[JESII]

Erik,


The situations you describe actually defy physics...now that's funny...


Suggesting this ball (not a ball, but this ball) bounced 18" down a hill to result in 36" of actual fall...uh, no.  You have taken the 30 seconds it takes to watch the video, correct?




This is about Reed, not Fabel. Reed took the decision out of Fabel's hands because of my description earlier about ground conditions. This could become a gynecological exam if we go any further down this rabbit hole.


Reed may well have thought it did not bounce when he went through the exercise but the fact that he needed an official to confirm it had broken the surface proves it couldn't have broken it by much, agreed?  If the ground is soft enough to potentially plug a ball from 18", it would be undeniably plugged from a 100' fall, as with his approach shot.


It's truly not a big deal...I'm just hopeful that there becomes motivation for these guys to err on the side of conservatism in these scenarios.

[Rob Marshall]

"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."




Thank you for finally owning up. Point is now closed.


There are two video's of Reed improving his lie in sand. The one last year  and another that I think was in Phoenix. Google is your friend.Peter's word is good by me. What reason would he have for lying?   2nd half of the second video looks a little fishy also..............


https://ftw.usatoday.com/2020/02/peter-kostis-patrick-reed-cheatinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECiTth1JYXk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECiTth1JYXk

[Pat Burke]

What I believe we know
1) nobody involved with the decision believed the ball bounced.
2) it was very wet
3) Reed is by many accounts a dick
4) Brad Fabel was called in and checked the pitch mark confirming it was embedded in a pitch mark
5) from there, the actual officials, and I knew Brad pretty well, we’re satisfied with The procedure done


What I’d like to know.
Did Reed tell people he was checking to see if it was plugged. I have heard he did


When he lifted the ball and set it down, did that break any actual rule?  I have done the same thing after absentmindedly cleaning a ball in a rainstorm waiting for an official to arrive. So I would sit the ball down after marking if I was waiting for a ruling.  Did this maybe three or four times


What was his marker doing?  I would have been there checking.


When I played a hundred years ago, the ball had to “break the surface” (not official wording) to be granted relief. I dropped a ball once from the old shoulder high and it popped into its own dent mark. I asked if it plugged again and was told nope. Play on.  If Fabel felt enough to give relief it had to be pretty obvious


So, that leads me to this.  People seeing the ball bounce on tv believe there is no way the ball plugged.  I feel the same, and I doNt care about Rory, though he is getting a pass given the commentary IMO.
I mentioned earlier that I had a tee shot in a QSchool finals kick right on a soggy fairway, and settle down a pace or two from where I know it landed. It was in a pitch mark from another ball.  I knew it wasn’t mine DUE TO BEING ABLE TO SEE IT BOUNCE.  Terrible break at the time all things considered, but it was pretty obvious.


As a player, when I couldn’t see my ball walking up in those conditions, I would always have a concern it was plugged. If it looked like it might be, I would check.  Different procedure back then.


I don’t believe Reed broke any rule
 And I do t believe the situation created a breach of the spirit of the rule, which I do t really understand anyway. Rules are black and white.
Any player but Reed this thread is hardly existent.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Suggesting this ball (not a ball, but this ball) bounced 18" down a hill to result in 36" of actual fall...uh, no.  You have taken the 30 seconds it takes to watch the video, correct?

If the point where the ball hit first is 18" above the point where it embedded, that's an 18" bounce with a 36" fall. The ball clearly bounced down a hill.

And my point isn't that it bounced 36" or any specific number. You're the one who keeps citing 18" as if it's been measured.

This is about Reed, not Fabel.

The situation involves Fabel, and I'm just trying to understand what "information" Reed gave Fabel to sway Fabel from determining something other than what he'd have determined without that information.

Reed took the decision out of Fabel's hands

What?!? No.

Reed may well have thought it did not bounce when he went through the exercise but the fact that he needed an official to confirm it had broken the surface proves it couldn't have broken it by much, agreed?

No, that doesn't confirm that.

Reed could have been thinking "People think I cheat, so just to be safe, I'm going to have a RO confirm that he feels it's embedded too."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECiTth1JYXk

How many other Tour players do you think do that? I think you'd be surprised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aQZKHYGexU

There's Jordan Spieth at Augusta National.

And maybe it's not even a breach, as you're allowed to sole the club behind the ball enough so that the weight of the club is supported, and maybe that's all Jordan did there. And Gary Player did before him.

Did Reed tell people he was checking to see if it was plugged. I have heard he did

Yes.

When he lifted the ball and set it down, did that break any actual rule?  I have done the same thing after absentmindedly cleaning a ball in a rainstorm waiting for an official to arrive. So I would sit the ball down after marking if I was waiting for a ruling.  Did this maybe three or four times

It wouldn't have mattered if he wiped it down with a towel if it was embedded. He'd only be risking finding that it wasn't embedded, and then he would have cleaned his ball when not allowed.

What was his marker doing?  I would have been there checking.

His marker was likely 55 yards away on the green preparing to hit his third shot and getting out of the way so Patrick could play his third.

[David_Elvins]

I don’t believe Reed broke any rule

Pat,


All good, but I think to reach this conclusion you are assuming that Reed picked his ball up legitimately whereas the video shows him leaning on, and pushing down with, his right hand as he is picks the ball up, presumably to create an indentation in the ground.


Surely fellow tour pros would not be happy with players doing that?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

All good, but I think to reach this conclusion you are assuming that Reed picked his ball up legitimately whereas the video shows him leaning on, and pushing down with, his right hand as he is picks the ball up, presumably to create an indentation in the ground.

I don't see what you see in the video.

You see him "leaning on and pushing down" and I see him "feeling" for the impression made by the ground, just as Brad Fabel did later.

https://twitter.com/pgatour/status/1355659901897486341?s=21

At what second mark does he "lean on and push down" here? Of course, he does push a tee into the ground, too, before he lifts the ball.

[George Myers]

It seemed to me that the official was incredulous that the ball had been moved away from where it had landed.
Reed's like, oh it's over there, when the official appears to ask where the ball is?


Seem like Reed was very pushy and that the rules official was on his heels the whole time.
Is it ok if I put my finger down here?

I'm just having a hard time getting past the fact that Reed didn't place the ball back where he picked it up from?

And it seemed like the rules official couldn't believe it either and chose not to confront Reed.

May be I am making too many assumptions...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm just having a hard time getting past the fact that Reed didn't place the ball back where he picked it up from?

Why would he/should he have? The first thing Brad would have had him do, in 6" of rough, is have him remove the ball so they can see what the ground under the ball looks or feels like.

Reed is well within his rights to pick up the ball.

May be I am making too many assumptions...

I think you may be seeing what you want to see?

[George Myers]

I see now that his mark was there, so the fact that the ball isn't there isn't really a problem per the rules, per se.

[Bruce Katona]

Nine pages on this......what we collectively think about P Reed is not relevant.  John VDB who has likely forgotten more about the rules than many of us will ever comprehend called the process good - even for someone like P Reed who may in life resemble a male appendage.


PS. I enjoyed seeing Torrey in the sunshine as I watched almost 60 cm of snow fall here in the Great Swamps of Jersey.



Move on.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

PS. I enjoyed seeing Torrey in the sunshine as I watched almost 60 cm of snow fall here in the Great Swamps of Jersey.

I thought the course looked much better without the stands, spectators, etc.

[Pat Burke]

It seemed to me that the official was incredulous that the ball had been moved away from where it had landed.
Reed's like, oh it's over there, when the official appears to ask where the ball is?


Seem like Reed was very pushy and that the rules official was on his heels the whole time.
Is it ok if I put my finger down here?

I'm just having a hard time getting past the fact that Reed didn't place the ball back where he picked it up from?

And it seemed like the rules official couldn't believe it either and chose not to confront Reed.

May be I am making too many assumptions...

Unless Brad Fabel has his testicles removed since I played with him, he was not on his “heels”. He is not a guy that will cave to any player IMO. His being there is a big reason I believe the rules were not broken.


And I did not feel like Reed did anything wrong when he marked his ball. To think he would pressure the ball enough to break the surface was not what I saw, but again, sometimes actions do create scrutiny. 


And Erik, I understand about his marker being 55 yards away, but if the consensus is that Reed is that sketchy among players, then those players should damned well be watching what he does.
But in this case, to your point, the rules were not broken by taking care of his own business (The marker).


This is all about an Unlikable player to many players and fans

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And Erik, I understand about his marker being 55 yards away, but if the consensus is that Reed is that sketchy among players, then those players should damned well be watching what he does.

I get that. Maybe he's not as disliked/distrusted as the media leads us to believe. The guy didn't seem to make any indication he wanted to come over to watch, but Reed (as you know) notified him before he touched his ball.

In other words, I can't blame Reed for his marker not wanting to or seeing a need to come over.

[Anthony Butler]

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.

Someone sharing your name is carrying Reed’s water over on Geoff Shackelford’s site...if you aren’t related to or being paid by Patrick Reed, your defense of his actions and character seems kind of sad and a complete waste of your time. Because it’s pretty obvious Reed doesn’t care about your opinion or anyone else’s.


He’s a person of ‘low character’ displayed through so many different acts... stealing from his teammates at U of Georgia, throwing his parents off the property at a golf tournament, building a sand castle with his wedge in the Bahamas and that’s just the ones we know about.


The fact he seems untroubled by his actions and his terrible reputation calls to mind another sociopath who also thinks he did things ‘perfectly’.
Fortunately we got rid of one of them but we seem stuck with Reed fur the time being. We can only hope he tries to pull his next stunt during the final round of a major and paired with Brooks Koepka.

[archie_struthers]

 


We all likely play with “edgers” in our local games or tournaments . Not much you can do except torture them a little when they try to stretch the limits. Tom Watson obviously got frustrated years ago with a similar situation . It’s a shame but been with golf forever

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Someone sharing your name is carrying Reed’s water over on Geoff Shackelford’s site...if you aren’t related to or being paid by Patrick Reed, your defense of his actions and character seems kind of sad and a complete waste of your time. Because it’s pretty obvious Reed doesn’t care about your opinion or anyone else’s.

Then why are you commenting on my commenting? It’s a point of discussion in golf right now. Thank you for your concern for my time, truly.

He’s a person of ‘low character’ displayed through so many different acts... stealing from his teammates at U of Georgia, throwing his parents off the property at a golf tournament, building a sand castle with his wedge in the Bahamas and that’s just the ones we know about.

So he’s a bad man for having the PGA Tour throw out his abusive parents? The parents he’s tried to cut ties to because of the abuse he suffered as a child, at their hands?

The fact he seems untroubled by his actions and his terrible reputation calls to mind another sociopath who also thinks he did things ‘perfectly’.
Fortunately we got rid of one of them but we seem stuck with Reed fur the time being. We can only hope he tries to pull his next stunt during the final round of a major and paired with Brooks Koepka.

Did you listen to Get a Grip with Max Homa? #53? He says what Patrick did they all do week in and week out. That procedurally it was fine.

But Max is also wasting his time I guess.

[JESII]

Erik, procedurally, what do you think about him having the ball in his palm for a bit before thinking he should put it on the ground? Did Homa comment on that? After putting it down, he immediately went to the towel to rinse off...


Sure, in hindsight the drop was granted and thus the ball can be cleaned. Surely there are times it's not actually embedded...

[Rob Marshall]

Someone sharing your name is carrying Reed’s water over on Geoff Shackelford’s site...if you aren’t related to or being paid by Patrick Reed, your defense of his actions and character seems kind of sad and a complete waste of your time. Because it’s pretty obvious Reed doesn’t care about your opinion or anyone else’s.

Then why are you commenting on my commenting? It’s a point of discussion in golf right now. Thank you for your concern for my time, truly.

He’s a person of ‘low character’ displayed through so many different acts... stealing from his teammates at U of Georgia, throwing his parents off the property at a golf tournament, building a sand castle with his wedge in the Bahamas and that’s just the ones we know about.

So he’s a bad man for having the PGA Tour throw out his abusive parents? The parents he’s tried to cut ties to because of the abuse he suffered as a child, at their hands?

The fact he seems untroubled by his actions and his terrible reputation calls to mind another sociopath who also thinks he did things ‘perfectly’.
Fortunately we got rid of one of them but we seem stuck with Reed fur the time being. We can only hope he tries to pull his next stunt during the final round of a major and paired with Brooks Koepka.

Did you listen to Get a Grip with Max Homa? #53? He says what Patrick did they all do week in and week out. That procedurally it was fine.

But Max is also wasting his time I guess.

"So he’s a bad man for having the PGA Tour throw out his abusive parents? The parents he’s tried to cut ties to because of the abuse he suffered as a child, at their hands?"


Where did you get that from?  Your defense of this guy is nothing short of mindboggling. Please provide something to back up your outlandish statement. Sure you don't have him confused with Sean O'hare?

"Reed, 28, has steadfastly declined to speak publicly about the reasons for the family schism. In a Sports Illustrated story in 2015, Reed’s mother insinuated that the rift resulted from Reed’s marriage, at age 22, to the former Justine Karain, against the advice of his parents who worried that he was too young."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/sports/masters-patrick-reed.html#:~:text=Reed%2C%2028%2C%20has%20steadfastly%20declined,that%20he%20was%20too%20young.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik, procedurally, what do you think about him having the ball in his palm for a bit before thinking he should put it on the ground? Did Homa comment on that? After putting it down, he immediately went to the towel to rinse off...


Sure, in hindsight the drop was granted and thus the ball can be cleaned. Surely there are times it's not actually embedded...

Jim,

This is the part that is being overlooked as I see it.  He mis-handled his ball, and presumably the lie it was in, BEFORE calling over the official to confirm IF he was entitled to relief.  There is video evidence of him palming the ball and fiddling with the lie.  Yes, the official granted relief, but if he hadn't, how would they have undone all that?  This is also a secondary criticism of the situation because Reed essentially backed the official into a corner to concur with him.

I've yet to hear an argument why this was OK...other than "Relief was granted, so it doesn't matter".  So I guess if a drunk driver gets behind the wheel and makes it home safely, then its "OK" because nothing happened?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik, procedurally, what do you think about him having the ball in his palm for a bit before thinking he should put it on the ground? Did Homa comment on that? After putting it down, he immediately went to the towel to rinse off...

His hand was likely damp/wet, and I feel as Max did: it's basically a non-issue. Homa said something like "it's not like he put the ball in his pocket or held it cupped in both hands and was rubbing it around." Yeah, it might be a "best practice" to hold it in two fingers, but Max and I agree: not really an issue here.

Where did you get that from?  Your defense of this guy is nothing short of mindboggling. Please provide something to back up your outlandish statement. Sure you don't have him confused with Sean O'hare?

I don't have him confused with Sean O'Hair. or whomever this O'Hare fella is. 

And just because I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true. Believe me, don't believe me… I don't really care, Rob. Why it's so hard to believe he was abused as a kid, when it would explain so much about why he doesn't want his parents around, why his wife is so protective of him, etc.

If you watched the Tiger documentary you'll notice how many of the people, even those who he's cut out of his life, still defend him and are compassionate toward him. Well, that's because of Earl.

And I'm not "defending" him as much as I'm just talking about the Rules here, and how quickly and easily so many of you who dislike him (or stronger) are letting your notions influence or cloud how you're seeing this situation.

He mis-handled his ball

He did not.

and presumably the lie it was in, BEFORE calling over the official to confirm IF he was entitled to relief.

You bolded the word "if" but a better word there is "that." And Patrick didn't need to call an RO over at all.

This is also a secondary criticism of the situation because Reed essentially backed the official into a corner to concur with him.

See the earlier comments about the likelihood Brad Fabel would be "backed into" anything.

I've yet to hear an argument why this was OK...other than "Relief was granted, so it doesn't matter".  So I guess if a drunk driver gets behind the wheel and makes it home safely, then its "OK" because nothing happened?

Do you have proof that anything Reed did altered the spot where his ball was resting (the location is the lie)? Aside from what's allowed - putting a tee in to mark it, lifting his ball, and touching to feel the ground - something Brad Fabel also did to check the turf and conditions.

[Rob Marshall]

"and just because I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true."

Are you delusional? If true you already did.

"So he’s a bad man for having the PGA Tour throw out his abusive parents? The parents he’s tried to cut ties to because of the abuse he suffered as a child, at their hands?"

[Erik J. Barzeski]

"and just because I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true."

Are you delusional? If true you already did.

I can see how you're confused. You asked me to share the source ("Where did you get that from?"). I'm not going to share the source(s). That's the "sharing" was referring to, as I know what I've already typed.

Believe it or don't. Doesn't matter to me. I'll only say I've heard more than enough from enough people to have a very different opinion on Reed having his parents removed from events than "more proof that Patrick sucks!"

[Rob Marshall]

"and just because I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true."

Are you delusional? If true you already did.

I can see how you're confused. You asked me to share the source ("Where did you get that from?"). I'm not going to share the source(s). That's the "sharing" was referring to, as I know what I've already typed.

Believe it or don't. Doesn't matter to me. I'll only say I've heard more than enough from enough people to have a very different opinion on Reed having his parents removed from events than "more proof that Patrick sucks!"

"I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true"

Yet you shared stuff that was supposedly shared privately?

I've never seen someone work so hard to make themselves appear to be important. I will ignore your posts and you can ignore mine.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

"I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true"

That's not the quote. It's "And just because I'm not going to share stuff shared privately doesn't mean it's not true."

I'm not going to share the sources of that information, nor many details.

Yet you shared stuff that was supposedly shared privately?

No. I shared that he was abused by his parents. You can find little bits here and there, publicly available, about the abuse Patrick suffered as a child. Again, I'm not sharing the sources nor am I sharing any of the specific examples.

I've never seen someone work so hard to make themselves appear to be important. I will ignore your posts and you can ignore mine.

FINALLY!

Oh what a happy day! Enjoy your hatred. You've got a deal!

P.S. And, yeah, typing a few sentences is really hard work. Time for a break, I'm exhausted! My doctor said to lose ten pounds. I figure another ten or fifteen sentences and I'll be there!

[Mike Feeney]

Pheewwww.
I'm fine with granting Erik's point (pick 1, 2, or all 3) a. letter or the law   b. perfectly within the rules   c. process was fine.   

And, I suspect, wet conditions, numerous embedded balls, and clean-and-place-in-fairway created an atmosphere of, "yeah. sure. fine."   Rory's incident certainly reflects this lackadaisical tone.  An embedded ball, it seems in these cases, was a judgement call -- unlike relief from a cart path or penalty area situation or if a ball deeply plugged.

Erik didn't sway me on sportsmanship, transparency, spirit of the rules, and integrity.  The last thing I would want to jeopardize is the trust & respect of my competitors...or in my case, my friends at my club.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()