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?
OK, as they sit there, they ALL could be placed that way to indicate a line for putting. So the next question is "were they placed that way to indicate a line for putting?" That would depend on whether the player jiggered them to get that way or not. And if a guy was really adept at quickly and ALWAYS getting the logo on top upon replacement of the ball, then I'd take that as de facto intent.
(Shivas, keep in mind that this is all in good fun and in fact I am sympathetic--or is it empathetic?--to your position. But I am going to continue to challenge you on this issue until you can come up with some sort of solution to some of these problems that I'm convinced could arise should your new rule go into effect.)
OK--so you cannot say definitively whether those balls as they sit indicate the line for putting or not.
So now you're essentially stuck with player intent as the sole factor determining whether a violation occurs.
So let's suppose you're playing in the U.S. Am with a member of the University of Texas golf team, and you notice that he aligns all of his putts so that Bevo is on the top center of the ball like shown above.
Well, you decide to call a rules official over, saying that you think he is in violation of the new rule banning the use of marks on the golf ball to indicate the line for putting.
The rules official asks the guy if he aligns his ball that way to get any assistance in aligning himself to putt, and he says "No, that's not what I'm trying to do--I just like putting with Bevo on top and I've practiced and putted that way for 4 years now. The logo helps my eyes focus on a specific part of the ball, and I find that when I place the ball the same basic way each time I putt more consistently."
What should be the ruling? Under your reasoning, the official would have to let him continue to place the ball the same way, because his intent was not to use the mark to indicate the line for putting.
Now suppose his teammate, also in the field, does one of those chalk line putting drills on the putting green, and discovers that if he aligns his ball the exact same way, that he can use the Bevo logo to see right down the line and he starts making everything. So he's excited, forgets about the new rule, and starts to putt that way in his first round.
His playing partner calls him on it, and the rules official comes over and asks the guy if he aligns his ball that way to get any assistance in aligning himself to putt, and he says "Yes, I do--I discovered that if I align the ball the way I can really see the line while I putt."
What should be the ruling? Under your reasoning, the rules official should penalize the player for using the mark on his ball for aligning the putt.
So now you have two golf balls, both aligned the exact same way, and one guy gets a penalty and the other guy does not?
I know, I know--what are the odds of this happening? Well, as you know, weird stuff happens all the time w.r.t. the rules (why do you think there are official decisions written about things like half-eaten pears, banana peels, dead land crabs in bunkers, worms partially underground, ball imbedded in fruit, etc.?) and the rules have to be able to deal with those kinds of situations.
I also know of a drill where players put a red dot on their ball and align it so that they try to strike the dot with their putter because they feel it clears their mind and improves contact--what if the dot also indicates the line but the player doesn't use it for that reason?
That's part of why I think it could get sticky if player intent is the sole determinant of whether a rules violation has occurred. There are going to be cases where the official will also have to look at the mark and determine whether it indicates the line for putting or not, regardless of why the player placed the ball as he did.
Which is partly why Doug and I have been saying that there will need to be a guideline that rules officials everywhere can use to say which marks indicate the line and which marks do not, for those non-clear-cut cases where player intent has to be taken out of it.
And given the Bevo or any other logo example, or the single dot, or the V, or the Titleist label placed so that the clubface strikes it, etc., where two equally experienced rules officials might disagree on whether the mark indicates the line or not, how should such a guideline be written to help them determine the answer?