[Jim_Kennedy]

"Who amongst you would like to play with a golfer who re-aligns his ball 4-5 times on every green on every putt ?"

Who among us would?


I never use a line on the ball to aid me in putting.

1. It's not against the rules.

2. I rarely see anyone doing it, and I'm 42 yards away from our 9th green most of the day.

3. On the rare occasion when I do see someone lining up that way I rarely see them making the putt.

4.There has never been any substantial information to suggest that the practice in any way helps a player to the disadvantage of his competitors.

5. I feel sorry for the poor mutts who have resorted to the practice in the same way that I take pity on those who use a long putter.

[JESII]

Shiv,

What if I line up the seam (no line, just the seam) perpendicular to my intended line so that I can square my putter to it?

[Dean Stokes]

Should being allowed to use a divot 6 feet ahead of you in the fairway to align yourself for your approach shot be allowed?

Surely this is just another way to line yourself up. What is the difference in using an old divot or throwing your towel on the ground?

You're serious?

You don't see the difference?

This is hopeless...

I am fairly serious. There really is not much difference. And yes this is hopeless.....

It doesn't matter which way you look at it Shivas, there is always going to be a way to line yourself up. Be it a divot, a leaf, a towel, a spot on the green or a cheater line.

When I see someone use the cheaterline, which is rare anyway, I am usually fairly happy because I consider them to have sufficient putting problems that the wager will be coming my way. Their next step most surely is moving to the long putter

My only issue is with pace of play and the cheaterline. That can be easily solved with penalties for slow play.

If the lad who is now 5 down in the final, re aligned his ball  4 or 5 times on one green he must have been over the alloted time to hit his shot. Don't even let him putt - loss of hole. He'll soon stop worrying about the line.

[Dean Stokes]

Do you all think that if the cheater line were outlawed, Tiger would not putt as well? Serious question.

He'd sure putt faster, that's for sure!  And he couldn't putt any better...

And yes, I don't think he'd putt as well.  If anybody has the cheater line mastered, it's him.  And he's disciplined enough to use it properly to prevent misalignment.

You really don't think he'd manage to get it done another way? Have you ever known Tiger to be called for slow play on the greens at any time. Have you ever noticed him going through his cheater line pre shot re alignment routine? I haven't and he's the most watched golfer on the planet.

He must have perfected it

[CHrisB]

Oh, BTW, where's the hue and cry from the rules experts and rules official-types that this last prohibition about rotating the ball to tee it with the mud is UNENFORCEABLE?

All I've heard from people for years is "this wouldn't be enforceable?  How could you prove it?  How can this be enforced?  What if one rules official decices that one guy violated the rule, but on the other side of the course, a different official decided that another guy who did the same thing did no violate the rule?  Yada, yada, yada..."

Well, that didn't stop the USGA from prohibiting certain orientations in the replacement of the ball with mud on it in this instance, so I see no logical or even cognizable argument that this is an issue in the case of the Cheater Line.

Dave S,
Sorry but I think you're wrong about Decision 21/5.

If a player tees up the ball with the mud, then he is not replacing his ball. He is moving it to a different place. He has taken the ball from resting against the ground to being elevated above the ground. That's the reason for the distinction in this Decision and for connecting it to a violation of 20-3a (i.e. not placing it on the spot from which it was lifted).

So no, the USGA has not gotten into the business of prohibiting certain orientations of the ball when replaced (because again, the ball in the above case is not being replaced! It is being moved.).

And, as opposed to the cheater line Decision, Decision 21/5 is easily enforceable.

The question a rules official has to ask in the case of Decision 21/5, "was the ball replaced with the mud at the bottom of the ball?" or "when the ball was replaced, was any part of the ball touching the ground?" The answer will determine whether a violation occurs. The rule is easily enforceable.

[John Moore II]

I don't know how anyone watching Kittlesons "performance" yesterday could have construed that as within the spirit of the rules.

1)  Crouches behind ball, lines up cheater line to show the line to hole.
2)  Gets up stands over ball, checks to see if its lined up from the viewpoint of his stance.
3)   Decides its not good enough, back to step 1.  Repeat as necessary.

On one hole, he did this 4-5 times alternating back and forth between positions.

How in the hell could this possibly be intrepreted as anything else but using the cheater line as alignment for his next shot?  How could this not be a violation of the spirit of the rules?  How is this any different than him putting a towel on the green behind the hole for an aiming point and going back and forth to move it until he finally felt it was correct?

And more importantly, how can the USGA just sit back and let this happen again, and again, and again?

Kalen-what did you think about my use of the cheater line at TP? If I cared about the putts, I can bet that I backed off at least one putt and realigned it because I didn't think it looked right. Did you think I took too much time? Honestly..

[CHrisB]

All I've heard from people for years is "this wouldn't be enforceable?  How could you prove it?  How can this be enforced?  What if one rules official decices that one guy violated the rule, but on the other side of the course, a different official decided that another guy who did the same thing did no violate the rule?  Yada, yada, yada..."

OK, now I see where you're getting hung up on this enforceability issue. You seem to focusing only Step 2 of it, which is whether or not it can be proven that a violation of the rule occurred.

But Step 1, the more problematic component to enforceability that I have been focusing on, is the ability to define exactly what constitues a violation of the rule.

In every other rules situation that you have cited, Step 1 has been easy. Not so with a ban on a mark used to indicate the line for putting.

[CHrisB]

Dave S,
From my post #1322 above:

Sorry but I think you're wrong about Decision 21/5.

If a player tees up the ball with the mud, then he is not replacing his ball. He is moving it to a different place. He has taken the ball from resting against the ground to being elevated above the ground. That's the reason for the distinction in this Decision and for connecting it to a violation of 20-3a (i.e. not placing it on the spot from which it was lifted).

So no, the USGA has not gotten into the business of prohibiting certain orientations of the ball when replaced (because again, the ball in the above case is not being replaced! It is being moved.).

And, as opposed to the cheater line Decision, Decision 21/5 is easily enforceable.

The question a rules official has to ask in the case of Decision 21/5, "was the ball replaced with the mud at the bottom of the ball?" or "when the ball was replaced, was any part of the ball touching the ground?" The answer will determine whether a violation occurs. The rule is easily enforceable.

The mud tee is banned because the player is not replacing the ball, he is moving it to a different place.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

With respect to the issue of enforceability, GOLF is a game where the GOLFER, vis a vis his INTEGRITY, enforces the rules of the game.

You don't need an outside source.

If you're a cheater, it becomes apparent quickly.

Who amongst  us wants to play with a cheater, especially a known cheater ?

[CHrisB]

Patrick,
Good point. Maybe if a ban were put in place, players (or officials) may not be able to define exactly what constitutes a violation, but because of fear of a violation they wouldn't even come close to having any marks showing when putting. Maybe they would go to aligning their ball with just white on top.

But of course, there will be someone somewhere attempting something in tournament play, and so officials will have to be able to determine exactly what a violation is in all cases.

[CHrisB]

Chris, you're not thinking this through.

Yes, they have gotten into regulating orientation. 

What if the ball that's marked and lifted had the mud on the ball at the bottom in the first place?

By your logic, you'd have to replace the ball with the mud on the bottom or else you've moved the ball, isn't that the case?

Well, if that's the case, then they've gotten into the business of regulating orientation - because you have to replace it exactly as it was before you lifed (with one part of the ball exactly where it was).  That's orientation.  And that rule would be AWESOME because it would effectively ban the cheater line, and I'd be just fine with it!

But if it's not the case (and you can replace a ball that had mud under the ball when you lifted it, and replace it with the mud somwhere else), then it's clear that they don't care about the fact that the ball is in a different place (heightwise), and your whole argument fails!

So either way, the logic doesn't wash.

Sorry Dave, that explanation doesn't work either.

The only thing the USGA is regulating is the location of the ball when replaced. Hence the reference to 20-3a in the mud-tee Decision.

If the mud is on the bottom of the ball in the first place, then the only was to ensure that it is replaced is to put the ball back exactly as it was. Otherwise it has been moved.

The restriction of the orientation of the ball in this particular instance is only a byproduct of what the USGA is really regulating--the location of the ball when replaced.

[CHrisB]

Dave,
If you want to regulate something, you write a rule or decision controlling how that something is to be done.

Where is the language in any rule that says "the ball must be replaced in the exact orientation as it was when lifted"? The USGA doesn't regulate it.

Wait a minute--didn't there used to be such language in the case of your opponent asking you to lift your ball from his line when your ball was off the green? I can remember having to mark my ball and hold the ball very carefully to ensure that I put it back in the exact same orientation as when I lifted it. Did they relax that requirement via Decision 21/5? If so, that bolsters their argument that they don't want to be in the business of regulating the orientation of the ball when replaced.

In any case, I think your latest angle of competing principles and specifically the orientation of the ball taking a backseat to higher principle is interesting. Whether a player using his own judgment for alignment should be such a principle is a good question--if the USGA says that it should be, will they then ban other things like allowing your caddy to assist in alignment, doing the Betsy King routine with the putterhead, etc.? Maybe they will.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,
Good point. Maybe if a ban were put in place, players (or officials) may not be able to define exactly what constitutes a violation, but because of fear of a violation they wouldn't even come close to having any marks showing when putting. Maybe they would go to aligning their ball with just white on top.

But of course, there will be someone somewhere attempting something in tournament play, and so officials will have to be able to determine exactly what a violation is in all cases.

Chris,

I'm comfortable allowing golfers to enforce the rules.

And, rules officials seem to do a more than credible job.

If someone wants to take liberties, they'll be flushed out sooner or later.

I have an implicit trust in golfers, but, that doesn't mean there aren't any rotten apples.

[CHrisB]

No Dave,
I said the USGA does not regulate orientation--they regulate location of the ball when replaced. Yes, they do allow an rare situation where the orientation of the ball must stay exactly the same in the name of regulating something else. But there is no language anywhere controlling how the ball is to be oriented when replaced. Therefore it is not regulated.

But I think we're beyond that now, if you go with the "competing principles" angle. Good luck trying to equate lifting a ball under a rule which doesn't permit cleaning where the ball has a mud-tee already on it--I have been playing all my life and have never seen it--with replacing the ball on the putting green, which happens what, 20-30 times per player per round? Still, that's probably your best angle and I too seem to remember that what you wrote to attempt to regulate marks was pretty good (but enforceable? I'd like to see what the USGA would say about it.).

BTW I really do hope that you make some sort of presentation to the USGA now that these 39+ pages has sharpened your argument.

[CHrisB]

Dave S,
John Morrisett, one of the top rules officials at the USGA, says that the USGA doesn't regulate ball orientation, and you're saying they do but that he doesn't realize it?

You misunderstood my comparison with the mud-tee and replacing your ball on the green. I said nothing about how often the cheater line is used. I'm comparing how often the orientation of the ball is or would be restricted.

With the mud-tee, the orientation of the ball is restricted only if the mud-tee is already on the ball when it is lifted in a case where no cleaning of the ball is permitted.

How often does that restriction happen? Once for each player's lifetime (I've never seen it)?

If the cheater line is banned, then the orientation of the ball will be restricted every time a player replaces his ball on the green.

How often does that restriction happen? 20-30 times per player per round?

You're asking the USGA to expand the number of times that the orientation of the ball is restricted from almost never to 20-30 times per player per round. That is something that they might give them some serious pause.

Thank you.  And thank you for seeing the light and converting.

The reason that I have been able to keep an open mind throughout this entire discussion is that I truly don't care whether the "cheater line" is allowed or not. I don't use it, I don't care when people use it, and so I don't have a hard-and-fast position to hold on to.

I've mostly been interested in why the USGA hasn't banned the practice. I've given you my suspicions about it and hopefully will receive an answer from the USGA about it.

I guess the one hard-and-fast position I do hold on to is that I don't care for the term "cheater line". You're not a cheater if you follow the rules...period. I'm also against telling a player that anything he does is against the spirit of the rules either.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If the cheater line is banned, then the orientation of the ball will be restricted every time a player replaces his ball on the green.

That's not true.

Before the cheater line, ball replacement was a routine, non-micro managed exercise.  Quick and simple.

I've mostly been interested in why the USGA hasn't banned the practice. I've given you my suspicions about it and hopefully will receive an answer from the USGA about it.

Do you think the answer will be self serving ?

Anyone who watched the last three rounds of the US Am shouldn't have any doubts about the practice and its impact upon the speed of play.

I guess the one hard-and-fast position I do hold on to is that I don't care for the term "cheater line". You're not a cheater if you follow the rules...period. I'm also against telling a player that anything he does is against the spirit of the rules either.

Would you accept the term: "directionally challenged" ? 

[CHrisB]

Patrick,
Dave S and I are under the assumption that the cheater line is to be treated the same as the trademark in the rules of golf.

I know you disagree.

If you ban the cheater line but still allow people to use the trademark to align the ball, then people will simply do that instead (even though you think it would be hard ).

I think they'd have to ban using anything--hand-drawn lines, trademarks, or anything else--on the ball to indicate the line of the putt.

[Michael Kennedy]

Dave - this should really get your goat:

http://tinyurl.com/6ldqzq

The link describes a patent held by Callaway that pairs an "alignment indicia" on the golf ball with an alignment indicia on the putter - a pair of cheater lines!

And for the mud ball/orientation issue - it's not an orientation issue as much as it is an "not improving your lie" issue.  It's like being able to lift your ball to identify it - it must be put back exactly as you found it, not replaced in a "fluffy" lie.

[JESII]

Shivas,

I am sure someone has asked this on one of the 200 pages of posts touching this subject, but tell me, are you looking for totally random replacement of the ball? Or are you just looking for golfers to play within the sprit of the game and hope that solves it?

[John Moore II]

I, personally, like to use the Daze Pelz O-balls. Those suckers have 4 bright red cheater lines on them. They work awesome. Especially when you use the O-ball putter with the dual lines down the top of the Odyssey 2-ball putter.
-Oh, should the 2-ball and TriBall putters be illegal?

[Mike_Cirba]

After 1300 or so posts here, I really feel I need to finally weigh in...

Guys...what the hell does any of this have to do with Merion, Rees Jones, or Michelle Wie??

Or, should I go back to page 1 and read?   

[John Moore II]

Shiv--Clean White ball?? What about the guy that plays an Orange ball, or a yellow ball, or like Paula, a Pink ball? I would like Callaway to make a Red ball, I'd buy them by the case, cheater line and all.

[Phil McDade]

After 1300 or so posts here, I really feel I need to finally weigh in...

Guys...what the hell does any of this have to do with Merion, Rees Jones, or Michelle Wie??

Or, should I go back to page 1 and read?   

Mike:

Pat Mucci -- the originator of this thread, not Shivas -- suggested cheater lines (an aid to help alignment, and thus an aid to improved putting) would diminsih boldness in green contouring.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dave,

I suggest we play only a clean white, logo-less ball at Cobb's Creek post-restoration someday God-willing in the future.

Does that work? 

[John Moore II]

Dave,

I suggest we play only a clean white, logo-less ball at Cobb's Creek post-restoration someday God-willing in the future.

Does that work? 

But Mike, how would you get a logoless ball

Shiv--Clean White ball?? What about the guy that plays an Orange ball, or a yellow ball, or like Paula, a Pink ball? I would like Callaway to make a Red ball, I'd buy them by the case, cheater line and all.

Oh whatever.  Indeed, I think a lot of people on here have said that long before now

You're just playing the fool...   And not like many others on this thread don't look foolish. At least to the other side. This is an arguement between "radical progressives" and "radical conservatives" Both sides are entirely wrong, from the others point of view. I suppose that after 40 pages, everyone against you thinks you and your "followers" are foolish and you think your opposition is foolish.  I am making stupid comments because they make as much sense as these back and forth arguements, at least from where I stand

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()