Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf

[saevel25]

14 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

However, I'll go to my grave absolutely sure that it wasn't in its original pitch mark.

You know, it’s ok to not formulate a hard line stance on this. It’s ok to be unsure. 

[Shorty]

5 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Please tell us, what WAS he told?  While you're at it, post some video to back your claim.

I don't know what "perfect" really entails, but he followed the requirements of the rules.  

“After the round, lead PGA Tour Senior Tournament Official John Mutch reviewed the videotape with Reed and playing parners Will Gordon and Robby Shelton, and he determined that Reed handled the situation properly, including asking a volunteer if the ball had bounced and notifiying his playing partners that he believed he had an embedded ball. Mutch said in an interview with reporters that Reed was entitled to determine if his ball was embedded without the help of a rules official.

[Double Mocha Man]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You know, it’s ok to not formulate a hard line stance on this. It’s ok to be unsure. 

😄

[Golfingdad]

A lot of talking past other on this one.  Many people repeating the “from a rules perspective” phrase and also pointing out more than once that if this weren’t Reed this wouldn’t be an issue.  I don’t dispute either of those points in the least.  It’s precisely because this was Reed, a long time alleged and recently documented cheater, and precisely because he “perfectly” followed the rules from everything that we were able to see, that this is an issue to me.

Im not accusing him of a rules violation, I’m accusing him of being an em effing cheater.

I’m not a RO, or somebody high profile either where I have to be careful here.  I’m just a small member of the court of public opinion, and in my opinion, based on all of the evidence I’m seeing, I believe he cheated.

[woodzie264]

4 minutes ago, Shorty said:

“After the round, lead PGA Tour Senior Tournament Official John Mutch reviewed the videotape with Reed and playing parners Will Gordon and Robby Shelton, and he determined that Reed handled the situation properly, including asking a volunteer if the ball had bounced and notifiying his playing partners that he believed he had an embedded ball. Mutch said in an interview with reporters that Reed was entitled to determine if his ball was embedded without the help of a rules official.

quoting an article which gives an account of what was determined is not the same thing as quoting was was actually said

[Golfingdad]

Another point to add to the fishiness of his timing of the asking of the “did it bounce” question was this ... he pulled the tee from his pocket for marking his ball as he was taking his last stride to his ball still before he even could’ve seen his lie.

He clearly intended on marking and lifting his ball even before he could have possibly seen the lie.

Shady.

[Double Mocha Man]

This is like witnesses at a crime scene. No two stories alike.

Also, I nominate the pitch mark for Ripley's Believe it or Not museum.

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Another point to add to the fishiness of his timing of the asking of the “did it bounce” question was this ... he pulled the tee from his pocket for marking his ball as he was taking his last stride to his ball still before he even could’ve seen his lie.

He clearly intended on marking and lifting his ball even before he could have possibly seen the lie.

Shady.

Once the volunteer said the ball didn't bounce, coupled with getting the same info from playing partners, it was pretty logical to think that the ball was likely to be embedded.  Knowing that he probably couldn't evaluate that with the ball in the deep rough, he was preparing to take the next step in evaluating the lie.  I just don't see the problem that you do.

[Shorty]

5 minutes ago, woodzie264 said:

quoting an article which gives an account of what was determined is not the same thing as quoting was was actually said

Maybe so. I'd love to know what I've missed that would suggest that his actions were "perfect". I would assume that the report is the most likely scenario. More likely than him being congratulated on handling the situation "perfectly". But then again, I've skulled 6 irons that ran along the ground and through bunkers and into the hole, so I guess they're "perfectly struck " shots too.

Look - and this is my final word on this, people, don't contribute to these conversations with the expectation of changing others' minds. But at the very least, it might be possible to acknowledge that this incident, the bunker incident and the fact that Peter Kostis says he's seen him cheat blatantly on three occasions means that he's going to get less slack than others, even though in law you look at individual cases not historical examples, tendencies or "form". But the PGATour must be having conversations with him. That's all I'm saying. It;s the doublung down and lack of introspection that I find offensive, not the actions which can almost always be "explained", "justified" or allowed.

[saevel25]

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 inquired with the spotter if it bounced, they said they didn't see it bounce. He is on hole 10 and the course is in condition were plugged lies will happen. You are on guard for an embedded ball. 
3. He asked his playing partners if the ball bounced. 
4. He proceeded to mark and check for the ball to be embedded. 
5. He found a pitch mark under the ball, the ball broke the ground, he took a drop. 
6. He confirmed with the rules official that he did was correct.
7. The rules official checked and found the ball broke the ground line (embedded).
8. The review of the situation found that Reed did everything correct. 

Also, Rory had a very similar situation on 18 and Rory didn't even call in a rules official. He just took his drop. He notified his opponent, and asked him about if it was a club length or nearest point. The opponent didn't even look at the lie. If Rory knew the dropping rule he didn't even need to ask that questions. 

You don't need to have your opponent confirm a situation. A golfer can do it themselves. You don't need to ask a rule official. Not asking a rules official, or asking a rules official after the fact, is not an admitting guilt. 

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

He clearly intended on marking and lifting his ball even before he could have possibly seen the lie.

Shady.

How is that shady? 

When the ball doesn't bounce, especially from a full shot, I would be pretty certain I am going to find an embedded ball. Reed is getting ready to mark and check if the ball was embedded as he is allowed to do. Especially in that rough, it would be very hard to tell just by looking the ball. He needs to lift it. So, I don't see anything shady. It just seems like people are looking for intent with out any solid evidence of the intent. 

The announcers saying, you need to call over your opponents to get a confirmation is nit picking BS. They are saying, Reed because of who your are you need to call in the RO 100% of the time. Guilty with out evidence for Reed is the opinion right now. 

 

[colin007]

I almost never expect my ball to be embedded when it's in thick rough like that. The grass almost always cushions the impact enough so that whilst it might be nestled way down, it hasn't broken the ground

[Bonvivant]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The announcers saying, you need to call over your opponents to get a confirmation is nit picking BS. They are saying, Reed because of who your are you need to call in the RO 100% of the time. Guilty with out evidence for Reed is the opinion right now. 

Tigers don't change their stripes, and typically nor do cheaters. If you want to say that he is not a cheater you are within your right of opinion, but the Kostis interview on NLU last year, the bunker incident, etc. are reasons why others give him no benefit of the doubt.

[woodzie264]

10 minutes ago, Shorty said:

Maybe so. I'd love to know what I've missed that would suggest that his actions were "perfect".

I don’t think you missed anything. The commentators have all admitted this afternoon that the reason Rory’s actions were not under the microscope is simply a matter of character reputation. Both had a ball bounce and were reported embedded upon finding them at final resting place, but yet it’s Reed under scrutiny. While I didn’t see where Reed did anything wrong with the information he had at that time, our history does affect our present and he’s “earned” the microscope he’s found himself under. But again, objectively he followed the rules, end of story IMO.

[saevel25]

Just now, Bonvivant said:

Tigers don't change their stripes, and typically nor do cheaters. If you want to say that he is not a cheater you are within your right of opinion, but the Kostis interview on NLU last year, the bunker incident, etc. are reasons why others give him no benefit of the doubt.

That isn't how the rules of golf work. I don't care if he has cheated in the past. He doesn't get to be treated differently when he is applying the rules correctly. 

3 minutes ago, colin007 said:

I almost never expect my ball to be embedded when it's in thick rough like that. The grass almost always cushions the impact enough so that whilst it might be nestled way down, it hasn't broken the ground

I agree. I if the ball was on the 2nd bounce I would assume it hadn't. Yet, the rough doesn't seem to support the ball well, as it sinks down a lot. So, maybe this type of rough doesn't provide much resistance. 

[Bonvivant]

Just now, saevel25 said:

That isn't how the rules of golf work. I don't care if he has cheated in the past. He doesn't get to be treated differently when he is applying the rules correctly. 

This assumes that it was actually embedded. You are taking him on his word for this. I don't take Reed on his word. That's the difference of opinion.

[Golfingdad]

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

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 inquired with the spotter if it bounced, they said they didn't see it bounce. He is on hole 10 and the course is in condition were plugged lies will happen. You are on guard for an embedded ball. 
3. He asked his playing partners if the ball bounced. 
4. He proceeded to mark and check for the ball to be embedded. 
5. He found a pitch mark under the ball, the ball broke the ground, he took a drop. 
6. He confirmed with the rules official that he did was correct.
7. The rules official checked and found the ball broke the ground line (embedded).
8. The review of the situation found that Reed did everything correct. 

Also, Rory had a very similar situation on 18 and Rory didn't even call in a rules official. He just took his drop. He notified his opponent, and asked him about if it was a club length or nearest point. The opponent didn't even look at the lie. If Rory knew the dropping rule he didn't even need to ask that questions. 

You don't need to have your opponent confirm a situation. A golfer can do it themselves. You don't need to ask a rule official. Not asking a rules official, or asking a rules official after the fact, is not an admitting guilt. 

How is that shady? 

When the ball doesn't bounce, especially from a full shot, I would be pretty certain I am going to find an embedded ball. Reed is getting ready to mark and check if the ball was embedded as he is allowed to do. Especially in that rough, it would be very hard to tell just by looking the ball. He needs to lift it. So, I don't see anything shady. It just seems like people are looking for intent with out any solid evidence of the intent. 

The announcers saying, you need to call over your opponents to get a confirmation is nit picking BS. They are saying, Reed because of who your are you need to call in the RO 100% of the time. Guilty with out evidence for Reed is the opinion right now. 

 

Theees never going to be solid evidence of his intent unless he admits it - that is my whole point here.  We’re speculating on his intent and you’re responding with rules stuff.  We aren’t talking about the same things.

Shady because he 100% had his mind made up to mark and lift before even a cursory glance was made at the ball.  Many of you say you would do the same but I struggle to believe that you wouldn’t at least peek at the ball first. His reputation precedes him here.

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

Shady because he 100% had his mind made up to mark and lift before even a cursory glance was made at the ball.  Many of you say you would do the same but I struggle to believe that you wouldn’t at least peek at the ball first. His reputation precedes him here.

When it comes to that rough, where you need a spotter to find it, it would be impossible to tell if the ball was embedded with out marking and lifting it. I played a round once with rough near that height. It was nearly a 4 hour 9 hole round because everyone was spending 2-3 minutes if your ball went 1-FT off the fairway. There is no way to see the ground underneath the ball to tell if it is embedded. That is why the question of, "Did the ball bounce" is a huge piece of information here. If not, and if the course is soggy, then yea I would assume I would be marking it to check. 

[DaveP043]

7 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

This assumes that it was actually embedded. You are taking him on his word for this. I don't take Reed on his word. That's the difference of opinion.

So your opinion is that Reed, with a camera just a few feet away, somehow manufactured an embedded lie before calling for the official?  I ask because unless he did manufacture the lie, the ball really was embedded.  Or else the official doesn't understand the criteria for an embedded ball, and so gave an incorrect ruling.