Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf

[Big C]

Yesterday on the 5th hole, Patrick Reed pulled/hooked his tee shot left into the water. The announcers speculated he did not cross land and would have to drop back near the tee boxes. Ultimately, he chose a drop point about 220 yards in front of the tees, hit a 3 wood into the green side bunker and got up and down for bogey.

About 15 minutes ago, cam smith hit the same shot. He took the drop that the announcers speculated Reed would be taking, leaving himself 349 yards to the hole. After pulling another one into the water, he needed a fantastic up and down for triple bogey.

I need to re watch the video but my recollection is that Reeds ball landed further left in the water than Smith’s. His ball would have needed to be hooking substantially to cross land where he dropped.

My gut tells me that Reed used the ambiguity of “best judgment” to his advantage. Smith could have done the same but chose to error on the side of not giving himself an unfair advantage. I will make all the caveats that I was not there, nor did I see the players respective trajectories
 

But when people say it’s unfair that Reed is not given the benefit of the doubt when others in the same position are, little things like these are why I think they are mistaken.
 

 

[billchao]

@Big C I merged your post with the main Patrick Reed post. If you could share a video of the play in question it would be helpful.

[Big C]

Yes I’ll try to find the video later today.

[iacas]

All of the players in this are highly ranked. Did they make any comments about it? His playing partners?  Was the announcer on the tee?

[Beastie]

Patrick Reed hits a draw so it’s quite possible  it hooked into the water220 yds up. 

[Big C]

Unfortunately, I recorded Saturday's action, but not Friday's. And I could not find any video replay of Reed's 5th hole Friday online. If anyone else has the recording, I would be interested to see if the video matches my recollection. 

That said, I realize it would not be conclusive evidence either way. Just another thread in a line of things that make you say "hmmm...."

[The Flush]

If PR did anything remotely wrong it would be all over the internet instantly.

[Golfingdad]

32 minutes ago, Big C said:

Unfortunately, I recorded Saturday's action, but not Friday's. And I could not find any video replay of Reed's 5th hole Friday online. If anyone else has the recording, I would be interested to see if the video matches my recollection. 

That said, I realize it would not be conclusive evidence either way. Just another thread in a line of things that make you say "hmmm...."

Even if you had the video, at best it would be like Tiger at the Players that one year.  People trying to make definitive conclusions about the balls path using a skewed camera angle that shows nothing as their “evidence.” Possibly exacerbated by a dumb announcer doing the same.

But I agree fully with your base assertion.

[DeadMan]

A new Reed, uh, incident this weekend in Dubai:

More information here:

Bizarre Patrick Reed rules situation results in 'lucky' drop

---

Patrick Reed is at the center of controversy again at the Dubai Desert Classic, this time after...

This is a situation where I’d give any other player the benefit of a doubt. Patrick Reed, on the other hand…

[iacas]

Quote

There must be someone here prepared to defend Reed this time, right?

Had he said: "Do we have video?" or "We all saw my ball go into the tree, not come out, there's a ball with a black line that is the same number and model of my golf ball" and let the RO decide if that was enough to positively identify, that'd be a whole other discussion, but the facts below really throw a wrench in anyone's efforts to defend him (as I have done in the past):

• He said he "always" marks his ball with an arrow. Other photos show balls he's using the same day with no such marking.
• He said he's "100% certain" it was his ball, when he could have no such level of certainty… primarily because there's basically a 0% chance it's his ball.

He didn't say "I think" or anything. He lied about the way he "always" marks his ball and he said "100%" with regards to his positive identification.

For that reason…

---

Speaking generally… if a player marked his ball with a black line, everyone saw it go into a tree, he was able to identify it with binoculars as his make/model/number with a black line… it's reasonable to say that he identified his golf ball, even if HIS actual golf ball later falls out of a different tree or is found six minutes, six hours, or six days later somewhere else.

In numerical order…Rule 1.3b(2) says:

Quote

(2) Accepting Player’s “Reasonable Judgment” in Determining a Location When Applying the Rules.

• Many Rules require a player to determine a spot, point, line, edge, area or other location under the Rules, such as:

  • Estimating where a ball last crossed the edge of a penalty area,

  • Estimating or measuring when dropping or placing a ball in taking relief, or

  • Replacing a ball on its original spot (whether the spot is known or estimated).

  • Determining the area of the course where the ball lies, including whether the ball lies on the course, or

  • Determining whether the ball touches or is in or on an abnormal course condition.

• Such determinations about location need to be made promptly and with care but often cannot be precise.

• So long as the player does what can be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination, the player’s reasonable judgment will be accepted even if, after the stroke is made, the determination is shown to be wrong by video evidence or other information.

• If a player becomes aware of a wrong determination before the stroke is made, it must be corrected (see Rule 14.5).

That establishes that it's "reasonable" that they look in the area, and then Rule 7.2 covers the "identifying" part:

Quote

A player’s ball at rest may be identified in any one of these ways:

• By the player or anyone else seeing a ball come to rest in circumstances where it is known to be the player’s ball.

• By seeing the player’s identifying mark on the ball (see Rule 6.3a), but this does not apply if an identical ball with an identical identifying mark is also found in the same area.

• By finding a ball with the same brand, model, number and condition as the player’s ball in an area where the player’s ball is expected to be, but this does not apply if an identical ball is in the same area and there is no way to know which one is the player’s ball.

Given the two combined, in a normal non-PReed situation… it's sufficient.

[colin007]

FR is the reason why eggs are invading Ukraine and why climate change is keeping classified docs in her garage

[DeadMan]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Speaking generally… if a player marked his ball with a black line, everyone saw it go into a tree, he was able to identify it with binoculars as his make/model/number with a black line… it's reasonable to say that he identified his golf ball, even if HIS actual golf ball later falls out of a different tree or is found six minutes, six hours, or six days later somewhere else.

Rule 20.2.e allows the committee to disqualify someone after the competition is closed for serious misconduct under Rule 1.2. What evidence would be needed to disqualify Reed now? We'd essentially need something to show that Reed was being dishonest at the time, right? The only way I think that would be possible would be to prove that Reed doesn't use an arrow when making his ball. But I don't know how you prove that now. He's probably marking all his balls with an arrow from now on.

[dennyjones]

3 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Rule 20.2.e allows the committee to disqualify someone after the competition is closed for serious misconduct under Rule 1.2. What evidence would be needed to disqualify Reed now? We'd essentially need something to show that Reed was being dishonest at the time, right? The only way I think that would be possible would be to prove that Reed doesn't use an arrow when making his ball. But I don't know how you prove that now. He's probably marking all his balls with an arrow from now on.

Quick grab a ladder!

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Rule 20.2.e allows the committee to disqualify someone after the competition is closed for serious misconduct under Rule 1.2.

This wouldn't qualify.

Also, look at the statement in this video (3:21 mark): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0_Zm1Us4O4&t=3m21s

[Pretzel]

1 hour ago, DeadMan said:

The only way I think that would be possible would be to prove that Reed doesn't use an arrow when making his ball. But I don't know how you prove that now. He's probably marking all his balls with an arrow from now on.

Just look at the video from his putts on the previous hole and on the tee when he was hitting there. You'll see whether or not the ball he hit off the tee had a black arrow marked on it, unless there was no camera near the tee box the current cameras used are quite sufficient to show whether or not his ball was indeed marked that way.

[DeadMan]

3 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Just look at the video from his putts on the previous hole and on the tee when he was hitting there. You'll see whether or not the ball he hit off the tee had a black arrow marked on it, unless there was no camera near the tee box the current cameras used are quite sufficient to show whether or not his ball was indeed marked that way.

What if he switched balls after the 16th hole and the marking was in a place where the camera wouldn't have seen the arrow on the tee? Not that hard to imagine.

Edited January 30, 2023 by DeadMan

[ChetlovesMer]

10 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

What if he switched balls after the 16th hole and the marking was in a place where the camera wouldn't have seen it on the tee? Not that hard to imagine.

I think Reed said he "always" marks his ball that way. 

[sjduffers]

I din't watch the coverage or the aftermath, but caught this tread and the tweet that Brandel Chamblee put out: that frame by frame video analysis is mwah (chef-kiss)!

It's unbelievable to me that Patrick Reed would be 100% certain to have identified his ball in another tree (some 20 or 30 yards ahead and in a taller tree)!  Laughable, really.  P Reed, the cheater. QED.