Shivas's cheater line

[CHrisB]

Shivas,

Here's what's puzzling me.

Why are so many arguing in favor of keeping the Cheater's Line legal ?

What does that tell you about the state of "the spirit of the game" ?

Patrick,

I can't speak for others, but I'll give my answer.

To me, the "cheater line" issue is a very interesting one because I agree that using it could seem to run contrary to the rules, and yet the USGA has not done anything to ban it, and at this point, doesn't appear to want to ban it.

Why not?

I don't believe in the flip answers of "because we said so" or "because that's the way we've always done it". I believe (even if you don't) that there must be some real reasoning behind their decision not to ban it, and that when they say that it would be impractical to try to regulate the way the ball is marked, I believe (even if you don't) that there must be some real reasoning behind them saying that. And that's what I've focused on.

I've never said that the cheater line shouldn't be banned, only that it would be harder than you think it would be to do it.

You, Shivas, and anyone else who wants to see the rule changed should make an airtight presentation to the USGA and try to get it changed. Go for it--It would be a hell of an accomplishment. But you'll have to deal with many of the issues I and others have brought up in this thread in order to make a convincing case.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Now I'm totally confused about your position.

Is it your position that a cheater line must be drawn around the full circumference of the ball in a continuous line to be a cheater line ?

That's certainly a cheater's line.[/color]

It appears that is what you are supporting.  

Not solely[/color]

If so, then the line I draw over the Titleist provided line is not a cheater line at all as it does not traverse over the full circumference of the line.  

You told us that you drew a line over the name Maxfli.
I don't consider that to be a cheater's line since the same effect could be derived from the name "Maxfli'

As to the new line that Titleist has put on their golf balls, that's clearly a manufacturer induced cheater's line.[/color]

In fact, the seam is more of a cheater line than anything I draw on it.

That's absurd, as is the concept of lining up the seem.
You can't see the seem from 2-4-6 feet away.[/color]

And you note, "that line is too short to be efficient."  Are we talking about putting efficiency?  

I'm talking about efficiency in aiding alignment in the context of a line that's about .5 inches long.[/color]

I thought we were worried about the spirit of the game and pace of play?  Efficiency ?

Since you haven't understand the use of words outlining various positions, let me try to clarify them for you.

A dot on a golf ball is not sufficient enough to offer a substantive aid in determining the line of a putt.

Dots close together also fail to offer substantive aids.

It's only when you add the linear element in the context of sufficient length when marking the ball that you gain efficiency with respect to producing a substantive aid.

And, in so doing, you violate the spirit of the game as well as a strict interpretation of 8-2 b.

I hope that helps[/color]
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

Here's what's puzzling me.

Why are so many arguing in favor of keeping the Cheater's Line legal ?

What does that tell you about the state of "the spirit of the game" ?

Patrick,

I can't speak for others, but I'll give my answer.

To me, the "cheater line" issue is a very interesting one because I agree that using it could seem to run contrary to the rules, and yet the USGA has not done anything to ban it, and at this point, doesn't appear to want to ban it.

Why not?

Chris, I think the answer is self evident.

Ask yourself, how long did it take the USGA to come up with their NEW ban on GROOVES ?  5 years ?  10 years ?  More ?

Just because the USGA doesn't address an issue doesn't mean that they're in agreement with the status quo.[/color]

I don't believe in the flip answers of "because we said so" or "because that's the way we've always done it". I believe (even if you don't) that there must be some real reasoning behind their decision not to ban it, and that when they say that it would be impractical to try to regulate the way the ball is marked, I believe (even if you don't) that there must be some real reasoning behind them saying that. And that's what I've focused on.

Chris, I believe the answer is simple.
The last time the USGA and R&A got together to discuss and decide on the rules was 2004, when the cheater line was either in its infancy or not yet a factor.

In January of 2008 the USGA and R&A will again meet to discuss and decide on the rules.  Let's see if they address the issue at that time.  If they do, great.  If they don't, you can't draw a single, definitive conclusion for their passing on the issue.[/color]

I've never said that the cheater line shouldn't be banned, only that it would be harder than you think it would be to do it.

I strongly disagree with that.
You've played enough to discern if someone's aligning their ball when they replace it. [/color]

You, Shivas, and anyone else who wants to see the rule changed should make an airtight presentation to the USGA and try to get it changed. Go for it--It would be a hell of an accomplishment. But you'll have to deal with many of the issues I and others have brought up in this thread in order to make a convincing case.

I don't think you need to make an airtight case.
I think it's self evident in terms of the spirit of the game.
All you have to do is to have the USGA be a strict constuctionist of 8-2 b.[/color]

[JR Potts]

Now I'm totally confused about your position.

Is it your position that a cheater line must be drawn around the full circumference of the ball in a continuous line to be a cheater line ?

That's certainly a cheater's line.[/color]

It appears that is what you are supporting.  

Not solely[/color]

If so, then the line I draw over the Titleist provided line is not a cheater line at all as it does not traverse over the full circumference of the line.  

You told us that you drew a line over the name Maxfli.
I don't consider that to be a cheater's line since the same effect could be derived from the name "Maxfli'

As to the new line that Titleist has put on their golf balls, that's clearly a manufacturer induced cheater's line.[/color]

In fact, the seam is more of a cheater line than anything I draw on it.

That's absurd, as is the concept of lining up the seem.
You can't see the seem from 2-4-6 feet away.[/color]

And you note, "that line is too short to be efficient."  Are we talking about putting efficiency?  

I'm talking about efficiency in aiding alignment in the context of a line that's about .5 inches long.[/color]

I thought we were worried about the spirit of the game and pace of play?  Efficiency ?

Since you haven't understand the use of words outlining various positions, let me try to clarify them for you.

A dot on a golf ball is not sufficient enough to offer a substantive aid in determining the line of a putt.

Dots close together also fail to offer substantive aids.

It's only when you add the linear element in the context of sufficient length when marking the ball that you gain efficiency with respect to producing a substantive aid.

And, in so doing, you violate the spirit of the game as well as a strict interpretation of 8-2 b.

I hope that helps[/color]
 

It doesn't.

Please let me know what is "sufficient length" and what is "insignificant length."  

Obviously the line I use isn't long enough to be efficient.  How efficient must a line be to be considered "efficient"?

Also, please let me know how playing competitors and rules officials are supposed to assess "substantive aid" in the spirit of your proposed change.  Is "non-substative aid" as the cheater line was placed in a "non-substantive" direction a defense?

Also, please let me know how far away one must be able to see the line for it to fall into the category of "cheater line."

Thank you for your clarifications and future clarifications as I "haven't understand the use of words outlining various positions."  As you have proclaimed, I'm dumb and need all the help I can get.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It doesn't.

Then, have someone explain it to you[/color]

Please let me know what is "sufficient length" and what is "insignificant length."  

Obviously the line I use isn't long enought to be efficient.  How efficient must a line be to be considered "efficient."


The line becomes efficient when it first qualifies as an aid in determining the line.  Surely, even you can understand that.[/color]

Also, please let me know how playing competitors and rules officials are supposed to assess "substantive aid" in the spirit of your proposed change.

If I do everything for you, you'll never learn to think for yourself.

The threshold is when the markings do more than ID the ball.[/color]

Is "non-substative aid" as the cheater line was placed in a "non-substantive" direction a defense?

Haven't you been reading this thread ?
Haven't you read 8-2 b ?
A strict construction of 8-2 b solves all of the problems, including the absurd one you posted above.[/color]

Also, please let me know how far away one must be able to see the line for it to fall into the category of "cheater line."

Don't try to deflect the issue.
You were dumb enough to suggest that you could line up the seem of the ball when you can't even see the seem of the ball from 2-4-6 feet.

As to how far away one would have to be, the answer is again simple, only as far as the starter's table.   Please reread 8-2 b in the context of strict construction, as it will answer these dumb questions before you type them.[/color]

Thank you for your clarifications and future clarifications as I "haven't understand the use of words outlining various positions."  

That's obvious to everyone.[/color]

As you have proclaimed, I'm dumb and need all the help I can get.

You've already made that obvious by the nature and content of the questions you've posed.  Reread 8-2 b from the perspective of a strict constructionist as it answers all of the questions you've posed, are going to pose, or are thinking of posing.[/color]

[JR Potts]

Reread 8-2 b from the perspective of a strict constructionist as it answers all of the questions you've posed, are going to pose, or are thinking of posing.[/b][/color]

Now we've moved onto strict construction as the only way to buttress this idiocity.  No wonder I've always hated Scalia and Thomas.

More often than not, a hard-on for strict construction will do nothing more than steer one into unworkable absolutes and self-righteous insubordination.

I believe you have found yourself there.

BTW - You just aged yourself again, I can easily see the seam of the ball when putting and driving.

[TEPaul]

"Shivas and Tom
While I accept that the R&A/USGA are the final arbiters of the rules and decisions, golfers still have to 'read' the rules in order to be able to apply them in the course of a round when a handy official is nowhere to be found. This is the reason I expect why the rules are printed in a handy pocket size booklet that we can all carry in our golf bags, otherwise the only copy of the rules would be in R&A/USGA headquarters and we would all play in the dark. Individual golfers' interpretations during a round are the first line up a chain, then to club officials and upwards to the governing bodies. While one individual's interpretation may not be supported finally by the wisdom of the governing bodies, we all have a right and a need to interpret and 'read' the rules each and every time we play.


Neil:

That is perhaps the most common-sensical post in this entire thread.

Of course everyday golfers who wish to play by the Rules of Golf need a code of rules that is understandable, and frankly the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf are eminently that if one doesn't attempt to needlessly complicate them and their interpretations.

In everyday play the object is that golfers agree on a procedure of play within the Rules, period. The Rules of the USGA/R&A provide that. If you have an over-arching lawyer in your recreational group on a Saturday morning who goes into the type of hair-splitting argumentation Shivas has on this thread with this practice of lining up the ball then the Rules interpreters are readily there to lend a hand in the resolution of some misunderstanding.

If one is playing in a competition then the "committee" in one ramped up degree or another is there to lend a hand and make a decision and that's the point too.

My point is if the likes of a Mucci or a Schmidt think they have some logic, or moral ground or reasonable proposal to actually change the way the Rules writers interpret the Rules of Golf then that mechanism is available to them too.

[Doug Siebert]

Shivas,

Here's what's puzzling me.

Why are so many arguing in favor of keeping the Cheater's Line legal ?

What does that tell you about the state of "the spirit of the game" ?

Tells me everything I need to know about the large number -- even on this board -- who argue against any need or necessity of making rule changes to counteract the technological equipment advances that have noticeably deskilled the game, particularly within the last 10 years.

I guess too many people feel that anything that makes golf easier for them is automatically a good thing, and don't realize that shooting lower scores or achieving a lower handicap, when the range and depth of skills required is reduced.  I guess that's appealing to some people who never had all the skills to begin with.

Perhaps few are immune to this.  Didn't Ben Hogan suggest (not sure how seriously) that putting had too great of importance in the game of golf, and that putts should count as only 1/2 a stroke?

[Bryan Izatt]

Chris Brauner said:

"The positions I do have related to this issue are:
(i) the cheater line is not against the rules as currently written, and so anyone doing it is not cheating."

Patrick Mucci responded:

................................................

 

Show us where this written interpretation appears in the Rules of Golf or in the Decisions,  the only two documents that carry authority when it comes to the Rules of golf.[/color]

................................................

Patrick, you are very precise here about these documents being the only authoritative documents.  I suspect that this has been dealt with in the preceding 19 pages, but what, in your opinion,  is the import of the FAQs page on the USGA web site.  Do the FAQs have no authority?  What's the point in posting them if they are without authority or meaning?  Should we ignore them when making rules decisions?

The pertinent FAQ, of course, is,

"Rule 6-5

Lines or Arrows Used to mark Golf Ball

Q.  It is recommended placing an identification mark on my golf ball. May I use a line or an arrow that will also help me align the club face?

A.  Rules 6-5 and 12-2 state that each player should put an identification mark on his ball. Thus, the Rules do not limit the type of markings a player may put on the ball (i.e. arrows, lines, words, etc). Additionally, there is no penalty for using such lines to "line up" prior to a stroke on the putting green or any place else on the course."

The USGA clearly states you can use lines as identification marks and that you can use the line to line up a putt.  Do you suppose that the USGA posted this FAQ permitting the use of a line on the ball for alignment purposes, while meaning that rule 8-2b prohibited you from using a line on the ball for alignment purposes?  Do you think the FAQs people don't talk to the Rules and Decisions people?

[JESII]

Shivas and Pat,

Under your proposal, would random placement be the only way to replace your ball on the green after having marked it?

If so, who is going to judge the appropriate randomness?

As I said earlier (and you both ignored) I place the ball with as much white as possible facing up. I do however try to align the Titleist logo so I hit it square in the face. If I have a putt with any break, I try to place the ball down so the putter will make contact square to the logo. How is this not cheating in your rules regime? How would you expect me to monitor this type of placement for each of my playing partners?

On top of all of this, I don't believe it actually helps at all either when you line it up perfectly.

Now, back to the real point of this issue...pace of play...why shouldn't every shot have a shot clock beginning the moment the player is clear to play?

[Craig Sweet]

Isn't this thread way OT?  Who started it?

[JESII]

That's where I think you are wrong in your interpretation of policing this after the fact...under your rules, my method would be a violation in my book (does that make any sense at all?). I have intentionally placed my ball in a manner to aid (maybe just a little, and maybe it did not take long, but I DID) in alignment.

Under your proposal, the only way to safely replace your ball on the green is by a different method on each green. And you expect me to monitor you doing that...

The real issue I have with your proposal is the enforcement of it. It will be a nightmare. You think not, but it will require you to observe most everyting I do while on the green.

On top of that, I still do not believe you have substantiated your claim that alignment is a fundamental part of the game in which the player is not to recieve any assitance from his golf ball...if you did, and I missed it, I apologize, I'll go look if you say you provided some sort of documentation.

p.s. I guarantee I could gain alignment help from a dot on the ball, so keep that in mind with your rules as well...

[JESII]

Oh, and for that weak right mid-to-short iron, just move the ball an inch forward in your stance...

[Doug Sobieski]

Shiv:

Is there an assumption under your premise that EVERYONE reads greens the same, as well as correctly? What if a guy after reading the green wrong sets his cheater line on an improper line, thereby insuring he won't make the putt? Should I penalize him, of just let him miss the putt anyway? What if a guy puts his ball down randomly, and the line points to the correct line of putt, but he's unaware that that is the line of putt? What if the hole and the ball are situated so that there could be several correct lines allowing a person to make the putt?

Any comment on what Bryan posted regarding the USGA's written position on the matter?

[JR Potts]

Dare I start a thread on seaming the ball on my tee shots?

[JESII]

Doug,

The one point Shivas has made that I clearly understand what he is talking about is that his penalties will be based on intent. Therefore, random placement is fine no matter where the line points, and misreading the green does not matter, point the line at your target and your getting hit with strokes...even if the target was wrong...

Should be pretty easy to enforce...and well worth it too...

[John_Cullum]

Dare I start a thread on seaming the ball on my tee shots?

I've already mentioned that one.

I would hope under the Shivas/Mucci rules we would get an interpretation that it is not considered marking your line of play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Reread 8-2 b from the perspective of a strict constructionist as it answers all of the questions you've posed, are going to pose, or are thinking of posing.[/b][/color]

Now we've moved onto strict construction as the only way to buttress this idiocity.  No wonder I've always hated Scalia and Thomas.

How many times must I tell you to get someone to read and interpret what's written.  You're incapable of understanding what's been said, choosing to interject what's convenient for you because you have to defend your use of the cheater's line.[/color]

More often than not, a hard-on for strict construction will do nothing more than steer one into unworkable absolutes and self-righteous insubordination.

More irrelevant babble from you.  I would expect nothing less.[/color]

I believe you have found yourself there.

BTW - You just aged yourself again, I can easily see the seam of the ball when putting and driving.

How much are you willing to bet, that you can EASILY see the seem on the ball while putting and driving ?

If I "white out" the reference points, the labels and numbers, you won't know which end is up, which isn't unusual for you.

My vision is 20-20, yours is a figment of your imagination and false bravado.[/color]
 

[Doug Sobieski]

Doug,

The one point Shivas has made that I clearly understand what he is talking about is that his penalties will be based on intent. Therefore, random placement is fine no matter where the line points, and misreading the green does not matter, point the line at your target and your getting hit with strokes...even if the target was wrong...

Should be pretty easy to enforce...and well worth it too...

I understand the intent part. But there will certainly be situations that could be misinterpreted by the person trying to assess the penalty. Someone could be trying to place it randomly, it points on what someone else views as the correct line and they think it looked deliberate, and there is too much to debate.

Of those of us that have officiated regularly, I doubt that there are any that think that it would be easy to enforce such a rule that is based on perceived intent and/or the orientation of the golf ball, and still allows markings on the golf ball. You can't base a rule on what is going through someone's mind. It's much easier said than done.

I've yet to see anyone suggest proposed language for such a rule that would allow it to be easily enforced. If someone comes up with something, I'd like to see it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Isn't this thread way OT?  

No, it's not.

Had you taken the time to read the initial post, the one that started this thread, especially paragraphs # 3 and # 4, you would have seen that it's NOT off topic.

Try comprehensive reading and not select reading, it gives you a better perspective.[/color]


Who started it?

I did.
You would have known that if you'd read the initial post with any degree of reading comprehension.

Go back and read paragraphs # 3 and # 4 and then tell us how this thread is OT.   If you're unable to do that, an apology would be appropriate.[/color]

[John_Cullum]

I still maintain that rule 8-2b is very easily, and correctly, construed to allow placing a mark on the ball to assist in alignment.

Now whether that somehow violates the spirit of the game remains a point for debate.

[Kyle Harris]

Not having my copy of the rule book handy...

How does the rule for placing a foreign substance on the ball read?

Any relevant decisions?

[CHrisB]

Shivas,

I perfectly understand your position. It's a quite simple one, actually--ban any mark used anywhere to indicate a line for putting. So I am listening. I just must not be making my argument clear or well enough, so I'm going to try one more time. Again, the argument is that regulating and enforcing that ban will be more difficult than you would think.

In the case of the ball bumper, there is a crystal clear guideline for determining if the ball has moved and a penalty should be incurred:

A ball is deemed to have “moved’’ if it leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place.

Pretty simple to judge whether the ball has moved--either the ball rolls somewhere; moves downward in high grass, bush, etc.; or it rocks ever so slightly so that the orientation of the ball has changed. Every rules official everywhere will use the same judgment to determine whether a violation has occurred.

In the case of teeing off ahead of the tee markers, there is a crystal-clear guideline for determining is a player has done so and a penalty should be incurred:

The “teeing ground’’ is the starting place for the hole to be played. It is a rectangular area two club-lengths in depth, the front and the sides of which are defined by the outside limits of two tee-markers. A ball is outside the teeing ground when all of it lies outside the teeing ground.

Very simple to judge whether a ball is ahead of the tee markers. The entire ball would have to be ahead of the line created by the front edge of the tee markers. Every rules official everywhere will use the same judgment to determine whether a violation has occurred.

If you are going to ban the use of any mark on the golf ball to indicate a line for putting, a guideline like those above will have to be used to determine if a violation has occurred. You have to be able to judge if a ball sitting one way indicates the line, and a ball sitting another way does not. This is where you have to think beyond the cheater line, and take into account all other kinds of marks--trademarks, shapes, a series of dots, and even a single dot.

Given that lines, trademarks, shapes, a series of dots, and even a single dot could be used to indicate a line for putting, how would you write a reasonably simple guideline for determining whether a mark on the ball has been used to indicate a line for putting? A guideline written so that every rules official everywhere will use the same judgment to determine whether a violation has occurred?

I can start it for you, but you'll have to take it from there:

A mark on the ball is deemed to indicate the line for putting when...

[Doug Sobieski]

Shivas,

I perfectly understand your position. It's a quite simple one, actually--ban any mark used anywhere to indicate a line for putting. So I am listening. I just must not be making my argument clear or well enough, so I'm going to try one more time. Again, the argument is that regulating and enforcing that ban will be more difficult than you would think.

In the case of the ball bumper, there is a crystal clear guideline for determining if the ball has moved and a penalty should be incurred:

A ball is deemed to have “moved’’ if it leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place.

Pretty simple to judge whether the ball has moved--either the ball rolls somewhere; moves downward in high grass, bush, etc.; or it rocks ever so slightly so that the orientation of the ball has changed. Every rules official everywhere will use the same judgment to determine whether a violation has occurred.

In the case of teeing off ahead of the tee markers, there is a crystal-clear guideline for determining is a player has done so and a penalty should be incurred:

The “teeing ground’’ is the starting place for the hole to be played. It is a rectangular area two club-lengths in depth, the front and the sides of which are defined by the outside limits of two tee-markers. A ball is outside the teeing ground when all of it lies outside the teeing ground.

Very simple to judge whether a ball is ahead of the tee markers. The entire ball would have to be ahead of the line created by the front edge of the tee markers. Every rules official everywhere will use the same judgment to determine whether a violation has occurred.

If you are going to ban the use of any mark on the golf ball to indicate a line for putting, a guideline like those above will have to be used to determine if a violation has occurred. You have to be able to judge if a ball sitting one way indicates the line, and a ball sitting another way does not. This is where you have to think beyond the cheater line, and take into account all other kinds of marks--trademarks, shapes, a series of dots, and even a single dot.

Given that lines, trademarks, shapes, a series of dots, and even a single dot could be used to indicate a line for putting, how would you write a reasonably simple guideline for determining whether a mark on the ball has been used to indicate a line for putting? A guideline written so that every rules official everywhere will use the same judgment to determine whether a violation has occurred?

I can start it for you, but you'll have to take it from there:

A mark on the ball is deemed to indicate the line for putting when...

Chris,

Thank you for that. You and I think a lot alike. I feel sorry for you

Doug

Of those of us that have officiated regularly, I doubt that there are any that think that it would be easy to enforce such a rule that is based on perceived intent and/or the orientation of the golf ball, and still allows markings on the golf ball. You can't base a rule on what is going through someone's mind. It's much easier said than done.

I've yet to see anyone suggest proposed language for such a rule that would allow it to be easily enforced. If someone comes up with something, I'd like to see it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan Izatt,

I believe that the only two authoritive documents concerning the rules of golf are "The Rules of Golf" and the "Decisions" book.  Absent clarification from those two documents I don't see how you can rely on outside sources, irrespective of their origin.

You and others seem to labor under the false impression that I believe that a Cheater's Line is currently illegal.
My point, and perhaps Shivas's, but, I'll let him speak for himself, is that the USGA could easily declare it illegal with the language as it is under 8-2 b, with either an edit of 8-2 b or a clarification in the Decisions book.  The joint rules review between the USGA and the R&A will be conducted in January of 2008.  One would hope that two of the governing bodies of golf would examine the Cheater's Line and markings for that purpose in the context of the spirit of the game and the pace of play.

Sean Arble,

I discussed the issue of player drawn lines for aiding in determining the line and manufacturer drawn lines for aiding in determining the line, and I think both violate the spirit of the game and slow down the pace of play.

My preference is to eradicate/prohibit both

JES II,

You've played enough golf to recognize when a player is lining up marks on his ball for the purpose of using those marks as an aid to determine the line.

Let me quote the USGA's stated position on the "Spirit of the Game"

"Unlike many sports, golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire.  the game RELIES on the INTEGRITY of the individual to show consideration for other players and to abide by the RULES.  All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be.  This is the spirit of the game of golf."

If 8-2 b was deemed to be strictly adhered to, as per Shivas, I have no doubt that the great, great, great majority of golfers would adhere to it, especially golfers who compete and who value their reputation in and out of the golfing world.

As to your question relative to pace of play, I don't believe in micro managing a round, there's too much ebb and flow.

I believe in time out, time in, take the differential and it shouldn't be more that 3.5 hours with no more than the gap in tee off times seperating one group from the next.

What happens in between is of no consequence to me due to all of the variables.

As an example, someone's over a difficult putt, and as they're about to take the putter back, a bug flies into their eye.
They have to stop, clear their eye, recover and begin the process anew.  Should that person be penalized ?
I don't think so.  Removing micro management from the equation also makes for a more comfortable round.

Kyle Warren Harris,

The critical language under 5-2 is, "for the purpose of changing its playing characteristics."

But, that could be amended to, "or for aiding in indicating the line" for both 8-2 a and 8-2 b.