Patrick Reed at Hero Challenge

It's stange that nobody is discussing Partick Reed's actions in a waste area at Tiger's Hero Challenge. It was deemed that he breached Rule 8.1, improving conditions affecting the stroke, by moving sand from behind his ball with a backswing, not once, but twice.

Could/should this also have been a serious breach of Rule 1.2a, conduct expected of all players, with a dq?

There's a couple threads on it already in Tour and Juniors.

You can rant why the powers that be didn't move those threads here. ?

It's being discussed ad nauseam in the Tour Talk section and has been for three plus days.

All been hashed and rehashed.

There's a thread in the tour section, the vast majority of posters agree he made an honest mistake and should be forgiven

IMO when there's a prescribed (2-stroke) penalty for an infraction one shouldn't expand it to a DQ unless there's something truly exceptional going on.

That's rich . . . .

he did it twice .. hole 16 round 2 not being talked about for some reason

feherty commented while it was happening

I’m curious of people’s thoughts on the spirit of the rule vs the Kuchar instance where he removed larger pieces of sand until his ball was teed up . I understand that they are defining loose impediment by some unlisted size chart for sand (lol), but I don’t understand why the spirit of improving ones lie isn’t the same there as with reed ? Since there is no size regulation for loose impediments, could reed have picked out sand one piece at a time like Kuchar and been ok ? If no , why? As in tell me where the line is from “ sand and loose soil , to loose impediment “. Kuchars impediments where very small , and had to be painstakingly picked , so not as if it was gravel or something.

There is already a penalty for the act, why make it more than what it is? However I think the Tour needs to add provision for fines and suspensions and for those to be made public.

I don't expect you to be satisfied with my response, but nevertheless here it is:

Let me state my personal view: I appreciate being allowed to move things like acorns from behind or in front of my ball, and I want to keep our ability to legally move these loose impediments. I appreciate the requirement not to scoop sand away from the back of a ball embedded in the sand, and I want to keep that restriction. The most practical way to address these two issues is to allow removal of loose impediments, but not allow the removal of sand (or loose soil). So there must be a distinction made between sand and loose impediments, and that distinction is to explicitly remove sand from the definition of loose impediment.

Is it hard to tell the difference between sand and another sort of loose impediment? I have NEVER had a problem, though I won't argue that someone might. So, the bottom line is that I'm satisfied to leave things as they are, and if a player is truly not sure whether a pin-head sized piece of quartz is a grain of sand or a loose impediment, then let him call on a ref to make the distinction for him, or just play the ball as it lies, or if playing stroke play play two balls.

Link? Or please expand.

"So there must be a distinction made between sand and loose impediments, and that distinction is to explicitly remove sand from the definition of loose impediment."

Isn't that done already?

Special cases:Sand and Loose Soil are not loose impediments.

Yes, it surely has. I’m simply stating why I agree with what’s already been done.

Quite so. I was scrolling through the thread to make the same comment. Also, you are prohibited from touching the sand behind or in front of the ball or when making a practice stroke [12.2b(1)] which makes his statement that he didn't think he was improving his lie pointless, does it not?

First. My question wasn’t a loaded one. I don’t know the answer.

And as as I think on it , I may prefer to not be able to move anything. I seem to be able to find a way to the back of the ball better than most , and I’d love to know that my competitors need to figure that out too. But I think that’s another argument

I ask specifically about two instances And in my mind was leaning toward the idea that kuchars shouldn’t be allowed either Not that Reed should be allowed

As in the best compromise is to not have sand that isn’t a “hazard “ ( to use the old term ) and not to be allowed to touch anything in any of that sand . That leaves the loose impediment moving idea for all other areas that aren’t a hazard and makes a hazard a hazard again and includes sand Therefore cutting out this confusion . I say confusion because I believe that if I pick them one at a time , inside my slotted time for a shot , I could move some silica Particles ( loose impediments) with no penalty No ?

No.

Already understood that to be the answer. So I asked why ?

Only rephrased the question to try to illicit an answer

12.2a says:

a. Removing Loose Impediments and Movable ObstructionsBefore playing a ball in a bunker

, a player may remove loose impediments

 under Rule 15.1 and movable obstructions

 under Rule 15.2.

This includes any reasonable touching or movement of the sand in the bunker

 that happens while doing so.

Does that answer you? I'm confused as to what you may be asking.

I'm surprised no one has brought up Tiger and the giant rock.

There is no link and I seem to be the only one that watched the end of round 2

Reed was in a fairway bunker .. I believe it was hole 16

He was making practice swings and even Feherty said "it looks like he is moving sand away here with his practice swing and he is allowed to do that"

He then semi-fatted a wedge short right of the green and didn't get up and down for par

I remember it well as the pin was back right near two sprinkler heads and Tiger had just played the hole and made a birdie with a solid PW in tight

Reed had a very similar cuppy lie in a waste area after his tee ball. I am 90% certain it was round 2 as I didn't watch round 3 but heard the kerfuffle afterwards and assumed it was about what I had witnessed the day before

I tweeted Chamblee, someone do the same to Feherty, I don't know. The coverage has to exist on someone's PVR/DVR

here it is

Hey. I’m more confused now than when I started. lol yay me.

So the line isn’t at touching. Or moving. But scooping ? And leaves it up to reason ?

Lol. Wasn’t the old way better ? If it’s in sand don’t touch it. The end. Thanks for the reply. But I’m Sadder for asking.

So a new rule that you can't ground your club on a bare lie in sandy soil, even though you aren't in a bunker? And if there is a loose impediment near that bare (sandy) lie, you can't remove the loose impediment?

You are complicating matters.

Feherty: "I can see Patrick just tidied up that lie a little...that's perfectly alright."

Brilliant! but wrong.

if you read. I said quit with the waste areas and call them all “ bunkers “ or hazards. I’ve always disliked the “ bunker that isn’t a bunker “ , new rules or old.

so , no. Not my conversation or point at all. The two situations I gave happened in waste bunkers. So same same scenarios. The only difference is the ruling and size of silica particles.

I don't understand why they do that, either.

Nonetheless, the situation could still exist in a TRUE waste area. Sand, on the ground, that isn't a bunker. Like if you were to play from the beach on 18 at Pebble. Or if you are playing in a sandy part of the world and simply miss the fairway.

There is no way to eliminate your rules dilemma, although I hesitate to call it that.

Doesn’t that rule pertain to bunkers? He was not in one.

Persactly. He was permitted to ground his club.

another question popped into my head. Suppose a player grounds his club behind a fried egg in a waste area and takes a shovel full coming back on the actual swing. Same penalty ?

Yes, it applies only to bunkers. I thought his ball was in one but I see now from OP that it wasn't and so my remark isn't relevant to the discussion about Reed's actions. Thanks.