Reed up to his old tricks again.

First topic message reminder :

https://fb.watch/3mUS-oDQIO/

beninho wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

beninho wrote:Though, I would like to see more players making decisions themselves, without the need to call in an official  

:picard:

You dont? I woukd have been more comfortable with Reed, just picking, marking it and dropping it, after advising his playing partners, then the fudge he made of it. If, you are confident that the ball is embedded you follow the rules.

I heard on tge NLU pod a good point. If Rory says it was embedded would you trust him? If Reed says it, woukd you trust him the same?

To the last point about who you can trust. That is what I have been saying since the two incidents. This was never really a rules incident in the strictest sense but an integrity issue. (Also from the video footage I saw it looked like Rory just dropped it back in the cabbage. Unlike Reed who was hunting for a better lie. I guess you could say Rory should wise up)

And I agree about getting the rules official in, if anything the way Reed was too quick to ascertain whether the ball bounced and then got a rules official in made it a more suspicious incident. Almost like he was manipulating the system to his advantage.

For me it is this simple. I believe that Rory thought his ball was imbedded but I don't believe Reed did. I think Reed was looking to save himself from a terrible lie.

McLaren wrote:For me it is this simple. I believe that Rory thought his ball was imbedded but I don't believe Reed did. I think Reed was looking to save himself from a terrible lie.

Mac, I tend to agree with you, it's just that the argument you used re McIlroy and Sabbatini doesn't stand up on what I have seen and heard so far.

I dont think Rory got Rory to have a look. He said, he was looking for the ball, took about 90 seconds, then found it and it was embedded. He told other Rory and then took the drop.

Another point made was, do we think Rory Mc with his record, really cared so much he would set out to cheat on the 18th hole.

McLaren wrote:Navy, what are you going on about? Are you saying the Rory interview doesn't exist?

No. I'm saying that you can't supply any evidence that Sabbatini checked McIlroy's lie in the rough and agreed it was plugged.

beninho wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

beninho wrote:Though, I would like to see more players making decisions themselves, without the need to call in an official  

You dont? I woukd have been more comfortable with Reed, just picking, marking it and dropping it, after advising his playing partners, then the fudge he made of it. If, you are confident that the ball is embedded you follow the rules.

I heard on tge NLU pod a good point. If Rory says it was embedded would you trust him? If Reed says it, woukd you trust him the same?

No. I agree. However, difficult to reconcile you saying that w/ slagging off Reed for doing basically exactly that.

I'm never wrong wrote:

McLaren wrote:Navy, what are you going on about? Are you saying the Rory interview doesn't exist?

My point Mac is that you said Rory consulted with Sabbatini about whether the balll was embedded. All I can find is that McIlroy told Sabbatini his ball was embedded and consulted with him as what to do next.
So what I am saying is that someone else checked what Reed did, but no one did with McIlroy.

Please read this, Mac. This is what I'm trying (but obviously failing) to try to get you to understand.

navyblueshorts wrote:

beninho wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

beninho wrote:Though, I would like to see more players making decisions themselves, without the need to call in an official  

You dont? I woukd have been more comfortable with Reed, just picking, marking it and dropping it, after advising his playing partners, then the fudge he made of it. If, you are confident that the ball is embedded you follow the rules.

I heard on tge NLU pod a good point. If Rory says it was embedded would you trust him? If Reed says it, woukd you trust him the same?

No. I agree. However, difficult to reconcile you saying that w/ slagging off Reed for doing basically exactly that.

He didn't do it though. I said, I would have been more comfortable if he had. Instead he tried to fudge it with an official. I wish the official had just said, I cant confirm it as you've picked up the ball. But, unfortunately for preed, he has history, so will be questioned more then most. But, thats the bed he's made.

In general though, players shoukd be able to make a decision themselves, though can see why some may want to be on the safe side.

Navy

My point was that McIlroy dealt with an imbedded ball in a completely sufficient manner. In that I don't think the McIlroy incident has a lot to do with the Reed one. I just didn't get why you or anyone else was so keen to say Rory did the same thing. He didn't. For all the reasons we have gone over. I have no idea if this the interview the written press used or a separate one, but if it helps people, this is what Rory had to say about it.




It is a red herring to say Reed got a rules official and Rory didn't. The introduction of the rules official in the way it played out was almost more damning than if Reed hadn't got the rules official involved. If you have seen the clip then you know it was Reed calling the shots while using the rules official to legitimise the situation.

I think it was GPB that raised this at some point, but what lie do people think Reed actually had? We know for sure it wasn't his own pitch mark because the video evidence rules this out.

Was it another players pitch mark, another random indent in the ground, or just sitting way down in the rough?

And however it was sitting do you think it would ever be reasonable for him to think it was his own pitch mark?

He went at great lengths before reaching the ball, to ascertain if anyone had seen it bounce. You could argue that when nobody had, it gave him the opportunity to gently press down on it. That would be enough to create a slight indent, enough to con the rules official.

We will never know for sure, of course. Will be interesting to see what sort of reaction Reed gets from the crowd, when spectators are finally allowed back in.

McLaren wrote:Navy

My point was that McIlroy dealt with an imbedded ball in a completely sufficient manner. In that I don't think the McIlroy incident has a lot to do with the Reed one. I just didn't get why you or anyone else was so keen to say Rory did the same thing. He didn't.  For all the reasons we have gone over. I have no idea if this the interview the written press used or a separate one, but if it helps people, this is what Rory had to say about it.




It is a red herring to say Reed got a rules official and Rory didn't. The introduction of the rules official in the way it played out was almost more damning than if Reed hadn't got the rules official involved. If you have seen the clip then you know it was Reed calling the shots while using the rules official to legitimise the situation.

Thanks for that, Mac. I think the problem here is how the players (wet blankets) define 'embedded'. They aren't talking about what we would call 'plugged'. In ground that wet, they're basically claiming that any ball making an indentation in the ground is 'embedded'. They aren't and they should play as it lies. They don't have to, so they don't. Reed's no worse that McIlroy here, no matter what you say.

Edit: Why on Earth they should get any relief in the rough is also beyond me. Fairway? That's a different matter.

McLaren wrote:I think it was GPB that raised this at some point, but what lie do people think Reed actually had? We know for sure it wasn't his own pitch mark because the video evidence rules this out.

Was it another players pitch mark, another random indent in the ground, or just sitting way down in the rough?

And however it was sitting do you think it would ever be reasonable for him to think it was his own pitch mark?

Rubbish. You're taking 2 + 2 and getting 4.5.

Was it his own pitch mark? McIlroy decided his was in its own pitch mark. You're applying different standards here, which sucks.

BlueCoverman wrote:He went at great lengths before reaching the ball, to ascertain if anyone had seen it bounce. You could argue that when nobody had, it gave him the opportunity to gently press down on it. That would be enough to create a slight indent, enough to con the rules official.

We will never know for sure, of course. Will be interesting to see what sort of reaction Reed gets from the crowd, when spectators are finally allowed back in.    

Extrapolation based on very little and a desire to condemn Reed.

I still think Reed should investigate legal avenues, but then I don't suppose that would do anything except get the locker room morality police even more hacked off.

McLaren wrote:I think it was GPB that raised this at some point, but what lie do people think Reed actually had? We know for sure it wasn't his own pitch mark because the video evidence rules this out.

Was it another players pitch mark, another random indent in the ground, or just sitting way down in the rough?

And however it was sitting do you think it would ever be reasonable for him to think it was his own pitch mark?

Just my answer to Mac's question Navy. What would be your answer?

BlueCoverman wrote:

McLaren wrote:I think it was GPB that raised this at some point, but what lie do people think Reed actually had? We know for sure it wasn't his own pitch mark because the video evidence rules this out.

Was it another players pitch mark, another random indent in the ground, or just sitting way down in the rough?

And however it was sitting do you think it would ever be reasonable for him to think it was his own pitch mark?

Just my answer to Mac's question Navy. What would be your answer?

My answer? Aside from the fact I don't accept Mac's view re. what any video can definitively tell us, I don't think we're in any position to know. Think you have to take Reed's actions at face value. Think the Reed haters have to suck it up.

Navy

I assume you haven't seen this video footage of Reeds ball landing?



Reed's shot is at about the 50 second mark.

His ball clearly bounces forward. Not sure what all that 2+2 stuff was about from you.

Rory says he's been told his ball was tride on by a volunteer. That woukd cause it to break ground i guess.

beninho wrote:Rory says he's been told his ball was tride on by a volunteer. That woukd cause it to break ground i guess.

Yeh tour sent him an email confirming a volunteer stood ok on his ball. Given how prominently the tour declared they were identical incidents will they now publicly declare they were not similar events?

McLaren wrote:

beninho wrote:Rory says he's been told his ball was tride on by a volunteer. That woukd cause it to break ground i guess.

Yeh tour sent him an email confirming a volunteer stood ok on his ball. Given how prominently the tour declared they were identical incidents will they now publicly declare they were not similar events?

Not a chance!

navyblueshorts wrote:

BlueCoverman wrote:

McLaren wrote:I think it was GPB that raised this at some point, but what lie do people think Reed actually had? We know for sure it wasn't his own pitch mark because the video evidence rules this out.

Was it another players pitch mark, another random indent in the ground, or just sitting way down in the rough?

And however it was sitting do you think it would ever be reasonable for him to think it was his own pitch mark?

Just my answer to Mac's question Navy. What would be your answer?

My answer? Aside from the fact I don't accept Mac's view re. what any video can definitively tell us, I don't think we're in any position to know. Think you have to take Reed's actions at face value. Think the Reed haters have to suck it up.

Would you at least accept what Reed himself said in his interview?..."As you know if the ball bounces, it is literally impossible for the ball to plug"

McLaren wrote:Navy

I assume you haven't seen this video footage of Reeds ball landing?



Reed's shot is at about the 50 second mark.

His ball clearly bounces forward. Not sure what all that 2+2 stuff was about from you.

Thanks for this. You don't get it, do you? Sure, the ball bounced once, but no more. The video does not prove the ball wasn't embedded as per the USGA definition (see 2+2 comment). I hadn't seen that exact clip w/ the tracer on it - of course he'd think it was likely it might plug on that high trajectory. They told him no-one had seen it bounce. What's he supposed to do/think?

beninho wrote:Rory says he's been told his ball was tride on by a volunteer. That woukd cause it to break ground i guess.

Yeah, right. Sorry. I believe Reed more than I believe a volunteer trod on McIlroy's ball (but somehow either didn't notice at the time nor told anyone at the time). How convenient this is for the Tour - McIlroy has an out for how he acted and they give more fuel to those that say Reed somehow cheated here.

Edit: probably Xander Schauffele that sent it...

McLaren wrote:

beninho wrote:Rory says he's been told his ball was tride on by a volunteer. That woukd cause it to break ground i guess.

Yeh tour sent him an email confirming a volunteer stood ok on his ball. Given how prominently the tour declared they were identical incidents will they now publicly declare they were not similar events?

Leaving aside the veracity of either e-mail and/or the motives for it being sent so conveniently to isolate Reed, of course they were similar events. Good grief.

Oh, forget it. Enough of this rubbish. You and way too many others can't even begin to reflect that Reed may be above suspicion here. I'm out of this.

BlueCoverman wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

BlueCoverman wrote:

McLaren wrote:I think it was GPB that raised this at some point, but what lie do people think Reed actually had? We know for sure it wasn't his own pitch mark because the video evidence rules this out.

Was it another players pitch mark, another random indent in the ground, or just sitting way down in the rough?

And however it was sitting do you think it would ever be reasonable for him to think it was his own pitch mark?

Just my answer to Mac's question Navy. What would be your answer?

My answer? Aside from the fact I don't accept Mac's view re. what any video can definitively tell us, I don't think we're in any position to know. Think you have to take Reed's actions at face value. Think the Reed haters have to suck it up.

Would you at least accept what Reed himself said in his interview?..."As you know if the ball bounces, it is literally impossible for the ball to plug"

Haven't heard that bit, but what the Hell difference does it make?? At the time of the event in question, he didn't know it had bounced. What are you suggesting? That's he's retrospectively penalised? if so, what of McIlroy? Oh, I forgot - the latter's a saint and a convenient e-mail has now appeared to exonerate him from any wrong doing. The situation gets more laughable by the day.

Navy

The point is this. The video (which somehow you hadn't seen up to this point) shows his ball bounced forward and therefore cannot have been in it's own pitch mark. And as Bluecoverman pointed out, even Reed himself accepted "As you know if the ball bounces, it is literally impossible for the ball to plug".

So now that you have actually seen the incident we can return to my earlier question. What do you think the actual lie of Reeds ball was given we know it wasn't in its own pitch mark?

McLaren wrote:Navy

The point is this. The video (which somehow you hadn't seen up to this point) shows his ball bounced forward and therefore cannot have been in it's own pitch mark.¹ And as Bluecoverman pointed out, even Reed himself accepted "As you know if the ball bounces, it is literally impossible for the ball to plug"².

So now that you have actually seen the incident we can return to my earlier question. What do you think the actual lie of Reeds ball was given we know it wasn't in its own pitch mark³?

¹Somehow I hadn't seen the video? Unlike you, I'm not trawling the internet looking for dubious 'evidence' to convict Reed. In addition, you make the claim; you supply the supporting evidence. Re. the ball "cannot have been in it's(sic) pitch mark". See answer to point 3, below.
²Reed also talked about a ball bouncing and being in pitchmarks after the event when at the time of the event he had no knowledge (and indeed had been told that no-one else had seen it bounce, ergo reasonable to assume it augured straight in) of any bouncing ball whatsoever. It would make no difference if he stated this before he went out for that round - he.didn't.know.it.had.bounced.at.the.time.
³You.know.nothing.of.the.sort. You have no idea what the ground was like at the point the ball settled. None. Zero. Zilch.

I have had it with this discussion. You aren't interested in anything except what you deem to be Reed cheating. I could debunk or cast reasonable doubt on any and all 'evidence' you put forward, but you'll just do as QAnon adherents do i.e. ignore the points I make and/or go off and find some more 'evidence' that 'supports' what you 'know' to be correct anyway.

One final thing re. Reed. This is the man leading the event, knows the cameras are on him, knows also that people hate him and are watching his every move and yet everyone appears to think that, despite this, he's going to cheat in full view of the cameras?

Seriously? Whatever people say about Reed, I don't hear anyone say he's as thick as pig sh!t.

In actual fact, the only really concrete thing re. his background is the 2019 Hero event in that bunker. Seem to recall McIlroy getting away with kicking sand in a bunker in 2009 or so. College? Stories that no-one seems to have any damning specifics about. So he got pissed a few times? Who gives a 4X?
The problem here? He's spiky, doesn't give a 4X about what people think he should say/do and he doesn't cultivate a fake/positive social media persona. I suspect he's more authentic than many of the rest of them out there.

And the rest of the story regarding Rory's embedded ball.

https://twitter.com/brianwacker1/status/1357032911590014983

Brian Wacker Tweet wrote:Rory said he found out on Monday from the tour that a marshal had stepped on his ball at Torrey Pines on Saturday. Added that he'd ben questioning himself and what he'd seen prior to that. "I started to doubt myself."

navyblueshorts wrote:
³You.know.nothing.of.the.sort. You have no idea what the ground was like at the point the ball settled. None. Zero. Zilch.

But I don't get how after seeing the video footage you cannot at least accept his ball was not in its own pitch mark. You might think it was in something that could be legitimately misten as his pitch mark but I just don't get why you are so outraged by me pointing out what is clear from the footage. Whatever it was sitting in, it wasn't his pitch mark?

McLaren wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:
³You.know.nothing.of.the.sort. You have no idea what the ground was like at the point the ball settled. None. Zero. Zilch.

But I don't get how after seeing the video footage you cannot at least accept his ball was not in its own pitch mark. You might think it was in something that could be legitimately misten as his pitch mark but I just don't get why you are so outraged by me pointing out what is clear from the footage. Whatever it was sitting in, it wasn't his pitch mark?

If you're splitting hairs/defining 'pitch mark' as the point where the ball first hits the ground then, yes, you're correct. That's not the point though, is it?

Your argument is whataboutery. It's irrelevant. Once again, the above doesn't matter as Reed wasn't aware the ball had bounced when he arrived at it's location and no-one else had seen it bounce either. Ergo, if Reed saw that the ball was sitting in a depression that looked like a ball had even slightly (see weak USGA ruling) formed it, he quite rightly assumed it landed exactly where he found it and could take relief.

The only thing that you can possibly suggest that I would accept is that Reed stood on or otherwise depressed the ball when he found it, in order to claim relief. Aside from the fact I don't accept you're honest if you're saying that (due to your bias - see your comments re. 'Fat Pr!ck' etc), I refer you back to the previous post I made re. Reed not being stupid, aware of being on camera etc. In addition, what does he gain by changing the lie in order to gain relief??? A drop into the same rough and a lie that he'd have had even if the ball wasn't embedded? FFS. Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

I must be stupid to continue this when clearly you're not capable of taking it in.

The gain was clear to be seen. The lie he had after the taking one club relief enabled him to get up and down for par. Without that relief he would have been looking at least a bogey.

BlueCoverman wrote:The gain was clear to be seen. The lie he had after the taking one club relief enabled him to get up and down for par. Without that relief he would have been looking at least a bogey.

If it was embedded, he get's relief (but is still in same rough). If not (and I didn't see drop etc), then don't see how taking relief aids him as still in same rough. If not embedded, who's to say he gained any real relief and that he wouldn't have got up and down anyway? The idea that he was looking at "at least a bogey" is pure conjecture, especially when you factor in what, even the nay sayers would have to agree, is a stellar short game.

Also, this is still whataboutery and is predicated on the assumption that he wasn't entitled to any relief based on the circumstances at that time i.e. he cheated. Evidence doesn't support any of that.

No. The long a short of this is that people who already hate him don't want to consider that their rush to accuse him of cheating might actually be unfounded.

Navy

I really think you need to watch how the whole incident played out. When he took relief he was able to drop the ball much closer to the cart path where the rough was a lot shorter and not as thick. He also talks with his caddie about dropping where the angle to the pin is better so that he has more green to work with.

I assumed you had seen the drop etc Navy. I think if you watch the whole incident as Mac suggests, you will at least appreciate why suspicions were raised. I don't hate Reed by the way.

McLaren wrote:Navy

I really think you need to watch how the whole incident played out. When he took relief he was able to drop the ball much closer to the cart path where the rough was a lot shorter and not as thick. He also talks with his caddie about dropping where the angle to the pin is better so that he has more green to work with.

More whataboutery. It is irrelevant unless you think that Reed actively cheated, and that only works if you posit that, having found his ball, he then surreptitiously depresses it to create an indentation. All this knowing he's hated, is the leader so the cameras are on him etc etc.
You clearly do think exactly this, but then you call him 'Fat Pr!ck', so no surprise.

Your failure to grasp the relevant issues here, their timeline and an inability to show any self-reflective thought process, is quite impressive.

Moving on...

BlueCoverman wrote:I assumed you had seen the drop etc Navy. I think if you watch the whole incident as Mac suggests, you will at least appreciate why suspicions were raised. I don't hate Reed by the way.

I hadn't, but it's irrelevant to the chain of events anyway except if one believes that Reed engineered the grounds to take relief i.e. trod on the ball or otherwise made the indentation. I don't and I don't accept that any of the so-called 'evidence' proves he did so either.

So without having seen the incident, you are 100% certain that Reed definitely did not engineer the grounds to take relief?

I did see his new drop and yes it was a slightly better lie. But still in the rough. But to argue that a drop within a club length would give him a “better angle” a play part of the decision is purely bs.

Also, as navypoints out, if the ball wasn’t embedded why would he choose to cheat just here when he knew a drop would still be in the rough and at best improve his lie slightly? He could also risk giving himself a worse lie, or just as bad a lie, and all with the risk of being called out (especially being the leader he should assume it’d be caught on camera). Don’t think the risk reward calculation would merit a cheat in this case.

BlueCoverman wrote:So without having seen the incident, you are 100% certain that Reed definitely did not engineer the grounds to take relief?  

No; did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth. I have seen the 'incident' (drop excepted) anyway. However, I tend to presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise, which would seem to me to be the right thing to do. Ground wet, high trajectory shot, in rough (expect wetter than fairway?), relief allowed, no-one saw landing (incl. Reed), he asked around, assuming embedded he did everything right etc.