Patrick Reed

[Parsaregood]

If you look at the footage you can see how bad the lie is originally. he then proceeded to take two 'practice' swings from two different angles away from the ball removing all the sand which could get inbetween club and ball. I'm sorry but the way he takes the different angles away from the ball makes me certain this was a deliberate act on his part, he also has a chequered past with incidents regarding his integrity. I dont buy his story, he should have been suspended from the tour IMO. I'm sure he will be caught up in the rules again at some point like he always is. If you do things like this in the public eye dont be surprised when you get a bit of flak, and if you cant take the heat get out of the kitchen

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Post 302 is about a bunker not a waste area.!
He had no chance of ball first in the lie he had and he knew it!
That’s why the cameras moved in on it to show how bad the lie was.
That’s when the commentators questioned his actions.
That’s why he removed the sand TWICE behind the ball with a practice takeaway.
Wonder why he didn’t contest the penalty.
Maybe because he knew he got off lightly!

I have looked at rule 12.1 , which defines a bunker , and that seems to include what we are calling a waste area. An area where sand would normally be.
However, further reading of rule 12 and in it , the reference to rule 8.1(a)4 ,it seems to me in view of that, that Reed has a real difficulty in escaping a general penalty. Unless he can show that he was so far away from the ball as to be not "removing sand(or soil) to improve the conditions affecting the stroke.
I wouldn't want to be his lawyer on a 'no win no fee 'basis?

 

[Slab]

Clubchamp did, but only in context to whether he did or didn't realise he'd touched the sand. Nothing to do about the rules in bunkers versus waste areas, so your response was not relevant.

Even though almost every thread diverges to discuss related points, If my post was truly not relevant why did you then ask me if I believed I could ground my club in a bunker?
Make your mind up

I'm typing on a phone here I don't have the time to expand every post to include every scrap of info

You can ground your club in a bunker as long as it does not contravene the additional points expand on in the rule

I knew this, it now seems some did not

 

[Swango1980]

Even though almost every thread diverges to discuss related points, If my post was truly not relevant why did you then ask me if I believed I could ground my club in a bunker?
Make your mind up

I'm typing on a phone here I don't have the time to expand every post to include every scrap of info

You can ground your club in a bunker as long as it does not contravene the additional points expand on in the rule

I knew this, it now seems some did not

I asked you, because I was responding directly to your poorly worded sentence. Why was it poorly worded? Because you ask any golfer to try and define "grounding club" they will almost certainly respond that it's placing the club head on the ground behind the ball when addressing the ball. We know that cannot be done in a bunker, and the rule does not use the word ground or grounded when saying what can be done when touching the sand with club head.

In terms of what most consider as "grounded", the rules are clear this cannot be done in a bunker, which completely contradicts your statement. This is why I asked for clarification.

By continuing to suggest you can ground your club in bunker is silly, especially when you say you got this directly from the rules. You didn't. You read the rule, then used your own words to poorly represent it.

Anyway, back to topic. Patrick Reed was able to ground his club in a waste area, but it seemed very surprising he didn't notice he was moving layers of sand behind ball, especially considering he has played out of many sandy lies thousands of times before. Plenty of circumstantial evidence he cheated. But, I guess to some, he must never ge labelled a cheat unless he comes out and admits it. How very convenient if that was the case for him. As long as he never admits any wrongdoing, he can be as devious as he wishes.

 

[clubchamp98]

I have looked at rule 12.1 , which defines a bunker , and that seems to include what we are calling a waste area. An area where sand would normally be.
However, further reading of rule 12 and in it , the reference to rule 8.1(a)4 ,it seems to me in view of that, that Reed has a real difficulty in escaping a general penalty. Unless he can show that he was so far away from the ball as to be not "removing sand(or soil) to improve the conditions affecting the stroke.
I wouldn't want to be his lawyer on a 'no win no fee 'basis?

A waste area and bunker are totally different .
In a waste area you can ground your club and have a practice swing hitting the sand as long as it dosnt improve your lie.
He improved his lie imo delibaretly.
I call that cheating some think it’s not.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

A waste area and bunker are totally different .
In a waste area you can ground your club and have a practice swing hitting the sand as long as it dosnt improve your lie.
He improved his lie imo delibaretly.
I call that cheating some think it’s not.

My post suggests he broke the rule, i.e. Improved the conditions affecting the stroke. I am not saying he did not break a rule. I am saying that unless the elusive side view shows he was so far away from the ball as to make his movements not"improving the conditions affecting the stroke", then it is right to impose a general penalty.
As to the definition of a waste area, please direct me in the rules to its definition, different from Rule 12(1)
Where Reed played from was not a green side bunker, but it was IMO "an area where sand would normally be" And that is part of the definition of a bunker ,for purposes of the rules concerning bunkers.Rule 12 (1)
Are you saying that where Reed played from was not (on that golf course) "an area where sand would normally be"?

 

[Swango1980]

My post suggests he broke the rule, i.e. Improved the conditions affecting the stroke. I am not saying he did not break a rule. I am saying that unless the elusive side view shows he was so far away from the ball as to make his movements not"improving the conditions affecting the stroke", then it is right to impose a general penalty.
As to the definition of a waste area, please direct me in the rules to its definition, different from Rule 12(1)
Where Reed played from was not a green side bunker, but it was IMO "an area where sand would normally be" And that is part of the definition of a bunker ,for purposes of the rules concerning bunkers.Rule 12 (1)
Are you saying that where Reed played from was not (on that golf course) "an area where sand would normally be"?

A waste area and bunker are not the same. I believe the club set out in the local rules what is a bunker and what is a waste area. Reed was in a waste area, not a bunker. So, he could technically ground his club behind ball, but not improve his lie.

 

[Swango1980]

PS. In terms of the defined areas of a course in the 2019 rules, a waste area would be part of the General Area, rather than being defined in it's own right as a waste area.

 

[clubchamp98]

My post suggests he broke the rule, i.e. Improved the conditions affecting the stroke. I am not saying he did not break a rule. I am saying that unless the elusive side view shows he was so far away from the ball as to make his movements not"improving the conditions affecting the stroke", then it is right to impose a general penalty.
As to the definition of a waste area, please direct me in the rules to its definition, different from Rule 12(1)
Where Reed played from was not a green side bunker, but it was IMO "an area where sand would normally be" And that is part of the definition of a bunker ,for purposes of the rules concerning bunkers.Rule 12 (1)
Are you saying that where Reed played from was not (on that golf course) "an area where sand would normally be"?

A waste area is normally just a run off area for excess water.
Used mainly in places that have severe downpours they collect the water then it drains from them over time.
I have played from waste areas containing sand, shells, soil/ mud, grass.
Courses use course sand just to make it look better .
They are just areas in the general course.
But they don’t have the restrictions a bunker has.
They are just like the rest of the course where you can’t improve your lie or intended line of your swing.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

PS. In terms of the defined areas of a course in the 2019 rules, a waste area would be part of the General Area, rather than being defined in it's own right as a waste area.

Well, this is interesting. I am not an expert on rules of golf, but I can read rules as such, when written in law type language.
I will accept the view of golf rules experts, however the area I saw Reed in certainly seemed an "area where sand would normally be "
(I mean, that much sand did not just blow there by nature?)
And therefore comes within the definition in rule 12(1).
So, this brings in the question as to who says what is a bunker and what is a waste area.?
is it the golf Club in each case? Is it the R&A rule alone, I.e on the same basis that " if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck etc " ?, regardless as to what the Club might want to call it ?
Whatever!
I would have thought that the R&A would ( should) have defined what a "waste area " is, if it is mentioned in the Rules. I think in view of what you say above and the fact that I can't readily find it in the Rules, that there is no
"waste area" as such, but is merely a vernacular term ?
If that's the case, then (in Reeds case) are we merely talking about him improving his lie (or not ) in the general area?
If so, we are back to the elusive side view, are we not?
If he's far enough back, he's in the clear.
But the down line view doesn't support that, I must say.

 

[clubchamp98]

Well, this is interesting. I am not an expert on rules of golf, but I can read rules as such, when written in law type language.
I will accept the view of golf rules experts, however the area I saw Reed in certainly seemed an "area where sand would normally be "
(I mean, that much sand did not just blow there by nature?)
And therefore comes within the definition in rule 12(1).
So, this brings in the question as to who says what is a bunker and what is a waste area.?
is it the golf Club in each case? Is it the R&A rule alone, I.e on the same basis that " if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck etc " ?, regardless as to what the Club might want to call it ?
Whatever!
I would have thought that the R&A would ( should) have defined what a "waste area " is, if it is mentioned in the Rules. I think in view of what you say above and the fact that I can't readily find it in the Rules, that there is no
"waste area" as such, but is merely a vernacular term ?
If that's the case, then (in Reeds case) are we merely talking about him improving his lie (or not ) in the general area?
If so, we are back to the elusive side view, are we not?
If he's far enough back, he's in the clear.
But the down line view doesn't support that, I must say.

We are talking in the general area but you don’t seem to belive us.

remember the USPGA championship where Dustin Johnson was penalised for grounding his club in a bunker.
It cost him the win.
Whistling Straights has lots of waste areas all over the course.
But the rules of the tournament was all sandy areas were deemed bunkers in the tournament.
The players were told this before the start so I assume it’s the tournament committee/USGA.
That was very harsh considering where he was, but he was told.
I am assuming Reed and other players identify these during practice.
As most top pros don’t leave anything to chance.
They are given a hard card of local rules ,and are made aware of anything unusual.

 

[Swango1980]

Well, this is interesting. I am not an expert on rules of golf, but I can read rules as such, when written in law type language.
I will accept the view of golf rules experts, however the area I saw Reed in certainly seemed an "area where sand would normally be "
(I mean, that much sand did not just blow there by nature?)
And therefore comes within the definition in rule 12(1).
So, this brings in the question as to who says what is a bunker and what is a waste area.?
is it the golf Club in each case? Is it the R&A rule alone, I.e on the same basis that " if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck etc " ?, regardless as to what the Club might want to call it ?
Whatever!
I would have thought that the R&A would ( should) have defined what a "waste area " is, if it is mentioned in the Rules. I think in view of what you say above and the fact that I can't readily find it in the Rules, that there is no
"waste area" as such, but is merely a vernacular term ?
If that's the case, then (in Reeds case) are we merely talking about him improving his lie (or not ) in the general area?
If so, we are back to the elusive side view, are we not?
If he's far enough back, he's in the clear.
But the down line view doesn't support that, I must say.

You will find exactly what you're looking for if you go to rules and look at the definition of bunker (click on the highlighted word bunker). It is here where it actually used the word waste areas when explaining how a Committee may treat sandy areas. I'd copy it here but can't on my phone.

So, he was penalised for improving his lie, not grounding his club.

 

[Swango1980]

Another PS. A bunker is usually a prepared area filled with sand. So, natural desert would not be classed as a bunker normally. However, a Committee can class a prepared area of sand as part of the General Area, or an unprepared area of sand as a bunker.

It is probably not much of a concern for most of us here, unless you play on the coast? But, a few of those American courses are is desert areas and so I guess it is more relevant there.

 

[drdel]

The way I see it is everywhere within the course boundaries is a general area except those defined and marked as Penalty areas (bunkers, water etc) and Tees or Greens plus locally defined exceptions. Add to this the overarching rule that you must not improve your lie?

 

[Slab]

I asked you, because I was responding directly to your poorly worded sentence. Why was it poorly worded? Because you ask any golfer to try and define "grounding club" they will almost certainly respond that it's placing the club head on the ground behind the ball when addressing the ball. We know that cannot be done in a bunker, and the rule does not use the word ground or grounded when saying what can be done when touching the sand with club head.

In terms of what most consider as "grounded", the rules are clear this cannot be done in a bunker, which completely contradicts your statement. This is why I asked for clarification.

By continuing to suggest you can ground your club in bunker is silly, especially when you say you got this directly from the rules. You didn't. You read the rule, then used your own words to poorly represent it.
.

This gives the insight into why the way my post was worded may well have allowed you to jump to the wrong conclusion (rather than just read what was written) sorry

Prior to the rule change I always treated every part of a bunker or hazard equally in respecting that I cannot touch the ground with my club (ground the club or grounding) regardless of where the ball was in the bunker/hazard. So whether I was waiting to play & just holding a club, taking practice air-swings or addressing the ball etc it was the same rule at all times that was in effect while I was in he bunker/hazard regardless of how far I was from the ball

I never assumed that grounding was 'almost certainly' going to take place at address or it was somehow more important for me to not ground the club three inches from the ball than it would be for me not to ground my club three yards from the ball, the old penalty was the same in both cases
If I'd assumed that 'gounding' the club really only takes place at the ball (as you state any golfer believes) I may have concentrated less when I was three yards from the ball & might even absentmindedly ground my club
(not a problem these days though since you can ground your club in a bunker )

 

[Swango1980]

I

This gives the insight into why the way my post was worded may well have allowed you to jump to the wrong conclusion (rather than just read what was written) sorry

Prior to the rule change I always treated every part of a bunker or hazard equally in respecting that I cannot touch the ground with my club (ground the club or grounding) regardless of where the ball was in the bunker/hazard. So whether I was waiting to play & just holding a club, taking practice air-swings or addressing the ball etc it was the same rule at all times that was in effect while I was in he bunker/hazard regardless of how far I was from the ball

I never assumed that grounding was 'almost certainly' going to take place at address or it was somehow more important for me to not ground the club three inches from the ball than it would be for me not to ground my club three yards from the ball, the old penalty was the same in both cases
If I'd assumed that 'gounding' the club really only takes place at the ball (as you state any golfer believes) I may have concentrated less when I was three yards from the ball & might even absentmindedly ground my club
(not a problem these days though since you can ground your club in a bunker )

In the old days you could also "ground" your club as you put it then, in a bunker. For example, to stop you from falling over.

 

[Swango1980]

The way I see it is everywhere within the course boundaries is a general area except those defined and marked as Penalty areas (bunkers, water etc) and Tees or Greens plus locally defined exceptions. Add to this the overarching rule that you must not improve your lie?

Bunkers are bunkers, not penalty areas

 

[Jacko_G]

I see we're still going round in circles.

2 shot penalty was given. move on please.

 

[Swango1980]

I see we're still going round in circles.

2 shot penalty was given. move on please.

We all moved on as soon as penalty was given. Moved on to discussing whether we felt it was correct and whether we think he did it intentionally and therefore cheated.

That's what happens in forums. if you can't accept that, I guess you should move on.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

You will find exactly what you're looking for if you go to rules and look at the definition of bunker (click on the highlighted word bunker). It is here where it actually used the word waste areas when explaining how a Committee may treat sandy areas. I'd copy it here but can't on my phone.

So, he was penalised for improving his lie, not grounding his club.

Thank you. Did as you suggest, and I am now clear on waste area etc.
It is decided by committee.
Now that we are on the same hymn sheet?....
I appreciate he was penalised for improving his lie. As I was suggesting, the down line view supports that. Someone has stated that there is a side on view somewhere (though it seems elusive ) that would show his club was touching the sand so far away from his ball that it wouldn't amount to an improvement of his lie.?
Has anyone seen this view?