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.