Farmers Insurance Open 2021

[jdl]

13 minutes ago, deadsolid...shank said:

😀Hi E!  I don’t really even care, pretty indifferent about Reed. I just really think his past is playing a huge, huge part in this. 

Agree and Reed obviously doesn't care either. He knows the cameras will be watching him yet he does all this stuff that will look bad. 

[Creedo77]

If you've spent any time around pro golfers when they're in a situation where they're marking their ball to get a ruling they never "palm" the ball as Brandel mentioned. That decision right there just shows that PR shows no respect to any rule in golf, its common sense for the majority. 

[canonlbp430]

4 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

Yes he said that, but Reed hedged himself by saying that he thought his ball didn’t bounce twice and he was looking at a direct embedding because a volunteer said that to him

Whether he thought it bounced or not is irrelevant. He said a ball that bounced isn’t going to embed. Therefore he manipulated the ball. The whole “no one saw it bounce” argument is completely irrelevant to the whole situation. 

[CasualLie]

47 minutes ago, Featherbed Bent said:

you can't argue with physics.  never in the history of the world has a golf ball, after bouncing, embedded itself in thick and deep rough.

There's physics

Dechambeau physics

And Reed physics

 

All of them arguable!

[bajadock]

[juliette91]

22 minutes ago, ebrasmus21 said:

We smell blood.  We can’t help it.  

Yes you can help it.  You and others can start by judging only from the point of view of Reed.  If he and his competitors never saw it bounce--and no one else saw it or reported it differently--then when he approached the ball he would assume it landed there.

 

Was it embedded at that point?  Much ado about how high it bounced, that it's a physics impossibility to embed, etc. etc. but all it has to do to be embedded is to be in its own pitch mark.  Reed marked the impression of the ball and I guess that it was in its own pitch mark.  At least the referee saw it that way.

 

I will say at that point it was in everyone's "interest" who was part of that series of events--to justify and defend their actions.  That's one reason there's such a unified "defense" of what Reed said occurred.

[Holy Moses]

The PGA Tour is a complete players league. They will do anything for their players. But when so the other stars raise a stink? We know Rickie was unhappy with Reed at the 2019 Hero. When do the honest players begin to throw their weight around and get the Tour to come down on Reed?

[CasualLie]

It's far beyond coincidence where Reed is concerned.

 

Makes me wonder what he's doing when he's not on the first page of the leaderboard.

 

Too bad, I kind of like his playing, but can do without the controversy he brings on himself.

[Creedo77]

Pro perceptive....

 

Martin Piller on twitter

 

"To get relief from an embedded ball scenario, it must be your pitch mark. The fact the ball bounces forward should’ve put to bed any scenario for a free drop. I’ve played out of old pitch marks from the fairway"

[dmbolp]

4 minutes ago, juliette91 said:

Yes you can help it.  You and others can start by judging only from the point of view of Reed.  If he and his competitors never saw it bounce--and no one else saw it or reported it differently--then when he approached the ball he would assume it landed there.

 

Was it embedded at that point?  Much ado about how high it bounced, that it's a physics impossibility to embed, etc. etc. but all it has to do to be embedded is to be in its own pitch mark.  Reed marked the impression of the ball and I guess that it was in its own pitch mark.  At least the referee saw it that way.

 

I will say at that point it was in everyone's "interest" who was part of that series of events--to justify and defend their actions.  That's one reason there's such a unified "defense" of what Reed said occurred.

 

Have you seen the video?  The bounce and the final resting spot of the ball are no where near each other

[Holy Moses]

3 minutes ago, canonlbp430 said:

Whether he thought it bounced or not is irrelevant. He said a ball that bounced isn’t going to embed. Therefore he manipulated the ball. The whole “no one saw it bounce” argument is completely irrelevant to the whole situation. 

No, you're misunderstanding Reed’s position. Reed was consistent in his position, his position was just wrong. According to Reed, if the volunteer said that his ball bounced before it got to its final position, it would be impossible to be embedded. But the volunteer gave him info that led to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately, that info was wrong. Reed looked at his ball, thought the lie was crappy, pushed the ball down, picked it up, called the official, and didn’t let the official make a fair ruling.

[ebk]

I have no dog in this hunt.  But having played there quite a bit and often in mushy conditions, it may be that his ball ended up in a depression, and below the surface of the ground, but not in its own pitch mark.  Been there, done that on that course, but not necessarily on that hole.

 

To me, it appears that while he maybe SHOULDN’T have moved the ball before having it eyeballed by the official, there is no sanction for doing so.  And the rules appear to be in his favor here.

 

It’s unfortunate all the way around.

 

 

Edit:  while I was typing, someone post Mr. Pillar’s tweet.  Yes, same concept.

Edited January 31, 2021 by ebk

[Holy Moses]

5 minutes ago, Creedo77 said:

Pro perceptive....

 

Martin Piller on twitter

 

"To get relief from an embedded ball scenario, it must be your pitch mark. The fact the ball bounces forward should’ve put to bed any scenario for a free drop. I’ve played out of old pitch marks from the fairway"

Bad argument. Reed was told that it didn’t bounce. Reed handled it wrong, but not for that reason. If the ball bounced forward in the rough when it’s wet and landed in a pitch mark, you are given the benefit of the doubt there because it’s sitting below the grass. It’s not your responsibility to prove that it’s not your pitch mark in the rough.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Holy Moses

[OgeecheeMac1]

Golf Channel intentionally whipping up the Reed ruling into a fake controversy. Tournament officials have the final word. This is overkill over nothing. Official agreed the ball was imbedded. No advantage was gained. No rule was broken. Shame on NBC.

[Kilo1545]

It's not an embedded ball unless it's in the depression YOUR ball made upon impact.  Otherwise, they'd get relief every single time their tee shot rolled into a divot, etc.  It has to be embedded in its own depression, which can't be possible if it bounced forward.

 

Patrick Reed needs a blanket party.

 

[Copacetic]

29 minutes ago, Copacetic said:

So your argument is that from 200 yards the ball can land in heavy rough and take a good bounce but then drop a few feet further and embed? That’s just trollin

12 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

No. The available evidence at the time was it didn’t bounce. The bounce part is only in hindsight. Not part of the equation of that moment. 

no, the available evidence was whether the ball was actually embedded or not. Literally by just looking at the ball. Which he prevented the rules official from doing, claimed himself he wasn’t sure about then afterward said It couldn’t have been, Since it’s impossible once it’s bounced.  
 

you don’t just pick up your ball because no one can prove it bounced.  You don’t pick it up unless you can be certain it’s embedded, and only  once your playing partner or rules official agrees.  Anything else is just flat out cheating. 

[CasualLie]

I'll give Reed props if he goes on to win; that's serious teflon, but I don't think it's happening.

[canonlbp430]

4 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

No, you're misunderstanding Reed’s position. Reed was consistent in his position, his position was just wrong. According to Reed, if the volunteer said that his ball bounced before it got to its final position, it would be impossible to be embedded. But the volunteer gave him info that led to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately, that info was wrong. Reed looked at his ball, thought the lie was crappy, pushed the ball down, picked it up, called the official, and didn’t let the official make a fair ruling.

Well I agree 100%. He screwed himself with that comment. 

[deadsolid...shank]

1 minute ago, Copacetic said:

no, the available evidence was whether the ball was actually embedded or not. Literally by just looking at the ball. Which he prevented the rules official from doing, claimed himself he wasn’t sure about then afterward said It couldn’t have been, Since it’s impossible once it’s bounced.  
 

you don’t just pick up your ball because no one can prove it bounced.  You don’t pick it up unless you can be certain it’s embedded, and only  once your playing partner or rules official agrees.  Anything else is just flat out cheating. 

Apparently the tour players as well as their officials disagree with you. 

[Brooks_Cupcake]

1 minute ago, OgeecheeMac1 said:

Golf Channel intentionally whipping up the Reed ruling into a fake controversy. Tournament officials have the final word. This is overkill over nothing. Official agreed the ball was imbedded. No advantage was gained. No rule was broken. Shame on NBC.

 

2 minutes ago, OgeecheeMac1 said:

Golf Channel intentionally whipping up the Reed ruling into a fake controversy. Tournament officials have the final word. This is overkill over nothing. Official agreed the ball was imbedded. No advantage was gained. No rule was broken. Shame on NBC.

Shame on you for not realizing that the tournament official doesn’t want to look bad either. 
The official caught in the middle of being caught off guard that he knows by unwritten rule Reed should have waited before the official got there.

Palming, pushing down the ground, all of Reed’s antics were just plain wrong.

[BIG STU]

6 minutes ago, OgeecheeMac1 said:

Golf Channel intentionally whipping up the Reed ruling into a fake controversy. Tournament officials have the final word. This is overkill over nothing. Official agreed the ball was imbedded. No advantage was gained. No rule was broken. Shame on NBC.

Yep I was watching and they are stirring the pot especially Brendall.

[FerrisBueller]

If the tour won't address Reed cheating 2-3 times a year (that we know of) i sure would love to see Augusta revoke his invitation.

[OgeecheeMac1]

What antics? I saw no antics! You see what you want to see. He got relief from an imbedded ball. He had the blessing of an official. Move on.

[Holy Moses]

6 minutes ago, OgeecheeMac1 said:

Golf Channel intentionally whipping up the Reed ruling into a fake controversy. Tournament officials have the final word. This is overkill over nothing. Official agreed the ball was imbedded. No advantage was gained. No rule was broken. Shame on NBC.

Yes they agreed it was embedded, but who embedded it? A one foot bounce or someone pressing down on the ball? Is this the first ever embedded ruling by an official that was given with the ball not in the ground?

 

 

[Holy Moses]

1 minute ago, BIG STU said:

Yep I was watching and they are stirring the pot especially Brendall.

They needed this story. Controversy is good for the channel. I love it. 

[widow-maker]

He handled it properly within the rules.  Rory had an imbedded ball on 18, he picked it up and dropped it, without a rules official ever looking at it.  There's nothing in the Rules that says you have to have an official there to rule on it.  

The question to me is, did Reed create an impression while he was poking his finger in there.  I didn't see him cleaning his ball when he picked it up, although he should have handled it with two fingers like most do.  You couldn't tell definitively that he created an impression in the ground.  I'm not sure that the rules committee had any grounds to change anything here.  Only Patrick knows if he pushed in the ground.  When you're Patrick Reed, you're not going to get the benefit of the doubt from many people.

 

[Holy Moses]

1 minute ago, OgeecheeMac1 said:

What antics? I saw no antics! You see what you want to see. He got relief from an imbedded ball. He had the blessing of an official. Move on.

Embedded. 

[TreyWingbat]

I was thinking that it could be embedded in another depression as well, maybe made by a non-pro (or even pro) slamming their iron after a bad shot.

 

But if he did depress the ball further himself, he should've waiting for an Official, especially given his past history.

 

Now the GC said McIlroy had a embedded ball on 18 that he removed himself without consulting an Official.  The difference is Reed thought it was embedded, then may have depressed it further, took the ball out, but still called an Official over, so he didn't really save pace of play, if that was his main argument.  Plus it looks like he cleaned off the ball with his palm after perhaps depressing it further.

 

Again, not a good look all around given his past.

[Wildwing55]

One question has definitely been missed.  There was some opinion that the player's golf ball, and that very shot has to cause the imbed, to get relief from the imbed rule.  I'm not sure about that, given the reading of rule some posts above.

 

If Reed's shot bounced, which is obvious, into an existing pitch hole, indistinguishable from what would have been his pitch mark, did Reed do anything wrong?  I think the rules are a bit ambiguous on this, and if Reed didn't press the ball down, there is a chance he didn't do anything wrong.  Most have missed this possibility.

 

Then again, he could have cheated.  But, you don't know what actually happened.

[bscinstnct]

Is the issue if it bounced or if it imbedded?

 

Do you assume if it did not bounce that it imbedded and take a drop?

 

Or do you still have to have an imbedded ball to take the drop? Yes, I assume.

 

One anti-Reed interpretation is that he heard it did not bounce and immediately thought , “oh, I’ll take a drop”. Nobody will suspect a thing. 
 

Listening to him, he sounded defensive and kept saying that no one knew it bounced.

 

But I did not hear him adamant that the ball was obviously imbedded. I’d expect him to say, “the ball was totally imbedded, no question, I took a fair drop”

Edited January 31, 2021 by bscinstnct