Reed Does It Again

[Michael Moore]

Can someone explain the gambling stuff to me? Why are people getting their money back? How is this different from that pass interference non-call in the NFL playoffs a couple of years ago? Why is Joe Punter's wallet suddenly a deciding factor in how the PGA Tour conducts a tournament? I honestly don't get it. Thanks.

[Michael Moore]

Did you miss the part on the first page (IIRC) where JVB pointed out that a bounced ball could embed and relief would be granted?

The ball did not bounce, Reed mentions this five times.

[Jim_Coleman]

   If, after seeing the video, you believe Reed’s ball could have embedded, then nothing untoward happened.  I just don’t see how that was even remotely possible.

[JESII]

A bad lie is wholly different than an embedded ball.


The simple fact that the ball bounced to about the same height he ultimately dropped from (about 2 feet away) illustrates the issue.


At some point, Reed saw the video and stated that if it bounced it's impossible to have plugged.


Wouldn't we love Captain America to call a 2 shot penalty on himself?

[Anthony Butler]

At some point, Reed saw the video and stated that if it bounced it's impossible to have plugged.

The fact that Reed asked the volunteer “Did it bounce?” before he’d even reached his ball and inspected the lie was indicative of how he intended to proceed in this situation.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Wouldn't we love Captain America to call a 2 shot penalty on himself?

Why would he or should he have done that? Should Rory have done the same?

If his ball was embedded - and Brad Fabel said it was - then to me it’s almost entirely because you don’t like Patrick Reed that you think he should penalize himself.

If you think he pushed the ball into the ground or something, to make it embedded, then I’ll only say you have no real proof of that at all, and thus that isn’t something you know to be true at all.

The fact that Reed asked the volunteer “Did it bounce?” before he’d even reached his ball and inspected the lie was indicative of how he intended to proceed in this situation.

No, it’s because the conditions were soft and it’s a normal question to ask. If she said “yes,” then he’s less likely to think that it’s plugged and so is everyone else. If she says “no, it didn’t bounce” then he’s more likely to think “maybe it’s embedded?” Just like Rory, who didn’t see it bounce, but it did.

When I am playing on a soft fairway, and I hit a tee shot, if I see it bounce I almost am done watching it. I might look away, because I know I’ll find the ball on top of the ground. Even if I don’t see it bounce, but a buddy says he saw it, I go up to it looking for a ball on top of the ground. When nobody sees it bounce, though, I’m looking for the top half of the ball (or less). I expect it to be embedded, or at least have higher odds it’s embedded.

I’d guess if you could look past your anti-Reed bias, you’d admit something similar.

Attend the Memorial every year, with the rain storms they often get, and you’ll hear plenty of guys asking if the ball bounced.

[Sean_A]

If, after seeing the video, you believe Reed’s ball could have embedded, then nothing untoward happened.  I just don’t see how that was even remotely possible.

So far as I know, it isn't a question of whether it was unlikely the ball was embedded.  What I believe is irrelevant. In this case, all we have is the word of Reed. Because he has had run ins with rules previously, doesn't mean he is treated differently under the rules. As I said before, if you can prove the ball wasn't embedded, fair enough.

Ciao

[Jim_Coleman]

Sean:  Under that analysis, only a confession is sufficient evidence to find cheating.  Too high a standard for me.  The video is sufficient proof for me.  If not for you, so be it.

[Michael Moore]

Attend the Memorial every year, with the rain storms they often get, and you’ll hear plenty of guys asking if the ball bounced.

Not if they already know where the ball is.

[JESII]

Erik,


Take Brad Fabel out of this for a minute. He acted on certain information and was put in a bad spot.


Knowing the ball bounced, what is the likelihood the ball was actually embedded in that rough? I have played golf my entire life and spent a good number of years caddying full time. I can't think of a single instance in which a ball bounces 18" in the air then plugs in healthy rough several inches tall.


This is not a dislike of Patrick Reed. This is a desire to have these guys do the right thing on occasion.


I have disliked Rory for years because I think he underachieves...until the drop at Harding Park after the walking scorer stepped on his ball last fall.  I have not yet seen the video for this one, but if the ball bounced away from it's pitch mark, he too should have called a penalty on himself once he saw it.


How would we feel about Reed if he'd called that penalty on himself Saturday night and he came back to win on Sunday?

[Rob Marshall]

At some point the tour has to get some balls and do something to straighten Reed out. He's obviously not embarrassed by his own actions. There are documented cases on film. Peter Kostis has said that he saw him improve his lie multiple times. He's stealing from the other players and he and his brother-in-law caddie basically throw the finger at anyone who takes issue with them.


It wouldn't surprise me if the PGA and Steve Stricker are talking about finding a way to leave him off the Ryder Cup team. As Xander said the boys are talking about him in the locker room. You want to partner up with a guy who you know is stealing from you?


This is really making the game look bad imo.

[Sean_A]

Sean:  Under that analysis, only a confession is sufficient evidence to find cheating.  Too high a standard for me.

Absent definitive video or eye witness evidence, what else is there? Even if there is an eye witness it can be difficult to call. I guess my real point is, this rule, like many, is designed for golfers to trust each other. Its fine if you don't like the rule, but the rule is the rule. I watched Rory's video.  There is no way I can tell if the ball was embedded...and I wouldn't expect to have definitive proof of the embedded ball. Its the same for me with Reed. I don't know what all the finger in the hole business was about...assumiong that is what he was doing...I couldn't tell.  I admit that was very odd because in my experience once the ball is lifted it is easy to tell if the surface was broken. Maybe this wasn't the case with Reed. Regardless, I didn't care for what he did, but I can't say with any confidence that the ball wasn't embedded. Its one of those things in life.  Ya just have to accept it and move on. It is what it is.

Ciao

[Rob Marshall]

Erik,


Take Brad Fabel out of this for a minute. He acted on certain information and was put in a bad spot.


Knowing the ball bounced, what is the likelihood the ball was actually embedded in that rough? I have played golf my entire life and spent a good number of years caddying full time. I can't think of a single instance in which a ball bounces 18" in the air then plugs in healthy rough several inches tall.


This is not a dislike of Patrick Reed. This is a desire to have these guys do the right thing on occasion.


I have disliked Rory for years because I think he underachieves...until the drop at Harding Park after the walking scorer stepped on his ball last fall.  I have not yet seen the video for this one, but if the ball bounced away from it's pitch mark, he too should have called a penalty on himself once he saw it.


How would we feel about Reed if he'd called that penalty on himself Saturday night and he came back to win on Sunday?

You can't tell if Rory's ball pitches forward. He said the shot ballooned  and was coming straight down. He said it probably came back into it's own pitch mark. You can't tell either way from the video.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Not if they already know where the ball is.

Yes, even if they know where the ball is. They’ll do just about like Patrick did - because it’s far more likely to be embedded if it just landed and didn’t bounce than if it did.

I’ve heard it. Seen it. Many times. The Memorial is hilly and often soft. Pros, generally, know how to proceed under some of the simpler rules, particularly those where they get an advantage. They’re looking for those constantly. Bad lie? “Hmmmm, I wonder if my left pinkie toe is close to that drain…”

Take Brad Fabel out of this for a minute. He acted on certain information and was put in a bad spot.

What “information” did he act on, exactly?

He determined that Patrick’s ball was embedded, agreeing with Patrick Reed. He wasn’t “acting on information” other than “hey, do you agree”? Do you think that if he felt nothing that he wouldn’t say “I don’t feel anything, please replace your ball and play away.”?

If you think the “information” is that the ball didn’t bounce, then I’m not sure Patrick even says that to him, but also… it’s irrelevant whether it bounced or not.

Knowing the ball bounced, what is the likelihood the ball was actually embedded in that rough?

I don’t know, and neither do you. Nobody here does. We don’t know how high it bounced (it bounced downhill, and the camera is elevated, so I think it bounced > 2’), we don’t know what the ground was like where it landed, we don’t know how much spin it had, we don’t know much of anything.

I have played golf my entire life and spent a good number of years caddying full time. I can't think of a single instance in which a ball bounces 18" in the air then plugs in healthy rough several inches tall.

I can. And if it was 36” the math changes.

This is not a dislike of Patrick Reed.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

I have not yet seen the video for this one, but if the ball bounced away from it's pitch mark, he too should have called a penalty on himself once he saw it.

No, he shouldn’t have.

How would we feel about Reed if he'd called that penalty on himself Saturday night and he came back to win on Sunday?

I’d think he was stupid, and caved to Internet warriors and people who don’t understand the Rules of Golf.  I’d appreciate the “f&#( you all” attitude it would display. But he displayed plenty of that in winning by five, too.

Question for the group:
- What if the volunteer stepped on the ball slightly, all completely unbeknownst to Patrick, his caddie, etc. when she put the flag in the ground by his ball? Patrick hears that it didn’t bounce, sees his ball well down in the turf, marks and lifts it, confirms with an RO, and takes his drop.

All legitimate, under the Rules, based on what he thought to be true. His reasonable knowledge and judgment. Yes?

Would that absolve him entirely in this situation? Or would you still insist that he do way more than is required under the Rules, either by playing it without lifting it, calling his playing partners over from 50 yards away, getting a RO involved before he’s even lifted the ball himself, etc.?

Where’s the footage of the woman marking the location of the ball with a flag. If she didn’t see it bounce, maybe she didn’t see where the ball was and accidentally stepped on it, then was reluctant to say anything about having done so. That theory seems at least as plausible to me as the random other Internet warrior theories I’ve seen (mostly elsewhere) online.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

At some point the tour has to get some balls and do something to straighten Reed out.

For what?

He knowingly cheated, and was penalized, one time in a hit-and-giggle silly season event. Has he been penalized any other times? Tiger Woods was penalized multiple times the one year. Others have been penalized. Phil Mickelson whacked a rolling ball and smugly told fans to worry about themselves or something.

Did you listen to Brandel Chamblee? Phil Mickelson? Guys apparently are cheating all the time, and nobody calls anybody out for anything. Look at the backstopping problem. Look at what Jimmy Walker said about it.

Peter Kostis might have an axe to grind: I certainly don’t think his word carries the weight of God here.

You can't tell if Rory's ball pitches forward. He said the shot ballooned  and was coming straight down. He said it probably came back into it's own pitch mark. You can't tell either way from the video.

None of us know if it ended up in the “same” pitch mark. The odds are against it, though. Rory’s took LESS action to confirm that his ball was embedded than Patrick, as Rory didn’t get confirmation from an RO.

[Will Lozier]

   I don’t think this is that complicated.  If you believe it is possible for a ball to embed in it’s pitch mark in four inch rough after bouncing forward 2’ in the air, then everything is ok here.  If you don’t believe that’s possible (and I don’t), then the only explanation for the ball being in a pitch mark is that it landed in a prior pitch mark, or Reed created the pitch mark when he was fiddling around for 20 seconds after picking up the ball.  Easy choice for me.

+1

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

Phil actually did take a lot of heat for what he did at Shinnecock AND he never even tried to avoid the penalty and fully accepted the consequence of his act.

Pat on the other hand, to this day remains defiant on all of it....so this is not exactly apples to apples here.

[JESII]

Erik,


Do you have a sense for how insulting you are to have these conversations with?  The response you get each time you engage in one should be an indicator.


You suggest my motivation in this conversation is a dislike for Reed. I tell you that's not it and you disagree?


And you've seen a ball embed in healthy rough after an 18" fall?  RIIIIGHT!!! 

[Michael Moore]

Yes, even if they know where the ball is. They’ll do just about like Patrick did - because it’s far more likely to be embedded if it just landed and didn’t bounce than if it did.

Are you saying that in addition to using two eyes to see whether the ball is embedded, tour players take the having-bounced-ness of the ball as a determining factor as to whether the ball is embedded?

[JESII]

Another benefit of blind shots...


Need the eyes wide shut emoji...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Phil actually did take a lot of heat for what he did at Shinnecock AND he never even tried to avoid the penalty and fully accepted the consequence of his act.

Phil was a total ass about that whole thing, and didn’t know the Rules but claimed he had been “planning” to do it for years, and told fans to not worry about it or something, and whatever.

I’m also talking about the times Phil has said how many cheats are out on Tour, marking their ball closer to the hole, etc.

And you've seen a ball embed in healthy rough after an 18" fall?  RIIIIGHT!!!

I have. It was into near mud. Did Reed’s ball fall from 18”? Or was it 24”? How about 36”?Do you know for a fact the volunteer didn’t step on the ball, and embed it that way?

And I apologize for saying that you dislike Patrick after you said you didn’t. Plenty of people do, and I mistakenly lumped you in with the vocal majority. Maybe, however, instead of attacking me or my posts, you could look at the content of the post, not whatever tone you add to them, and discuss that?

What “information” was Brad Fabel “acting on” and what information did he use to determine that the ball was, indeed, embedded (regardless of how it got to be that way)? Does your question imply that Patrick Reed was steering him in a direction, and that Brad is a poor official in that he’d let himself be steered into saying “yeah, that’s embedded” when he doesn’t truly feel that way?

Because that’s the only part of the Brad Fabel thing that matters: what he felt (literally with his fingers and his opinion) about whether the ball was embedded or not.

Are you saying that in addition to using two eyes to see whether the ball is embedded, tour players take the having-bounced-ness of the ball as a determining factor as to whether the ball is embedded?

No, I feel I’ve been pretty clear about this. If they know a ball rolled to a spot, they assume it’s not embedded. If the ball flies to a spot and lands without bouncing, they start to consider that it may very well be embedded.

[Michael Moore]

they start to consider that it may very well be embedded

They most certainly do!

[Rob Marshall]

At some point the tour has to get some balls and do something to straighten Reed out.

For what?

He knowingly cheated, and was penalized, one time in a hit-and-giggle silly season event. Has he been penalized any other times? Tiger Woods was penalized multiple times the one year. Others have been penalized. Phil Mickelson whacked a rolling ball and smugly told fans to worry about themselves or something.

Did you listen to Brandel Chamblee? Phil Mickelson? Guys apparently are cheating all the time, and nobody calls anybody out for anything. Look at the backstopping problem. Look at what Jimmy Walker said about it.

Peter Kostis might have an axe to grind: I certainly don’t think his word carries the weight of God here.

You can't tell if Rory's ball pitches forward. He said the shot ballooned  and was coming straight down. He said it probably came back into it's own pitch mark. You can't tell either way from the video.

None of us know if it ended up in the “same” pitch mark. The odds are against it, though. Rory’s took LESS action to confirm that his ball was embedded than Patrick, as Rory didn’t get confirmation from an RO.

There is a difference in being penalized and cheating just like there is a difference in saying you have a degree in physics and actually having a degree in physics.

[JESII]

Erik,


Reed clearly said to Fabel that the ball didn't bounce.


He adjusted what he asked the volunteer, "did it bounce?" and her answer of "No, I didn't see it bounce" to telling Fabel she said it didn't bounce. These are two different things.


Fabel arrives with the understanding that the ball didn't bounce. Period, Full Stop.


When you reach down to touch the ground in wet rough there are all sorts of micro bumps and holes, including the crown of the grass itself. Fabel had nothing to do. The minimum limit for a ball qualifying as embedded is to simply break the surface. Easy to find supporting evidence and nearly impossible to refute.


Humorously, the higher you want the ball to have bounced, the firmer the ground must have been...making it all the less likely to have embedded.


My simple position on this is that the ball did not in fact plug and that became clear to all involved before the start of Round 4...and I would have absolutely loved for him to say..."well damn, based on everything we knew or thought, we acted appropriately. Upon further evidence, the ball must not have embedded so please add 2".  Then it would have been great to see him go out and flat out win the tournament.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There is a difference in being penalized and cheating just like there is a difference in saying you have a degree in physics and actually having a degree in physics.

You keep bringing that up as if it's some sort of "winning point" or something. 15 years ago or whatever, in response to a post about how the ball gets "squeezed" between the clubhead and the ground at impact, I said I have a degree in physics in one post on my forum that wasn't a response to you. I was trying to get to the meat of the discussion, and rather than list the six or seven physics classes (depending on how you classify p-chem), I was basically saying I knew enough about physics to speak on the subject with knowledge, but without being so wordy as even that.

But, I applaud you for never having misspoken or glossing over some irrelevant point to get to the actual meat of the conversation in your life, even if it leads to trolling me instead of actually discussing the topic here.

To the actual topic, Rob, please prove that Patrick Reed has cheated more than the time he was penalized. I doubt you can.

Reed clearly said to Fabel that the ball didn't bounce.

And what's the relevance of that? So long as the ball didn't roll to its spot, basically, it landed from the air, and thus can make a pitch mark and embed in it. Brad thus has to make the same assessment whether the ball landed from 90' or 3'.

He adjusted what he asked the volunteer, "did it bounce?" and her answer of "No, I didn't see it bounce" to telling Fabel she said it didn't bounce. These are two different things.

We're getting deep into semantics here, but he asked "did it bounce" and she said "no". And you can read "I didn't see it bounce" as literally: I did not see a bounce, or you can cut it off and have her saying "I didn't see it." But cutting it off contradicts "No" in response to "did it bounce?" and requires removing the word "bounce" from the second part of her answer. If you were the volunteer, and you didn't see it at all, the answer one might think you'd give to the question "did it bounce?" is "Uhhh, I don't know. I didn't see it land."

If referees huddle up and one says "Did you see a hold there on #94"? and the other replies "I didn't see a hold" that doesn't mean he didn't see the play, it means he didn't see a hold. She might have meant (even though we all saw it bounce) "I didn't see a bounce." Particularly since she says "no."

But anyway, except for a brief trip down Semantic Lane, this is still irrelevant information. Unless Reed said "it rolled to a stop here" (in which case it can't be in its own pitch mark), it wouldn't have affected what Fabel determined. Because a ball only has to fall from the air to possibly embed.

Fabel arrives with the understanding that the ball didn't bounce. Period, Full Stop.

Let's pretend Fabel wasn't given this information at all: what about his process or the determination he makes changes?

The answer is… nothing. Right?

When you reach down to touch the ground in wet rough there are all sorts of micro bumps and holes, including the crown of the grass itself. Fabel had nothing to do. The minimum limit for a ball qualifying as embedded is to simply break the surface. Easy to find supporting evidence and nearly impossible to refute.

Let's stipulate that you're correct here: how does Reed saying that affect what Brad feels?

Again, it doesn't, right?

Humorously, the higher you want the ball to have bounced, the firmer the ground must have been...making it all the less likely to have embedded.

Is it your experience that ground is always uniformly soft or firm within large areas?

Before I had some drain lines replaced around my house, the first 6-9" beside the sidewalk was often quite soggy, yet four feet into the yard and slightly higher up, it could be quite firm. Water flowed downhill and then got "stuck" or collected a bit when it reached the relatively non-porous sidewalk. The surface of the sidewalk could be dry, and yet the ground beside it quite muddy/soft. But 3' away, relatively firm.

Plus the ball may have bounced 18" relative to the height of the first landing spot, but if the second landing spot is 18" below that, it fell from 36" while only bouncing 18".

My simple position on this is that the ball did not in fact plug

So, is Brad Fabel a liar? Incompetent? Or did Patrick Reed push the ball down? Did the volunteer step on it?

Because unless you're wanting to say the first one or two (and I don't think you are), the facts are that it was embedded, at the very least, when Brad checked it.

and that became clear to all involved before the start of Round 4

I don't even know what that means. We still disagree now. Brad Fabel wouldn't change his ruling, even today, would he?

...and I would have absolutely loved for him to say..."well damn, based on everything we knew or thought, we acted appropriately. Upon further evidence, the ball must not have embedded so please add 2".  Then it would have been great to see him go out and flat out win the tournament.

Yeah, no reason at all for him to do that. Nor would anyone else on Tour, really. He was 100% within the Rules of Golf, and if he did push the ball down, that's a DQ, not a two-stroke penalty.