We've launched the new forums! Read more here

The Official Patrick Reed thread

Chef23 said:
They just talked about Reed quieting his mind to play today. I don’t believe that Reed gives a crap so he doesn’t need to quiet anything. The guy can play it is a shame the rest of the stuff kills his image. After the whole Captain America thing he could have rehabilitated his image but he just can’t get out of his way.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Not only do I think he doesn't give a crap he actually seems to thrive on it.

 
Parrot said:
Convenience had nothing to do with it.



If he didn’t see it bounce at the time it landed, how does he know it bounced thereby rendering an embedded ball impossible? That’s all my point is. When you mention deceit, it implies he had knowledge that it bounced. He had to have seen it for that knowledge to exist.

Before I get accused of defending a cheater, I’m not. I think he screwed the pooch when he handled the ball before he put it down. I also think, and agree with you, that once he saw the video, he would’ve served himself best by DQing.
Click to expand...
No one saw the ball bounce but the TV audience. Should the marshal and rules official be DQ'ed as well......Just asking.
 
Dude is going to win going away. He surely seems to be one of those people who thrive with the drama.
 
Yep, he won it going away. And looked relaxed while doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Reed thrives under self-inflicted adversity
 
Sponsored by Twitter, man I lololol a few times after reading this guys comment!

B873876C-8A38-4CBA-8229-EE262A6AB41E.jpeg
 
I’m still chuckling..
 
Tenputt said:
Oh, I truly believe if when he saw video of his ball bouncing, that he would have dq’d himself, he would receive an outpouring of love, even though it would have been tantamount to admitting guilt only when caught. Our society is quick to forgive and it would have been a smart PR move, if his interest is in repairing his image.

I may not understand the facts, but it seems impossible that his ball was imbedded. Thus, the premise of his action was based in deceit, whether or not a third party claims that he technically adhered to the rules.
Click to expand...
His actions were based on a tourney volunteer and his group saying the ball didn’t bounce.
 
Why is it when someone sees something on tv and it gets called in something happens. How many times has this happened in the lpga?
But for this time with reed it was ignored!
 
Last edited:
tequila4kapp said:
His actions were based on a tourney volunteer and his group saying the ball didn’t bounce.
Click to expand...
The ball bouncing or not bouncing is a red herring in the entire analysis. That is what my post attempted to communicate, but I guess I must have done a poor job.
 
Great win for Reed, he dominated the field.
 
I did not see Reed's play but my friend told me Reed pressed the ball to create an embedded ball (when he bent down to pick it up). If that's true, it's cheating.
 
D2B7E6E2-218D-4E51-9195-68AF36311389.jpeg
 
Tenputt said:
The ball bouncing or not bouncing is a red herring in the entire analysis. That is what my post attempted to communicate, but I guess I must have done a poor job.
Click to expand...
I guess I just don’t see it that way. Bounce or no bounce is the start of it for me. If he’s told the ball bounced none of this happens.

Btw, simple solution is going back to not allowing relief in the rough
 
tequila4kapp said:
I guess I just don’t see it that way. Bounce or no bounce is the start of it for me. If he’s told the ball bounced none of this happens.

Btw, simple solution is going back to not allowing relief in the rough
Click to expand...
That’s thee other thing, can’t believe there’s relief in the rough and or everywhere, if you hit it there it is what it is, fairway gets clean lie.
 
tequila4kapp said:
I guess I just don’t see it that way. Bounce or no bounce is the start of it for me. If he’s told the ball bounced none of this happens.

Btw, simple solution is going back to not allowing relief in the rough
Click to expand...
Here is the problem with tying it to whether he “saw” the ball bounce. Patrick is on tape saying that the ball could not imbed if it bounced. Well, whether he knew it bounced or not, it bounced. Therefore, the ball was not embedded, by Patrick’s own admission. However, he walks up to it and literally hunches down over the ball for a significant period of time. What was he doing? Remember, the ball could not be embedded, because it bounced. However, he claims that “it broke ground.”

I have little doubt that he came up to his ball and once somebody said it did not bounce, he hunched over the ball and pushed it into the ground enough to create a little lip, then, on his own, removed the ball and called over a rules official. Obviously now, the rules official can feel the little lip that Patrick created, so he confirms that the ball was embedded and Patrick gets his desired relief.

I have little doubt in my mind that this is what happened. If I am in Patrick’s shoes and I know that I have this reputation, there is no way on God’s green earth that I am going to touch that ball. I am going to call a rules official over and have him/her look at the ball and confirm whether it is embedded, before I remove it. I am going to CYA and make sure a rules official is watching me.

Patrick is no dummy. he is smart enough to create a burner account. He is smart enough to try to deflect the spotlight to Rory. He saw the opening when the volunteer said that she did not see the ball bounce and nobody else did either. It was not seeing the ball bounce that opened the door for him to cheat. That is my theory and I am sticking to it.
 
Tenputt said:
Here is the problem with tying it to whether he “saw” the ball bounce. Patrick is on tape saying that the ball could not imbed if it bounced. Well, whether he knew it bounced or not, it bounced. Therefore, the ball was not embedded, by Patrick’s own admission. However, he walks up to it and literally hunches down over the ball for a significant period of time. What was he doing? Remember, the ball could not be embedded, because it bounced. However, he claims that “it broke ground.”

I have little doubt that he came up to his ball and once somebody said it did not bounce, he hunched over the ball and pushed it into the ground enough to create a little lip, then, on his own, removed the ball and called over a rules official. Obviously now, the rules official can feel the little lip that Patrick created, so he confirms that the ball was embedded and Patrick gets his desired relief.

I have little doubt in my mind that this is what happened. If I am in Patrick’s shoes and I know that I have this reputation, there is no way on God’s green earth that I am going to touch that ball. I am going to call a rules official over and have him/her look at the ball and confirm whether it is embedded, before I remove it. I am going to CYA and make sure a rules official is watching me.

Patrick is no dummy. he is smart enough to create a burner account. He is smart enough to try to deflect the spotlight to Rory. He saw the opening when the volunteer said that she did not see the ball bounce and nobody else did either. It was not seeing the ball bounce that opened the door for him to cheat. That is my theory and I am sticking to it.
Click to expand...
I agree it would have been better if he didn’t touch the ball. But somehow that seems to not be against the rules in this scenario
 
I had no idea about his latest controversy until my buddy texted me a couple of hours ago. Having watched the incident, I’m struggling to see what he did wrong.
 
I still do not understand how you can pick a ball up without a rules official not looking first. Once you touch your ball and alter its position, the rules official is working blind. Only cheats prosper from that.
 
I couldn't tell if Rory's bounced forward or straight up and back down into it's own pitch mark.

If it did bounce forward then yes, Rory did do pretty much the same thing. Reed just tried to make it look legit by making the depression himself and then having it checked.
 
Leftyuk said:
I still do not understand how you can pick a ball up without a rules official not looking first. Once you touch your ball and alter its position, the rules official is working blind. Only cheats prosper from that.
Click to expand...

There is no rule that states a rules official must look at the ball prior to touching it. If you’re on the Tour, playing in a tournament it’s probably smart to have a rules official present... but it’s not required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top