[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

Once you remove the linear nature of the ID dots, your issue evaporates.

I believe that Chris Brauner and I are in harmony on this issue.

I ask again, why is there support for the Cheater's line ?

The answer that the Rules allow it, doesn't speak to the spirit of the game, just like the rules allow me to "accidently"  putt into a fellow competitor, caddy or equipment and gain the benefit of either getting to putt again or allowing the stroke to remain as played in match play.  Or "accidently" using the fellow competitor, his caddy or his equipment to be a backstop in medal play, without any penalty.

There's form and there's substance.

I understand the form, I want to understand the substance from those who support using a Cheater's Line  

[JESII]

Pat,

My position is less about supporting its use than it is about understanding the reasoning behind not banning its use.

You have both suggested that enforcement would be very easy. On the surface I agree, but how would you resolve the issue of me accusing another player of using a mark on his ball to indicate a line for his putt? This, of course, assumes the accused denies it...

[JESII]

JES II,

Once you remove the linear nature of the ID dots, your issue evaporates.

I believe that Chris Brauner and I are in harmony on this issue.

You are huh...does he know that? Or are you just making him aware of that now...

[CHrisB]

JES II,

Once you remove the linear nature of the ID dots, your issue evaporates.

I believe that Chris Brauner and I are in harmony on this issue.

Sorry Patrick--we may be in harmony on a lot of things but not this one.

I also don't oppose any effort to ban the cheater line or any other mark on the ball used to indicate a line for putting, but I just don't think it will be so easy to regulate and enforce.

I believe that shapes, trademarks, words and even a single dot on a golf ball can indicate a line for putting. The fact that using these other types of marks would be inferior to using a line doesn't matter w.r.t. the rules; if it can be done, the rules would have to deal with it.

That's why I think that, while a ban on using ID marks on golf balls to indicate the line for putting would seem to be called for, it would be harder than people think to regulate and enforce. How do you come up with a clear guideline to determine if one mark indicates the line for putting while another does not?

Patrick, I'm only guessing here but I believe you would have that guideline read something like "a mark on the ball is deemed to indicate a line for putting if it is linear in nature (be it continuous or segmented) and if the ball is oriented such that the configuration of the mark is parallel to the putting line".

In my view, the problem with such a guideline is that players would then attempt to use all of these other kinds of marks--shapes, trademarks, words and even a single dot--to get around the new guideline, and then you're stuck with the same slow play considerations and the same violations of the spirit if not letter of the rule.

Rules officials everywhere will have to use the same guideline to determine if a mark on the golf ball indicates the line or not.

Consider the following ID marks (and these are the easy cases):


What is the guideline that should be written to clearly determine that these marks, as well as the cheater line and other more obvious lines, indicate a line for putting? A guideline written so that every rules official everywhere uses the same judgment to determine if a rules violation has occurred?

And we haven't even discussed logoed golf balls yet. What's the guideline that a rules official would have to use to determine if these logoes determine a line for putting?


Is the word "Steelers" long enough to indicate the line? Are the tips of Bevo's horns or ears "linear"? How about the Merrill Lynch bull's hooves or horns? Are the stripes in the American flag too wavy to indicate a line for putting?

These are the kinds of things that the rules and rules officials may have to answer if they are to regulate and enforce a ban on marks to indicate a line for putting, and I just don't know if that's a path they want to take.

Again, I would fully support such a ban if it can be done, but I sense that the USGA may feel it impractical to do so (see the response that TEPaul posted a few pages back), and if so then this may be part of the reason why.

Of course I don't know for sure, and until the USGA clarifies its position on this issue, we're left to guess and present all sorts of hypothetical ball markings like those above (I'm impartial to Bevo myself)

[JESII]

I'll take a dozen of the Sophia and Brad balls...

[JESII]

Shiv,

How could you not call me for placing the ball the way I do if your rule went through?

[John_Cullum]

I'll take a dozen of the Sophia and Brad balls...

They have an anniversary coming up. We should send them a card

[JESII]

But Dave,

I am telling you that I do gain assistance in lining up my putt from my method because when I approach the ball from behind I am hoping to place the putter directly square (or at least real close) to the logo...you can see the logo when you are approaching, and occassionally you can see it from directly over top. If it is noticeably off, I will adjust it.

[CHrisB]

Chris:

You said:

In my view, the problem with such a guideline is that players would then attempt to use all of these other kinds of marks--shapes, trademarks, words and even a single dot--to get around the new guideline, and then you're stuck with the same slow play considerations and the same violations of the spirit if not letter of the rule.

I STRONGLY disagree.  If this practice was banned, players wouldn't do it anymore.  It'd be more like the paddle grip or croquet style putting or wearing metal spikes.  Players would drop it like a hot potato, and the issue would only come up with the envelope-pushers, the same guys who swipe drivers on the dew.

Shivas,

What I was I was saying was that if the guideline were that ONLY ID marks with a linear component indicate a line for putting (which is what I believe Patrick said), then players would easily get around that in the other ways I mentioned, and you'd have the same problems.

That's why you can't JUST ban the cheater line and other lines, but ALL marks on golf balls used to indicate the line for putting (which is your position). But you then have to be able to determine definitively whether a mark indicates the line or not using some semi-clear guideline, and thus far I have seen no one acknowledge that such a guideline could be written.

Do me a favor and take a stab at this one--Which of the logoed balls below, if they were oriented as they appear in the images, do you think would indicate a line for putting, which would not, and why?


You've already said:

Any of those marks you showed could very easily be placed in the intended line of the putt.  And under my rule, that'd be just fine, so long as they're either (A) unintentional (and extemely strong evidence that they were not would be the fact that they weren't showing up on every putt, or every short putt or whatever) or (B) removed before the stroke, ie spun around a little so that nobody in your group has anything to squalk about.

But you still have to be able to look at a mark on a golf ball and say definitively, as it is sitting there on the ground, whether it indicates the line for putting or not.

What would be the guideline for determining that?

[CHrisB]

And by the way, I notice that in your arguments you lean heavily on the player's intent, but do you think the USGA would really want a new rule that depends so heavily on player intent? I say if a mark indicates the line, it indicates the line whether the player intends for that or not. And I can tell you that players are more often than you think going to put their ball down so that they can see the logo, label, or whatever else. What if it indicates the line?

I was a college golf coach several years back, and practically every ball at every tournament had a college logo on it, and I even saw a guy write the word "TRUST" on the ball as kind of a mental reinforcer--he could align the word "TRUST" so that he can read it when putting, which of course would automatically put it on the line for putting, whether that was his intention or not. Now do you think a USGA rules official, once your new rule is passed, will accept the player's explanation and continue to let him do it? I doubt it. Would he tell him "you can write the word but just make sure it's not linear"? What would he tell the guy who says "I like looking at my Sophia & Brad wedding date when I putt"?

The rules official couldn't just ask the player "what are you trying to do here?" and allow it if the answer was anything other than "I'm helping myself line up my putt". He'd have to tell the player, "here's what you are allowed to do and here's what you're not."

So you can't just go on player intent, and I think the best chance of a rule change in this case is if the rule is written so that player intent isn't even considered--you break the rule whether you meant to or not (like most other rules of golf).

And so again, you'll need to have a guideline for determining, irrespective of the player's intent, whether a mark on a golf ball indicates the line for putting or not. What is it about the mark, the way it appears on the golf ball and the way the ball is oriented, that leads one to conclude that it indicates the line for putting? And I have yet to see anyone demonstrate whether such a guideline can be written.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

Once you remove the linear nature of the ID dots, your issue evaporates.

I believe that Chris Brauner and I are in harmony on this issue.

Sorry Patrick--we may be in harmony on a lot of things but not this one.

I also don't oppose any effort to ban the cheater line or any other mark on the ball used to indicate a line for putting, but I just don't think it will be so easy to regulate and enforce.

I believe that shapes, trademarks, words and even a single dot on a golf ball can indicate a line for putting. The fact that using these other types of marks would be inferior to using a line doesn't matter w.r.t. the rules; if it can be done, the rules would have to deal with it.

Chris,

It's been my experience that golfers adhere to the rules and that they don't look for ways to circumvent them.

Irrespective of the type of marking, you know, by the way a golfer replaces his ball, if he's aligning it.  It's not complicated, the golfer has to get down behind his ball and align the Cheater Marks.  That act would be a violation irrespective of what the marks looked like.[/color]

That's why I think that, while a ban on using ID marks on golf balls to indicate the line for putting would seem to be called for, it would be harder than people think to regulate and enforce. How do you come up with a clear guideline to determine if one mark indicates the line for putting while another does not?

That's simple, by the process the golfer goes through in replacing his ball and aligning the markings along the intended line of play.

Like "obscenity", you KNOW it when you see it.[/color]

Patrick, I'm only guessing here but I believe you would have that guideline read something like "a mark on the ball is deemed to indicate a line for putting if it is linear in nature (be it continuous or segmented) and if the ball is oriented such that the configuration of the mark is parallel to the putting line".

You'd have to add a paragraph about replacing the ball and aligning any markings to aid in deteriming the line.[/color]

In my view, the problem with such a guideline is that players would then attempt to use all of these other kinds of marks--shapes, trademarks, words and even a single dot--to get around the new guideline, and then you're stuck with the same slow play considerations and the same violations of the spirit if not letter of the rule.

It wouldn't matter, you're hung up SOLELY on the markings and neglecting the process of aligning the ball.[/color]

Rules officials everywhere will have to use the same guideline to determine if a mark on the golf ball indicates the line or not.


Not at all.
The first tee meeting would weed out the obvious offenders, the balance would be weeded out during play.

But, again, you seem to feel that all golfers are cheaters and that they'd conduct themselve in violation of the Rules of Golf.
Think of the stigma in being labeled a cheater in State, Regional or National competitions.

Why do you and others feel that golfers will do anything, including the overt violation of the rules to gain an edge ?[/color]

Consider the following ID marks (and these are the easy cases):


What is the guideline that should be written to clearly determine that these marks, as well as the cheater line and other more obvious lines, indicate a line for putting? A guideline written so that every rules official everywhere uses the same judgment to determine if a rules violation has occurred ?

Anything linear in nature would be declared in violation on the first tee.  Anything non linear or hybrid linear such as the "Titleist" label would be permitted, BUT, if the golfer on the golf course attempted to align any markings on the ball to aid in determining the line of the putt, that would be a violation.[/color]

And we haven't even discussed logoed golf balls yet. What's the guideline that a rules official would have to use to determine if these logoes determine a line for putting?

It's the same as above.
By the way, how many golfers compete with logoed balls ?
I've never met one.[/color]


Is the word "Steelers" long enough to indicate the line? Are the tips of Bevo's horns or ears "linear"? How about the Merrill Lynch bull's hooves or horns? Are the stripes in the American flag too wavy to indicate a line for putting?

Again, I've never seen a logoed ball used in competition, but, if that were to happen and the logo was non-linear in nature, it would be deemed fit for play.    However, if the golfer were to align the markings on the ball for purposes of aiding in determining the line, that would be a violation.

And, as you've observed, the process for aligning markings on the ball to indicate the line of the putt is meticulous, taking great care and pains to get it right.

You KNOW it when you see it.[/color]

These are the kinds of things that the rules and rules officials may have to answer if they are to regulate and enforce a ban on marks to indicate a line for putting, and I just don't know if that's a path they want to take.

I believe I described the two part process.

But, you still haven't answered my question.

Why do you feel that competitors will OPENLY ATTEMPT TO CHEAT ?

This is a gentleman's game and
the consequences for cheating are so dire that they extend far beyond the golf course.[/color]

Again, I would fully support such a ban if it can be done, but I sense that the USGA may feel it impractical to do so (see the response that TEPaul posted a few pages back), and if so then this may be part of the reason why.

Of course I don't know for sure, and until the USGA clarifies its position on this issue, we're left to guess and present all sorts of hypothetical ball markings like those above (I'm impartial to Bevo myself)


I don't think this is as complicated as you and others make it, especially the defenders of the Cheater's Line.

If I play with someone and they cheat, it's the last time that I'll play with them.

If someone cheats in an event, the word spreads quickly and far beyond the golf course.

I have faith that golfers will play by the rules, hence, I doubt that eradicating the Cheater's Line will create a new cadre of "edge" golfers.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

You and others seem so focused, if not consumed by the markings, that you've ignored the process.

Using markings on the golf ball to aid in determining the line is a difficult, tedious, meticulous process, one that's easily recognized.

As I said, like "obscenity", you know it when you see it.

Amending 8-2 b to include the "process" makes eliminating the practice easy, especially in conjunction with banning linear markings.

This is a no brainer.

I suspect that those who currently USE the CHEATER'S LINE are the most vocal about preserving a practice that's contrary to the spirit of the game.

[TEPaul]

I'm actually delighted to see this thread continue into its 22nd and 23rd page, primarily because some of those carrying on this discussion in those two pages are the ones who have lobbied on here for more clarity in this Rule and putting practice, more exactness in the words used and the word usage in this Rule.

And yet these are the people who are now lapsing into the depths of legal modus operandi wrangling and interpretation, and into Latin and Latin phrases to make their points, into completely arrogant pomposity that their way, their interpretation, is better, more moral and more appropriate and understandable and more within the "spirit of the game and its Rules than the Rules writers language and interpretation.

In the last two or three pagesw you people have made a complete joke out of your own arguments and you've hoisted yourselves on your own argumentative petards.

Again, if you want to know what a Rule's interpretation is just call up the R&A or USGA Rules Committee, cite a real life incident and ask them to interpret it for you. Their answer will be a decision and ruling to play by. That's what they are there for, and that's why you're not.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You must have been out milking the chickens and plucking the cows at HappyDale Farm for too long.

I understand 8-2 a and 8-2 b as well if not better than anyone, including its amended history.

That's not my issue.

My issue is that the "cheater line" violates the spirit of the game, and as such, its introduction and use should be declared against the rules when the USGA and R&A meet in 2008.

In addition, it slows down the pace of the game, and for that reason alone its introduction and use should be prohibited.

[CHrisB]

It's the same as above.
By the way, how many golfers compete with logoed balls ?
I've never met one.[/color]

Patrick,

If you were to attend the NCAA Division I Championships in Williamsburg this week, you'd see a bunch of them.

[CHrisB]

I suspect that those who currently USE the CHEATER'S LINE are the most vocal about preserving a practice that's contrary to the spirit of the game.

Patrick,

Do you have any particular people in mind when you say that? One of the most interesting things about this whole discussion is that, as far as I can tell, NO ONE who has partcipated in this thread uses a cheater line or anything of the like (unless someone wants to come out now and fess up ).

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's the same as above.
By the way, how many golfers compete with logoed balls ?
I've never met one.[/color]

Patrick,

If you were to attend the NCAA Division I Championships in Williamsburg this week, you'd see a bunch of them.

Chris,

Were you aware that years ago some within the USGA considered the receipt of a golf scholarship (room & board) a violation of Amateur status due to the value of a scholarship in relation to the minimum financial reward permitted to maintain Amateur status back in the 70's, right around the time the U.S. Mid-Amateur was being contemplated ?

I can see where "team" balls might prevent hitting the wrong ball, but, the process of alignment should be prohibited in 2008.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I suspect that those who currently USE the CHEATER'S LINE are the most vocal about preserving a practice that's contrary to the spirit of the game.

Patrick,

Do you have any particular people in mind when you say that? One of the most interesting things about this whole discussion is that, as far as I can tell, NO ONE who has partcipated in this thread uses a cheater line or anything of the like (unless someone wants to come out now and fess up ).

That's not true.

A vocal objector, age 30, indicated that he's been using Cheater Lines since he was 5.

A review of the posts will provide his identity. [/color]

P.S.. How do you do the graphics ?

[CHrisB]

Patrick,

The balls with the logoes on them, and the Titleist logo were stolen from a couple of websites.

The more generic circle/dot images were done on Adobe Photoshop--real easy to make shapes, rotate images around, etc.

------------------------

Regarding colleges and amateur status, that could be another 23-page thread right there if we wanted to discuss it (which we don't ).

[CHrisB]

Shiv,

How could you not call me for placing the ball the way I do if your rule went through?

Your Titleist example, where you put the logo on the back of the ball where you can't see it when you take your address position would not be a mark placed to indicate a line for putting for the very simple reason that you cannot see it at address. If you placed it so that you could see it at address, heck, I'd call it too.

But Dave,

I am telling you that I do gain assistance in lining up my putt from my method because when I approach the ball from behind I am hoping to place the putter directly square (or at least real close) to the logo...you can see the logo when you are approaching, and occassionally you can see it from directly over top. If it is noticeably off, I will adjust it.

JES,

This reminds me of the time in college when we used to have these heavy late-night discussions about religion, until one night a girl who was involved with the Campus Crusade for Christ tearfully told one of her very good friends in front of everyone that she thought he was going to Hell because of what he believed (or didn't believe). While that was a downer for everyone, it was especially so for the girl, because you could tell it broke her heart that her friend was going to meet such a fate.

Maybe Shivas just can't bear to tell you that you're a cheater.

[JESII]

I need none other than Jimmy Lee Farnsworth (no relation to Rich...is it?) to SAVE ME!

"DEMONS...OUT!"

[TEPaul]

"I understand 8-2 a and 8-2 b as well if not better than anyone, including its amended history."

Patrick:

You do not understand Rule 8-2b as all well as most or there is no way you could or would have said what you have on this thread.

"That's not my issue.
My issue is that the "cheater line" violates the spirit of the game, and as such, its introduction and use should be declared against the rules when the USGA and R&A meet in 2008."

Well, then, if that is in fact 'your issue' you don't have much idea what is meant by the "spirit of the game" either.

Most of that "spirit of the game" is and always has been that you play by the accepted interpretation of the Rules of Golf whether you like it or not and if you don't like it then make them a formal proposal of how you would like them to interpret it. If you don't win the day with that proposal than you should go back to playing the game as they interpret it rather than trying to lord your personal opinion and interpretation over everyone else including the Rules writers and interpreters.

If you or Shivas or anyone else don't do that or can't do that and you in fact get into trying to lord your personal opinion over other golfers, including the Rules writers, regarding a practice such as aligning a golf ball to indicate a line of putt when they have told you in no uncertain terms that it is not a violation of the Rules, then frankly you are no better than a premediated cheater in golf, in my opinion.

[JESII]

I need none other than Jimmy Lee Farnsworth (no relation to Rich...is it?) to SAVE ME!

"DEMONS...OUT!"

Quoted from FLETCH...for those of you scratching your heads wondering if this thread has melted what was left of my brain after Merion #10...



Joe Hancock,

I'm just going to believe that one got a small chuckle out of you...even if it was at me and not with me...

[TEPaul]

"And by the way, I notice that in your arguments you lean heavily on the player's intent, but do you think the USGA would really want a new rule that depends so heavily on player intent? I say if a mark indicates the line, it indicates the line whether the player intends for that or not."

Chris:

I agree with you that the Rules makers probably don't want a Rule whose administration depended heavily on the determination of player intent.

If they wanted to ban this practice they would probably make it a violation of the Rule if a line or mark indicated the line of putt whether the player intended to do that or not. Of course administration of the Rule would then probably need to get into determining what the player's line of putt was.

Some on here have said it's easy to see if a player is purposely lining up something on his ball to indicate the line of putt and obviously if they banned the practice that wouldn't be hard to tell in some cases.

An opponent or fellow competitor or Rules official could also simply ask a player what he was doing. That wouldn't be any more difficult than asking a player if he's purposely touching the line of putt to tap something down on the green that is not included in one of the seven exceptions to Rule 16-1a.

Apparently Rule 14-2b became part of that Rule (from previously being only relevant to the putting green) when they actually asked Annika Sorenstam why she had her caddie stand behind her "Through the Green". Apparently Annika told them to prevent distraction not knowing that was a Rule violation. And so Rule 14-2b was reworded to include someone standing behind you “Through the Green.”

I don’t think the Rules makers would be averse to changing Rule 8-2b to ban this practice if they really did view it as contributing greatly to slow play. Some of the Rules makers and Rules writers may even feel that this practice does constitute some kind of artificial device assistance but apparently at this time not enough of them do to bring it to a vote of the Joint Committee, win that vote and make the Rule ban the practice.

And so, once again, I would caution people on here who are eiher accussing golfers who use this legal practice at this time of being cheaters or who are implying that golfers who use this legal practice at this time of being cheaters to stop doing that.

[Dan Boerger]

It took me a while (and it helped that I could not sleep last night due to allergies), but Tom's post #796 should be "post of the year". For those intent on getting the practice of using a mark on the ball to aid in lining up your putt to be a rules violation, good luck in endeavor. From all that I've read, you'll need it.

But if someone called me a cheater for lining up my putt (like Sean O'Hair, Chris DiMarco and countless other pros who are under the scrutiny of blue suited officials do), or even referred to the the line on the ball as a cheater's line I would say that "gamesmenship" violates the "sprit of the game" IMO!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()