2021 PGA Tour

[jncuse]

First tournament of the year - The Tournament of Champions at Kapalua in Maui.

Strong field 8 of the top 10, 14 of the top 20. Because of less tournaments played last year, anybody that made the FedEx Final (top 30) also qualified. I think this was only a one time change.

Many storylines in golf though developing the past few days beyond the traditional "first" tournament of the year.

#1. Justin Thomas dropped the homophobic "' bomb which was audible during yesterday's golf round. He did apologize afterwards but this could certainly impact some sponsorships.

A few other stories that are out there. No comment as they are "political".
#2. Annika Sorenstam and Gary Player accepted presidential medals of honour on Thursday from the president after the events of the prior day.
#3. The 2022 PGA Championship at Trump Bedminster is in doubt. No comment for or against, but will add an article here.

UPDATE: PGA has stripped Trump Bedminster of 2022 PGA Championship | Trump responds

The golf major will be moved, according to a report.

www.nj.com

 

[MSOrange]

Cabrera, 2009 Masters winner, arrested in Brazil

Argentine golfer Angel Cabrera was arrested in Brazil for extradition to his homeland to face charges of assault, theft, illegal intimidation and repeated disrespect to authorities.

www.espn.com

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[CuseTG2003]

Watching the Farmers. Makes me really want to play Torrey South again. Brooks has a beer belly.

 

[Symphony Steve]

Patrick Reed in yet another controversy. Claimed a ball was embedded even though it bounced. Claimed that nobody saw it bounce--except for everybody watching at home. Picked up the ball before the officials got there. BTW, this wasn't on a tee shot, but a layup out of a bunker.

How could the officials not look at the TV feed before cutting him a break? That guy...he makes Vijay Singh seem like Diogenes.

I believe he should be DQ'd and suspended. This is not his first rodeo at the Cheatin' Corral.

Here's all you need to know about the incident:

WATCH: Patrick Reed at centre of new 'cheating' fiasco - bunkered.co.uk

The incident happened during the third round of the Farmers Insurance Open.

www.bunkered.co.uk

 

[CuseTG2003]

Patrick Reed in yet another controversy. Claimed a ball was embedded even though it bounced. Claimed that nobody saw it bounce--except for everybody watching at home. Picked up the ball before the officials got there. BTW, this wasn't on a tee shot, but a layup out of a bunker.

How could the officials not look at the TV feed before cutting him a break? That guy...he makes Vijay Singh seem like Diogenes.

I believe he should be DQ'd and suspended. This is not his first rodeo at the Cheatin' Corral.

Here's all you need to know about the incident:

WATCH: Patrick Reed at centre of new 'cheating' fiasco - bunkered.co.uk

The incident happened during the third round of the Farmers Insurance Open.

www.bunkered.co.uk

Saw it live and agree he should be DQ’d. There’s no justification for what he did. He cheated, again. Complete BS.

 

[clayman32]

Patrick Reed in yet another controversy. Claimed a ball was embedded even though it bounced. Claimed that nobody saw it bounce--except for everybody watching at home. Picked up the ball before the officials got there. BTW, this wasn't on a tee shot, but a layup out of a bunker.

How could the officials not look at the TV feed before cutting him a break? That guy...he makes Vijay Singh seem like Diogenes.

I believe he should be DQ'd and suspended. This is not his first rodeo at the Cheatin' Corral.

Here's all you need to know about the incident:

WATCH: Patrick Reed at centre of new 'cheating' fiasco - bunkered.co.uk

The incident happened during the third round of the Farmers Insurance Open.

www.bunkered.co.uk

I can’t stand that Spieth nicknamed this dbag Captain America

 

[jncuse]

Patrick Reed lives by the words of Jessie the Body Ventura "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat".

 

[jncuse]

I have a relative who I talk to frequently, who is a huge Patrick Reed fan, and since the Thomas / Reed incident at the Ryder Cup feels the media has some agenda against Reed.

Predictably our chat on the topic this morning went nowhere.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

Patrick Reed in yet another controversy. Claimed a ball was embedded even though it bounced. Claimed that nobody saw it bounce--except for everybody watching at home. Picked up the ball before the officials got there. BTW, this wasn't on a tee shot, but a layup out of a bunker.

How could the officials not look at the TV feed before cutting him a break? That guy...he makes Vijay Singh seem like Diogenes.

I believe he should be DQ'd and suspended. This is not his first rodeo at the Cheatin' Corral.

Here's all you need to know about the incident:

WATCH: Patrick Reed at centre of new 'cheating' fiasco - bunkered.co.uk

The incident happened during the third round of the Farmers Insurance Open.

www.bunkered.co.uk

I take it that they didn't have lift, clean and place like they did Thursday and Friday?

 

[upperdeck]

what does bouncing have to do with being embedded? happens all the time around here in soft ground and they were play clean and place so it was pretty soft there..

They also ruled it was Embedded I thought so what was the big issue?

 

[Symphony Steve]

I take it that they didn't have lift, clean and place like they did Thursday and Friday?

They had lift, clean and place. But only from the short grass, not from the rough.

 

[rrlbees]

They didn’t do anything because I think they were playing lift clean and place. Player can declare it embedded but he probably should have waited. No penalty called so why would he be DQ’d?

 

[upperdeck]

yeah.. Waiting would have made sense. but also since he marked it then checked, then waited for a ruling.. it sped things up if he decided it wasnt embedded because he could have just moved along. as it was with his issues probably would have made people a bit less antzy.

but playing our leagues you see way worse stuff all the time. Lost 2nd in our club championship because a dude played a shot as a hazard when it was really OB but since I was busy looking for my wayward shot I didnt really know until after the hole was over what he had done, but the 2 other dudes in our group saw what he was doing and didnt question it. I could have called him out on it at the tee box but 2nd-3rd didnt really matter all that much in the scheme of things.

Now for 2nd in the Seneca falls open, maybe..

 

[rrlbees]

yeah.. Waiting would have made sense. but also since he marked it then checked, then waited for a ruling.. it sped things up if he decided it wasnt embedded because he could have just moved along. as it was with his issues probably would have made people a bit less antzy.

the tournament director watched it on replay and said in an interview it was all textbook. The volunteers said they did not see it bounce. And the course official said he felt a lip in the ground meaning it had been embedded. Much ado about nothing.

 

[upperdeck]

the embedded rule is a bit dumb at times.. there is a big difference between its embedded and its dangerous to be wacking it out and its sitting in a small indentation..

of course if you hit it in the mud in the woods and its embedded you get relief, but you hit it into a pile of tree roots to inches away, tough nuggies..

 

[rrlbees]

Rory also did the same thing on the 18th. Except he didn’t call over an official to verify.

 

[jncuse]

They didn’t do anything because I think they were playing lift clean and place. Player can declare it embedded but he probably should have waited. No penalty called so why would he be DQ’d?

Lift clean and place rules are the following:
- Can freely clean and move if in the fairway
- Can only move if in the rough if a) embedded ball or b) casual water.

Now it does seem that the PGA tour has somewhat mild rules on what is considered an embedded ball if your ball does not bounce in the rough in wet conditions and appears they advise the players accordingly during the tournament. If your ball doesn't bounce at all, the assumption in wet conditions appears to be that there will almost certainly be some slight part of your ball that is embedded in some manner so you get to move it. And that is the part of the ruling that Reed took advantage of thinking his ball did not bounce **. Golfers know the rules and take advantage of those rules, and its not necessarily cheating.

** But here are the problems:
1) We know from the replays the ball bounced so it could not have created the mark his ball ended up in. I don't blame Reed in any way for this. I could easily believe his explanation that he did not see it bounce. My eyes suck in longer distances... . I can pick up the line and turn up until about the 100 yard mark, but after that I often do not pick up the ball on landng.

2) There was a clear mark near his ball, which we know was not his... which is understandable in rough in wet conditions. Those will be probably be all over the place. But was Reed's ball affected by that mark? Only Patrick Reed knows whether his ball was against it because he moved the evidence (his ball) before the official arrived, and just showed him the mark.

This is the big problem with me. If you are going to go through the whole act of calling over an official, what is the point if the ball is not where it was. It just makes me wonder why he moved his ball away from the location.

So did he cheat. Only he knows -- it was only possible for him to know and not the rules official.

 

[rrlbees]

Lift clean and place rules are the following:
- Can freely clean and move if in the fairway
- Can only move if in the rough if a) embedded ball or b) casual water.

Now it does seem that the PGA tour has somewhat mild rules on what is considered an embedded ball if your ball does not bounce in the rough in wet conditions and appears they advise the players accordingly during the tournament. If your ball doesn't bounce at all, the assumption in wet conditions appears to be that there will almost certainly be some slight part of your ball that is embedded in some manner so you get to move it. And that is the part of the ruling that Reed took advantage of thinking his ball did not bounce **. Golfers know the rules and take advantage of those rules, and its not necessarily cheating.

** But here are the problems:
1) We know from the replays the ball bounced so it could not have created the mark his ball ended up in. I don't blame Reed in any way for this. I could easily believe his explanation that he did not see it bounce. My eyes suck in longer distances... . I can pick up the line and turn up until about the 100 yard mark, but after that I often do not pick up the ball on landng.

2) There was a clear mark near his ball, which we know was not his... which is understandable in rough in wet conditions. Those will be probably be all over the place. But was Reed's ball affected by that mark? Only Patrick Reed knows whether his ball was against it because he moved the evidence (his ball) before the official arrived, and just showed him the mark.

This is the big problem with me. If you are going to go through the whole act of calling over an official, what is the point if the ball is not where it was. It just makes me wonder why he moved his ball away from the location.

So did he cheat. Only he knows -- it was only possible for him to know and not the rules official.

i can only go by what the tournament director, the course official and the volunteers said. They all agreed with Reed. What did you think of Rory doing the same thing?

 

[jncuse]

the tournament director watched it on replay and said in an interview it was all textbook. The volunteers said they did not see it bounce. And the course official said he felt a lip in the ground meaning it had been embedded. Much ado about nothing.

When rules officials say "textbook" they are assuming it based on the player answering the questions with integrity as this is a clearly stated underlying assumption in the USGA rulebook and an inherent assumption of players on the PGA tour. PGA rulings are usually meant if someone followed the rules and procedures properly.

Based on what they asked and what they saw there was no rules broken.
1) Did the ball bounce? Reed said he didn't think so, which was a fair answer (I don't blame him for not seeing it bounce)
2) Was there an embedded ball mark or some other ground irregularity? Yes
3) Was the golf ball impacted by the mark? Yes, according to Patrick only.
4) Was Patrick allowed to move the ball before the official came? Yes

So based on the above the official said it was all textbook. Note that the official never needs to actually see the ball, because the USGA rules and PGA tour assume players are playing with integrity.

The problems we have though are the following:
a) We know for a fact that Reed's ball did not cause the ground irregularity in question. It is just physically not plausible.
b) The area was a little soft so a ground irregularity is likely. But we have no clue if that irregularity was impacting Reed's ball. And the official can give us no comfort on that either. So calling over the official was just a useless act, and some will claim its a charade. The official just verified there was a mark in the area, nothing more.
c) We are left relying on Reed's word that the irregularity was against his ball. Considering there was no bounce, considering he moved the evidence, considering his past, should we believe him? Hass he earned the inherent integrity that is assumed by PGA tours professionals?

I haven't mentioned the fact that when he was about 30 feet from the ball after it was located he was already asking if it bounced before he even arrived at the ball. He was already seeking embedded ball relief -- now that might be because he knew the tour was generous in the embedded rule in the wet rough.

 

[jncuse]

i can only go by what the tournament director, the course official and the volunteers said. They all agreed with Reed. What did you think of Rory doing the same thing?

Rory vs Reed are indeed similar situations. Neither Rory or Reed broke a rule in the eyes of tour officials, because they "CLAIM" their ball was interfered with by a ground mark. In both cases, the viewer , the PGA tour officials, the and the tournament director, are left with the same thing that they can't verify. And that is whether the player's ball was against some sort of ground mark. But PGA officials assume that players are acting with integrity when playing and when answering their queries.

The fact that Reed called over an official means very little in this final regard. Reed moved away the evidence (his ball), then called the official over, which was a totally useless waste of all of our time. Once he moved the ball, as he is fully entitled to do there was zero point to calling the official.

If Reed states to an official that his ball was against the mark, even if he knows he is lying, he did not break a PGA tour rule. So it really does come down to an integrity issue. Do I fully believe Rory when he says that his ball was impacted (even so slightly as was the guidance by the PGA tour this week) by some sort of ground mark. Yes. Do I believe Patrick Reed? Not sure, its possible there was a mark against his ball. But am I going to 100% believe him. No, he hasn't earned it from me -- it didn't help that he moved the ball.

I am reminded of the kicked ball incident by a volunteer at the US Open or PGA this year in which Rory took a worse lie even when the official said it was not necessary. Rory just said it felt right.

 

[rrlbees]

When rules officials say "textbook" they are assuming it based on the player answering the questions with integrity as this is a clearly stated underlying assumption in the USGA rulebook and an inherent assumption of players on the PGA tour. PGA rulings are usually meant if someone followed the rules and procedures properly.

Based on what they asked and what they saw there was no rules broken.
1) Did the ball bounce? Reed said he didn't think so, which was a fair answer (I don't blame him for not seeing it bounce)
2) Was there an embedded ball mark or some other ground irregularity? Yes
3) Was the golf ball impacted by the mark? Yes, according to Patrick only.
4) Was Patrick allowed to move the ball before the official came? Yes

So based on the above the official said it was all textbook. Note that the official never needs to actually see the ball, because the USGA rules and PGA tour assume players are playing with integrity.

The problems we have though are the following:
a) We know for a fact that Reed's ball did not cause the ground irregularity in question. It is just physically not plausible.
b) The area was a little soft so a ground irregularity is likely. But we have no clue if that irregularity was impacting Reed's ball. And the official can give us no comfort on that either. So calling over the official was just a useless act, and some will claim its a charade. The official just verified there was a mark in the area, nothing more.
c) We are left relying on Reed's word that the irregularity was against his ball. Considering there was no bounce, considering he moved the evidence, considering his past, should we believe him? Hass he earned the inherent integrity that is assumed by PGA tours professionals?

I haven't mentioned the fact that when he was about 30 feet from the ball after it was located he was already asking if it bounced before he even arrived at the ball. He was already seeking embedded ball relief -- now that might be because he knew the tour was generous in the embedded rule in the wet rough.

rorys ball also bounced. They showed a replay of it.

 

[jncuse]

rorys ball also bounced. They showed a replay of it.

When I was watching TGC earlier Brandel Chamblee said that he received a few texts from players that Rory's ball bounced and pitched back into its own mark. Possible, sure, probably not what happened.

Both players believed their ball did not bounce. And I have no problem with Reed or McIlroy making that assessment. The new PGA tour rules (created a few years ago) will not penalize a player if they reasonably believed something, which is then shown to be wrong by video later on (** Will address the foundation of this on my next post).

It was reasonable for McIlroy or Reed to believe the ball did not bounce, and to believe there was a very slight mark against their ball, which allowed them to move their ball as the PGA tour had advised for this week.

Quite simply, I will sum my last two 100,000 word posts into a few sentences. I believe Rory when he says his ball was against some mark. I don't fully 100% believe Reed when he says his ball was against a mark. The fact that he moved the ball then called over an official to observe does not make me feel any better.

 

[rrlbees]

So?

the ball bounced for both. Same situation. Some are saying a bounced can’t become embedded. Guess it can. And the official verified there was a “lip” in the ground. Guess Reed should have made the call on his own.

 

[rrlbees]

When I was watching TGC earlier Brandel Chamblee said that he received a few texts from players that Rory's ball bounced and pitched back into its own mark. Possible, sure, probably not what happened.

Both players believed their ball did not bounce. And I have no problem with Reed or McIlroy making that assessment. The new PGA tour rules (created a few years ago) will not penalize a player if they reasonably believed something, which is then shown to be wrong by video later on (** Will address the foundation of this on my next post).

It was reasonable for McIlroy or Reed to believe the ball did not bounce, and to believe there was a very slight mark against their ball, which allowed them to move their ball as the PGA tour had advised for this week.

Quite simply, I will sum my last two 100,000 word posts into a few sentences. I believe Rory when he says his ball was against some mark. I don't 100% believe Reed when he says his ball was against a mark. It's certainly plausible but he has not earned my trust.

one analyst said the same. They both did the right thing but it comes down to reputation. Which in reality is BS. The director even said he watched both on video and both did it per the rules.