Shivas's cheater line

[CHrisB]

Rather than continuing to try to win us over to your side, why don't you try to win over the USGA.  It would have taken less time than you've expended on this thread alone.

With the assistance of another contributor to this site, I'm going to make a formal approach to the USGA on the issue.

Time is an issue, I'm also writing a book for patients diagnosed with colo-rectal cancer, and have other interests, including, but not limited to a family, business, playing golf, charitable causes, etc., etc..  I know that I must get my formal presentation to the USGA well in advance of January, 2008.  Hopefully, it will get done in the next month or two.[/color]

Patrick,

Good to hear that you'll be taking this to the USGA. Hopefully all of the back-and-forth in this thread will have been useful to the process. Please keep us posted.

I don't know how the formal process works, but I predict the easier part will be for them to be convinced of the need for a rule change, and the harder part will be for them to be convinced that such a rule change could be practically regulated.

But it's worth doing and good luck with it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"One can use a cheater line on a driver and a cheater line on a putter and a cheater line on the ball....and still be totally misaligned.  

The USGA recognizes that and thus, makes the distincition between a mark that is part of the equipment, and a mark that external to the equipment and thus,......"

I wonder whether adding markings to a club during a stipulated round would be within 4-2 a.
It might be deemed a violation of 4-2 a.[/color]

Ryan:

That's a very good statement.

If the USGA were to consider making this putting practice a Rule violation that is where they'd probably begin----with the definitions of "Equipment", the "Ball in Play" etc. What falls within those two definitions is essentially what they have "excepted" from being a violation of Rule 8-2b.

And why is that? Why did they except those two areas of definition in the Rules?

Obviously, they either don't consider those two areas to be areas where a mark or line can be considered an "artificial device" or "unusual equipment" that can be of functional "assistance" in the making of a stroke or they feel if they did consider them to be it would be very difficult to regulate practically.

There's another reason.
They may not have addressed the issue because the practice was virtually unheard of in 2003 and earlier.[/color]

But what if, for whatever reason, they did decide to make this basic putting practice of aligning a mark or line on a golf ball or a mark or line on a putter head for the purpose of indicating a line for putting a violation?

How would they go about it?

They could do that by making "equipment" or the "Ball in Play" with marks or lines on it "non-conforming" in Appendix III of the Rules of Golf or they could not do that and make the practice itself of a golfer actually aligning a mark or line on "Equipment" or the "Ball in Play" a violation.

Attempting to do the former would be difficult as they'd have to get the manufacturers to conform in production and they would obviously need some strict definitions in the Rules of Golf of what did and didn't constitute a mark or line.

Perhaps more difficult would be a strict definition in the Rules of Golf about what kind of player "identification" mark constituted a "non-conforming" golf ball in play.

If they did none of that via "Equipment" or "The Ball" (in play) and just made the actual practice a violation where would they draw the line on that? If an opponent or fellow competitor or Rules Official noticed a player replace his ball on the putting green and look from his ball down his intended line a time or two would that constitute lining up some mark to indicate a line for putting and be a violation of a Rule?

I think we can begin to see why one of the top Rules experts said to make this line or mark thing on a golf ball or putter head a violation of the Rules or to make the use of same to indicate the line for putting is impractical to regulate.

I disagree, and let's stick with the ball.
It's easy to make the practice of placing marks on the ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line, illegal.[/color]

There is another avenue that no one has thought of on here to my knowledge that does not fall within either Rule 8 or 14 or 20, and that would be to make this practice if it was excessively time consuming a violation of Rule 6-7.

I mentioned Rule 6-7 ages ago in this thread.[/color]

It is not infrequent that the Rulesmakers completely surprise us in how and why they come at some problem. There's no doubt in my mind that they are not oblivious to this increasingly popular putting practice and there's not much doubt to me either that the thing that disturbs them most is it's contributing to slower play.

But if they tried to combat it through Rule 6-7 how would that be regulated practically? Rules officials have the ability to time players and call 6-7 penalties on them but I'm not sure what players and opponents and fellow competitors can do in that vein other than to appeal to a Rules official during the course of play.

Essentially this putting practice would just be very difficult to regulate in practice no matter what they tried to do, and at the end of the day that may be the real reason they treat it as an exception to Rule 8-2b or Rule 14 or Rule 20, and why it has never been a violation of a Rule of Golf.

It wasn't a violation because nobody did it years ago.
It's akin the the implementation of the one ball rule, nobody did it so there wasn't a prohibition against it, then, when a wide variety of performance based balls were introduced, the need to ban the practice was implemented.

Timing is everything.

And, it's now time to ban the cheater line on golf balls irrespective of their origin.

It's a simple issue.
Let's not cause paralysis by over analysis.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Good to hear that you'll be taking this to the USGA. Hopefully all of the back-and-forth in this thread will have been useful to the process. Please keep us posted.

I don't know how the formal process works, but I predict the easier part will be for them to be convinced of the need for a rule change, and the harder part will be for them to be convinced that such a rule change could be practically regulated.

But it's worth doing and good luck with it.

Bryan,

I think it's an issue worthy of the USGA's consideration.

With the assistance of TEPaul, I'm hopefull that my proposal  will be well received.

Time will tell.

Thanks.

[TEPaul]

"I don't know how the formal process works, but I predict the easier part will be for them to be convinced of the need for a rule change, and the harder part will be for them to be convinced that such a rule change could be practically regulated."

Chris:

I know how the formal process of making a Rules chance proposal works and I also think your instincts about how the USGA (R&A) will look at this proposal are basically right on the money.

It may be sort of obnoxious for some of the purists or moralists on here who support this proposed ban on this putting practice to accept the fact that the Rulesmakers do actually look at the practicality of how to regulate something like this in their decision-making to do it or not do it but unfortunately for those purists and moralists that's just the way it is in the real world of the Rules of Golf.

What will really get the USGA's (R&A's) attention on this proposal, in my opinion, is that this practice certainly is contributing to slower play and that probably can't be expected to get better in the future, only worse. There's no question in my mind that the USGA and R&A Rulesmakers are watching this and do not like it at all for that reason.

When Pat and his helper make their proposal they should also hope that the likes of Sean O'Hair continues to play great golf and get more and more air time. Sean O'Hair is a fine young man with fine etiquette but the point here is if he was being timed there is no way at all he could get that putting procedure of his the way he's doing it now even close to under the alotted time given a player once it's their turn to play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think that the bundling of the issues of slow play under 6-7 and the concept of placing marks or objects to aid in determining the line, as evidenced in Decision 8-2a/2, serves the best interests of golf and that the USGA will respond by banning the practice.

Time will tell.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Good to hear that you'll be taking this to the USGA. Hopefully all of the back-and-forth in this thread will have been useful to the process. Please keep us posted.

I don't know how the formal process works, but I predict the easier part will be for them to be convinced of the need for a rule change, and the harder part will be for them to be convinced that such a rule change could be practically regulated.

But it's worth doing and good luck with it.

Bryan,

In fairness, Chris actually posted the above.  But I also am glad to see you take some action on your convictions.

I think it's an issue worthy of the USGA's consideration.

With the assistance of TEPaul, I'm hopefull that my proposal  will be well received.

Does this mean you'll be taking up residence at Happydale Farms for the duration?  

Time will tell.

Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Good to hear that you'll be taking this to the USGA. Hopefully all of the back-and-forth in this thread will have been useful to the process. Please keep us posted.

I don't know how the formal process works, but I predict the easier part will be for them to be convinced of the need for a rule change, and the harder part will be for them to be convinced that such a rule change could be practically regulated.

But it's worth doing and good luck with it.

Bryan,

In fairness, Chris actually posted the above.  But I also am glad to see you take some action on your convictions.

I think it's an issue worthy of the USGA's consideration.

With the assistance of TEPaul, I'm hopefull that my proposal  will be well received.

Does this mean you'll be taking up residence at Happydale Farms for the duration?  

Absolutely not.

My unlimited visitation rights are retained until they expire in 2017.[/color]

Time will tell.

Thanks.

[TEPaul]

"Does this mean you'll be taking up residence at Happydale Farms for the duration?"

Bryan:

The name of my farm is Featherfield Farm which is actually as bad or worse a name than the name Happydale Farm. Half the people I mention the name of this farm to act like I might be running some kind of community for our gay brethren out here.  

But I don't let the fields get to that point where they look like feathers anymore. It must be my love of golf and architecture. There's nothing quite so fine to me as getting on the tractor around sunrise and mowing fields.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Does this mean you'll be taking up residence at Happydale Farms for the duration?"

Bryan:

The name of my farm is Featherfield Farm which is actually as bad or worse a name than the name Happydale Farm. Half the people I mention the name of this farm to act like I might be running some kind of community for our gay brethren out here.  

But I don't let the fields get to that point where they look like feathers anymore. It must be my love of golf and architecture. There's nothing quite so fine to me as getting on the tractor around sunrise and mowing fields.

Bryan,

The only problem is that the fields he's mowing are the fields that the horses and cows graze in.

You should know that TEPaul's tractor has an old locomotive engine's cow catcher welded to the front.

When the animals hear him fire up the tractor, there's a traffic jam trying to get back into the barn[/color]

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

How does the line on the ball aid in "determining" the line of the putt.  Surely determining the line of the putt is a skill that the player (and/or their caddy) possess to varying degrees.  As Adam points out, there can be multiple lines that will work for a putt based on the pace of the putt (excepting, of course, the perfectly straight putt).  The line on the ball doesn't help determine the line of the putt.  At best it might help the player putt on the line he has determined with his green-reading skills.

You know, you may have a point.
Maybe all those PGA Tour guys are really trying to differentiate "True" North from "Magnetic" North.
You must be either kidding or desperate.[/color]

Is that the best you can do Patrick, another condescending non-answer?


Not at all, but, it was the first thing to spontaneously jump into my mind when I saw the absurd question.

The "line" is the path that the golfer wants his ball to follow based on his decision as to how he's going to execute his stroke.

That line extends from the hole, back to the ball.

Sure, as long as you'll concede that the majority of paths are curvilinear lines.

The line on the ball aids in reconfirming and translating the mental picture of the line into a physical, visual signal and directional aid.

I don't think it provides a physical, visual signal of the path.  At best it provides a visual signal of the the initial direction of the intended path.  If the initial direction is wrong or the pace is wrong for that initial direction then the putt will miss and the line on the ball has not been of any functional assistance is sinking the putt.  It may well have slowed play, but it was not functional.

You continue to refuse to answer the question regarding the functional equivalency of a pipe placed next to a ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line and a line ON the ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line.

Actually, I did.

You know that the former is clearly a violation of the rules, so why wouldn't the latter be a violation as well ?

Because under current rules, decisions and FAQ's the USGA has declared it isn't a violation.  I hope in your submission to the USGA that you don't try to use a logical extension or analogy argument.  I presume they already considered that.  You might want to try slow play, or some unfair advantage gained (although that would be hard to prove).  Using the spirit of the game is likely a tough one as well.  Presumably they considered that as well in creating the exception that now rules.

[Bryan Izatt]

"Does this mean you'll be taking up residence at Happydale Farms for the duration?"

Bryan:

The name of my farm is Featherfield Farm which is actually as bad or worse a name than the name Happydale Farm. Half the people I mention the name of this farm to act like I might be running some kind of community for our gay brethren out here.  

But I don't let the fields get to that point where they look like feathers anymore. It must be my love of golf and architecture. There's nothing quite so fine to me as getting on the tractor around sunrise and mowing fields.

Well, whatever tickles your fancy (pun intended).

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, When you mow, do you use some device or point of reference to determine how to mow in a straight line? And if so, Does that guarantee that each and every pass is a straight line?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

How does the line on the ball aid in "determining" the line of the putt.  Surely determining the line of the putt is a skill that the player (and/or their caddy) possess to varying degrees.  As Adam points out, there can be multiple lines that will work for a putt based on the pace of the putt (excepting, of course, the perfectly straight putt).  The line on the ball doesn't help determine the line of the putt.  At best it might help the player putt on the line he has determined with his green-reading skills.

You know, you may have a point.
Maybe all those PGA Tour guys are really trying to differentiate "True" North from "Magnetic" North.
You must be either kidding or desperate.[/color]

Is that the best you can do Patrick, another condescending non-answer?


Not at all, but, it was the first thing to spontaneously jump into my mind when I saw the absurd question.

The "line" is the path that the golfer wants his ball to follow based on his decision as to how he's going to execute his stroke.

That line extends from the hole, back to the ball.

Sure, as long as you'll concede that the majority of paths are curvilinear lines.

Only as the line extends further from either the hole or the ball, but, that's irrelevant, the only critical factor is establishing perfect perpendicularity at the point of impact.

The line on the ball aids in reconfirming and translating the mental picture of the line into a physical, visual signal and directional aid.

I don't think it provides a physical, visual signal of the path.  At best it provides a visual signal of the the initial direction of the intended path.  

The INITIAL direction determines the intended path.
That's the critical point.  Nothing beyond the intitial direction is relevant.  It's perpendicularity at impact that's important and nothing else.


If the initial direction is wrong or the pace is wrong for that initial direction then the putt will miss and the line on the ball has not been of any functional assistance is sinking the putt.  It may well have slowed play, but it was not functional.

Of course it was functional, the act was with the intent to aid in determining the line, the fact that the stroke wasn't executed properly has no bearing on the intent.

The same applies to 8-2a/2, placing a pipe (smoking) next to the ball, to aid in determining the line that's a violation of the rules, not the outcome of the putt.

You continue to refuse to answer the question regarding the functional equivalency of a pipe placed next to a ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line and a line ON the ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line.

Actually, I did.

You know that the former is clearly a violation of the rules, so why wouldn't the latter be a violation as well ?

Because under current rules, decisions and FAQ's the USGA has declared it isn't a violation.  

That's not the issue, the issue is how does the functionality of 8-2a/2 differ from placing a line on the ball ?


I hope in your submission to the USGA that you don't try to use a logical extension or analogy argument.  I presume they already considered that.

I don't believe they did.


You might want to try slow play, or some unfair advantage gained (although that would be hard to prove).  Using the spirit of the game is likely a tough one as well.  Presumably they considered that as well in creating the exception that now rules.[/b]

I believe 8-2a/2 was a direct result of an incident on a tee at Seminole, but, I could be wrong

[CHrisB]

If anyone thinks that bringing up things like pipes, logoed golf balls, Alzheimer's, single dot marks, etc. is over the top or a waste of time, just look at what's happening with the LPGA and their 88 Rule.

This simple and easily enforceable rule was apparently intended to discourage awarding sponsor exemptions to inferior players, which seemed reasonable until 2 unusual cases came along this week:

1. MacKinzie Kline, the 15-year-old from California given a sponsor exemption by tournament host Annika Sorenstam, who was allowed to use a cart and oxygen because of a congenital heart defect. She shot 89 and has been banned from LPGA events for the rest of the year. The rule has turned a great PR situation into terrible PR.

2. Michelle Wie, who already has 7 top-10's in LPGA majors, who is only a non-member because of her age, and who is coming off of a double-wrist injury which clearly hasn't healed yet. She was flirting with 88 before having to WD to avoid being banned for the year.

Just goes to show that you have to consider all these unusual scenarios before you (re-)write a rule, and why rule (re-)writing isn't such a simple process.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, When you mow, do you use some device or point of reference to determine how to mow in a straight line?"

Actually, I do have a reference point when I mow. It's one of the front wheels and I just watch it to see that it's just on the inside of the last mow line. But nothing has to be in a straight line because the outside edges of these fields aren't straight lines anyway. Consequently at the end I'm mowing an ever shrinking pie-wedge area.

But there's a better reason to do it that way for me and that's because that has basically set something of grid-effect for me over the years where I can relate to where the rocks are I can't see underneath the hay. If I were to mow in another direction or another way I'd have a hard time relating to where those rocks are.

The new danger though is these headphones. I mean if I have Wagner or Brahams or something like that on those headphones real loud I might completely forget to concentrate on where I am in relation that grid and those rocks. These new tractors actually have seat belts though.  

Talk about an OT post.

I guess I could try painting a Shivas "Cheater line" on the tires though but the USGA might ban that as a violation of the "spirit" of mowing.

[tlavin]

Let's have a vote for "cyber euthanasia" for this prolix and tendentious thread.

[Mark Pearce]

Let's have a vote for "cyber euthanasia" for this prolix and tendentious thread.

What, just before reply 999?  Give it a couple more posts, then kill it dead.

[TEPaul]

What I don't understand is why people who have nothing to do with a thread that's long come on that thread and recommend killing the thread. If the people contributing to the thread are having a good time with it why should others who really aren't involved want to kill it? Probably at least 3/4 of the threads on here I never read a word of but I sure wouldn't think to make a post on any of them that they should be killed because I'm not interested in them or their subject.

[RJ_Daley]

I swear, I haven't read a lick of this thread after the first two pages.  But, I'm pretty sure it is a non architecture theme.  If so... the guys that have run this up to 29 pages better not be coming back on here chastising the rest of us for having a little OT humor and non architecture now and then!  

[Jim Franklin]

What I don't understand is why people who have nothing to do with a thread that's long come on that thread and recommend killing the thread. If the people contributing to the thread are having a good time with it why should others who really aren't involved want to kill it? Probably at least 3/4 of the threads on here I never read a word of but I sure wouldn't think to make a post on any of them that they should be killed because I'm not interested in them or their subject.

I couldn't agree more. Keep it going until someone wins . I am behind both camps (meaning I can see both views and am as confused about the rule as ever).

[CHrisB]

Shivas,
You're still coming after me?

You've followed this whole thread so you know that I have never been opposed to changing this rule, and am now supportive of Patrick who is going to try to do something about it--he and Tom are going to make a formal presentation to the USGA to try to get the rule changed.

Please read what I wrote again, and you'll see that I didn't bring up the 88 Rule to discourage the idea of changing the rule governing the use of marks to indicate the line for putting. I brought up the 88 Rule ONLY to demonstrate that writing or changing a rule has to be done with great care and thought, and has to take into consideration a bunch of possible scenarios. I was defending the process that we've gone through in this thread--critically challenging the idea that a rule change is needed and coming up with all sorts of situations that the rule would have to handle for it to be practically regulated.

Look at why we're even having this discussion! You and Patrick said that a big reason this cheater line practice came about is because the USGA didn't have the foresight to consider marks on golf balls being used to indicate the line when they changed the wording of the rule to "anywhere". So what we've done on this thread has NOT been a bunch of red herrings or a waste of time.

The USGA has already indicated that it doesn't think it would practical to attempt to regulate this sort of activity, and so you can't just go to them and say "It would be easy. We would be simplifying things. All of these scenarios are deflective red herrings." You've got to kick it around for a while and see if it will be as easy as you think it is. Because you can bet that it's what the USGA will have to do before it makes any rule change.

[JESII]

I need help with something...please here me out...a ball is a ball once it has been played at a hole, but it becomes equipment when you lift it for any reason, during the play of the hole...

Why the need to distinguish between the ball being in your hand and on the ground?

There is a line of questioning/reasoning to follow, but this is a good start.

[tlavin]

What I don't understand is why people who have nothing to do with a thread that's long come on that thread and recommend killing the thread. If the people contributing to the thread are having a good time with it why should others who really aren't involved want to kill it? Probably at least 3/4 of the threads on here I never read a word of but I sure wouldn't think to make a post on any of them that they should be killed because I'm not interested in them or their subject.

Well, a lot of different people here have put in their two cents worth.  My point is that a handful just keep repeating slightly different iterations of the same argument over and over.  Bottom line: This practice doesn't violate the spirit or letter of any rule in my opinion.  Everybody else is entitled to their opinion of course, but how many times do we need to hear it?  Is there any permutation of this subject that hasn't been voiced and re-emphasized?  Nope.  

Let's just wait to see if the USGA wants to adopt the somewhat anal interpretation that has been "championed" by some.  That will be the day...

If I thought it would die on its own, I'd just watch it fade out, but at this point, somebody needs to put a pillow over its head so we can be put out of our misery.

Brutal, I know, but what can I say?  Silvio and Bobby Baccala got whacked last night on the Sopranos and I want blood, dammit!

[JESII]

Terry,


I actually think I might have a line here that will introduce a new source of angst in hopes of another 500 pages...

Equipment (a club) is allowed to have alignment aids on them, correct? While a ball is in your hands it is equipment. Why then is it's placement (or replacement) any different than a guy trying to place his driver on the ground square to the target? After it is replaced it becomes (strangely) a ball again and the mark these guys are bitching about is already there for identification purposes...

[Patrick_Mucci]

I swear, I haven't read a lick of this thread after the first two pages.  But, I'm pretty sure it is a non architecture theme.  

If so... the guys that have run this up to 29 pages better not be coming back on here chastising the rest of us for having a little OT humor and non architecture now and then!  

RJ,

This didn't start as an off topic thread, and I think that that makes a difference.