Brad feels?
Again, it doesn't, right?
Humorously, the higher you want the ball to have bounced, the firmer the ground must have been...making it all the less likely to have embedded.
Is it your experience that ground is always uniformly soft or firm within large areas?
Before I had some drain lines replaced around my house, the first 6-9" beside the sidewalk was often quite soggy, yet four feet into the yard and slightly higher up, it could be quite firm. Water flowed downhill and then got "stuck" or collected a bit when it reached the relatively non-porous sidewalk. The surface of the sidewalk could be dry, and yet the ground beside it quite muddy/soft. But 3' away, relatively firm.
Plus the ball may have bounced 18" relative to the height of the first landing spot, but if the second landing spot is 18" below that, it fell from 36" while only bouncing 18".
My simple position on this is that the ball did not in fact plug
So, is Brad Fabel a liar? Incompetent? Or did Patrick Reed push the ball down? Did the volunteer step on it?
Because unless you're wanting to say the first one or two (and I don't think you are), the facts are that it was embedded, at the very least, when Brad checked it.
and that became clear to all involved before the start of Round 4
I don't even know what that means. We still disagree now. Brad Fabel wouldn't change his ruling, even today, would he?
...and I would have absolutely loved for him to say..."well damn, based on everything we knew or thought, we acted appropriately. Upon further evidence, the ball must not have embedded so please add 2". Then it would have been great to see him go out and flat out win the tournament.
Yeah, no reason at all for him to do that. Nor would anyone else on Tour, really. He was 100% within the Rules of Golf, and if he did push the ball down, that's a DQ, not a two-stroke penalty.
-
Erik,
The situations you describe actually defy physics...now that's funny...
Suggesting this ball (not a ball, but this ball) bounced 18" down a hill to result in 36" of actual fall...uh, no. You have taken the 30 seconds it takes to watch the video, correct?
This is about Reed, not Fabel. Reed took the decision out of Fabel's hands because of my description earlier about ground conditions. This could become a gynecological exam if we go any further down this rabbit hole.
Reed may well have thought it did not bounce when he went through the exercise but the fact that he needed an official to confirm it had broken the surface proves it couldn't have broken it by much, agreed? If the ground is soft enough to potentially plug a ball from 18", it would be undeniably plugged from a 100' fall, as with his approach shot.
It's truly not a big deal...I'm just hopeful that there becomes motivation for these guys to err on the side of conservatism in these scenarios.
-
"you keep bringing that up as if it's some sort of "winning point" or something. 15 years ago or whatever, in response to a post about how the ball gets "squeezed" between the clubhead and the ground at impact, I said I have a degree in physics in one post on my forum that wasn't a response to you. I was trying to get to the meat of the discussion, and rather than list the six or seven physics classes (depending on how you classify p-chem), I was basically saying I knew enough about physics to speak on the subject with knowledge, but without being so wordy as even that.But, I applaud you for never having misspoken or glossing over some irrelevant point to get to the actual meat of the conversation in your life, even if it leads to trolling me instead of actually discussing the topic here.To the actual topic, Rob, please prove that Patrick Reed has cheated more than the time he was penalized. I doubt you can."
Thank you for finally owning up. Point is now closed.
There are two video's of Reed improving his lie in sand. The one last year and another that I think was in Phoenix. Google is your friend.Peter's word is good by me. What reason would he have for lying? 2nd half of the second video looks a little fishy also..............
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2020/02/peter-kostis-patrick-reed-cheating (https://ftw.usatoday.com/2020/02/peter-kostis-patrick-reed-cheating)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECiTth1JYXk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECiTth1JYXk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECiTth1JYXk
-
What I believe we know
1) nobody involved with the decision believed the ball bounced.
2) it was very wet
3) Reed is by many accounts a dick
4) Brad Fabel was called in and checked the pitch mark confirming it was embedded in a pitch mark
5) from there, the actual officials, and I knew Brad pretty well, we’re satisfied with The procedure done
What I’d like to know.
Did Reed tell people he was checking to see if it was plugged. I have heard he did
When he lifted the ball and set it down, did that break any actual rule? I have done the same thing after absentmindedly cleaning a ball in a rainstorm waiting for an official to arrive. So I would sit the ball down after marking if I was waiting for a ruling. Did this maybe three or four times
What was his marker doing? I would have been there checking.
When I played a hundred years ago, the ball had to “break the surface” (not official wording) to be granted relief. I dropped a ball once from the old shoulder high and it popped into its own dent mark. I asked if it plugged again and was told nope. Play on. If Fabel felt enough to give relief it had to be pretty obvious
So, that leads me to this. People seeing the ball bounce on tv believe there is no way the ball plugged. I feel the same, and I doNt care about Rory, though he is getting a pass given the commentary IMO.
I mentioned earlier that I had a tee shot in a QSchool finals kick right on a soggy fairway, and settle down a pace or two from where I know it landed. It was in a pitch mark from another ball. I knew it wasn’t mine DUE TO BEING ABLE TO SEE IT BOUNCE. Terrible break at the time all things considered, but it was pretty obvious.
As a player, when I couldn’t see my ball walking up in those conditions, I would always have a concern it was plugged. If it looked like it might be, I would check. Different procedure back then.
I don’t believe Reed broke any rule
And I do t believe the situation created a breach of the spirit of the rule, which I do t really understand anyway. Rules are black and white.
Any player but Reed this thread is hardly existent.
-
Suggesting this ball (not a ball, but this ball) bounced 18" down a hill to result in 36" of actual fall...uh, no. You have taken the 30 seconds it takes to watch the video, correct?
If the point where the ball hit first is 18" above the point where it embedded, that's an 18" bounce with a 36" fall. The ball clearly bounced down a hill.
And my point isn't that it bounced 36" or any specific number. You're the one who keeps citing 18" as if it's been measured.
This is about Reed, not Fabel.
The situation involves Fabel, and I'm just trying to understand what "information" Reed gave Fabel to sway Fabel from determining something other than what he'd have determined without that information.
Reed took the decision out of Fabel's hands
What?!? No.
Reed may well have thought it did not bounce when he went through the exercise but the fact that he needed an official to confirm it had broken the surface proves it couldn't have broken it by much, agreed?
No, that doesn't confirm that.
Reed could have been thinking "People think I cheat, so just to be safe, I'm going to have a RO confirm that he feels it's embedded too."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECiTth1JYXk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECiTth1JYXk)
How many other Tour players do you think do that? I think you'd be surprised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aQZKHYGexU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aQZKHYGexU)
There's Jordan Spieth at Augusta National.
And maybe it's not even a breach, as you're allowed to sole the club behind the ball enough so that the weight of the club is supported, and maybe that's all Jordan did there. And Gary Player did before him.
Did Reed tell people he was checking to see if it was plugged. I have heard he did
Yes.
When he lifted the ball and set it down, did that break any actual rule? I have done the same thing after absentmindedly cleaning a ball in a rainstorm waiting for an official to arrive. So I would sit the ball down after marking if I was waiting for a ruling. Did this maybe three or four times
It wouldn't have mattered if he wiped it down with a towel if it was embedded. He'd only be risking finding that it wasn't embedded, and then he would have cleaned his ball when not allowed.
What was his marker doing? I would have been there checking.
His marker was likely 55 yards away on the green preparing to hit his third shot and getting out of the way so Patrick could play his third.
-
I don’t believe Reed broke any rule
Pat,
All good, but I think to reach this conclusion you are assuming that Reed picked his ball up legitimately whereas the video shows him leaning on, and pushing down with, his right hand as he is picks the ball up, presumably to create an indentation in the ground.
Surely fellow tour pros would not be happy with players doing that?
-
All good, but I think to reach this conclusion you are assuming that Reed picked his ball up legitimately whereas the video shows him leaning on, and pushing down with, his right hand as he is picks the ball up, presumably to create an indentation in the ground.
I don't see what you see in the video.
You see him "leaning on and pushing down" and I see him "feeling" for the impression made by the ground, just as Brad Fabel did later.
https://twitter.com/pgatour/status/1355659901897486341?s=21 (https://twitter.com/pgatour/status/1355659901897486341?s=21)
At what second mark does he "lean on and push down" here? Of course, he does push a tee into the ground, too, before he lifts the ball.
-
It seemed to me that the official was incredulous that the ball had been moved away from where it had landed.
Reed's like, oh it's over there, when the official appears to ask where the ball is?
Seem like Reed was very pushy and that the rules official was on his heels the whole time.
Is it ok if I put my finger down here?
I'm just having a hard time getting past the fact that Reed didn't place the ball back where he picked it up from?
And it seemed like the rules official couldn't believe it either and chose not to confront Reed.
May be I am making too many assumptions...
-
I'm just having a hard time getting past the fact that Reed didn't place the ball back where he picked it up from?
Why would he/should he have? The first thing Brad would have had him do, in 6" of rough, is have him remove the ball so they can see what the ground under the ball looks or feels like.
Reed is well within his rights to pick up the ball.
May be I am making too many assumptions...
I think you may be seeing what you want to see?
-
I see now that his mark was there, so the fact that the ball isn't there isn't really a problem per the rules, per se.
-
Nine pages on this......what we collectively think about P Reed is not relevant. John VDB who has likely forgotten more about the rules than many of us will ever comprehend called the process good - even for someone like P Reed who may in life resemble a male appendage.
PS. I enjoyed seeing Torrey in the sunshine as I watched almost 60 cm of snow fall here in the Great Swamps of Jersey.
Move on.
-
PS. I enjoyed seeing Torrey in the sunshine as I watched almost 60 cm of snow fall here in the Great Swamps of Jersey.
I thought the course looked much better without the stands, spectators, etc.
-
It seemed to me that the official was incredulous that the ball had been moved away from where it had landed.
Reed's like, oh it's over there, when the official appears to ask where the ball is?
Seem like Reed was very pushy and that the rules official was on his heels the whole time.
Is it ok if I put my finger down here?
I'm just having a hard time getting past the fact that Reed didn't place the ball back where he picked it up from?
And it seemed like the rules official couldn't believe it either and chose not to confront Reed.
May be I am making too many assumptions...
Unless Brad Fabel has his testicles removed since I played with him, he was not on his “heels”. He is not a guy that will cave to any player IMO. His being there is a big reason I believe the rules were not broken.
And I did not feel like Reed did anything wrong when he marked his ball. To think he would pressure the ball enough to break the surface was not what I saw, but again, sometimes actions do create scrutiny.
And Erik, I understand about his marker being 55 yards away, but if the consensus is that Reed is that sketchy among players, then those players should damned well be watching what he does.
But in this case, to your point, the rules were not broken by taking care of his own business (The marker).
This is all about an Unlikable player to many players and fans
-
And Erik, I understand about his marker being 55 yards away, but if the consensus is that Reed is that sketchy among players, then those players should damned well be watching what he does.
I get that. Maybe he's not as disliked/distrusted as the media leads us to believe. The guy didn't seem to make any indication he wanted to come over to watch, but Reed (as you know) notified him before he touched his ball.
In other words, I can't blame Reed for his marker not wanting to or seeing a need to come over.
-
There is a difference in being penalized and cheating just like there is a difference in saying you have a degree in physics and actually having a degree in physics.
You keep bringing that up as if it's some sort of "winning point" or something. 15 years ago or whatever, in response to a post about how the ball gets "squeezed" between the clubhead and the ground at impact, I said I have a degree in physics in one post on my forum that wasn't a response to you. I was trying to get to the meat of the discussion, and rather than list the six or seven physics classes (depending on how you classify p-chem), I was basically saying I knew enough about physics to speak on the subject with knowledge, but without being so wordy as even that.
But, I applaud you for never having misspoken or glossing over some irrelevant point to get to the actual meat of the conversation in your life, even if it leads to trolling me instead of actually discussing the topic here.
To the actual topic, Rob, please prove that Patrick Reed has cheated more than the time he was penalized. I doubt you can.
Someone sharing your name is carrying Reed’s water over on Geoff Shackelford’s site...if you aren’t related to or being paid by Patrick Reed, your defense of his actions and character seems kind of sad and a complete waste of your time. Because it’s pretty obvious Reed doesn’t care about your opinion or anyone else’s.
He’s a person of ‘low character’ displayed through so many different acts... stealing from his teammates at U of Georgia, throwing his parents off the property at a golf tournament, building a sand castle with his wedge in the Bahamas and that’s just the ones we know about.
The fact he seems untroubled by his actions and his terrible reputation calls to mind another sociopath who also thinks he did things ‘perfectly’.
Fortunately we got rid of one of them but we seem stuck with Reed fur the time being. We can only hope he tries to pull his next stunt during the final round of a major and paired with Brooks Koepka.
-
8)
We all likely play with “edgers” in our local games or tournaments . Not much you can do except torture them a little when they try to stretch the limits. Tom Watson obviously got frustrated years ago with a similar situation . It’s a shame but been with golf forever
-
Someone sharing your name is carrying Reed’s water over on Geoff Shackelford’s site...if you aren’t related to or being paid by Patrick Reed, your defense of his actions and character seems kind of sad and a complete waste of your time. Because it’s pretty obvious Reed doesn’t care about your opinion or anyone else’s.
???
Then why are you commenting on my commenting? It’s a point of discussion in golf right now. Thank you for your concern for my time, truly.
He’s a person of ‘low character’ displayed through so many different acts... stealing from his teammates at U of Georgia, throwing his parents off the property at a golf tournament, building a sand castle with his wedge in the Bahamas and that’s just the ones we know about.
So he’s a bad man for having the PGA Tour throw out his abusive parents? The parents he’s tried to cut ties to because of the abuse he suffered as a child, at their hands?
The fact he seems untroubled by his actions and his terrible reputation calls to mind another sociopath who also thinks he did things ‘perfectly’.
Fortunately we got rid of one of them but we seem stuck with Reed fur the time being. We can only hope he tries to pull his next stunt during the final round of a major and paired with Brooks Koepka.
Did you listen to Get a Grip with Max Homa? #53? He says what Patrick did they all do week in and week out. That procedurally it was fine.
But Max is also wasting his time I guess.
-
Erik, procedurally, what do you think about him having the ball in his palm for a bit before thinking he should put it on the ground? Did Homa comment on that? After putting it down, he immediately went to the towel to rinse off...
Sure, in hindsight the drop was granted and thus the ball can be cleaned. Surely there are times it's not actually embedded...
-
Someone sharing your name is carrying Reed’s water over on Geoff Shackelford’s site...if you aren’t related to or being paid by Patrick Reed, your defense of his actions and character seems kind of sad and a complete waste of your time. Because it’s pretty obvious Reed doesn’t care about your opinion or anyone else’s.
???
Then why are you commenting on my commenting? It’s a point of discussion in golf right now. Thank you for your concern for my time, truly.
He’s a person of ‘low character’ displayed through so many different acts... stealing from his teammates at U of Georgia, throwing his parents off the property at a golf tournament, building a sand castle with his wedge in the Bahamas and that’s just the ones we know about.
So he’s a bad man for having the PGA Tour throw out his abusive parents? The parents he’s tried to cut ties to because of the abuse he suffered as a child, at their hands?
The fact he seems untroubled by his actions and his terrible reputation calls to mind another sociopath who also thinks he did things ‘perfectly’.
Fortunately we got rid of one of them but we seem stuck with Reed fur the time being. We can only hope he tries to pull his next stunt during the final round of a major and paired with Brooks Koepka.
Did you listen to Get a Grip with Max Homa? #53? He says what Patrick did they all do week in and week out. That procedurally it was fine.
But Max is also wasting his time I guess.
"So he’s a bad man for having the PGA Tour throw out his abusive parents? The parents he’s tried to cut ties to because of the abuse he suffered as a child, at their hands?"
Where did you get that from? Your defense of this guy is nothing short of mindboggling. Please provide something to back up your outlandish statement. Sure you don't have him confused with Sean O'hare?
"Reed, 28, has steadfastly declined to speak publicly about the reasons for the family schism. In a Sports Illustrated story in 2015, Reed’s mother insinuated that the rift resulted from Reed’s marriage, at age 22, to the former Justine Karain, against the advice of his parents who worried that he was too young."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/sports/masters-patrick-reed.html#:~:text=Reed%2C%2028%2C%20has%20steadfastly%20declined,that%20he%20was%20too%20young (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/sports/masters-patrick-reed.html#:~:text=Reed%2C%2028%2C%20has%20steadfastly%20declined,that%20he%20was%20too%20young).
-
Erik, procedurally, what do you think about him having the ball in his palm for a bit before thinking he should put it on the ground? Did Homa comment on that? After putting it down, he immediately went to the towel to rinse off...
Sure, in hindsight the drop was granted and thus the ball can be cleaned. Surely there are times it's not actually embedded...
Jim,
This is the part that is being overlooked as I see it. He mis-handled his ball, and presumably the lie it was in, BEFORE calling over the official to confirm IF he was entitled to relief. There is video evidence of him palming the ball and fiddling with the lie. Yes, the official granted relief, but if he hadn't, how would they have undone all that? This is also a secondary criticism of the situation because Reed essentially backed the official into a corner to concur with him.
I've yet to hear an argument why this was OK...other than "Relief was granted, so it doesn't matter". So I guess if a drunk driver gets behind the wheel and makes it home safely, then its "OK" because nothing happened?
-
Erik, procedurally, what do you think about him having the ball in his palm for a bit before thinking he should put it on the ground? Did Homa comment on that? After putting it down, he immediately went to the towel to rinse off...
His hand was likely damp/wet, and I feel as Max did: it's basically a non-issue. Homa said something like "it's not like he put the ball in his pocket or held it cupped in both hands and was rubbing it around." Yeah, it might be a "best practice" to hold it in two fingers, but Max and I agree: not really an issue here.
Where did you get that from? Your defense of this guy is nothing short of mindboggling. Please provide something to back up your outlandish statement. Sure you don't have him confused with Sean O'hare?
I don't have him confused with Sean O'Hair. or whomever this O'Hare fella is. :)
And just because I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true. Believe me, don't believe me… I don't really care, Rob. Why it's so hard to believe he was abused as a kid, when it would explain so much about why he doesn't want his parents around, why his wife is so protective of him, etc.
If you watched the Tiger documentary you'll notice how many of the people, even those who he's cut out of his life, still defend him and are compassionate toward him. Well, that's because of Earl.
And I'm not "defending" him as much as I'm just talking about the Rules here, and how quickly and easily so many of you who dislike him (or stronger) are letting your notions influence or cloud how you're seeing this situation.
He mis-handled his ball
He did not.
and presumably the lie it was in, BEFORE calling over the official to confirm IF he was entitled to relief.
You bolded the word "if" but a better word there is "that." And Patrick didn't need to call an RO over at all.
This is also a secondary criticism of the situation because Reed essentially backed the official into a corner to concur with him.
See the earlier comments about the likelihood Brad Fabel would be "backed into" anything.
I've yet to hear an argument why this was OK...other than "Relief was granted, so it doesn't matter". So I guess if a drunk driver gets behind the wheel and makes it home safely, then its "OK" because nothing happened?
Do you have proof that anything Reed did altered the spot where his ball was resting (the location is the lie)? Aside from what's allowed - putting a tee in to mark it, lifting his ball, and touching to feel the ground - something Brad Fabel also did to check the turf and conditions.
-
"and just because I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true."
Are you delusional? If true you already did.
"So he’s a bad man for having the PGA Tour throw out his abusive parents? The parents he’s tried to cut ties to because of the abuse he suffered as a child, at their hands?"
-
"and just because I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true."
Are you delusional? If true you already did.
I can see how you're confused. You asked me to share the source ("Where did you get that from?"). I'm not going to share the source(s). That's the "sharing" was referring to, as I know what I've already typed.
Believe it or don't. Doesn't matter to me. I'll only say I've heard more than enough from enough people to have a very different opinion on Reed having his parents removed from events than "more proof that Patrick sucks!"
-
"and just because I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true."
Are you delusional? If true you already did.
I can see how you're confused. You asked me to share the source ("Where did you get that from?"). I'm not going to share the source(s). That's the "sharing" was referring to, as I know what I've already typed.
Believe it or don't. Doesn't matter to me. I'll only say I've heard more than enough from enough people to have a very different opinion on Reed having his parents removed from events than "more proof that Patrick sucks!"
"I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true"
Yet you shared stuff that was supposedly shared privately?
I've never seen someone work so hard to make themselves appear to be important. I will ignore your posts and you can ignore mine.
-
"I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true"
That's not the quote. It's "And just because I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true."
I'm not going to share the sources of that information, nor many details.
Yet you shared stuff that was supposedly shared privately?
No. I shared that he was abused by his parents. You can find little bits here and there, publicly available, about the abuse Patrick suffered as a child. Again, I'm not sharing the sources nor am I sharing any of the specific examples.
I've never seen someone work so hard to make themselves appear to be important. I will ignore your posts and you can ignore mine.
FINALLY!
Oh what a happy day! Enjoy your hatred. You've got a deal!
P.S. And, yeah, typing a few sentences is really hard work. Time for a break, I'm exhausted! My doctor said to lose ten pounds. I figure another ten or fifteen sentences and I'll be there!
-
Pheewwww.
I'm fine with granting Erik's point (pick 1, 2, or all 3) a. letter or the law b. perfectly within the rules c. process was fine.
And, I suspect, wet conditions, numerous embedded balls, and clean-and-place-in-fairway created an atmosphere of, "yeah. sure. fine." Rory's incident certainly reflects this lackadaisical tone. An embedded ball, it seems in these cases, was a judgement call -- unlike relief from a cart path or penalty area situation or if a ball deeply plugged.
Erik didn't sway me on sportsmanship, transparency, spirit of the rules, and integrity. The last thing I would want to jeopardize is the trust & respect of my competitors...or in my case, my friends at my club.
-
Did you listen to Get a Grip with Max Homa? #53? He says what Patrick did they all do week in and week out. That procedurally it was fine.
But Max is also wasting his time I guess.
Sure, what Max said was the question should be whether Reed built his lie or not.
It's pretty obvious that a large section of the tour cohort thinks Reed cheated by building his lie when he was picking up his ball or feeling around for a pitch mark. As Max can't prove it, he wasn't going to say that he did.
-
An embedded ball, it seems in these cases, was a judgement call -- unlike relief from a cart path or penalty area situation or if a ball deeply plugged.
The judgment is just whether the conditions are met from 16.3. You cited relief from a cart path, but there's still some judgment there as to the reasonable-ness of the stance taken if your heel is just on the path, for example.
Erik didn't sway me on sportsmanship, transparency, spirit of the rules, and integrity. The last thing I would want to jeopardize is the trust & respect of my competitors...or in my case, my friends at my club.
What did Patrick do to be a poor sport? What did Rory do to be a poor sport?
It's completely a made up construct that you have to invite people over to you to watch you pick up a ball. Max Homa talked about it on the podcast that they want players doing more of these things themselves. He said they'll yell over to their group and their group will go "yeah, okay, whatever."
You don't have to answer, of course. If you're not swayed, you're not swayed. And that's fine, of course.
Sure, what Max said was the question should be whether Reed built his lie or not.
He said more than that, of course. He said, too, what I just typed above to Mike. He said that the process that Patrick did was fine, even though Brandel was going on and on about it. And more.
-
"I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true"
That's not the quote. It's "And just because I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true."
I'm not going to share the sources of that information, nor many details.
Yet you shared stuff that was supposedly shared privately?
No. I shared that he was abused by his parents. You can find little bits here and there, publicly available, about the abuse Patrick suffered as a child. Again, I'm not sharing the sources nor am I sharing any of the specific examples.
I've never seen someone work so hard to make themselves appear to be important. I will ignore your posts and you can ignore mine.
FINALLY!
Oh what a happy day! Enjoy your hatred. You've got a deal!
P.S. And, yeah, typing a few sentences is really hard work. Time for a break, I'm exhausted! My doctor said to lose ten pounds. I figure another ten or fifteen sentences and I'll be there!
EriK,
I don't hate you or Patrick Reed.
-
There have been various comments about Rory’s drop on the 18th in relation to the Reed incident.
Am I reading right that it’s now been admitted that Rory’s ball was actually stood on by a volunteer marshall.
If so it’s surely apology time from a few folks, some of whom were on the premises at the time. False accusations etc?
Atb
-
There have been various comments about Rory’s drop on the 18th in relation to the Reed incident.
Am I reading right that it’s now been admitted that Rory’s ball was actually stood on by a volunteer marshall.
If so it’s surely apology time from a few folks, some of whom were on the premises at the time. False accusations etc?
Atb
Are you sure you don't have that mixed up with what happened at the PGA at Harding?
You are correct.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/55927724#:~:text=Rory%20McIlroy%20says%20his%20embedded,after%20he%20hit%20a%20shot.
-
I will ignore your posts…
EriK,
Well that didn't last long. :)
There have been various comments about Rory’s drop on the 18th in relation to the Reed incident.Am I reading right that it’s now been admitted that Rory’s ball was actually stood on by a volunteer marshall.If so it’s surely apology time from a few folks, some of whom were on the premises at the time. False accusations etc?
What would these people be apologizing for?
-
P.S. And, yeah, typing a few sentences is really hard work. Time for a break, I'm exhausted!
I wish, so desperately, that this wasn't sarcasm.
Remember when Ian pronounced the horse dead on Monday? I miss those simpler times.
Then again, you're probably only a few thousand words from changing your first mind. Keep whacking, I guess.
-
I wish, so desperately, that this wasn't sarcasm.
Remember when Ian pronounced the horse dead on Monday? I miss those simpler times.
Then again, you're probably only a few thousand words from changing your first mind. Keep whacking, I guess.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. …" - Evan Turner
-
He mis-handled his ball, and presumably the lie it was in,
I love how you leap to these conclusions. God help any poor bastard that ever sees you in the jury box.
-
He mis-handled his ball, and presumably the lie it was in,
I love how you leap to these conclusions. God help any poor bastard that ever sees you in the jury box.
John,
Amen to that one, the last thing a defendant wants is a juror who defaults to logical reasoning.
And when we apply Occam's Razor to this scenario, to arrive at the conclusion that Patrick handled this appropriately, (even if condoned by the rules), it remains a dubious and illogical conclusion at best.
-
He mis-handled his ball, and presumably the lie it was in,
I love how you leap to these conclusions. God help any poor bastard that ever sees you in the jury box.
John,
Amen to that one, the last thing a defendant wants is a juror who defaults to logical reasoning.
And when we apply Occam's Razor to this scenario, to arrive at the conclusion that Patrick handled this appropriately, (even if condoned by the rules), it remains a dubious and illogical conclusion at best.
Thank God this never happened during a Grudge Match :D
-
"and just because I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true."
Are you delusional? If true you already did.
I can see how you're confused. You asked me to share the source ("Where did you get that from?"). I'm not going to share the source(s). That's the "sharing" was referring to, as I know what I've already typed.
Believe it or don't. Doesn't matter to me. I'll only say I've heard more than enough from enough people to have a very different opinion on Reed having his parents removed from events than "more proof that Patrick sucks!"
I’m starting to suspect that ‘Erik J Barzeski’ is a cover account for Reed’s wife or someone connected to her. I’m amazed you have all this time to respond here, given all the fake Twitter accounts you’re operating to slander other members of the PGA Tour.
Let’s just say there were “very fine people on both sides” of this debate and leave it at that, Justine.
-
Oy.
You figured it out Anthony. Great work. You win an ice cream cone.
-
"and just because I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true."
Are you delusional? If true you already did.
I can see how you're confused. You asked me to share the source ("Where did you get that from?"). I'm not going to share the source(s). That's the "sharing" was referring to, as I know what I've already typed.
Believe it or don't. Doesn't matter to me. I'll only say I've heard more than enough from enough people to have a very different opinion on Reed having his parents removed from events than "more proof that Patrick sucks!"
I’m starting to suspect that ‘Erik J Barzeski’ is a cover account for Reed’s wife or someone connected to her. I’m amazed you have all this time to respond here, given all the fake Twitter accounts you’re operating to slander other members of the PGA Tour.
Let’s just say there were “very fine people on both sides” of this debate and leave it at that, Justine.
Can't wait to hear what his parents have to say about Erik's claim.
-
Can't wait to hear what his parents have to say about Erik's claim.
So much for your promise.
-
Lou and I are starting to agree on more things. I suspect it will cause both of us to want to reconsider. But he has it right here. Much of what people are raising here really are criticisms of the rules and, in particular recent changes. While I can't say that I am in total accord with the modifications, they came after years of study by those who were expert in the rules and who had real experience in applying them. As for the suggestion that officials use technology to communicate, even in our Chicago District tournaments we communicate among officials via radio or, more recently, by cell or text to make sure we get it right. Finally, as for Reed, his reputation precedes him. But in this case he complied with the rules, at least procedurally. Since no one other than Reed actually saw the lie, we will never know whether the ball was embedded. Unfortunately, that is part of the cost of playing a game over a large acreage where players are expected to adhere to the rules. It tends to work pretty well. I note that in other games where officials are ubiquitous, players try to "bend" the rules and the officials are tasked with 'catching" them. I officiated basketball and I understand that gestalt. I prefer the golf approach and we will just have to figure out a way to deal with the occasional outlier.
I miss playing in CDGA events when I was young and growing up outside of Chicago. ALWAYS a first class operation.