We've launched the new forums! Read more here

The Official Patrick Reed thread

Somewhere this morning Patrick Reed is smirking.
 
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...
You're not wrong.

Easily one of the most surprising rule changes from a 'reasonable doubt' or 'reasonable certainty' standpoint.
 
Reed is a perfect example of why call ins never should have ended, there was never a good reason to stop them, we need more eyes on players like Patrick. I wouldn't be surprised to see the debate to bring those calls back start again on the tour, it's the only way to keep the small cheats in check.
 
I don't think they need call ins to come back, I think they need to go back to the common sense version of not moving your ball without an official present.

Had that been the case, there would never have been a crater manufactured where the tee was placed. No relief would have been given, we all move on laughing because his ball went to the bunker instead of the green.
 
Canadan said:
You're not wrong.

Easily one of the most surprising rule changes from a 'reasonable doubt' or 'reasonable certainty' standpoint.
Click to expand...

Did they do it to speed up play?


Rory did all of it without even brining in a rules official.


I'm guessing to speed up play?
 
Northerner said:
Did they do it to speed up play?

Rory did all of it without even brining in a rules official.

I'm guessing to speed up play?
Click to expand...
I have no sympathy for the tour's pace of play based on the fact that they do next to nothing about it.

Also, I don't get the deflection to Rory. Reed manufactured a hole in the ground. That's where I'm stuck. Not following the rules and touching his ball.
 
Canadan said:
I have no sympathy for the tour's pace of play based on the fact that they do next to nothing about it.

Also, I don't get the deflection to Rory. Reed manufactured a hole in the ground. That's where I'm stuck. Not following the rules and touching his ball.
Click to expand...

Not deflecting. Just using Rory as an example of the spirit of the rules change (to speed up play). Was it or wasn't it to speed up play? I am just asking.

And I don't think I have ever stood up for what Reed did here or his thread. I was one of the first posts inquiring that what he did seemd sketchy.
 
So did someone actually see Reed making the indention in the ground, or is this all speculation of what people think he probably did because of his reputation?
 
Greg Kulbick said:
So did someone actually see Reed making the indention in the ground, or is this all speculation of what people think he probably did because of his reputation?
Click to expand...
I've seen plenty of speculation on twitter... Where when he first leaned down to grab it he pushed it down. Where he repeatedly poked at the area with his fingers.

But the question in the simplest form; If the ball bounced, and collectively it is agreed that a hole couldn't be made by the second landing, where did the hole come from?
 
Canadan said:
I've seen plenty of speculation on twitter... Where when he first leaned down to grab it he pushed it down. Where he repeatedly poked at the area with his fingers.

But the question in the simplest form; If the ball bounced, and collectively it is agreed that a hole couldn't be made by the second landing, where did the hole come from?
Click to expand...
Reed is poking at peoples brains now. :LOL: I don’t know that I’ll ever cheer for the guy, but I can’t help but chuckle when he lifts the trophy as golf Twitter loses their minds.
 
Canadan said:
I've seen plenty of speculation on twitter... Where when he first leaned down to grab it he pushed it down. Where he repeatedly poked at the area with his fingers.

But the question in the simplest form; If the ball bounced, and collectively it is agreed that a hole couldn't be made by the second landing, where did the hole come from?
Click to expand...
So did Rory poke a hole under his after the bounce, or was he just way smarter for not having anyone come over to look at all?
 
Canadan said:
Is there video? I have no idea.
Click to expand...
Of Rory's shot bouncing? Yes. Of either of them deliberately making a hole in the ground to claim their ball was embedded? No.
 
Greg Kulbick said:
Of Rory's shot bouncing? Yes. Of either of them deliberately making a hole in the ground to claim their ball was embedded? No.
Click to expand...
I mean, I'm happy to discuss Rory's actions in the Rory thread if there's video of it.
I'm talking about this situation, where 1+1 doesn't seem to equal 2 despite 2 being there.

If we want to isolate on the rule as it's been redefined and confirm how stupid it is, I'm down for that as well.
 
Canadan said:
I've seen plenty of speculation on twitter... Where when he first leaned down to grab it he pushed it down. Where he repeatedly poked at the area with his fingers.

But the question in the simplest form; If the ball bounced, and collectively it is agreed that a hole couldn't be made by the second landing, where did the hole come from?
Click to expand...
This has been my point all along. It is, as we lawyers would call it, circumstantial evidence. Since the ball bounced, the only way it could become imbedded is by Reed pressing the ball into the ground. It would have had to be an outside agent and Reed was the only one who touched the ball after it landed.
 
Canadan said:
I mean, I'm happy to discuss Rory's actions in the Rory thread if there's video of it.
I'm talking about this situation, where 1+1 doesn't seem to equal 2 despite 2 being there.

If we want to isolate on the rule as it's been redefined and confirm how stupid it is, I'm down for that as well.
Click to expand...
As someone who plays on a course where half of it is a veritable swamp, I can say with certainty that a ball can plug after a bounce. So that part of Reed's claim is false. All I'm saying is no one can prove Reed's ball wasn't embedded. No one questions if Rory's was after bouncing. No one cared that he picked it up and looked at it without calling anyone over. You say 1+1 doesn't seem to equal 2, but shouldn't your formula have variables since no one but him really knows all the facts?

I'm not going to say he didn't do it, but people are saying things as fact, as if they watched him push the ball down as he picked it up, or that they saw him pressing his finger into the ground to make an indentation. I've seen the video, you can't say either of those things unequivocally.
 
Greg Kulbick said:
As someone who plays on a course where half of it is a veritable swamp, I can say with certainty that a ball can plug after a bounce. So that part of Reed's claim is false. All I'm saying is no one can prove Reed's ball wasn't embedded. No one questions if Rory's was after bouncing. No one cared that he picked it up and looked at it without calling anyone over. You say 1+1 doesn't seem to equal 2, but shouldn't your formula have variables since no one but him really knows all the facts?

I'm not going to say he didn't do it, but people are saying things as fact, as if they watched him push the ball down as he picked it up, or that they saw him pressing his finger into the ground to make an indentation. I've seen the video, you can't say either of those things unequivocally.
Click to expand...
You are making good points. At your course, can a ball imbed after a bounce in an area that is heavy rough?
 
Tenputt said:
You are making good points. At your course, can a ball imbed after a bounce in an area that is heavy rough.
Click to expand...
Yes, sometimes its too wet to mow, so the rough is even heavier.
 
Greg Kulbick said:
False.
Click to expand...
I have read your posts on this. My statement is based upon what Reed himself said and would seem fairly reliable, since he is a PGA Tour pro with 9 or 10 wins.
 
Tenputt said:
I have read your posts on this. My statement is based upon what Reed himself said and would seem fairly reliable, since he is a PGA Tour pro with 9 or 10 wins.
Click to expand...
I know, he's wrong, too. That, or Rory's ball wasn't embedded after bouncing and he cheated, too.
 
Canadan said:
If we want to isolate on the rule as it's been redefined and confirm how stupid it is
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is denying that the rule is stupid. Until Saturday, I didn't know you could get relief from a putatively embedded ball in the rough. I think best practice, when the ball is in the rough and could arguably be considered embedded, is to call in an official.
 
Greg Kulbick said:
As someone who plays on a course where half of it is a veritable swamp, I can say with certainty that a ball can plug after a bounce. So that part of Reed's claim is false. All I'm saying is no one can prove Reed's ball wasn't embedded. No one questions if Rory's was after bouncing. No one cared that he picked it up and looked at it without calling anyone over. You say 1+1 doesn't seem to equal 2, but shouldn't your formula have variables since no one but him really knows all the facts?

I'm not going to say he didn't do it, but people are saying things as fact, as if they watched him push the ball down as he picked it up, or that they saw him pressing his finger into the ground to make an indentation. I've seen the video, you can't say either of those things unequivocally.
Click to expand...
I don't have enough experience in California wet weather golf to know whether it's possible. I was going off the information given that (similar to Ohio ground) it would be nearly impossible if not completely impossible for a ball to create a significant hole in the ground on a second bounce.

So I was stuck on the fact that a hole somehow existed after the fact, if that information is correct (which everyone including Reed believed). Add in Reed's track record, and as has been suggested, the optics aren't great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top