Shivas's cheater line

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

Rangefinders are against the rules.

Using different kinds of balls during a round is within the rules.

Just when I thought you couldn't make any more dumb remarks and attempts at diversion, you rise to the occassion.

Pat -

Let's say you are playing a $5000 Nassau. On the first hole your opponent reaches into his bag and whips out his Rangefinder. Wouldn't you say "Hey, that's cheating, I don't play with cheaters, and there's going to be a big problem if you push the button on that thing." ?

He puts it back. On the second tee he whips out a new ball of a different make and model. What could you possibly say to him to stop him from putting that ball in play?

Your sanctimonious lecture on "the sprit of the game" suffers when it is larded with a whopper such as claiming that the USGA banned something when it did not.

[Dan Boerger]

Pat - I don't use the same brand of ball every time I play, but I do point my logo or trademark line (in the case of PROV's) in the general direction of my intended line. It's takes hardly any time at all for me to do this, gives me confidence over the putt so I putt more quickly and, IMO, I make more putts. Hence, I play faster.  

Taking lots of time over a putt just builds tension for me. Also, I just about always mark my ball since I like to clean it after my approach shots. - Dan

[CHrisB]

Tom & Patrick,

Just today I got one of those USGA mass emails which contained a section called "The Spirit of the Game". Here's what it said:

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Brauner,

I already quoted that passage in an earllier post.
Aren't you paying attention ?

Shivas,

I think Ryan Potts agrees that if the rule was passed golfers would adhere to it and not look to cheat in order to gain an edge.  I believe he feels, as I do, that the actual language isn't as significant as the concept and the rule banning the practice.

As to TEPaul, any farmer who milks the chickens and plucks the cows, as he does from time to time, is known to have "flipped"

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Since when does "the spirit of the game" vascilate and/or change due to a 5-4 committee vote?"

Patrick:

That you ask a question like that again only reconfirms you have no idea what the "spirit" of the game is.

The Rules of Golf have changed and evolved constantly since their inception and that requires on-going interpretations by the Rulesmakers at any time in the history of the Rules. That golfers nevertheless are willing to play by the Rules of Golf at any time and in any era even if they may not personally agree with some of the Rules is what constitutes the "spirit" of the game and its Rules. No one from the R&A/USGA is forcing golfers to play by their Rules and if golfers don't they certainly aren't going to jail.

There is nothing wrong at all with anyone at any time making a proposal to the R&A/USGA to consider changing a Rule of Golf but if they don't then it really is not in the spirit of the game or the Rules to attempt to tell people they are wrong and you are right. Certainly to do such a thing during the playing of the game is very much NOT in the spirit of the game and its Rules. But apparenty you and Shivas don't understand that or see it that way.

[Dan Kelly]

... one of our most distinguished (but least self-promoting) lawyers

I don't see the contradiction implied by your "but."

I'd replace "but" with "i.e."

[TEPaul]

"Pat, do you realize what we've done!  We have flipped the position of the great Tom Paul!  This is truly a monumental day..."

Shivas:

Please try not to flatter yourself that way even with a bunch of smiley faces. Regarding  that the current practice of aligning a mark on a golf ball to indicate the line for putting is not a violation of the Rules, I completely support that. If the Rulesmakers were to make it a violation in the future I would completely support that too.

If either you or Patrick think there is something vacilatting or contradictory in that position of mine I can pretty much guarantee that neither of you has any real idea what the "spirit" of the game and its Rules is.

[Doug Sobieski]

Patrick:

Rules are different than Conditions of the Competition. The USGA has not banned the ability to change types of balls during a round. That's done by the Committee. Given your extensive playing resume, you are sure to have known that, but may have misspoken. As you know, it's not a RULE because it would be too easy for most players to inadvertantly breach it, and such Rules tend to be written so that players don't run afoul of them unintentionally.

I agree with Michael Moore.

[Adam Clayman]

Patrick, The line on the ball was there before the player reached the green. The pipe or aid placed on the green gives a point of reference and is why it is against the spirit and the letter.

There is no rule that says you can't cheat.

The spirit of golf is in the not wanting to.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think that if CB Macdonald had actually designed Merion, then more people than Whigham at his funeral would have made that claim you friggin idiots~!!!  







Wait.....isn't this the Merion/CB Macdonald thread??

Oops...my mistake...sorry guys.  

[Dan Kelly]

Wait.....isn't this the Merion/CB Macdonald thread??

Oops...my mistake...sorry guys.  

Mike --

I must have missed that one.

Could you summarize?

Thanks.

Dan

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike --

I must have missed that one.

Could you summarize?

Thanks.

Dan

"War and Peace" was shorter and had less dead and missing.

[CHrisB]

Chris Brauner,

I already quoted that passage in an earllier post.
Aren't you paying attention ?

Patrick,
No.

Shivas,
Thanks for coming up with the language for your new rule(s)--good effort and I'd be interested in what the USGA would say about it.

[Doug Sobieski]

Shivas:

Well done. Thanks for the proposed language, and I think it's a good start. Now we need a decision on what constitutes "without regard", and how to make sure someone doesn't inadvertantly look like they had regard

[JESII]

b. On the Putting Green
When the player’s ball is on the putting green, the player, his partner or either of their caddies may, before but not during the stroke, point out a line for putting, but in so doing the putting green must not be touched.  Prior to making a stroke, when replacing a lifted ball, be replaced without regard to the position of any marks on the ball as they relate to the player or his stance, swing or intended line of play[/color]; however, the player may replace his ball in a manner intended to eliminate or reduce the visibility of marks on the ball at address. A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting.

Shivas,

I am glad you wrote this out, thank you.

So it seems like my question from a lifetime ago that you answered in the negative is actually a positive..."does the ball need to be replaced in a random manner?"...Your ammended answeer is noted in red[/color] up above...

I know, I know, you're going to say it's not random if they are intentionally hiding all markings...so now it will be illegal to have markings on a full half of a golf ball...please be sure to let the manufacturere's know. FYI, even when I try to hide everything it is not quite possible...the equator of the ball runs through the middle of the word Titleist so about an eigth of an inch appears on both sides...not to mention the small PROV1 writing along the seam...

The issue to me is not that I am defending the line, and not that I think the whole world will try to cheat the rules...my concern is that if I do exactly as I am doing someone would have a claim against me and I don't feel like dealing with the aggravation. This is based on the fact that I don't believe the cheater-line-users gain any substantial benefit.


Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't pace of play your primary concern here? Why not take that on directly instead of through the back door?

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I don't think you're vascillating or contradictory.  Your position on the rules makes perfect sense.  You don't question the wisdom of a rule or the wisdom of a particular interpretation.  I get that."

Shivas:

Of course I question the wisdom of the Rules. I may have done more of that over the years than anyone you've ever heard of. Do you know anyone who isn't on the R&A or USGA Rules Committee who has actually made 3-4 formal proposals to the USGA (R&A) to change a Rule of golf?

What I have never done, though, is imply that golfers who are playing by various USGA/R&A Rules of Golf that I may not personally agree with for one reason or another are cheating or playing contrary to the spirit of the game and its Rules.

By the way, Shivas, that proposal wording of yours is fairly laughable. You think that's clear? To say that is a real stretch. I told you that perhaps you should offer your services as a Rules writer if they would have you. But after that attempt I think you should be summarily fired before you begin.  

[TEPaul]

"There is simply no way that 8-2(b) can be interpreted in the English language to permit a line on the ball being placed to indicate a line for putting, yet your buddy says that it was not intended to include the ball (despite the CLEAR FACT that the words "on the putting green" were pulled from the rule, no less!)"

Shivas:

It's pretty amazing this thread has gone on this long and you still don't get it how and where the fact that this practice being legal is explained in the Rules of Golf.

First of all, I'm sure you must know (although perhaps you don't) the the Decisions on the Rules of Golf are every bit as much a part of the Rules of Golf as the actual Rules book.

The wording "on the putting green" was removed in 1988  from that last sentence in Rule 8-2b where it followed the word "anywhere".

My earliest Decisions book is 1988 and Decision 20-3a/2 was in the Decisions book in 1988, so there is and never has been any confusion that I've ever heard of about the legality of the practice of aligning the identification mark on the golf ball to indicate a line for putting.  

You act like every golfer in the world is confused by this and yet you are the only one I've ever heard of who was confused by it.

If you really are so fixated by this stuff perhaps you should go to Rules School and learn how to interpret the Rules of Golf in conjunction with the Decisions on the Rules of Golf.

[CHrisB]

Shivas,

I'm not sure whether your new rule would work or not, but what this discussion needed all along was an attempt at re-writing the rule, and yours was a good first attempt.

I like the language you came up with, because it essentially says "don't do anything that could even be interpreted as aligning your ball". Addresses the gray areas and lets whitespace putters do their thing.

Whether the USGA would accept it or think it's enforceable is another thing, but I'd be interested in what they would have to say about it.

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

Regarding the use of the word "cheater", the difference between the cheater line and things like jingling change, top-of-the-backswing moving or coughing, etc., is that people doing those other things KNOW what they are doing is wrong and contrary to the spirit of the game--but they're trying to get away with it. The cheater line user doesn't think he is doing anything wrong or contrary to the spirit of the game.

[Doug Sobieski]

I'm open to comments.  So far, you're the only one who doesn't think it works.  

Shivas:

I have to concur with Tom on several points (including the value of going to a Rules Workshop!). In my opinion, there is still too much interpretation as to what is or isn't "with regard". You are still talking about the orientation of the golf ball, which has always been a no-no. You've talked about reducing "visibility", which differs from person to person (e.g. vision, address position, handedness). Someone with Parkinson's Disease may look very deliberate in how they replace their ball due to tremors, which may appear as "with regard" to an observer (I've played with such a person, and at times it took great effort to replace the ball due to shaking). Different golf balls have different markings, so each golf ball will have an optimum way to replace it "without regard". Personal opinion enters the picture too much, where like situations may not be treated alike, i.e. one fellow competitor may think he saw no regard, while the other sees with regard in the same instance. It's like calling balls and strikes. Diffferent umps have different strike zones, and you could get two different calls on the same pitch.

A point on the ground is a specific point. There are infinite orientations of the golf ball on that specific spot. When you outlaw a very specific subset of orientations, where is the line drawn as to what is or isn't an infraction if it's placed "with regard"? You are legislating the physical action of a person that's not part of the stroke, as well as what is in their head.

I still think you did a good job on the language. You probably think I'm bringing up things that will never happen, but you have to contemplate these possible scenarios. I just think there are still a lot of conflicts with some of the basic principles of the rules. Cheaters will always be cheaters, but the rule needs to insure that you don't catch a dolphin in the tuna net.

[TEPaul]

"Oh, c'mon, you've never called a coin jingler or a top-of-the-backswing mover a dirty rotten cheat?  Please..."

Shivas:

I most certainly have not. Let me repeat that in case you miss it---I most certainly have not. In cases like that the only thing I'd say to that player is that he does not have very good etiquette on the golf course.

There is a section on Etiquette in the Rules of Golf (Section 1) and you should notice that the resolution of serious etiquette problems does not involve the the basic penalty of golf---eg strokes.

Until 2004 the resolution of serious etiquette problems did not even involve the other general penalty in golf---eg disqualification but was  left to the "committee" with a few recommendations given.

As of 2004 a sentence was included in Rule 33-7 giving the committee the latitude under the Rules to impose a penalty of disqualification for exceptional etiquette problems.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rules are different than Conditions of the Competition.


Rule 33-1 mandates that the Conditions of competition MUST be defined by the committee, and that includes the "one ball" rule.

The USGA states that implementation of the prohibition against playing anything other than "one ball", shall be a note to Rule 5-1, hence, once implemented, it becomes a notated rule under 5-1[/color]

The USGA has not banned the ability to change types of balls during a round. That's done by the Committee.

But, once done by the committee it becomes a note to rule Rule 5-1.[/color]

Given your extensive playing resume, you are sure to have known that, but may have misspoken.

As you know, it's not a RULE because it would be too easy for most players to inadvertantly breach it, and such Rules tend to be written so that players don't run afoul of them unintentionally.

Inadvertant breach is not the reason that the USGA decided to deal with the practice of changing balls during a round.

It was due to the advantage/edge created by the performance qualities of different balls under different conditions and the practice of choosing a ball on a hole to gain that performance edge.

For a zillion years, the USGA didn't care what balls you played with, you could change on a whim after each hole, using 18 different balls if it pleased you.  It was the competitive edge brought about by hi-tech that enhanced performance under different conditions[/color]

I agree with Michael Moore

That's your problem
Michael Moore was being disengenuous when he made his comments.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, The line on the ball was there before the player reached the green.  

How do you know that ?

What prevents a player from adding the line once he reaches the green ?

And, you didn't address the critical issue.

What's the FUNCTIONAL difference ?
[/color]

The pipe or aid placed on the green gives a point of reference and is why it is against the spirit and the letter.

So does a line on a ball.[/color]

There is no rule that says you can't cheat.

There sure is.

Read Rule 7-1 under Rule 7 "Other conduct incompatible with Amateurism"

You'll find them in the Rules of Golf in the chapter identified as: "Rules of Amateur Status" [/color]

The spirit of golf is in the not wanting to.

It's also covered in Rule 7-1[/color]
 

[John_Cullum]

So let me get this straight, Tom.  You're saying that until 2004, jingling coins or coughing in a guy's backswing wasn't cheating, and then in 2004, it miraculously became cheating?

Hell, I'm glad you clarified that:  you're not a cheat unless and until the USGA specifically says you are.    Puh-lease...

But you were always free to go kick their cheatin ass

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

Rangefinders are against the rules.

Using different kinds of balls during a round is within the rules.

Just when I thought you couldn't make any more dumb remarks and attempts at diversion, you rise to the occassion.

Pat -

Let's say you are playing a $5000 Nassau. On the first hole your opponent reaches into his bag and whips out his Rangefinder. Wouldn't you say "Hey, that's cheating, I don't play with cheaters, and there's going to be a big problem if you push the button on that thing." ?

He puts it back. On the second tee he whips out a new ball of a different make and model. What could you possibly say to him to stop him from putting that ball in play?

"During a stipulated round, the balls a player plays must be of the same brand and type as detailed by a single entry on the current list of Conforming Golf Balls."

You can rest assured that for a $ 5,000 nassau, everything relating to the round would have been ironed out on the first tee, including the one ball rule.[/color]

Your sanctimonious lecture on "the sprit of the game" suffers when it is larded with a whopper such as claiming that the USGA banned something when it did not.

How many USGA events have you played in where the one ball rule was not in effect ?

You understood what I meant by the spirit of the game, and it's not GPS systems, multiple balls or cheater lines, you just wanted to be a wise guy and a schmuck and you succeeded royally, as usual.[/color]

Q. May a Committee, by Local Rule, permit the use of distance-measuring devices?
A. Yes. A Committee may establish a Local RULE allowing players to use devices that measure distance only. However, the use of devices that gauge or measure other conditions that might affect a player’s play (e.g., wind or gradient) is not permitted. In the absence of such a Local Rule, the use of a distance-measuring device would be contrary to Rule 14-3. (New)

If the Committee elects to adopt a Local Rule permitting the use of distance-measuring devices, the following text is recommended:

Distance-Measuring Devices: [Specify as appropriate, e.g., "In this competition," or "For all play at this course," etc.], a player may obtain distance information by using a device that measures distance only. However, if, during a stipulated round, a player uses a distance-measuring device that is designed to gauge or measure other conditions that might affect his play (e.g., gradient, wind-speed, temperature, etc.), the player is in breach of Rule 14-3, for which the penalty is disqualification, regardless of whether any such additional functions are actually used.

A Local Rule allowing the use of distance-measuring devices that are capable of gauging or measuring other conditions is not authorized.

If the Committee has adopted a Local Rule permitting the use of distance-measuring devices, these devices may be shared by players (see analogous Decision 5-1/5 regarding the sharing of equipment other than clubs).

Additionally, please refer to Decision 8-1/2 which clarifies that the distance between objects is a matter of public information and therefore not advice.

[JR Potts]

By the way, if the Rulesmakers decided to make this practice a violation of Rule 8-2b I would certainly endorse that. It certainly does seem to contribute to slower play.

Pat, do you realize what we've done!  We have flipped the position of the great Tom Paul!  This is truly a monumental day...

Now, if we could just get Ryan Potts to crack, we'll really be onto something.  This will be a tough one, because Ryan probably used a cheater line to align himself to exit from his mother's womb...    

Totally different line.  That line said "Out."  My current cheater line says "In."