Farmers Insurance Open 2021

[Creedo77]

4 minutes ago, Wildwing55 said:

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.

You don't get relief out a pitch mark that isn't yours, whether in the rough, fairway etc

[Draw Driver]

Thread has blown up since Embeddedgate. Sad. 
 

Goddammit, Reed. Not again. And take off that damn Titleist hat!    

[Holy Moses]

6 minutes ago, Wildwing55 said:

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.

That’s why you call an official over to let them make that determination. If your ball lands in a pitch mark in the rough where no one can see it go in, it’s no one’s fault if it turns out that it wasn’t your own mark. It’s nearly impossible for that to happen anyway and you’d never know the truth. The chances that Reed’s ball bounced in his own pitch mark or someone else’s from a foot off the ground are nowhere near as probable as Patrick Cheating Reed pressing his ball down with his hand.

 

[Ghost of Snead]

9 minutes ago, Wildwing55 said:

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.

 

Existing pitch hole ? Maybe ... as all the locals are aware the famous La Jolla sea turtles lay eggs left of the 10th and it just so happens the eggs are the size of a Pro V1X. Hell, might have been a leftover pitch mark from WW2 when the current Torrey Pines golf course was mined to protect against enemy attack. Or maybe he just cheated ...

[CCTxGolf]

22 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.

This times a million. Why must everything be the end of the world. Brandle is pathetic and shame on NBC for trafficking in this bull poop.

[woodriff]

4 hours ago, Holy Moses said:

Nantz: “The optics are not good.”

 Not good at all. The ball did not imbed initially. The ball bounced then settled. PR deemed on his own the ball was imbedded. 
 

Try dropping a golf ball from 3 feet and try to embed it. Impossible on high ground. This was pretty flagrant. 

[miamistomp]

Spoiler

embedded 

 

 Learn to spell it if it bothers you so much

 

 

 

 

[ebrasmus21]

I shall rest only when the “professional” known as Pat Reed is burnt at the stake.  Enough is enough. 
 

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, bscinstnct said:

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 no 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”

 

If available evidence was it didn't bounce, under the conditions it was pretty reasonable to assume the ball was imbedded in its own mark, further assuming it was in some sort of depression.  Even someone here indicated what conditions can be like there when its wet (but nobody wants to pay attention to him, I mean he actually plays the course a lot).  Reed and his companions didn't see it bounce, he asked them.  He also let them know what he was doing (before that the rampant accusation here was he didn't say anything to his companions, well that dried up, lol), and he asked the volunteer and they had her on tape, she didn't see it bounce.   

 

I'm not sure which conversation you thought he sounded defensive, there were a few, so I can't really say but (to me) talking with CBS and then with Lewis he sounded pretty forthright in those two early and relatively brief interviews.  Rules officials were having no heartburn whatsoever.

 

The rest is people (not you) saying "you can see he is pushing that ground down" (lol, no you can't know that).  Or worrying about the fact that physics won't allow a depression after a bounce, well maybe, maybe not, but Fabel felt something so there it is and with the assumption that's right where it landed, again evidence on the scene was that it was, the ruling seemed to follow pretty easily.

 

Now it's jumping on Brandel's thing about how he held the ball - that seems like more of a fallback position, got to get him on something, but we have someone here who would have some insight into how players hold the ball, and I've seen the same and would pick it up pretty gingerly if that was me.  BUT, using that issue to link up some chain of evil intent?  I can't get get there because I don't know Patrick Reed and have never played golf with him.  Anyone else wants to get there he's sure given them plenty to go on.

[Wildwing55]

4 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

That’s why you call an official over to let them make that determination. If your ball lands in a pitch mark in the rough where no one can see it go in, it’s no one’s fault if it turns out that it wasn’t your own mark. It’s nearly impossible for that to happen anyway and you’d never know the truth. The chances that Reed’s ball bounced in his own pitch mark or someone else’s from a foot off the ground are nowhere near as probable as Patrick Cheating Reed pressing his ball down with his hand.

 

This is the truth.  It could be an existing pitch mark, but would be impossible to tell if was not Reed's.  For history, Gary Player, as great as he was, was a great cheater as well.

 

Not sure this will be solved, but Reed will be the villain, which suits him fine.

[Creedo77]

9 minutes ago, Ghost of Snead said:

 

Existing pitch hole ? Maybe ...

You don't get relief out of an existing pitch hole. I had this happen on the KFT last year in Cali. TPC Stonebrae #17 tee shot is somewhat elevated and you can't really see the landing area as the fairway is heavily slopped right to left. Guy hits his drive down the right side of the fairway, we get up there and he's in a ball mark. The course was somewhat wet and theres no way his ball plugged in the fairway based off the slope of the fairway and how much moisture there was on the course. Rules official gave the guy relief, I couldnt believe it

Edited January 31, 2021 by Creedo77

[Bubb]

I predict that the list of tour pros joining Cam Smith and Brooks Koepka in questioning Patrick Reed’s integrity is going to grow substantially overnight.

[CCTxGolf]

10 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

If available evidence was it didn't bounce, under the conditions it was pretty reasonable to assume the ball was imbedded in its own mark, further assuming it was in some sort of depression.  Even someone here indicated what conditions can be like there when its wet (but nobody wants to pay attention to him, I mean he actually plays the course a lot).  Reed and his companions didn't see it bounce, he asked them.  He also let them know what he was doing (before that the rampant accusation here was he didn't say anything to his companions, well that dried up, lol), and he asked the volunteer and they had her on tape, she didn't see it bounce.   

 

I'm not sure which conversation you thought he sounded defensive, there were a few, so I can't really say but (to me) talking with CBS and then with Lewis he sounded pretty forthright in those two early and relatively brief interviews.  Rules officials were having no heartburn whatsoever.

 

The rest is people (not you) saying "you can see he is pushing that ground down" (lol, no you can't know that).  Or worrying about the fact that physics won't allow a depression after a bounce, well maybe, maybe not, but Fabel felt something so there it is and with the assumption that's right where it landed, again evidence on the scene was that it was, the ruling seemed to follow pretty easily.

 

Now it's jumping on Brandel's thing about how he held the ball - that seems like more of a fallback position, got to get him on something, but we have someone here who would have some insight into how players hold the ball, and I've seen the same and would pick it up pretty gingerly if that was me.  BUT, using that issue to link up some chain of evil intent?  I can't get get there because I don't know Patrick Reed and have never played golf with him.  Anyone else wants to get there he's sure given them plenty to go on.

Well said and very reasonable. They can’t even figure out how exactly he cheated so they make up new ways as they go

[miamistomp]

Amazing this generates such passion

 

   Here is a real cheater but y'all love him

 

 

 

[Holy Moses]

1 minute ago, miamistomp said:

Amazing this generates such passion

 

   Here is a real cheater but y'all love him

 

 

 

We are bored here, ok. We need controversy!

[adeangelis]

2 minutes ago, miamistomp said:

Amazing this generates such passion

 

   Here is a real cheater but y'all love him

 

 

 

Traveling in the NBA hasn’t been called in 30+ years...

[NMBob]

21 minutes ago, CCTxGolf said:

This times a million. Why must everything be the end of the world. Brandle is pathetic and shame on NBC for trafficking in this bull poop.

Faldo did not like what happened either, so its not just Brandel.   

[Holy Moses]

1 minute ago, adeangelis said:

Traveling in the NBA hasn’t been called in 30+ years...

Most of those were not travels anyway

[Holy Moses]

Chris Soloman pointed out that Rory never does the types of things that Reed does. Then we find out that Rory did pick up his ball from an embedded lie today without calling an official. But I’d be very surprised if Rory fondled the ball like Reed did today.

[ProStryker]

So why did Reed call a rules official over?  If he had already picked the ball up and made a determination of his own, why did he need someone to come over? If anything was in question, he should have called the guy over before he picked it up.   It basically looks like he fixed everything up to support his story, then called the rules guy over.  

[Bigarch]

2 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

Most of those were not travels anyway

🙄

[CCTxGolf]

4 minutes ago, NMBob said:

Faldo did not like what happened either, so its not just Brandel.   

Faldo said his piece and was done. He focused on the bounce and that it PROBABLY could not have imbedded. It’s clear that it’s not a good look like Nantz said too. 
 

What brandel does is much different. He seeks and manipulates controversy. He’s an idiot

[krazykarlsig]

1 hour ago, deadsolid...shank said:

To everyone calling him out, if this had been another player not named PR, with his history, would you be so up in arms about this?

Yes.  If you want to make the call yourself (by picking up the ball) then dont call over a rules official. I know what an embedded ball is and wouldnt need a second opinion. 

 

The rules official should have said "what do you want me to do?  I dont see an embedded ball.  If it was embedded this is your relief option.  If it wasnt here is your penalty for picking up a ball and cleaning it"

 

[IH82BOGEY]

The hatred and butthurt toward PR is amazing.  Completely irrational.  I didn't give him any thought until today...but I've decided I'm a fan for the way he is standing up to the whining mob.

[Greg_B]

Meanwhile over on NLU's Twitter account they've got the mob stirred up into such a frenzy that some of them are now attacking Amanda B. for not grilling him like a district attorney during a trial in her post-round interview. Geezus.

[stryper]

1 hour ago, dropkicked said:

You're right! I just scrolled back.. "no, I didn't see it bounce"..

Same same? considering the question was -"did you see the ball bounce?"

 

I do think the net effective is pretty much the same.  Regardless,  when PR got that answer, the door was opened for another of his crimes of opportunity.  And he played it well, appearing to operate within the rules.  But as much time as he spent poking the area, he easily could have exerted enough downward pressure into the soil to create a false impression, (and to me, it looked like he did).   And in that respect, I think he operated much like a magician.  His ball was in-hand long before the rules official arrived.  By that time the damage had already be done.  He then used the rules official to justify what the rules official could not possibly have seen.  

 

I think he did cheat; I think that is his nature.  I think he’s smart, I think he’s a snake, and I think the rules official was an unwitting accomplice in this case.

[Draw Driver]

There really needs to be a HBO Max doc on him.

 

Blood for Birdies: The Patrick Reed story. 
 

Who should play him? 

[FargoRC]

Now Reed is using a burner account to defend himself....

 

 

[CaymanS]

Knowingly or not, he got away with a loophole in the rules.  He is not guilty since it is impossible to determine intent.

[adeangelis]

5 minutes ago, FargoRC said:

Now Reed is using a burner account to defend himself....

 

 

It gets better...