Ruling-Patrick Reed

[1800Duffers]

In reference to Patrick Reed and Sat. round, why would you move your ball and then ask for an official?

[leftylucas]

He is clearly not interested in following rules then justifies it, he does not care what others think

[1800Duffers]

The analysts are questioning his play, hope he doesn’t win but he is in the lead

[silverdog]

gonna be an asterisk on the win

[Marcos]

As a pro, he should know better.

[Gofish2]

Don't care for him but admire the way he plays through the turmoil and seems to thrive and feed off the critics.

[1800Duffers]

Something for Patrick to consider to boost his image would be to pay his caddy and donate the rest.

[Gobble_It]

In reference to Patrick Reed and Sat. round, why would you move your ball and then ask for an official?

Because he could, per the rule. He believed his ball was embedded and the official confirmed when he called

"

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)."

[Gobble_It]

As a pro, he should know better.

He applied the rule to the tee. You can question his integrity but he didn't violate any rule. He believed his ball was embedded,then marked, lifted and checked. He then called the official who confirmed that it was embedded. Had the official not confirmed that , he would have been assessed a penalty.

[spackler]

He applied the rule to the tee. You can question his integrity but he didn't violate any rule. He believed his ball was embedded,then marked, lifted and checked. He then called the official who confirmed that it was embedded. Had the official not confirmed that , he would have been assessed a penalty.

He would not have been assessed a penalty if the official had decided it wasn't imbedded, he would have had to replace it and recreate the lie. But the official didn't get to see the lie, he only found a 'pitch mark' that Reed said was where the ball came to rest.

I agree with you about questioning his integrity. He said it himself, if the ball bounced, there's no way it could be imbedded. He's a proven cheat, he has been that way since at least college, and he sure shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt.

[1800Duffers]

I'm not disputing the rules, but a witness always affirms your choice.

[Gobble_It]

I'm not disputing the rules, but a witness always affirms your choice.

It's not required by the rule. Rory did the same, he picked up his embedded ball and didn't even bother calling the ref. over for an opinion.

The only problem I have is Patrick said if the ball bounces, it is impossible for a ball to be plugged...and we all know now that it did bounce.

[Gofish2]

Just wondering, once the official gives the OK is it possible for a player to penalize himself after seeing a video ( he would in effect be overturning an official ruling) ?

[spackler]

Just wondering, once the official gives the OK is it possible for a player to penalize himself after seeing a video ( he would in effect be overturning an official ruling) ?

If a player subsequently admitted that the ball was not imbedded after taking relief for it, which is what you're describing, he would probably be disqualified. But once you have a ruling, you're protected. No need to pretend to be honest after the fact.

[Gofish2]

Supposing Reed honestly believed the ball was imbedded but after seeing the video of the bounce came to the conclusion he was in error; is it possible for him to penalize himself other than withdrawing ?