Reeds scrape away

[LICC]

“Whoa,” Fowler said, clearly taken by the footage. “What is that?” Several reporters, dialed in to the news of the moment, explained that Reed’s ruling — whether or not he had improved his line of play — was under review. Fowler shrugged. “I mean, I don’t even know what you have to review,” he said.

[xxio]

But then when you address again to finally play the shot, you see your lie has improved. You figure an outside agency did that?

Yes, the guys tamping down the fairway wood behind the ball then finally taking an iron should earn reputations as well.

[bladehunter]

I’m not inside Patrick reeds head. I’m not certain he knew. And nobody else is. We just want to hang a guy. I tried it myself and In a footprint filled waste bunker it is not obvious that anything moved. If you read my initial posts here and the other thread. I condemned him early too. I’ve since changed my mind to think that I don’t have any definitive evidence that makes me know what he knew when he knew it.

[Pepperturbo]

Though what you say has merit for YOU and me... your following presumption is unrealistic. Neither of us has played in anything like the Presidents Cup or know the level of pressure that's put on a players facilities and body over every shot. Then there's knowing a TV camera is zooming in to see a player spit and the sweat on his brow plus a mic off in the distance picking up children unfriendly cuss words after a mistake, and the concern that comes from not wanting to make another mistake, and let's not forget the lunatics standing nearby in the gallery listening to a player far* and heckling. Even when I played in Pro-Ams none of that was in play for me, because the camera was on the pro and the tournament was not like the Cup.

Keep in mind, the camera zoomed in to magnify what his club head did to the sand, least that's what I saw. As a pretty good player with vision that can still hit an 8" target at 500 meters, standing over the ball doesn't provide that same level of detail to my vision. I am also reminded how many times someone in a TV tournament moved a twig near a ball that microscopically moved the ball but the player didn't see it happen. Some viewer with nothing better to do called in to report the infraction and he was later penalized or DQ'd.

As I see this, there are plenty of dots you're ignoring as you try hard to connect them to create the picture you see in your mind. All while ignoring other pertinent dots in the scenario. It just doesn't pass muster as a viable scenario of discombobulated dots. LOL Have a good rest of the day.

 

 

 

[straightshot7]

Exactly. That video says it all.

I don't know how anyone can watch that and think Reed wasn't aware that his lie changed.

It's not subtle at all. It's a significant amount of sand. I notice much smaller changes than that.

Very little to no chance, in my opinion, that Reed would not notice that.

Why would he be so aggressively grounding his club in the first place? Like he doesn't know he's doing that? He doesn't see the mound of sand that will be behind his club head, before grounding his club? Not buying it.

[Brass_Bullseye]

You’re such a rebel. Ain’t nobody tells you what to do.

[Brass_Bullseye]

Thank you, Pepper. If everyone on golfwrx would simply capitalize each word in his or her posts to which we should pay specific attention, there would never be any ambiguity. Kudos to you, sir. And kudos again.

[Sean2]

You are upsetting the "narrative" PT. Shame on you. ;-)

[straightshot7]

If you think a top PGA Tour player can do this without noticing, I have some awesome multi-level marketing opportunities to tell you about: Patrick Reed - Create, Discover and Share Awesome GIFs on Gfycat

And also there is a river that runs through Africa that you'll really like, it's called De Nile.

[juliette91]

I should have read the rules first instead of spouting off with my own hypothetical, thanks for the reminder, it's my first mistake of 2019.

[Bloom]

I like how on the first swing he goes a little to the right to clear out one big mound. Then notices he didn't get it all so goes back for the second practice swing to clear the mound on the left. :)

[Titleist 670]

Do people really think he didn't know what he was doing?

Go watch the full clip. He stands over the lie for a long time - he knows it's terrible. There's even another camera angle in front of the ball (after he knocks the mound down) that shows where he knocked the sand away was directly behind the ball. On his practice swings, he also makes sure to swing out to the left so as to avoid hitting the ball on his downswing.

If he were really far back from the ball as he claimed and the camera angle was off, why would he need to be so careful with his downswing?

In addition, nobody in their right mind who was that close in a tournament if they knew they did not violate a rule would just accept the penalty and move on.

If I were in a tournament, dropped a ball from knee height and then they showed some overhead angle where you couldn't tell if my hand was at my knee or my ankle, I wouldn't just say "oh golly shucks that looks bad, I'll take the penalty." I'd be fuming if I knew that I did not cheat.

The only thing Reed has going for him in this instance is that you can't read his mind or put him on a polygraph to see if he did anything intentionally or not. But it sure seems like he did.

[Titleist99]

Look no further than when Tiger Woods was on his knee hitting from the bush.....slow motion showed that he hit the ball twice. In regular time you couldn't tell that he hit it once.

[Titleist99]

The player always get the benefit of doubt because no one knows what is going on in his mind. Now we may think otherwise. but that is the main core of golf. Do we really want to abandon that concept because we don't like Patrick Reed!?! …..I think not.

[Mikey5e]

It was a complete accident by PR.

[Titleist99]

Many times I have seen Slugger White pull a player in and ask him about a certain situation and the player says that he was unaware of the infraction. At that time I say to my self that guy is as guilty as sin but slugger says that he took the players word. Now do we want to abandon that because we don't like PR...... Now that's a slippery slope.

In this case, intent doesn't matter.....two stroke  penalty. Unless someone is a bonified mind reader....LOL!

[Pepperturbo]

@Sean2  Never been much of a follower, not in sports, in-country or business. I like all that comes with being a leader of men, even consequences. ? 

Again, I watched the video provided above.   It makes Reeds club-head movements appear illegal by the rules. It's like evidence that is too obvious leading viewers in the wrong direction. I maintain the belief the conditions lead PR to think his club movements in that bunker were acceptable under the rules.  Plus if he was an serial cheater, they tend to put up a strong fight for their innocents. How many times do we hear prison criminals maintain their innocence yet overwhelming evidence shows otherwise.

A critical reasoning mind isn't going to believe in front of a filming TV camera with zoom capability, PR intentionally broke a rule or cheated and doesn't care who sees it. Even if you dislike Patrick Reed, he's NOT clinically a dummy nor mentally ill. If either of those conditions actually existed, he couldn't play the game at that level or function in a team atmosphere.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt also comes from fifty years of evaluating high performing people and managing a large number of diverse employees where some made bad decisions on purpose, while others made mistakes, some more costly than others. Last, It always seems the people that are the quickest to judge others have little or no compassion or experience or understanding of human behavior, probably lousy at golf too... LOL

[sui generis]

From RoG, Committee Procedures: 6C Providing Rules Assistance to Players(7) How to Resolve Questions of Fact

Resolving questions of fact is among the most difficult actions required of a referee or the Committee.

In all situations involving questions of fact, resolution of the doubt should be made in light of all the relevant circumstances and evaluation of the weight of the evidence, including the balance of probabilities where applicable. When the Committee is unable to determine the facts to its satisfaction, it should treat the situation in a way that is reasonable, fair and consistent with how similar situations are treated under the Rules.

Testimony of the players involved is important and should be given due consideration.

In some situations where the facts are not decisive, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the player whose ball is involved.

In others, the doubt should be resolved against the player whose ball is involved.

There is no set process for evaluating the testimony of the players or for assigning the weight to be given to such testimony and each situation should be treated on its own merits. The proper action depends on the circumstances in each case and should be left to the judgment of the referee, or the Committee.

When a player has been required to determine a spot, point, line, area or location under the Rules, the Committee should determine if the player used reasonable judgment in doing so. If so that decision will be accepted even if, after the stroke is made, the determination is shown to be wrong (see Rule 1.3b(2)).

Testimony of those who are not a part of the competition, including spectators, should be considered and evaluated. It is also appropriate to use television footage and the like to assist in resolving doubt, although the naked eye standard should be applied when using such evidence (see Rule 20.2c).

It is important that any questions of fact be resolved in a timely manner such that the competition may proceed in an orderly way. Thus, the referee may be limited to evaluating the evidence available to him or her in a timely manner. Any such ruling may be further reviewed by the referee, or the Committee if additional evidence becomes available after the initial ruling.

If a judgment is made by a referee, the player is entitled to proceed on the basis of that ruling whether it is an interpretation of the Rules of Golf or a resolution of a question of fact. In situations arising in both circumstances, if the ruling is found to be incorrect, the Committee may have the authority to make a correction (see Rule 20.2d and Section 6C(10) or 6C(11)). However, in all circumstances, including both match play and stroke play, the referee or Committee is limited in its ability to make corrections by the guidance contained in Rule 20.2d.

Where there is a question relating to the Rules where it is one player’s word against another’s and the weight of evidence does not favour either player, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the player who made the stroke or whose score is involved.

[straightshot7]

It's not that simple and it's not that cut and dry. Every situation is different.

For example, it's much easier to believe that Tiger didn't feel that double hit or drag from the bush. For obvious reasons. That's a "bang, bang play" and it's reasonable to think he might not feel it.

In Reed's case, it is just MUCH harder to believe he wouldn't notice himself removing all of that sand. And also why is he even grounding his club that aggressively in the first place? It just looks a lot worse.

And it is possible to say Reed got the penalty he deserved and there's no further action required. And to still feel there is a pretty high likelihood that he cheated intentionally. We are not saying it with a certainty, we're just saying there's a good likelihood of it. And I am sure players will keep a closer eye on him going forward because of it.

[rkelso184]

Is it still cheating if he didnt win? Lol

[Titleist99]

I agree with you but I won't take a man's reputation based on a high likelihood. It's to hard to get it back.

How many times have we seen the rule official ask a player "did you address the ball and the player says no" then they show the tape and it is clear that

he addressed the ball. Should we label him a cheater?

[straightshot7]

Again, that's apples to oranges. It's much easier to innocently forget or not be aware of addressing the ball, then to do what Patrick Reed did. Totally different things. Reed deliberately grounded his club and went through this pre-shot for quite some time. Knowingly grounding the club, knowingly taking a back swing behind the ball, etc. etc. multiple times. Unless you think he was unconscious during this process? It's possible but not likely.

It's telling that you keep trying to compare this incident to other ones, instead of simply defending Reed's actions. Maybe because you know they are indefensible?

I am judging this Patrick Reed incident in isolation. The other scenarios don't really matter to me. This one speaks for itself and can be judged by itself.

Also his reputation is another story entirely. But if you look at his track record as a whole, at some point it starts to form a picture. It doesn't really matter to me. I don't know him personally and my opinion of him doesn't matter.

My only point is that I think there is a high likelihood he intentionally improved his lie in this particular incident.

[Sean2]

I am impressed. I made my first mistake on 1/1/19. ;-)

[Sean2]

When I was in business school many years ago we were doing a case study. A VP for one of the baby bells made a $10 million error. The CEO was asked if he was going to fire the guy, and he replied, "Hell no! I just payed $10 million dollars for his education!"

[Titleist99]

It is possible to be totally unconscious of the process. I re-enacted the incident in a bunker and never once did I follow the backswing of any practice

swing. My eyes were totally focused on the back of the ball. Try this, address a ball in your living room and take a waggle or practice swing and honestly tell me if you follow

 the back of the club. Always apples to apples....because slow motion always detect what the eyes can't see. It's only good for golf instruction. IMO

[Hawkeye77]

EXCEPT he was playing in the Hero World Challenge and not a lot of pressure, lol, not the President's Cup and there were no heckling lunatics. Didn't happen last week.

 

[straightshot7]

Yeah it's possible that he didn't realize he was doing it. I just still don't think it's likely.

You re-enacting things is not reliable. You're tainting the experiment from the get-go with your pre-conceived thoughts about the whole thing.

I already said in a previous post but at the very least you have to at least think Reed was very cavalier with the club head, don't you think? Shouldn't he know that there is a chance of altering the lie if he grounds his club and does that little/low backswing?

You wouldn't be aware of the possibility of that happening? How was he not aware of that possibility?

I would immediately be aware of that possibility when I looked at the ball and saw the mound of sand behind it. It would cause me to say, "if I ground my club here I'm going to be careful to not disturb the sand behind the ball too much". It doesn't take much change to cause an improvement in the lie. Since sand is obviously so malleable. He should know that. I doubt that he doesn't know that.

I don't see how a top pro would not be more aware of that possibility. And just be so reckless. At the very least he must be oblivious to his lies. No pun intended. How do you not notice the lie has changed after you just took at least two groups of sand away? It doesn't take slow motion to see that the lie has significantly changed.

This isn't a small amount of sand we are talking about, either. Watch the reply again. He's moving some serious earth.

[oiler45]

Pepper - you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. Like you, I led large groups of diverse professionals throughout my career (I'm not here to compare work careers) and I see Reed's actions in a completely different light. He firstly denies doing it, then he blames it on the camera angle, then he makes light of it (shovelling action at the President's Cup). To me, these actions all point to someone who was caught trying to cheat and who subsequently lied to attempt to cover it up. In my opinion he is a cheater. This has nothing to do with PR's reputation, it is solely based on his actions. If Steve Stricker attempted the same thing I would say he was a cheater too.

[Pepperturbo]

Given the number of video's on the net of alleged incidents and claims he cheated I am no longer sure we're comparing apples to apples but apples to oranges. I don't believe PR is a serial cheater and don't believe he must act a certain way regarding social media bias claims and his detractors. You are welcome to your opinion. Have a good weekend and Christmas.

[Titleist99]

Chances are we wouldn't have noticed either util a slow motion camera told us to look at this......look at this!