Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf

[Beastie]

Adam Scott is having a bad bad day on the greens. Ditch the broom handle Adam.

He just missed a 10 foot put 6” left

[Golfingdad]

16 minutes ago, Beastie said:

I expect if it was anyone not called Patrick Reed, it wouldn’t have been reviewed by the TV networks. However because of his reputation he will always get a little bit more “overview”. 

Agreed and I’ve admitted this as well.  Anybody else and I’d have gone “huh, weird, I’ve never seen anybody move their ball aside like that before calling the official over.” And that would have been the very end of it.

But because it’s Reed, then it’s “huh, that is really fishy.”

Edited January 30, 2021 by Golfingdad

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Agreed and I’ve admitted this as well.  Anybody else and I’d have gone “huh, weird, I’ve never seen anybody move there ball aside like that before calling the official over.” And that would have been the very end of it.

But because it’s Reed, then it’s “huh, that is really fishy.”

You’re allowed to investigate, move your ball, take relief, everything without another person involved at all.

[Golfingdad]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

You’re allowed to investigate, move your ball, take relief, everything without another person involved at all.

I haven’t suggested otherwise.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I haven’t suggested otherwise.

Didn’t say you did. 🙂 

 

Others have said so though.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, Double Mocha Man said:

To me it was all well and good... and a bit fishy.  But Reed was caught in his lie when, for the first time, they showed a camera angle replay of the ball jumping out of the hole and moving a foot forward... about 15 minutes later in the telecast.

Maybe it’s already been said, but just in case it hasn’t: he never said it definitely didn’t come out of the hole. He said nobody saw it bounce, including the nearby volunteers, and so he concluded that it was still in its own pitch mark.

We can speculate and we can certainly use his rep while doing that, but we can’t say he lied based on the info we have.

I just don’t understand why he wouldn’t leave the ball in it’s spot when he called the rules official over.  He could’ve done everything exactly the same, and if he just crouched down, took a look, then left it there and called the rules official over it would be a complete non issue. That is, assuming it actually was embedded.

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

Maybe it’s already been said, but just in case it hasn’t: he never said it definitely didn’t come out of the hole. He said nobody saw it bounce, including the nearby volunteers, and so he concluded that it was still in its own pitch mark.

We can speculate and we can certainly use his rep while doing that, but we can’t say he lied based on the info we have.

I just don’t understand why he wouldn’t leave the ball in it’s spot when he called the rules official over.  He could’ve done everything exactly the same, and if he just crouched down, took a look, then left it there and called the rules official over it would be a complete non issue. That is, assuming it actually was embedded.

To be completely innocent-looking, I agree.  However, if he lifts it to check, and its clearly not embedded, he replaces it and plays on, no need to wait for an official.  Its only when the possibility of an embedded ball becomes realistic that he needs the official to confirm.  

How often do we read complaints that the pros want an official for every simple ruling, how that slows the game?  Here a player takes a first step without waiting for the official, and he's screwed up by doing that.  

[mcanadiens]

Why did it have to be that guy again?

[The Flush]

The only thing you can accuse Reed of is creating the embedded lie, which doesn't seem likely.  He did everything else correctly and didn't even need to ask for a ruling.  During an interview an official said Rory took embedded ball relief without seeking a ruling.  Reed could have done the same thing. I think the most likely occurrence is the one in a million chance that it bounced into another hole.

[Double Mocha Man]

I had a good range session.  Worked on more timely wrist hinging.

A falling golf ball plummets at about 47mph.  Plenty of speed to almost bury itself in soft, wet rough.  A ball jumping out of a pitch mark, one foot forward, is moving about 2mph.  Not enough to re-embed.  

Also, from the video, it looked like there was nobody near the landing spot, when the ball landed, to be able to say it bounced or not.  Perhaps someone was just out of the frame who might have seen or heard it.

And I would have been on this harangue if it was Reed, Rory, Ryan or Rahm.  I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more about this.

[saevel25]

I have definitely seen situations were depending on topography an area of the course would allow a ball to bounce and then a few feet away it is saturated ground. I can see it happen where a ball actually gets embedded on the 2nd bounce. 

[Double Mocha Man]

10 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I have definitely seen situations were depending on topography an area of the course would allow a ball to bounce and then a few feet away it is saturated ground. I can see it happen where a ball actually gets embedded on the 2nd bounce. 

You "can see" but have you actually seen it happen?  I have the fun of experiencing roughly 200-300 embedded balls per winter season where I live on the west coast.  I can tell you that when the ball is embedded it is embedded by 1/2 of the ball to fully under ground with just a small white spot showing.  And the shots that jump out of the pitch mark are always fully on top of the ground, not far from their pitch mark.  Sounds like a case for Myth Busters.

[Herkimer]

He's known as being a cheater and he knows that he's known as being a cheater.   He's pretty darn stupid for not calling over an official before he touched the ball so he could let the official decide with the ball there.   You don't know much about golf courses that are wet if you don't think a ball could embed after it bounces.  I would never call anybody a cheater without any proof and there's no proof here that he cheated.  

[Double Mocha Man]

We can "Perry Mason" this thing all day long and we would find no absolute evidence Reed cheated.  That's a given.  But there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to cheating.  The only two people on the planet who know exactly what happened are Reed himself and his caddie.

And Perry won't let the caddie get on the stand because there's a conflict of interest.

[saevel25]

9 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

He's known as being a cheater and he knows that he's known as being a cheater.   He's pretty darn stupid for not calling over an official before he touched the ball so he could let the official decide with the ball there. 

Wrong, he’s with in his right to judge the ruling per the rules of golf. So, his actions were not strange or stupid. This has nothing to do with how he handled it and all to do with the court of public opinion on Reed.

[cutchemist42]

I think my main takeaway from this is how this looks as a betting product. The Tour is pushing gambling hard and bettors hate stuff like this.

[Tony McCarthy]

USGA says:

The Rules generally rely on the integrity of the player.

• In other relief situations, including when a ball may be lifted and played from a different place, players are allowed to proceed under the Rules without being required to involve another person in any part of the process.

It's impossible to prove a breach of rules here.  And so when the official was asked to rule on whether the ball was embedded,  he could not.  The evidence had been tampered with before he got there. The official was left to rely on the integrity of the player, it was all he could do.  The rest of what Reed did was just a charade. He contradicted himself so many times afterwards.

[Zippo]

I'm not a Patrick Reed fan but I'm gonna weigh in on his side in this instance. Yes, it smells of old herring and dirty gym socks but it doesn't seem to me that he did anything contrary to the Rules.