Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf

[imsys0042 105]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

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

Or anyone, really. 😉

[saevel25 2,098]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

What stuff have I made up?

Its the constant barrage of more improbable what-ifs. Like, any sort of small chance I can twist this scenario helps me validate the assumption Reed is a cheater. Its why people don't go after Rory like this. It's because people want to validate their opinion of Reed. 

53 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

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.

I did at first, until I watched the video. 

Did he touch the ball, sure. Could he have purposely or accidentally pushed it down, sure. Yea, there is a chance it could have happened. I can not deny a probability. Admitting that a probability exists is not accepting that he actually cheated. 

Can God Exist, sure, there is a probability a God does exist. That doesn't mean I admit he actually exists, nope. It also doesn't mean people are correct if they believe he exists just because there is a probability is there. The probability only exists because there are unknowns that can't invalidate all the what-ifs. 

[Double Mocha Man 946]

Blaise Pascal claims he doesn't know if God exists. But he's willing to wager that God exists just to stay on the right side of the rules of golf and the right side of the ever after. 

[saevel25 2,098]

12 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Blaise Pascal claims he doesn't know if God exists. But he's willing to wager that God exists just to stay on the right side of the rules of golf and the right side of the ever after. 

Tree gods exist in golf. You must give them enough sacrifices before they give you good favor. 😛 

[Golfingdad 2,153]

17 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Its the constant barrage of more improbable what-ifs. Like, any sort of small chance I can twist this scenario helps me validate the assumption Reed is a cheater. Its why people don't go after Rory like this. It's because people want to validate their opinion of Reed. 

I guess it may seem like a constant barrage, but all I'm trying to do is explain it in different ways for different people thinking that maybe they'll get where I'm coming from this time.  There's been no twisting, or weaseling, or anything like that, I've said the same from the beginning.  I was just reacting to what I saw.

How about this; Can I just simply say that based on everything I saw this weekend, I am skeptical of his intent and leave it at that?  You and many (most) others are not skeptical, and I am fine with that.

[Ken Doerfler 0]

It would be easy to give Reed the benefit of the doubt if it were not for his history. We all saw his action in the trap a while back. Unintentional, inadvertent? doubt it. 

[iacas 10,892]

2 minutes ago, Ken Doerfler said:

It would be easy to give Reed the benefit of the doubt if it were not for his history. We all saw his action in the trap a while back. Unintentional, inadvertent? doubt it. 

Did he do anything like that here?

[Double Mocha Man 946]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Tree gods exist in golf. You must give them enough sacrifices before they give you good favor. 😛 

😁 I have sacrificed lambs, Titleist' ProV 1's, Callaways, and Snells.  No virgins...

3 minutes ago, Ken Doerfler said:

It would be easy to give Reed the benefit of the doubt if it were not for his history. We all saw his action in the trap a while back. Unintentional, inadvertent? doubt it. 

Welcome Ken.  This one's a difficult conversation to wade into for your first post.  Stick around...

[woodzie264 518]

9 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

How about this; Can I just simply say that based on everything I saw this weekend, I am skeptical of his intent and leave it at that?  You and many (most) others are not skeptical, and I am fine with that.

Yep - I’ll give you that. I don’t see where anything was outside the RoG, conversely everything he did was accordingly to the RoG. But given his history, if you want to be skeptical as to his intent, I don’t have a problem with that.  You just can’t say he did cheat without evidence to prove it...which is what I think many here have wanted to convey.

[Darkfrog 243]

2 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

😁 I have sacrificed lambs, Titleist' ProV 1's, Callaways, and Snells.

Anyone know how many balls I need to sacrifice to the lost ball/O.B. gods before I get some favor?

On the P. Reed topic: I understand that our biases influence how we perceive events. I'll admit that have some negative bias toward Patrick Reed, so when I first heard the mutterings about the latest incident, I was skeptical. But watching the video and hearing from those here that know more about the rules than I do, it's hard to see that he did anything wrong. It seems like the TV coverage/golf media made a bigger deal out of this than was really warranted (to drive clicks or whatever)...or maybe it is warranted considering the reputation of the individual involved. He won the tournament convincingly anyways.

[Double Mocha Man 946]

4 minutes ago, Darkfrog said:

Anyone know how many balls I need to sacrifice to the lost ball/O.B. gods before I get some favor?

It's measured in dollars, not balls.  So discount Top-Flites don't count.  Once you've achieved the correct expenditure then you have to petition the USGA.  In short, it's almost impossible.  Keep believing that trees are 90% air...

[boogielicious 3,271]

In this tournament I saw several examples of players placing their clubs behind balls in the rough multiple times seemingly improving their lie by tamping down the grass. I saw players leaving their balls unmarked on the green while others chipped or pitched on (backstopping). Schauffele actually hit Spieth’s ball. But none of these are seen as cheating because they weren’t Patrick Reed.

Hovland got to place his ball in a perfect lie after multiple attempts to place it with a Rules Official standing over him. If Reed had done this, there would be controversy even though it is within the RoG.

We are letting our emotions color our view of the incident.

[jmanbooyaa 67]

5 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

We are letting our emotions color our view of the incident.

This is the world we live now. Twitter and Facebook stand on this.  

[woodzie264 518]

6 minutes ago, jmanbooyaa said:

This is the world we live now. Twitter and Facebook stand on this.  

It doesn’t mean we should just resolve to be like those unable to rationally look at facts before making decisions; we can be different than the masses

[jmanbooyaa 67]

I should hope so

[phillyk 554]

43 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

We are letting our emotions color our view of the incident.

I don’t think anyone is “emotional.” It’s historical implications versus look at it for what it is. History can cloud judgement but sometimes for good reasons. In this case, what it is, is a non-issue. 

[Hardspoon 656]

I'm obviously really late to the party, but my thought watching this whole thing was that if it was (almost) anyone but Reed, it wouldn't have even been a story.

I had to explain the entire thing to someone who doesn't watch golf (we were watching Golf Channel coverage on Sunday) and it highlighted for me how overblown the whole situation was...even if you think he cheated.

[iacas 10,892]

BTW, John Van der Borght confirmed that:

Quote

He said he was told it didn’t bounce, not that it matters.  Balls can embed after they bounce and you still get relief.

So, there’s that, too.

Another statement:

Quote

As for Nick’s statement about never seeing a ball plug on the second bounce, he is full of it as I’ve seen it plenty of times.