[Ken Moum]

In the spring-like effect situation they wrote a definition of NO spring-like effect that allowed a whole class of non-conforming, springy-faced clubs to suddenly become retroactively conforming.

Ken

Ken,

I am not sure of your meaning in this part of your post...are you suggesting they could have kept a rule stating that any club that provides a spring-like effect during impact with the ball is non-conforming?

Were there any drivers prior to the writing of this rule that demonstrated zero spring like effect?

Yes, the rule against spring-like effect predates the titanium clubhead. There were hickory-shafted irons with thin, spring-steel faces and the rule may be a result of that, but I think it's current iteration was written in the 1980s.

Regardless, it was around when wood and small, steel heads were the norm, and they weren't springy.

IIRC, when the Great Big Bertha came out, someone noticed ball speeds higher than what they should have been, and told the USGA equipment folks, which at the time was headed by Frank Thomas. I think Callaway might have reported it themselves.

Prior to that, most people thought the way to maximize distance was to make the face harder, not softer. The idea was to get max compression.

But, inadvertently, the GBB, flexed and as a result it didn't compress the ball as much. It turned out that the way to make the collision more efficient is to compress the ball LESS.

I seem to recall Thomas saying that at the time he wanted to enforce the existing rule, and grandfather the few non-conforming clubs for a period of years. It should have been simple to determine whether a clubface was flexing at impact.

Instead, we got an interpretation that allowed for flex in a face that was supposed to not flex at all. A wood driver, or solid block of Titanium is something like .760 or .780 COR with the ball of the day, and the intepretation said anything up to .830 would be deemed conforming.

Now we have manufacturers trying to get a close as possible, and three different companies are having to recall non-conforming drivers.

Actually I suspect that if the original rule had been enforced, we'd have never seen huge clubheads, as it was oversized heads and the concurrent thinness of metal that created the flexible face.

Building a completely flex-free face might have limited the clubhead size, and we wouldn't be having all these discussions.

K

[JESII]

Ken,


Thanks...that is a very comprehensive and informative answer, I appreciate it.

Back to this topic...Shivas, or anyone on his side of this issue, I'd be curious to your thoughts on my question a few posts above about lining up the seam of the ball.

[George Pazin]

Sully, I think Shivas already covered a similar area arguing with Michael Moore. I think he indicated using anything to line up the putt should be illegal.

Shiv, I'll grant you that the tee thing is pretty strong evidence for your position, though I'm still not really convinced.

[Kalen Braley]

I am one of Shivas' converts as he alluded to in prior posts.  I've yet to see any type of counter-arguement with any teeth with the exception of the USGA making the decision, which in my mind only amounts to a "because we said so".

That being said Shivas, even you can appreciate that when a case is appealed you can take it as far as the Supreme Court.  The final ruling could be a "because we said so" type response as well even though it should lie with prior pecedent.

And after watching my playing partner take an extra minute on every tee box to line up his "cheater line" to the middle of the fairway, I was about ready to strangle him for slow play...

[JESII]

A couple of things:

George...I looked back for the comments about the seam between Shivas and MM and couldn't find them...any help would be great. I am talking about just as the ball comes out of the box, with no markings along the seam. If this is viewed as cheating, then so is my practice on the tee of placing the ball on the tee so that I hit the Titleist stamp right on the face with the small side writing (ProV1 I think) on the top and perpendicular to the target...I do this for alignment help to a certain degree.

Shivas...you still have not convinced me because I firmly believe taking the word "anywhere" in 8-2(b) to include the ball is wrong. I think that section is very clearly pertaining to the green surface marks.

Secondly...your tee issue is a wiff because there is a certain functional construction of a golf tee and there is no way within that standard form for "line-of-play" to be indicated. "Cheater lines" on a ball have no effect on the balls standard funcional appearance or physical makeup, so they can be constructed within standard form with the line included.

[Joe Hancock]

I only have one more observation, then I'm done...

There is two camps here, IMO:

1) Those who don't and won't use a cheater line due to philosophical convictions concerning the appropriateness of using such a visual aid.

and

2) Those who do use the line as an aid, have benefited from it and will accept no one else's opinion or fact as to the merits (or demerits) of playing golf without utilizing to such tendencies.

Joe

[JESII]

Joe,


I am in neither camp...hope it's not raining...

[CHrisB]

I only have one more observation, then I'm done...

There is two camps here, IMO:

1) Those who don't and won't use a cheater line due to philosophical convictions concerning the appropriateness of using such a visual aid.

and

2) Those who do use the line as an aid, have benefited from it and will accept no one else's opinion or fact as to the merits (or demerits) of playing golf without utilizing to such tendencies.

Joe

Joe,

Then I guess I'm in the third camp, as someone who doesn't use the line, who doesn't really care that there are those who do, but who enjoys arguing with Shivas over these types of rules dissections.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The caddy can stand behind you and work with your line but he must move prior to the stroke.  This is a separate rule.

NO, IT"S NOT.

It's the same rule, RULE 8-2 b[/color]

Shivas is talking about marks....a word that doesn't contemplate a line on the ball.  

I know what Shivas is talking about, that's why I started this thread.

Rule 8-2 b states "...A MARK must not be placed ANYWHERE to indicate [size=4x]A LINE[/size] for putting.

It's that simple.

If it was that simple you wouldn't have made the mistake of alleging that it was two (2) seperate rules that applied to the caddy and placing a mark anywhere to indicate a line for putting.[/color]

Mucci:

You use my incorrect statement that it is two separate rules, as ammo to yet again, degrade and belittle.

You were wrong, not once, but twice.
I corrected you,
Take your medicine like a man and stop whining.[/color]

Nonetheless, bolding and capitalizing LINE does little to support this argument.  Something on the ball, be it a logo or a line, is not a mark within the interpretation of the rule.

This issue has NOTHING to do with logos which are an integral part of the manufacturing process, just like the number on the ball.[/color]

It is a well established legal maxim that one must first look to the plain language when interpreting a rule/statute.  When that language is vague, one must look to legislative history, floor debates and committee notes.  The USGA's "committee notes" clearly indicate that it is appropriate to use a logo to help with alignment on the putting surface.  

The issue has NOTHING to do with logos or numbers placed on the ball during the routine manufacturing process.

It's got to do with the golfer ADDING marks to the ball that aid in indicating the line.[/color]

Thus, the USGA has spoken that a logo is not a "mark."  

If a logo isn't a mark, a line is not a mark.

Not to belittle or degrade you, but, that's the stupidest logic I've heard today, and it's CONTRARY to the USGA's stated position as to a "mark" on the ball.

Try reading rules 6-5 and 12-2[/color]

It's as simple as that.

The only things simple are your inaccurate responses and citations of the Rules of Golf.

READ a rule book before you tell us what the rule says.[/color]

I do still wonder, if you believe what you profess to believe, why you entitled this thread "Shivas's cheater line" and not "Shivas's cheater mark."

You can't be that obtuse.

A line, placed by the player on his ball, with a Sharpie or similar instrument, is a mark.

Please have someone explain that to you.

It's that simple [/color]

[Joe Hancock]

Chris,

I should have added:

3) Other

 

Joe

[JR Potts]

The caddy can stand behind you and work with your line but he must move prior to the stroke.  This is a separate rule.

NO, IT"S NOT.

It's the same rule, RULE 8-2 b[/color]

Shivas is talking about marks....a word that doesn't contemplate a line on the ball.  

I know what Shivas is talking about, that's why I started this thread.

Rule 8-2 b states "...A MARK must not be placed ANYWHERE to indicate [size=4x]A LINE[/size] for putting.

It's that simple.

If it was that simple you wouldn't have made the mistake of alleging that it was two (2) seperate rules that applied to the caddy and placing a mark anywhere to indicate a line for putting.[/color]

Mucci:

You use my incorrect statement that it is two separate rules, as ammo to yet again, degrade and belittle.

You were wrong, not once, but twice.
I corrected you,
Take your medicine like a man and stop whining.[/color]

Nonetheless, bolding and capitalizing LINE does little to support this argument.  Something on the ball, be it a logo or a line, is not a mark within the interpretation of the rule.

This issue has NOTHING to do with logos which are an integral part of the manufacturing process, just like the number on the ball.[/color]

It is a well established legal maxim that one must first look to the plain language when interpreting a rule/statute.  When that language is vague, one must look to legislative history, floor debates and committee notes.  The USGA's "committee notes" clearly indicate that it is appropriate to use a logo to help with alignment on the putting surface.  

The issue has NOTHING to do with logos or numbers placed on the ball during the routine manufacturing process.

It's got to do with the golfer ADDING marks to the ball that aid in indicating the line.[/color]

Thus, the USGA has spoken that a logo is not a "mark."  

If a logo isn't a mark, a line is not a mark.

Not to belittle or degrade you, but, that's the stupidest logic I've heard today, and it's CONTRARY to the USGA's stated position as to a "mark" on the ball.

Try reading rules 6-5 and 12-2[/color]

It's as simple as that.

The only things simple are your inaccurate responses and citations of the Rules of Golf.

READ a rule book before you tell us what the rule says.[/color]

I do still wonder, if you believe what you profess to believe, why you entitled this thread "Shivas's cheater line" and not "Shivas's cheater mark."

You can't be that obtuse.

A line, placed by the player on his ball, with a Sharpie or similar instrument, is a mark.

Please have someone explain that to you.

It's that simple [/color]

You can't really be that blind?  For the most part, I've been talking about the line that Titleist provides on its Pro-V1 balls?  (you know, the integral part of the manufacturing process)  Why are you talking about adding lines on the ball?  

When you write like a prick, but miss the key facts, it just makes you look like more of a prick.  But I guess you're used to that.  If you don't know where I'm coming from, have someone explain it to you.  Strike that, I would love to do so...

[Joe Hancock]

Ryan,

I believe your signature line places you squarely in camp 2....

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why don't you cite the date of the tests which supplied the data for the "several books, dozens of articles, and numerous research papers" you indicated he published.

What was the date of Pelz's most recent, definitive study ?

. . . it's not my responsibility to spoon feed you everything I've observed or read.  Do your own research

PS - Here's a reading comprehension tip for nonfiction - when the author states "blah blah blah today blah blah blah" and the publication date of the book is June 2000, then "today" means "nowadays", right around June 2000.


Here's a reading comprehension tip for you, try being intellectually honest.

I already pointed out that that data for the book published in 2000 was 7-8 or more years old and that the data for the book published in 1989 was almost 20 years old.

I was asking you about the data for the "SEVERAL BOOKS, DOZENS OF ARTICLES AND NUMEROUS RESEARCH PAPERS, you referenced.

What were the dates of the tests used to supply the data for those publications ?

And, while you're at it, identify and date those "several books. dozens of articles and numerous research papers.

Try to answer the question rather than dodging it with a failed ploy.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

You can't really be that blind?  

For the most part, I've been talking about the line that Titleist provides on its Pro-V1 balls?

B.S.  I've read all of your posts and my reading comprehension skills remain sharp.[/color]

 (you know, the integral part of the manufacturing process)  

Why are you talking about adding lines on the ball ?

Because that's what this entire thread is about, and you know it is.  That's being disengenuous and intellectually dishonest.[/color]

When you write like a prick, but miss the key facts, it just makes you look like more of a prick.  But I guess you're used to that.  

I'd rather be a prick than a liar, and a dumb one at that.[/color]

If you don't know where I'm coming from, have someone explain it to you.  Strike that, I would love to do so...

except for the fact that you're incapable of doing so.

Read and learn the rules of golf, then get back to us.

It's as simple as that.[/color]

[JR Potts]

What about being a dumb prick?  How does that suit you?

And if your reading comprehension skills are so sharp, how did you miss my signature line?  I would think that would have tipped off most anyone as to my position.

BTW - I do have something going for me though, I'm only thirty.  Presumably, I've got at least 40 years to rid myself of my "dumbness."  What do you have?

[Patrick_Mucci]

What about being a dumb prick?  How does that suit you?

Since my IQ is well above yours, if you want to be known as a dumb prick, or dumb prick liar, that suits me fine.[/color]

And if your reading comprehension skills are so sharp, how did you miss my signature line?  I would think that would have tipped off most anyone as to my position.

Who says I missed it ?

Based on your writings, you don't seem to know your own position, let alone the rules of golf ..... why would anyone else ?[/color]

[JR Potts]

What about being a dumb prick?  How does that suit you?

Since my IQ is well above yours, if you want to be known as a dumb prick, or dumb prick liar, that suits me fine.[/color]

Wow, just wow.  Congrats on your IQ!!!!

I've never used this site as a medium to boast, self-aggrandize or deflect ones obvious shortcomings and insecurities onto others.  You obviously have different uses and to each their own.

I'm going to quit this debate before I end up coming off as poorly as you rountinely do.

Your knowledge of the game is constantly lost in your rhetoric and tone...and that's too bad.  Although it is terrible for this site, it's your problem not mine.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan,

Perhaps you'd forgotten what you wrote, so I'm providing the quote to assist you with firming up your position.[/color]

Clearly, given the language of the rules, a line on the ball (even if drawn on the ball and not on the ball as part of the USGA certified manufacturing process), is not contemplated as being a mark and is not encompassed within that rule.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What about being a dumb prick?  How does that suit you?

Since my IQ is well above yours, if you want to be known as a dumb prick, or dumb prick liar, that suits me fine.[/color]

Wow, just wow.  Congrats on your IQ!!!!

Actually, it's not that high, in fact it's fairly low,
It's just higher than yours. [/color]

[JR Potts]

I know exactly what I wrote.  And I stand by that.  But you inflammatory response responded to a specific discussion I was having regarding the Titleist line.  But I digress.

That being said, you and Shivas can't get your positions straight.  You seem to argue that anything manufactured into the ball is okay.  Shivas seems to suggest that there be no intentional placement of the ball when putting if there is any alignment assistance or intent to align.

Although the latter is preposterous in my opinion, it is at least consistent.  Under your theory, it is okay to align the Titleist line but it isn't okay to align a Sharpee drawn line over the Titleist line?

Is that correct?  I'm obviously quite slow and need the help.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I know exactly what I wrote.  And I stand by that.  But you inflammatory response responded to a specific discussion I was having regarding the Titleist line.  But I digress.

That being said, you and Shivas can't get your positions straight.  

I can't speak for Shivas, but, my position is clear.[/color]

You seem to argue that anything manufactured into the ball is okay.  

No, I didn't say that.
I stated that there's a difference between the markings placed on the ball by the manufacturer and the markings placed on the ball by the golfer.

I raised the question in the context of 8-2 b.

However, I also object to the cheater line placed on the ball by the manufacturer.  I think it undermines the spirit of the game.[/color]

Shivas seems to suggest that there be no intentional placement of the ball when putting if there is any alignment assistance or intent to align.

That differs from the issue I brought up, which is solely in the context of 8-2 b[/color]

Although the latter is preposterous in my opinion, it is at least consistent.  Under your theory, it is okay to align the Titleist line but it isn't okay to align a Sharpee drawn line over the Titleist line?

That's correct.

One is a ball unaltered by the golfer, the other is a ball altered by the golfer.  And, if you read all of 8-2 b, the USGA seems to be clear in that aiding in indicating the line by caddies or partners during the stroke is prohibited.

When you context what the USGA meant by aiding in the indication of the line during the stroke, with the following language in 8-2 b, "[size=2x] A MARK must not be placed ANYWHERE to indicate a line for putting."[/size], along with the language in Rules 6-5 and 12-2, I think a reasonable case can be made for my/Shivas's position.

Is that correct?  I'm obviously quite slow and need the help.

I understand that, remember, I'm slow too, but, just a little faster than you, that's why I'm using small words whenever I can.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Your knowledge of the game is constantly lost in your rhetoric and tone...and that's too bad.  

Although it is terrible for this site, it's your problem not mine.

For someone who's only contributed two (2) threads in the last 21 or more pages of threads, one on "Cicadas in Golf" which got 6 responses from others and one on "Parkland Golf" which got 3 responses from others, I'd be more concerned about you lack of any meaningful contribution to this site.

Try coming up with threads about gof course architecture for a change.[/color]

[Michael Moore]

And, while you're at it, identify and date those "several books. dozens of articles and numerous research papers.

GOLF MAGAZINE ARTICLES
 “Need a Hand in Wet Sand?” February 2005
“10 Ways to Raise Your Game” January 2005 (Cover)
“Let’s Do Launch” December 2004
“Brinkmanchip” November 2004
“Go the Distance” October 2004
“Check Your Face” September 2004
“Take Your Best Shot” August 2004
“Master Your Short Game- Like Phil” July 2004
“Fire Away” June 2004
“Why Putts Miss” May 2004
“4 Shots, 1 Swing” April 2004
“Position, Position, Position” March 2004
“Knock It Closer- Guaranteed” February 2004(Cover)
“Use Your Life Line” January 2004
“Neck Putting” December 2003
“Seeing Is Not Believing” November 2003
“Make Your Wedge Game Poetry In Motion” October 2003
“Water in Your Way?” September 2003
“Hold Your Finish” August 2003
“Seeing Is Not Believing” July 2003
“How Will Annika Do?” June 2003
“The Golden Eight” May 2003
“Your Best Way to Putt” April 2003(Cover)
“Where Are You Aiming?” March 2003
“Tale of the Tape” February 2003
“Hit the Spot” January 2003
“The End of the Stimpmeter?” December 2002(Cover)
“Sweet Success” November 2002
“Pick It From Sand” October 2002
“Clockwatching” September 2002
“Playing in Balance” August 2002
“Are Your Balls Balanced?” July 2002
“A Wise Investment” June 2002
“Gut It Out” May 2002
“Grip Down” April 2002
“Bushwhacked” March 2002
“Divot Decision” February 2002
“The Super Flop” January 2002
“When to Cheat” December 2001
“How Far?” November 2001
“Feel: What It Is and How to Learn It” October 2001(Cover)
“Settle Down Sergio” September 2001
“Chip From Sand” August 2001
“Board Game” July 2001
“Flare Play” June 2001
“Chipping Over a Tier-Third Choice” May 2001
“Chipping Over a Tier- Second Choice” April 2001
“Chipping Over a Tier-First Choice” March 2001
“Tiers of Relief” February 2001
“Mud in Your Eye” January 2001
“Hardest No More” December 2000
“What's the Worst Shot in Golf?” October 2000
“Uphill Fight” September 2000
“Short Sighted” August 2000
“Pelz Tells All” July 2000(Cover)
“Forget the Hole” June 2000
“Stop Moving” May 2000
“How Good is Your Short Game?” March 2000
“Coming to Grips” February 2000
“Play the Angles” January 2000
“Two Parts to Pitching” December 1999
“30 Yards is 30 Yards” November 1999
“Finding Your High Road” October 1999
“Take the High Road” September 1999
“Two Kinds of Hardpan” Aug. 1999
“Short Game Bible” July 1999(Cover)
“The Perils of Pinehurst” June 1999
“2CG-- Second Chance Golf” Apr. 1999
“A Cure For Chip Yips” Feb. 1999
“Parallel What?” Oct. 1998
“Sink More Putts” Sept. 1998(Cover)
“In Your Face” Sept. 1998
“Splash! The Easy Way Out of the Water” August 1998
“Split the Uprights to Score” July 1998
“U.S. Open Rough” June 1998
“When Backwards is Better” April 1998
“The Big Four” March 1998
“Knock it Down” February 1998
“Step Through” January 1998
“Your Radius is Key” December 1997
“Bump It” November 1997
“The Rules of Sand” October 1997
“Why You Can’t Putt” September 1997(Cover)
“No Room for a Backswing” August 1997
“You Need a Ritual” July 1997
“Square Stroke Equals Straight Putts” February 1997
“The Finesse Grip” January 1997
“Which Club in Sand?” December 1996
“Perfect Position” November 1996
“Leaving the Nest” October 1996
“Long Live the Long Putter” September 1996
“The Cut Lob” August 1996
“Lag it Close” July 1996
“Putting Under Pressure” June 1996
“Secret of the Short Game” May 1996
“All Plugged Up” April 1996
“Defining Moments” March 1996
“Who is the Best Putter in the World?” February 1996(Cover)
“Long and Strong is Wrong” February 1996
“Sole Considerations” January 1996
“Flunking Grades” December 1995
“The Killer Downhiller” November 1995
“To Putt or to Chip” October 1995
“How Sweet It Is” September 1995
“Killer Three Putts” September 1995
“The Chiputt” August 1995
“The Finer Points of Chipping” July 1995
“Big Touch” June 1995
“The Amazing Truth About Putting” April 1995(Cover)
“Going the Distance” March 1995
“Hit the Low Point” February 1995
“Putter Tests” August 1994
“Proper Preshot” July 1994
“It’s Not in Your Hands” September 1993
“Left Hand Low” July 1993
“Putts from Hell” December 1992
“If Only They Could Putt” November 1992
“Score Yourself” September 1992
“No Holds Barred” August 1992
“Chip Yips” April 1992
“On the Putting Edge” March 1992
“The Fine Points of Putting” May 1991
“The Wedge: Wedge it Like a Pro” April 1991 (Cover)
“Pin In or Out?” December 1990 (Cover)
“Control the Distance” November 1990
“The Fallacy of Feel” June 1990
“The 3X4 System” May 1990 (Cover)
“How’s Your Eyesight?” April 1990
“The Facts About Chipping” October 1988
“What is Your Putting Quotient?” August 1988 (Cover)
“Make it Routine” July 1988
“What Happens When You Putt?” July 1985
“My 3-Minute Drill” July 1984
“Swing Like Clockwork” December 1983
“What’s a Good Shot?” November 1983
“Aspirins Cause Headaches” October 1983
“Greens Have Hazards Too” September 1983
“Hit Your Putts Hard” August 1983
“Honing Your Stroke” June 1983
“Putt Like a Robot” May 1983 (Cover)

BOOKS
Putt Like the Pros, published 1989 Harper Collins, 224 pages.
Dave Pelz's Short Game Bible, published 1999 Doubleday/Broadway Books, 429 pages.
Dave Pelz's Putting Bible, published 2000 Doubleday/Broadway Books, 395 pages.
Dave Pelz's 10 Minutes a Day to Better Putting, published 2003 by Pelz Golf, 208 pages.

PROCEEDINGS
“A Simple, Scientific, Shaft Test: Steel Versus Graphite.” (1990) Science and Golf, University Press, Cambridge, G.B., pp. 264-269.
“A Study of Golfers' Abilities to Read Greens.” (1994) Science and Golf II, University Press, Cambridge, GB., pp. 180-185.
“How to Measure Green Speed Accurately” (2002) Science and Golf IV, University Press, Cambridge, GB.

[Jordan Wall]

This whole thread is funny.

First off, I would like to say that nobody in any tournament I have ever played in has ever been penalized in any way for using a line placed with a sharpie on their ball to influence where they hit the ball in regards to the hole and the break.

Second off, who gives a crap if you have a line on your ball, drawn or not drawn.  Most people dont hit the putts where they want to anyways, and therefore the line on the ball wouldn't make a difference anyways, right?

[TEPaul]

Shivas wrote:

"Tom Paul will come back tonight from whatever GAP event he's officiating and give you the counter-assertion.  Strangely, but not surprisingly since it's simply not in the Rules, it will not point to anything within the Rules of Golf themselves.  Rather, he will reference Tuft's Book about the Principles of the Rules of Golf and he'll mention the oft-quoted axiom that "like situations shall be treated alike."  Then, he'll describe how one guy in a tournament could get whacked for fidgeting with his cheater line, but another guy in the tournament might not get whacked for the same act.  

This, of course, is at best a rationale for writing a better, more descriptive rule in the first place.  It is not a reason for not banning a practice that is counter to the Rules.  Moreover, all the Rules that require an interpretation of intent or a facts-and-circumstances determination present this dilemma to some extent or another.

He'll also tell you that the Rules shouldn't be overlawyered or else they'd be like War and Peace or the IRS Code, which would be totally unwieldly out there in the field in practice.  Another red herring.  It is patently obvious that these rules were written by lawyers, albeit with an eye toward their audience of non-lawyers.  The problem, of coruse, is that they're not very well written.

He'll also advise that the reason the practice isn't banned is that there is no difference between a logo and
a Sharpie-drawn cheater line, and since like situations must be treated alike, one guy shouldn't be penalized for lining up a Sharpie line and another guy not penalized for lining up a logo.  This, of course, is a red herring because (A) they're both marks being placed for the same illegal purpose and therefore should both be penalized and (B) the Decision permitting lining up a logo is against the language of Rule 8-2(b) in the first place and just plain incorrect as an interpretation of the rule, and should be overturned so that like situations are actually treated alike -- both with DQs for cheatin'.”  



Shivas:

In the case you cite of an identification mark placed on the ball by the player that's a line that's being used to indicate the line of putt and is therefore a violation of Rule 8-2b (in your opinion), no, I don't think I'd be all that inclined to cite the principle of "like situations should be treated alike" as it’s generally used in The Rules of Golf.

However, in the context of logic, I suppose one could use that principle of “like situations shall be treated alike”, if one actually asked the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf Committees to produce an explanation for the answer to Dec. 20-3a/2 (which is a simple “yes” to the question of is it permissible to align the trademark to indicate the line of putt).

So, then, in the context of logic and in the context of the way the principle of  “like situations shall be treated alike” as it is generally used in the Rules of Golf, I will use that principle to explain this to you.

That principle indicates that the Rules of Golf and the rules-makers make no distinction between a trademark line and a line placed on the ball by the player for purposes of identification as it applies to Rule 8-2b.

Is the last sentence of Rule 8-2b in that it only says ‘anywhere’ somewhat unclear? Yes, it probably is---it certainly seems unclear to you. Could it be written more specifically and more clearly? Yes, I suppose it could be to indicate that a line on a golf ball is not intended to be included as a violation of Rule 8-2b.

The point is, Shivas, the R&A and USGA rules-makers make and interpret The Rules of Golf, not you. If you’d like to know if a line placed on a golf ball aligned to indicate the line of putt is a violation of a Rule in spirit or by the letter of a Rule, all you really need to do is ask a good rules official. Any good rules official will tell you it is not a violation of Rule 8-2b.

If, for some reason, the R&A and USGA rules makers decide to get together (in one of their quadrennial rules making meetings) and agree with you that such a line placed on the ball by the player is a violation of Rule 8-2b, then, and at that point, such a line used to indicate the line of putt will be a violation of the spirit and letter of the Rules of Golf.

But it is not a violation of the spirit or letter of the Rules of Golf at this time and it may never be.

You can parse words in the Rules of Golf all you want to but the point is you do not make or interpret the Rules of Golf, they do. You can also complain about improper or unclear wording in the Rules of Golf all you want, and frankly you’re probably right about that in some cases. But if you want an interpretation on any situation as it applies to the Rules of Golf ask a good Rules official or better yet call the USGA Rules Committee at Far Hills and ask them. You are not the last and final word on the Rules and on Rules interpretations, THEY ARE!  

THEREFORE, golfers who place identification lines on golf balls and use them to align the ball to indicate the line of play or a line for putting are not cheating!!  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()