[Brock Lynch]

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.

[Rob Marshall]

Does anyone who saw the shot think that a ball that bounced two feet in the air in heavy rough could possible embedded?

[Rob Marshall]

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.

[Brock Lynch]

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. 

[Rob Marshall]

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..............

[jeffwarne]

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.

[Brock Lynch]

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.

[Sinclair Eaddy]

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.

[Dave Doxey]

"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.

[Rob Marshall]

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.

[Thomas Dai]

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..............

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”?

[Niall C]

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

[Jason Thurman]

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.

[Thomas Dai]

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

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Brock Lynch]

... 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?

[Kalen Braley]

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...

[Jim Hoak]

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.

[Jason Thurman]

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

[M. Shea Sweeney]

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.

[Sinclair Eaddy]

Unfortunately we don't have a second set of rules for Patrick Reed. Just our speculation about possible chicanery.

[JohnVDB]

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.

[Jeff Schley]

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?

[Mark Kiely]

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.

[JohnVDB]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()