Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf

[iacas]

31 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

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

@Vinsk:

 

She says it's behind the flag, and he says "Okay. Did it bounce?"

She says "Uhh, no. I didn't see it bounce."

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

You can see him from the camera that's behind him, the mobile camera in the fairway or whatever. That's not what I asked.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

Let's pretend he didn't see it bounce because of the angle of the sun or because he was in the bunker and couldn't see where it landed.

Why does that mean it's "weird he'd be so concerned about seeing it bounce when he already knew why he didn't see it bounce?" He's asking the volunteer who was right there.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

 

Did any of them say "I saw it bounce?" when he told them she didn't see it bounce, and he was going to check?

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

So when you "put it all together," where "all" is a whole lot of speculation and assumptions, it sounds like someone trying to slightly embellish something that the PGA Tour told him was fine, that the Rules Official on scene told him was fine, and that the playing partners and caddies didn't object to in the slightest…?

Okay.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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

It's pretty commonly done. "Hey anyone see that one land?" I'd go so far as to say it's more likely they were asked than not.

And I appreciate that it may go away for you, but I don't think it goes away for all or even most.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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

So your stance is being chipped away.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

So you admit that a ball that doesn't bounce is more likely, on a soft course, to be plugged, even if you tried to do it as the inverse: that a ball that bounced is less likely to be embedded.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Yes.

Sure.

It is reasonable, yes.

More chips.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

I don't agree. I think he only risked getting an answer he wouldn't like by asking the question.

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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

In your opinion, what's more likely: that he said in the media that "nobody saw it bounce" and even said "that's seven of us" or whatever, and that he completely made up four of them having made known that they didn't see it bounce, and that none of them were asked by the media or came forward on their own to say "I didn't say that?"

Or that what he said is pretty much what happened?

Props for how far down the conspiracy theory route you're willing to go, though.

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

If part of Reed's justification that it didn't bounce was that he himself didn't see it bounce

Where do you get this? Reed is not "justifying" that it "didn't bounce." He's gathering information here. If she said "yeah, it bounced," particularly given that he said it's "literally impossible" to embed if it bounces (he's not totally right there), then it follows that he doesn't look at the lie much at all beyond trying to figure out how to play the shot.

He's not "justifying" that it "didn't bounce." He's asking, given the conditions, as it affects whether he should bother to see if it may be embedded.

Players were taking relief for embedded balls all over the place. Like Rory. Like Xander on 15. Like many would have done in the fairway if it weren't LCP on Saturday in closely mown areas.

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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

He's not "arguing" that it bounced or didn't bounce. He doesn't need to further any argument here, as he's not making that argument.

22 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

… 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.

Yep.

15 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

So if his plan was to cheat, and take relief for an embedded ball, why would he ask the question?

The rules don't require him to ask. He could have walked up, said thanks when she said where the ball was, and said "guys this looks embedded, I'm going to take a look." And then not even called a RO over.

Vishal's point was that asking the question could only have potentially hurt his chances of doing all this "cheating" you're alleging he did.

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

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. 

Yeah.

[saevel25]

Every time I watch that video the more I feel like he did nothing wrong and acted according to the rules of golf. He even didn't clean off his ball before calling the RO just because there was a chance it would have to be placed back where it came to rest. 

 

 

[Bonvivant]

The NLU put out their pod on recap. They (and a seemingly large part of the golf world that isn't on here) believe that he cheated, but also that it isn't provable, as I have been saying it. It's worth a listen to hear how others put it, and one of the quotes/facts that stuck with me from it is, "On average, someone busted for drunk driving has driven drunk 80 times before getting caught." I think that this could resonate fairly well in this circumstance, and for an analogy, he passed the roadside sobriety test (following the rules of golf to the officers knowledge), but they never made him blow.

No one except PR can know if he cheated or not. They also review the Rory stuff, and how it is more similar than different, but go over all of it. It's a good listen IMO, but I agree with them, so there is bias there. It's fairly comprehensive, and asks all the questions that the golf twitterverse has been going on about over the last 2 days.

[Double Mocha Man]

1 hour ago, colin007 said:

I'm Team @Golfingdad

 

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

I hope she cold-cocked him...

Just looking back on my rounds of golf in the Northwest on wet courses.  Over the years I've probably experienced 4000 balls plug.  Drives and approaches both.  About 60% of those plugged balls popped out of their pitch mark.  100% of those did not re-plug or re-embed... they all sat proudly on top of the soggy, wet turf.

What is the definition of an embedded ball?  1/8 inch?  1/2 inch?  3/4 inch?  How much of the ball needs to be under the surface for it to be legally embedded?

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

The NLU put out their pod on recap.

They don't know so many of the Rules, so their bad takes on this build off of that shaky foundation.

6 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

"On average, someone busted for drunk driving has driven drunk 80 times before getting caught."

Right, because now we're equating putting lives on the line by breaking the law, often due to addiction, selfishness, stupidity, or a combination of all three… to cheating at golf on the PGA Tour. And since Patrick did involve an RO, unlike Rory, I think he passed the breathalyzer, and Rory maybe didn't "blow."

6 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

No one except PR can know if he cheated or not.

Sure, but where are the people saying "he definitely didn't cheat"?

[StuM]

13 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

I hope she cold-cocked him...

Just looking back on my rounds of golf in the Northwest on wet courses. What is the definition of an embedded ball?  1/8 inch?  1/2 inch?  3/4 inch?  How much of the ball needs to be under the surface for it to be legally embedded?

Below is cut from Rule 16.3 in the USGA Rules of Golf app. I believe the answer is “below the level of the ground” and no measurement is stated.

“Your ball is embedded only if it is in its own pitch-mark made as a result of your previous stroke and part of your ball is below the level of the ground.”

 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, StuM said:

Below is cut from Rule 16.3 in the USGA Rules of Golf app. I believe the answer is “below the level of the ground” and no measurement is stated.

“Your ball is embedded only if it is in its own pitch-mark made as a result of your previous stroke and part of your ball is below the level of the ground.”

Better to just look at the picture, but yeah.

[imsys0042]

Yeah, there’s no evidence he cheated here.  Can’t really fault people for thinking that he might though.   It’s not like there was one incident and that’s all.   I would believe Kostis when he says he saw him improve lies over what Patrick Reed has said, simply by the way that Reed acts.

I think it’s telling how other players are reacting and how Patrick responds.   If someone accused me of cheating I would be very, very careful with what I did on the course.  In golf, it’s a label that will cause people not to want to play with you.  
 

on the pro tour, a single stroke can mean the difference of a lot of money.   So I imagine if his peers think he’s a cheater then he’s not going to be well liked.  Say improving a lie saves you a couple of stokes, that could be quite a bit of cash. 

[Bonvivant]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Sure, but where are the people saying "he definitely didn't cheat"?

I thought that's what you've been saying the whole time. Apologies if that hasn't been the case.

[Double Mocha Man]

4 minutes ago, StuM said:

Below is cut from Rule 16.3 in the USGA Rules of Golf app. I believe the answer is “below the level of the ground” and no measurement is stated.

“Your ball is embedded only if it is in its own pitch-mark made as a result of your previous stroke and part of your ball is below the level of the ground.”

 

Thank you.  So technically, 1/300 of an inch would qualify.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, imsys0042 said:

Can’t really fault people for thinking that he might though.   It’s not like there was one incident and that’s all.   I would believe Kostis when he says he saw him improve lies over what Patrick Reed has said, simply by the way that Reed acts.

Here's the thing:

• He knowingly cheated once.
• Who says Kostis was telling the truth? We're just going to accept his statements as fact? Kostis had a lot of bones to pick, and knew his audience: who's to say he didn't make that up? Or that Reed is even the worst offender, and that tons of players don't do that? What if you can't trust Peter Kostis farther than you can throw him?

1 minute ago, imsys0042 said:

I think it’s telling how other players are reacting and how Patrick responds.   If someone accused me of cheating I would be very, very careful with what I did on the course.  In golf, it’s a label that will cause people not to want to play with you.

He brought a rules official over. Is that "being careful?"

1 minute ago, Bonvivant said:

I thought that's what you've been saying the whole time.

Nope.

We can't know if he pushed the ball down to make sure it was embedded. Only that there's no evidence showing that he did that.

[Double Mocha Man]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

We can't know if he pushed the ball down to make sure it was embedded. Only that there's no evidence showing that he did that.

The lengthy footage showing the player crouched over the ball, where you can't see him pushing a tee into the ground also doesn't show that player pushing his ball down.  This is all so frustrating.  I want his caddie to come clean.  But his caddie is his brother-in-law.

[imsys0042]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Here's the thing:

• He knowingly cheated once.
• Who says Kostis was telling the truth? We're just going to accept his statements as fact? Kostis had a lot of bones to pick, and knew his audience: who's to say he didn't make that up? Or that Reed is even the worst offender, and that tons of players don't do that? What if you can't trust Peter Kostis farther than you can throw him?

He brought a rules official over. Is that "being careful?"

Nope.

We can't know if he pushed the ball down to make sure it was embedded. Only that there's no evidence showing that he did that.

Based on both of their reputations I would trust Kostis over Reed.   I don’t know everything about either of them, but I’ve not heard anything that tells me Kostis is a liar.  Plus there are the allegations from his college days.    Plus the fact that Reed, to my knowledge, has never even tried to understand why people might have this opinion of him. 
 

if I was under scrutiny I wouldn’t touch my ball at all without being super, super careful.   I’d want to prove to people I wasn’t pulling anything.   If this was the only thing with him, I can’t see anyone having an issue with what he did.  If I thought someone had preconceived notions of me that I didn’t like I’d go out of my way to address them.  
 

and yeah, I think there are a number of cheaters I’m sure.   There’s several hundred pros playing throughout the season.  He’s not the only one who improved a lie or pulled something when they thought they could   

 

 

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

The lengthy footage showing the player crouched over the ball, where you can't see him pushing a tee into the ground also doesn't show that player pushing his ball down.  This is all so frustrating.  I want his caddie to come clean.  But his caddie is his brother-in-law.

Come clean, like you are expecting that Reed actually cheated here. 

Let me guess, even if his caddie wasn't his brother-in-law, and he came out and said Reed didn't cheat you would still not believe him. 

Its getting a bit absurd now with all the people just making up stuff because it fits the narrative in their head. Can we move past this? 

[Golfingdad]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Come clean, like you are expecting that Reed actually cheated here. 

Let me guess, even if his caddie wasn't his brother-in-law, and he came out and said Reed didn't cheat you would still not believe him. 

Its getting a bit absurd now with all the people just making up stuff because it fits the narrative in their head. Can we move past this? 

What stuff have I made up?

[Double Mocha Man]

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Come clean, like you are expecting that Reed actually cheated here. 

Let me guess, even if his caddie wasn't his brother-in-law, and he came out and said Reed didn't cheat you would still not believe him. 

Its getting a bit absurd now with all the people just making up stuff because it fits the narrative in their head. Can we move past this? 

I think most people (not you) have a gut feeling that something was amiss.  Me, I'm still wavering.

Lie detectors for the both of them!

Even Erik gives credence to the concept he might have pushed his ball down to "embed" it, but there's no proof, visual or otherwise.  All the rules were followed; I'm not arguing that.

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

Plus there are the allegations from his college days.

College kids never lie about someone who is cocky that they dislike! 🙂

4 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Even Erik gives credence to the concept he might have pushed his ball down to "embed" it, but there's no proof, visual or otherwise.  All the rules were followed; I'm not arguing that.

Also not what I said.

[Double Mocha Man]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Sorry.  Here is your quote:  "We can't know if he pushed the ball down to make sure it was embedded."  I would say you were leaving it in the realm of possibility.  That's all I was saying.