Tours need to make “The Reed rule”…..

[khalespace]

7 hours ago, Stevens24 said:

Well if the official gave him relief he isn't cheating. Not siding with Reed just saying.

Reed picking random ball on the tree, no official is going to oppose to that as there is no concrete evidence. I am sure Reed lied.

Edited February 1, 2023 by khalespace

[Body_Visions]

Did anyone see enough footage to determine if a drop from any of the trees was beneficial?  From my limited views, there wasn’t any.

[Dazgore]

5 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Why ?

 

Because unless the ball was sitting in just the right position the marking can be obscured.

Maybe name printed in each quadrant or something.

[Pastit]

5 minutes ago, Dazgore said:

 

Because unless the ball was sitting in just the right position the marking can be obscured.

Maybe name printed in each quadrant or something.

A unique ID for the DAY is required. It’s simple and been done for years where I play:

 

At 1st tee, show your marker your ball and its unique mark for that day ( a mark which is more than a line or dot ).

 

When there are issues with ID’g the ball or changing it, the marker ( in this case a poster above correctly mentions Matt Wallace ), should witness events affecting Reed’s score. The slightest doubt should result in a lost ball.

[iBanesto]

8 hours ago, Ex Blade User said:

 

[AltC]

If the ball cannot be positively identified then his only option remaining is back to the tee. It happened to me at Abu Dhabi GC in a club match play - my opponent got his ball stuck in palm - same deal - I said he could drop -(we both saw his ball go into the palm tree) but he said as he could not positively identify the ball as his - he had to go back to the tee. Top bloke didn’t even consider not applying the rules in their fullness!

[NoCalHack]

Andy Johnson had a good point about cheating in general on his podcast. 
 

His point was they every group should have an official following them and the official should be watching them. It may not have stopped this incident but I tend to agree. 
 

There are millions of dollars at stake and Reed is not the only cheater out there.  The official can’t be 10 minutes away and can’t be there just to “guide” the player to officiate themselves. The official has to take the role of an objective observer who has the right to call penalties. 
 

For instance in this case the official asks Reed are you 100% sure that’s your call?  Or that time the official said “well if you said the ball was embedded it was”.

 

It’s different than an official who says “tell me what your mark was and I’ll take a look”  or “show me the mark on another ball”.  Every time something like this happens Reed hides behind the officials and says they told me I did nothing wrong. 
 

That means the system is flawed. The tour can afford officials on every group.  As with most things the honor system always ends up rewarding the dishonorable. 

[jomatty]

10 hours ago, hammergolf said:

That would make sense, but unfortunately that’s not how the rule is written. I’ve never understood why rules officials don’t look at replay BEFORE they make a ruling. All 3 times Reed has been caught cheating TV proved he was cheating.

Just imagine how much he gets away with and no one ever knows.

[Ferguson]

And meanwhile Reed is sitting at home worth millions, not concerned with the feelings of WRX forum members.  

 

Does this sort of post sound familiar?  It should.  Many forum members used this same "tone and tenor" to support their fandom of Phil Mickelson during his many years of ongoing misconduct.  

 

 

 

[getitdaily]

Just change the rule...must be able to identify the ball via "ball in hand".

[Frankensteins Monster]

3 hours ago, Body_Visions said:

Did anyone see enough footage to determine if a drop from any of the trees was beneficial?  From my limited views, there wasn’t any.

Hitting 3 from the rough after his drop or hitting four from where ever his re-tee ended up isn't beneficial?

[bulls9999]

9 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

They aren't sending anyone up a tree to get all the balls out to make a ruling and nobody would have gotten permission from the course to either climb or get a boom truck out there to gather golf balls after the fact just to gather up a bunch of balls.

 

Neither is reasonable. 

 

I meant afterwards to see if Reed was telling the truth or not instead of letting the suspicion of cheating linger over this....can be proven or discounted if someone retriieves the balls from those 3 trees.

[bulls9999]

9 hours ago, IndyArcher said:

 

So the official couldn’t see a ball in the tree?

 

I guess the official saw part of a ball that Reed said was his.  I guess Reed had plenty to pick from, especially when partially obscured.  But do you see my point.  You saw video stills taken from the high-sitting boom camera.  The palm stubs (look at thhem, the balls are sitting in the crotch; from below, they are even more obscured.  The high-sitting boom camera is showing them from above looking down and still you only see part of a ball.

[Hawkeye77]

5 minutes ago, bulls9999 said:

 

I meant afterwards to see if Reed was telling the truth or not instead of letting the suspicion of cheating linger over this....can be proven or discounted if someone retriieves the balls from those 3 trees.

 

Like I said, I doubt the course is going to allow it and has no real interest in allowing it, so if it happens it is after the tourney when maybe it's there, maybe it's not, etc.  Doubt if it is as simple as skinnying up one of the trees - going to need some heavy equipment.

 

There's enough evidence to know his ball wasn't in the tree where the ball he identified was in, so we know he was fibbing.  Only other group interested would be Reed apologists and they don't want any part of further proof! 

[bulls9999]

And photos of Reed's ball sitting on a green taken the same day didn't show an 'ARROW', they showed a line.  How many ball marks do people make using a line?  Many people do that.  So when they showed examples of Reed's mark from shots of balls on a green taken theh same day, I was perplexed to see a 'line' and not an 'arrow' that Reed said is what kind of mark he has on his balls..

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by bulls9999

[Hawkeye77]

11 minutes ago, bulls9999 said:

 

I guess the official saw part of a ball that Reed said was his.  I guess Reed had plenty to pick from, especially when partially obscured.  But do you see my point.  You saw video stills taken from the high-sitting boom camera.  The palm stubs (look at thhem, the balls are sitting in the crotch; from below, they are even more obscured.  The high-sitting boom camera is showing them from above looking down and still you only see part of a ball.

If you are saying that in this case tourney footage for the official to review wouldn't be much help in actual ball identification, no doubt, even if they used footage to identify the proper tree.  At least getting the starting point right would have been of use in this particular case.  Mandatory video review, given the numbers of rules situations players resolve on their own and those involving refs that we never see in a 72 hole event, would, IMO, seem unnecessary and a big delay causer for 99% of the rules situations, so I don't think mandatory is the answer.

 

IMO, this ref didn't ask enough questions and I think he will next time.  I think certain situations call out for asking for TV views and maybe that's just some "point of emphasis" like when NCAA basketball decides to enforce certain rules every few years or so, lol.  Maybe it is already, I don't know what the Tour's view is on encouraging officials to gather more info and when, but I think more is better, just not always.  Again, totally IMO.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[Hawkeye77]

4 minutes ago, bulls9999 said:

And photos of Reed's ball sitting on a green taken the same day didn't show an 'ARROW', they showed a line.  How many ball marks do people make using a line?  Many people do that.  So when they showed examples of Reed's mark from shots of balls on a green taken theh same day, I was perplexed to see a 'line' and not an 'arrow' that Reed said is what kind of mark he has on his balls..

 

 

Why perplexed?  You thought he'd be honest about it? Insert smiley and winky emojis.

[MtlJeff]

I'm generally not a huge fan of instant replay for golf rulings. Have seen too many cases of oscillation or ball movement where you need like a NASA camera to identify that it moved, and then watching guys get penalized for this. 

 

For a while this was the case in the NFL since you mention it, like they would say that a ball moved 3 millimeters in a receivers hand so he didn't have "control". Now they mostly say, ya know in real life things happen fast just deal with it if we made a tiny mistake....I kinda prefer that

 

If one of the weirdest and least self aware players in the history of pro golf cheats a couple of times (and isn't even on a major tour anymore) than so be it. I wouldn't change rules because of him

[Ole3wiggle]

I only question how many times did this happen over the 4 days of the event? There were a lot of balls up in those trees, I assume that at least 1 or maybe multiple pros had the same thing happen to them on that hole. I'm not backing Reed here, I'm just saying he's getting the brunt of it cause he was in contention and it happened on Sunday. I know it's naturally magnified at that point but if Officials are pointing him towards a tree and he couldn't see it from the tee but they say it went in that tree and he then looks at balls and sees a marking that looks like his how would he know its not his ball? How would anyone? I think it has more to do with it being IMPOSSIBLE to be 100% confident a ball is absolutely yours from 15 feet below. 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Ole3wiggle

[Shilgy]

11 hours ago, hammergolf said:

He flat out stole almost $1 million by lying. As far as being efficient, when the rules official was called, he could have looked at the replay right then to know they were looking in the wrong tree. 

You just posted six posts before he didn’t cost anyone money because if he  went back to the tee the standings wouldn’t have changed so no money lost by anyone.

 

you in the Reed family?  Bit of a grudge?

 

Imo Reed has certainly become a lightning rod for these things….any ruling he ever gets we get posts saying he cheated.

[hammergolf]

2 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

You just posted six posts before he didn’t cost anyone money because if he  went back to the tee the standings wouldn’t have changed so no money lost by anyone.

 

you in the Reed family?  Bit of a grudge?

 

Imo Reed has certainly become a lightning rod for these things….any ruling he ever gets we get posts saying he cheated.

Now that we know he lied about the ball he should of been dq’d after the round. During the tournament there wasn’t proof he lied, so it would of probably cost him a shot by having to re tee. I never said every ruling he gets he cheated. However, his moving sand to improve his lie was obvious cheating, and his “imbedded ball” was as well.

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, Shilgy said:

You just posted six posts before he didn’t cost anyone money because if he  went back to the tee the standings wouldn’t have changed so no money lost by anyone.

 

you in the Reed family?  Bit of a grudge?

 

Imo Reed has certainly become a lightning rod for these things….any ruling he ever gets we get posts saying he cheated.

 

Heck, I've defended him in a couple of rules situations, not that it matters all that much I guess.  This one's distinguishable, IMO. These days it seems any rules situation that is highlighted in a TV round becomes a lightning rod for nonsense on social media and unfortunately on the broadcast and on GC because the announcers blow it out of proportion and even on Mondays in a lot of these situations the commentators still haven't bothered to understand the rules, etc.  

 

There's a big difference between having to go back to the tee and dropping on the spot, and who knows what would have happened, but likelihood is at least one more shot on the hole?  Plus, he would have had to see Rory waiting and offering to shake his hand with a "well done on the tree mate"!

[Shilgy]

4 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

Now that we know he lied about the ball he should of been dq’d after the round. During the tournament there wasn’t proof he lied, so it would of probably cost him a shot by having to re tee. I never said every ruling he gets he cheated. However, his moving sand to improve his lie was obvious cheating, and his “imbedded ball” was as well.

The sand moving was definitely obvious…..everyone on tour has acquitted him on the embedded ball except a handful on this.  Even after seeing video no pro has come out saying there was an issue with that one.

1 minute ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Heck, I've defended him in a couple of rules situations, not that it matters all that much I guess.  This one's distinguishable, IMO. These days it seems any rules situation that is highlighted in a TV round becomes a lightning rod for nonsense on social media and unfortunately on the broadcast and on GC because the announcers blow it out of proportion and even on Mondays in a lot of these situations the commentators still haven't bothered to understand the rules, etc.  

 

There's a big difference between having to go back to the tee and dropping on the spot, and who knows what would have happened, but likelihood is at least one more shot on the hole?  Plus, he would have had to see Rory waiting and offering to shake his hand with a "well done on the tree mate"!

Do we KNOW though is the question……camera angle says it went into one and was id’d in the other.  Sounds like cheating but could it have bounced? I don’t know and no one else except maybe Reed KNOWS either.  
 

At this point we can just be happy he’s off the tour and we don’t need to see him often.

[596]

Please, no video replays.  No sport should use video. The ref makes the call and he is part of the sport.  I hate video replays, it has destroyed the game. There is no longer any flow to the sport. 

 

If you've ever seen the base of a palm tree after a hurricane you'd know there are dozens of balls in the palm trees you can't see from the ground. The chances of Reed seeing his ball up in the palm, and having his mark on his ball turned to the point you can see it, is about zero! 

 

The Reed rule should be that if you cheat you get kicked off the tour, period! 

[Cliffy2020]

8 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Heck, I've defended him in a couple of rules situations, not that it matters all that much I guess.  This one's distinguishable, IMO. These days it seems any rules situation that is highlighted in a TV round becomes a lightning rod for nonsense on social media and unfortunately on the broadcast and on GC because the announcers blow it out of proportion and even on Mondays in a lot of these situations the commentators still haven't bothered to understand the rules, etc.  

 

There's a big difference between having to go back to the tee and dropping on the spot, and who knows what would have happened, but likelihood is at least one more shot on the hole?  Plus, he would have had to see Rory waiting and offering to shake his hand with a "well done on the tree mate"!

REED-APOLOGIST!!!!!!

[Abh159]

15 hours ago, Barfolomew said:

How would TV helped.... did they see what tree the ball went in

 

Yes, the tv replay showed the ball going into one tree, and somehow patty pat pat was able to identify his ball in a different tree.

[Cliffy2020]

2 minutes ago, 596 said:

 

The Reed rule should be that if you cheat you get kicked off the tour, period! 

Would have ended Tigers career pretty early after he took advantage of the loose impediment rule to gain an unfair advantage on the field using the gallery to move a boulder out of the way in Scottsdale.

 

Kicked-off if pretty harsh.  DQ at most 

[jholz]

1 minute ago, Cliffy2020 said:

Would have ended Tigers career pretty early after he took advantage of the loose impediment rule to gain an unfair advantage on the field using the gallery to move a boulder out of the way in Scottsdale.

 

Kicked-off if pretty harsh.  DQ at most 

 

Was waiting for someone to mention this.

 

Do we value the game or the personalities who play that game? 

 

These days, it seems we value the latter. I, personally, value the former.

 

 

[596]

7 minutes ago, Cliffy2020 said:

Would have ended Tigers career pretty early after he took advantage of the loose impediment rule to gain an unfair advantage on the field using the gallery to move a boulder out of the way in Scottsdale.

 

Kicked-off if pretty harsh.  DQ at most 

But that wasn't cheating. It was a total stretch of the rule as it was written, but not cheating. 

 

 

[Cliffy2020]

3 minutes ago, 596 said:

But that wasn't cheating. It was a total stretch of the rule as it was written, but not cheating. 

 

 

Like Reed “identifying” his ball according to the rule as it was written.

 

So far the only suggestion I kinda/sorta like here for a “Reed Rule” would only apply to Professional Tourneys. So if a player claims to be 100% certain they’ve positively identified the ball (they can see it but can’t reach it scenario like this one) then send a skinny up the tree after the round to retrieve the ball at the risk of DQ.  If the ball is a match, unplayable lie 1 stroke penalty.  Player not sure it’s his ball- back to the tee for a lost ball, 2 stroke penalty.  Lie & get caught = DQ.