Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf

[DaveP043]

A couple of things from my view.  I don't know if Reed could see where the ball landed.  He didn't say the ball didn't bounce, he said someone TOLD him the ball didn't bounce.  Given that information, it seems appropriate for him to take a close look at the lie.  In the video, I don't see anything marking the location of the ball, but apparently he did mark it before lifting it.  Edit, in the last video above, you can see Reed pulling the tee that he used to mark the location.  Because he may have needed to replace it, he HAD to mark it before lifting it.  Once the official concludes that the ball was embedded (even if the official is wrong), Reed is off the hook, assuming he did indeed mark the location where the ball came to rest, and the official evaluated that location.  If Reed lied to the official, I'd guess that a DQ would be in order, but I don't see that happening.

I agree that the ball did bounce, and that its extremely unlikely (not impossible) that it was actually embedded.  I don't know if he could see the bounce, and I don't know that he asked the official to investigate anything other than the actual location of the ball.

And now that I see the video posted by @Missouri Swede, I don't think Reed could see the ball land, and it looks like he DID mark the actual location.  

[Double Mocha Man]

Reed's only defense will be to claim his ball jumped out of his deep ball hole when it landed, bounced a foot forward and embedded in another older ball hole.  I don't believe we really saw him lift his ball and place it off to the side.  The cameras were not on him yet.

[iacas]

40 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

1.  Unless they had a local rule Lift, Clean & Place doesn't apply in the rough.

2.  Reed tried to use the Embedded Ball rule even though his ball wasn't embedded.

3.  He showed the rules official the deep hole and claimed he fetched his ball out of that hole... he did not.  It was a foot forward sitting in the rough at ground level.  Probably with mud on it.

4.  Worst of all - he used his driver to measure his drop thereby moving it into a better angle to approach the green.  Why worst?  He measured it from the deep hole, not from where the ball ended up... giving him a driver length and an extra 1 foot of relief.  BS.

1. You can play it in the general area. Are they?
2. You don’t know that.
3. He marked it, no?
4. Nothing wrong with that one.

I’m not seeing anything near definitive to say he cheated here.

[jamo]

Could/should he have just played two balls and watched the replay after the round? Since he couldn’t see it land/bounce, if it were me I don’t know if I’d be so sure that it was in its own pitch mark. 

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, jamo said:

Could/should he have just played two balls and watched the replay after the round? Since he couldn’t see it land/bounce, if it were me I don’t know if I’d be so sure that it was in its own pitch mark. 

No.

Why?

[Double Mocha Man]

Someone said earlier they have never seen a ball embed, jump out of the hole and re-embed a foot forward.  Especially in fluffy, longish rough.  I agree.  On the wet course I play in the winter I've experienced hundreds of embeddings per season.  And every time the ball jumps out of its pitch mark it comes out like a small toss and ends up 1-3 feet away.   Sometimes even moving backwards, even with a low-flying driver.  But never embedded again.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Someone said earlier they have never seen a ball embed, jump out of the hole and re-embed a foot forward.  Especially in fluffy, longish rough.  I agree.  On the wet course I play in the winter I've experienced hundreds of embeddings per season.  And every time the ball jumps out of its pitch mark it comes out like a small toss and ends up 1-3 feet away.   Sometimes even moving backwards, even with a low-flying driver.  But never embedded again.

He was told it hadn’t bounced.

If he lied, string him up. But you can only act on the best information available without unduly delaying play.

[DaveP043]

15 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Reed's only defense will be to claim his ball jumped out of his deep ball hole when it landed, bounced a foot forward and embedded in another older ball hole.  I don't believe we really saw him lift his ball and place it off to the side.  The cameras were not on him yet.

So you're thinking he got there, lifted his ball, looked around and located a deep pitch mark in the nasty rough nearby, put a tee in the ground there, and then called the official?  I know there aren't spectators around, but there ARE a few people who would have seen that.

[jamo]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

No.

Why?

16.3 doesn’t have any “more certain than not” language, it’s just is it in its own pitch mark or not. Without seeing the ball land he can’t know whether it’s in its own pitch mark or not. If he saw the video, he’d be pretty sure it wasn’t. He was told it hadn’t bounced by ... someone, but he didn’t know it for sure.

[Double Mocha Man]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

He was told it hadn’t bounced.

If he lied, string him up. But you can only act on the best information available without unduly delaying play.

Well, it did bounce... TV camera showed that.  But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that his ball jumped out of one pitch mark and into another.  From where he then lifted it, only in the presence of his caddy, as far as we know.  I understand he had to act on the best information available.

8 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

So you're thinking he got there, lifted his ball, looked around and located a deep pitch mark in the nasty rough nearby, put a tee in the ground there, and then called the official?  I know there aren't spectators around, but there ARE a few people who would have seen that.

Yes, and the deep pitch mark he located was his original pitch mark, but empty.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Double Mocha Man

[iacas]

1 minute ago, jamo said:

16.3 doesn’t have any “more certain than not” language, it’s just is it in its own pitch mark or not. Without seeing the ball land he can’t know whether it’s in its own pitch mark or not. If he saw the video, he’d be pretty sure it wasn’t. He was told it hadn’t bounced by ... someone, but he didn’t know it for sure.

So?

The ball seems to have been embedded. The RO agreed. So why on earth would he play a second ball?

Just now, Double Mocha Man said:

Well, it did bounce... … From where he then lifted it, only in the presence of his caddy, as far as we know.  I understand he had to act on the best information available.

A ball can embed on a bounce.

And we all know it bounced. He didn’t at the time. And he announced it to the other players.

There are no spectators but there are people around.

[No Mulligans]

I play the course a lot, the rough is really thick, a ball bounces about two feet high, goes into the rough slowly, at an angle, no way it could embed, most often that ball won't even make it to the ground.

 

[Double Mocha Man]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

A ball can embed on a bounce.

We all saw the bounce.  It was such a gentle thing, like a soft, short toss.  It couldn't have re-embedded, especially in the deep hole he had the ref reach into.

[woodzie264]

24 minutes ago, jamo said:

Could/should he have just played two balls and watched the replay after the round? Since he couldn’t see it land/bounce, if it were me I don’t know if I’d be so sure that it was in its own pitch mark. 

I guess in his mind, there wasn’t any doubt. He said several times that bystanders said that it didn’t bounce.

[No Mulligans]

Maybe he pushed down a bit when he inexplicable removed the ball

[Beastie]

I expect if it was anyone not called Patrick Reed, it wouldn’t have been reviewed by the TV networks. However because of his reputation he will always get a little bit more “overview”. 

[Double Mocha Man]

This discourse is keeping me from getting to the range before dark!

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

I play the course a lot, the rough is really thick, a ball bounces about two feet high, goes into the rough slowly, at an angle, no way it could embed, most often that ball won't even make it to the ground.

Maybe. But apparently it happened. How often have you played after all the rain they got?

4 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

We all saw the bounce.  It was such a gentle thing, like a soft, short toss.  It couldn't have re-embedded, especially in the deep hole he had the ref reach into.

Evidence says otherwise.

2 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Maybe he pushed down a bit when he inexplicable removed the ball

Oh brother.