Tours need to make “The Reed rule”…..

[MikekiM]

4 minutes ago, Abh159 said:

 

I believe you have to be able to identify your ball to be able to take an unplayable lie penalty. That's why you'll see players digging in the sand in bunkers trying to find a ball that buried in the face. If you can't find your ball it's lost (stroke and distance penalty). 

 

By dropping next to the tree he gained at least a 1 stroke advantage by not having to go back and retee. 

 

 

No he wouldn't. He would've looked up in the correct tree and said yep, that's my ball there.  And no one would have said a thing.

 

[Abh159]

3 minutes ago, MikekiM said:

No he wouldn't. He would've looked up in the correct tree and said yep, that's my ball there.  And no one would have said a thing.

 

 

Not necessarily. Who's to say you could see a ball in that tree? If he couldn't see it from the ground (which is very possible) then there would be no way of identifying it unless he literally climbed the tree to find it.

 

Sort of like hitting a ball into thick rough and not finding it. You can't just say "well even though I can't find it I know it's in the rough so I'll just take an unplayable and drop here." You have to actually find the ball and identify it as yours to do that.

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Abh159

[Ferguson]

14 minutes ago, Abh159 said:

 

Not necessarily. Who's to say you could see a ball in that tree? If he couldn't see it from the ground (which is very possible) then there would be no way of identifying it unless he literally climbed the tree to find it.

 

Sort of like hitting a ball into thick rough and not finding it. You can't just say "well even though I can't find it I know it's in the rough so I'll just take an unplayable and drop here." You have to actually find the ball and identify it as yours to do that.

 

 

Then again, this is Reed we are talking about.  We must default to a guilty verdict and work backwards. 

He has that sort of history.

 

 

 

 

 

[Abh159]

1 minute ago, Ferguson said:

 

Then again, this is Reed we are talking about.  We must default to a guilty verdict and work backwards. 

He has that sort of history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even Jackie wouldn't take on Pat as a client 🤣

[Krt22]

46 minutes ago, Abh159 said:

 

Even Jackie wouldn't take on Pat as a client 🤣

I heard he tried to call Saul as well, but got stone-walled

[Hawkeye77]

4 hours ago, MikekiM said:

Did Patrick really gain much advantage by cheating?

 

 

Beyond totally irrelevant.

 

And nobody knows if he would have even been able to see or identify his ball in the proper tree.

[Hawkeye77]

The next time I hear someone say it isn't the archer, it's the arrow . . . . . . . . . . . .

[sui generis]

10 hours ago, getitdaily said:

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

 

Sooner or later, even you wouldn't like that change. 🙄

[getitdaily]

6 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

Sooner or later, even you wouldn't like that change. 🙄

Think I've had it happen once in 30 years of playing. Don't hit it in the tree...

[mshills]

4 hours ago, MikekiM said:

Did Patrick really gain much advantage by cheating?

Was his drop by the third tree much better than the drop would have been from the first tree?

 

I realize some of you wanted him to go to the tee and rehit, but if they went to the video replay they would have seen it was stuck in the first tree.  He would have ID'd his ball there, and would have taken a drop. 

Was there that big of an advantage gained by moving up 2 trees?

 

Was it less of an advantage that Rory got when he dropped clear out of the rough?

 

I get that Patrick lied about seeing his ball in the tree it wasn't in, and everyone wants to jump on that aspect.  But there's no denying that his ball was in one of those trees, and he would have likely gotten a drop nearby anyway if they went to the video replay.  Did him lying really gain him that much of an advantage?

Once they saw the video of the ball going into the tree, I bet that regardless of the player they would have received clearance to take the unplayable.

Advantage gained or lost does not matter.

 

This is not complicated. It was impossible to identify his ball from the ground. Reed failed to identify his ball. A ball cannot be unplayable unless the ball is identified first. Therefore, lost ball, penalty is stroke & distance.

[IndyArcher]

36 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

The next time I hear someone say it isn't the archer, it's the arrow . . . . . . . . . . . .

As an avid archer and coach, I can tell you it can be either or both. 

[jonsnow]

5 hours ago, MikekiM said:

No he wouldn't. He would've looked up in the correct tree and said yep, that's my ball there.  And no one would have said a thing.

 

My son (an attorney) refers to this line of inquiry as "Asked and answered."

[BoomShakalaka5]

Reed needs some group therapy….

 

hi, I’m Patrick and I’m a tour cheater.  
 

welcome Patrick.  

[Body_Visions]

19 hours ago, Frankensteins Monster said:

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

 

I meant as long as they are going to give him a drop in the general area, was any advance gained from the third tree, as opposed to the fourth?

Edited February 2, 2023 by Body_Visions

[Pastit]

1 hour ago, Body_Visions said:

 

I meant as long as they are going to give him a drop in the general area, was any advance gained from the third tree, as opposed to the fourth?

You still miss the point I’m afraid. If the ball is lost then the challenge of the drive is repeated e.g. perhaps lost again in those trees or elsewhere. It’s not a question that it’s only one-shot difference. 

[hammersia]

1 hour ago, Body_Visions said:

 

I meant as long as they are going to give him a drop in the general area, was any advance gained from the third tree, as opposed to the fourth?

No one, not even the worst club hack, plays to that sort of rule, surely?

[Frankensteins Monster]

1 hour ago, Body_Visions said:

 

I meant as long as they are going to give him a drop in the general area, was any advance gained from the third tree, as opposed to the fourth?

He would have most likely had to have tried to curve the ball out of the rough since the other two trees would be between him and the green.

[596]

22 hours ago, Cliffy2020 said:

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.

 

 

Nope, his stretch of the rule was very most likely a lie.  You don't get to stretch the rule with a lie. That's called cheating. Moving the rock was not a lie. Everyone saw it, did it, no lie involved. Totally different senerios. 

[Pastit]

On 2/1/2023 at 3:09 AM, 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 believe an ET caddy climbed a tree to ID a ball some years ago. Langer famously climbed a tree to play his ball, at Fulford, York, I believe. Maybe that should be the rule.

[jonsnow]

2 hours ago, Pastit said:

I believe an ET caddy climbed a tree to ID a ball some years ago. Langer famously climbed a tree to play his ball, at Fulford, York, I believe. Maybe that should be the rule.

I'm thinking Patrick Reed's tree-climbing days are behind him.

[CDM]

On 2/1/2023 at 7:40 AM, Ferguson said:

 

You shouldn't draw that line in the sand.  The behavior of random people moving the rock for Tiger did not violate any rule, therefore Tiger did not violate any rule.  Those actions added value to the sport.  It was a remarkable and memorable event in golf.  

 

Value the game?  The professional game is embodied by the personality of players.  

 

 

I 100% agree that the "TW boulder" event is part of history in golf now and yes based on Tirgers "personality" it is the only reason why it even happned but that was wrong.     

 

I have never believed it was the right thing for Tiger to do that.  He "cheated" the rules on that. Tiger and Steve could have NEVER moved that boulder without outside influence of spectators. 8 people to move it and it was struggle..!  

 

This is thread is about "interigty" of the game the rules in place. How was that fair to the other players in the field when Tirger used outside influnece help benfit his next shot?   

 

If that was say Kevin Wentworth's ball that was behind the boulder would that boulder been moved?  No way at all.   

 

Your playing in your club championship, down to the last whole and up 1. Club members are following the match. Your dirive ends up behind a boulder similar to Tiger's. Do you ask the members to help you to move the boulder so you can hit a clean shot to the green so you can win? 

 

Tiger was a great player, respected in the game and rightfully so but someone's "status" in golf does not change the intergity of the game....

[Pastit]

15 hours ago, CDM said:

 

I 100% agree that the "TW boulder" event is part of history in golf now and yes based on Tirgers "personality" it is the only reason why it even happned but that was wrong.     

 

I have never believed it was the right thing for Tiger to do that.  He "cheated" the rules on that. Tiger and Steve could have NEVER moved that boulder without outside influence of spectators. 8 people to move it and it was struggle..!  

 

This is thread is about "interigty" of the game the rules in place. How was that fair to the other players in the field when Tirger used outside influnece help benfit his next shot?   

 

If that was say Kevin Wentworth's ball that was behind the boulder would that boulder been moved?  No way at all.   

 

Your playing in your club championship, down to the last whole and up 1. Club members are following the match. Your dirive ends up behind a boulder similar to Tiger's. Do you ask the members to help you to move the boulder so you can hit a clean shot to the green so you can win? 

 

Tiger was a great player, respected in the game and rightfully so but someone's "status" in golf does not change the intergity of the game....

This is tangential but I have to confess at moving a boulder or large stone in a match play comp. Not sure when a large stone becomes a boulder. It was a cuboid about 18” by 9” by 6”, not embedded and my opponent had to approve and assist moving it. 
 

But I was saved from Reed’s fate because we had not noticed a pile of horse s—t by the stone and relief was also covered under a local rule.

[Ferguson]

17 hours ago, CDM said:

 

I 100% agree that the "TW boulder" event is part of history in golf now and yes based on Tirgers "personality" it is the only reason why it even happned but that was wrong.     

 

I have never believed it was the right thing for Tiger to do that.  He "cheated" the rules on that. Tiger and Steve could have NEVER moved that boulder without outside influence of spectators. 8 people to move it and it was struggle..!  

 

This is thread is about "interigty" of the game the rules in place. How was that fair to the other players in the field when Tirger used outside influnece help benfit his next shot?   

 

If that was say Kevin Wentworth's ball that was behind the boulder would that boulder been moved?  No way at all.   

 

Your playing in your club championship, down to the last whole and up 1. Club members are following the match. Your dirive ends up behind a boulder similar to Tiger's. Do you ask the members to help you to move the boulder so you can hit a clean shot to the green so you can win? 

 

Tiger was a great player, respected in the game and rightfully so but someone's "status" in golf does not change the intergity of the game....

 

Right or wrong - it was within the rules.  Just like that "spectator" a few years ago that moved a small branch and about a half dozen pine cones from around JT's ball.   JT nodded and smiled at the "spectator"  and then hit a fantastic shot.  

 

This thread is about Patrick Reed and his lack of integrity. 

 

Kevin Wentworth's history is not written.  At this point, it's not fair to tag him "not boulder movement worthy." 

 

 

[kasting333]

I would be more up in arms if the ball didn’t go in a tree at all. Reed gained a few yards I guess
 

Rahm’s free drop at the Torrey Pine US Open is the one I struggle to fathom 

Edited February 3, 2023 by kasting333

[Ferguson]

On 2/2/2023 at 11:03 AM, jonsnow said:

I'm thinking Patrick Reed's tree-climbing days are behind him.

 

New evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FriedEgg]

no comment - I don't want to be served with a lawsuit

 

😁

[Body_Visions]

On 2/2/2023 at 4:54 AM, Frankensteins Monster said:

He would have most likely had to have tried to curve the ball out of the rough since the other two trees would be between him and the green.

If true, that makes his choice of a drop worse, and why I was asking.

 

 

On 2/2/2023 at 4:04 AM, Pastit said:

You still miss the point I’m afraid. If the ball is lost then the challenge of the drive is repeated e.g. perhaps lost again in those trees or elsewhere. It’s not a question that it’s only one-shot difference. 

Absolutely.  I was trying to gauge whether or not he gained an advantage assuming they were always going to give him a drop.

 

 

 

On 2/2/2023 at 4:51 AM, hammersia said:

No one, not even the worst club hack, plays to that sort of rule, surely?

 

 

I’m not sure how this is relevant to the discussion.  Certainly the club player should be given more leniency as all he has to go on is a guess from likely more than 200 yards away.  

[Ex Blade User]

On 2/1/2023 at 8:30 PM, BoomShakalaka5 said:

Reed needs some group therapy….

 

hi, I’m Patrick and I’m a tour cheater.  
 

welcome Patrick.  

Vijay, sung kang and Gary player in attendance. 

[Golfnutgalen]

On 2/3/2023 at 9:41 AM, kasting333 said:

I would be more up in arms if the ball didn’t go in a tree at all. Reed gained a few yards I guess
 

Rahm’s free drop at the Torrey Pine US Open is the one I struggle to fathom 

 

I've always been annoyed by those drops. Same with free drops from the grandstands, they often get to just go to the drop area and have a much easier shot than if the grandstands weren't there in the first place. My solution is you get the nice drop but with one penalty stroke. The worst example of this I can think of is when Tiger hit the ball 80+ yards over the green in the 2006 WGC event on top of a building. He got his free drop and ended up making bogey I think. Also won the tournament in a playoff so it absolutely effected the outcome of the tournament. 

[kasting333]

2 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

I've always been annoyed by those drops. Same with free drops from the grandstands, they often get to just go to the drop area and have a much easier shot than if the grandstands weren't there in the first place. My solution is you get the nice drop but with one penalty stroke. The worst example of this I can think of is when Tiger hit the ball 80+ yards over the green in the 2006 WGC event on top of a building. He got his free drop and ended up making bogey I think. Also won the tournament in a playoff so it absolutely effected the outcome of the tournament. 

The Rahm US Open drop really bothered me. There was a temporary fence then an OB fence behind it. They didn’t bother checking where the ball ended up. I was shocked