Jump to content

Farmers Insurance Open 2021


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I found P.Reeds Golfwrx account

Warning  for what ?  Following the rules ? Or keeping his cool while being asked the same question 367 times by reporters hell  bent on making up a story ,?    bottom line. No rules were broken

Which is the root issue. A double standard based on reputation. You can’t penalize him today for something that he might have done in a college locker room.  That’s where twitters mind is. 

Posted Images

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 2

Ping G410 LST 10* (DI-6X)
Ping G410 5W (DI-7X)
Ping i20 3-UW (DI-95X, PX 6.0)
Ping Glide 2.0 56*SS, 60*ES (PX 6.0)
Ping Vault Arna

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Ping G410 LST 10* (DI-6X)
Ping G410 5W (DI-7X)
Ping i20 3-UW (DI-95X, PX 6.0)
Ping Glide 2.0 56*SS, 60*ES (PX 6.0)
Ping Vault Arna

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by ebk
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Holy Moses
  • Like 2

Ping G410 LST 10* (DI-6X)
Ping G410 5W (DI-7X)
Ping i20 3-UW (DI-95X, PX 6.0)
Ping Glide 2.0 56*SS, 60*ES (PX 6.0)
Ping Vault Arna

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Driver--- Honma G1-X Stock Regular shaft

3W Callaway Steel Head UST 65 Pro Force Gold Stiff

2I-- 1980 Macgregor VIP Nike R steel shaft

Irons 4 thru PW 1980 Mac Vip Hogan Apex #2 shafts

SW Cleveland 588 56* S- 400 Sensicore

Putter Old Rusty Santa Fe Bulls Eye fluted shaft

Bag Old Ping Hoofer I had in my stash

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

 

  • Like 2

Ping G410 LST 10* (DI-6X)
Ping G410 5W (DI-7X)
Ping i20 3-UW (DI-95X, PX 6.0)
Ping Glide 2.0 56*SS, 60*ES (PX 6.0)
Ping Vault Arna

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by bscinstnct
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Our picks

    • Ping i59 irons - 2021 Wells Fargo Championship
      Ping i59 irons - 2021 Wells Fargo Championship
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 136 replies
    • 2021 Wells Fargo - Discussion & Links
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       

       
      2021 Wells Fargo - Tuesday #1
      2021 Wells Fargo - Tuesday #2
      2021 Wells Fargo - Tuesday #3
      2021 Wells Fargo - Tuesday #4
      2021 Wells Fargo - Tuesday #5
       
      2021 Wells Fargo - Wednesday #1
      2021 Wells Fargo - Wednesday #2
       
       

       
       
       

       
      Bettinardi putters & covers - 2021 Wells Fargo
      Ping i59 irons - 2021 Wells Fargo Championship
      New Ping Glide Forged Pro wedge - 2021 Wells Fargo
      Behind the scenes on the PXG truck - 2021 Wells Fargo
      PXG Gen 4 0311 T & 0311 ST irons - 2021 Wells Fargo
      Jason Day testing a SIK putter with LA Golf shaft - 2021 Wells Fargo
      Scotty Cameron T2 putter - 2021 Wells Fargo
      KH Lee's Odyssey putter - - 2021 Wells Fargo
      Patrick Cantlay's Cameron T-5 - 2021 Wells Fargo
      Rory has the TM "Rors" protos in the bag - 2021 Wells Fargo
       
       
        • Like
      • 17 replies
    • 2021 Valspar Championship - discussion and links
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
      2021 Valspar Championship - Tuesday #1
      2021 Valspar Championship - Tuesday #2
      2021 Valspar Championship - Tuesday #3
      2021 Valspar Championship - Tuesday #4
      2021 Valspar Championship - Tuesday #4
      2021 Valspar Championship - Tuesday #6
      2021 Valspar Championship - Tuesday #7
      2021 Valspar Championship - Tuesday #8
      2021 Valspar Championship - Tuesday #9
      2021 Valspar Championship - Tuesday #10
      2021 Valspar Championship - Tuesday #11
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

       
      Bettinardi putters - 2021 Valspar Championship
      Axis 1 Proto - 2021 Valspar Championship
      Jimmy Walker "testing" a LA Golf proto putter - 2021 Valspar Championship
      Scotty Cameron putter - 2021 Valspar Championship
       
      • 17 replies
    • Post in Ping 2021 Irons
      Victor has i59 in the bag this week!
        • Thanks
        • Like
    • 2021 RBC Heritage - discussions and links
      Please post any questions and comments here.
       
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #1
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #2
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #3
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #4
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #5
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #6
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #7
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #8
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #9
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #10
       

       
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #1
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #2
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #3
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #4
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #5
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #6
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #7
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #8
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #9
      2021 RBC Heritage - Tuesday #10
       
       

       
      Custom Cameron putters - 2021 RBC Heritage
      Bettinardi putter - 2021 RBC Heritage
      Robert Streb's custom stamped Vokey wedge - 2021 RBC Heritage
      Ben An's custom stamped Vokey - 2021 RBC Heritage
      • 17 replies

×
×
  • Create New...