Reeds scrape away

[oiler45]

You too man  …  hit 'em long and straight in 2020 !!

[Titleist99]

Here's the difference between you and me sir.....You are willing to give the man the electric chair because you are 99% certain

and I am willing to set him free because I am only 99% certain...

[bladehunter]

I’d say it’s more like 75% but yes. I agree. I need to be persuaded to 100 %.

[jmck]

The only two things in life which are 100% certain are death and taxes. That's why generally agreed upon standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Personally, I'm 110% convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Reed knew exactly what he was doing in moving that much sand directly behind his ball.

[Londoner]

Of course he knew. Brush a few blades of grass with your backswing and you can feel it. To have 2 goes and move as much sand as he did it's beyond belief that he didn't know.

I don't know what it takes to convince some of you guys. I hope you're never on a jury.

[LICC]

They’ve done studies you know. 60% of the time, it works every time ...

[Sean2]

The only one who really knows is Patrick Reed. The visual evidence is compelling, but not indisputable. The reason I have my doubts as to his guilt is there was a cameraman right there. Before you call someone a "cheater", the evidence has to be more than compelling, it has to be indisputable. And in this case, it is not indisputable.

[straightshot7]

Total strawman and dumb analogy.

If this were actually a court case I would say "It is my opinion that he probably cheated. But, we don't have enough objective evidence to say so for sure. I think we still have a reasonable doubt. So I will vote not guilty".

So your post is just wrong on multiple levels.

It is my opinion that he probably cheated BUT of course my opinion is by default just an opinion. It's not a fact.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Shameful that 3 people liked your fake news post.

For the record I don't even support the death penalty! Lol.

[straightshot7]

lol. Who said anything about giving Reed some new punishment? You guys love to move the goal posts and create these irrelevant scenarios.

We're just speculating about whether we think he cheated or not. Going another step and saying we think he should receive punishment is a totally different conversation.

i.e. Me saying "I think he probably cheated" is not the same as saying "I'm 99% or 100% certain and he should be punished because i'm definitely right!".

Smh

[bladehunter]

i have no idea why you’d care if he tried to cheat unless it was to punish him ? He didn’t succeed and was penalized. So field is ok. So ?

 

This is isnt me even trying to argue. It’s me not understanding what you’re saying.

[straightshot7]

Seriously?

Uh because this guy is a top player on the PGA Tour of which we are customers.

We aren't allowed to speculate about whether someone like that cheated?

Or even just purely for entertainment. Or for curiosity. Or just to argue. I never said I personally really cared. This is one of a number of basically pointless stories we discuss. That's the point of the forum. To discuss the golf issues.

For countless reasons.

Why are you here discussing it? You're just here protecting Patrick Reed or the field or??

Come on man lol. Dumb question.

[bladehunter]

I still don’t understand. lol.

 

All I did was enter the discussion again and say “ it’s more like 75% but I’d need to be swayed to 100 % to call him a cheater “. That’s my opinion on the subject. Of course if I weigh in with my opinion , that means I agree with the right to discuss it. I’m helping discuss it. Right ?

 

I still don’t get your issue with what I said. I’m fine with disagreement. But I don’t understand the separation of “ did he cheat “ and “ punish him “. Did he cheat ? I don’t know. I have no way of being inside his head. Only he knows. The evidence isn’t close to being an open and shut case.

 

For what its it’s worth i recall we’ve not understood each other before. Likely suffering from the same miscommunication now.

[jmck]

Here's the thing. (And this is also why the "but there was a camera right there!!! argument is bunk). He's on camera doing this more than once. How many times has he done this when there wasn't a camera on him? Seems a fair question to ask, and that's the difference between intentionally cheating versus accidentally breaking a rule and taking your penalty for it. It's easy to protect the field in the case of the latter. It's very difficult to protect the field in the case of the former as cheaters don't self-report. You have to catch them in the act, which IMO is what happened here. Cheating is a pathological problem--a compulsive behavior--and even being caught and publicly shamed isn't enough to stop most of them. A two stroke penalty certainly won't do it. There's a big difference between cheating and accidentally breaking a rule, even if they both add up to a two shot penalty.

There's a reason cheating rumors have followed this guy around since his AJGA days. The level of the benefit of the doubt you're extending him well exceeds what he's earned, at least IMO.

[bladehunter]

Sure. I get that is your opinion. I’m just asserting mine.

And I have no idea what straightshot is meaning when he pulls out punishment and separates it from guilt. The two go together. Guilt would mean an auto punishment. No ?

I’m fine with us disagreeing. I just want to understand why what I said isn’t part of us disagreeing on reeds guilt.

[Sean2]

So a guy is going to purposely cheat, knowing a camera is on him, because it's compulsive behavior and as such he can't control his behavior even though he knows he will get caught? I thought the idea behind cheating was to deceive and to mislead. Hard to do with a camera recording your every move.

[jmck]

I can’t speak for the other guy, but look at it this way:

He won the Masters by one shot. How many bunker shots did he hit that week without a camera on him? What about on Thursday morning with no one in the gallery watching and everyone else in his group on the other side of the green?

If he’s on camera at the Hero accidentally improving his lie, no big deal. If he’s on camera at the Hero intentionally digging a trench, well that’s a different story. Same two shot penalty, but maybe it makes you wonder....Fowler finished 2nd in that Masters. Maybe he should’ve won it? It’s a career altering win, one shot over four days, and there’s never been a whisper of a bad word about Fowler.

[bladehunter]

That’s a huge huge bridge to have to build. This wasn’t even a bunker he was in. Not at all. It’s legal to ground your club. And legal to scrape away sand going back. So long as It’s during the actual stroke. His only foul here was doing so on a practice swing. That’s it.

 

Cant grind your club or touch sand going back in a bunker. So literally impossible for this scenario you paint to play out in fact.

[jmck]

The point is that’s all besides the point.

What I see in that Hero video is someone intentionally improving his lie. It doesn’t matter that it’s in a waste area not a bunker. It doesn’t matter that he was penalized two strokes. It doesn’t matter that he could’ve theoretically moved a bunch of sand in the course of his actual stroke and not been penalized for it.

The point is he’s intentionally using his practice swings to improve his lie. That’s not an accidental “foul.” That’s cheating. If he’s willing to intentionally improve his lie like that while on camera, what’s he theoretically willing to do when he’s not on camera?

Take Augusta, and forget bunkers for a second. Say it’s Thursday morning and he hits a drive 50 yards offline. There’s no one around, not even his caddy who’s off trying to find a yardage. Ball’s totally dead, on the wrong side of a root under a low growing magnolia. No stance, no shot. Gotta take an unplayable. BUT. No one except him and god have seen it, and three feet away is a spot where he’d have enough of a stance and lie to punch out, back into play, without penalty.

What I see at the Hero is someone obviously intentionally improving his lie, and then obviously lying about it afterwards. Beyond any reasonable doubt, at least for me. What I see at the Hero is someone who would have no hesitation to break out the foot wedge in the bushes at Augusta with none else around. I don’t see someone who committed a foul and accepted his penalty. I see a cheater.

[Vindog]

Now he cheated at the Masters?

 

Ouch. This place.

[bladehunter]

That scenario can play out with any player in any field. No human is without temptation. None. I guarantee some of the most honest reputation players have cheated. Or omitted facts that would penalize themselves.

I don’t see reeds practice swings as obvious that he knew , so the rest of that falls apart pretty quickly.

 

Its pretty easy to find video of Seve doing the old “ 3 wood no no 5 wood no no 1 iron “ dance behind a ball in the tall rough until he has a good enough lie to hit a 3 iron. Are we posthumously going to call him a cheater ? I doubt it.

 

Ive said it several times here. The fake or “ less than virgin “ integrity of this game will not stand up to today’s video equipment. Not in literal interpretations. We’ve seen it too many times in the last 5 years. Things we used to not know went on. Are now being shown. That’s all this is.

[jmck]

Sure, why not. Let's apply the 100% standard of proof people are using to say Reed's little bunker work at the Hero was accidental. I'm only 75-99% sure he didn't cheat in the Masters, so might as well say he did.

[jmck]

That scenario can play out with any player in any field. No human is without temptation. None. I guarantee some of the most honest reputation players have cheated. Or omitted facts that would penalize themselves.I agree 100% with you here.I don’t see reeds practice swings as obvious that he knew , so the rest of that falls apart pretty quickly.I disagree 100% with you here.Its pretty easy to find video of Seve doing the old “ 3 wood no no 5 wood no no 1 iron “ dance behind a ball in the tall rough until he has a good enough lie to hit a 3 iron. Are we posthumously going to call him a cheater ? I doubt it.Seve's reputation, back then and now, was of someone who wasn't above rattling coins in his pocket during a competitor's backswings. No one thought he was a saint. Reed's earned his reputation. He got thrown off the Georgia team for lying, cheating, and stealing for chrissake! I have no idea why so many people refuse to take stuff like that into account when discussing this latest rules violation. Ive said it several times here. The fake or “ less than virgin “ integrity of this game will not stand up to today’s video equipment. Not in literal interpretations. We’ve seen it too many times in the last 5 years. Things we used to not know went on. Are now being shown. That’s all this is.First of all, it didn't take any special equipment at the Hero. You can see what he's doing zoomed out and played at regular speed. Secondly, people getting away with crap in the past because there weren't cameras everywhere is a lousy excuse to let the same crap slide now or in the future.

[bladehunter]

I can’t see it zoomed out at regular speed. Not even now that I know it’s there. Definitely not if you don’t know to look. I watched it live and didn’t see it at all until the zoom.

 

As for Reeds college days. There’s mixed reports on that and you know lt. some coaches have no knowledge of any of this until after the fact. It’s a whole ball of wax. But I for one refuse to believe some of the “ bro “ culture teammates he had , simply because it’s obvious they hate him because he’s the anti “ bro “ culture character. Their bias is what makes me question anything they say. All that smoke and not a single DQ ever that I’ve heard of. It’s a huge conspiracy if he’s a cheater and never been caught. Huge.

[wobgon]

I would say that since he did it before with a camera present, he would think he could do it again with a camera present......Also, and you folks can answer this for me because I don't know. Does he put the club down behind the ball and take short practice swings with all his shots or just when he is in a waste bunker with sand behind his ball?

[bladehunter]

And I’ll add. His scraping of the sand doesn’t have to be cheating even if he knows. It could also simply be a ignorance of the rule. It’s not a bunker for the 300th time. You CAN ground your club. You can move sand. You can move loose impediments. You can even take practice swings in the sand , just not that close to the ball. If he’s back 6 inches he’s perfectly legal.

Theres way too many scenarios to “ know “ anything.

[Londoner]

In the PR scenario being discussed can I ask what WOULD make you 100% certain of cheating?

[wobgon]

My question is, does he set his club down behind the ball and take short backswings when he is not in a waste bunker. AS I said above, I don't know.

[davep043]

I've watched is a bunch, and largely agree with @bladehunter . First, he couldn't see the sand he was moving, it was under the blade of his wedge. The sand looks dry, so the newly exposed sand didn't appear to be a different color, maybe it wasn't obvious that it had been moved. Could he feel it? Quite possibly, but it was dry loose sand, it wouldn't have provided tons of resistance. We cannot know for sure. The location of that little ridge wasn't right next to his ball, the ridge was at the "back" of a footprint, the ball was near the front. He may have thought that the ridge really wasn't in the way of his swing, at that distance. If he didn't know the exact rule (many many players don't), he may have known the moved some sand, and didn't think it was an infraction. I can see a lot of reasons to NOT think he was intentionally cheating. Its certainly possible it all was intentional, I just don't know for sure.

[bladehunter]

Yep. He does. And a lot of players do. They will swing at the ball and last second pull it to the side. I’ve always noticed players doing this. Never considered it was to improve their lies.

[bladehunter]

What would make anyone 100 % of cheating ?

 

A confession would be 1. Also maybe some sort of mind reading ability 2. Maybe even evidence that he actually improved his lie 3. ? Which he didn’t As has been said the sand he moved wasn’t directly behind and close to the ball It was a size 12 length away

 

Put it this way. I’d have a hard time convicting someone of murder without a body or confession. I’m assuming some here wouldn’t. Maybe some heresay or circumstantial evidence like a date between the two 2 weeks ago would work ? lol.