Media's role in Reed ruling question

[Jim_Coleman]

John:  If the Committee concluded that Reed had deliberately created the pitch mark (understanding that you wouldn’t so find but others may differ), when must the decision be made? Before he signs? Before he’s awarded the prize? Ever?

[JohnVDB]

John:  If the Committee concluded that Reed had deliberately created the pitch mark (understanding that you wouldn’t so find but others may differ), when must the decision be made? Before he signs? Before he’s awarded the prize? Ever?

If it can be shown that a player broke a rule and didn’t add the penalty for it there is no time limit.  This means he knew what he did and he knew before the competition was over that it was against the rules to do it.


Here is the wording of all the reasons a player in stroke play can be disqualified after the competition is final:



But a player must be disqualified even after the competition is closed if he or she:


   •   Returned a score for any hole lower than actually taken for any reason other than failing to include one or more penalty strokes that, before the competition closed, the player did not know about (see Rule 3.3b(3)),


   •   Knew before the competition had closed that the returned scorecard showed a handicap that was higher than the actual handicap, and this affected the number of handicap strokes used to adjust the player’s score (see Rule 3.3b(4)),


   •   Knew before the competition had closed that he or she was in breach of any other Rule with a penalty of disqualification, or


   •   Deliberately agreed with another player to ignore any Rule or penalty they knew applied (see Rule 1.3b(1)).


The Committee may also disqualify a player under Rule 1.2 (serious misconduct) after the competition has closed.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

Whether the ball bounced is irrelevant. In other words, let's imagine a world in which the PGA Tour radios to Brad Fabel and they say "Brad, the ball bounced 1-3' in the air and definitely didn't land in the same spot as the initial bounce." Reed is still entitled to relief from an embedded ball if the ball is embedded.

How is there this much discussion about this and yet we're still getting that wrong?

If the ball bounced in three inch grass how else did the official "feel" an impression.

Umm, maybe because the ball was embedded?

Look, this whole exercise is pointless if you feel that you know the ball wasn't embedded. Then the only thing you can do is try to find a way that Reed cheated.

But your entire case falls apart if the ball was embedded. And, truth be told, nobody here knows even a little bit whether it was or wasn't embedded.

If Reed's ball was embedded, everything he did was completely fine. If it wasn't, he cheated.

I asked earlier how many people who are being absolutely brutal here toward Patrick Reed whether, if the volunteer came forward and said "I stepped on the ball accidentally, I saw it bounce, I said "no" to Patrick when he asked because I wanted him to be able to get relief for my mistake, but I was too embarrassed at the time to say something," they'd admit they were wrong and apologize fully for everything they said about Patrick Reed.

Because here are the facts:

• Patrick Reed definitely cheated at the Hero. We all saw it.
• Peter Kostis and some teammates allege that he shaved strokes or improved lies.

But the latter is allegations. I don't know how many college kids you've been around, but I've seen them make shit up to get a kid in trouble. Especially if that kid is good, a jerk, and threatening to pass them on the depth chart. And Peter Kostis, who knows… Maybe Justine pissed him off? You don't know. It's hearsay and speculation.

the most plausible explanation

"the most plausible" is nowhere near enough to convict. Except in the court of public opinion, where you've all hung a guy who may be innocent in this case, based on nothing as real evidence except something he did in 2019 and the word of a few other people.

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.

Correct, but since it's rough, you'd have no way of knowing this either, so he'd be granted relief.

So what else could have caused that "break" in the surface other than the scenario of Reed pressing down with his fingers or hand?

Ummmm, Reed's ball embedding.

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.

It's still in the current rules as 20.3. It just basically says to treat like situations alike. It's almost the same as the old 1-4, so it's still in the Rules.

John:  If the Committee concluded that Reed had deliberately created the pitch mark (understanding that you wouldn’t so find but others may differ), when must the decision be made? Before he signs? Before he’s awarded the prize? Ever?

I think he already answered your question:

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.

[V. Kmetz]

Paul,
I'm having the best laugh at what happened to you here; despite your clear subject line, you were so subtle  parsing that you had to implore them to re-read your original post and then had to engage on Reed and the Tour and the Rules, for which you had little or no original interest.


I know the Trojan Horse you were offering; cool it Daddy-O. "Money = Speech" "Untrammeled rights to one's own property" is your brochure; own it. Decent Media never stronger; Lying Media about to go back to mimeographs of the Turner Diaries. People done voted wit their feetz on that one.


And put like, "OT x 2" in front of this, if that score ever mattered to you.

[JESII]

Anybody have the VK decoder ring today?






Paul,


To suggest Reed was creating the indentation in the ground is a stretch I'm not willing to make...but I see plenty wrong with the way he handled the whole situation.


You seem to want the network to really dig in there and find the facts. What's in it for them?  They got as much controversy as they could have by simply implying he was cheating as opposed to flat out proving it.

[Sean_A]

Paul,
I'm having the best laugh at what happened to you here; despite your clear subject line, you were so subtle  parsing that you had to implore them to re-read your original post and then had to engage on Reed and the Tour and the Rules, for which you had little or no original interest.

I know the Trojan Horse you were offering; cool it Daddy-O. "Money = Speech" "Untrammeled rights to one's own property" is your brochure; own it. Decent Media never stronger; Lying Media about to go back to mimeographs of the Turner Diaries. People done voted wit their feetz on that one.

And put like, "OT x 2" in front of this, if that score ever mattered to you.

Maybe folks think Paul is barking up a tree without much cause? I think a ton of media time was spent on the incident. There isn't anything to uncover.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

I guess as Tom D postulated in another thread, trying to get away with stuff on Tour seems to be a lot more common than not.

Two more incidents this weekend at Pebble.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/russel-knox-penalty-sunday-att-pebble-beach#:~:text=PEBBLE%20BEACH%20%E2%80%94%20For%20the%20second,the%20extra%20shot%20on%20Sunday.

[Pete_Pittock]

I guess as Tom D postulated in another thread, trying to get away with stuff on Tour seems to be a lot more common than not.

Two more incidents this weekend at Pebble.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/russel-knox-penalty-sunday-att-pebble-beach#:~:text=PEBBLE%20BEACH%20%E2%80%94%20For%20the%20second,the%20extra%20shot%20on%20Sunday.

Probably only one incident since McNealy called an official and was quickly penalized.

[Niall C]

Kalen

I haven't watched the video's but read the description of the two incidents in the linked report and both refer to the player contacting the official for a ruling. That doesn't sound like a player trying to "get away with stuff". On the contrary, it sounds like both players acted in an exemplary manner.

Niall

[JESII]

Agree 100%.


What I can't figure is the official telling him no penalty in real time when Knox had told him he'd addressed the ball.


If you've soled the club as part of your address and then lift the club in a waggle, but are still over the ball, are you NOT deemed to have caused it to move?

[Pete_Pittock]

Agree 100%.


What I can't figure is the official telling him no penalty in real time when Knox had told him he'd addressed the ball.


If you've soled the club as part of your address and then lift the club in a waggle, but are still over the ball, are you NOT deemed to have caused it to move?

If I remember correctly, Knox told the referee that 30 seconds elapsed between soling the club and the ball movement, which is enough time to absolve the player.

[Niall C]

Pete

Presumably they watched Knox address the ball on playback and judged the time was shorter than that. I'm assuming there isn't a set time but it's a judgement call, would that be correct ?

Niall

[John_Cullum]

If you've soled the club as part of your address and then lift the club in a waggle, but are still over the ball, are you NOT deemed to have caused it to move?

The Rule is quoted below. There is no guidance as to how to apply it. There are no presumptions any longer. The player is never DEEMED to have caused it to move because of a particular action.


Rule 9.4(b)
(2) “Known or Virtually Certain” Standard for Deciding What Caused Ball to Move.The player, the opponent[/i][/url] or an outside influence[/i][/url] is treated as having caused the ball to move[/i][/url] only if it is known or virtually certain[/i][/url] to be the cause.[/size]
[/font]

• If it is not known or virtually certain[/i][/url] that at least one of these was the cause, the ball is treated as having been moved[/i][/url] by natural forces[/i][/url].[/size][/font]

• In applying this standard, all reasonably available information must be considered, which means all information the player knows or can get with reasonable effort and without unreasonably delaying play.