Reed Does It Again

[Tim_Cronin]

I hope Mr. Reed is being honest, but I wouldn't fly to Vegas to place that wager.


How does a ball bounce on grass two three feet in the air a day after heavy rain, and embed? Interesting drainage they have at Torrey Pines.



FYI – I managed to find the wrong replay of this shot originally. Still not buying his argument. And can't believe he didn't call for a rules official first. He has to know he's the most watched man in golf when it comes to the rules.

[Rob Marshall]

After watching the video I just can’t see any way that ball imbedded.

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't know if there's a legal term for this, and 'benefit of the doubt' isn't quite what I'm looking for. What I mean to object to is the 'three strikes you're out' approach. For a person like Reed, who many of us are now pre-disposed to quickly find guilty, the 'due process' is even more important; the laws/rules are there -- or should be there -- to protect those who we are (consciously or not) most prejudiced against, and most likely to condemn as a matter of course. I choose to listen to someone like JohnVDB (instead of Brandel C or Nick F) not despite but precisely because I'm not a big fan of Reed's.

[Rob Marshall]

If he took the drop without calling in the official, I might have been more skeptical, but I’ll believe the tour official in this case.

John, did you see the replay of the bounce? It looked pretty soft. I think under the circumstances you have no choose but to let it go.

[MKrohn]

Seems like its all put away in a box until his next incident.


JohnVDB, any take away on how things could be improved? Seems to me the rules officials are technology-lite when making these decisions. If footage is available surely they would benefit from seeing it (via a hand held or going back to a central rules bunker), I think the benefit of the doubt would have skewed back to him not getting a drop.

[MKrohn]

Faldo is always anti American players. If Rahm or some other European player had done the same thing he would have praised them.

If Nick is a voice for foreign players (as opposed to anti American) its generally drowned out against the crushing weight of the pro US commentary and coverage.


We often think it may be possible for a foreign player to win without a shot being shown.

[David_Elvins]

JohnVDB, any take away on how things could be improved?

Would be pretty simple to go back to a rule where you can't pick your ball up without first checking with your marker.

[Brock Lynch]

It was mentioned that Rory took an embedded ball drop on 18 and did so without calling the official. We assume he did so correctly and we trust his judgement that his ball was embedded. Patrick Reed checked to see if his ball was embedded, wasn't sure so he called over the official. The official agreed it was embedded and Reed took a drop. Seems simple to me. CBS made this situation and most of us fell for it. They will get more viewers because of it and I am as guilty as anyone as I went to the Golf Channel afterwards knowing that Brandel's hair would be on fire. They also implied that Reed played worse on the next 4 or 5 holes because he knew he did something wrong. What a bunch of crap! The entire field struggled on that stretch and Reed was no exception. Let it go boys and enjoy the golf course. Torrey was tough today and Carlos Ortiz played a great round that no one on CBS mentioned.

[Bernie Bell]

I don't know if there's a legal term for this, and 'benefit of the doubt' isn't quite what I'm looking for. What I mean to object to is the 'three strikes you're out' approach. For a person like Reed, who many of us are now pre-disposed to quickly find guilty, the 'due process' is even more important; the laws/rules are there -- or should be there -- to protect those who we are (consciously or not) most prejudiced against, and most likely to condemn as a matter of course. I choose to listen to someone like JohnVDB (instead of Brandel C or Nick F) not despite but precisely because I'm not a big fan of Reed's.

Peter - in US law, as a general rule, "Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait;" and "Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character."  There's all sorts of qualifications to those rules but is that the concept you're after?

[Jim_Coleman]

   The analysis is getting bogged down on whether Reed followed proper procedure. Apparently he did.  What makes no sense is how he and a rules official found an indentation in the ground that didn’t exist.
   I believe that Reed, as he has done before, lied to gain an advantage. (see the sand incident). As for the official, I suspect his instinct is to the err in favor of the player, and was either lazy or intimidated.  But in this world where there are seemingly no longer any facts, it is a fact that a ball that fell from 2 feet into thick rough did not plug.  As Reed said, that would be impossible.

[Jim_Coleman]

Bernie:  character evidence is admissible if the defendant puts his character into evidence in his defense.  As for prior bad acts, they are admissible if they constitute evidence of a pattern.

[Rob Marshall]

   The analysis is getting bogged down on whether Reed followed proper procedure. Apparently he did.  What makes no sense is how he and a rules official found an indentation in the ground that didn’t exist.
   I believe that Reed, as he has done before, lied to gain an advantage. (see the sand incident). As for the official, I suspect his instinct is to the err in favor of the player, and was either lazy or intimidated.  But in this world where there are seemingly no longer any facts, it is a fact that a ball that fell from 2 feet into thick rough did not plug.  As Reed said, that would be impossible.

Not saying he did this but he could easily have pressed the ball into the ground. He set a perfect body pick between the ball and the camera. I do believe that if it was almost anyone else this wouldn’t be a conversation.

[Brock Lynch]

Bernie:  character evidence is admissible if the defendant puts his character into evidence in his defense.  As for prior bad acts, they are admissible if they constitute evidence of a pattern.

Therefore, I surmise that this is not your first finger pointing incident.

[JohnVDB]

You can only lift your golf ball if you make it clear what you're doing (ie, you're identifying if it is your golf ball, or if it is plugged), and it did not seem like he did that to any of his playing competitors, and only mentioned it to the rules official AFTER he had done it, which is makes it seem like he was cheating

You don’t have to announce or give the other players the opportunity to observe, but he did yell to the others to tell them he was lifting to See if it was plugged. 

[JohnVDB]

Chamblee will discuss at 6:00. Judge for yourself.

There’s a real rules expert

[JohnVDB]

It was mentioned that Rory took an embedded ball drop on 18 and did so without calling the official. We assume he did so correctly and we trust his judgement that his ball was embedded. Patrick Reed checked to see if his ball was embedded, wasn't sure so he called over the official. The official agreed it was embedded and Reed took a drop. Seems simple to me. CBS made this situation and most of us fell for it. They will get more viewers because of it and I am as guilty as anyone as I went to the Golf Channel afterwards knowing that Brandel's hair would be on fire. They also implied that Reed played worse on the next 4 or 5 holes because he knew he did something wrong. What a bunch of crap! The entire field struggled on that stretch and Reed was no exception. Let it go boys and enjoy the golf course. Torrey was tough today and Carlos Ortiz played a great round that no one on CBS mentioned.

Well said Brock.

[JohnVDB]

None of you, Sir Nick, Brandel or anyone else’s opinion matters.  Reed did nothing wrong in checking to see if the ball was embedded (note to all who can’t spell, it isn’t imbedded). When he wasn’t sure, he called in a Rules Offical.  Brad Fabel has been officiating out there for quite a few years and handled it perfectly.  He felt that the ground was broken under the ball.  That is the definition of embedded so Reed was entitled to relief. 


If you want to dispute that, you are questioning either Fabel’s knowledge or integrity. I won’t question either of those.

[Brock Lynch]

He set a perfect body pick between the ball and the camera. I do believe that if it was almost anyone else this wouldn’t be a conversation.

Yep, Brandel accuse him of "hiding" the ball when he held it before he stood up to go place it on the ground so as not to clean it. Ridiculous! When asked if it was Rory or Adam Scott in this situation would it be treated differently, Brandel said that yes, they would have because they would have done it correctly. Wow!   

[Rob Marshall]

None of you, Sir Nick, Brandel or anyone else’s opinion matters.  Reed did nothing wrong in checking to see if the ball was embedded (note to all who can’t spell, it isn’t imbedded). When he wasn’t sure, he called in a Rules Offical.  Brad Fabel has been officiating out there for quite a few years and handled it perfectly.  He felt that the ground was broken under the ball.  That is the definition of embedded so Reed was entitled to relief. 


If you want to dispute that, you are questioning either Fabel’s knowledge or integrity. I won’t question either of those.

If Brad Fabel said the ground was broken there is no doubt in my mind that it was. The question after watching the bounce would be how did it get broken.

[Michael Moore]

Why would Reed ask the witness if the ball had bounced before he got up to it?

[JohnVDB]

Why would Reed ask the witness if the ball had bounced before he got up to it?

I don’t know.  If he came up and saw it was deep in the grass, he might have wondered if it plugged so he asked,  it is also possible that whoever saw it, volunteered the information as in, “it landed right there” while pointing to it so he interpreted it that way.

[SL_Solow]

Interesting to know how many commenting have either officiated at tournament and/or attended Rules School.  In my experience, I have had several circumstances where players claimed a ball was embedded and my examination revealed that it was not.  It wasn't that hard to determine but maybe I was lucky.  The problem here is the perception that Reed does not respect the spirit of the rules and may even violate their letter.  The fact that certain media types are prepared to convict him on a moments notice makes it worse.  That said, he earned his reputation and he will have to live with it.  Each situation deserves to be evaluated on its own merits although I suspect that I would have to restrain myself from approaching Reed with a jaundiced eye if I were approached for a ruling.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Bernie -- that rule of thumb captures most of what I was saying & asking about, in a 'legal' sense at least; the rest I meant in an 'ethical' sense.
I must say, though: those rules you reference didn't seem to apply when the Feds put all those mobsters in jail under the RICO laws! Not to say they didn't deserve to go to jail, but something didn't seem right to me about it. Which is kind of what some are doing with Reed here, ie treating him like Fat Tony Salerno or Carmine the Snake Persico, and focusing on a 'pattern' of behaviour.

[Jim Hoak]

I am not a fan of Reed's.  And I know of and don't like some of the rules procedures he has gotten mixed up with in the past.  But after looking all the evidence in this case, I believe he followed proper procedure.  And I absolutely believe Fabel made the right call.
Even someone with Reed's background deserves the benefit of the doubt.

[Rob Marshall]

Why would Reed ask the witness if the ball had bounced before he got up to it?

I don’t know.  If he came up and saw it was deep in the grass, he might have wondered if it plugged so he asked,  it is also possible that whoever saw it, volunteered the information as in, “it landed right there” while pointing to it so he interpreted it that way.

He asked if it bounced. She replied no. She didn’t say she didn’t know. She said no.