Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf

[Double Mocha Man]

8 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

Again, she should have been more forthright.  Obviously it bounced and she should have said she was looking elsewhere and only heard the "plop".  Heck, I didn't see the moon landing or Christopher Columbus dropping anchor in the Caribbean.  She should have volunteered she was on her cell phone checking her Game Stop stocks.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Double Mocha Man

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Again, she should have been more forthright.

Look, I'm not going to impugn a volunteer in COVID-19 times for answering a question briefly. They're told not to really do much to interfere with or interact with the players much even in normal times. Speak when spoken to, that sort of thing. Plus if she's the one who is supposed to flag the balls, she'd almost be admitting to negligence to say "I didn't watch it."

He asked "Did it bounce?" (or something like that) and she said "No, I didn't see it bounce." That doesn't mean she didn't see it at all, and her first word in response to "did it bounce" is "no."

I just thought of something, too, Drew. If she truly didn't "see" it and only heard it and went into the area and then stuck a flag nearby, this adds weight to the idea that Patrick couldn't see the ball land, because maybe she didn't see it struck from inside the bunker and so she was never really able to track it.

[Double Mocha Man]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

Look, I'm not going to impugn a volunteer in COVID-19 times for answering a question briefly. They're told not to really do much to interfere with or interact with the players much even in normal times. Speak when spoken to, that sort of thing. Plus if she's the one who is supposed to flag the balls, she'd almost be admitting to negligence to say "I didn't watch it."

He asked "Did it bounce?" (or something like that) and she said "No, I didn't see it bounce." That doesn't mean she didn't see it at all, and her first word in response to "did it bounce" is "no."

I just thought of something, too, Drew. If she truly didn't "see" it and only heard it and went into the area and then stuck a flag nearby, this adds weight to the idea that Patrick couldn't see the ball land, because maybe she didn't see it struck from inside the bunker and so she was never really able to track it.

I'll cross-examine the witness now...

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, Double Mocha Man said:

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

But then how would his not seeing it bounce have been evidence of it being plugged if his view is obstructed?  If part of his evidence of of it probably being plugged is because he didn't see it bounce, then he had to have been in a position to see it bounce were it to.  Know what I mean?

[Double Mocha Man]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

But then how would his not seeing it bounce have been evidence of it being plugged if his view is obstructed?  If part of his evidence of of it probably being plugged is because he didn't see it bounce, then he had to have been in a position to see it bounce were it to.  Know what I mean?

In my view, if anyone admitted to seeing it bounce it subtracts from the argument of the ball embedding.

[Birdieputt]

I don't think there is a golfer ever born that hasn't been told something to the effect of "know the rules they can be your friend".  I have personally worked multiple USGA professional events as a walking scorer and virtually every player was keenly aware of what rules need to be brought into play.  Every bald spot became a burrowing animal mound, ants suddenly evolved into fire ants and we have all seen stances stretch out to reach a sprinkler head for a free drop.  The actions of both Reed and McElroy were entirely within the rules including picking the ball up without a rules official present.  Looks like much ado about nothing.  

[PeaceFrogg]

31 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

But then how would his not seeing it bounce have been evidence of it being plugged if his view is obstructed?  If part of his evidence of of it probably being plugged is because he didn't see it bounce, then he had to have been in a position to see it bounce were it to.  Know what I mean?

No, because that's not the evidence he was relying upon.  He asked his caddie, playing partners and the volunteer on the scene if they saw it bounce, and all said no. 

[saevel25]

40 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

But then how would his not seeing it bounce have been evidence of it being plugged if his view is obstructed?  If part of his evidence of of it probably being plugged is because he didn't see it bounce, then he had to have been in a position to see it bounce were it to.  Know what I mean?

Not getting this.

38 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

In my view, if anyone admitted to seeing it bounce it subtracts from the argument of the ball embedding.

Of course, and he admitted that fact. The spotter said it didn't bounce. So he is going to check it is embedded because of how the course was. If the course was firm, no way he even asks if it bounced. 

 

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

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

• 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)?

• 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"?

• 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)?

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?

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. 🙂

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.

 

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

Only possible answers:

1. Yes.

2. No.

3. I didn’t see it.

[Golfingdad]

55 minutes ago, iacas said:

Were you able to see Patrick Reed in the bunker from the elevated camera behind the green that showed the ball landing and bouncing?

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.

58 minutes ago, iacas said:

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?

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.

58 minutes ago, iacas said:

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)?

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.

59 minutes ago, iacas said:

Do you require him to say things verbatim?

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.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

• Do you acknowledge that when he said something like "Did you see if it bounced?" the volunteer said "No" first?
•  

Yup, I don't dispute any of the facts we see on camera. I don't claim he marked somewhere else besides his ball either like I've read elsewhere.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

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.)

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

1 hour ago, iacas said:

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"?

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

1 hour ago, iacas said:

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?

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. 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

If nobody sees it bounce, do you go into the area looking for a ball that may be partially or fully in the ground?

Yes.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

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)?

Sure.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

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?

It is reasonable, yes.

1 hour ago, iacas 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?

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. 🙂

 

[boogielicious]

 

@Golfingdad.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, Double Mocha Man said:

In my view, if anyone admitted to seeing it bounce it subtracts from the argument of the ball embedding.

100% agree.  I elaborate on this in the previous post.

38 minutes ago, PeaceFrogg said:

No, because that's not the evidence he was relying upon.  He asked his caddie, playing partners and the volunteer on the scene if they saw it bounce, and all said no. 

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

33 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Not getting this.

If part of Reed's justification that it didn't bounce was that he himself didn't see it bounce, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume he was in a position that he should have been able to see it, meaning the landing spot was in his view?  If it can be explained away by your view having been blocked, how does that further your argument?  If that was actually the case, then wouldn't he (or shouldn't he) have said "we weren't able to see it bounce so we relied on the spotter and she said it didn't." 

16 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

 

@Golfingdad.

I was asked to answer question, so I'm trying to rectify that.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Golfingdad

[MiuraMan]

51 minutes ago, Birdieputt said:

I don't think there is a golfer ever born that hasn't been told something to the effect of "know the rules they can be your friend".  I have personally worked multiple USGA professional events as a walking scorer and virtually every player was keenly aware of what rules need to be brought into play.  Every bald spot became a burrowing animal mound, ants suddenly evolved into fire ants and we have all seen stances stretch out to reach a sprinkler head for a free drop.  The actions of both Reed and McElroy were entirely within the rules including picking the ball up without a rules official present.  Looks like much ado about nothing.  

During Sundays round there was a good example of how knowing the rules can help the player. I don't remember the player or the exact hole, but it was on the back nine, the player hooks the approach and caroms off the slope on the left side of the green and goes into the hazard (apparently he had done the same thing Sat.). So his relief area is within two club lengths from the point of entry into the hazard, no nearer the hole. The player ops to take his drop like within a foot of the red line; further up the slope the kikuyu was much higher. The player knew if he dropped the ball twice and the ball rolls into the hazard he would get to place the ball. He proceeds to drop the ball twice and then attempts to place the ball; but it would roll half a ball away each time, so under the rules he can pick a spot nearby where the ball won't move when placed. At this point the player calls for the rules official to help him pick a spot that would be suitable; so the rules official points out a spot with enough grass that the ball won't move when placed. He could not have gotten a better lie.

Edited February 1, 2021 by MiuraMan
sp error

[GolfLug]

53 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

I get it Drew and to be clear I still think Reed is a turd (I don't care if that his parents messed him up or whatever) 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. Everybody would go -'he knew it bounced, how in the hell did he ignore that bit of info?' I wouldn't want to chance it. Just how it struck to me after I watched the video few times. I also think balls must have been embedding left and right. One of those days when you already have it in your head most of the shots. 

But yeah, he is a turd in general 😆, just doesn't feel right to nail him in this case.

[colin007]

I'm Team @Golfingdad

 

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

[Golfingdad]

1 minute ago, GolfLug said:

I get it Drew and to be clear I still think Reed is a turd (I don't care if that his parents messed him up or whatever) 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. Everybody would go -'he knew it bounced, how in the hell did he ignore that bit of info?' I wouldn't want to chance it. Just how it struck to me after I watched the video few times. I also think balls must have been embedding left and right. One of those days when you already have it in your head most of the shots. 

But yeah, he is a turd in general 😆, just doesn't feel right to nail him in this case.

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.

[boogielicious]

14 minutes ago, MiuraMan said:

During Sundays round there was a good example of how knowing the rules can help the player. I don't remember the player or the exact hole, but it was on the back nine, the player hooks the approach and caroms off the slope on the left side of the green and goes into the hazard (apparently he had done the same thing Sat.). So his relief area is within two club lengths from the point of entry into the hazard, no nearer the hole. The player ops to take his drop like within a foot of the red line; further up the slope the kikuyu was much higher. The player knew if he dropped the ball twice and the ball rolls into the hazard he would get to place the ball. He proceeds to drop the ball twice and then attempts to place the ball; but it would roll half a ball away each time, so under the rules he can pick a spot nearby where the ball won't move when placed. At this point the player calls for the rules official to help him pick a spot that would be suitable; so the rules official points out a spot with enough grass that the ball won't move when placed. He could not have gotten a better lie.

It was Viktor Hovland.

[saevel25]

11 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

If part of Reed's justification that it didn't bounce was that he himself didn't see it bounce, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume he was in a position that he should have been able to see it, meaning the landing spot was in his view? 

Not necessarily. Terrain isn't uniform. The grass is high. Sometimes sun gets your eyes. I've had shots were I couldn't see the ball during its entire flight. I just have to guess on where it went depending on my swing and contact. 

There are situations where slight undulations in terrain can obscure your vision. 

Heck, Rory didn't see his ball bounce and it looked like he had a much clearer view of where is ball ended up that Reed. 

13 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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

I don't think it matters. 

14 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

If that was actually the case, then wouldn't he (or shouldn't he) have said "we weren't able to see it bounce so we relied on the spotter and she said it didn't." 

No, because not everyone explains everything out every time they talk. 

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.