Farmers Insurance Open

[ncwoz]

Another Reed cheating incident? Or just weird circumstances?

[null]

Reed is a blatant cheater. Again

And the PGA Tour will just brush it under the rug again. Embarrassing 

[tony@CIC]

My course does this to us!  Its private so I guess they can get away with it. Sometimes I see the greens keeper out on Sunday morning just watching a hole or two where he set the pin in a diabolical location laughing at the members blowing up on the hole. I actually enjoy the challenge. 

They're sadistic bast**ds.


Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

[Chip Strokes]

here’s a video of the ball bouncing before coming to rest 

 

[ncwoz]

Boy, if Rory could just hit a putt or two he'd be blowing everyone else out of the water

[yungkory]

26 minutes ago, Chip Strokes said:

here’s a video of the ball bouncing before coming to rest 

 

How in the world. If he gets away with this, I'm foot wedging every sketchy lie I get, forever.

[Vegan_Golfer_PNW]

And now he gets the fitting lip out for birdie!

[DaveP043]

Reed couldn't see the ball land.  He was told it didn't bounce.  He marked and lifted to see if it was embedded, because he couldn't see for sure in the deep rough.  If it wasn't, he could have replaced it and played on without needing to wait for an official.  But because it seems to be embedded, he makes sure an official does come and verify that its embedded.  Seems to me like he did everything by the book. They had 4 inches of rain, there are certain to be some soft spots, it seems possible to embed even on a bounce.  Unlikely, but possible.

[pulledabill]

5 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Reed couldn't see the ball land.  He was told it didn't bounce.  He marked and lifted to see if it was embedded, because he couldn't see for sure in the deep rough.  If it wasn't, he could have replaced it and played on without needing to wait for an official.  But because it seems to be embedded, he makes sure an official does come and verify that its embedded.  Seems to me like he did everything by the book. They had 4 inches of rain, there are certain to be some soft spots, it seems possible to embed even on a bounce.  Unlikely, but possible.

Or it landed in a previous plug? He realizes his every move is under a microscope.   Ive ended up in anothers plug, but never in a shoe in a golf cart. 

Edited January 30, 2021 by pulledabill

[pulledabill]

I used to pull for Rahm, but he hasnt really tamed his attitude much from what Ive seen. Whats with players dropping their club after a poor shot? Maybe I would as well if it wasnt so much work picking it back up.  

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, pulledabill said:

Or it landed in a previous plug? He realizes his every move is under a microscope.   Ive ended up in anothers plug, but never in a shoe in a golf cart. 

Yeah, I don't know how it got plugged, but it doesn't seem impossible to find a soft wet spot after yesterday's weather.  The only other explanation is that Reed somehow located a pitch mark in the deep rough near his ball, and somehow moved his mark to that pitch mark without the other players or caddies or volunteers or anyone else noticing.

[yungkory]

8 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Yeah, I don't know how it got plugged, but it doesn't seem impossible to find a soft wet spot after yesterday's weather.  The only other explanation is that Reed somehow located a pitch mark in the deep rough near his ball, and somehow moved his mark to that pitch mark without the other players or caddies or volunteers or anyone else noticing.

Or he made the indent himself. He should've waited for the official before moving his ball imo, then I would've been able to be convinced. As they say when you find a loophole in video games "clever use of game mechanics" dude is a sketchy character so unfortunately, I'm biased.

[FrogginBullfish]

The optics certainly aren't good and that it was Reed only compounds everything.

That being said, while the replay footage clearly shows the ball bounce, Reed acted according to the information he had, which was that a nearby volunteer said it did not. The replay cuts from Reed as the ball lands so we do not know whether he could see the ball bounce or if he'd looked away at that point.

Obviously picking up the ball before the official is there was not the smartest of choices for a guy with Reed's reputation but it appears to me that he followed the rules based on the information he had.

I'm not sure what the Tour is supposed to do here to stop a situation like this from happening again. Video review is really only fair if every shot for every player in the field is filmed from a variety of angles. I don't know how viable that is.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[fixyurdivot]

12 minutes ago, FrogginBullfish said:

I'm not sure what the Tour is supposed to do here to stop a situation like this from happening again. Video review is really only fair if every shot for every player in the field is filmed from a variety of angles. I don't know how viable that is.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

Clearly it is time for Nano ball cams .  Poor ol' Patrick, the guy just can't catch a break.

[Chip Strokes]

from everything i’ve read and watched it seems that reed managed to somehow stay within the rules in this whole thing. i trust @DaveP043 when he says the rules support Reed’s actions

the way he chose to go about it reads as fishy to me though. does anyone else think “did it bounce?” is an odd first question to ask the volunteer who found the ball?  not “where is it?” almost seems like he was planning to exploit the rule as he approached his ball. 

i’m not well versed in the rules of golf enough to know if what he did was legal, but that question to me reads as someone who had an idea in his head as he walked to the spot. 

on top of that, you’ve gotta suspend some disbelief to accept that his shot hit firm enough ground to take a bounce, but then somehow land (from knee height) in soft enough ground to embed. 

[yungkory]

Here's the full video:

To me, moving the ball before the official got there is weird. Add to that the amount of time he spends with his hands below the grass, again more fishy. Also, ankle high grass -- I'd really be surprised if the ball could get down into the Earth, through all that thickness, after an initial bounce. Also like @Chip Strokes said, if it could plug after a bounce like that, it should've plugged from the knee high drop, and fatrick should've left dinosaur prints behind

[null]

Justine Reed just outed her own Patrick Reed burner account on Twitter. This is glorious

[Chip Strokes]

4 minutes ago, jlukes said:

Justine Reed just outed her own Patrick Reed burner account on Twitter. This is glorious

so so so good. you love to see it. 

 

[tony@CIC]

Come on Finau, get over your Sunday jitters and finish strong - you're only four back. 

[Mtbryant01]

24 minutes ago, tony@CIC said:

Come on Finau, get over your Sunday jitters and finish strong - you're only four back. 

Would love to see it. Hate he didn’t have a good round yesterday. I saw this tweet  below (maybe it’s already been talked about here, so apologies if it has). 

We all know Tony is a great player and has a ridiculous amount of top 10s. It seems that there is always a push from a guy in the final round who goes -5 or better to win it. Si Woo went -6 last week. Na went -5 at the Sony. I’m not going to be mad at Finau for not winning more, he’s making a ton of money. I just wish he was able to put together that final round of -5 or better.

 

[DaveP043]

12 hours ago, yungkory said:

Here's the full video:

To me, moving the ball before the official got there is weird. Add to that the amount of time he spends with his hands below the grass, again more fishy. Also, ankle high grass -- I'd really be surprised if the ball could get down into the Earth, through all that thickness, after an initial bounce. Also like @Chip Strokes said, if it could plug after a bounce like that, it should've plugged from the knee high drop, and fatrick should've left dinosaur prints behind

I just disagree.  Because neither his playing partners, caddies, or the volunteer saw the ball bounce, he had reason to suspect that the ball was embedded.  So he first squats down to take a close look.  Because the rough is deep, he can't see the bottom of the ball, the only way to evaluate whether its embedded is to mark and lift it.  He does that.  He sets it off to the side, so he doesn't accidentally clean it.  If its clearly not embedded, he would have to replace it, uncleaned, and play on without waiting for the official.  Because it feels as if it may actually be embedded, he asks the official to confirm, and the official agrees.  So he cleans the ball, defines his Relief Area, and drops the ball.

How often do we read complaints about players calling officials for ever little simple question?  Reed did the right thing, made an initial assessment, and then called for the official.  He's NOT required to have the official there from the very beginning.

The ball clearly did bounce.  However, the camera angle from behind and above Reed showed me pretty clearly that Reed couldn't have seen the ball land.  He couldn't see the bounce.  Apparently nobody else saw the bounce.  So he had a valid reason to think the ball could be embedded.

Did it embed on the second bounce?  It definitely seems unlikely, but its possible.  Four inches of rain the day before, and uneven ground surface, I'm absolutely certain there were some isolated area of soft  wet ground.  Or maybe the official felt something he identified as a "lip" that was there before the ball arrived.  To accuse Reed of deliberately pressing down the ball, without any real evidence, is to make a decision based on your own bias rather than on what you see.

 

[Chip Strokes]

12 hours ago, yungkory said:

if it could plug after a bounce like that, it should've plugged from the knee high drop, and fatrick should've left dinosaur prints behind

the more i think about it, the more important i find this point. 

for a ball to plug from that soft bounce forward, the ground would have to be complete mush. 

reed spent a solid few minutes crouched on that same spot with his hands and toes in the ground. no sinking, no mud, no water to be found anywhere. 

[cnosil]

24 minutes ago, Mtbryant01 said:

Would love to see it. Hate he didn’t have a good round yesterday. I saw this tweet  below (maybe it’s already been talked about here, so apologies if it has). 

We all know Tony is a great player and has a ridiculous amount of top 10s. It seems that there is always a push from a guy in the final round who goes -5 or better to win it. Si Woo went -6 last week. Na went -5 at the Sony. I’m not going to be mad at Finau for not winning more, he’s making a ton of money. I just wish he was able to put together that final round of -5 or better.

 

Here is a response to that tweet and the analysis that in my opinion that really should be done and that the above tweet is wrong.   

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tony-finau-closing-it-out-and-lou-is-wrecking-golf/id1543363295?i=1000507077657

[cnosil]

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I just disagree.  Because neither his playing partners, caddies, or the volunteer saw the ball bounce, he had reason to suspect that the ball was embedded.  So he first squats down to take a close look.  Because the rough is deep, he can't see the bottom of the ball, the only way to evaluate whether its embedded is to mark and lift it.  He does that.  He sets it off to the side, so he doesn't accidentally clean it.  If its clearly not embedded, he would have to replace it, uncleaned, and play on without waiting for the official.  Because it feels as if it may actually be embedded, he asks the official to confirm, and the official agrees.  So he cleans the ball, defines his Relief Area, and drops the ball.

How often do we read complaints about players calling officials for ever little simple question?  Reed did the right thing, made an initial assessment, and then called for the official.  He's NOT required to have the official there from the very beginning.

The ball clearly did bounce.  However, the camera angle from behind and above Reed showed me pretty clearly that Reed couldn't have seen the ball land.  He couldn't see the bounce.  Apparently nobody else saw the bounce.  So he had a valid reason to think the ball could be embedded.

Did it embed on the second bounce?  It definitely seems unlikely, but its possible.  Four inches of rain the day before, and uneven ground surface, I'm absolutely certain there were some isolated area of soft  wet ground.  Or maybe the official felt something he identified as a "lip" that was there before the ball arrived.  To accuse Reed of deliberately pressing down the ball, without any real evidence, is to make a decision based on your own bias rather than on what you see.

 

While Reed has a questionable past,  I don't think he did anything wrong here and followed the rules.   You can even hear him tell is playing competitors what he is doing.    I now see they are counting that it took 23 seconds from when he picked the ball up to when he set is down and "hid" the ball vs. the statement he made to Amanda after the round about immediately putting it down to avoid cleaning it.    

 

[Chip Strokes]

13 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

 

Did it embed on the second bounce?  It definitely seems unlikely, but its possible.  Four inches of rain the day before, and uneven ground surface, I'm absolutely certain there were some isolated area of soft  wet ground.  Or maybe the official felt something he identified as a "lip" that was there before the ball arrived.  To accuse Reed of deliberately pressing down the ball, without any real evidence, is to make a decision based on your own bias rather than on what you see.

 

Dave, your handle on the rules are beyond reproach and if you say he went about things as he was supposed to, then i believe you. 

but to your final point - accusing Reed of embedding his own ball is absolutely the result of bias...but it’s bias that is well earned with his history. 

assuming the ball was embedded when he found it is to take Reed at his word. i don’t think that’s something he’s earned. 

trusting reed to act with integrity in a situation like this is like trusting a drunk to come out to the bar and be your designated driver  

i think his very first question walking up to the ball is very telling. “did it bounce” says to me that he walked up there with a plan.  this is speculation, of course, but since we’re not there and we’re not him all we get to do is speculate  

 

[Shankster]

24 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I just disagree.  Because neither his playing partners, caddies, or the volunteer saw the ball bounce, he had reason to suspect that the ball was embedded.  So he first squats down to take a close look.  Because the rough is deep, he can't see the bottom of the ball, the only way to evaluate whether its embedded is to mark and lift it.  He does that.  He sets it off to the side, so he doesn't accidentally clean it.  If its clearly not embedded, he would have to replace it, uncleaned, and play on without waiting for the official.  Because it feels as if it may actually be embedded, he asks the official to confirm, and the official agrees.  So he cleans the ball, defines his Relief Area, and drops the ball.

How often do we read complaints about players calling officials for ever little simple question?  Reed did the right thing, made an initial assessment, and then called for the official.  He's NOT required to have the official there from the very beginning.

The ball clearly did bounce.  However, the camera angle from behind and above Reed showed me pretty clearly that Reed couldn't have seen the ball land.  He couldn't see the bounce.  Apparently nobody else saw the bounce.  So he had a valid reason to think the ball could be embedded.

Did it embed on the second bounce?  It definitely seems unlikely, but its possible.  Four inches of rain the day before, and uneven ground surface, I'm absolutely certain there were some isolated area of soft  wet ground.  Or maybe the official felt something he identified as a "lip" that was there before the ball arrived.  To accuse Reed of deliberately pressing down the ball, without any real evidence, is to make a decision based on your own bias rather than on what you see.

 

Great point.  We are all so perfect that we don’t make mistakes.  Yes, he has made some and judgment calls over the years...

How many of you sped on your way to work last week, or used a crosswalk while it said wait...?  *you as in the social media*
 

I don’t particularly like PR, but for Pete’s sake, give the guy a dang break.  If that was Matt Wolff or Collin... not a word would have been said.  
 

People make mistakes, people make wrong choices.  He is human, and yes a professional golfer, but it is time to let it go.

[fixyurdivot]

2 minutes ago, Shankster said:

Great point.  We are all so perfect that we don’t make mistakes.  Yes, he has made some and judgment calls over the years...

How many of you sped on your way to work last week, or used a crosswalk while it said wait...?  *you as in the social media*
 

I don’t particularly like PR, but for Pete’s sake, give the guy a dang break.  If that was Matt Wolff or Collin... not a word would have been said.  
 

People make mistakes, people make wrong choices.  He is human, and yes a professional golfer, but it is time to let it go.

I'd this even if he wasn't on my roster.

[DaveP043]

19 minutes ago, Chip Strokes said:

i think his very first question walking up to the ball is very telling. “did it bounce” says to me that he walked up there with a plan.  this is speculation, of course, but since we’re not there and we’re not him all we get to do is speculate

I'm not so sure.  By that time he had walked close to 200 yards, and almost certainly had asked his playing partners and their caddies if THEY had seen a bounce.  The video I saw, his shot from the bunker with the shot tracer, leads me to believe that none of them could really see the ball land, so its logical to ask someone closer what they saw.  In a way, you're right, he had a plan to gather more information.  In his interview later, he says that if he had known the ball bounced, he wouldn't have evaluated it any further.  

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm not so sure.  By that time he had walked close to 200 yards, and almost certainly had asked his playing partners and their caddies if THEY had seen a bounce.  The video I saw, his shot from the bunker with the shot tracer, leads me to believe that none of them could really see the ball land, so its logical to ask someone closer what they saw.  In a way, you're right, he had a plan to gather more information.  In his interview later, he says that if he had known the ball bounced, he wouldn't have evaluated it any further.  

I am on the same page as you.  Listening to a discussion on the TV and they are saying that Rory did the exact same thing without consulting a rules official; including moving the ball to another spot.  Reed called in a rules official and the rules official said that the ball was embedded,  there wasn't a situation where the official said that it wasn't embedded.  The rules were followed to the letter; there is no issue.

[Chip Strokes]

4 minutes ago, cnosil said:

I am on the same page as you.  Listening to a discussion on the TV and they are saying that Rory did the exact same thing without consulting a rules official; including moving the ball to another spot.  Reed called in a rules official and the rules official said that the ball was embedded,  there wasn't a situation where the official said that it wasn't embedded.  The rules were followed to the letter; there is no issue.

the official didn’t get to examine the ball.  he got to see a spot Reed had spent more than a minute poking around at. 

i know he didn’t have to call the official over at all, like in rory’s case.  but if you want confirmation why not get it with the ball in its original spot?

cheaters are very good at cheating. reed might have the rules on his side here but he played that official like a fiddle.