OT - Reed, Again

[John Kavanaugh]

I wish it wasn’t against the rules to ignore the rules infractions we all see everyday. It took me 50 years to learn that if people establish a handicap stretching a rule or two you have to accept when they beat you using this same “rules”.


Wasting energy worrying about who cheated you is cause to becoming an angry old man. Worrying about athletes, Doctors and the power company is a one way ticket.

[Michael Moore]

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Reed's ability to manipulate rules officials must be respected... if not admired. 

Here's what I want to know. The DPWT said this in their statement:

Two on-course referees and several marshals identified that Patrick Reed’s ball had become lodged in a specific tree following his tee shot on 17.

HOW? Who are these people? Are they lying? How, if the ball went into the first tree, did at least five people (two on-course referees plus "several" which I'm taking to be 3+ marshals) see it in the third tree?

[Jim_Coleman]

    Reed’s a cheater, and a suspension is probably the only thing that might change future behavior - 1 month this time, 6 months next time, life after that.

[John Kavanaugh]

I don’t think snitch culture will appeal to the young recreational golfer.

[ward peyronnin]

Look he lied when he said he could identify his ball with cerattainty cause there is no way his ball was in the third tree regardless of what rules officials said and whatever else.

Has anyone seen the vidoe of him at Riviera removing a foreign substance from his pocket with his thumb and rubbing the face of his club. It had to be vaseline ergo e\why do it. His adaptability to various cheating is in itself damning.
He is a massive D---bag

[Phil Burr]

You rarely get a second chance to make a first impression.  It seems to me that most pros arrive on tour with a clean record and their accountings of rules situation are afforded 100% credibility by the officials.  But that credibility erodes with each instance in which the pro's conduct can be deemed questionable.  Reed's loss of credibility has become a landslide akin to a dam bursting.  It's good for him that he fled to LIV, as I think any PGA Tour competitor, playing partner or rules official would give him zero slack in his application of the rules and of his integrity, both as a golfer and as a human being.

[John Kavanaugh]

Why not contact the sponsors of The Masters and threaten a boycott if Reed is invited?

[Kalen Braley]

Phil,

And to boot, outside of Pat having lost all credibility, I think there is a very real 2nd component to these scenarios.

If you're an on course official, or a volunteer spotter, are you willing to stand your ground and defy him, knowing that he could very well direct a lawsuit in your direction?  Sure its one thing if you have company lawyers to go to bat for you like Brandel and get it dismissed, but what if you're some no name guy without those kind of resources?

What a shit bird....

[Rob Marshall]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CoDa7bWgOhI/?igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY=


This is great. I don't remember did he sue Peter Kostis?

[Peter Flory]

When valuable items are found in public places and they make an announcement to the attendees, they never describe it in detail and they make anyone claiming that it is theirs come to them and describe it. 


The mistake in this case was allowing him to see the ball first and then having him merely confirm that it was his.  The obvious methodology would have been to have him describe the markings first and/or show a similar one in his bag and then verify through the binoculars that a ball in the tree matched that. 

[John Kavanaugh]

This reminds me of the election. You believe the media despite all the election officials saying no evidence of fraud was found.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Look he lied when he said he could identify his ball with cerattainty cause there is no way his ball was in the third tree regardless of what rules officials said and whatever else.

That said… if he arrived and officials said "everyone says it went in this tree…" then what? What would you do in a situation if, when you look through the binoculars, you see a ball with a line on it* and with your brand and number?

* He said arrow, so I'm still saying he's lying. But my question is more about what you do when no less than maybe five people say "it's in this tree here, Mr. Reed."

Has anyone seen the vidoe of him at Riviera removing a foreign substance from his pocket with his thumb and rubbing the face of his club. It had to be vaseline ergo e\why do it. His adaptability to various cheating is in itself damning.

Ward… he was wiping the water or grass or whatever off the clubface with the pocket liner. What pro wants a flier lie with vaseline on a shot from the fairway with an iron? The guy's won a Masters and several other events - it's not like he's slicing the ball like a 20 handicapper with his 7I.

https://twitter.com/4golfonline/status/1495167584232259587 - There's the video.

https://twitter.com/roomway/status/1495214014485385219

I hate p Reed as much as the next guy but here’s the explanation for these idiots: white pants get dirty easily so when you wipe your club you use the inside of your pocket to get the residual grass/dirt off your hands.

https://twitter.com/Parsonsbri/status/1495400789950582787

Probably just using the inside of the pocket to wipe the cub face. But… it’s Patrick Reed, so no surprise this is causing controversy.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Also…

The DPWT statement said this:

Two on-course referees and several marshals identified that Patrick Reed’s ball had become lodged in a specific tree following his tee shot on 17.

The current Rules of Golf say:

7.2/1 – Identifying Ball That Cannot Be Retrieved

If a player sees a ball in a tree or some other location where they are unable to retrieve the ball, the player may not assume that it is theirs but rather must identify it in one of the ways provided in Rule 7.2.

This may be done even though the player is unable to retrieve the ball, such as by:

• Using binoculars or a distance-measuring device to see a mark that definitely identifies it as the player’s ball, or
• Determining that another player or spectator saw the ball come to rest in that specific location after the player’s stroke.

In other words… Patrick Reed didn't even need to look up in the tree. The word of at least 4-5+ people would have been sufficient. I bolded the second point that says this.

[Peter Flory]

The odds are overwhelming that the ball on the way down would nestle in the top of the tree and wouldn't be visible from beneath.  The photos showed tons of balls in the trees.  And in the rare case where a ball was essentially embedded in a way where you could see it from the bottom, the odds aren't great that it would show all of the markings necessary to ID it (Make, number, red dot, and line on the side and a custom hand drawn arrow on the side). 

This whole argument is so similar to his embedded ball snafu.  It came down to him verifying something that later turned out to be impossible and then him relying on the rules official for cover (who relied on his honesty to come to their conclusion). That loophole has always been there, but very few have chosen to exploit it throughout the last hundred years. 

The vast majority of tournament golfers, and even club golfers have had to self identify rules violations that occurred when nobody else could have known about them.  I would bet that everyone on this forum who plays competitively at all has done it multiple times (played wrong ball, ball moved at address, signed for incorrect score, extra wedge in the bag, violated one ball rule, etc).  Has PR ever called a penalty on himself where the incident had no witnesses? 

[Pete_Pittock]

The only way this can come to conclusion is to cut down the palm tree, replace it with a new one, and remove all the golf balls.
See if PR's ball is there.  If the ball is not there repeat the procedure with the 3rd palm tree.

[JohnVDB]

Also…

The DPWT statement said this:

Two on-course referees and several marshals identified that Patrick Reed’s ball had become lodged in a specific tree following his tee shot on 17.

The current Rules of Golf say:

7.2/1 – Identifying Ball That Cannot Be Retrieved

If a player sees a ball in a tree or some other location where they are unable to retrieve the ball, the player may not assume that it is theirs but rather must identify it in one of the ways provided in Rule 7.2.

This may be done even though the player is unable to retrieve the ball, such as by:

• Using binoculars or a distance-measuring device to see a mark that definitely identifies it as the player’s ball, or
• Determining that another player or spectator saw the ball come to rest in that specific location after the player’s stroke.

In other words… Patrick Reed didn't even need to look up in the tree. The word of at least 4-5+ people would have been sufficient. I bolded the second point that says this.

Eric,
The Rule you highlighted says that in order to identify it the person or persons would have had to see Reed’s ball come to rest in that exact location, not just go into the tree. Just because 4-5 people saw it go into the tree doesn’t mean they saw that ball come to rest in that location. The only time I’ve heard of this being applied was an LPGA event where Lydia Ko’s ball came to rest in a tree and people saw it lane in and come to rest in the tree.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The odds are overwhelming that the ball on the way down would nestle in the top of the tree and wouldn't be visible from beneath.  The photos showed tons of balls in the trees.  And in the rare case where a ball was essentially embedded in a way where you could see it from the bottom, the odds aren't great that it would show all of the markings necessary to ID it (Make, number, red dot, and line on the side and a custom hand drawn arrow on the side).

Thing is, if you read the post just above yours… he didn't need to identify it. His drop was perhaps completely legal.

This whole argument is so similar to his embedded ball snafu.

What did he do incorrectly there? Or in violation of the Rules? The answer is… none. None that you can prove. Maybe he pushed the ball down to make it embedded, but that's speculative at best.

It came down to him verifying something that later turned out to be impossible

Huh? Are you saying that a ball that bounces cannot be embedded? I'll remind you of this:

As for Nick’s statement about never seeing a ball plug on the second bounce, he is full of it as I’ve seen it plenty of times.

The Rule you highlighted says that in order to identify it the person or persons would have had to see Reed’s ball come to rest in that exact location, not just go into the tree. Just because 4-5 people saw it go into the tree doesn’t mean they saw that ball come to rest in that location. The only time I’ve heard of this being applied was an LPGA event where Lydia Ko’s ball came to rest in a tree and people saw it lane in and come to rest in the tree.

Thanks, John. As neither of us were there (AFAIK), if the four or five plus said "it landed in and stuck in that tree there" then that would be sufficient, no? And, really, it'd only take one person saying something like that. I'm aware that they can't just say "it struck that tree, but I don't know where it went after that" or something. If even one person said "it's definitely stuck in this tree right here?" how would that be different than the Lydia Ko situation?

[JohnVDB]

Erik,


In Lydia’s case, people saw the entire flight of the ball until it came to rest in the tree where it could be seen, but the identifying marks couldn’t be seen, but it was sufficient to identify it.  I’ve read nothing that says anything other than people said Reed’s ball went into the tree, in other words, they didn’t see where it came to rest, just it went into the tree.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In Lydia’s case, people saw the entire flight of the ball until it came to rest in the tree where it could be seen, but the identifying marks couldn’t be seen, but it was sufficient to identify it.  I’ve read nothing that says anything other than people said Reed’s ball went into the tree, in other words, they didn’t see where it came to rest, just it went into the tree.

Fair enough.

I'm just wondering how five+ people all saw it go into THAT specific third tree when video seems to indicate it went into the first tree. A cover-up by the DPWT? Who are these rules officials and marshals?

[JohnVDB]

No idea, but it did take Golf Channel slowing down the video to see it.  It can depend on what angle those people were viewing from.

[Kalen Braley]

In Lydia’s case, people saw the entire flight of the ball until it came to rest in the tree where it could be seen, but the identifying marks couldn’t be seen, but it was sufficient to identify it.  I’ve read nothing that says anything other than people said Reed’s ball went into the tree, in other words, they didn’t see where it came to rest, just it went into the tree.

Fair enough.

I'm just wondering how five+ people all saw it go into THAT specific third tree when video seems to indicate it went into the first tree. A cover-up by the DPWT? Who are these rules officials and marshals?

Erik,

Do you think its not at least plausible that the DPWT is trying to save face over this thing, especially in light of the player having a lengthy and dubious track record in these kinds of situations?

Its not coincidence that nearly every major sport has video replay procedures and processes, because 1st hand officiators get it wrong from time to time, especially when events occur in a split second and/or they are out of position.

[Peter Flory]

Patrick Reed quote in the interview after the embedded ball incident:

"If the video or someone said we saw it bounce, then obviously I wouldn't have marked the ball or even attempted to ask for embedded ball because as you know, if the ball bounces, it's literally impossible for the ball to plug at that point."


So, even he doesn't seem to have made the argument that his ball actually did plug.  He is just insinuating that he assumed it did and came to the wrong conclusion... somehow honestly, but that he followed the procedure perfectly.

That is a way to wriggle out of the corner he painted himself in.  i.e. he got busted and had to choose between this mess of an explanation or the plugged after the bounce explanation.  He knew the 2nd one was too preposterous to be believed. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Do you think its not at least plausible that the DPWT is trying to save face over this thing, especially in light of the player having a lengthy and dubious track record in these kinds of situations?

Possibly. But why say "two referees and several marshals"? Why be so specific? It's weird. Who are these referees and marshals?

Patrick Reed quote in the interview after the embedded ball incident:

Thing is, he's wrong. A ball can embed after a bounce, and he'd be entitled to relief.

He is just insinuating that he assumed it did and came to the wrong conclusion.

He didn't assume. He asked the nearby volunteer, and she said "I didn't see it bounce" or something.

That is a way to wriggle out of the corner he painted himself in.  i.e. he got busted and had to choose between this mess of an explanation or the plugged after the bounce explanation.  He knew the 2nd one was too preposterous to be believed.

Except that it's not.

[Peter Flory]

If you watch the entire exchange from last week, it's ridiculous.  https://youtu.be/b0_Zm1Us4O4?t=35

First PR says that it looks like his ball and he supports it by saying that others saw it crash into the tree.  Then the official says that isn't good enough and that he needs to definitely know that it is his.  That's when PR ramps it up and starts getting more definitive with his language. 

PR claimed that he can tell that it is a 2017 ProV and that nobody else plays that ball anymore and that he knows that it is his because of the "black arrow on the proV", presumably meaning what is shown in the pic below. He admitted that he couldn't see the number of the ball or any other markings.  The rules official told him that isn't enough and PR went on to re-emphasize how he knows that the specific black line is his because of where it ends in relation to the arrow ("my line goes and that there is a black arrow on the end and that's where I see the arrow... that's why I'm giving you that distinct mark." (seems to be implying that he draws a black line over the Pro V font and ends it before the black arrows on the actual golf ball).  Official- "OK, that arrow is not part of the make up of the golf ball."  PR "OK, how I do my line is I start my line there and then the arrow is right there."  Official, "So you do that?  I can't see that arrow.... OK, that's fine with me.  If that's your distinctive marking, that's fine." 



Here is the distinctive line on PR's golf ball.  On this and the balls that fans have, the line goes over the black arrows and well past.  If this is all you can see on a golf ball, you can't ID it as your own in good faith.