2021 Professional Golf Thread

[Whydowedoit]

Ended up a very classy win by Patrick Reed. A highly skilled player, with a slightly old fashioned game, who I find a joy to follow. Its nice to see one of the true players win, rather than a 400 yard bomber. His short game & course management are just exquisite. Magical. A real shame some have to continually berate him. It was a fascinating watch to see how he held his nerve throughout. i enjoyed the commentary by Andrew Coltart too. Been a great weekends Golf on TV with Dubai as well. So frustrating to be stuck indoors in lockdown.

 

[Tashyboy]

There was no requirement to call a rules official.

From the PGA Tour on embedded balls:

"There is NO longer a requirement to announce to your marker or another player your intention to mark and lift the ball to check if it is embedded, but it is still good practice to do so."

Jim, an open question. Is there a grey area over this incident with Reed..
Reason I say that, if fellow pros are talking about it/him, do they see it differently to how Reed called it.

 

[Crazyface]

Paul Casey 253 with an iron! How?

 

[Tashyboy]

Paul Casey 253 with an iron! How?

He is a member of this forum. Standard distance ?

 

[Orikoru]

Paul Casey 253 with an iron! How?

He's good at golf?

 

[YandaB]

Paul Casey 253 with an iron! How?

He took a bit off it?

 

[clubchamp98]

There was no requirement to call a rules official.

From the PGA Tour on embedded balls:

"There is NO longer a requirement to announce to your marker or another player your intention to mark and lift the ball to check if it is embedded, but it is still good practice to do so."

What Reed and others did was within the rules.
What I find strange is most tour players don’t touch their ball until they get a ruling first.
It’s been like that forever just in case they make a mistake which is very costly at their level.
But here we have several players not needing a ruling and doing it themselves
I think it’s open to abuse and at the very least one op should be present when the ball is lifted.

 

[BubbaP]

I was reflecting, if Reed had just dropped the ball and hit it, would there have been the storm?
Ironically, it may be part way through he thought - I might be challenged on this, I best pull the ref in. And that maybe went against in the viewers eyes.
Pretty sure the bounce didn't help, neither did the finger poking. Probably also that he managed to find a good drop and play a good shot.
As entertainment, it certainly put the tournament into focus. Really wasn't surprised to see him shrug off and win. Despite the noise that follows, watching the actual golf part it is hard to deny the talent.

 

[Blue in Munich]

If Patrick Reed was entitled to do what he did, why call a referee after moving the ball; why call a referee at all? Neither of the Rorys did, they don't have to.

Why mask the ball in your hand for so long & then put it down?

If it was embedded, why do you need to appear to probe around with your fingers? You saw the ball was embedded.

Why call McIlroy out for not calling a referee via a tweet when it is agreed that you don't need to call a referee? Classic deflection.

If none of the 3 pros & 3 caddies saw the ball bounce, why ask the Marshall if it bounced? Because the 6 of them couldn't see it finish But didn't see it tends to give credibility where couldn't see it doesn't.

Some of the fuss is because it's Patrick Reed. But most of it is because if WHAT Patrick Reed DID, and HOW Patrick Reed DID IT.

 

[Crow]

Is this Reed thing still dragging on?

Let me add something to the party that I just spotted on a YouTube video.

The video below discusses Reed's drop and McIlroy's drop.
There's nothing I can see that Reed did wrong and nobody else has been able to prove anything so, unless evidence is forthcoming, let's move on from Reed.

BUT, McIlroy looks to have transgressed to me and here's why.
On the video check frame at 2:25 and note the rule, "and the lifted ball must not be cleaned"
Jump ahead to 5:25, McIlroy asks Sabbatini about a club length for drop then stands up and we see his caddie cleaning Rory's ball in the towel before handing it back to him.
Well, a good job it wasn't Reed's caddie or all hell would be breaking loose.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Is this Reed thing still dragging on?

Let me add something to the party that I just spotted on a YouTube video.

The video below discusses Reed's drop and McIlroy's drop.
There's nothing I can see that Reed did wrong and nobody else has been able to prove anything so, unless evidence is forthcoming, let's move on from Reed.

BUT, McIlroy looks to have transgressed to me and here's why.
On the video check frame at 2:25 and note the rule, "and the lifted ball must not be cleaned"
Jump ahead to 5:25, McIlroy asks Sabbatini about a club length for drop then stands up and we see his caddie cleaning Rory's ball in the towel before handing it back to him.
Well, a good job it wasn't Reed's caddie or all hell would be breaking loose.

16.4 Lifting Ball to See If It Lies in Condition Where Relief Allowed
If a player reasonably believes that his or her ball lies in a condition where free relief is allowed under Rule 15.2, 16.1 or 16.3, but cannot decide that without lifting the ball:

• The player may lift the ball to see if relief is allowed, but:
• The spot of the ball must first be marked, and the lifted ball must not be cleaned (except on the putting green) (see Rule 14.1).

If the player lifts the ball without having this reasonable belief (except on the putting green where the player may lift under Rule 13.1b), he or she gets one penalty stroke.

If relief is allowed and the player takes relief, there is no penalty even if the player did not mark the spot of the ball before lifting it or cleaned the lifted ball.

If relief is not allowed, or if the player chooses not to take relief that is allowed:

• The player gets one penalty stroke if he or she did not mark the spot of the ball before lifting it or cleaned the lifted ball when not allowed, and
• The ball must be replaced on its original spot (see Rule 14.2).

Rule 16.4 is the rule in the frame, but only part of it. The two pertinent parts of it appear to be;

If a player reasonably believes that his or her ball lies in a condition where free relief is allowed under Rule 15.2, 16.1 or 16.3, but cannot decide that without lifting the ball:

• The player may lift the ball to see if relief is allowed, but:
• The spot of the ball must first be marked, and the lifted ball must not be cleaned (except on the putting green) (see Rule 14.1).

And;

If relief is allowed and the player takes relief, there is no penalty even if the player did not mark the spot of the ball before lifting it or cleaned the lifted ball.

So it seems to me that if McIlroy is entitled to relief, as he determined he was by his declaration prior to lifting it, then he is not lifting it to decide if he is entitled to relief and there is no penalty for cleaning the ball, as it has not been lifted to decide if relief is allowed.

Have I got that right; or has he committed the violation under some other rule; or maybe all hell isn't breaking loose because McIlroy did it right?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Is this Reed thing still dragging on?

Let me add something to the party that I just spotted on a YouTube video.

The video below discusses Reed's drop and McIlroy's drop.
There's nothing I can see that Reed did wrong and nobody else has been able to prove anything so, unless evidence is forthcoming, let's move on from Reed.

BUT, McIlroy looks to have transgressed to me and here's why.
On the video check frame at 2:25 and note the rule, "and the lifted ball must not be cleaned"
Jump ahead to 5:25, McIlroy asks Sabbatini about a club length for drop then stands up and we see his caddie cleaning Rory's ball in the towel before handing it back to him.
Well, a good job it wasn't Reed's caddie or all hell would be breaking loose.

Once Rory established he was taking relief under the embedded ball rule he was allowed to clean it

Both players followed the rules correctly

Reed from his actions wanted to make sure it was ok to take the drop hence why he placed the ball on the ground to ensure it wasn’t cleaned because if the ref said that it wasn’t embedded then he would have had to replace it without cleaning it

 

[Crow]

16.4 Lifting Ball to See If It Lies in Condition Where Relief Allowed
If a player reasonably believes that his or her ball lies in a condition where free relief is allowed under Rule 15.2, 16.1 or 16.3, but cannot decide that without lifting the ball:

• The player may lift the ball to see if relief is allowed, but:
• The spot of the ball must first be marked, and the lifted ball must not be cleaned (except on the putting green) (see Rule 14.1).

If the player lifts the ball without having this reasonable belief (except on the putting green where the player may lift under Rule 13.1b), he or she gets one penalty stroke.

If relief is allowed and the player takes relief, there is no penalty even if the player did not mark the spot of the ball before lifting it or cleaned the lifted ball.

If relief is not allowed, or if the player chooses not to take relief that is allowed:

• The player gets one penalty stroke if he or she did not mark the spot of the ball before lifting it or cleaned the lifted ball when not allowed, and
• The ball must be replaced on its original spot (see Rule 14.2).

Rule 16.4 is the rule in the frame, but only part of it. The two pertinent parts of it appear to be;

If a player reasonably believes that his or her ball lies in a condition where free relief is allowed under Rule 15.2, 16.1 or 16.3, but cannot decide that without lifting the ball:

• The player may lift the ball to see if relief is allowed, but:
• The spot of the ball must first be marked, and the lifted ball must not be cleaned (except on the putting green) (see Rule 14.1).

And;

If relief is allowed and the player takes relief, there is no penalty even if the player did not mark the spot of the ball before lifting it or cleaned the lifted ball.

So it seems to me that if McIlroy is entitled to relief, as he determined he was by his declaration prior to lifting it, then he is not lifting it to decide if he is entitled to relief and there is no penalty for cleaning the ball, as it has not been lifted to decide if relief is allowed.

Have I got that right; or has he committed the violation under some other rule; or maybe all hell isn't breaking loose because McIlroy did it right?

I don't get your point.
You can't clean it before ascertaining that it was embedded as you might need to replace it back to the original position.
Once it's established you get relief, you can clean it.

Once Rory established he was taking relief under the embedded ball rule he was allowed to clean it

Both players followed the rules correctly

Reed from his actions wanted to make sure it was ok to take the drop hence why he placed the ball on the ground to ensure it wasn’t cleaned because if the ref said that it wasn’t embedded then he would have had to replace it without cleaning it

Looks like I was wrong.

 

[BubbaP]

Looks like I was wrong.

A CrowPerson's prerogative ??

 

[patricks148]

the thing that doesn't sit right with me between the two, was one chose to re-enact a scene from amaerican pie to try and justify the drop and only one got a plain advantage from the drop.

one dropped back to the base of the rough and couldn't be seen , the other sat up nice and was visible..

 

[clubchamp98]

the thing that doesn't sit right with me between the two, was one chose to re-enact a scene from amaerican pie to try and justify the drop and only one got a plain advantage from the drop.

one dropped back to the base of the rough and couldn't be seen , the other sat up nice and was visible..

Whatever the ins and outs of this.
Dropping is an art.

 

[garyinderry]

Some interesting points.

 

[clubchamp98]

Some interesting points.

There is some interesting points.
The main one for me is a player should not be able to just pick his ball up without at least a pp or op being there.
If he was calling a ref why didn’t he just leave the ball where it was?
Maybe he thought the ref would say NO.
It comes across as although he has adhered to the letter of the law, they still don’t belive him but can’t call him a cheat.
That shows to me the rule is flawed.
Imagine this in your club matchplay. It’s wide open for abuse every time your op gets a bad lie he can pick it up and say it’s plugged.
Can see a few arguments over this.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Some interesting points.

Is that Chambelee ?

I wonder if they are dissecting it all the 9th degree because it’s Reed

For example - Rory’s ball also bounced , so on that equation how was his ball embedded - even more so when it didn’t bounce as high as Reeds . Rory picked the ball up also with ease after it was marked

How someone handles the ball I think they are just looking for something to point the finger at

The one area where you don’t want to see is the poking the finger into the hole - if he put the tee peg down then the area is marked and you either take the drop if you are 100% sure or you ask the referee

As for the legally and morally etc - did they ask the same questions when Mickleson takes his drops from everywhere , even DeChambeu ants , then the Mickelson chase after the ball and stop it going off the green etc - the whole tour is full of incidents that are within the rules legally but morally - maybe not

But they don’t get this level of exposure - statements like “text 21 players etc” is just poor and looks like bullying in some respect

I would hope and expect that the same level of scrutiny happens to all - especially from the likes of NLU

 

[Imurg]

It's a fact of life that players in any sport that have "previous" are going to be scrutinised more.