How could anyone be a fan of Patrick Reed?

[Hawkeye77]

32 minutes ago, Dpavs said:

 

I was kind of wondering myself where the tour was going by indicating a volunteer had stepped on the ball as 16.3 clearly indicates in part that -

"A ball is not embedded if it is below the level of the ground as a result of anything other than the player’s previous stroke, such as when:

• The ball is pushed into the ground by someone stepping on it"

 

Am I reading the rule wrong or did they neglect to read it at all?

But doesn't preclude possible relief from the fact it was stepped on vs. embedded ball rule. And I assume to back up the fact when Rory thought his ball was in its own depression, it actually was.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, bladehunter said:

That’s  most certainly Greg Norman.... I mean. The hat. Dead giveaway 

It's Boomer!

[Holy Moses]

3 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Brabdell exclaimed to the top of his lungs that it did. He said this over 20 times at least. Showed slow mo video etc. so much so that he convinced Rory it happened. Rory says this is what happened in his interview on Sunday.   Says “ it definitely was In it’s original pitch mark “.  
 

Just goes to show you that honest people that are sure of themselves are frequently dead wrong.  

I’m saying that in light of this new revelation from a marshal, no one is going to say that

[Ferguson]

1 minute ago, bladehunter said:

That’s  most certainly Greg Norman.... I mean. The hat. Dead giveaway 

 

Greg Norman's leading art consultant, Adam Chinn, is said to volunteer at several PGA events yearly.    

 

[bladehunter]

4 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

I’m saying that in light of this new revelation from a marshal, no one is going to say that

Right.  But Brandel needs to be shamed into admitting he made all that up. Pulled it from his back pocket. It never happened snd he lied to demonize Patrick. 

[Dpavs]

5 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

But doesn't preclude possible relief from the fact it was stepped on vs. embedded ball rule.

I think that is what I am not clear on, what rule covers a ball that is stepped on by someone not involved in play that is merely embedded and not actually moved from it's original spot?

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, Dpavs said:

I think that is what I am not clear on, what rule covers a ball that is stepped on by someone not involved in play that is merely embedded and not actually moved from it's original spot?

Wild ____ guess "outside agency" - I'm looking it up now!

[Ferguson]

18/1 Ball Moves Vertically Downward 

 

A ball lying in long grass slips vertically downward. Or a ball is accidentally stepped on and pressed down, say a quarter of an inch, in the grass or into the ground.

 

In each case, has the ball moved?

 

A. Yes, unless the ball returns to its original position. The direction of movement is immaterial.

[FakeClubPro]

1 hour ago, Holy Moses said:

Not yet that I’m aware of. Why would you not tell Rory that right away? I guess embarrassment. 

 

Yeah.  The timing is a bit weird.  Strange.  Where do they find these marshalls?  Lighthouse for The Blind?

 

They just go wandering around the rough like James Bond stepping on Goldfinger's golf ball?  This is beyond bizarre.  Some crazy way thing to do PR damage control for Rory?

 

PS: I was a big fan of Rory before he even played in the USA.   I like him but I am not a mega fan boy.

Edited February 3, 2021 by FakeClubPro

[Dpavs]

12 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

18/1 Ball Moves Vertically Downward 

 

A ball lying in long grass slips vertically downward. Or a ball is accidentally stepped on and pressed down, say a quarter of an inch, in the grass or into the ground.

 

In each case, has the ball moved?

 

A. Yes, unless the ball returns to its original position. The direction of movement is immaterial.

 

This is referring to a ball being moved by an outside influence? Under the R & A? Or USGA? Either way though, under the decision, in order to replace it to it's original position you would have to lift the ball, repair the ground and replace the ball? The relief would not be to move it within one club-length of the spot of the originally embedded location, correct?

Edited February 3, 2021 by Dpavs

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, Dpavs said:

 

This is referring to a ball being moved by an outside influence under the R & A, or is this a USGA decision? Either way though, under the decision, in order to replace it to it's original position you would have to lift the ball, repair the ground and replace the ball? The relief would not be to move it within one club-length of the spot of the originally embedded location, correct?

Yes, outside influence.  Then you go to Rule 14 - since the original lie was altered by the person stepping on it then follow the procedures there which get you out of the same hole, so to speak.

 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[Dpavs]

12 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Yes, outside influence.  Then you go to Rule 14 - since the original lie was altered by the person stepping on it then follow the procedures there which get you out of the same hole, so to speak.

 

 

Right, so using the one club length afforded by an embedded ball would be incorrect and result in a penalty would it not?

 

Assuming we are talking about 14.2d(2)/1 – Altered Lie Might Be “Nearest Spot with Lie Most Similar"

Edited February 3, 2021 by Dpavs

[Holy Moses]

35 minutes ago, Dpavs said:

I think that is what I am not clear on, what rule covers a ball that is stepped on by someone not involved in play that is merely embedded and not actually moved from it's original spot?

7.4

 

There is no penalty if the player’s ball is accidentally moved by the player, opponent or anyone else while trying to find or identify it.
If this happens, the ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated) (see Rule 14.2). 
 

Rory shouldn’t have got one club length relief, but he didn’t know someone stepped on it.

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, Dpavs said:

Right, so using the one club length afforded by an embedded ball would be incorrect and result in a penalty would it not?

I'm not sure where you are going with that.  

 

Under 14.2(d) [assuming I'm right!], you drop within one club length, not nearer the hole in the same "area of the course" (so presumably general area in this case). 

[Hawkeye77]

Just now, Holy Moses said:

7.4

 

There is no penalty if the player’s ball is accidentally moved by the player, opponent or anyone else while trying to find or identify it.
If this happens, the ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated) (see Rule 14.2). 
 

Rory shouldn’t have got one club length relief, but he didn’t know someone stepped on it.

The original spot was altered by the ball being stepped on.

[Hawkeye77]

49 minutes ago, Dpavs said:

Ignoring whether it was being looked for or not at the point it was stepped on-

But that is only if it moved from it's original position right? He would not get to replace it if it was merely pressed into the ground would he?

Yes, see Ferguson's post above.  

 

To quote George Costanza, "It moved!"

[Hawkeye77]

Just say it folks, "I want to say Rory should have been penalized!"

 

He shouldn't have been! Wouldn't have been!

Edited February 3, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[dlygrisse]

6 hours ago, bladehunter said:

I don’t know. Competition is war in my opinion.   I prefer seves outlook on it. 

Seve was well known for pushing the rules to the edge.  He was known for messing with people’s heads, and his sportsmanship came into question many times as well.  His game and personality were similar to Reeds in a lot of ways. In fact seve could be down right argumentative with RO’s and playing competitors.  
 

I admired Seves game, but he could play the villain well if on the other team. 

[Dpavs]

8 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I'm not sure where you are going with that.  

 

Under 14.2(d) [assuming I'm right!], you drop within one club length, not nearer the hole in the same "area of the course" (so presumably general area in this case). 

It's not a strict one club length rule... it's the "nearest spot with the lie most similar to the original lie". So, IMO, for a ball in the rough it would most likely be a spot very near where the original spot in the rough was.

[Hawkeye77]

12 minutes ago, Dpavs said:

It's not a strict one club length rule... it's the "nearest spot with the lie most similar to the original lie". So, IMO, for a ball in the rough it would most likely be a spot very near where the original spot in the rough was.

It would be a lie in the rough.

 

Edit: trying to follow, not meaning to sound frustrated.  Not sure what difference it makes in the two situations unless Rory dropped from the rough to a closely mown area, then I follow and okay it would have been a different result had that information been known - I haven't watched his drop.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[Dpavs]

7 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

It would be a lie in the rough, so what?

Would you not agree that that by specifying the spot of relief as the "nearest spot" that is substantially different than within one club length? And if so, if the wrong standard was applied, then the ball may have been spotted in an incorrect position, right?

 

I'm just sorting this out in my head.. and really do not care about what Rory did.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Dpavs

[Hawkeye77]

Just now, Dpavs said:

Would you not agree that that by specifying the spot of relief as the "nearest spot" that is substantially different than within one club length? And if so, if the wrong standard was applied, then the ball may have been spotted in an incorrect position, right?

You posted after I edited so you must not have seen it.  

 

It is not necessarily substantially different.  The question is, I guess, was the ball spotted in an incorrect position?  If he was within one club length, I presume you are talking about Rory, and he was in the rough I don't see any issue whatsoever.

[Sean2]

On 2/2/2021 at 10:09 AM, Ferguson said:

 

People should use caution when pointing fingers.  It's okay to have opinions.   There is not one person that posts here that hasn't "rolled over a ball" or played "winter rules" or "picked up a putt."   The rules are the rules.    Condemning a person's character is another story.  If he is a chronic offender, the PGA will take action.  

 

 

 

 

Knowing the unknowable it getting popular these days. Since when have opinions become facts?

[dlygrisse]

On 2/2/2021 at 9:09 AM, Ferguson said:

 

People should use caution when pointing fingers.  It's okay to have opinions.   There is not one person that posts here that hasn't "rolled over a ball" or played "winter rules" or "picked up a putt."   The rules are the rules.    Condemning a person's character is another story.  If he is a chronic offender, the PGA will take action.  

 

 

 

 

So are saying "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" or "people in thatch houses shouldn't stow thrones"  ( it's an old joke)  

 

I for one have never rolled a ball in a real competition, but my group often sets the rules for they day amongst our group.  "play it up in the fairway today, down in the rough"  etc.  "Gimmes inside the leather"  We usually play a match, so many putts are conceded as per the rules.   There is one course that never rakes bunkers and there are a lot of deer roaming the course, so we play rake and place there.....it just cuts down on the whining.  Depends on the course or the time of year, the course, etc.  Generally during the golf season we play the rules, but we now usually play the new modern modified OB rule, 2 strokes in the fairway not stroke and distance.  

 

Condemning ones character is tricky, in the olden days before the web people often had opinions, but it was usaully discussed at water coolers and sports bars, now it's a world wide cancel culture party where everyone is judged in the court of Twitter opinion.  For the record I terminated my Twitter account last month.  

Edited February 3, 2021 by dlygrisse

[Dpavs]

34 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

You posted after I edited so you must not have seen it.  

 

It is not necessarily substantially different.  The question is, I guess, was the ball spotted in an incorrect position?  If he was within one club length, I presume you are talking about Rory, and he was in the rough I don't see any issue whatsoever.

 

I guess that is where I diverge. Nearest spot to me is exactly that and if you spot somewhere that is obviously not the nearest spot, you have taken an incorrect spot in my book. We probably could also talk about the difference between spotting and dropping but again the only point to me would be that the two types of relief are really different so Rory may have inadvertently taken the wrong kind of relief. Now there is no way he could have known that and I believe he was absolutely correct in the way he proceeded as he was thinking his ball and bounced back into it's own hole, etc. But I do question what the heck the tour was trying to do in saying that the ball had been stepped on. Seems like it only adds more confusion to the matter for me.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Dpavs

[Hawkeye77]

50 minutes ago, dlygrisse said:

Seve was well known for pushing the rules to the edge.  He was known for messing with people’s heads, and his sportsmanship came into question many times as well.  His game and personality were similar to Reeds in a lot of ways. In fact seve could be down right argumentative with RO’s and playing competitors.  
 

I admired Seves game, but he could play the villain well if on the other team. 

Funny thing about Seve, as much as he could be the villain and I remember some good match play stories from across the pond about him that were pretty entertaining, I always enjoyed him.  I did cheer loudly when his ball found the water on 15 in the '86 Masters, but with circumstances later, cheered much louder when Norman went wide right at 18 with the 4 iron, then sweated out the next few shots.  

[Hawkeye77]

4 minutes ago, Dpavs said:

 

I guess that is where I diverge. Nearest spot to me is exactly that and if you spot somewhere that is obviously not the nearest spot, you have taken an incorrect spot in my book. We probably could also talk about the difference between spotting and dropping but again the only point to me would be that the two types of relief are really different so Rory may have inadvertently taken the wrong kind of relief. Now there is no way he could have known that and I believe he was absolutely correct in the way he proceeded as he was thinking his ball and bounced back into it's own hole, etc. But I do question what the heck the tour was trying to do in saying that the ball had been stepped on. Seems like it only adds more confusion to the matter for me.

I'm sorry but I'm lost.  The rule says the nearest spot with a lie most similar to the original lie that is within one club length (and the other stuff).

 

It does not just say "the nearest spot".  So one club length is still one club length if that is the question and if it's a lie in the rough there's no difference . . . . . unless there might be some real difference from dropping vs. placing.  Doubtful but possible. He likely would have had a better lie under the correct rule by placing, but who knows.

 

Absolutely, in hindsight Rory may have taken relief under the wrong rule, and yes that relief has different language from the correct rule. 

 

I don't think the Tour was trying to call him out, again I think the point was to get past this idea that somehow there was "no way" there could have been anything under his ball that made him think it was embedded.  There was apparently a pretty obvious depression if someone stepped on it, so that supports Rory checking the ball and either visually or with his fingers, or both, believing it was in its own pitch mark.  Best I can come up with.

 

 

[Ferguson]

1 hour ago, Sean2 said:

Knowing the unknowable it getting popular these days. Since when have opinions become facts?

I believe it was around the same time actors became the people that we should seek out for guidance.  

 

 

 

 

[Dpavs]

21 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I'm sorry but I'm lost.  The rule says the nearest spot with a lie most similar to the original lie that is within one club length (and the other stuff).

 

It does not just say "the nearest spot".  So one club length is still one club length if that is the question and if it's a lie in the rough there's no difference . . . . . unless there might be some real difference from dropping vs. placing.  Doubtful but possible. He likely would have had a better lie under the correct rule by placing, but who knows.

 

Absolutely, in hindsight Rory may have taken relief under the wrong rule, and yes that relief has different language from the correct rule. 

 

I don't think the Tour was trying to call him out, again I think the point was to get past this idea that somehow there was "no way" there could have been anything under his ball that made him think it was embedded.  There was apparently a pretty obvious depression if someone stepped on it, so that supports Rory checking the ball and either visually or with his fingers, or both, believing it was in its own pitch mark.  Best I can come up with.

 

 

The specification of the one club length is an outer parameter which simply means you can spot the ball outside of the one club length limit. To say this another way, you have to spot the ball at the nearest spot that is no more than one club length. Whereas dropping a ball within one club length does not have any requirement as to the spot of the drop being the nearest spot to the original lie. The latter offers more latitude as to where the player drops, while the former requires the spot to be the "nearest spot".

 

To exemplify the difference, if we were talking about relief from the cart path for example, would dropping withing one club length be the same as dropping at the nearest point of relief?

Edited February 3, 2021 by Dpavs

[Hawkeye77]

10 minutes ago, Dpavs said:

The specification of the one club length is an outer parameter which simply means you can spot the ball outside of the one club length limit. To say this another way, you have to spot the ball at the nearest spot that is no more than one club length. Whereas dropping a ball within one club length does not have any requirement as to the spot of the drop being the nearest spot to the original lie. The latter offers more latitude as to where the player drops, while the former requires the spot to be the "nearest spot".

 

To exemplify the difference, if we were talking about relief from the cart path for example, would dropping withing one club length be the same as dropping at the nearest point of relief?

Yes, the nearest spot with a lie most similar to the original lie that is no more than one club length.  

 

If you are saying that rule 14.2(d) is a little more restrictive because you have to pick the nearest similar lie, no question.  

 

In the case at hand, it's still in the rough and still likely not a materially different situation in terms of the next shot, but the two rules are different.

 

So I think we really are talking about the same thing or result?