News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #75 on: May 15, 2007, 09:07:51 PM »
I just have to say, this is much better than those Merion threads.

Shivas -- I'm a creature of habit. With so many things that can go awry  on a golf course, I find comfort in certain rituals. One of them is this -- I line up my "Top Flight XL 3000" logo (yes, I'm cheap, too...) on the green so that it faces me at something like a 45-degree angle, parallel to my putter and perpindicular to my putting line. I do this EVERY time, more out of habit than anything else. I guess wrong on the line of my putts roughly 90 percent of the time.

Am I cheatin'?

« Last Edit: May 15, 2007, 09:08:20 PM by Phil McDade »

JR Potts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #76 on: May 15, 2007, 09:46:27 PM »

The point, for anyone who is sitting there researching useless stats, is that IN GOLF you don't get to use artificial directional aiming aids to help you make stroke.  


Despite your blatant misconstruction of the word mark, our diagreement rests above in your quote.  The ball we play has been approved for play by the USGA and Royal.  The ball that is approved for play has a line on it.  That line in neither artificial nor helpful when MAKING THE STROKE.  It is/can be used to help aim.....just like a shinig piece of grass on the green, a browned ball mark or a 17-year cicada shell.  If you don't like the line, petition Titleist to change it.  Until then, I'll set my ball on the green in any manner I like.  Now if I can only hit it at the appropriate speed and in the proper direction as my Titleist line tells me too and if only that line that Titleist picked is correct.....you know, given the speed that I hit the putt at.

I need to take a shower now...I feel dirty from all the "cheating" that I did on the course today.

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #77 on: May 15, 2007, 09:51:33 PM »
I'd tell the player that in equity, if the player is knowingly playing with a ball that is asymmetrical, he is in violation of Appendix III and he is DQ'd for that.  So there.   ;D

Shivas -

I thought you were serious about this issue.

We all know that to play a ball on the list of conforming balls is to play a ball that is legal.

For the third time, what to you have to say to a guy who tells you that his mark is there to indicate an axis of symmetry, and that he is lining up the line not to indicate a "line for putting" but so that when he strikes the putt his ball will be rolling along an axis of his choosing?
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #78 on: May 15, 2007, 09:58:30 PM »
Shivas -

Answer the argument - I'm telling you that the mark is there to indicate an axis of symmetry. I am lining up the line not to indicate the "line for putting" but so that when I strike the putt my ball will be rolling along an axis of my choosing.

Michael,

That's unadulterated B.S.

If the balls are manufactured to today's high standards,
you can't miss the axis of symmetry no matter how you place your golf ball.

And, we all know that NOTHING rolls like a ball.

JR Potts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #79 on: May 15, 2007, 10:02:29 PM »
Shivas -

Answer the argument - I'm telling you that the mark is there to indicate an axis of symmetry. I am lining up the line not to indicate the "line for putting" but so that when I strike the putt my ball will be rolling along an axis of my choosing.

Michael,

That's unadulterated B.S.

If the balls are manufactured to today's high standards,
you can't miss the axis of symmetry no matter how you place your golf ball.

And, we all know that NOTHING rolls like a ball.

But a ball is not a ball is not a ball.  A baseball rolls differently than a basketball which rolls differently than a pool ball which rolls differently than a golf ball.  A golf ball has dimples...thus one could assume that it does not roll "perfectly".  One can only move closest to the desired roll by aligning the axis of symmetry....an axis that Titleist so kindly identifies for us.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2007, 10:04:19 PM by Ryan Potts »

JR Potts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #80 on: May 15, 2007, 10:17:40 PM »
That's such BS, Ryan.  The word "mark" is the same word that causes you to put an identifying mark on your ball under Rule 6-5.

Go figure:  the word mark means mark.  Hmmm...what a shock.

Except in Far Hills.

Nice red herring.  Yes, the ball has been approved.  That's irrelevent.  It's completely and utterly irrelevent.  The issue isn't the ball.  The issue is placing  a mark that happens to be on the ball.  Those are two totally different things....

You can't take that ball and throw it at another player's ball to stop it from reaching the hole, can you?

The fact that the ball is legal doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want with it.  Sorry.  That goes for clubs too.  Take your legal driver and lay it next to your next 2 foot putt all the way to the hole and see how that goes over....

Rayn, you're spewing such garbage in defense of the indefensible.   ;)  If it's not helpful, why the hell does everybody DO it?

Do me a favor:  you have been trained by the best and you've had to interpret lots of rules.  Please tell me what that last sentence of Rule 8-2(b) means in plain English.  No spin.  No interpretation.  No made up nonsense.  No advocating.

Just what does that sentence mean?  Forget your own predispositions.  Be objective.  What does the sentence say?

 

Well, to humor this incredibly entertaining idiocity, I will engage you in your challenge.  You've thrown down the proverbial gauntlet.

In order to strictly interpret Rule 8(2)(b), you must read all of 8(2) in its entirity.

Quote
8-2. Indicating Line of Play
• a. Other Than On Putting Green
Except on the putting green, a player may have the line of play indicated to him by anyone, but no one may be positioned by the player on or close to the line or an extension of the line beyond the hole while the stroke is being made.

Any mark placed by the player or with his knowledge to indicate the line must be removed before the stroke is made.

• 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. A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting.

Clearly, given the language of the rules, a line on the ball (even if drawn on the ball and not on the ball as part of the USGA certified manufacturing process), is not contemplated as being a mark and is not encompassed within that rule.

If, under your interpretation, a "mark" was intended to include, but not be limited to, a line on the ball, that mark could never be removed as is contempled under Rule 8(2)(a) and such inclusion of that language into Rule 8(2) would be redundant and unimportant.  However, anyone who truly looks as this issue without your liberal and erroneous view of the word "mark" would clearly read this rule as merely banning a golfer or his caddy from placing an implement on the green to putt at in order to assist one in obtaining the desired end result of holing his putt in as little strokes as possible. ;D
« Last Edit: May 15, 2007, 10:23:47 PM by Ryan Potts »

JR Potts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #81 on: May 15, 2007, 10:21:26 PM »
And you keep jumping past the facts and are assuming facts that are not there.

1) You are making the HUGE assumption that a line of the ball is considered a "mark" under USGA Rules.  Please find me one rule that comports with your interpretation of the work "mark."  And referencing 8(2) doesn't count.

2) The mark is never placed.  It is there when the ball is put into play.  There is and never is an affirmative placement of a mark....thus, taking the issue outside of your rule.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2007, 10:26:23 PM by Ryan Potts »

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #82 on: May 15, 2007, 11:07:10 PM »
"C'mon, guys...you all know, deep in your hearts of hearts, that placing a line on your golf ball for the express purpose of using it, after a deliberate effort to adjust the line exactly toward your intended target to help you line up putts -- when the rules expressly state that "no mark shall be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting" -- violates both the letter and spirit of the game and is therefore cheating."




That, from the first page of this thread is probably one of the largest loads of crap I've seen on here. If I've told Shivas this once, I've told him a thousand times---the last thing golf or its Rules needs is more lawyers or the lawyer's mind and mentality. Lawyers make a busisness out of prosecuting and defending people from prosecution and that's about the last thing GOLF or its RULES need!  ;)


Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #83 on: May 15, 2007, 11:27:15 PM »
Because he is still placing a mark to indicate a line for putting.  The fact that the line, by his own plan and scheme, is the same as the symmetrical line of his ball is simply lousy rotten luck for him because he knows damn well that they are one and the same.

Shivas -

Of course the line on the ball and the line for putting coincide! What does that have to do with the fact that the player in question was not, despite your "because I said so" counterargument, aligning his mark for the purpose of indicating a line of putting?

In this particular instance, the line of putting is in fact doing the indicating - it's indicating to the player where he should put his axis of symmetry.

That doesn't change the fact that when you act "in order to" perform another act, there is intent involved.  It doesn't mean anything else.  Intent is part of this rule, whether it's overtly stated or not.  You can't [insert verb] to [insert an act] without intent being involved.  It's simply not part of the English language.  
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 12:08:50 AM by Michael Moore »
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #84 on: May 16, 2007, 10:31:58 AM »
One thing seems clear:

If Shivas ever gets a seat on the bench, he'll be known as "The DQin' Judge."
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #85 on: May 16, 2007, 03:24:38 PM »

But a ball is not a ball is not a ball.  

A baseball rolls differently than a basketball which rolls differently than a pool ball which rolls differently than a golf ball.  

A baseball has raised seams which eliminate it from the any comparison.  And, a baseball is not intended to roll..

How does a pool ball roll differently from a golf ball ?
[/color]

A golf ball has dimples...thus one could assume that it does not roll "perfectly".  

And, you know what happens when you "assume"
How does a golf ball NOT roll perfectly on a perfect surface ?
[/color]

One can only move closest to the desired roll by aligning the axis of symmetry....an axis that Titleist so kindly identifies for us.

Do you actually believe that Titleist manufactures a ball that's out of round ?
[/color]


Ted Kramer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #86 on: May 16, 2007, 03:39:55 PM »
I agree with Shivas 100%.

-Ted

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #87 on: May 16, 2007, 03:47:36 PM »
Truth or dare, Sully: ;)

Do you or do you not use the cheater line?

If so (which I know you do from the vehemence of your response), why?


Sorry for bugging out for a day or two Shivas, I can tell you that when I saw this post last night I cracked up out loud...but was too tired to respond.

When I played the mini-tours I did for a week or three...I even bought one of those plastic line-maker helpers...but I kept fidgeting and never felt like the line was right and I'd get confused changing it around all the time, so you sort of got me, but not really.

Now I place the ball down so the blade strikes right on the Titleist stamp, I can't really see much writing at all.

During those mini-tour days I did play with a guy (one of the guys on this Big Break disaster) that painted a range ball size stripe all the way around the ball and lined that up every time he had the ball in his hand. He also had a caddy (any body ever hear of a caddy in the Ocean State Open...) there to pick up his on-the-ground-aligned club on tee and fairway shots. Pretty entertaining, but not golf...

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #88 on: May 16, 2007, 03:52:13 PM »
Sully -

Do tell, which contestant?
Mr Hurricane

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #89 on: May 16, 2007, 04:03:40 PM »
But it ain't cheatin'...you're over-reading the word "mark"...
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 04:04:10 PM by JES II »

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #90 on: May 16, 2007, 04:10:53 PM »
So Shivas, if you are the only person that considers it cheating AND you liked it, then I would suggest that life is too short not to do it. If it feels good do it. ;)
Mr Hurricane

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #91 on: May 16, 2007, 04:29:13 PM »
I just wanted to see what was being discussed after 170 posts on this thread, and I see that we are still right on topic.  Nicely done.

Signed,

Currently using that new Pro V1 cheater line.

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #92 on: May 16, 2007, 04:32:25 PM »
Do you actually believe that Titleist manufactures a ball that's out of round?

Pat -

Dave Pelz, the greatest short game scientist of all time, discusses this in Chapter 9 of the Putting Bible.

Of course it is false argumentation to ask whether these balls are "out of round". However, Pelz clearly demonstrates that it is possible to buy a brand new modern golf ball whose off-centeredness of a couple of thousandths of an inch will cause a nine-footer to deviate from its intended path.
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #93 on: May 16, 2007, 04:37:50 PM »
Apologies if you answered this, but would you still considered cheating if the ruling bodies went back to saying a mark on the ground or green or whatever?

I guess I'm a little confused over what gigantic principle is being violated here. Is it the wording of the rule? The slowing down of play? Or the actual act involved?

I'll say this about a heavy cheater line - it sure makes it fast and easy to identify your ball from far away, and it does tend to scare off the bozos who play your ball. (I don't use the line anymore, mostly out of laziness, but I did use it for awhile. I didn't notice any difference in my putting.)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Ted Kramer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #94 on: May 16, 2007, 04:45:40 PM »
Apologies if you answered this, but would you still considered cheating if the ruling bodies went back to saying a mark on the ground or green or whatever?

I guess I'm a little confused over what gigantic principle is being violated here. Is it the wording of the rule? The slowing down of play? Or the actual act involved?

I'll say this about a heavy cheater line - it sure makes it fast and easy to identify your ball from far away, and it does tend to scare off the bozos who play your ball. (I don't use the line anymore, mostly out of laziness, but I did use it for awhile. I didn't notice any difference in my putting.)

George, I would have thought you'd be on Shivas' side . . .
I think it is really pretty simple:
Do you think that these "lines" would be approved by Old and Young Tom Morris if they were asked to judge their "legality"?

My guess is that they would offer a resounding NO!

-Ted
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 04:46:55 PM by Ted Kramer »

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #95 on: May 16, 2007, 04:50:49 PM »
This thread really comes down to one thing after reading all the posts.  How is marking the line to be intrepretted?  On the green or only including a line up to and including the ball.

It seems to violate the spirit of the law, even though technically speaking at the moment its legal cause the USGA boys said so...

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #96 on: May 16, 2007, 04:53:32 PM »
My guess is Old Tom Morris would be using the new Pro V-1 with the already built in line and not missing a night's sleep.
Mr Hurricane

Ted Kramer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #97 on: May 16, 2007, 04:55:49 PM »
My guess is Old Tom Morris would be using the new Pro V-1 with the already built in line and not missing a night's sleep.

Certainly a fair opinion.

-Ted

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #98 on: May 16, 2007, 04:57:20 PM »
Apologies if you answered this, but would you still considered cheating if the ruling bodies went back to saying a mark on the ground or green or whatever?

I guess I'm a little confused over what gigantic principle is being violated here. Is it the wording of the rule? The slowing down of play? Or the actual act involved?

I'll say this about a heavy cheater line - it sure makes it fast and easy to identify your ball from far away, and it does tend to scare off the bozos who play your ball. (I don't use the line anymore, mostly out of laziness, but I did use it for awhile. I didn't notice any difference in my putting.)

George, I would have thought you'd be on Shivas' side . . .
I think it is really pretty simple:
Do you think that these "lines" would be approved by Old and Young Tom Morris if they were asked to judge their "legality"?

My guess is that they would offer a resounding NO!

-Ted

And how do you think they'd feel about wound balls, let alone today's balls? Metal woods? Steel shafts? Heck, even the sand wedge?

I see no difference between a line on the ball and a line on the putter, and I think all of these things are just beyond silly.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #99 on: May 16, 2007, 05:02:44 PM »
Look at it this way -- another essential skill of the game is gripping the club correctly.  You're familiar with those grips that you see on training aids that mold your hands into the perfect grip, but are illegal to play with.  Why are they?  Because you're supposed to grip the damn club yourself without artificial devices helping you do so.  

I don't think it's illegal to mark your grips with where your hands should go, is it? Aren't there grips with alignment aids painted on? There seems to be a distinct difference to me aids on your equipment versus outside aids, but, then again, I don't have problem with accepting the wording referring to the green, either.

Just seems like much ado about nothing to me.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back