Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf

[Vinsk]

I’m just pissed that a guy with so little integrity has that much talent in such a beautiful game of …integrity. 

[DaveP043]

I haven't looked really deeply into this episode, but today I did read the release from the DP Tour, in it they said:

"During round three of the Hero Dubai Desert Classic, two on course referees and several marshals identified that Patrick Reed's ball had become lodged in a specific tree following his tee shot on 17. "

From the Rules, Clarification 7.2/1 says that an acceptable method of identifying a ball that cannot be retrieved is:

"Determining that another player or spectator saw the ball come to rest in that specific location after the player’s stroke."

Se we have two Referees and several marshals that identified the ball as being in a specific tree.  That's enough to satisfy the Rule's requirements, totally aside from Reed or anyone else examining the ball for Reed's mark.  Maybe video shows that they were all wrong, or maybe the video is a little misleading, I don't know, but it seems to me that the Rules were followed.

[iacas]

34 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

"During round three of the Hero Dubai Desert Classic, two on course referees and several marshals identified that Patrick Reed's ball had become lodged in a specific tree following his tee shot on 17. "

From the Rules, Clarification 7.2/1 says that an acceptable method of identifying a ball that cannot be retrieved is:

I'm fully on board with trying to figure out who these people are, because the ball clearly did not go into that tree.

---

I've been trying to drop hints about this for a few days on another forum… but people are just so quick to condemn Reed (and don't get me wrong, he lied about seeing his ball in the tree and positively identifying it, and almost certainly lied about the "arrow" he "always" uses)… when technically, he didn't even need to look up in the tree to identify his ball.

It's like the Rory ball at Kiawah. Everyone saw the ball go in there, so if we were operating under the current Rules of Golf (I forget what the Decisions said in 2012, and I'm too lazy at the moment to get my 2016 Decisions book), he could have dropped beneath the tree because people saw it go there (he was able to reach up and grab it, so, no issues there).

[iacas]

FWIW…

[GolfLug]

I am not sure it always happens but players usually show each other their ball identification marks before the beginning of the round. 

From my perspective if one of his playing partners confirm that the arrow mark is kosher then in my mind I am going to move on having discharged Reed honorably. There are greater co-incidences than another ball in another tree with the same arrow marking and really nothing more than an honest mistake in the ball identification. 

15 hours ago, iacas said:

and almost certainly lied about the "arrow" he "always" uses)…

P.S. Sorry, just read this. 

If so, I guess it is entirely possible to follow the ROG to the T with no integrity at all.

[pganapathy]

Here is the truth.  Reed's history of cheating means we always look at every decision he makes with a very suspicious eye.  In this case he may have made a mistake or he may have cheated.  The problem is it is very difficult to identify a ball at a distance without picking it up, especially with so many tour pro's using Pro V1's.  I guess we should give him the benefit of the doubt here since he is taking a penalty drop

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, pganapathy said:

Here is the truth.  Reed's history of cheating means we always look at every decision he makes with a very suspicious eye.  In this case he may have made a mistake or he may have cheated.  The problem is it is very difficult to identify a ball at a distance without picking it up, especially with so many tour pro's using Pro V1's.  I guess we should give him the benefit of the doubt here since he is taking a penalty drop

How does the fact that he took a penalty drop mean he should get the benefit of the doubt, when the alternative is taking the more punitive stroke and distance?  And no matter how difficult it may be to identify a ball, at a distance or otherwise, if you can't do it conclusively then it is a lost ball.

IMO he lied, and as a result of that lie he cheated.

[iacas]

20 minutes ago, turtleback said:

And no matter how difficult it may be to identify a ball, at a distance or otherwise, if you can't do it conclusively then it is a lost ball.

Did you read the post above?

 

[pganapathy]

11 hours ago, turtleback said:

How does the fact that he took a penalty drop mean he should get the benefit of the doubt, when the alternative is taking the more punitive stroke and distance?  And no matter how difficult it may be to identify a ball, at a distance or otherwise, if you can't do it conclusively then it is a lost ball.

IMO he lied, and as a result of that lie he cheated.

The fact remains that his ball got stuck in some tree and it is very difficult to figure out which one from a distance.  Yes, he possibly cheated by deliberately misidentifying another ball as his.  Possibly somebody else marks their ball a similar way and he got confused.  No doubt taking the last tree seems very suspicious, especially with Reed's past history of cheating from his college days onwards.  However, we know the ball was in the tree reasonably certainly, and the benefit of the doubt really should go to him, irrespective of how much we think he cheated.  I know very few people who support him after his various cheating antics in the past

[ChetlovesMer]

On 1/30/2023 at 9:47 PM, Vinsk said:

I’m just pissed that a guy with so little integrity has that much talent in such a beautiful game of …integrity. 

I think that's my frustration as well. 

IMO in this case it especially bugs me. He could have said almost nothing. Just asked "Do we have video?" and then let the rules official do their job. 

In this particular case I think the rules official would have made a decision that would have been a benefit to him. But instead he led with a lie. ...AND it was a lie that was so easy to be shown as a lie. 

 

[thatsgood]

FMatt Wallace stated that Patrick Reed told him he marks his ball with a black line and a red dot. " That's all I will say."Matt Wallace.

My question is why the official did not look at the markings on one of Reed's spare balls? 

 

 

 

[DaveP043]

8 minutes ago, thatsgood said:

FMatt Wallace stated that Patrick Reed told him he marks his ball with a black line and a red dot. " That's all I will say."Matt Wallace.

My question is why the official did not look at the markings on one of Reed's spare balls? 

Reed says to the official "That's my ball, I marked it ..."  Do you expect the official to basically say "I don't believe you, prove to me you mark your ball that way"?  That's just not going to happen, there's a presumption in the rules that the player is behaving with integrity.

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Reed says to the official "That's my ball, I marked it ..."  Do you expect the official to basically say "I don't believe you, prove to me you mark your ball that way"?  That's just not going to happen, there's a presumption in the rules that the player is behaving with integrity.

Additionally, you might mark one ball one way, and other balls differently.

[billchao]

On 2/2/2023 at 8:28 AM, iacas said:

FWIW…

Did I see the sequence of events correct? Reed looked through the binoculars to identify the ball, then handed them off to the rules official to confirm that it’s there? 

So it’s basically as @DaveP043 says,

42 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Reed says to the official "That's my ball, I marked it ..."  Do you expect the official to basically say "I don't believe you, prove to me you mark your ball that way"?  That's just not going to happen, there's a presumption in the rules that the player is behaving with integrity.

They just took him at his word, which is fine except he does seem to have a history of controversies. IIRC he was called out by his college teammates for questionable behavior?

[turtleback]

On 2/2/2023 at 10:18 AM, iacas said:

Did you read the post above?

 

Yeah.  So?

[iacas]

On 2/2/2023 at 11:57 AM, turtleback said:

if you can't do it conclusively then it is a lost ball.

The “so” is that this is not entirely correct. Someone else can positively identify your ball as having gone into the tree, etc. You don’t even have to be able to see your ball to take the drop.

[sjduffers]

20 hours ago, pganapathy said:

However, we know the ball was in the tree reasonably certainly, and the benefit of the doubt really should go to him,

Did you miss the frame by frame video analysis by Brandel Chamblee (included a couple of times in this thread, above), which clearly shows that P. Reed was barking at the wrong tree? His ball was virtually certainly in a tree 20 yards behind, yet he was "100% sure" to have identified his ball in the tree where the ball couldn't have been. SMH.

Edited February 4, 2023 by sjduffers

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

20 yards behind

The trees are like 7 yards apart.