Media's role in Reed ruling question

[Paul Rudovsky]

I just scanned thru the 10 pages of posts on the Reed ruling question...and it strikes me that we have all missed a very big question.  How has the media covered the whole thing?


Think for a minute...in past situations in any way similar to this (in any sport) the media commentators almost always immediately scream "let's go to the tape" and in this example the first video segment that would be shown (assuming it was captured on tape) would be the ball landing in the rough.  Well it this case it was captured by the TV cameras:

https://twitter.com/bennettevan/status/1355615370812518407?s=19


However, I have not seen this segment on TV coverage, it is difficult to find if you did a Google search, and there is almost nothing about it in the 10 pages of posts on GCA.  I have looked at this video about a dozen times and would note the following:
 
1.  the arc of the bounce says to me that there is about no way this ball could have landed in its original pitch mark after the bounce...the arc took it a good 12"-20" forward I would guess, and in wet 4" rough, it is not going to spin back that far (if at all)


2.  the max height of the "bounce arc" seems to be about 12"-30" (without  detailed study) compared with probably 100'-150' drop for its initial contact...so the ball does not plug from say 125' but then does so from say 24"?  seems strange to me.


3.  how does the 'Volunteer" see the ball finally land without seeing the approximate height of the bounce arc?  very strange. 


4.  the networks and others have the time and equipment to be a detailed analysis of what happened included getting the height and length of the bounce (there are some objects in the background that could be used to determine these "dimensions")...yet no media outlet had tried to do that to my knowledge.  WHY?? or more appropriately WHY NOT?


Note...I have not spent hours watched various sports news and Golf Channel on this subject...so maybe someone has done this and I have not seen it.  Has anyone seen the results of such an effort???

[Sean_A]

Paul

What's the point of that exercise?

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What's the point of that exercise?

I second that question.

Two things:

• Even if a ball bounces, if it embeds on the bounce you still get relief.
• The ball could have made a pitch mark and bounced out.

I think too many people picture an embedded ball as one that is half underground (or more). Look at the pictures in 16.3.

[Tim Leahy]

The guy's name is on the trophy. Move on.
Captain America forever!

[Thomas Dai]

Investigate to deeply and the opportunities for manufacturer advertising and interviews with their sponsored elite players might go away?

Atb

[JESII]

Paul,


The idea that the ball did in fact bounce was touched on in that thread. I tend to agree with Thomas Dai, just prior to me. There is a real concerted effort to make these guys look as good as possible. Why shouldn't there be? They are in fact the owners of the brand, by my understanding. The TOUR was established by, and for, the players. The rules officials work for the Tour. While they certainly follow the rules, it's quite rare that they push back in support of the spirit of the rules. See Matt Kuchar at Memorial a year or two ago as the exception proving the rule.


The reality is, if they didn't see it bounce, it doesn't matter that it did. Just like if you and I played that hole and hit that shot. To me, the networks are absolved from trying to proactively help the ruling in real time. If anything, they may well be complicit in building on the negative image Reed already has.


For me, the fact that the ball couldn't have been embedded guides my wish that Reed would have called two shots on himself after seeing that it didn't...especially considering he's quoted in that thread of saying if it bounced it couldn't be embedded.

[Niall C]

The officials have to make the decision as to whether he broke the rules or not and to do that they need evidence, not conjecture or could have, maybe should have, he's not a nice guy and all the other flannel. The officials didn't see anything wrong. It's a rules decision not a personality contest.

Niall

[JESII]

I think the rules officials have made a concerted effort to NOT solicit outside assistance, and try to make their ruling on the ground as much as possible. I don't know this...but I suspect it. There's been a dead stop on the practice of discussing "call-in" rulings that can only burn a player and never absolve them.


This particular scenario left the rules official with multiple gray areas in my opinion. Unless he was willing to really paint the player without being sure he's correct, he did all he could do.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Niall and Jim--


I totally agree w your replies...but please re-read my post starting this thread.


I absolutely believe the Tour officials had no choice but to decide and comment as they did...that is NOT what I am questioning. 


But the "media" had (and has) the tape and the folks who invented the concept of "let's go to the tape" has chosen not to do so...even though what the tape shows is critical to trying to determine exactly what happened when Reed was in a deep knee bend and over the ball.  Evaluating the tape has nothing to do with the evaluating the quality of the Tour official's decisions...the tape was not available to them in real time (or anything like the NFL's procedures...which I am NOT advocating).


The tape throws very real light as to what happened...and yet the media does not show it.  WHY???  Frankly I think this is important...because the media is where we get probably 90+% of the input we receive regarding what happens on the Tour and at Tour events.


And...for those who think it does not matter...think about this the next time you say a Top 100 list is "too political" or too influenced by organizations/companies that advertise and generate lots of $$ for the publication that published that list.

[JESII]

Paul, I did address it by indicating the Tour is a business FOR the benefit of the players. The money invested on the Tour product (TV rights, advertising and sponsorship dollars) are all aligned to the image of the Tour. The networks are partners of the Tour.


The video simply proves (to 99.9% of the world) the ball was not embedded...and everyone with a passing interest has seen it.


All that would be accomplished if it were broadly played is more people would pass judgement on Reed. What else could be gained?

[Paul Rudovsky]

That is enough.  I think the Tour procedures are fine...but I also think the media has an obligation to bring information to light...which would allow more of "us" to make rational decisions.  The media does NOT work for the Tour...and if they think they do, they have an obligation to tell us so.


And that would provide greater feedback to the players about how to conduct themselves, especially if some of them find their endorsement $$ shrinking.


Feedback is an invaluable input IMO

[JESII]

No argument from me...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The tape throws very real light as to what happened...and yet the media does not show it.  WHY???

The PGA Tour tweeted out the whole video. It was shown multiple times, on NBC, on Golf Channel, etc.

The video simply proves (to 99.9% of the world) the ball was not embedded..

Not true regardless of how many times you say it.

The video doesn't prove the ball was embedded, either. We never see the ball or the impression, and we never see anything that counts as "proof" that it was or wasn't.

That is enough.  I think the Tour procedures are fine...but I also think the media has an obligation to bring information to light...which would allow more of "us" to make rational decisions.  The media does NOT work for the Tour...and if they think they do, they have an obligation to tell us so.

What "more" do you want them to do? The whole video is out there. I'm legitimately asking here.

The only thing I can think of is that the hard camera behind the green (in the tower, the one used to show the bounce) could have shown the opposite viewpoint when he was marking and lifting, but maybe they weren't recording since they had the shoulder camera from the other angle.

[Pete_Pittock]

Paul,
The bounce
a) could have been obstructed by the tree trunk
b) could have been seen by someone else and the location given to the volunteer standing near the ball.


The question
was directed to the volunteer - "Did you see the ball bounce?"
a question seeking general information could have been "To your knowledge, did anyone see the ball bounce".

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The question
was directed to the volunteer - "Did you see the ball bounce?"

Technically it was "Did it bounce?" and the first two words she said in response was "Umm, No."

[Niall C]

Niall and Jim--


I totally agree w your replies...but please re-read my post starting this thread.


I absolutely believe the Tour officials had no choice but to decide and comment as they did...that is NOT what I am questioning. 


But the "media" had (and has) the tape and the folks who invented the concept of "let's go to the tape" has chosen not to do so...even though what the tape shows is critical to trying to determine exactly what happened when Reed was in a deep knee bend and over the ball.  Evaluating the tape has nothing to do with the evaluating the quality of the Tour official's decisions...the tape was not available to them in real time (or anything like the NFL's procedures...which I am NOT advocating).


The tape throws very real light as to what happened...and yet the media does not show it.  WHY???  Frankly I think this is important...because the media is where we get probably 90+% of the input we receive regarding what happens on the Tour and at Tour events.

Paul


My point was that the tape doesn't actually prove anything beyond that the ball bounced, and that in itself doesn't prove the ball wasn't embedded. Basically the matter was decided by the official inspecting where the ball had come to rest and agreeing with Reed that it was embedded.


Niall

[Sean_A]

That is enough.  I think the Tour procedures are fine...but I also think the media has an obligation to bring information to light...which would allow more of "us" to make rational decisions.  The media does NOT work for the Tour...and if they think they do, they have an obligation to tell us so.


And that would provide greater feedback to the players about how to conduct themselves, especially if some of them find their endorsement $$ shrinking.


Feedback is an invaluable input IMO

I don't know what you mean by "more of us can make rational decisions". Decisions about what? I spose we can decide to have an opinion. There is plenty of opportunity for folks to find footage if they want to form an informed opinion.

Also, conduct themselves? What do you mean? The procedure followed was by the rules. Rational, informed people should accept this as fact. The issue of alleged cheating in this case has nothing to do with the procedure. Either Reed did or didn't have an embedded ball. If he didn't, then he conducted himself as a cheater. If Reed did have an embedded ball his conduct was fine. Anyone who saw the footage I did and claims to know the ball was or was not embedded is talking out of their ass. The evidence is inconclusive.

I am not sure I like the current rule as it stands. On the pro level I would prefer if a player was called over prior to lifting the ball. But as I said before, that is a pain in the ass on my level golf. I don't want to delay my game to look at someone's lie. Maybe this is a case for bifurcation? However, if the rule has to be one way or the other, overall I prefer the current wording.

Ciao

[AChao]

Hi Paul,


I think you are right.


The big problem / potentially exonerating factor with this situation is the response to Patrick Reed's "Did it Bounce?".  The marker says "Umm ... no.  I didn't see it bounce."  Reed was looking into the sun and maybe turned his head in disgust, and that person was pretty close if not the closest one to the ball. 


I don't get why media can't tell the rules official since it is so clear from video.


I also don't get why, with the PGA Tour playing for a lot of money, there isn't a rules official with each of the last five groups.


I don't know if I buy making the players look good, because each PGA Tour member is a shareholder theoretically, so favoring one member arguably makes the "product" less good.


I do think with large dollar amounts at stake, there should be a rules official with each of the last 5 groups and that official can be in charge.  Reed did ask the marker/watcher, and that person did say "Umm ... no.  I didn't see it bounce.".  If an official were there, he/she could have seen the flight and/or ball and/or confirmed whether it did bounce.

[ward peyronnin]

Sean I agree the evidence is inconclusive. Whether the ball bounced or not is relevant but you are right how was Reed to know. However the man did not conduct himself as almost all professional players would in lifting his ball. I saw the tape and two actions call a recognized cheater's behavior into question. First it is a question of fact that his caddie was handling the ball and handed it back to Reed so why did he touch the ball? Cleaning would be a fair answer and could be done by far less dextrous folks. Secondly prior to the rules official arrival Reed was poking his finger down into the deep grass giving him ample opportunity to create a dimple. If the ball bounced in three inch grass how else did the official "feel" an impression. Rules are primarily meant to protect the field. Team Reed's actions on this course and elsewhere do not give him a benefit of the doubt and their re consequences elsewhere in the rules for not following the proscribed steps properly.

The only way this is going to change is if the players get enough of him and quietly work within the tour to protect their field from a known cheater; simple as that. And I am betting their reps are on this now. I dont even think the betting parlors can get that done although I understand refunds were granted in this situation.
Happy field hockey

[Sean_A]

Sean I agree the evidence is inconclusive. Whether the ball bounced or not is relevant but you are right how was Reed to know. However the man did not conduct himself as almost all professional players would in lifting his ball. I saw the tape and two actions call a recognized cheater's behavior into question. First it is a question of fact that his caddie was handling the ball and handed it back to Reed so why did he touch the ball? Cleaning would be a fair answer and could be done by far less dextrous folks. Secondly prior to the rules official arrival Reed was poking his finger down into the deep grass giving him ample opportunity to create a dimple. If the ball bounced in three inch grass how else did the official "feel" an impression. Rules are primarily meant to protect the field. Team Reed's actions on this course and elsewhere do not give him a benefit of the doubt and their re consequences elsewhere in the rules for not following the proscribed steps properly.

The only way this is going to change is if the players get enough of him and quietly work within the tour to protect their field from a known cheater; simple as that. And I am betting their reps are on this now. I dont even think the betting parlors can get that done although I understand refunds were granted in this situation.
Happy field hockey

Chez Wardo


Don't get me wrong, the look of what Reed did was horrible. I didn't understand all the prodding and poking. The ball? I think Reed could have dropped a new ball so that isn't an issue...unless, it was ruled that the ball wasn't embedded.  I spose, if the ball wasn't ruled as embedded it would be a penalty for cleaning the ball, not sure. As it is, I, somewhat reluctantly have to conclude that Reed was above board. Honestly though, it doesn't matter.  The issue further tainted Reed's image in the eyes of many. In our hyper world, perception is often more impactful than reality.


Ciao 

[Kalen Braley]

Niall and Jim--

I totally agree w your replies...but please re-read my post starting this thread.
I absolutely believe the Tour officials had no choice but to decide and comment as they did...that is NOT what I am questioning. 
But the "media" had (and has) the tape and the folks who invented the concept of "let's go to the tape" has chosen not to do so...even though what the tape shows is critical to trying to determine exactly what happened when Reed was in a deep knee bend and over the ball.  Evaluating the tape has nothing to do with the evaluating the quality of the Tour official's decisions...the tape was not available to them in real time (or anything like the NFL's procedures...which I am NOT advocating).


The tape throws very real light as to what happened...and yet the media does not show it.  WHY???  Frankly I think this is important...because the media is where we get probably 90+% of the input we receive regarding what happens on the Tour and at Tour events.

Paul

My point was that the tape doesn't actually prove anything beyond that the ball bounced, and that in itself doesn't prove the ball wasn't embedded. Basically the matter was decided by the official inspecting where the ball had come to rest and agreeing with Reed that it was embedded.

Niall

Niall, while it technically doesn't prove anything, its not like its a 50/50 scenario either.

If you went to that same spot, on the same day, and dropped a hundred balls from 2 feet, you'd be lucky to even get 1 to embed.

The argument here is given that its extremely unlikely that his ball embedded after the bounce, the most plausible explanation for why a mark was there, (which the official also felt), is because Patrick put it there when he fiddled around with that lie. Or an old mark could have already been there and his ball came to rest in it, which would be in an even smaller version of the extremely unlikely category.

[JohnVDB]

I am not sure I like the current rule as it stands. On the pro level I would prefer if a player was called over prior to lifting the ball. But as I said before, that is a pain in the ass on my level golf. I don't want to delay my game to look at someone's lie. Maybe this is a case for bifurcation? However, if the rule has to be one way or the other, overall I prefer the current wording.

Ciao

The problem with the old rule was that even on the tour, players rarely if ever came over to check on what a player was doing.  I doubt that either of the other two players (who were relatively young players) would have come over.  It was probably 50 yards from where they were and they’d rather focus on their own shots than worry about someone else’s.


As for everyday play, too many people didn’t even know they had to tell someone else when they were lifting their ball for identification or other reasons and it was silly to penalize them.


Golf is based on honorable play and to have certain cases where we don’t trust players to act that way is the antithesis of that.

[Sean_A]

I am not sure I like the current rule as it stands. On the pro level I would prefer if a player was called over prior to lifting the ball. But as I said before, that is a pain in the ass on my level golf. I don't want to delay my game to look at someone's lie. Maybe this is a case for bifurcation? However, if the rule has to be one way or the other, overall I prefer the current wording.

Ciao

The problem with the old rule was that even on the tour, players rarely if ever came over to check on what a player was doing.  I doubt that either of the other two players (who were relatively young players) would have come over.  It was probably 50 yards from where they were and they’d rather focus on their own shots than worry about someone else’s.


As for everyday play, too many people didn’t even know they had to tell someone else when they were lifting their ball for identification or other reasons and it was silly to penalize them.


Golf is based on honorable play and to have certain cases where we don’t trust players to act that way is the antithesis of that.

John

I understand completely. I think most people forget the rules are ideally meant to function seamlessly throughout all levels of golf. IMO, people are treating televised golf diffently from everyday golf or confusing local game rules with the actual rules. This is understandable on some level. I am afraid that is the nature of golf. I play pickup hockey, but nobody confuses our pickup rules with real hockey. If people understand the difference than all is fine.

Ciao

[Paul Rudovsky]

The problem with the old rule was that even on the tour, players rarely if ever came over to check on what a player was doing.  I doubt that either of the other two players (who were relatively young players) would have come over.  It was probably 50 yards from where they were and they’d rather focus on their own shots than worry about someone else’s.


As for everyday play, too many people didn’t even know they had to tell someone else when they were lifting their ball for identification or other reasons and it was silly to penalize them.

Golf is based on honorable play and to have certain cases where we don’t trust players to act that way is the antithesis of that.


John--


I agree with you...however, I feel something very important is missing in the current rules picture.


In this example, I do believe that Reed followed the required procedures perfectly.  BUT...I would guess the probability of that ball plugging on that bounce as being much less than 1% based on the video that is available.  I would also assume that in the highly highly unlikely event that it ended up in someone else's "ball mark",  that would be the equivalent of ending up in another player's unrepaired divot and there would be no relief.  Given the video shows a good 2-3 feet of forward movement on that one bounce, I would put the chances of it spinning back into its original mark (in 3"-4" wet rough) as at as close to zero as possible.


So what else could have caused that "break" in the surface other than the scenario of Reed pressing down with his fingers or hand?  I think that (along for sure with his history) is what leads many of us to conclude something is wrong here.


To try it another way...what would have happened (and I know this is hypothetical...but in creating rules one must "test" hypothetical examples), if after the round was finished and Reed had signed his scorecard, another observer nearby showed up with a video from another angle showing Reed's fingers pressing down?  And let's assume this happened during a 4th round after prize presentation.  Two questions...what would today's USGA and PGA Tour rules and regs dictate should happen?, and if the answers is "nothing, the matter was closed when the new evidence was presented" do you think that is appropriate?


This is not a court of law...nor should it necessarily be governed by the same rules as a court of law.  In other words, the old rules had the "equity" rule which allowed some reasonable judgement for situations where there "facts" as available might not appropriately deal with the question.  Do we need something like that or like a "preponderance of evidence" rule?


I also recognize that no set of rules is ever perfect for every conceivable situation...but we should always strive to improve the rules based on experience.

[JohnVDB]

Paul,


There is no doubt that his ball didn’t go back into the spot where it originally bounced. But as another poster in the first thread who has played Torrey Pines a significant number of times, the area where his ball landed gets very wet and muddy after heavy rains such as they had last week.  So, it is possible that,if the area was muddy, it could have created an indentation on the second bounce.


I refuse to even consider if Reed pushed the ball into the ground as that is pure speculation based purely on people’s opinions of him.


That being said, if a player deliberately breaches a rule, and it is discovered after the end of the completion he can still be disqualified under Rule 20.2e.