Kinda long thread, so read along if you like. It's golf related, so that eliminates 80% of you anyway.

Patrick Reed has done this to himself. Over the years, with some situations that were downright "odd" and others that might have been legit cheating, Reed has (continued)

(2) cont -- shown a cavalier, if not downright disregard for the rules. So, what happened today in San Diego is yet another instance where Reed might have been WITHIN THE RULES to handle that scenario like he did, but he also *SHOULD* have taken into account that he (continued)

(3) cont -- has had too many brushes with the rules (both in college and on the TOUR) to even remotely come close to "skirting" or "bending" them. He should be on high alert, at all times, when it comes to the rules, because the spotlight is always on him and (continued)

(4) cont -- people, because it's their nature, are skeptical of him the second he tees off. The issue today that is the most cloudy for me is simple: I get that no one saw the ball bounce and, therefore, Reed and his playing partners assumed it COULD have been (continued)

(5) cont -- plugged/embedded in the rough. That's a reasonable assessment to make, particularly given that the volunteer also said she didn't see it bounce. I also understand Reed notifying his playing partners he was going to check the ball. No problem there. (continued)

(6) cont -- What seems odd to me is that Reed claimed his ball was plugged (after checking it) and so, too, did the rules official (who said it was plugged and gave him relief), yet AFTERWARDS, when watching the replay, Reed clearly saw that it bounced and was (continued)

(7) cont -- very unlikely to be embedded given that it bounced a foot into the rough. So what, then, did the rules official "feel" when he stuck his fingers in the ground and said, "Yep, I feel a lip there."??? Did the ball actually, somehow, plug/embed? (continued)

(8) cont -- Did Reed actually somehow create a small indentation in the ground while he was fiddling around with the ball, creating a small "hole" that gave the appearance of being plugged? I mean, the ball was either embedded or it wasn't. That's REALLY the dispute (continued)

(9) cont -- The method by which Reed went about trying to ascertain if his ball was embedded was, by the rules, "good". What's odd is how his ball could have been embedded when it bounced...yet, the rules official was right there and he said he felt that it was (continued)

(10) cont -- embedded. But Reed saw afterwards it bounced into the rough and "very unlikely" couldn't have been embedded.

So, I'm confused. It would have been MUCH better and easier to scrutinize Reed had the official said "not embedded". Once he said "embedded" (continued)

(11) cont -- Reed was pretty much off the hook, rules wise. But it's definitely interesting...how did both Reed and the rules official deem the ball was embedded, yet they both saw the video afterwards and had to conclude it couldn't have been. REALLY WEIRD...

(End)