News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #150 on: February 01, 2021, 11:26:19 AM »
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...
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #151 on: February 01, 2021, 11:33:44 AM »
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.

Jim Hoak

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #152 on: February 01, 2021, 11:42:42 AM »
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.

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #153 on: February 01, 2021, 11:44:13 AM »
   I donít think this is that complicated.  If you believe it is possible for a ball to embed in itís pitch mark in four inch rough after bouncing forward 2í in the air, then everything is ok here.  If you donít believe thatís possible (and I donít), 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.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #154 on: February 01, 2021, 11:57:53 AM »
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...

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #155 on: February 01, 2021, 12:13:04 PM »
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.

Sinclair Eaddy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #156 on: February 01, 2021, 12:28:31 PM »
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.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #157 on: February 01, 2021, 12:31:22 PM »
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 Iíve 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 Hovlandís long drawn out saga. Thatís 3 similar incidents in close time proximity .... I wonder what other similar scenarios were also going on that we didnít get to see or about on TV?

Irrespective of the individuals involved such a situation must not be allowed to happen again.

Atb

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #158 on: February 01, 2021, 12:43:42 PM »
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.

Sinclair Eaddy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #159 on: February 01, 2021, 12:59:32 PM »
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.

Ian Mackenzie

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #160 on: February 01, 2021, 01:04:23 PM »
Witness here a VERY dead horse being flogged.
This thread should have ended pages ago...;-)

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #161 on: February 01, 2021, 01:17:12 PM »
Why would Reed ask the witness if the ball had bounced before he got up to it?


I donít 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.
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #162 on: February 01, 2021, 03:41:23 PM »

Once an issue has arisen however, something needs to be done to avoid it becoming an issue again.

Reed and Rory and then Hovlandís long drawn out saga. Thatís 3 similar incidents in close time proximity .... I wonder what other similar scenarios were also going on that we didnít 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

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #163 on: February 01, 2021, 04:07:30 PM »
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 thereís been a firestorm over these incidents and itís still burning. Now if something goes array surely itís best to ensure it doesnít happen again?
As an aside, I happen to think that Reed is one hell of a player. Whether Iíd buy a used car from him ....
Atb

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #164 on: February 01, 2021, 06:21:29 PM »
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_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #165 on: February 01, 2021, 06:23:01 PM »
PointsBet Sportsbook,[/size][/color][/size]NBC[/color][/size] and the [/color][/size]PGA Tourís [/color][/size]top preferred gaming partner, announced a refund after [/color][/size]Patrick Reedís[/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]

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #166 on: February 01, 2021, 07:09:39 PM »
Canít wait to see who gets paired with him in the Ryder Cup.
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.Ē Jimmy Buffett

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #167 on: February 01, 2021, 08:42:32 PM »

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.

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #168 on: February 01, 2021, 10:02:46 PM »
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?
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #169 on: February 01, 2021, 10:06:25 PM »
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)

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #170 on: February 01, 2021, 11:25:57 PM »
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?
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #171 on: February 02, 2021, 02:02:42 AM »
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
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #172 on: February 02, 2021, 07:42:54 AM »
   Agree that cheaters gonna cheat.  Donít agree itís no big deal.  If a cheater gets caught, he should be punished.  If tv didnít show Reedís ball bounce forward, he wouldnít have been caught.  But we now know it bounced, so it couldnít have embedded.  Or at least itís virtuously certain it didnít embed, to use a golf term.  Or, to use Reedís own words, if a ball bounces itís ďalmost impossibleĒ for the ball to embed.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2021, 08:04:22 AM by Jim_Coleman »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #173 on: February 02, 2021, 08:34:35 AM »
Agree that cheaters gonna cheat.  Donít agree itís no big deal.  If a cheater gets caught, he should be punished.  If tv didnít show Reedís ball bounce forward, he wouldnít have been caught.  But we now know it bounced, so it couldnít have embedded.  Or at least itís virtuously certain it didnít embed, to use a golf term.  Or, to use Reedís own words, if a ball bounces itís ďalmost impossibleĒ 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
« Last Edit: February 02, 2021, 09:18:07 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Reed Does It Again
« Reply #174 on: February 02, 2021, 08:46:50 AM »
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 didnít drop three clublengths away, they didnít 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 youíre 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 doesnít know you but, like the Rules of Golf do, assume that youíre playing with integrity, might start to wonder why you need so many people to watch your every move. (Thatís part of the reason I think Patrick called over the RO - he may have thought ďpeople might think Iím trying to cheat here, so Iíll have an RO confirm that he feels it was embedded too, and thatíll help me.Ē).

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 donít exist, under some guise of ďintegrityĒ or just pure ďshowmanshipĒ 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 ďmorallyĒ or whatever. They donít 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 4-6Ē 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. Heís 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. Itís the R&A that wanted it kept as a Local Rule, but since 2019, theyíve flipped. Maybe theyíre 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 thatís what Iíve 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 itís 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?
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back