Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf

[Big C]

6 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm guessing that he would have asked them as they're walking up after their second shots, but I haven't seen video of that.  The video DOES show Reed telling them something like "I'm going to check this out, she said it didn't bounce".  

I can understand that some people will take an extra critical look at PReed, based on their opinion of his past.  But I believe that some percentage of people start from "PReed is a cheater" and go immediately to "PReed cheated this time" without looking at the video or any other "evidence."  In my opinion, the video doesn't conclusively show that PR didn't manipulate things, and doesn't show that he didn't clean the ball before setting it down.  It doesn't exonerate him.  On the other hand, it doesn't show that he DID those things either.  So the evaluation depends on whether we believe that he did one or both of those things with the camera right next to him, filming nearly every move he made.  To me, that's extremely unlikely, which is why I really believe he did everything within the rules.

All fair points. I don't want to jump in late and re-hash 10 pages of discussion, but the problem Patrick Reed has is that he has the most well documented history of cheating of any tour pro in the modern era. 

The stories of his days with Georgia are well known, and what he did at the Hero World Challenge a few years ago was blatant. If he has been caught a few times, it is not unreasonable to assume he has bent the rules in his favor many times without being caught. 

So I agree with everyone who posted that Patrick Reed did everything properly by the rules and that both he and the rules official handled it well/perfectly/whatever by the letter of the law. But I also understand why - given the incomplete information we have about the situation - there is significant skepticism of Reed here.

There is a reason that nobody doubts Rory McIlroy's integrity when the scenario was almost identical to Reed. Rory has earned the benefit of the doubt and Reed has earned the opposite. Rules are rules, but the court of public opinion will go against Reed anytime there is a grey area and that is no one's fault but his own.

20 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The level of attention they put on Reed that he is guilty and have to prove his innocence is absurd and to not go after Rory for the same thing. 

It is not absurd. It is completely understandable. The reputation that precede Rory and Reed are quite different.

[saevel25]

18 minutes ago, Big C said:

It is not absurd. It is completely understandable. The reputation that precede Rory and Reed are quite different.

Doesn't matter, the rules apply equally. 

They should know when he is skirting the rules or not. Especially when the evidence showed he didn't skirt the rules here. People should do more to point that out versus trying to make him the bad guy when he actually did the proper thing. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

You guys can't see that?

We do, but you're talking past others just as much as they're talking past you.

Thing is, except for his past, you have no credible evidence to support the idea that he cheated this time. If you do, you haven't shared it.

"But he asked a question about his ball before he even got to his ball" seems to be the best you've got.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Have we heard from the playing partners and their caddies yet?  If I can hear their confirmation of his claim that he asked them, that would help things.

I'm told he asked them walking toward the green after their second shots. As one does when conditions are soft. Hell, I've asked from the tee "did anyone see that bounce?" If nobody sees a bounce, it puts you on alert to look for your ball in a different kind of lie, as it may be plugged.

I said that all already.

54 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

I watched Dottie's take and if I am reading between the lines correctly, it seems her take of having a RO present as a rule- I think she meant an unspoken rule amongst players - is not just about ensuring the the proper rules process as much as ensuring that the integrity of the judgment against allegations of cheating was protected for the player. 

RO are there to assist the players, not to intervene, really. They are generally called in, they almost never insert themselves.

54 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

So in effect it seems like she is saying something like - golf rules are supposed to be self policed but go ahead and pull in a RO anyway on the simplest of rulings (100 percent cases, as she said) just so you can CYA, since ya know, there are the Rorys who you can do trust falls on all day and then there are the Reeds who hasn't earned enough integrity brownie points along the way.

Basically yes.

54 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

Rules expect integrity to be a given, but we don't for whatever reason so I don't blame them for thinking that way. 

Right.

To those hating on Patrick, could THIS have not explained things?

Patrick hits a ball, nobody sees it bounce, it's soft, and when even the volunteer says "No" to "Did you see it bounce," he starts thinking "oh I'm going to check to see if it's embedded" as is his right. He does so, and feels something that he thinks entitles him to relief.

At this point, he is still fully entitled to take relief, and play out the hole, but maybe he thinks "I've got a reputation, so I'm going to bring Brad Fabel in so he can attest to the veracity here."

Brad comes over, attests, and Reed thinks "Whew, nobody can say I cheated there!"

Is that not a possibility?

39 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The level of attention they put on Reed that he is guilty and have to prove his innocence is absurd and to not go after Rory for the same thing.

Guilty until proven innocent… except even when a RO says "yeah, embedded" and "yeah, he handled the situation just fine, and the procedures were followed, and we have no issue at all with it" and people are STILL screaming "he cheated!"

39 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I get it, Reed doesn't make his life easy for these situations. He should be applauded for actually doing the right thing here. 

I don't know about applauded. Something about crediting a man for not robbing a bank. He played golf and followed the rules, as far as anyone knows. That's it.

39 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm guessing that he would have asked them as they're walking up after their second shots, but I haven't seen video of that.

Yes.

39 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

But I believe that some percentage of people start from "PReed is a cheater" and go immediately to "PReed cheated this time" without looking at the video or any other "evidence."  In my opinion, the video doesn't conclusively show that PR didn't manipulate things, and doesn't show that he didn't clean the ball before setting it down.  It doesn't exonerate him.  On the other hand, it doesn't show that he DID those things either.  So the evaluation depends on whether we believe that he did one or both of those things with the camera right next to him, filming nearly every move he made.  To me, that's extremely unlikely, which is why I really believe he did everything within the rules.

Two cameras. The one behind the green is still there, too.

20 minutes ago, Big C said:

All fair points. I don't want to jump in late and re-hash 10 pages of discussion, but the problem Patrick Reed has is that he has the most well documented history of cheating of any tour pro in the modern era.

How many times has he been penalized for cheating?

Once.

20 minutes ago, Big C said:

The stories of his days with Georgia are well known

The stories could be explained by jealous teammates pissed off at how obnoxious and cocky he was, too.

I believe where there's smoke, there's fire, but sometimes it's just a smoke machine.

[Golfingdad]

12 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm guessing that he would have asked them as they're walking up after their second shots, but I haven't seen video of that.  The video DOES show Reed telling them something like "I'm going to check this out, she said it didn't bounce".  

I can understand that some people will take an extra critical look at PReed, based on their opinion of his past.  But I believe that some percentage of people start from "PReed is a cheater" and go immediately to "PReed cheated this time" without looking at the video or any other "evidence."  In my opinion, the video doesn't conclusively show that PR didn't manipulate things, and doesn't show that he didn't clean the ball before setting it down.  It doesn't exonerate him.  On the other hand, it doesn't show that he DID those things either.  So the evaluation depends on whether we believe that he did one or both of those things with the camera right next to him, filming nearly every move he made.  To me, that's extremely unlikely, which is why I really believe he did everything within the rules.

Good post, and I acknowledge that there really is no video that proves he cheated, and I also acknowledge that I'm basing my opinion/concern on a collective of only circumstantial evidence, not the least of which is his reputation.  But it's not just that.

It's skepticism that he didn't actually see it bounce.  These guys watch their balls like hawks, and this was 130 yards away from him, and we saw afterwards that it popped out of the grass a good 1-2' - how did he possibly not see that?

It's the way he's loose with his words in recalling the incident.  After the round he claimed he said to his playing partners after asking the volunteer "guys, she didn't see it bounce EITHER ..." whereas when you watch the video, he doesn't say that.  He just says "she didn't see it bounce so I'm gonna check it"

I've already mentioned the timing.  I'm still a little uneasy that he asked her about the bounce before he got there, and that he grabbed his tee before he even bothered to glance at the ball.  I mean, really?  Just look at the ball, confirm it's way down in there, then ask, then decide you're going to mark and lift it.  Don't decide you're marking it before you even look at it.

Confirmation from his playing partners that they definitely didn't see it bounce would go a long way to ease my concerns, but I suspect at this point we're not going to get that.

[Sandy Divot]

Speaking of Rory's reputation Vs. Reed's , and the thinking that Reed has had a checkered past, so that must mean that he will continue to cheat, Gary Player has a few rather questionable rules things in his past, yet he is seen as a paragon of virtue.

[phillyk]

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

These guys watch their balls like hawks,

Not all the time.  Well hit shots or shots in the general “good” playing area, they are usually picking up the tee of doing something before the ball touches the ground.  When hit towards hazards or tracking the pin, they’ll watch closely.  I’d say amateurs likely watch their ball more often than pros.

[Sandy Lie]

I watched real-time and it definitely bounced.  I think he cheated. 

But let’s talk Rory here.  When the announcers were talking procedures and penalties. I believed they said that a plugged ball cannot be cleaned.

With that said, in Rory’s replay it is very clear that his caddy cleaned the ball and tossed it back to him. In essence rule 16.4 was broken.  Did anyone else see that?

16.4 Lifting Ball to See If It Lies in Condition Where Relief Allowed. ... The player may lift the ball to see if relief is allowed, but: The spot of the ball must first be marked. Continued), and the lifted ball must not be cleaned (except on the putting green.

 

[phillyk]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Lie said:

I watched real-time and it definitely bounced.  I think he cheated. 

But let’s talk Rory here.  When the announcers were talking procedures and penalties. I believed they said that a plugged ball cannot be cleaned.

With that said, in Rory’s replay it is very clear that his caddy cleaned the ball and tossed it back to him. In essence rule 16.4 was broken.  Did anyone else see that?

16.4 Lifting Ball to See If It Lies in Condition Where Relief Allowed. ... The player may lift the ball to see if relief is allowed, but: The spot of the ball must first be marked. Continued), and the lifted ball must not be cleaned (except on the putting green.

 

It can’t be cleaned when you are checking to see if its embedded or not. Once embedding is confirmed, then you can clean it. 

[PeaceFrogg]

More video has surfaced on the Patrick Reed Incident:

I didn't realize that Bryson DeChambeau was playing in the group behind him.

 

 

[Golfingdad]

6 minutes ago, phillyk said:

Not all the time.  Well hit shots or shots in the general “good” playing area, they are usually picking up the tee of doing something before the ball touches the ground.  When hit towards hazards or tracking the pin, they’ll watch closely.  I’d say amateurs likely watch their ball more often than pros.

Right, but this isn’t one of those times and you can see from the video he’s watching it closely until they switch cameras.  Of course he’s effectively admitted that he watched this one closely otherwise he is argument that he didn’t see it bounce would make no sense.  There would be nothing out of the ordinary about not seeing it bounce if you weren’t looking at it haha.

So that brings in my skepticism - how did he not see that high of a bounce while he was watching closely from that distance? (Roughly 130 yards)

[Yukari]

IMHO, this seem to be "haters will hate" case.

Those who already dislike PR will continue to argue he cheated no matter what PR or others say.

Personally, he did what the rules allowed.  As did Rory.  

[Double Mocha Man]

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

Me thinks that bridge has been crossed a few times already. I'm sure the PGA has their reasons to not go that route. 

I think the Rules Officials in golf should have black & white uniforms and flags they can throw.  Mr. Reed might have seen a flag thrown, but the ref would have picked it up upon further review.

[GolfLug]

6 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 would have picked it up upon further review.

Don't they when there is clear evidence of witnesses, video? 

Edited February 1, 2021 by GolfLug

[Double Mocha Man]

10 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

So that brings in my skepticism - how did he not see that high of a bounce while he was watching closely from that distance? (Roughly 130 yards)

I think the lip of the bunker might have blocked his view of ground level.

[iacas]

38 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

It's skepticism that he didn't actually see it bounce.

We talked about this already. Nobody saw it bounce, including the woman responsible for putting the flag by it.

38 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

These guys watch their balls like hawks, and this was 130 yards away from him

As I said earlier, you couldn't see Patrick from the elevated hard camera behind the green, could you?

38 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

It's the way he's loose with his words in recalling the incident.  After the round he claimed he said to his playing partners after asking the volunteer "guys, she didn't see it bounce EITHER ..." whereas when you watch the video, he doesn't say that.  He just says "she didn't see it bounce so I'm gonna check it"

So at this point you're just ignoring any response I make, huh?

38 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I've already mentioned the timing.  I'm still a little uneasy that he asked her about the bounce before he got there

OMG x 3.

38 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I've already mentioned the timing.  I'm still a little uneasy that he asked her about the bounce before he got there, and that he grabbed his tee before he even bothered to glance at the ball.  I mean, really? 

OMG x 4. Pretty standard, Drew. And it's tough to get a tee out of a pocket when you're bent over. Fat people know these things.

38 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Confirmation from his playing partners that they definitely didn't see it bounce would go a long way to ease my concerns, but I suspect at this point we're not going to get that.

OMG x 5. They were asked going up the fairway.

33 minutes ago, Sandy Divot said:

Speaking of Rory's reputation Vs. Reed's , and the thinking that Reed has had a checkered past, so that must mean that he will continue to cheat, Gary Player has a few rather questionable rules things in his past, yet he is seen as a paragon of virtue.

Gary blatantly cheated on video, yeah. Got away with it, won the British Open.

23 minutes ago, Sandy Lie said:

I watched real-time and it definitely bounced.

Nobody's saying it didn't bounce. The fact that it did does not mean he cheated.

23 minutes ago, Sandy Lie said:

But let’s talk Rory here.  When the announcers were talking procedures and penalties. I believed they said that a plugged ball cannot be cleaned.

A ball lifted to check whether it's plugged cannot be cleaned.

23 minutes ago, Sandy Lie said:

With that said, in Rory’s replay it is very clear that his caddy cleaned the ball and tossed it back to him. In essence rule 16.4 was broken.  Did anyone else see that?

You can clean a ball once you're allowed to drop it out of an embedded lie.

16 minutes ago, phillyk said:

It can’t be cleaned when you are checking to see if its embedded or not. Once embedding is confirmed, then you can clean it. 

Yeah, that.

15 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

So that brings in my skepticism - how did he not see that high of a bounce while he was watching closely from that distance? (Roughly 130 yards)

Because he didn't. Nor did the people with him.

12 minutes ago, Yukari said:

IMHO, this seem to be "haters will hate" case.

That's all @Golfingdad's bringing to the table. 🙂

12 minutes ago, Yukari said:

Those who already dislike PR will continue to argue he cheated no matter what PR or others say.

Personally, he did what the rules allowed.  As did Rory.  

Indeed. I have no issue with either.

Drew, on the other hand…

4 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

Don't they when there is clear evidence of witnesses, video? 

They can and have, yeah.

[gbogey]

I'm sure I'm in the minority but I want to like Patrick Reed. I like his style of play, like his bravado, admire his short game, and appreciate that his body shape is closer to mine than most tour pros. I even like the fact that he's not afraid to make his own rulings - it pisses me off when the players call a RO for every little thing, most of which they should know how to handle themselves.

All that said, he doesn't make it easy on himself does he? I don't think he cheated or intended to cheat, but in a trickier situation he just needs to call the RO or other players over earlier in the process. For crying out loud Bryson at least understands that he needs brand value.  Why doesn't Reed?

BTW, it's my understanding that CBS didn't produce the video that showed the ball bouncing until 10-15 minutes after the whole ruling was over. I have to think if that had been known at the time the whole thing would have been handled differently. But it wasn't so the world has to move on.

[Golfingdad]

21 hours ago, GolfLug said:

I don't see him asking the volunteer whether it bounced or not as him getting ready to 'set his cheat trap' anymore. He didn't need to and could still have 'set his trap'. As a matter of fact it actually kills intent. If he wanted to outright cheat, he would not take a chance of getting a "yes, it bounced" since he didn't have to. That would have made it difficult for him to cheat. 

My apologies - I'm told I haven't responded to questions enough on here and this was one I definitely wrote a response to but apparently didn't actually post.  Sorry Vishal.  Also tagging @iacas

My answer to this (and I know this won't satisfy you :)) is I think it's completely the opposite.  It doesn't kill intent at all.  If she says yes it definitely bounced then he plays it as it lies.  If he doesn't ask and takes the unplayable with nobody to corroborate his story, he looks worse to more people than he does now.

[iacas]

To succinctly (for me! ha ha) address @Golfingdad's "fishy points":

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

It's skepticism that he didn't actually see it bounce.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

These guys watch their balls like hawks, and this was 130 yards away from him

• Were you able to see Patrick Reed in the bunker from the elevated camera behind the green that showed the ball landing and bouncing?
• Have you ever hit a ball that you could see until the last 20' or so when it landed, either because of the sun, the increased travel speed of the ball relative to your viewing angle, or because it landed just over a little hill or the lip of a fairway bunker or something?
• Do you know that any of the other people in Reed's group (caddies or players) saw it land? And what if you were told they (Reed and his caddie) checked with them walking to the green and none of them saw it land/bounce either (not that they are all paying super close attention)?

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

It's the way he's loose with his words in recalling the incident.  After the round he claimed he said to his playing partners after asking the volunteer "guys, she didn't see it bounce EITHER ..." whereas when you watch the video, he doesn't say that.  He just says "she didn't see it bounce so I'm gonna check it"

• Do you require him to say things verbatim?
• Do you acknowledge that when he said something like "Did you see if it bounced?" the volunteer said "No" first?
• Does this one sub-part of your "fishy" feeling take a hit if you discover that Reed and/or his caddie asked the other guys walking up to the green if they had seen it land or bounce, hence making "either" a valid word choice? (It's valid, anyway, if neither he nor his caddie saw it bounce.)
• Does the fact that none of the other players or caddies say "Oh, hey, Pat, we saw it bounce" when he says "she says it didn't bounce" deal a hit to your "fishy" theory? If they had, wouldn't they have said "I saw it bounce" instead of just saying "yeah, okay"?

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

I've already mentioned the timing.  I'm still a little uneasy that he asked her about the bounce before he got there

• When you're playing soft fairways, and from the tee, if you don't see it bounce, but someone else says "I saw it bounce, you're fine" does that change the manner in which you expect to find your ball when you get to the area in the fairway? If nobody sees it bounce, do you go into the area looking for a ball that may be partially or fully in the ground?
• Do you believe that a Tour player will ask if a ball bounced (it happens all the time at the Memorial) as a way of starting to understand whether they have a mudball or that their ball may be embedded (if they say "yeah" they might start preparing to have a mudball, if they say no their expectation that it may be embedded increases)?

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

I've already mentioned the timing.  I'm still a little uneasy that he asked her about the bounce before he got there, and that he grabbed his tee before he even bothered to glance at the ball.  I mean, really? 

I retract one of my OMGs. I quoted the same thing. 🙂

But again: is it not reasonable, on a known soft course, to ask "did it bounce?" when you and your caddie didn't see it bounce (ostensibly; I grant that this is not what you think may have happened), as a precursor to know how you may have to proceed or what type of shot you might be facing?

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Confirmation from his playing partners that they definitely didn't see it bounce would go a long way to ease my concerns, but I suspect at this point we're not going to get that.

They didn't say "I saw it bounce," and it's pretty common for players to check with one another on the way up. Players help each other all the time with this stuff: "Oh, hey, I saw it cross about ten feet from that stake" or whatever.

I do not retract my GIF. In fact, I'm doubling down on that one. 🙂

3 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

My answer to this (and I know this won't satisfy you :)) is I think it's completely the opposite.  It doesn't kill intent at all.  If she says yes it definitely bounced then he plays it as it lies.  If he doesn't ask and takes the unplayable with nobody to corroborate his story, he looks worse to more people than he does now.

But… that's kinda what Vishal said.

If he wanted to "pretend" that his ball was embedded because he knew it wasn't because he saw it bounce, asking the woman and risking her saying "yeah, it bounced" would be really stupid, because then his options are either:

• play it as it lies.
• take an unplayable (penalty stroke)
• blatantly cheat by claiming… that she was wrong, or that it bounced back into its own pitch mark, or… something?

And maybe you didn't mean "unplayable" as I don't think anyone would fault him for taking an unplayable.