How could anyone be a fan of Patrick Reed?

[jadedennill]

1 hour ago, Potatohead said:

 

A) absolutely not true at all. Living in Vancouver, I can promise you this first hand. 

 

I live in Victoria, so I was about to say the same thing. Give me 100 drops from 2 feet and I’d bet you $1000 not a single one plugs in the rough. 

[Hawkeye77]

6 minutes ago, jgallant415 said:

I'm honestly shocked at the number of Reed defenders. I can't say with certainty his ball was or was not plugged, but there's plenty of reason to be skeptical particularly in the context of Reed's history of pushing the envelope with the rules. Would I convict him of cheating in a criminal court ("beyond a reasonable doubt")? No, probably not. Civil court ("preponderance of the evidence" or >50% certain)? Pretty sure I would.

 

Yes, he asked the volunteer if she saw the ball bounce and she said it didn't, but... he did this as he was walking up to the ball. He was clearly looking for a path to relief before he even saw the lie.

 

No, he did not have access to video replay like those of us watching at home, but... THE BALL DID BOUNCE. One hundred observers could have told Reed they did not see the ball bounce, but we know it did and having seen the ball bounce, there is reason to be highly skeptical the ball was plugged. You know who else thought the bounce/no bounce distinction is important? Patrick Reed! If the fact it bounced is irrelevant to whether his ball was actually plugged then there was no reason to bother asking the volunteer if she saw it bounce.

 

Yes, he was "cleared" by a rules official, but... Reed's actions prior to the rules official arriving make this practically meaningless. By the time the rules official reached the spot, Reed had already spent a solid 15s leaning on the ball and then removed it. The official's ruling here essentially amounts to "Patrick Reed told me the ball was embedded" and from there Reed took a drop. Reed followed the proper steps for an embedded ball, but nobody is questioning the steps taken, rather people are rightfully skeptical the ball was in fact embedded.

 

BUT RORY DID IT TOO! Yes, he did. And it's not the greatest look for him. But Patrick Reed having less credibility than Rory McIlroy has nothing to do with Rory and everything to do with a less the squeaky clean career when it comes to the rules. 

 

He wasn't "cleared" he asked for and obtained a ruling which then governed play.  

 

It's not a question of "look" or your subjective opinions about things you want to believe happened because you don't like the guy.

 

Don't like him all you want, plenty here acknowledging the process worked correctly aren't fans of Patrick Reed.

 

It's a ROG issue.  The rule has been around for almost 37 years - only real difference is where you get the relief (to avoid confusion with Local Rules which could expand the area).  No big issues until now and only now because it's Reed.

 

 

[dropkicked]

1 minute ago, Pepperturbo said:

As a GT owner I am not saying a thing... 😋

ok whoa... details would be good.. GT -S, 2, 3, 4.. CGT?

😄

[jadedennill]

Just now, dlygrisse said:

Let's just leave it with the understanding that you obviously have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think.  

Yet here you are replying again.....

It’s a forum for discussion about golf. We’re just having an argument of opinion and that’s it. Don’t get sensitive, even if you’re wrong

[jacobanderson123]

10 minutes ago, jgallant415 said:

I'm honestly shocked at the number of Reed defenders. I can't say with certainty his ball was or was not plugged, but there's plenty of reason to be skeptical particularly in the context of Reed's history of pushing the envelope with the rules. Would I convict him of cheating in a criminal court ("beyond a reasonable doubt")? No, probably not. Civil court ("preponderance of the evidence" or >50% certain)? Pretty sure I would.

 

Yes, he asked the volunteer if she saw the ball bounce and she said it didn't, but... he did this as he was walking up to the ball. He was clearly looking for a path to relief before he even saw the lie.

 

No, he did not have access to video replay like those of us watching at home, but... THE BALL DID BOUNCE. One hundred observers could have told Reed they did not see the ball bounce, but we know it did and having seen the ball bounce, there is reason to be highly skeptical the ball was plugged. You know who else thought the bounce/no bounce distinction is important? Patrick Reed! If the fact it bounced is irrelevant to whether his ball was actually plugged then there was no reason to bother asking the volunteer if she saw it bounce.

 

Yes, he was "cleared" by a rules official, but... Reed's actions prior to the rules official arriving make this practically meaningless. By the time the rules official reached the spot, Reed had already spent a solid 15s leaning on the ball and then removed it. The official's ruling here essentially amounts to "Patrick Reed told me the ball was embedded" and from there Reed took a drop. Reed followed the proper steps for an embedded ball, but nobody is questioning the steps taken, rather people are rightfully skeptical the ball was in fact embedded.

 

BUT RORY DID IT TOO! Yes, he did. And it's not the greatest look for him. But Patrick Reed having less credibility than Rory McIlroy has nothing to do with Rory and everything to do with a less the squeaky clean career when it comes to the rules. 

 

You just invalidated your whole argument. You might as well have said "I don't care if he followed the rules I don't like him so he should be punished"

[Golfrnut]

2 minutes ago, jadedennill said:

I live in Victoria, so I was about to say the same thing. Give me 100 drops from 2 feet and I’d bet you $1000 not a single one plugs in the rough. 

 

I think your perception of what it takes to be considered embedded is off...

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, One Putter said:

You criticize others for assuming things yet here you are doing the same. Guess it's only a negative if someone disagrees with you. 🤷🏻‍♂️

What did I assume ?   

[dlygrisse]

Just now, jadedennill said:

Yet here you are replying again.....

It’s a forum for discussion about golf. We’re just having an argument of opinion and that’s it. Don’t get sensitive, even if you’re wrong

The fact is your comments make no sense.  I do appreciate, however, that you don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative and bias.  

[Potatohead]

2 minutes ago, jadedennill said:

I live in Victoria, so I was about to say the same thing. Give me 100 drops from 2 feet and I’d bet you $1000 not a single one plugs in the rough. 

 

I'll take that bet every time. 

 

If you play a modern course built on a sand base, you have a better shot. Most older courses, very easy to find a place to plug a ball from a couple feet for about 7-8 months of the year. 

 

[jadedennill]

2 minutes ago, Golfrnut said:

 

I think your perception of what it takes to be considered embedded is off...

Nope, it’s pretty simple. 

[jadedennill]

2 minutes ago, dlygrisse said:

The fact is your comments make no sense.  I do appreciate, however, that you don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative and bias.  

Lol, there are no facts here! It’s all conjecture. All we have is an astounding amount of evidence that Patrick Reed’s resume has been built on. Everything he’s done over the years has led him to this level of scrutiny. 

[Golfrnut]

Just now, jadedennill said:

Nope, it’s pretty simple. 

 

Not if you are using the term 'plugged' it isn't.  Also, 'dropping' is not the same as entering with revs of spin that in itself has the ability to create an impression...which is all it takes.

[jadedennill]

3 minutes ago, Potatohead said:

 

I'll take that bet every time. 

 

If you play a modern course built on a sand base, you have a better shot. Most older courses, very easy to find a place to plug a ball from a couple feet for about 7-8 months of the year. 

 

Well, maybe one day we’ll get a game together and can stand there dropping balls in the rough like a couple of children. Until then, enjoy the rain.

[jgallant415]

2 minutes ago, jacobanderson123 said:

You just invalidated your whole argument. You might as well have said "I don't care if he followed the rules I don't like him so he should be punished"

The fact that Reed removed the ball leaves nothing for a rules official to rule on except whether the player claims the ball was embedded or not. The rules official clearing Reed tells us nothing except that Reed says his ball was embedded.

[jadedennill]

1 minute ago, Golfrnut said:

 

Not if you are using the term 'plugged' it isn't.  Also, 'dropping' is not the same as entering with revs of spin that in itself has the ability to create an impression...which is all it takes.

We could dissect the physics lessons here for hours, however for the purpose of relief by the rules of golf, his ball was beyond a reasonable doubt NOT plugged and everyone knows it. Or at least they should!

[Golfrnut]

Just now, jadedennill said:

We could dissect the physics lessons here for hours, however for the purpose of relief by the rules of golf, his ball was beyond a reasonable doubt NOT plugged and everyone knows it. Or at least they should!

 

No, that's not it..and you are welcome to go have a look in the rules forum in the thread that's going on in there so you can understand it better.

[Potatohead]

1 minute ago, jadedennill said:

We could dissect the physics lessons here for hours, however for the purpose of relief by the rules of golf, his ball was beyond a reasonable doubt NOT plugged and everyone knows it. Or at least they should!

 

How can you possibly make that determination when you don't even seem to understand the definition of an embedded ball in the first place. 

 

Not to mention the TV never really got a good look at the ball itself. 

 

Lots of guilty before proven innocent in this thread. 

 

 

[Golfrnut]

3 minutes ago, jgallant415 said:

The fact that Reed removed the ball leaves nothing for a rules official to rule on except whether the player claims the ball was embedded or not. The rules official clearing Reed tells us nothing except that Reed says his ball was embedded.

 

Rules official could have just as easily deferred and said he couldn't make the determination.  That's not the way it happened, nor is Reed obligated to get an officials ruling on it.

[lchang]

Now I'm beginning to wonder about the HYPOTHETICAL universe where we knew with 100% certainty that he pushed the ball into the ground on Saturday--i.e., there was no doubt that he cheated with full intent.  Would the people on here who are contrarian ("The more you guys hate on him, the more I root for him", "I like rooting for the bad guy") still root for him?  Would your mind accept this new (again, hypothetical) evidence and change your opinion?  Or would you fall back to another argument ("if you're not cheating, you're not trying", "But the rules official let him go", etc...)...🤷‍♂️ 

[Sean2]

2 hours ago, jadedennill said:

If they weren’t muzzled by the tour in regards to what they can say about another member, they’d hear almost all of the players say what a POS he is. Everyone can read between the lines here, and if you have ever talked to any of them candidly about him you’ll hear the actual truth. The only person who likes him is his wife and her brother and that’s because they make money off of him. 
Unfortunately golf is stuck with him cause he’s so damn good!

I don't know if his peers would say that or not (they seemed pretty fond of him at the Ryder Cup), and I don't know if his wife and her brother are in it just for the money. How could I? I have never spoken with either of them. 

 

Whether he is liked or not, he is undeniably talented, and mentally tough. We seem to expect more from celebrities and professional athletes. I am not quite sure why that is, because at the end of the day they are human, with all the foibles that go with being one. 

 

The vitriol directed at PR kinda surprises me. I wonder why some people get so upset over this guy, and are willing to believe anything negative, and disbelieve anything positive. GC seems to like it, as with any kind of media these days, they thrive on anything salacious, and willingly add fuel to the fire.   

[Sean2]

2 hours ago, Golfrnut said:

 

Did you expect anything different?  It's accepted behavior now...  

I was kinda hoping the golf media would rise above that. Silly I know, lol. 

[Potatohead]

3 minutes ago, lchang said:

Now I'm beginning to wonder about the HYPOTHETICAL universe where we knew with 100% certainty that he pushed the ball into the ground on Saturday--i.e., there was no doubt that he cheated with full intent.  Would the people on here who are contrarian ("The more you guys hate on him, the more I root for him", "I like rooting for the bad guy") still root for him?  Would your mind accept this new (again, hypothetical) evidence and change your opinion?  Or would you fall back to another argument ("if you're not cheating, you're not trying", "But the rules official let him go", etc...)...🤷‍♂️ 

 

 

The ball could have been three inches underground and took him four attempts to get it out and he still would have won the golf tournament. 

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

10 minutes ago, jgallant415 said:

The fact that Reed removed the ball leaves nothing for a rules official to rule on except whether the player claims the ball was embedded or not. The rules official clearing Reed tells us nothing except that Reed says his ball was embedded.

Wrong, the rules official examines the ground and determines whether there is something that is consistent with what the rules provide relief for.

[jgallant415]

10 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

He wasn't "cleared" he asked for and obtained a ruling which then governed play.  

 

It's not a question of "look" or your subjective opinions about things you want to believe happened because you don't like the guy.

 

Don't like him all you want, plenty here acknowledging the process worked correctly aren't fans of Patrick Reed.

 

It's a ROG issue.  The rule has been around for almost 37 years - only real difference is where you get the relief (to avoid confusion with Local Rules which could expand the area).  No big issues until now and only now because it's Reed.

 

 

The "ruling" amounted to the rules official saying that Reed in fact claimed his ball was embedded and that based on that claim the proper step was to take a drop. I agree there was nothing else the rules official could or should have done there - he has no way to know whether the ball was embedded or not. I'm not sayin the rules official was wrong, simply that his ruling doesn't exonerate Reed. It's hardly unreasonable to be skeptical of Reed's claim of an embedded ball considering he was seeking to be able to claim his ball was plugged prior to even seeing it, the fact his ball did bounce which makes is meaningfully less likely the ball would actually plug, and yes, that he has a history of skirting the rules which lowers his credibility in situations that involve judgement calls.

[Hawkeye77]

Just now, jgallant415 said:

The "ruling" amounted to the rules official saying that Reed in fact claimed his ball was embedded and that based on that claim the proper step was to take a drop. I agree there was nothing else the rules official could or should have done there - he has no way to know whether the ball was embedded or not. I'm not sayin the rules official was wrong, simply that his ruling doesn't exonerate Reed. It's hardly unreasonable to be skeptical of Reed's claim of an embedded ball considering he was seeking to be able to claim his ball was plugged prior to even seeing it, the fact his ball did bounce which makes is meaningfully less likely the ball would actually plug, and yes, that he has a history of skirting the rules which lowers his credibility in situations that involve judgement calls.

Wrong again.  Brad Fabel examined whatever depression with an "edge" as he put it that he found.

 

 

[lchang]

Just now, Potatohead said:

 

 

The ball could have been three inches underground and took him four attempts to get it out and he still would have won the golf tournament. 

 

 

 

Seems like an orthogonal point.  I'm just wondering if people who root for him purely because others don't like him--if his "morality" matters at all to them.  Like if he is clearly intentionally cheating (and still winning because he's really good), I assume the poll results would be different.  But presumably there'd be some (a few? a lot?) who would still root for him?  I wonder what that percentage would be....  And would the reason be just to be contrarian?  Or because they think that Following-the-rules-of-golf-is-a-matter-of-tradition-and-honor is all a bunch of BS...?

[mister2cool]

50 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Painted to match his jacket.  GT2 https://is.gd/3XLVZ7

 

I'd do that too if I had a green jacket

[GoTime]

5 hours ago, mister2cool said:

Yeah I noticed that as well. I am a Rory fan but I think he got away with one there. 

 

 

Two points clear as day:

 

1) The ball did not come to rest where it initially bounced

2) His caddie VERY clearly cleaned the ball with the towel

[ebrasmus21]

The Farmers Insurance thread has over 1,400 comments which is overwhelmingly because of Pat.  

 

Face it, golf needs him.  

[mister2cool]

9 minutes ago, Sean2 said:

I was kinda hoping the golf media would rise above that. Silly I know, lol. 

yeah just like every time they show Rory is when he's putting and missing... then the announcers would say he's #1 SG off the tee.. Well how about show us something that's good to see? 😂