Shivas's cheater line

[TEPaul]

A.G. Crockett:

Your post certainly is a serious one and you ask an excellent question. At what point indeed would the Rules of Golf get absurdly legalistic? This thread may be a pretty good hint of that.  

Patrick:

Of course the original Rule on advice and artificial devices and aids probably did not contemplate or forsee an "identification" line on a golf ball used to align the ball for the purposes of indicating the line for putting.

There're all kinds of things that crop up all the time that they have to address in the context of the Rules of Golf.

Obviously this particular one they do not consider or deem to be as important or as serious as a line or mark placed on the putting green used to indicate the line for putting. It's not that they've never thought about it, it's just that as of now they do not consider it to be an issue.

Maybe they will in the future. After-all they need to and do make Rules interpretations on all kinds of things that crop up all the time.

But you're right, they probably should make the wording in the last sentence of Rule 8-2b a bit more specific as to what they mean and mean to include as a violation. They could do that by mentioning putting green again in that sentence or they could do it by rewording Dec 20-3a/2 to include an identification line on a golf ball used the same way the trademark line on a ball is used to indicate a line for putting.

[Doug Sobieski]

Rules need to be written in a manner that allows them to be enforced. That's a large part of the ongoing changes to phrasing in the rule book. It sounds like those in Shiv's camp would like to see....

- A rule outlawing a VERY specific type of marking on a golf ball, whether for identification or a manufacturer's mark. Straight lines would not be acceptable. But what if someone else finds a > to be sufficient to help them align? Maybe I can arrange my pencil indentations in a way that helps me line up. Can the rule be written specifically enough to outlaw a certain shape of marking? Who judges when a curved line, circle, or pencil indentation becomes a "cheater line"? ANY marking on a golf ball is bound to assist SOMEONE if aligned in a way that they see fit.

Let's assume that there is a "cheater line" on a ball. Would it only be a violation of the rule if aligned in a specific manner? If so, you are now contemplating the axes on which a ball rests. There is no rule that contemplates specific positioning of the ball with regard to rotational axes, as it would be impossible to legislate. What if I had such a cheater line, but aligned it nowhere near my intended putting line? Would I still be in violation?

To be an enforceable rule, you would have to outlaw ANY markings on a golf ball, including those for identification. Otherwise, somebody PLEASE suggest how a rule could be written to outlaw such a specific marking and it's alignment. This exercise may give you some appreciation for the USGA's ability to write rules that can actually be legislated.

[TEPaul]

"Doug, I'm not saying any more until Tom actually provides some reasoning behind the ruling, rather than starting down MOCKingbird Lane with me."

Shivas:

I agree with you but I don't think you should say any more until you call the USGA's Rules Committee and ask THEM directly what their reasoning is behind this Rule and this situation of allowing an "identification" line to be used for the purposes of indicating the line for putting.

Is there any particular reason why you have not already done that or worse yet won't do that?

I'm a 20 year Rules official and I'm a student of the Rules and particularly their history and evolution but I am not the final authority and the final interpreter of the Rules of Golf nor am I one of those who write the Rules of Golf in America and in the USGA's purview----they are.

Do you want me to supply you with their telephone number again?

[Doug Sobieski]

If I were a guessing man, and I think I am, I'd guess that the USGA does not view the word "mark" as anything other than a physical, movable object. I'd further guess that the easiest thing to do would be clarify it within a definition, with no resulting need to revise the rule.

i.e. "Permanent markings on a ball are considered part of the ball."

"A mark is any object placed to indicate the position of a ball or the extent of an area in which a ball is to be dropped.

[Joe Hancock]

(2) Only a few severely strange souls are still reading this thread (I, myself, skipped about 400 posts in the middle of it), so the rest of our brethren here will miss your story! Which they shouldn't.

That was a mistake. I have some real beauties posted in there......  

Or, maybe not.....

Joe

[Dan Kelly]

(2) Only a few severely strange souls are still reading this thread (I, myself, skipped about 400 posts in the middle of it), so the rest of our brethren here will miss your story! Which they shouldn't.

That was a mistake. I have some real beauties posted in there......  

Or, maybe not.....

Joe

Joe --

I did a "See the last ... 50 ... posts of this person" for "Joe Hancock."

I can tell, without any context, that this one was a howler:
 
"Chris,

"I should have added:

"3) Other

"

"Joe"

But I'm not going back to read the other 399!

Dan

[Joe Hancock]

Dan,

You have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are my friend.....

Joe

EDIT: Without context, that really is a doozie.....

[John_Cullum]

I'll take a stab at it.

It is the policy of the USGA to encourage players to mark their ball.

If players mark their balls, it is inevitable that they will be replaced on occasion in a fashion such that the mark is aligned with the line of putt. And the same will occur with factory markings.

On those occasions when a ball's markings line up in such a manner as to be of assistance to the player, that player may be bestowed with an advantage as a result of his placement of the ball.

Insofar as this advantage, if any, is gained as a result of placement (as opposed to rub of the green) the result is inequitable to other players who did not replace their ball in such manner.

The advantage, if any, is de minimus. A rule prohibiting conscious alignment of the markings would lead to excessive rules inquiries and delay play.

The more efficient course is to allow a player to place his ball by aligning the markings.

Thank you for your inquiry. The USGA publishes new Decisions on the Rules of Golf every other year, and revises the Rules of Golf every four years. Please visit our USGA store to purchase these items.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Unfortunately, the reasoned pro-cheater line arguments have been a little lax and slow in forthcoming...I mean, what the hell, we're 16 pages into this and there has not been a single, logical, well-reasoned explanation as to why the cheater line is legal or what overriding principles of the game require it to be legal.  

Dave a few have pointed out that having to penalise someone for aligning a mark on the ball would be a nightmare in practice.  I agree with them but this doesn't negate any of your arguments.

The real logic behind the rule may just be it would be unenforceable any other way; hence we'll legalise some cheating because if everyone can do it (if that's what the rule actually says) then it's not really cheating at all.

Notice that like a few others I've made a suggestion of what the rules people may have been thinking, but in the absence of any proper explanation it's safer to say they really haven't come to terms with this one at all and there just isn't any logical defence here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

et. al.,

The issue of the USGA or any Golf Association monitoring the marking of a golf ball is simple, not difficult.

On the first tee, the official in charge asks the competitors to mark and display their ball to their fellow competitors.

A cheater's line or derivation thereof can be easily spotted and dealt with prior to the start of the round.

[CHrisB]

et. al.,

The issue of the USGA or any Golf Association monitoring the marking of a golf ball is simple, not difficult.

On the first tee, the official in charge asks the competitors to mark and display their ball to their fellow competitors.

A cheater's line or derivation thereof can be easily spotted and dealt with prior to the start of the round.

Patrick,

I disagree. What about the following ID marks that could all be used to indicate the line of a putt:

:
. .
<
[
(
BBB

If lines / ID marks were not allowed to be used to indicate the putting line, then officials or playing partners would have to monitor the player placing his ball on the green for each putt, not just on the first tee.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

I've done some research and I may have some interesting information for you on marks on putting greens within the Rules that goes way, way back.

You said:

"Unfortunately, the reasoned pro-cheater line arguments have been a little lax and slow in forthcoming...I mean, what the hell, we're 16 pages into this and there has not been a single, logical, well-reasoned explanation as to why the cheater line is legal or what overriding principles of the game require it to be legal."

Shivas:

In my opinion, you are not looking at this situation and this practice logically as to whether it’s a violation of the Rules of Golf or should be. You certainly are failing to understand the way the USGA/R&A's Rules evolve, are written and interpreted and what they're basically based on.

Your first mistake is your almost comical treatment of Tuft’s “Principles Behind the Rules of Golf” as if it’s some kind of Rosetta Stone code from which nothing can be done in the Rules of Golf without some reference to a “principle” of golf within that very small book.

There are all kinds of realities and practices that crop up in the play of the game in a Rules context that are not necessarily addressed in that book or in one of the ten “principles” in that book.

Richard Tufts was the President of the USGA, a respected Rules expert of his time, he was one of those who served on that remarkable USGA/R&A Rules Unification committee that managed to basically unify the Rules of Golf between the USGA’s Rules and the R&A’s Rules in 1951.

I will never forget my father thought their task was virtually impossible to do and that they would never be able to pull it off but they did. Tufts wrote that little book on the principles behind the Rules of Golf in 1960 apparently as something of an after-thought as his career in the USGA was basically over then. It just happens to be a lucid book on the principles behind the Rules as he saw them. After while I might even list his ten Principles for you as they appear in his appendix. they're listed as the "Two Great Principles" followed by "The Working Principles".

Since you seem to look at Tuft’s book as some Rosetta Stone-like legal code in which a reference to anything and everything that may go on in a Rules context on a golf course can be found, I suppose that’s why you would assume that something like the practice of using an identification line on a golf ball to align the ball for the purpose of indicating the line of putt must be illegal until it can be proven legal by some Principle in that book.

That’s not the way it works in the Rules of Golf, Dave. Many things that crop in golf and the play of the game may be legal until for various reasons the Rules writers decide (almost always through a vote on the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee) that for whatever reason something does violate some existing Rule of Golf. Sometimes they may even take some issue, piece of equipment or practice and write something into one of the existing Rules to make it illegal. Occasionally they may be simply interpretations and opinions of the Rules writers about things they may not like and they find a way to fit them into some existing Rule to make them violations.

The Andy Martinez case was apparently one of those. He didn’t exactly violate an existing Rule, it was basically that the Rules authorities just didn’t like the look of him crouching behind Miller in the act of a stroke on the putting green. So they decided that he couldn’t be behind Miller during the stroke even though the point and principle of the Rule they put the violation into was based on a prohibition against actual assistance during a stroke or that he may be shielding Miller from something, neither of which had apparently ever even occurred to Miller.

So when I tell you the Rules bodies have not made the practice of aligning an identification mark (line) on a golf ball to indicate the line for putting illegal because they don’t believe it violates a current Rule of Golf (or Principle of Golf) I’m not joking and I’m not avoiding anything either. That is the truth and that’s their rationale and reasoning for condoning it, and for not deeming it a violation of a Rule---- eg they do not think it DOES violate a Rule of Golf.

And if you can’t even understand that, well, then, I really do feel for you man, because frankly I just can’t imagine where you’re coming from other than a basic misunderstanding of the way the Rules of Golf work and evolve.

But I may have some interesting research for you on wording. And I may even hazard an educated guess (as odd as it may seem to you when I tell you) that may help explain why the wording in the last sentence of Rule 8-2b is not as clear or specific as it should be and as they may want it to be to explain that they really do not feel that this “cheater line” practice, as you call it, is a violation of the Rules of Golf or should be a violation. And to confirm the accuracy or not of my guess I think I know who to turn to, and if he doesn’t know or have a good idea I doubt anyone would.

Again, they just don’t feel the practice violates any of the Rules or Decisions on the Rules. Obviously you do, but you’ve given no good reason why that should be other than some over-arching moral opinion on your part that somehow it must be or should be. I have not seen you’ve found a thing within the Rules or Decisions to indicate it should be.

 

[Kalen Braley]

Wow its like page 16 already.

TEPaul are you ever going to at least take a stab at what the convoluted, cluster-f$%& of a situation was that they had to call the front office right then and there??

I understand the details are a little fuzzy, but can you at least give us the basic gist of it??  I've been staying with this thread for the whole 16 pages, and I really really think we can get it to 30 if you throw that enchilada out there for everyone to nibble at.  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul are you ever going to at least take a stab at what the convoluted, cluster-f$%& of a situation was that they had to call the front office right then and there??"

Maybe so, Kalen, maybe so, but first let me deal with this over-arching word parsing ultra, super, outta control moralist lawyer from the Windy City (no that's appropriate) David "Shivas" Schmidt first.

[Patrick_Mucci]

et. al.,

The issue of the USGA or any Golf Association monitoring the marking of a golf ball is simple, not difficult.

On the first tee, the official in charge asks the competitors to mark and display their ball to their fellow competitors.

A cheater's line or derivation thereof can be easily spotted and dealt with prior to the start of the round.

Patrick,

I disagree. What about the following ID marks that could all be used to indicate the line of a putt:

:
. .
<
[
(
BBB

If lines / ID marks were not allowed to be used to indicate the putting line, then officials or playing partners would have to monitor the player placing his ball on the green for each putt, not just on the first tee.

Chris,

How many USGA, Regional and State Golf Association events have you competed in ?

If 8-2 b was clarified by the USGA to support Shivas's position, are you telling me that you'd knowingly cheat ?

That you'd risk the stigma associated with those actions ?
That you'd risk your standing in the competitive arena ?

If a competitor started aligning the marks to aid him in determining the line, how long do you think it would be before his fellow competitors brought it to the attention of the officials ?

You can cheat now, you can use a non-conforming ball, switch balls on the green, change the ball type during the course of a round where the one ball rule is in affect, or, all of the above.  

But, do you want to be known by your peers as a cheater ?
Do you want to be sanctioned by the GA ?

Golf's a game of honor, and those who knowingly violate the rules have no place in golf.

So, have at it, try to gain an edge at the expense of your integrity, character and reputation.

People who do that usually end up playing in onesomes

[CHrisB]

et. al.,

The issue of the USGA or any Golf Association monitoring the marking of a golf ball is simple, not difficult.

On the first tee, the official in charge asks the competitors to mark and display their ball to their fellow competitors.

A cheater's line or derivation thereof can be easily spotted and dealt with prior to the start of the round.

Patrick,

I disagree. What about the following ID marks that could all be used to indicate the line of a putt:

:
. .
<
[
(
BBB

If lines / ID marks were not allowed to be used to indicate the putting line, then officials or playing partners would have to monitor the player placing his ball on the green for each putt, not just on the first tee.

Chris,

How many USGA, Regional and State Golf Association events have you competed in ?

I have competed in USGA, R&A, Regional and State Golf association events--100's in all--for over 25 years now.

I remind you that the Rules of Golf apply not only to these events but to all levels of competition and to regular play.

But that is tangential to the issue. You said that the issue of the USGA or any Golf Association monitoring the marking of a golf ball could occur on the first tee, and I pointed out that it is not that simple, that the monitoring would have to occur on each green.

If 8-2 b was clarified by the USGA to support Shivas's position, are you telling me that you'd knowingly cheat ?

Of course I wouldn't cheat -- but it's not me I'm worried about. I don't want to have to monitor my competitors to see if they are using their golf ball ID marker to line up a putt or not.

That you'd risk the stigma associated with those actions ?
That you'd risk your standing in the competitive arena ?

Again, it's not me I'm worried about.

If a competitor started aligning the marks to aid him in determining the line, how long do you think it would be before his fellow competitors brought it to the attention of the officials ?

It depends on the type of ID mark. As even one dot can be used to align a ball to the putting line, you might have to be pretty close to the player to catch him.

You can cheat now, you can use a non-conforming ball, switch balls on the green, change the ball type during the course of a round where the one ball rule is in affect, or, all of the above.  

But, do you want to be known by your peers as a cheater ?
Do you want to be sanctioned by the GA ?

Golf's a game of honor, and those who knowingly violate the rules have no place in golf.

So, have at it, try to gain an edge at the expense of your integrity, character and reputation.

People who do that usually end up playing in onesomes

If only that were true.

[Michael Moore]

A cheater's line or derivation thereof can be easily spotted and dealt with prior to the start of the round.

5th hole

Player A - "OK, this is a provisional. Titleist 3 with a short line."

Player B - "Hold on, we need to get an official over here before you put that in play."

[CHrisB]

Shivas,

Ths problem is that, once you disallow an ID mark to be used for alignment on the putting green, then mustn't you also disallow the trademark or anything else that appears on the ball straight from the manufacturer (for example, the aimer line on the Titleist Pro V1's) from being used to align the ball as well? If so, then mustn't you also disallow lines (either drawn by the player or made by the manufacturer) on putter heads as well?

If not, why not?

[CHrisB]

OK, I think I get it now...am I right in saying, then, you would like the USGA to repeal Decision 20-3a/2?

20-3a/2 Trademark Aimed Along Line of Putt When Ball Replaced


Q. When a player is replacing his ball, is it permissible for him to position the ball so that the trademark is aimed along the line of putt to indicate the line of play?

A. Yes.

Because that is what would have to happen for the cheater line to be disallowed--there is no practical difference between using a cheater line to align your ball and using the trademark, as they both "eliminate the skill of aligning himself properly from above the ball at address". Correct?

[John_Cullum]

Remember that putter that could stand up on its own that came out about a decade ago?  I'd ban that.  Why?  Because it enables the player to blow off alignment skills at address and get the putter aligned from a position behind the ball prior to address.  Did that thing get banned, or was that declared legal?  Anybody know?  To me, that thing was just "Cheater line on a Stick".    

Surprisingly, no. That issue was revisited recently with the Ping Doc putters. The early prototype would stand on its own, so Ping modified it. I came across some other putter that would stand up, and recalling the Ping Doc story, I called the USGA and they said it was not prohibited.

[CHrisB]

Ding, ding, ding...

Bingo.  Yes.  Correct.  I'd like to see them apply the exact same reasoning they applied in Decision 14-2/4 (the Johnny Miller decision) and say "folks, we were wrong.  If you can't have a caddie behind you lining you up, you can't have a little linear caddie on your ball doing the exact same thing.  Line you damn putter up with your own skills, not props, and get back to playing the game."

Gotcha. As someone said in one of those Indiana Jones movies, "In that case, may God be with you in your quest." Please keep us informed of the USGA's response to your phone call (you know that an email is much much easier to blow off than someone on the phone line who can press the issue -- they're not going to hang up on you. Tell them you're doing research on the evolution of the rules or something kinda true ).

Again, I don't use a "cheater line", but I have no real problem with those who do, I don't care for the term, and I stand by my statement that if the USGA allows the practice, then a player doing it is absolutely not cheating.

[Doug Sobieski]

It's not the marks themselves that are the issue.  Any mark on the ball would remain perfectly legal.  The issue is their use.  The issue is whether a guy is lining them up on purpose.  

Shiv:

Clarify something for me. Under your Rules regime, what if a player had the line on his ball, and when it came to rest on the putting green after a stroke from off the green and before he ever marked it, the line was pointing exactly on his line of putt. Would he be subject to penalty? What if in that same situation, he marked his ball and put it back exactly as it was, with the line pointing to his line of putt? Should he be obligated to rotate the ball (thereby putting the first instance of a balls rotational axes into the Rule Book)?

Is the administration of such a rule really a red herring? I'd like to know how you would propose to word the rule so that it can easily be understood without a ruling official on the scene. The Rules endeavor to treat like situations alike (this is normally mentioned in the first 15 minutes of any USGA Rules Workshop). Whether or not a player placed his ball with the line pointing in the cheater position, or if it came to rest in that way on its own can't be treated differently. Believe it or not, some Rules are written specifically so that a player doesn't unknowingly become subject to penalty. What about blind golfers that inadvertantly place the line in a cheater position? Now you are talking solely about intent, and the Rules try to provide traction on that slippery slope.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Here's some research on the mention of a line or mark on the putting green and/or to indicate a line for putting in the Rules of Golf in the last century:

I only went back as far as the turn of the 20th century but at that time there was wording in the Rules that no mark shall be placed on the putting green. Nothing about "to indicate a line for putting" at that time.

1950 was the first appearance of the words "to indicate a line of putt" behind the wording "No mark to be placed on the Putting Green"

That basic wording remained in the Rules until 1888.

In 1984 the Rules of Golf were completely rewritten and reformatted and all kinds of Rules were reshuffled around into their own Rules or other Rules.

Before that was done in 1984 there were over forty separate Rules in the Rules book and for many decades this wording appeared under the Rule for the Putting Green generall as Rule 35.

In 1984 this wording was finally taken out of the Putting Green Rule and placed into a Rule entitled "Advice: Indicating line of Play". That was Rule 8 and it still is.

All those years this violation or prohibition had been worded either:

"No mark to be placed on the putting green",

then,

"No mark to be placed on the putting green to indicate the line of putt",

and finally 1988,

"A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting".

Again, there is no question in my mind that the USGA/R&A does not consider the use of an "identification" mark or line on a golf ball to be a violation of Rule 8-2b or any other Rule of Golf. That fact is pretty obvious as that practice has never been called as a violation anywhere at any time.

My guess is that in 1988 probably due to an editing or publishing error "on the putting green" was omitted from the last sentence of Rule 8-2b and it has not been picked up on in the last twenty years.  

[John_Cullum]

My guess is that in 1988 probably due to an editing or publishing error "on the putting green" was omitted from the last sentence of Rule 8-2b and it has not been picked up on in the last twenty years.  

I would guess that someone at the USGA figured out that the rule as written did not prohibit placing a marker somewhere off of the putting green.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, this research ought to be something because the only logical thing to conclude from the history of the wording of this rule is that they intended the prohibition to be marks on the putting green until 1988 and then they decided to expand it by pulling the restriction "on the putting green" in 1988.  I'm sorry if you fail to see the logic of that, but that's the only logical conclusion that the 99% of the civilized world that isn't certifiably nuts could ever possibly draw!  You are right though that I have absolutely no idea how these rules get interpreted because they are not interpreted according to what I know to be logic."

Shivas:

They decided to expand it in 1988, did they, David?

Expand it to what?

Expand it to make lining up manufacturer's trademark lines on golf balls to indicate the line for putting a violation of Rule 8-2b??

Why then has Dec. 20-3a/2 remainded in the Decisions book for the last twenty years??

Why has no Rules official in the last twenty years ever called a player for violating Rule 8-2b for using an "identification" mark on a golf ball to align the ball for the purpose of indicating a line for putting??

Why hasn't a single person in that 99% of the civilized world ever mentioned this?

Do you think the Rules writers and Rules bodies decided in 1988 to expand Rule 8-2b to a mark or line anywhere at all and for some odd reason just forgot to tell anybody about it like all their Rules officials??

Do you realize we all go to Rules classes all the time??

Do you think for some odd reason they forgot to tell their Rules seminar teachers about this too?

What kind of world of lack of logic do you live in anyway?