Shivas's cheater line

[JESII]

One of the legs on your three-legged stoll is getting a bit wobbly...tell me how Chris Brauner's Betsy King example fits in with that bit of reasoning...after you muddle through that, please find the place that says it is incummbent upon the player himself alone to align for each shot...

[CHrisB]

So Shivas,
Consider the following ID marks on a golf ball:

:
. .
<
<---

I'd assume that you'd have the same opinion about these ID marks as you do about the cheater line(?).

[TEPaul]

"I'm trying to understand why they rule the way they do.  It does me no good (and, BTW, from a purely Macchiavellian perspective, won't shut me up) until I understand what principle out there is so important that the cheater line practice (which violates another principle) has to take a back seat to it."

You're trying to understand what principle is so important that the cheater line practice has to take a back seat to it??

How about the principle that the Rules authorities do not believe it is a cheater line and therefore not a Rules violation?

Apparently you're so locked into the validity of your own assumptions it's never occured to you that others such as the R&A/USGA might not agree with your assumptions    

[John_Cullum]

I usually mark my ball with one blue dot. If I use a ball with a seam, I will mark 2 dots on the seam if its a seam that is not aligned with the printing. I do that so I can find the seam when I'm teeing the ball. Am I cheating?


(I mostly use bridgestone's now, and they don't have a seem at all)

[John_Cullum]

Is that OK on the tee? I'm only doing it to strike the ball on the seam. Any alignment is coincidental. Sometimes I turn it so I don't hit the seem.

[CHrisB]

In keeping with the language of Rule 8-2(b), I'd have the same opinion of any mark placed anwhere to indicate a line for putting.  

Shivas,
Setting aside the fact that an ID pen mark can't be "placed" , if you really want to pursue this with the USGA, it is apparent that you will need their answer to the following question:

Is an identification mark on a golf ball considered to be part of the ball, or is it a separate "mark" independent from the ball?

If an ID mark is part of the ball, then even with a cheater line there is no mark being placed anywhere to indicate the line of putting, because the ball itself can't be considered a mark.

Otherwise, you have a serious case against the cheater line, but I don't know what other rules ramifications there might be (and unfortunately, as even one dot on the ball can be combined with a line on a putter to indicate the line for putting, I think a big can of worms could be opened up if an ID mark were not allowed to be used for lining up in putting).

Right now it looks like the only two places where lines/marks can be used to indicate a line for putting are (i) the ball and (ii) the putter head. A player uses his -body- to swing a -putter- to strike a -ball- toward the hole, and it looks like any of those 3 things can be used to align the player during the stroke, but nothing else(?).

[JESII]

Shivas,

Have you substantiated your claim that alignment is a fundamental skill yet?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Maybe you have an opinion...if I told you I could gain alignment help from just a dot on the ball, would you think I should be disallowed from placing that in view?

If you told me that, I'd make sure that they had a room ready for you at HappyDale Farms, right next to TEPaul's room.[/color]

Well, reserve a room for me too, because I think a single dot put on the top of a golf ball could definitely be used along with a line on the putter head to help with alignment--visually the dot would essentially "extend" the line on the putter head to the ball.

Your room confirmation #'s  are LUN 236987 ACY and
                                           LUN 236988 ACY.

The rooms are adjoining and have a nice view of the fields.

Would you like "USA Today" delivered with breakfast ?

As to the dot on the ball aligned with markings on the putter, I don't think that a vertical view from above the ball would provide you with any meaningful ability to extend the line.

You can do the same thing currently with the number on the ball or brand label.

Since the guys on the PGA Tour didn't employ that method I doubt it's effective to any degree, and merely a desperate and misguided attempt to taint the issue of a line placed on the ball by the golfer.

At the present time, your rooms are on the top floor.
Keep that line of reasoining up and you'll soon be in the basement.[/color]

[/b][/color]

[TEPaul]

"I've asked at least a dozen times what the reasoning behind Decision 20-3a/2 and the USGA position that the cheater line is legal, despite Rule 8-2b, despite rule 14-3, despite Decision 14-2/4, despite the tee definition, despite the fundamental skill of aligning yourself from an address position, despite the fact that they banned croquet-style putting ...."

Shivas:

And I've answered you a number of times. Apparently you just don't want to see it.

The reasoning behind Dec 20-3a/2 is that a trademark (a line) used to align the ball for the purpose of indicating a line for putting does not constitute assistance in the act of making a stroke (Rule 14 is about "striking the ball"---ie making a stroke).

"... and all you ever say is "they disagree"."

Yes, I have said a number of times they disagree with you and your assumption that these things constitute a violation of the Rules.

"Well, no shit they disagree."

No shit, indeed. I think it's patently obvious they disagree with you and your assumptions on this thread that you have based your premise on that an identification line on a golf ball used to align the ball for the purposes of indicating the line of putt is a violation of a Rule of Golf or contrary to a principle of the Rules of Golf.  

The question is "why?"  What is the reasoning?"

See above.


"The only reasoning on this topic is in Decision 14-2/4 and it argues against the cheater line."

I see nothing in Dec 14-2/4 that's analogous or applicable to this thread's subject.

"So what's the principle in that golf bible that they all keep under their pillows at night that is soooooo powerful that it overrules all this other stuff?"

Again, there is no principle I'm aware in Tufts or otherwise that over-rules "all this stuff", as you call it, because there is no Rules violation here and there's nothing in what you call "all this stuff" that is contrary to any Rule of Golf or Principle of Golf that I can see.

Can you understand what I've said here---that your assumptions are inacurrate and therefore your premise that an identification line that is used to align the ball for the purpose of indicating the line of play does not constitute "assistance" and is therefore not a violation of Rule 14 nor a violation of Rule 8-2b which quite clearly contemplates a "line" other than on a golf ball?  

[Ted Kramer]

Tom,

Will you ever share the details relating to your questions to and interactions with the governing bodies about the "honor"? It sounds like there might be a really good story in there . . .

-Ted

[John_Cullum]

If Michelle Wie lines up a cheater line on the 10th at Merion, can we get this thread to 27 pages?

[CHrisB]

There is a website dedicated to the history of the rules of golf:

http://www.ruleshistory.com

In it, you can see the evolution of the wording that applies to placing marks to indicate the line of play for putting:

1875 (R&A): "In holing, no mark should be placed or line drawn to direct the ball to the hole."
1899 (R&A): "When the ball is on the putting-green, no mark shall be placed, nor line drawn as a guide."
1946 (USGA): "No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting green."
1952 (R&A/USGA): "No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting green to indicate a line for putting."
1984 (R&A): "No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting green to indicate a line for putting."
1988 (R&A): "No mark shall be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting."
2007 (USGA): "A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting."

So between 1985 and 1988, the wording changed from "anywhere on the putting green" to "anywhere".

[TEPaul]

Chris:

I would guesstimate that if you asked a good and informed Rules historian his opinion it would be that this Rule (or principle) has basically never changed from 1875 until today. In other words, what the Rules are speaking about and thinking about and contemplating when they mention a mark (or line) is the putting green and not the golf ball.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Will you ever share the details relating to your questions to and interactions with the governing bodies about the "honor"? It sounds like there might be a really good story in there . . ."

Ted:

Sure, I'd be glad to. I think I have in the past on here though, and that's another good reason to improve our search engine.

Tomorrow.

[CHrisB]

Chris:

I would guesstimate that if you asked a good and informed Rules historian his opinion it would be that this Rule (or principle) has basically never changed from 1875 until today. In other words, what the Rules are speaking about and thinking about and contemplating when they mention a mark (or line) is the putting green and not the golf ball.

Or perhaps the golf course instead of just the putting green, but I agree, not the golf ball.

[TEPaul]

"Or perhaps the golf course instead of just the putting green, but I agree, not the golf ball."

But Chris, you should realize that those historical and evolutionary Rules you cited are specific about just the putting green.

However, as of a few years ago all this logic and prohibition has merged into Rule 14---"Striking the Ball" and that Rule is in fact the golf course in toto, not just the putting green.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Are you serious with that last post?

If you are, it's pretty depressing.

Humor you??

OK, I'll try one last time and if it gets a response anything like your last post, I'm done.

TOMORROW!

By the way, it's not easy at all to find real documentary evidence of precisely WHY the rules makers make the decisions in the writing and interpreting of the Rules that they do but I feel I'm a very lucky man in that I have one or two really excellent resources to tap and they are not only Tuft's "Principles Behind the Rules of Golf". A few of them are the people who are and have been right there on the USGA/R&A Joint Rules Committee that is responsible for the finalization of the Rules of Golf and the Decisions on the Rules of Golf.

Again, if you think your assumptions and premises are so valid, I suggest that you begin to deal with people like that because they really are the final arbiters on the Rules of Golf. One could accurately say it is their logic and thinking that goes into the writing and interpreting of the Rules of Golf. As I'm sure you know that's the way the Rules of Golf developed and evolve.

Matter of fact, that website posted above on this thread has a discussion group on the Rules. The USGA's website used to have a Q&A section on Rules but I think they discontinued it, perhaps because it became populated by too many "know-it-alls" who never stopped arguing with the people on the Rules Committee at Far Hills instead of letting them do what they're there for which is to answer real life Rules situations and questions on them.  

But of course you can always continue to avoid them and just continue to say on here that you're right and they're wrong.  

[Jim Franklin]

1946 (USGA): "No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting green."
1952 (R&A/USGA): "No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting green to indicate a line for putting."
1984 (R&A): "No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting green to indicate a line for putting."

Geez, when you read this, I tend to lean toward the Shivas camp. I mean your ball is on the green and there is a line on your ball on the green indicating line of play. It seems pretty clear to me and I hate saying that.

[Dan Kelly]

I found it entertaining, just a moment ago, to note that this thread was right next-door to "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

 

[TEPaul]

Jim:

Very clearly the Rules writers were talking about a line ON THE PUTTING GREEN, not a line on the GOLF BALL (that's on the putting green ), and that is probably exactly why the interpretation today in the Rules of Golf is that it is NOT a violation of Rule 8 or 14 when an identification mark (line) on a golf ball is used to align the ball to indicate a line for putting.

[JESII]

1946 (USGA): "No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting green."
1952 (R&A/USGA): "No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting green to indicate a line for putting."
1984 (R&A): "No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting green to indicate a line for putting."

Geez, when you read this, I tend to lean toward the Shivas camp. I mean your ball is on the green and there is a line on your ball on the green indicating line of play. It seems pretty clear to me and I hate saying that.

Really Jim? The mark isn't placed on the green to indicate a line for putting, it's on the ball...

[Jim Franklin]

I understand that the mark is not on the green, but when you look down from your putting stance, the line appears to be on the green. Does it not?

[Kalen Braley]

I'm with Jim and Shivas on this one.

Is a club thats placed on the putting green that is lined up to show the line any different from a ball thats placed on the green with a line on it?

Are you going to use the arguement that because the actual line on the ball isn't touching the green, thats its not in violation of the spirit of the rule?  If you are going to use this logic, then I suppose it would be ok for me to draw a line on my golf bag, and then lay the bag on the green pointing me in the direction I should go. After all the line on my bag isn't "touching" the green.

Of for that matter I could place my morning bagel on the green, draw a line on it with some cream cheese and because the cream cheese isn't touching the green then its ok...

This is silly.

[TEPaul]

"I understand that the mark is not on the green, but when you look down from your putting stance, the line appears to be on the green. Does it not?"

Jim, Jim, Jimbo, Jimmy crack corn and I don't care...

The Rules of Golf and certainly their interpretations and decision making of necessity need to be pretty cut and dried sometime for obvious reasons.

I can guarantee you that an interpretation or decision on the Rules of Golf in a situation like this from a good Rules official is not going to be----"Well it sort of APPEARS LIKE the line is on the green even if it's on the golf ball..."

The determination is going to revolve around whether the line is ON THE PUTTING GREEN or it ISN'T----period, end of story. "APPEARING to be on the green if it's on the golf ball has nothing to do with it!  

If a golfer or Rules official can't even figure out the difference between an identication mark line on a golf ball and a line on a putting green used to indicate the line for putting, in my opinion, he has no damn business being out there getting involved in these things or even considering them.  



Fellow Competitor to Rules Official:

"Did you just see my fellow competitor move his ball and improve his lie?"

Rules official to fellow competitor:

Well, it sort of APPEARED that way but I'm not sure, so let's just penalize him anyway."

[TEPaul]

Once again, Shivas, you are just flat-ass WRONG!

I'm not saying that this Rule or any other Rule in the Rule Book is ideally written or not somewhat confusing to some people (obviously you are a pretty good example) but I can absolutely GUARANTEE you the the USGA and R&A Rules Committee and just about every Rules official on the planet, including millions of golfers who seem to understand the Rules and these Rules well enough knows exactly what those Rules and Decisions (8-2b, Rule 14 and Dec 20-3a/2) mean vis-a-vis this subject you call a "cheater line" on a golf ball that you're flogging to death on here.