[Rob Marshall]

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

Typical Sir Dick, they begin today's broadcas with McElroy doing the same damn thing on 18 yesterday and he doesn't say a word about the Euro and continues his attack on Reed.

One's reputation is rock solid and the other is, let's just say not. This isn't a Euro USA debate.

Sir Dick's reputation is far from rock solid. Ask his 3 ex wives and former girlfriend who beat up his high end Porsche with a golf club.

Really with that avatar you want to go there? Did you read Jeff Pearlman's article in USA Today this week?

I have never called Kobe's reputation rock solid. Aren't you the clown who supports Trump? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I simply pointed out the irony of your post. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess I hit a nerve.

[Bill Brightly]

Also, for those saying he cleaned the ball, it doesn’t matter since he was entitled to relief and could even have dropped a brand new ball if he wanted to.

Wow, that is something I never knew!


Would the same be true if you were asked to mark your ball in a fairway because it was in another player's line?

[Kalen Braley]

Also, for those saying he cleaned the ball, it doesn’t matter since he was entitled to relief and could even have dropped a brand new ball if he wanted to.

As a point of nuance here, I think this is the main disconnect that people are having:

1)  He picked up the ball, palmed it, and set it down on the grass away from the spot where he found it.
2)  He then called a rules official over to confirm it was embedded, which he did. 
3)  However, if the referee had said he was not entitled to relief, the ball would have already been mis-handled and potentially cleaned when he wouldn't have otherwise been entitled to it.

I believe it was Frank Nobilo who used the analogy of moving around the evidence at the scene of an accident scene before it could be processed by the authorities.

[Niall C]

For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.
As for those who think you should always have to call someone to see what you are doing, that requirement was eliminated in 2019, because no other player ever went over to check on someone lifting a ball for identification or to see if he was entitled to relief.  In soft conditions, calling an official over every time you suspect it is embedded would be a waste of time.

Also, if it was obvious that there was no way a ball could be embedded, under Rule 16.4 the player would get a penalty stroke for lifting it without a reason to do so.  Patrick was given a reason to do so.
He set the ball down in the grass to the side because if he didn't, a bunch of people who don't like him would have claimed that he cleaned it while he was holding it if it was determined not to be embedded.  Good practice.

I won't claim to know the rules in detail but I agree entirely with the sentiment about Reed following good practice. What's more he didn't waste any time doing it. He got on with it.


Niall

[David_Elvins]

Would the same be true if you were asked to mark your ball in a fairway because it was in another player's line?

I learnt this one by marking my ball on the fairway and then asking JVDB about the specifics of the rule as I wiped my fingers all over the ball.  Oops.


So I am pretty sure the answer is no, only when taking relief can you clean your ball in the general area.

[Brock Lynch]

Congrats to Patrick Reed for blitzing the field today. Don't poke the bear!


In Golf Channel's post tournament coverage, Rich Lerner starting by equating the Houston Astros and Barry Bonds chasing Hank Aaron to the situation involving Patrick Reed. I don't know what to say to this incredibly stupid intro other than to call it as such.


Players that were interviewed and asked how they would proceed. Most used the word "never" and "always" in their comments. Hopefully, they will be held to that. More likely that they will contradict themselves than it is that a ball that bounced will embed (Which is apparently very likely as it happened twice in one day!).


I was baffled by the reaction to the video of Rory's ball on 18 yesterday. What I heard was that the only difference between that and Patrick Reed's was their respective reputations. It looked very much the same to me. The comments from players saying that they don't touch the ball before calling the official were shown to be very false as Rory marked the ball, checked the lie for the ball being embedded, and took a drop. All of this without an official present. I'm sure that there are many drops without an official present. Moving forward, I wonder if this will change. Play is about to become slower because nobody wants to be the next guy to get roasted.


When did Rory become the darling? Wasn't he the guy who said he's not here to grow the game he's only here to win championships? 

[JESII]

Did a link to the Rory video make it to this thread?

[Rob Marshall]

Congrats to Patrick Reed for blitzing the field today. Don't poke the bear!


In Golf Channel's post tournament coverage, Rich Lerner starting by equating the Houston Astros and Barry Bonds chasing Hank Aaron to the situation involving Patrick Reed. I don't know what to say to this incredibly stupid intro other than to call it as such.


Players that were interviewed and asked how they would proceed. Most used the word "never" and "always" in their comments. Hopefully, they will be held to that. More likely that they will contradict themselves than it is that a ball that bounced will embed (Which is apparently very likely as it happened twice in one day!).


I was baffled by the reaction to the video of Rory's ball on 18 yesterday. What I heard was that the only difference between that and Patrick Reed's was their respective reputations. It looked very much the same to me. The comments from players saying that they don't touch the ball before calling the official were shown to be very false as Rory marked the ball, checked the lie for the ball being embedded, and took a drop. All of this without an official present. I'm sure that there are many drops without an official present. Moving forward, I wonder if this will change. Play is about to become slower because nobody wants to be the next guy to get roasted.


When did Rory become the darling? Wasn't he the guy who said he's not here to grow the game he's only here to win championships?

Rory's ball bounced straight up in the air and came back down in his pitch mark. He asked his playing partner to take a look before he touched his ball. The playing partner said no need. Rory didn't remove his ball and ask the player to feel the hole in the ground. He never touched the ball until after he invited his marker to take a look.

[Brock Lynch]

Rory's ball bounced straight up in the air and came back down in his pitch mark. He asked his playing partner to take a look before he touched his ball. The playing partner said no need. Rory didn't remove his ball and ask the player to feel the hole in the ground. He never touched the ball until after he invited his marker to take a look.

Rory thought the ball was in its own pitch mark. He didn't see it bounce. No one came over to look at Rory's lie. He decided that it was embedded, notified his playing partners, and took a drop. No problem. Reed didn't ask the player to come over to feel the hole in the ground, he asked the official if he thought it was embedded and the official felt the hole. Again, I say that there are many situations that are handled by players without calling an official. Reed called the official over to be sure it was embedded before he took a drop. No problem, for almost everyone.

[John_Cullum]

Patrick Reed likewise informed his fellow competitors of his intentionsl; although , that's no longer required by the rules

[jeffwarne]

I will say I was amazed all day yesterday how many people were convinced that a ball that bounces, could not imbed, and what incredible emphasis they seemed to place on that-as if though it were a part of the rules.
I've seen a bouncing ball imbed-for instance it could land on a cartpath, bounce high in the air and land in mud, or even bounce a mere 4 feet in the air and plug in a super soft area.

I didn't see it, nor did I watch any of the golf this weekend,I ignored the topic(despite a mountain of "research" shoved my way) on my show today and focused on instruction as I'm confident it was covered to death by every other outlet.

[Craig Sweet]

Well, you can't lift and clean a ball that is not in the fairway. And it's plain bullshit that you get to "unplug" a ball...What a bunch of professional babies.  The Tuesday Night Anaconda Country Club league would laugh at anyone unplugging a ball...and then they'd ban you from the league. Play it as it lies!

[Daryl David]

Well, you can't lift and clean a ball that is not in the fairway. And it's plain bullshit that you get to "unplug" a ball...What a bunch of professional babies.  The Tuesday Night Anaconda Country Club league would laugh at anyone unplugging a ball...and then they'd ban you from the league. Play it as it lies!

The Tuesday night Anaconda league is not the only group that would laugh. In fact my group would do more than laugh. We have a guy that used put his hands in the ball all the time to “identify” it. Needless to say he no longer graces our group with his presence.

[Peter Flory]

I will say I was amazed all day yesterday how many people were convinced that a ball that bounces, could not imbed, and what incredible emphasis they seemed to place on that-as if though it were a part of the rules.

Patrick Reed's quote from yesterday after being asked about the bounce on video:
"Now 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, I mean, it's literally impossible for the ball to plug... at that point." 

If his ball really had plugged after the first bounce, I wouldn't have expected him to admit that it was literally impossible.  I'd expect him to say something like- "it's really crazy and the first time that I've ever seen it, but the ball was definitely plugged, so it must have been some really soft ground right there." 

[Sean_A]

I have no opinion of the incident yesterday.


However to those who say that that it must have been okay because his playing partners did not object and the Rules officials did not object, I would say you don't understand how these things work.  Jason very well summarized the difference between getting penalized and bending the rules.


When I first got around the Tour in the early 1980's, I was surprised to hear that there were players who were generally considered to push the boundaries of the rules.  They got away with it because the Tour did not want a cheating scandal and because it was hard to catch anyone red-handed -- the fellow competitor would have to put HIS reputation on the line to challenge them and there were very few who would want to deal with the fallout from that.


What's different today?  More players and more holes are on TV, so incidents are more likely to be caught on camera, but there is still a disincentive for fellow players to object publicly, or for the Tour to do so.


Letting the players pick up their ball before conferring with a playing partner or an official is a green light to push the boundaries.  If that's being done in the interest of "speeding up the game" they should go back to the old rule.  A player would be much more empowered to tell a fellow player to ask an official, than they would to call it out after the fellow player has picked up his ball.

The rule has to be functional for everyday golf. I don't think most golfers are interested in checking out lies for drops. Does it make sense to kick on or delay the game?

We need to think of the rules as an instrument for everyday golf. Too often things get wrapped around pro golf which makes little sense to me.

Ciao

[AChao]

This may be one of those cases where it really looks bad, but there’s a compensating reason Reed was allowed a free drop / not assessed a penalty even though it looks like he should have been. 


I’ve played in the pro-am at Torrey last year and the year before and had a very similar situation occur with my second shot to the right of 18.  My ball did bounce but the lie looked so bad I thought it might be embedded. 


In Reed’s case, he did ask the spotter if it bounced and she said she didn’t see it bounce which is a problem as I think it can be interpreted as she didn’t see the ball hence didn’t see it bounce versus she didn’t see it directly plug.


My own sense is feeling the ground is iffy.  Had he not asked the spotter and had she not said she didn’t see it bounce, I think things might/would/should be different.   

[Thomas Dai]

The sports betting firm mainly involved is apparently saying they will 'refund' money placed pre-tournament on players other than Reed to win.
Curious though ...... is this a 'refund' as in you get your money back ... or is it a version where they hold onto the money to be used by you on a future bet?
atb


Publicity quote -
"If you bet on a different golfer, we have your back! PointsBet is refunding ALL pre-tournament outright winner wagers on all other golfers in Free Bets!"

[David_Elvins]

I was baffled by the reaction to the video of Rory's ball on 18 yesterday. What I heard was that the only difference between that and Patrick Reed's was their respective reputations.

The biggest difference between Rory and Reed IMO was that Rory dropped his ball back in the thick stuff and chunked a wedge out short of the green whilst Patrick Reed was able to pick up his ball from the deep rough and drop it onto shorter grass and get up and down. 


If Rory's ball was not plugged its hard to see him gaining even a minimal advantage from taking the drop he did.  And his reputation for not only following the rules but not giving much of a f*ck makes it pretty unlikely he would bend the rules to get extrememely minimal advantage.


The advantage that Reed got from the drop was big and plain for everyone to see.

[David_Elvins]

For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.

John,


Was just watching the video again and was wondering from a rules perspective, what you make of Reed pushing his ball into the ground before picking it up?


To me that should be a rule's breach but not sure how exactly?


What rule does it come under?  I can't see where improving your chances of getting a drop comes under the definition of improving one's lie?  How do the rules penalise someone for making their lie worse?

[Mike Feeney]

Watched both Reed & Rory video.  Both handled their situations poorly & not in the interest of protecting their integrity or the field.
Even in a club match or a nassau, myself, nor guys I play with, faced with either scenario, would touch their ball without calling opponent over to look and discuss.  Yeah, I know, the rules allow them to proceed without consultation -- but, applying our rules require interpretation and assessment...especially in deep rough & soft ground scenarios.
If Nicklaus or Bobby Jones took the same embedded ball relief, even with consultation, and later saw a replay of their ball bouncing, they would, I suspect, withdraw/DQ themselves.

"You might as well praise a man for not robbing a bank as to praise him for playing by the rules."
Impossible to know but, Reed's ball fiddling did look like he played a larger role, than gravity did, in the embedding.  Exactly why he  shouldn't have touched it without a competitor/official present.

[jeffwarne]

I will say I was amazed all day yesterday how many people were convinced that a ball that bounces, could not imbed, and what incredible emphasis they seemed to place on that-as if though it were a part of the rules.

Patrick Reed's quote from yesterday after being asked about the bounce on video:
"Now 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, I mean, it's literally impossible for the ball to plug... at that point." 

If his ball really had plugged after the first bounce, I wouldn't have expected him to admit that it was literally impossible.  I'd expect him to say something like- "it's really crazy and the first time that I've ever seen it, but the ball was definitely plugged, so it must have been some really soft ground right there."

Not sure I'd use any Reed clip to support any rules related debacle
My point was that it is not in the rules.
So many were commenting that IT BOUNCED.
A ball can bounce and come down in area so soft it imbeds on that impact(not very common, but possible)
A ball can also bounce and spin back into its indentation(quite common on a green or fairway, less so in the rough it would seem)
Then it gets real dicey as to whose pitch mark the ball is actually in, as you don't get relief from someone else's-and that's a really tough one to know from a distance.
Again, no real comment on Reed, just that the rules don't say "if a ball bounces, it's ineligible for imbedded ball relief"

[Steve Lang]

   Let us not forget, Stadler, just trying to keep his pants from getting muddied...


https://www.golfdigest.com/story/the-man-who-took-the-call-that-dqd-craig-stadler-empowering-viewers-to-phone-in-rules-violations-for-next-30-years

[A.G._Crockett]

For those who question if you can lift a ball to see if it is embedded, please see Rule 16.4 which was put into the Rules in 2019 to replace Decision 20-1/0.7 in the old Rules.

John,


Was just watching the video again and was wondering from a rules perspective, what you make of Reed pushing his ball into the ground before picking it up?


To me that should be a rule's breach but not sure how exactly?


What rule does it come under?  I can't see where improving your chances of getting a drop comes under the definition of improving one's lie?  How do the rules penalise someone for making their lie worse?

I think this is the key point.  Reed messes with the spot, either with the ball itself or his finger before he says anything to anybody.  Not surprisingly, when the Rules official gets there, he is able to find the surface of the ground broken.  What broke it is impossible to say, of course, but Reed did whatever he did (or didn't do, to give him the benefit of the doubt BEFORE he said anything to anybody, didn't he?


I don't see McIlroy's situation or behavior as comparable; he notifies his fellow competitors that his ball is embedded BEFORE he touches it; he states that as a matter of fact, and the other players just keep walking.  THEN he picks up the ball and proceeds under the Rules.

I'll cop to a strong bias against Patrick Reed when it comes to honesty in general, and not just the Rules of Golf.  You have to view what he did in the most charitable light possible for him to come away clean, and for me, it takes a LOT of imagination to do that.  This is NOT a court of law, and I'm not on a jury, so I'm comfortable with my prejudices in the case of Patrick Reed.

To paraphrase Maya Angelou, when somebody shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

[JESII]

To be fair, Reed did yell over to his playing partners before getting down to the ball. He wasn't asking for help, but he did tell them he suspected it was embedded.


The rest is all through individual lenses.  Legit by the letter of following a process...Suspect because it's Reed AND the ball did in fact bounce so it was not possibly embedded.


To JVB, and others, does it make any difference at all that the only source Reed sought out was a volunteer who very possibly never saw the ball at all?

[Jim_Coleman]

   I don’t think this is that complicated.  If you believe it is possible for a ball to embed in it’s pitch mark in four inch rough after bouncing forward 2’ in the air, then everything is ok here.  If you don’t believe that’s possible (and I don’t), then the only explanation for the ball being in a pitch mark is that it landed in a prior pitch mark, or Reed created the pitch mark when he was fiddling around for 20 seconds after picking up the ball.  Easy choice for me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()