Shane Lowry v. Patrick Reed - Rules Conundrum

[Jim_Coleman]

   Apparently, Shane Lowry was denied relief from an embedded ball because an ESPN employee saw that the ball in the fairway had bounced and so did not embed in its own pitch mark. There was no video to confirm what had happened.
   Patrick Reed, on the other hand, was given relief from an allegedly embedded ball which similarly bounced after it landed, even though in that circumstance the ball was in thick rough making it virtually impossible for the ball to have embedded in its own pitch mark. That time, there was video evidence that the ball had bounced, but apparently no one spoke up. Reed even said that, had he known the ball had bounced, he wouldn’t have asked for relief.
   Seems a shame, although I suppose nothing could have been done in either case. Unless, maybe, Reed could have been disqualified after the video evidence came to light.

[Simon Barrington]

OT - Suggest contacting

    [email protected]


 

[Buck Wolter]

I have a problem with the 'witness' getting involved -- seems like a rules Karen. I fail to see how being embedded in another ball mark isn't still an embedded ball and that guy should have just kept walking.

[Matt_Cohn]

I have a problem with the 'witness' getting involved -- seems like a rules Karen. I fail to see how being embedded in another ball mark isn't still an embedded ball and that guy should have just kept walking.

I mean, it's the rule. I've had it happen to me once and it sucks. But it is what it is.

[Rob Marshall]

Patrick Reed knew exactly what he was doing….

[Chris Hughes]

OT - Suggest contacting

    [email protected]


 

This... 🤙

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Seems a shame, although I suppose nothing could have been done in either case. Unless, maybe, Reed could have been disqualified after the video evidence came to light.

You can't be DQed if you act on the knowledge you reasonably had at the time. Also, he called a rules official over.

I have a problem with the 'witness' getting involved -- seems like a rules Karen. I fail to see how being embedded in another ball mark isn't still an embedded ball and that guy should have just kept walking.

No. It's the Rule, and if you look up the definition of an embedded ball… you'll see it says:

When a player’s ball is in its own pitch-mark made as a result of the player’s previous stroke and where part of the ball is below the level of the ground.

And as a rules official, you take into account all reasonable, available accounts and info/evidence.

[Jim_Coleman]

    Erik: You can be DQ’d if, after review of the video, you conclude that Reed cheated, i.e. created his own embedded ball when he lifted it before calling over the official. I have no doubt the referee observed an embedded ball. I believe to a reasonable certainty that the ball that bounced in the rough didn’t then embed. Yes, it would have taken courage to find Reed cheated. But … you finish the sentence.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik: You can be DQ’d if, after review of the video, you conclude that Reed cheated, i.e. created his own embedded ball

That's an entirely different thing than saying he can be DQed because his ball bounced and video shows this after the fact. See the parenthetical below, too.

when he lifted it before calling over the official.

He didn't need to call an official at all. He could have taken relief himself and moved along.

I have no doubt the referee observed an embedded ball. I believe to a reasonable certainty that the ball that bounced in the rough didn’t then embed. Yes, it would have taken courage to find Reed cheated. But … you finish the sentence.

Why? Your mind is made up, and yet you have no real knowledge/evidence (a ball can embed in its own pitch mark even after it bounces, by the way).

The difference… Lowry's ball wasn't in his own pitch mark. It rolled into an existing depression or pitch mark.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

It would be interesting to know why the R&A/USGA decided to only stipulate "... in its own pitch mark as a result of the player's previous stroke".


Why not any pitch mark?

[Sean_A]

It would be interesting to know why the R&A/USGA decided to only stipulate "... in its own pitch mark as a result of the player's previous stroke".

Why not any pitch mark?

Sounds troublesome to separate pitchmark from divot? Rolling into a pitch mark is really no different from rolling into a divot.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

It would be interesting to know why the R&A/USGA decided to only stipulate "... in its own pitch mark as a result of the player's previous stroke".


Why not any pitch mark?

Play the course as you find it.

[Michael Felton]

a ball can embed in its own pitch mark even after it bounces, by the way

I was going to say I've seen this happen. If there is doubt about whether it was your own pitch mark or one that was already there, does the doubt go in favor of the player or against?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Why not any pitch mark?

Like Sean said… because you don't know if it was a pitch mark or just a little area of the ground that's depressed or maybe a player accidentally stepped on something to make a little depression, etc.

I was going to say I've seen this happen. If there is doubt about whether it was your own pitch mark or one that was already there, does the doubt go in favor of the player or against?

You use the available evidence to decide.

And by "after bouncing" or whatever I said, I mean not the original mark where it landed, but where it lands on a second or third bounce. Now, if a ball bounces once it's not likely to embed in its own pitch mark the second time, but I've seen it where it lands initially on top of a small bump where it's firmer and lands near a catch basin and embeds. That still counts. Or it bounces off a cart path twice and embeds when it hits. It's still embedded in its own pitch mark.

I've also seen it where a player hits a ball onto the fringe and the ball bounces forward before spinning back and settling in its pitch mark.

[Buck Wolter]

I have a problem with the 'witness' getting involved -- seems like a rules Karen. I fail to see how being embedded in another ball mark isn't still an embedded ball and that guy should have just kept walking.

I mean, it's the rule. I've had it happen to me once and it sucks. But it is what it is.

But if no one saw it you would have to assume it was in its own pitchmark.  Why would some third party be able to impact the ruling --I get if there's video evidence I get it but just some guy's word who decided to come over? How do you know the spectator is disinterested. Is getting witness testimony in the rules?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But if no one saw it you would have to assume it was in its own pitchmark. Why would some third party be able to impact the ruling

Because knowledge trumps an assumption.

How do you know the spectator is disinterested. Is getting witness testimony in the rules?

Yes. You use available information and weigh it accordingly. Some drunk guys who you suspect weren't even in the area? You don't consider what they have to say. Your intent — the intent of every golfer and every rules official — is to make the best possible determination as to the facts of the situation.

[Kyle Harris]

I have a problem with the 'witness' getting involved -- seems like a rules Karen. I fail to see how being embedded in another ball mark isn't still an embedded ball and that guy should have just kept walking.

I mean, it's the rule. I've had it happen to me once and it sucks. But it is what it is.

But if no one saw it you would have to assume it was in its own pitchmark.  Why would some third party be able to impact the ruling --I get if there's video evidence I get it but just some guy's word who decided to come over? How do you know the spectator is disinterested. Is getting witness testimony in the rules?

Protecting the field is.

As a superintendent I've been in this position.

[Jim_Coleman]

Erik: Anything is possible. That’s not the standard. Balls don’t bounce in thick rough and return to their own divots. Is it possible? I suppose so. Is it reasonably certain, more likely than not, beyond a reasonable doubt? No.
   Reminds me of an argument I had with a friend. A competitor in a tournament posted a one round net score of -13. The USGA says the chances of that happening are around 25,000/1. I say the competitor should be dq’d. My friend argued that, because it was possible, disqualification wasn’t warranted. I asked him if he would acquit a murder defendant if the chance that the blood found at the scene was not the defendant’s was 25,000/1. He said he would convict. So his standard to impose the death penalty was lower than to disqualify a golfer. This idea that you have to give the golfer the benefit of the doubt requires some common sense.

[Buck Wolter]

I have a problem with the 'witness' getting involved -- seems like a rules Karen. I fail to see how being embedded in another ball mark isn't still an embedded ball and that guy should have just kept walking.

I mean, it's the rule. I've had it happen to me once and it sucks. But it is what it is.

But if no one saw it you would have to assume it was in its own pitchmark.  Why would some third party be able to impact the ruling --I get if there's video evidence I get it but just some guy's word who decided to come over? How do you know the spectator is disinterested. Is getting witness testimony in the rules?

Protecting the field is.

As a superintendent I've been in this position.

(2) Players Should Protect Other Players in the Competition. To protect the interests of all other players:If a player knows or believes that another player has breached or might have breached the Rules and that the other player does not recognize or is ignoring this, the player should tell the other player, the player’s marker[/color], a referee[/color] or the Committee[/color].[/li]
[li]This should be done promptly after the player becomes aware of the issue, and no later than before the other player returns their scorecard[/color] unless it is not possible to do so.[/li]
[li][/font][/size]If the player fails to do so, the Committee[/color] may disqualify the player under Rule 1.2a if it decides that this was serious misconduct contrary to the spirit of the game.[/font][/size]

[SL_Solow]

I was a rules official in an important local tournament involved in a similar situation.  A good player found his drive in a depression in broken ground in the rough.  He asserted that it was an embedded ball.  I told him that I had seen it bounce twice and asked him to reconsider.  Then I suggested that he "play hard."  End of story.  It gets harder when no one sees the ball land.  However, the rule is clear.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik: Anything is possible. That’s not the standard. Balls don’t bounce in thick rough and return to their own divots. Is it possible? I suppose so. Is it reasonably certain, more likely than not, beyond a reasonable doubt? No.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Patrick didn't see the ball bounce or not bounce. He got to the area, thought his ball might be embedded, nobody else said much of anything, he called a RO over, and and the RO gave a ruling. He took relief and won the event.

You seem to have missed that they don't have to "return to their own divot." A ball can make a pitch mark on the first, second, third… bounce. I've seen it happen and have ruled and given relief on second bounce pitch marks/embedded balls. That's the Rule.

Reminds me of an argument I had with a friend. A competitor in a tournament posted a one round net score of -13. The USGA says the chances of that happening are around 25,000/1. I say the competitor should be dq’d. My friend argued that, because it was possible, disqualification wasn’t warranted. I asked him if he would acquit a murder defendant if the chance that the blood found at the scene was not the defendant’s was 25,000/1. He said he would convict. So his standard to impose the death penalty was lower than to disqualify a golfer. This idea that you have to give the golfer the benefit of the doubt requires some common sense.

Unless the tournament had established criteria like "10,000:1 odds or higher will be disqualified," or someone has legitimate proof that the guy cheated, then I don't see how you could really DQ him from that event. But, that's one of the many reasons also not to concern yourself too much with net events.

That type of thing also has almost nothing to do with the embedded ball stuff.

I was a rules official in an important local tournament involved in a similar situation.  A good player found his drive in a depression in broken ground in the rough.  He asserted that it was an embedded ball.  I told him that I had seen it bounce twice and asked him to reconsider.  Then I suggested that he "play hard."  End of story.  It gets harder when no one sees the ball land.  However, the rule is clear.

You should re-read the rule. Balls can embed in their own pitch marks on second or third bounces:

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 specifically asked about this at one rules school (it may have even been one with JohnVDB), and it's been brought up specifically at two others after Patrick Reed's thing at Torrey.

[Tags:]

Tags: