Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf

[billchao]

2 hours ago, sjduffers said:

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.

To be fair, you’re watching a video replay in slow motion with sole purpose of tracking the ball. From off the tee 300 yards away it’s harder to tell exactly which tree it might have ended up in. There are sketchy things that happened here but picking the wrong tree to look at I’m willing to give him a pass on.

[Vinsk]

39 minutes ago, billchao said:

From off the tee 300 yards away it’s harder to tell exactly which tree it might have ended up in

I think that’s his point though. PR positively confirmed it was his ball…when after the slow motion ball tracking video showed it couldn’t be his ball. So he was lying. If he simply stated he believes he had the correct tree, ok. It wasn’t his ball. 

[billchao]

11 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I think that’s his point though. PR positively confirmed it was his ball…when after the slow motion ball tracking video showed it couldn’t be his ball. So he was lying. If he simply stated he believes he had the correct tree, ok. It wasn’t his ball. 

Yea I see what you’re saying. He couldn’t have been certain it was his ball as he wasn’t even looking in the right tree.

[turtleback]

22 hours ago, iacas said:

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.

Nobody could positively identify that as his ball because it wasn't.  The fact that he got a rules official to believe his lie doesn't change the fact that he lied.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

Nobody could positively identify that as his ball because it wasn't.  The fact that he got a rules official to believe his lie doesn't change the fact that he lied.

That’s not my point. My point is that you don’t have to positively identify the ball to take a fully legitimate drop.

If the rules official says his ball went in the tree and several marshals say the same thing then it’s fine.

[saevel25]

All rule must be taken from the standpoint of the golfer, who does not have access to that information, and what the rules officials see. 

Now, if Reed was handed a tablet, showing the aerial view of the ball entering the first tree, then he better claim that is the tree it entered. 

This isn't similar to other cases were a golfer knows they are breaking the rules and get caught after the fact. 

 

[sjduffers]

4 hours ago, billchao said:

Yea I see what you’re saying. He couldn’t have been certain it was his ball as he wasn’t even looking in the right tree.

Precisely, what I said, only paraphrasing what Brandel Chamblee was saying, with video proof. Sheesh!

43 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

All rule must be taken from the standpoint of the golfer, who does not have access to that information, and what the rules officials see. 

Now, if Reed was handed a tablet, showing the aerial view of the ball entering the first tree, then he better claim that is the tree it entered. 

This isn't similar to other cases were a golfer knows they are breaking the rules and get caught after the fact. 

 

Fair enough, but how can he be "100% sure" that that is his ball, when in fact, it can't be?

It must have been the same brand, model. number, and markings, all verified from 50ft below with binoculars, while probably 3/4 of the ball wasn't even visible from the ground (the hidden face, opposite the viewer, and a partially obstructed view from the palm fronds). That's what I have an issue with. If it had said, I think that may be my ball, or I am 90% sure, or whatever other number, fine.  But it can't be 100%, because it wasn't his ball. QED.

[sjduffers]

56 minutes ago, iacas said:

If the rules official says his ball went in the tree and several marshals say the same thing then it’s fine.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

It remains that PR couldn't have identified his ball and be "100% sure", because the ball he pretended to have identified could not have been his. On that basis, he lied.  That's the issue, not the fact that he managed to get a drop he didn't really deserve. That's impugning his character, not his performance in the event (which I didn't watch, or cared about)

18 hours ago, iacas said:

The trees are like 7 yards apart.

It looks further than that to me on the aerial video, but whatever. It's still a different tree altogether.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

Nobody is saying otherwise.

Yes, they are. You do not have to "positively identify" the ball in order to drop. The original statement to which I responded to was "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." That is not accurate.

11 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

It looks further than that to me on the aerial video, but whatever. It's still a different tree altogether.

I mean… measure it on Google Earth or something. 😄

[Vinsk]

My point, as an idiot, is that if PR lying to the official that he had identified his golf ball 100% influenced the official’s ruling, then that shouldn’t be accepted as following the rules and all is fine.

[Aguirre]

Kind of hard to ignore that it's the same f*** over and over again, no?

 

[hunterdog]

14 hours ago, iacas said:

Yes, they are. You do not have to "positively identify" the ball in order to drop. The original statement to which I responded to was "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." That is not accurate.

I mean… measure it on Google Earth or something. 😄

I would like to understand this rule. Rule 19.2(a) says that player is entitled to stroke and distance, even if original ball not found and identified. But relief under 19.2(b) an (c) says that ball must be identified to obtain reference point. I thought that’s why Faldo had to take stroke and distance in the 1992 US Open; everyone knew ball was in an identified tree but he could not identify the original ball. So in Reed’s case, how is that he did not have to “positively identify” his ball?

 

[DaveP043]

3 hours ago, hunterdog said:

I would like to understand this rule. Rule 19.2(a) says that player is entitled to stroke and distance, even if original ball not found and identified. But relief under 19.2(b) an (c) says that ball must be identified to obtain reference point. I thought that’s why Faldo had to take stroke and distance in the 1992 US Open; everyone knew ball was in an identified tree but he could not identify the original ball. So in Reed’s case, how is that he did not have to “positively identify” his ball?

 

Read Clarification 7.2/1, which concerns identifying a ball that cannot be retrieved.  One way of identifying a ball that can be seen but not retrieved is:

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

A number of people are reported to have seen Reed's ball come to rest in that specific tree. 

Rules have changed quite a bit since 1992, I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of them. 

[hunterdog]

Clarification 7.2/1 states “Determining that another player or spectator saw the ball come to rest in that specific location after the player’s stroke.” I believe that to mean that someone saw that specific ball come to rest at that specific spot. Not that the ball came to rest in the area, in this case in the tree somewhere. In Reed’s situation, I don’t believe that any spectator or rules official announced that they actually observed his ball come to rest in the specific spot that a ball was seen. That is why Reed announced to the rules official that he was 100% certain that the treed ball was, in fact, marked identical to the ball that he played. The specific location of the ball is necessary to apply Rule 19.2. - I think. 

[iacas]

46 minutes ago, hunterdog said:

Clarification 7.2/1 states “Determining that another player or spectator saw the ball come to rest in that specific location after the player’s stroke.” I believe that to mean that someone saw that specific ball come to rest at that specific spot. Not that the ball came to rest in the area, in this case in the tree somewhere. In Reed’s situation, I don’t believe that any spectator or rules official announced that they actually observed his ball come to rest in the specific spot that a ball was seen. That is why Reed announced to the rules official that he was 100% certain that the treed ball was, in fact, marked identical to the ball that he played. The specific location of the ball is necessary to apply Rule 19.2. - I think. 

Read the quotes. They said “two Rules officials and several marshals.”

[hunterdog]

[Name Redacted] (USGA Rules of Golf) 

Feb 5, 2023, 4:59 PM EST 

Hugh, thanks for your question.

This Clarification is a VERY narrow one.  It does not apply when someone sees a ball head into a tree, and then finds a ball in the tree but can’t identify it.

Where this Clarification applies is a situation such as this:  A spectator looks at a sparsely leafed tree (or a cactus) and it is 100% free of any golf balls.  The spectator sees the player make a stroke and watches the flight of the ball the entire way as it hits in the tree or cactus.  The spectator can now see a ball where there was none seconds earlier.  In this case, that is sufficient regardless of whether the ball can now be identified.

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, hunterdog said:

[Name Redacted] (USGA Rules of Golf) 

Feb 5, 2023, 4:59 PM EST 

Hugh, thanks for your question.

This Clarification is a VERY narrow one.  It does not apply when someone sees a ball head into a tree, and then finds a ball in the tree but can’t identify it.

Where this Clarification applies is a situation such as this:  A spectator looks at a sparsely leafed tree (or a cactus) and it is 100% free of any golf balls.  The spectator sees the player make a stroke and watches the flight of the ball the entire way as it hits in the tree or cactus.  The spectator can now see a ball where there was none seconds earlier.  In this case, that is sufficient regardless of whether the ball can now be identified.

When I've asked questions directly of the USGA, usually the USGA asks us not to post their response, or the original question, even though the wording of the question can be critical.  [This person]'s response seems to go beyond the actual words in the Clarification.  To me, if 2 Rules Referees along with other spectators see a ball fly into and become stuck in a specific tree, no bounce at all, the wording in the Clarification is satisfied.  I don't know what those spectators said, so I don't know if the Clarification does apply.  What I do know is that the ball CAN be identified without actually seeing the markings in specific circumstances.

[Vinsk]

1 minute ago, DaveP043 said:

What I do know is that the ball CAN be identified without actually seeing the markings in specific circumstances.

Or a player can just lie and say it’s his ball. That clarifies the situation much more easily.