Jump to content
IGNORED

Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf


Recommended Posts

  • Administrator
31 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Ok maybe semantics..but a much better question than ‘ did you see it bounce?’ Would be, ‘ did the ball bounce?’

@Vinsk:

 

She says it's behind the flag, and he says "Okay. Did it bounce?"

She says "Uhh, no. I didn't see it bounce."

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Yeah, you can see him.  I mean, in that exact shot you cannot, because it's pointing sideways, but when they show that angle while he's planning the shot you can see everything.  He hasn't stepped into the bunker yet, but it's not a high lip at all. Thigh high or so.

You can see him from the camera that's behind him, the mobile camera in the fairway or whatever. That's not what I asked.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Yes, and I answered this just above in response to Mocha. Seems weird you'd be so concerned about seeing it bounce when you already know why you didn't see it bounce.

Let's pretend he didn't see it bounce because of the angle of the sun or because he was in the bunker and couldn't see where it landed.

Why does that mean it's "weird he'd be so concerned about seeing it bounce when he already knew why he didn't see it bounce?" He's asking the volunteer who was right there.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I've addressed this.  Yes, it would help a ton if we heard from one of those 4 guys that yes, he did check with us on the way up.  We've only so far heard Reed say this.

 

Did any of them say "I saw it bounce?" when he told them she didn't see it bounce, and he was going to check?

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

No, that would be unreasonable.  But all put together it just sounded like somebody trying to slightly embellish to make it sounds better.  It can be argued this might be him knowing people's views of him and trying really hard to sound even more right.

So when you "put it all together," where "all" is a whole lot of speculation and assumptions, it sounds like someone trying to slightly embellish something that the PGA Tour told him was fine, that the Rules Official on scene told him was fine, and that the playing partners and caddies didn't object to in the slightest…?

Okay.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

This goes away completely if its confirmed they asked the other players and caddies, yes.

It's pretty commonly done. "Hey anyone see that one land?" I'd go so far as to say it's more likely they were asked than not.

And I appreciate that it may go away for you, but I don't think it goes away for all or even most.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

A little.  But not a lot because I wasn't thinking they'd necessarily be watching his ball all that closely anyway.

So your stance is being chipped away.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Yes. But when I'm playing (without marshals) the bounce is usually more about "phew" we know it's probably not in the hazard or OB, and less so about whether or not its plugged.

So you admit that a ball that doesn't bounce is more likely, on a soft course, to be plugged, even if you tried to do it as the inverse: that a ball that bounced is less likely to be embedded.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Yes.

Sure.

It is reasonable, yes.

More chips.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't believe it would be "really stupid."  It's reasonable enough to assume he can be savvy and think that he has an opportunity to gain an advantage here with minimal risk if she answers his question the way he hopes.  If she doesn't give the answer he wants and says yes it bounced, he thinks "oh well I tried," plays it as it lies, makes bogey, and wins the tournament by only 4 shots.

I don't agree. I think he only risked getting an answer he wouldn't like by asking the question.

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

But according to Reed, that is part of his evidence.  He said none of them saw it bounce, him and his caddy included.

In your opinion, what's more likely: that he said in the media that "nobody saw it bounce" and even said "that's seven of us" or whatever, and that he completely made up four of them having made known that they didn't see it bounce, and that none of them were asked by the media or came forward on their own to say "I didn't say that?"

Or that what he said is pretty much what happened?

Props for how far down the conspiracy theory route you're willing to go, though.

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

If part of Reed's justification that it didn't bounce was that he himself didn't see it bounce

Where do you get this? Reed is not "justifying" that it "didn't bounce." He's gathering information here. If she said "yeah, it bounced," particularly given that he said it's "literally impossible" to embed if it bounces (he's not totally right there), then it follows that he doesn't look at the lie much at all beyond trying to figure out how to play the shot.

He's not "justifying" that it "didn't bounce." He's asking, given the conditions, as it affects whether he should bother to see if it may be embedded.

Players were taking relief for embedded balls all over the place. Like Rory. Like Xander on 15. Like many would have done in the fairway if it weren't LCP on Saturday in closely mown areas.

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

If it can be explained away by your view having been blocked, how does that further your argument?

He's not "arguing" that it bounced or didn't bounce. He doesn't need to further any argument here, as he's not making that argument.

22 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

… but I felt like in this case if he had an evil master plan, the volunteer saying 'yeah it bounced' would make him look worse.

Yep.

15 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

It would make him look worse only if he followed through on taking relief in spite of that answer, though, right?  Even him being a turd, I don't think he'd be careless enough to do that, lol.

So if his plan was to cheat, and take relief for an embedded ball, why would he ask the question?

The rules don't require him to ask. He could have walked up, said thanks when she said where the ball was, and said "guys this looks embedded, I'm going to take a look." And then not even called a RO over.

Vishal's point was that asking the question could only have potentially hurt his chances of doing all this "cheating" you're alleging he did.

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You know a spotter is up there. They are going to mark your ball. It's easy to just say, "Hey did my ball bounce". Why does he have to explain further? Does he have to justify his question to her or the camera? I feel like this line of questioning is reaching too far. 

Yeah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Replies 529
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I just caught the entire clip of Reed walking up to the spotter and going through the entire process. Nothing looked out of the ordinary.  1. He didn't see it bounce from his shot. 2. He inquir

This is amazing. https://www.instagram.com/p/CK6fYccFPqL/  

Posted Images

Every time I watch that video the more I feel like he did nothing wrong and acted according to the rules of golf. He even didn't clean off his ball before calling the RO just because there was a chance it would have to be placed back where it came to rest. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The NLU put out their pod on recap. They (and a seemingly large part of the golf world that isn't on here) believe that he cheated, but also that it isn't provable, as I have been saying it. It's worth a listen to hear how others put it, and one of the quotes/facts that stuck with me from it is, "On average, someone busted for drunk driving has driven drunk 80 times before getting caught." I think that this could resonate fairly well in this circumstance, and for an analogy, he passed the roadside sobriety test (following the rules of golf to the officers knowledge), but they never made him blow.

No one except PR can know if he cheated or not. They also review the Rory stuff, and how it is more similar than different, but go over all of it. It's a good listen IMO, but I agree with them, so there is bias there. It's fairly comprehensive, and asks all the questions that the golf twitterverse has been going on about over the last 2 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, colin007 said:

I'm Team @Golfingdad

 

Oh and back in 2011 Patrick Reed spit on my grandmother at a mini tour event in Saskatchewan.

I hope she cold-cocked him...

Just looking back on my rounds of golf in the Northwest on wet courses.  Over the years I've probably experienced 4000 balls plug.  Drives and approaches both.  About 60% of those plugged balls popped out of their pitch mark.  100% of those did not re-plug or re-embed... they all sat proudly on top of the soggy, wet turf.

What is the definition of an embedded ball?  1/8 inch?  1/2 inch?  3/4 inch?  How much of the ball needs to be under the surface for it to be legally embedded?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
6 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

The NLU put out their pod on recap.

They don't know so many of the Rules, so their bad takes on this build off of that shaky foundation.

6 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

"On average, someone busted for drunk driving has driven drunk 80 times before getting caught."

Right, because now we're equating putting lives on the line by breaking the law, often due to addiction, selfishness, stupidity, or a combination of all three… to cheating at golf on the PGA Tour. And since Patrick did involve an RO, unlike Rory, I think he passed the breathalyzer, and Rory maybe didn't "blow."

6 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

No one except PR can know if he cheated or not.

Sure, but where are the people saying "he definitely didn't cheat"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

13 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

I hope she cold-cocked him...

Just looking back on my rounds of golf in the Northwest on wet courses. What is the definition of an embedded ball?  1/8 inch?  1/2 inch?  3/4 inch?  How much of the ball needs to be under the surface for it to be legally embedded?

Below is cut from Rule 16.3 in the USGA Rules of Golf app. I believe the answer is “below the level of the ground” and no measurement is stated.

“Your ball is embedded only if it is in its own pitch-mark made as a result of your previous stroke and part of your ball is below the level of the ground.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
3 minutes ago, StuM said:

Below is cut from Rule 16.3 in the USGA Rules of Golf app. I believe the answer is “below the level of the ground” and no measurement is stated.

“Your ball is embedded only if it is in its own pitch-mark made as a result of your previous stroke and part of your ball is below the level of the ground.”

Better to just look at the picture, but yeah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yeah, there’s no evidence he cheated here.  Can’t really fault people for thinking that he might though.   It’s not like there was one incident and that’s all.   I would believe Kostis when he says he saw him improve lies over what Patrick Reed has said, simply by the way that Reed acts.

I think it’s telling how other players are reacting and how Patrick responds.   If someone accused me of cheating I would be very, very careful with what I did on the course.  In golf, it’s a label that will cause people not to want to play with you.  
 

on the pro tour, a single stroke can mean the difference of a lot of money.   So I imagine if his peers think he’s a cheater then he’s not going to be well liked.  Say improving a lie saves you a couple of stokes, that could be quite a bit of cash. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Sure, but where are the people saying "he definitely didn't cheat"?

I thought that's what you've been saying the whole time. Apologies if that hasn't been the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 minutes ago, StuM said:

Below is cut from Rule 16.3 in the USGA Rules of Golf app. I believe the answer is “below the level of the ground” and no measurement is stated.

“Your ball is embedded only if it is in its own pitch-mark made as a result of your previous stroke and part of your ball is below the level of the ground.”

 

Thank you.  So technically, 1/300 of an inch would qualify.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
1 minute ago, imsys0042 said:

Can’t really fault people for thinking that he might though.   It’s not like there was one incident and that’s all.   I would believe Kostis when he says he saw him improve lies over what Patrick Reed has said, simply by the way that Reed acts.

Here's the thing:

  • He knowingly cheated once.
  • Who says Kostis was telling the truth? We're just going to accept his statements as fact? Kostis had a lot of bones to pick, and knew his audience: who's to say he didn't make that up? Or that Reed is even the worst offender, and that tons of players don't do that? What if you can't trust Peter Kostis farther than you can throw him?
1 minute ago, imsys0042 said:

I think it’s telling how other players are reacting and how Patrick responds.   If someone accused me of cheating I would be very, very careful with what I did on the course.  In golf, it’s a label that will cause people not to want to play with you.

He brought a rules official over. Is that "being careful?"

1 minute ago, Bonvivant said:

I thought that's what you've been saying the whole time.

Nope.

We can't know if he pushed the ball down to make sure it was embedded. Only that there's no evidence showing that he did that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 minute ago, iacas said:

We can't know if he pushed the ball down to make sure it was embedded. Only that there's no evidence showing that he did that.

The lengthy footage showing the player crouched over the ball, where you can't see him pushing a tee into the ground also doesn't show that player pushing his ball down.  This is all so frustrating.  I want his caddie to come clean.  But his caddie is his brother-in-law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Here's the thing:

  • He knowingly cheated once.
  • Who says Kostis was telling the truth? We're just going to accept his statements as fact? Kostis had a lot of bones to pick, and knew his audience: who's to say he didn't make that up? Or that Reed is even the worst offender, and that tons of players don't do that? What if you can't trust Peter Kostis farther than you can throw him?

He brought a rules official over. Is that "being careful?"

Nope.

We can't know if he pushed the ball down to make sure it was embedded. Only that there's no evidence showing that he did that.

Based on both of their reputations I would trust Kostis over Reed.   I don’t know everything about either of them, but I’ve not heard anything that tells me Kostis is a liar.  Plus there are the allegations from his college days.    Plus the fact that Reed, to my knowledge, has never even tried to understand why people might have this opinion of him. 
 

if I was under scrutiny I wouldn’t touch my ball at all without being super, super careful.   I’d want to prove to people I wasn’t pulling anything.   If this was the only thing with him, I can’t see anyone having an issue with what he did.  If I thought someone had preconceived notions of me that I didn’t like I’d go out of my way to address them.  
 

and yeah, I think there are a number of cheaters I’m sure.   There’s several hundred pros playing throughout the season.  He’s not the only one who improved a lie or pulled something when they thought they could   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

The lengthy footage showing the player crouched over the ball, where you can't see him pushing a tee into the ground also doesn't show that player pushing his ball down.  This is all so frustrating.  I want his caddie to come clean.  But his caddie is his brother-in-law.

Come clean, like you are expecting that Reed actually cheated here. 

Let me guess, even if his caddie wasn't his brother-in-law, and he came out and said Reed didn't cheat you would still not believe him. 

Its getting a bit absurd now with all the people just making up stuff because it fits the narrative in their head. Can we move past this? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Come clean, like you are expecting that Reed actually cheated here. 

Let me guess, even if his caddie wasn't his brother-in-law, and he came out and said Reed didn't cheat you would still not believe him. 

Its getting a bit absurd now with all the people just making up stuff because it fits the narrative in their head. Can we move past this? 

What stuff have I made up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Come clean, like you are expecting that Reed actually cheated here. 

Let me guess, even if his caddie wasn't his brother-in-law, and he came out and said Reed didn't cheat you would still not believe him. 

Its getting a bit absurd now with all the people just making up stuff because it fits the narrative in their head. Can we move past this? 

I think most people (not you) have a gut feeling that something was amiss.  Me, I'm still wavering.

Lie detectors for the both of them!

Even Erik gives credence to the concept he might have pushed his ball down to "embed" it, but there's no proof, visual or otherwise.  All the rules were followed; I'm not arguing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
23 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

Plus there are the allegations from his college days.

College kids never lie about someone who is cocky that they dislike! 🙂

4 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Even Erik gives credence to the concept he might have pushed his ball down to "embed" it, but there's no proof, visual or otherwise.  All the rules were followed; I'm not arguing that.

Also not what I said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Sorry.  Here is your quote:  "We can't know if he pushed the ball down to make sure it was embedded."  I would say you were leaving it in the realm of possibility.  That's all I was saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • iacas changed the title to Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • Check them with a sharpie line test and see what your dynamic lie is with those clubs. Then you can decide if you want to adjust them flat or are happy with the ball flight from them.
    • My memories and reviews of the courses we played, finally: Sandbox 10 of 10 Just fun, 40 yards to 170, most under 100 yards, many options to play each hole, including putting, low lofted chip and run, to traditional pitches.  Highlights include 5 or 6 birdies the first two days, 1 over par on day 2 for total 52 strokes.  Also was the first to lose the “no sixes” challenge by going bunker to bunker on Hole 2 on the first day. Mammoth Dunes 8 Huge golf course, first fairway was over 100 yards wide, first green was probably 50 yards wide.  Maybe reading the Golf Club Atlas article helped me, but I was able to discern the major v-shaped ridge the course was built on and around.  Greens were generally pretty welcoming on many sides, in lots of areas a ball would funnel onto the putting surface.  However,  there were a few very deep greenside bunkers, in particular on the short 13th.  I enjoyed the course while playing fairly poorly.  Given the width of most fairways, I think additional rounds would lead a player to explore a variety of angles, there were a lot of ways to play most of the holes.  Or maybe the best way to play a hole would vary significantly depending on pin position.  I’d like to get a chance to figure it out a little more. Sand Valley 7.5 From satellite photos it would be hard to discern many differences between Sand Valley and Mammoth Dunes, but playing them becomes two very different experiences.  At Sand Valley the fairways seem a bit tighter, and the areas surround the greens generally funnel balls away from the green.  To me, this meant it played substantially tougher.  I also felt like there were more uphill walks, especially on the front 9, including several climbs to get from a green to the next tee.  Of course, that type of design tends to result in downhill tee shots, as was the case for almost every hole here.  A notable exception was Hole 7 (Dan’s favorite), which required a blind uphill drive to a “fade” fairway with sand on both sides beyond a certain distance.  Highlights for me were #1, with birdies both days, and #17 with two pars (driver on day 1, 3-wood on day 2).  Lowlights were some kind of high number on #2 (first day) after playing back and forth across the raised green a few times. All in all, I think I prefer Mammoth Dunes, but I’m glad we played Sand Valley twice. If I lived and played here regularly, I’d probably play Mammoth 6 times out of 10.  If I get back there, I’ll almost certainly play shorter tees than I did.    Lawsonia Links. 8.5 We went from modern courses designed by well-respected current designers to a 90-year old course, designed by well-respected designers of their time.  I really enjoyed the look of this course, its a style from a bygone era.  For the most part the course appears to follow the original terrain.  But the designers dug relatively linear bunkers and/or hollows, piling the excavated material to form linear mounds.  And they moved a lot of earth for at least a few of the greens, creating very steep drop-offs.  In many cases, the bunkers and mounds were well short of the greens, requiring a shot to carry the bunker or hollow, but not requiring the ball to carry all the way to the green.  This also confuses the depth perception at times, “just over the bunker” wasn’t anywhere close to being on the green.  Conditions were very good, the greens had plenty of contour, but never seemed to leave an “impossible to get close” putt.  Unlike the very tight turf at the Sand Valley courses, the turf here was a little more lush, so perfect contact on short game shots was a little less critical.  And there was rough, and beyond that some tall fescue, as opposed to the native sand at the previous courses.   The clubhouse and range and other facilities were pretty modest, but the staff were friendly and efficient.  Our foursome enjoyed the first few holes so well we decided that a second 18 was a great idea.  This is also where I had my best round, 76.  As much as I try to evaluate courses based on their merits, the quality of my play is bound to be at least a subconscious factor. Lac La Belle 7 This is a very recent rebuild on the site of a previous course.  From what I’ve read, there’s very little remaining from the old course, its been almost entirely redesigned.  Conditions were excellent, and the course is very pretty.  Its pretty demanding in places, with woods or creeks or bunkers on both sides of the fairway, and mostly slightly to significantly elevated greens.  Greens varied, some relatively small, others were huge and heavily contoured.  I thought in that on a few of the greens the slopes were too severe for the speed of the greens, but that was only a few.  The facilities were excellent, a good driving range, nice new clubhouse.  But the course just doesn’t stand out to me, its a good modern golf course.  And there are just a few goofy greens, 60 yards or more deep, really severe contours, its as if they’re done that way to inspire conversation, not to actually play. All in all, we played some really good golf courses, each and every one.  Of the 5 full-size courses, the ones I’d like to play most are Mammoth Dunes and Lawsonia Links. 
    • To me this is fairly simple geometry.  If you're set up right, your hips will turn around an inclined axis.  Imagine a hula hoop around your waist, tilted a little.  That means that in the backswing, your lead hip will move "around" that axis, away from the target, closer to the ball, and closer to the ground.  The trail hip does the opposite.  So your lead leg has to increase flex, your trail leg has to extend.  The opposite happens in the forward swing.   As to what feel will produce the most efficient movements, that's going to vary from person to person.  
    • Any guys here know the courses up near Albany/Saratoga Springs area ? Driving up from Northern NJ and doing a three day up to the race course in Saratoga Springs and would like to place a course close to the NY thruway going up and coming back. We already have a tee time at Saratoga National so looking for one or two more nice tracks. 
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. camerongautx
      camerongautx
      (30 years old)
    2. CyboNinja
      CyboNinja
      (40 years old)
    3. Hawk367
      Hawk367
      (54 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...