Patrick Reed vs. the Rules of Golf

[DaveP043]

14 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

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

Reed may indeed have lied.  Chamblee may have misinterpreted a video taken form a camera hundreds of yards away, he does seem to have a thing about Reed.  None of us know for sure.

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

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.

Dave, I texted you about this earlier in the week. I think you're wrong here, as one of the guys responsible for writing the new rules clarified this.

It requires almost absolute specificity. Not just "we saw your ball go somewhere in that tree."

The referees and marshals likely did not track the ball the whole time. If you lose sight of it, you likely did not satisfy the Clarification.

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Dave, I texted you about this earlier in the week. I think you're wrong here, as one of the guys responsible for writing the new rules clarified this.

It requires almost absolute specificity. Not just "we saw your ball go somewhere in that tree."

The referees and marshals likely did not track the ball the whole time. If you lose sight of it, you likely did not satisfy the Clarification.

I agree, if they're not certain, they haven't "identified" the ball.  And if they're not certain, that explains why the Referee on site required that Reed identify his markings.  But they did point to a specific tree, as I've read this, so it wasn't Reed choosing the wrong tree intentionally.  And if he did lie about the markings on his ball, that's on him.

I do apologize for not responding, I try to keep up while on vacation, but I'm not always successful.  

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I agree, if they're not certain, they haven't "identified" the ball.  And if they're not certain, that explains why the Referee on site required that Reed identify his markings.  But they did point to a specific tree, as I've read this, so it wasn't Reed choosing the wrong tree intentionally.  And if he did lie about the markings on his ball, that's on him.

I do apologize for not responding, I try to keep up while on vacation, but I'm not always successful.  

Right. Though I tried to stir the pot at a place or two… the answer is basically that in order to identify the ball in that way, they basically have to see the ball the whole time.

They can't just say "we saw it go into that tree there somewhere." Even if they're 100% certain and there is no other tree nearby, they can't identify exactly where it is, so… tough luck.

Rory's ball (he was able to reach up and lift it out) would have qualified at Kiawah because the camera traced it the whole way into the tree, and you could still see it in the spot in the tree after it came to rest.

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

Reed may indeed have lied.  Chamblee may have misinterpreted a video taken form a camera hundreds of yards away

This wasn’t just a camera. It was the ball flight camera from the network that we all know does a spectacular job of following player’s shots. Chamblee at least identified the tree beyond a doubt. Which was in fact not the tree that PR claimed to represent identify is ball 100%. 

[iacas]

Just now, Vinsk said:

This wasn’t just a camera. It was the ball flight camera from the network that we all know does a spectacular job of following player’s shots. Chamblee at least identified the tree beyond a doubt. Which was in fact not the tree that PR claimed to represent identify is ball 100%. 

You don't know that Patrick identified that tree first. I think there's a good chance the referees or marshals said "we saw it go into this tree here."

[Vinsk]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

You don't know that Patrick identified that tree first. I think there's a good chance the referees or marshals said "we saw it go into this tree here."

What does that matter? The tree he identified his ball in was not the tree his ball went in to.

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

What does that matter? The tree he identified his ball in was not the tree his ball went in to.

Because you said "Which was in fact not the tree that PR claimed" and that may not be accurate.

We don't know if he claimed the tree at all, or he was told.

And if he was told the wrong tree, maybe — just maybe — there was a ball up there with his markings (what he could see), his brand, his number.

Maybe.

[saevel25]

To me, it is as simple as... His view from the tee box is that he saw the ball go into those set of trees there. He walks up, sees a ball that looks to be his. This sounds very plausible. I get Reed's history, and that people do not like him, but that doesn't mean he is in the wrong here. Even with video showing otherwise, because it isn't what the video shows, it is what situation was at hand for Reed. 

On a side note, hey Reed switch to Snell, you will know if the ball is really yours 😉 

[Vinsk]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

there was a ball up there with his markings (what he could see), his brand, his number.

Maybe.

Lol. Yeah. Ok.

[Aguirre]

7 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

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.  

USGA balloon over Saudi Arabia

[pganapathy]

On 2/4/2023 at 7:03 AM, 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.

I didn't see the frame by frame analysis.  But, from 300 yards away it is virtually impossible to be certain of which tree it went into unless it is a lone tree.  He had to rely on the people closer to the ball's final resting spot to identify the tree

[saevel25]

9 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Lol. Yeah. Ok.

I get it, you do not like Reed. You do not want to give him the benefit of the doubt on any of these situations. He has not help himself out with how he handles a few situations. 

Still, in the actual conversation on how this rule is implemented in this situation. Let's say I hit my drive into that same area of three trees. Lets say I play a #2 Pro-V1. I mark it on one side with a dot (more so because it gives me an excuse to lift the ball to see if it is mine 😛, kind of joking). Let's say I look up and see a #2 Titleist. 

Now, I know that I hit the ball 300 off the tee. I know that is like the 95th+ percentile of golfers. I know that the odds of a #2 Titleist being up in that set of tree is extremely rare. You have to think, most golfers will be short of those trees. Most golfers would then not have those trees in their shot zone from their approach. This further limits the number of golf balls in those trees. 

I could very much reasonable assume that #2 Titleist is my golf ball, even with out seeing the ball mark. 

Not saying Reed didn't lie, and just wanted to take a drop and not have to take stroke and distance. Just saying, if I was playing, I would take an unplayable lie. 

[ChetlovesMer]

30 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I get it, you do not like Reed. You do not want to give him the benefit of the doubt on any of these situations. He has not help himself out with how he handles a few situations. 

Still, in the actual conversation on how this rule is implemented in this situation. Let's say I hit my drive into that same area of three trees. Lets say I play a #2 Pro-V1. I mark it on one side with a dot (more so because it gives me an excuse to lift the ball to see if it is mine 😛, kind of joking). Let's say I look up and see a #2 Titleist. 

Now, I know that I hit the ball 300 off the tee. I know that is like the 95th+ percentile of golfers. I know that the odds of a #2 Titleist being up in that set of tree is extremely rare. You have to think, most golfers will be short of those trees. Most golfers would then not have those trees in their shot zone from their approach. This further limits the number of golf balls in those trees. 

I could very much reasonable assume that #2 Titleist is my golf ball, even with out seeing the ball mark. 

Not saying Reed didn't lie, and just wanted to take a drop and not have to take stroke and distance. Just saying, if I was playing, I would take an unplayable lie. 

I think you said this really well. 

I agree that I think Reed lied. 

I also think he didn't need to. He literally could have said almost nothing and ended up with a pretty similar result. I really feel if he just let the RO's do their job, they would have ruled for an unplayable lie. 

[GolfLug]

All Reed rulings should be pre-packaged with an automatic minimum insurance charge of a S&D penalty.

😆

[Vinsk]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

I get it, you do not like Reed. You do not want to give him the benefit of the doubt on any of these situations.

That actually has nothing to with it. Maybe I’m coming from partial information. I wasn’t aware that Chamblee just made up his analysis with the ball tracking camera? My point is, again as an idiot, It seems odd the rule has no effect as to whether a player confirms his actual ball or if he just assumes he’s identified his ball. There were multiple balls in the palm fronds.
The tree he claimed to have identified his ball in, as shown on Chamblee’s analysis, was NOT in fact the tree where the camera showed his ball to be in.

So, a player lying to an official has no effect on a rule. Ok. Then why would PR need to lie about identifying his ball?

Edited February 6, 2023 by Vinsk

[turtleback]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

I get it, you do not like Reed. You do not want to give him the benefit of the doubt on any of these situations. He has not help himself out with how he handles a few situations. 

Still, in the actual conversation on how this rule is implemented in this situation. Let's say I hit my drive into that same area of three trees. Lets say I play a #2 Pro-V1. I mark it on one side with a dot (more so because it gives me an excuse to lift the ball to see if it is mine 😛, kind of joking). Let's say I look up and see a #2 Titleist. 

Now, I know that I hit the ball 300 off the tee. I know that is like the 95th+ percentile of golfers. I know that the odds of a #2 Titleist being up in that set of tree is extremely rare. You have to think, most golfers will be short of those trees. Most golfers would then not have those trees in their shot zone from their approach. This further limits the number of golf balls in those trees. 

I could very much reasonable assume that #2 Titleist is my golf ball, even with out seeing the ball mark. 

Not saying Reed didn't lie, and just wanted to take a drop and not have to take stroke and distance. Just saying, if I was playing, I would take an unplayable lie. 

Bad argument.  Other players play from other tees that can bring those trees into common play.  The proof is the pictures of the trees showing many balls lodged in them.

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

So, a player lying to an official has no effect on a rule. Ok. Then why would PR need to lie about identifying his ball?

Haven't we covered this?

The Rules can't assume a player is lying without any other evidence. The player says "yeah, that's my ball, in the tree where you told me it went." And for all you know, he wasn't lying. He saw a same make/model/number ball with a line on it.

So, what did you want the Rules Official to do, @Vinsk?