Jump to content
IGNORED

Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

So you're thinking he got there, lifted his ball, looked around and located a deep pitch mark in the nasty rough nearby, put a tee in the ground there, and then called the official?  I know there aren't spectators around, but there ARE a few people who would have seen that.

I think what is more likely is that he got to his ball, realized it wasn't embedded, embedded it by hand, and then picked it up. He takes a long time with is back to the camera "checking" to see if it is embedded when it should be a quick look. He then tosses the ball aside.....then calls over a rules official to confirm that he is off the hook. 

6 hours ago, iacas said:

Oh brother.

Is it really that hard to believe that he did this? He took so long over the "embedded ball", then casually tosses it aside, then calls a rules official. If it were that "on the fence" he should be calling them over before moving the ball. I do believe that he pressed the ball in.

4 hours ago, mcanadiens said:

Why did it have to be that guy again?

Only one reason...

4 hours 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. 

It pretty much has to be a puddle. This lie was on a hill, where water runs off. No chance on this one.

3 hours ago, saevel25 said:

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.

But when you go back and see the footage, there is no possible way that ball was embedded in its own mark. He fabricated it.

2 hours ago, Tony McCarthy said:

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.

This is a great and accurate comment. Kind of sad, because nothing will come of this in the long run when maybe it should.

4 hours ago, The Flush said:

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.

How is the most likely occurrence the 1:1,000,000 chance? Isn't it the more likely chance that someone who has breached rules blatantly and tried to get away with it is doing it again?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Replies 529
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I just caught the entire clip of Reed walking up to the spotter and going through the entire process. Nothing looked out of the ordinary.  1. He didn't see it bounce from his shot. 2. He inquir

This is amazing. https://www.instagram.com/p/CK6fYccFPqL/  

Posted Images

4 hours 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. 

No you haven't. You might have seen a ball bounce into casual water, but not embed itself. Or did  you mean  "can't"  in the bit I put in bold? 

4 hours ago, saevel25 said:

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.

Why didn't he just say to his marker  "My ball is plugged, I'm taking a drop."? If he was concerned about how it all looked he would have called the official before he moved it. If he is going to self administer the rules, why not simply do so? He's covering his tracks after he realises there is an issue. He didn't say to the official "This is what I've done, just so you know." He asked for confirmation of something that would not have been in doubt or subject to question. Arse covering. But...... that's just my opinion :-)

Edited by Shorty
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Shorty said:

Why didn't he just say to his marker  "My ball is plugged, I'm taking a drop."? If he was concerned about how it all looked he would have called the official before he moved it. If he is going to self administer the rules, why not simply do so? He's covering his tracks after he realises there is an issue. He didn't say to the official "This is what I've done, just so you know." He asked for confirmation of something that would not have been in doubt or subject to question. Arse covering. But...... that's just my opinion :-)

Nailed it. If there was a question for ruling, it was when his ball was at rest where it landed, not where he tossed it afterward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

If it were any other player there wouldn't have been an issue.

I've played Torrey several times and lived in the area, it can get very soft/soggy, especially after all the rain.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Watched it all again, the whole just doesn't pass the smell test for me.  A couple of different little things, but added all together it just doesn't feel right.  In the full video posted in various places you can see him ask the volunteer if she saw it bounce before he even gets to his ball.  He's still walking up, 20' away, and it's the first thing he asks her.  He has not seen the lie yet, so why does it matter if it bounced unless you're looking for a reason why it was embedded?  Isn't that a question you ask after you've looked at the ball and see that it seems like its possibly embedded?

Secondly, he claims after the round that both playing partners and both of their caddies all agreed that they didn't see it bounce.  "When you have three players, three caddies, and a volunteer who's really close to the golf ball not see the ball bounce, you have to go by what everyone sees and what everyone saw," Reed said after the round. "And when no one was seeing that, then the rules official basically has to say whether it's free relief or not, and the rules official agreed that the ball broke the plane and it was relief." I'm curious as to when they had this conversation because it wasn't after they arrived at his ball.  He made the decision to mark and lift it almost immediately upon arriving at the ball and never gives anybody else to chance to see it before its up, not even his caddy.  When I rewind and watch the approach, his two playing partners are on the other side of the fairway and based on their movement looks like they'd already played their approaches.  Did Reed yell across the fairway as they came up before he got to his ball "Hey guys did you see my ball bounce?"  "All four of you?" And if so, why?  Again, as above, isn't it weird to be so concerned about a bounce if you haven't even looked at the lie yet?  If everything is on the up and up, why do you need to embellish the facts?  Why not just say "I didn't see it bounce, my caddy didn't see it bounce, and neither did the volunteer?"

Third, how the heck did he not see it bounce?  He hit the ball 130 yards, there is nothing in the way and he stares down the shot to the end, and it bounced about 3' in the air.  That should not be hard for anybody to see.

It just feels wrong, the whole thing.  The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to think he got close, didn't see his ball in the rough so knew it was an ugly lie, asked the volunteer if she saw it bounce and when she said no, he ran with it.  Marks it, picks it up, then (loudly) tells his caddy to call for a rules official.  He knew exactly what he needed to do to make it impossible to prove he cheated, got a nice new lie, and got his par.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

5 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

 He's still walking up, 20' away, and it's the first thing he asks her.  He has not seen the lie yet, so why does it matter if it bounced unless you're looking for a reason why it was embedded?  Isn't that a question you ask after you've looked at the ball and see that it seems like its possibly embedded?

 

100% - Why on earth would you ask that question. He was angling to do what he does best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shorty said:

No you haven't. You might have seen a ball bounce into casual water, but not embed itself. Or did  you mean  "can't"  in the bit I put in bold? 

No, I meant what I said. A ball can embed on the 2nd bounce. Example, what if the first bounce is off a cart path? What if the first bounce is off the green which can be harder than the surrounding area because they tend to drain much better. I've played courses were over the green is the drainage area and sits below the green. On certain conditions you could one hop over the green and the ball embeds into the soft ground. I've always walked courses were I suddenly go from decent ground to completely soggy ground. It's not unimaginable to see that this can happen. 

In this instance, I don't care if this pertains to Reed or not, there are situations we're a ball can embed on the 2nd bounce. 

1 hour ago, Shorty said:

Why didn't he just say to his marker  "My ball is plugged, I'm taking a drop."? If he was concerned about how it all looked he would have called the official before he moved it. If he is going to self administer the rules, why not simply do so? He's covering his tracks after he realises there is an issue. He didn't say to the official "This is what I've done, just so you know." He asked for confirmation of something that would not have been in doubt or subject to question. Arse covering. But...... that's just my opinion :-)

Ever do something you know is right and still question yourself? I cook daily. There are times when I don't question I turned off the stove and there are sometimes I am 10 minutes down the road and I question it and have to turn around just because. I can see a situation where a PGA Tour player is 100% sure they are obeying the rules, then want to double check. Double checking after the fact is not an omission of guilt. 

30 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

It just feels wrong, the whole thing.  The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to think he got close, didn't see his ball in the rough so knew it was an ugly lie, asked the volunteer if she saw it bounce and when she said no, he ran with it.  Marks it, picks it up, then (loudly) tells his caddy to call for a rules official.  He knew exactly what he needed to do to make it impossible to prove he cheated, got a nice new lie, and got his par.

That changes things a bit. I agree it looks more fishy now. If Reed went up to the ball, saw it looked embedded and then asked if the ball bounced that would look better. He would be validating what looks to be an embedded ball instead of looking for a reason for it to be one to improve his lie. 

Still, there are quotes saying the rules official checked the lie and confirmed that where the ball was removed there was a pitch mark left by the ball similar to that of an embedded ball.

So, the case may be this. Reed intended to improve his lie. He got lucky that the ball was actually plugged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

36 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

No, I meant what I said. A ball can embed on the 2nd bounce. Example, what if the first bounce is off a cart path? What if the first bounce is off the green which can be harder than the surrounding area because they tend to drain much better.

I wasn't clear -  I was referring to a ball that bounces 2 feet in the air from grass that is 6 inches long and lands in grass that is 6 inches long a yard away. 

Please answer the question: Why did he ask if it had bounced before he even saw the lie. The fact that it did bounce is moot.

And... you can't double check when the official hasn't seen the lie. You're just making sure that he/she knows your version of what happened, which is "possibly" not what actually happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Still, there are quotes saying the rules official checked the lie and confirmed that where the ball was removed there was a pitch mark left by the ball similar to that of an embedded ball.

The rules official didn't check his lie. His lie was long gone before they ever got there.

56 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So, the case may be this. Reed intended to improve his lie. He got lucky that the ball was actually plugged.

I don't buy that for one second.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The area was obviously firm enough that the ball bounced off the spot it landed. What are the odds that only 2 feet from the spot the area is so mushy that the ball embedded in the ground from no less than a fairly small 2nd bounce? 

It can happen but a tough sell for most betting folks who have a 5th grade understanding of physics.

Only thing I can buy is that it ended up in a some previous pitch mark, both him and his caddie have been blessed with poor eye sight to not be able to see the bounce from buck-thirty and a wrong observation from a volunteer who was obviously busy filing their nails when the ball dropped but decided that ball hadn't bounced. 

The universe was on his side today! Lucky SOB..😄

20 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

 

 

Edited by GolfLug
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The mechanics of what he did to lift the ball and call in the rules official are fine.  However, before Reed has even looked at his ball he is hoping to get a drop. He asked “did it bounce?” before he even looked at the lie.

If he played at your club would you trust him to be straight??

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
9 hours ago, Zippo said:

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.

He did not. People are completely losing sight of this, and/or making up their own version of the Rules.

7 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

I think what is more likely is that he got to his ball, realized it wasn't embedded, embedded it by hand, and then picked it up.

You can't prove anything close to that, so the rest of your commentary is almost safe to ignore from a Rules perspective.

7 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

He takes a long time with is back to the camera

There's a camera behind the green too. And likely another camera nearby as well. His back isn't to ALL cameras.

7 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

It pretty much has to be a puddle. This lie was on a hill, where water runs off. No chance on this one.

It's close to a cart path, where water can collect. And mud is soft enough, too.

I'm not saying it's likely. But it's possible.

7 hours ago, Shorty said:

No you haven't.

I've seen a ball embed after bouncing 2-3' in the air.

7 hours ago, Shorty said:

Why didn't he just say to his marker  "My ball is plugged, I'm taking a drop."?

Here's where the anti-Reed bias comes in. He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Even you then say he should have called a RO before he even marks his ball, or autonomously. Had he just done it autonomously you'd be blasting him for that, too.

Calling the RO was fine, both that he did it and when he did it.

If the RO said "no, that's not an embedded lie" he could have replaced his ball and played on.

7 hours ago, Shorty said:

He didn't say to the official "This is what I've done, just so you know." He asked for confirmation of something that would not have been in doubt or subject to question. Arse covering. But...... that's just my opinion :-)

He didn't need to say "this is what I've done."

7 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

Nailed it. If there was a question for ruling, it was when his ball was at rest where it landed, not where he tossed it afterward.

Incorrect.

6 hours ago, mvmac said:

If it were any other player there wouldn't have been an issue.

I've played Torrey several times and lived in the area, it can get very soft/soggy, especially after all the rain.

Bingo x 2.

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

A couple of different little things, but added all together it just doesn't feel right.

If it was Adam Scott, nobody thinks twice about it.

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

In the full video posted in various places you can see him ask the volunteer if she saw it bounce before he even gets to his ball.

Because Torrey is sopping wet, none of the six people he was with (well, five, but six counting him) saw it bounce, and so it's a natural question to ask.

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

He has not seen the lie yet, so why does it matter if it bounced unless you're looking for a reason why it was embedded?

Because… he was considering the likelihood that it may be embedded, which nearly every other player probably would consider in that moment as well.

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Isn't that a question you ask after you've looked at the ball and see that it seems like its possibly embedded?

No. The opposite. If she says "yeah, it bounced twice and landed here" you probably don't even look at your lie unless it's a bare patch of muddy dirt.

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I'm curious as to when they had this conversation because it wasn't after they arrived at his ball.

Shortly after he hit the shot. "Did anyone see that ball bounce?" "No" x 5.

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

He made the decision to mark and lift it almost immediately upon arriving at the ball and never gives anybody else to chance to see it before its up, not even his caddy.

Perfectly fine under the Rules.

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Again, as above, isn't it weird to be so concerned about a bounce if you haven't even looked at the lie yet?

No. When playing in soft conditions, if you hit a drive or a layup or something that isn't going onto a putting green, you watch it extra hard because it may be tougher to find because it may embed, and if the ball hits a firmer spot, you don't watch the ball after that because it can't embed too deeply.

Any other player, and none of you are going on here about this.

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Third, how the heck did he not see it bounce?  He hit the ball 130 yards, there is nothing in the way and he stares down the shot to the end, and it bounced about 3' in the air.  That should not be hard for anybody to see.

IIRC you couldn't even see Patrick from the behind-the-green tower camera which shows the ball landing. He was in a bunker. Torrey has some elevation changes. And bumps. If it was any other player, you'd not be questioning whether he could see the ball bounce. The volunteer a few feet away didn't see it bounce.

4 hours ago, Shorty said:

Please answer the question: Why did he ask if it had bounced before he even saw the lie.

Reasons stated above.

4 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

The rules official didn't check his lie. His lie was long gone before they ever got there.

Look up the definition of "lie." The ball doesn't have to be there for it to be the lie, as the "spot" is the lie. A lie is just a location and the conditions, and to check for an embedded ball one of the first things the RO would have had him do is remove his ball anyway. That's how you check if it's into the soil.

3 hours ago, GolfLug said:

The area was obviously firm enough that the ball bounced off the spot it landed. What are the odds that only 2 feet from the spot the area is so mushy that the ball embedded in the ground from no less than a fairly small 2nd bounce?

Non-zero.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Because Torrey is sopping wet, none of the six people he was with (well, five, but six counting him) saw it bounce, and so it's a natural question to ask.

It wasn't sopping wet. 

Did you watch any of Saturdays coverage? 

I watched the 3 hours on CBS, I didn't see any standing water, I didn't see any mud.  I live in the area, not sopping wet in my neighborhood either.

By Saturday conditions were pretty good.  We've gotten so little rain (not unusual), this rainfall was quickly soaked up by the previously dry ground at least in San Diego Coastal area.

Maybe it found a previous ball mark? 

Edited by No Mulligans
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 hours ago, Beastie said:

The mechanics of what he did to lift the ball and call in the rules official are fine.  However, before Reed has even looked at his ball he is hoping to get a drop. He asked “did it bounce?” before he even looked at the lie.

If he played at your club would you trust him to be straight??

Here is another take on it. What if hadn't didn't see it bounce from his perspective, so he assumed an embedded lie. 

I've done that before as well. I hit a drive, or a shot and don't see the ball bounce. The course is wet enough for embedded lies. I am going up there assuming to see the ball embedded. 

6 hours ago, GolfLug said:

The area was obviously firm enough that the ball bounced off the spot it landed. What are the odds that only 2 feet from the spot the area is so mushy that the ball embedded in the ground from no less than a fairly small 2nd bounce? 

It can happen. Ground is not consistent. Especially of the ball bounced into a basin area where water can collect. You can have a small localized area be muddy. I've drive down a cart path near a green and stopped to get out. In on area, my foot would sink down into mud, but just a few feet away it wouldn't. This happens. There are times on a fairway were stepping a few feet takes you out of standing water. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Here's my theory, and I'm stickin' to it.  (Like anybody asked me for my theory)  A player, it doesn't matter who it was, walked up to their ball sitting on top of the ground.  After hopping out of the hole it had made upon first landing it had come to rest in a garbage lie in the rough.  And, as is often the case when a ball plugs and then jumps out of its plug, it had mud on it.  Three quick thoughts came to the player's mind:

1.  If I can claim my ball was embedded, back there in that empty hole, I can get a better lie in the rough, via a knee high drop.

2.  I can get the mud off my ball.

3.  I can get a better angle to approach the pin, by a driver's length and then some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It can happen. Ground is not consistent. Especially of the ball bounced into a basin area where water can collect. You can have a small localized area be muddy. I've drive down a cart path near a green and stopped to get out. In on area, my foot would sink down into mud, but just a few feet away it wouldn't. This happens. There are times on a fairway were stepping a few feet takes you out of standing water. 

 

The area being discussed is not a basin area, that spot was higher than the dry cart path, and higher than the area where he dropped,

Edited by No Mulligans
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
11 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Maybe it found a previous ball mark? 

I'll agree that its unlikely that the ball embedded after bouncing, but its not impossible.  Its also possible that the ball found some kind of small depression, or even that the root structure of the grass felt like the "lip" mentioned by the official.   I don't know what it was, but the official felt it.

4 hours ago, Beastie said:

The mechanics of what he did to lift the ball and call in the rules official are fine.  However, before Reed has even looked at his ball he is hoping to get a drop. He asked “did it bounce?” before he even looked at the lie.

To be allowed to lift his ball, he must "reasonably believe" that the ball could be embedded.  If he doesn't ask this very simple question of the volunteer, I'm not sure his lifting the ball would be reasonable.  He can't tell if its embedded by looking at it, sitting down in thick rough.  To me the first step in the process should be to ask the question, then look at the lie, then lift the ball, then get confirmation from the official.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

I have mixed feelings. Ultimately, if he and whomever never saw a bounce, then it's reasonable/somewhat normal to see if it plugged.  So, he's ok here from the rules.

Now to plugging on a bounce.  In Western WA, we are known for being consistently wet and soft in winter.  Courses definitely differ for plug potential. Some courses, there will never be a bounce this time of year, you will only see the top 1/8in of a ball in the fairway.  Normal cut rough, maybe half ball in.  Long fescue like grass, almost never, unless it's in a puddle.  Other courses, like mine, you could be dry in one spot, walk 5ft in a direction and its beyond soft, but only because it's now in standing water. If the ball bounced on the fairways and rough around here, I have yet to see a plug mark where the ball ended up.  A bounce in 6in of thick-looking rough on a slope is not going to plug unless it's then in standing water, which case it's a different ruling.  Even Reed himself said it's impossible for a bouncing ball to embed and he would never have checked had that been the case. 

Like @Golfingdad said, it just doesn't smell right.  He definitely followed the rules as written, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • iacas changed the title to Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasfeb21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • I saw a guy do this the other day with his 6 and 7 iron and both clubs landed within 5 feet of each other. I told him that he shouldn't get so angry but to check his lofts as he obviously had a gapping issue!  🤣
    • Traditional rating measurements show a decrease in viewership, but imho, the streaming options are pretty good and probably took away viewing via cable. Anecdotal, but the comments section also complimenting the live streaming on the site. 2021 Masters Ratings: 5.52, 9.45 Million Average Audience For CBS — Geoff Shackelford  
    • You’re probably right; people who speak in absolutes & hyperbole as well as people who feel the need to defend their expertise (in leu of letting their statements speak for themselves) tend to avoid admitting mistakes as the first group isn’t interested in actual numbers/facts and the second group is more concerned about how others perceive them. But I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now
    • I figure I should talk about my workouts somewhere other than a Google sheet.  I set up a rack in my garage a few weeks ago and have been using it MWF mornings before work.  Today I did 140 lbs squats, 125 lb bench press, and 205 lb deadlift, plus warm-ups for each.  I don't plan to advance mine as quickly as I did when I was getting back, but rather focusing on being comfortable with them.  I'm sure Rippetoe would disapprove, but I also don't eat enough (or I don't eat the right things?) to advance as quickly as some people do in his program (I'm also not as young as some people who go through Starting Strength).  About ten years ago I had a period of about a year where I was at the gym every other day and got some good numbers going then.  😕 
    • I agree. This season felt choppy, at best. Verstappen, the number 2 driver in F1, had about 30 seconds of total air time the entire season. They waited until the last 5 minutes of the series to let Hamilton speak on the big social justice issues going on.  The "Man on Fire" episode was pretty good, but even then they kept jumping from the crash to a different story in the same episode. Very bizarre. 
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. 14ledo81
      14ledo81
      (40 years old)
    2. AussieDan
      AussieDan
      (35 years old)
    3. boggssharp
      boggssharp
      (67 years old)
    4. davisrod29
      davisrod29
      (33 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...