Jump to content
IGNORED

Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf


Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
9 hours ago, phillyk said:

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. 

But the question is, “what is the good reason?”

  1. He got penalized for improving a lie and maybe some other incidents in his career. Others have too but we don’t assume they are always cheating now.
  2. Others have been DQ’d for incidents in their career. Reed has not.
  3. Tiger got penalized at the Masters for an improper drop. Do we assume Tiger is always cheating now?
  4. Phil took a hissy fit at the US Open and hit a moving ball. Do we think Phil cheats at every moment when we’re not watching?
  5. Kuchar tried to convince a RO that his ball was imbedded in its pitch mark last year. Other than being a cheapskate, do we think badly of Kuchar?
  6. Bryson tried to convince a RO that there were ants near his lie earlier this year.

The list goes on and on. Penalties happen in golf.

Bottom line is Reed is not very likable to many people because of his personality, his looks, his brashness or some other reason. People have sited former teammates and Peter Kostis as proof. Maybe Reed snuffed Kostis in an interview and he holds a grudge. I for one do not care much for Kostis, so his opinion is irrelevant. I’ve had teammates in my sports career that I could not stand but it never thought of them as cheaters.

How long do we hold this grudge on Reed? Does he have to run into a burning building and save orphans and nuns before we forgive him for improving his lie in a waste bunker? He got penalized after all.

  • Like 4
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

  • Moderator
8 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

But the question is, “what is the good reason?”

  1. He got penalized for improving a lie and maybe some other incidents in his career. Others have too but we don’t assume they are always cheating now.
  2. Others have been DQ’d for incidents in their career. Reed has not.
  3. Tiger got penalized at the Masters for an improper drop. Do we assume Tiger is always cheating now?
  4. Phil took a hissy fit at the US Open and hit a moving ball. Do we think Phil cheats at every moment when we’re not watching?
  5. Kuchar tried to convince a RO that his ball was imbedded in its pitch mark last year. Other than being a cheapskate, do we think badly of Kuchar?
  6. Bryson tried to convince a RO that there were ants near his lie earlier this year.

The list goes on and on. Penalties happen in golf.

Bottom line is Reed is not very likable to many people because of his personality, his looks, his brashness or some other reason. People have sited former teammates and Peter Kostis as proof. Maybe Reed snuffed Kostis in an interview and he holds a grudge. I for one do not care much for Kostis, so his opinion is irrelevant. I’ve had teammates in my sports career that I could not stand but it never thought of them as cheaters.

How long do we hold this grudge on Reed? Does he have to run into a burning building and save orphans and nuns before we forgive him for improving his lie in a waste bunker? He got penalized after all.

I believe those less inclined to look past this will attribute the difference between the others and Reed is the apparent intent to deceive vs an error in judgement, crime of passion (Phil), or misapplication of the rules.  And in their eyes, the heroics at the burning orphanage would not be enough, much less the rightful penalties imposed as directed by the RoG

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

  • Moderator
3 minutes ago, woodzie264 said:

I believe those less inclined to look past this will attribute the difference between the others and Reed is the apparent intent to deceive vs an error in judgement or misapplication of the rules.  And in their eyes, the heroics at the burning orphanage would not be enough, much less the rightful penalties imposed as directed by the RoG

How about orphans, nuns and he saves Peter Kostis from drowning in Ray’s Creek?

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

  • Moderator
10 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

How about orphans, nuns and he saves Peter Kostis from drowning in Ray’s Creek?

Hahaha

As others have rightly said, people GENERALLY (not an absolute) don’t change who they really are. BUT, even when someone does, it’s others who refuse to change the lens through which they see others that then perpetuate the deceitful intent notions. At that point, it is the others who are in the wrong.  I don’t pretend to know PR’s intent one way or the other, but I promise not to judge you for your worst moments, if you promise to do the same...Lord knows I’ve done many things in the past I’d never do again and you’d be making a terrible judgement of my current values and character if those moments were the basis of your opinion. 

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

When I heard the volunteer say they did not see it bounce I was ok with what happened.  
 I lost a ball off the tee once.  Course was soaked.  Ball bounced and disappeared in the middle of the fairway.  Gone.  It happens.  

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

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

How about orphans, nuns and he saves Peter Kostis from drowning in Ray’s Creek?

Throw in him paying all of Matt Kuchar's caddie fees and it's a deal.

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

Just saw a Rory video.  Rory says his ball was certainly embedded, it was clear to him and "on my life that ball was in its own pitch mark."  He also says he would rather be on the wrong (disadvantageous) side of a ruling in an unclear situation.  I think we find golfers of at least two minds there.  The Rory school: don't take unfair advantage. The other school is to always take the more favorable ruling.  Call it the Phil school?  I certainly have friends in both schools.

I see Reed as finding an unclear situation and taking advantage of it.  That is within the rules. The rules rely on the integrity of the player.  In no way are the officials at fault and there is no rules violation from their perspective.  

The part about involving a rules official and claiming the rules official decided was baloney because Reed had removed the ball from the lie.  Reed gets to his ball and finds an unclear lie.  He says "not my decision."  Well in fact it was his decision.  He decided.  The rule official did not decide.  The official tried to be involved as little as possible.  Reed tells the official it's an embedded ball, please "check." How was the official supposed to do that?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tony McCarthy said:

 I think we find golfers of at least two minds there.  The Rory school: don't take unfair advantage. The other school is to always take the more favorable ruling.  Call it the Phil school?  I certainly have friends in both schools.

I see Reed as finding an unclear situation and taking advantage of it.  That is within the rules. The rules rely on the integrity of the player.  In no way are the officials at fault and there is no rules violation from their perspective.  

You can not prove that Reed was doing anything different than Rory in these situations. 

Both had a ball that embedded on the 2nd bounce. Both didn't any any formation that the ball bounced. Both know the course condition. One actually lifted the ball out of the rough and calling a RO to double check the situation while the other just took their drop. Both notified their playing partners. 

6 minutes ago, Tony McCarthy said:

The part about involving a rules official and claiming the rules official decided was baloney because Reed had removed the ball from the lie.  

Part of checking for am embedded lie is to see if there is a pitch mark. Which, in the rough you can not check unless you move the ball and expect it. Reed removing the ball does nothing to the situation. Reed also doesn't clean the ball at all because there was a chance it would have to be put back if the RO said so. 

Guess what, if the RO said it wasn't embedded and he had to place it back, Reed doesn't have to take any penalty at all. 

9 minutes ago, Tony McCarthy said:

 He says "not my decision."  Well in fact it was his decision.  He decided.  The rule official did not decide.  The official tried to be involved as little as possible. 

I'll have to rewatch the video later, but I don't remember him saying those words. 

9 minutes ago, Tony McCarthy said:

Reed tells the official it's an embedded ball, please "check." How was the official supposed to do that?

Like the RO did, by physically inspecting the area were the ball was embedded to see if there was a pitch mark. 

Guess what, the RO would have most likely removed the ball from the pitch mark anyways to check. 

 

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

17 minutes ago, Tony McCarthy said:

Just saw a Rory video.  Rory says his ball was certainly embedded, it was clear to him and "on my life that ball was in its own pitch mark."  He also says he would rather be on the wrong (disadvantageous) side of a ruling in an unclear situation.  I think we find golfers of at least two minds there.  The Rory school: don't take unfair advantage. The other school is to always take the more favorable ruling.  Call it the Phil school?  I certainly have friends in both schools.

I see Reed as finding an unclear situation and taking advantage of it.  That is within the rules. The rules rely on the integrity of the player.  In no way are the officials at fault and there is no rules violation from their perspective.  

The part about involving a rules official and claiming the rules official decided was baloney because Reed had removed the ball from the lie.  Reed gets to his ball and finds an unclear lie.  He says "not my decision."  Well in fact it was his decision.  He decided.  The rule official did not decide.  The official tried to be involved as little as possible.  Reed tells the official it's an embedded ball, please "check." How was the official supposed to do that?

 

 

 

 

to add, Lanto Griffin said tough to put us (PGA pros) in a position to call him out because we we're there but  "99% of us out here if it's in question one way or the other they're going to go the other way, not taking the drop....its tough to see, it's sad...Kind of pisses us off."   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Tony, you said a lot of things that Matt @saevel25 pointed out. Could you take the time to read and/or respond to those?

In short:

  • Rory can say he wants to be on the “wrong” side of the Rules, but he did LESS than Patrick Reed, because at least Patrick Reed had the lie verified by a Rules Official.
  • To check whether a ball is embedded in deep rough, you remove the ball because you can’t see the lie at all. People are “penalizing” Reed in their minds for this, but that is what you do. If the RO came over and the ball was in place, he’d remove the ball (after it’s marked) and check the lie that way.
  • Reed didn’t claim the official “decided” unless he means that he also “decided” or “determined” that the ball was embedded. If I determine that a ball is OB, that doesn’t mean you also can’t determine that, too. Reed thought it was embedded, and he called the RO over to confirm it.
1 hour ago, Tony McCarthy said:

to add, Lanto Griffin said tough to put us (PGA pros) in a position to call him out because we we're there but  "99% of us out here if it's in question one way or the other they're going to go the other way, not taking the drop....its tough to see, it's sad...Kind of pisses us off."   

Who cares what Lanto said?

Lanto didn’t inspect Patrick’s lie. Maybe it was clear-cut, and 99% of them would have taken the drop, and the only one who wouldn’t might have been some guy that was 10 over on his round and didn’t give a rat’s behind to even check.

Maybe Lanto is jealous of Patrick Reed.

Here’s the thing: a lot of the pros, when asked, said a lot of “always” and “never” type words, and they’re lying through their teeth. They don’t always/never do the things they said, nor should they, as they’re not required and always/never slows things down.

Maybe Lanto should be more aggressive about policing cheating on the PGA Tour. Brandel says it happens more often than anyone knows, and nobody ever speaks up about it. It’s apparently been that way for decades.

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

2 hours ago, Tony McCarthy said:

to add, Lanto Griffin said tough to put us (PGA pros) in a position to call him out because we we're there but  "99% of us out here if it's in question one way or the other they're going to go the other way, not taking the drop....its tough to see, it's sad...Kind of pisses us off."   

 

Heard on PGA radio this morning on way in that Rory Sabbatini had the same situation and played it the same way as McElroy and Reed.  The talking head also said that wet as it was there was probably 100 guys had their hands on the ball during the tournament.  Kind of puts Griffin into the sour grapes category.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had read Matt's post.  I am not getting into it point by point other that repeating that there was no rules violation from the persecutive of the officials.  So we agree no rules violation.  If the integrity of the player as seen by his peers has no importance then there is not much left that has not been said.  I take your point that the players may exaggerate, I am not asking anyone to take their words as gospel.  "99%" is a bit much.

I think the main idea of my pointing out that upon inspecting his lie Reed said "not my decision" is that statement tells me the lie was not a clear cut situation.   Meanwhile Rory said his ball was clearly embedded.  If you take Rory at his word - and you don't have to! -  that makes for a distinction between the two situations.  Also Rory was in a low lying area while Reed was not.  

 

Edited by Tony McCarthy
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Brandel says it happens more often than anyone knows, and nobody ever speaks up about it. It’s apparently been that way for decades.

Tour Pros have always been reluctant to go against their fellow pros. I posed this question back when Freddy Couples blasted Rory Sabatini. If you read the thread there is a great story about Watson taking Player to task at the Skins game. Watson gave him hell and a reporter overheard the story and made it public. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, TourSpoon said:

Tour Pros have always been reluctant to go against their fellow pros. 

One reason for this is (based on what I've heard) that they can get fined for doing so.

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

  • Administrator
1 hour ago, Tony McCarthy said:

I am not asking anyone to take their words as gospel.  "99%" is a bit much.

Especially in light of…

1 hour ago, Birdieputt said:

The talking head also said that wet as it was there was probably 100 guys had their hands on the ball during the tournament.

1 hour ago, Tony McCarthy said:

I think the main idea of my pointing out that upon inspecting his lie Reed said "not my decision" is that statement tells me the lie was not a clear cut situation.

What does "not a clear cut situation" matter? The RO said it was embedded. So it was beyond the threshold where he was good to take relief.

Do you have a source (for context) for "not my decision"?

1 hour ago, Tony McCarthy said:

Also Rory was in a low lying area while Reed was not.  

Because balls know the height relative to sea level of the ground in which they embed?

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

There are those here talking about 'proof' was it relates to Reed.  You don't need 'proof'. This is not a court of law, this is a court of public opinion. That's all that's going on here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony McCarthy said:

I had read Matt's post.  I am not getting into it point by point other that repeating that there was no rules violation from the persecutive of the officials.  So we agree no rules violation.  If the integrity of the player as seen by his peers has no importance then there is not much left that has not been said.  I take your point that the players may exaggerate, I am not asking anyone to take their words as gospel.  "99%" is a bit much.

I think the main idea of my pointing out that upon inspecting his lie Reed said "not my decision" is that statement tells me the lie was not a clear cut situation.   Meanwhile Rory said his ball was clearly embedded.  If you take Rory at his word - and you don't have to! -  that makes for a distinction between the two situations.  Also Rory was in a low lying area while Reed was not.  

 

McElroy also said that his ball was imbedded because it had mud on the ball which, of course, has nothing to do with whether the ball was imbedded or not.  So it seems his story is starting to get a little wobbly.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
6 minutes ago, Birdieputt said:

McElroy also said that his ball was imbedded because it had mud on the ball which, of course, has nothing to do with whether the ball was imbedded or not.  So it seems his story is starting to get a little wobbly.  

While it’s not an absolute, it’s a high correlation. Nothing wobbly there in McIlroy’s story. He calls penalties on himself and has an impeccable reputation. 

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

    • In reality, 10 year old irons especially GI irons really aren’t much different then their new counterparts. Realistically you might gain a yard. And your dispersion might be a little tighter. You can upgrade, but it’s Indian not the arrow. I just bought a left handed pitching wedge from Goodwill for a buck... just to mess around with... A good fitting is important and essential don’t get wrong. But when all is said an done, lessons and then a good fitting with improve your game.
    • Hello and welcome to TST. What one may gain from updating clubs can vastly vary. Club head technology has certainly improved with the ability to get the ball in the air and to be a bit more forgiving than older models. The shaft plays a very important role as well, maybe even more important which is why a fitting can be very beneficial. As far as expectations…hard to say. But at the very least you’ll know you’re optimizing one area of your game by having the best irons for you. Cheers.
    • Unless you have undergone swing changes I wouldn't expect any change at all.  The lofts might be stronger which could make you think you've gained distance when you haven't. 10 year old cavity back irons of good quality aren't much different from brand new ones. Your golf doesn't improve when you get new irons unless you were playing something with the wrong shaft or clubs with little or no built-in forgiveness.
    • That’s up to the respective governments to determine. Many countries only require proof of a negative test. 
    • I am sure that it wouldn't be mandated. I don't think one should be allowed to travel internationally without proof of vaccination.
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. CathyKnarr
      CathyKnarr
      (28 years old)
    2. Club Greg
      Club Greg
      (58 years old)
    3. Cnich
      Cnich
      (31 years old)
    4. Douglas Reedy
      Douglas Reedy
      (40 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...