Shivas's cheater line

[JESII]

I did get a beer bet with Shivas about his ability to document some of the stewards of the game professing self alignment as a key fundamental of the game, and today is the deadline for him to produce...so I've got that going for me...which is nice...as long as it's not one of those Bud Light 24oz cans on the train he always talks about.

[TEPaul]

"I think I am starting to get it, and believe it or not it might help this conversation along...when you say that "a player can touch and move his "equipment" any way he wants to during the play of a hole"...doesn't that explain why he can replace his ball on the green any way he wants? Once he has taken his hands off of it and lifted his coin, the ball goes back to being "A BALL", and is no longer "EQUIPMENT"...am I on the right track?  Will this violate the Spirit Of The Game argument Shivas and Patrick have migrated to? Maybe..."

Sully:

Are you on the right track? Perhaps.

Will this violate the spirit of the game argument Shivas and Patrick have migrated to? Probably not.

First of all, in my opinion when either Shivas or Patrick talk about this putting practice as violating the "spirit of the game" I believe they are using the wrong term or a term that's not really applicable to this situation and issue.

The real "spirit" of the game is more about how players relate to one another and treat one another during play both within the context of the Rules and generally in a competitve sense. The "spirit" of the game is something of an unwritten code that revolves around gentlemanliness and good sportsmanship.

This issue that Patrick and Shivas are talking about is more about how a fundamental principle of golf or a fundamental principle of a golf Rule is being overlooked or excepted from violation somehow by the Rulesmakers regarding a particular practice today involving putting.  

[JESII]

Fair enough...

I think if use of this "cheater-line" didn't have the adverse effect it does on pace of play these guys wouldn't have a problem with it. In that light, I hope Patrick's proposal to the USGA receives due consideration.

[Patrick_Mucci]

your logic and reasoning is that Decision 8-2a/2 prohibits the placing of a pipe beside or behind the ball to indicate line, and that a line on the ball so oriented is the functional equivalent of a pipe beside or behind the ball, and therefore would also be prohibited.  

Logically, I presume you'd agree that decision 8-2a/2 doesn't specifically prohibit the line on the ball since it is neither an object in the sense of the decision, nor is it behind or beside the line of play.  

Hence, you want to rely on the theory of functional equivalency.

Correct, especially when coupled with Rule 8-2a and 8-2b.[/color]

It really doesn't matter if I agree or not that they are functionally equivalent. What matters is if the rule makers agree.

My reasoning and logic is that since Rule 8-2 is ambiguous, Decision 8-2a/2 doesn't directly address the question of legality of the line on the ball, that I will rely, not on functional equivalency, but on decision 20-3a/2 which does directly address and permit using a line on the ball for alignment purposes.

You are WRONG.

Decision 20-3a/2 does NOT permit using a LINE on the ball for alignment purposes.

Obviously, you didn't read the decision before you typed your response [/color]

It is illogical to argue for functional equivalency in the face of a direct decision on the matter at hand.

You need to get your FACTS correct before making definitive statements.  Decision 20-3a/2 does NOT permit drawing a line on the ball, NOR does it reference ANY lines be permisable.[/color]

To suggest that the rules and decisions must be a coherent logical whole doesn't seem to reflect reality.

Try actually reading Decision 20-3a/2 before telling us what it means.[/color]

If anything is weak and illogical it must be that the dumkopfs at the USGA who reasoned that the line on the ball is OK, but the pipe (smoking or not) isn't.  

They NEVER reasoned that.
PLEASE, READ Decision 20-3a/2 so that you will know what you're talking about, before you posit erroneous facts and flawed conclusions.[/color]

Or are you suggesting that they didn't think of functional equivalency before they came up with decision 20-3a/2?  

READ Decision 20-3a/2
In addition, Decision 20-3a/2 was decided before lines were being placed on balls for the purpose of aiding in determining the line.[/color]

Telling them they are weak and illogical seems like a fine way to get them to change the rule.

If you'd READ Decision 20-3a/2 before typing, you might find that your argument fails miserably.[/color]

There, does that constitute another deflection?  A kick save, and a beauty!

NO, it doesn't, it's a flawed argument based on a misunderstanding of the rules and decisions and a total misrepresentation of the facts.  Read Decision 20-3a/2[/color]


I must admit that I stand humbled at the feet of the master of deflection - Patrick Mucci.


I can understand that, but, my reasoning remains sound as do the facts I've presented.

Please, read Decision 20-3a/2[/color]

[Bryan Izatt]

your logic and reasoning is that Decision 8-2a/2 prohibits the placing of a pipe beside or behind the ball to indicate line, and that a line on the ball so oriented is the functional equivalent of a pipe beside or behind the ball, and therefore would also be prohibited.  

Logically, I presume you'd agree that decision 8-2a/2 doesn't specifically prohibit the line on the ball since it is neither an object in the sense of the decision, nor is it behind or beside the line of play.  

Hence, you want to rely on the theory of functional equivalency.

Correct, especially when coupled with Rule 8-2a and 8-2b.[/color]

It really doesn't matter if I agree or not that they are functionally equivalent. What matters is if the rule makers agree.

My reasoning and logic is that since Rule 8-2 is ambiguous, Decision 8-2a/2 doesn't directly address the question of legality of the line on the ball, that I will rely, not on functional equivalency, but on decision 20-3a/2 which does directly address and permit using a line on the ball for alignment purposes.

You are WRONG.

Decision 20-3a/2 does NOT permit using a LINE on the ball for alignment purposes.

Obviously, you didn't read the decision before you typed your response [/color]

Oh, Patrick, stop being so anal.  Decision 20-3a/2 permits use of a logo to align a ball.  The logo includes a line on the current ProV1, ergo a line is permitted.  If you want to be more anal and parse this down to a hand drawn line then that is permitted under the FAQ for rule 6-5 which I will quote for you again:

"Rule 6-5

Lines or Arrows Used to mark Golf Ball

Q.  It is recommended placing an identification mark on my golf ball. May I use a line or an arrow that will also help me align the club face?

A.  Rules 6-5 and 12-2 state that each player should put an identification mark on his ball. Thus, the Rules do not limit the type of markings a player may put on the ball (i.e. arrows, lines, words, etc). Additionally, there is no penalty for using such lines to "line up" prior to a stroke on the putting green or any place else on the course."

Ooops, I forgot, the FAQs are meaningless to you.  Functional equivalency certainly must take precedence over the FAQ in your world.

You can now reread the rest of the post in that context and stop deflecting.


It is illogical to argue for functional equivalency in the face of a direct decision on the matter at hand.

You need to get your FACTS correct before making definitive statements.  Decision 20-3a/2 does NOT permit drawing a line on the ball, NOR does it reference ANY lines be permisable.[/color]

To suggest that the rules and decisions must be a coherent logical whole doesn't seem to reflect reality.

Try actually reading Decision 20-3a/2 before telling us what it means.[/color]

If anything is weak and illogical it must be that the dumkopfs at the USGA who reasoned that the line on the ball is OK, but the pipe (smoking or not) isn't.  

They NEVER reasoned that.
PLEASE, READ Decision 20-3a/2 so that you will know what you're talking about, before you posit erroneous facts and flawed conclusions.[/color]

Or are you suggesting that they didn't think of functional equivalency before they came up with decision 20-3a/2?  

READ Decision 20-3a/2
In addition, Decision 20-3a/2 was decided before lines were being placed on balls for the purpose of aiding in determining the line.[/color]

Telling them they are weak and illogical seems like a fine way to get them to change the rule.

If you'd READ Decision 20-3a/2 before typing, you might find that your argument fails miserably.[/color]

There, does that constitute another deflection?  A kick save, and a beauty!

NO, it doesn't, it's a flawed argument based on a misunderstanding of the rules and decisions and a total misrepresentation of the facts.  Read Decision 20-3a/2[/color]


I must admit that I stand humbled at the feet of the master of deflection - Patrick Mucci.


I can understand that, but, my reasoning remains sound as do the facts I've presented.

Please, read Decision 20-3a/2[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

your logic and reasoning is that Decision 8-2a/2 prohibits the placing of a pipe beside or behind the ball to indicate line, and that a line on the ball so oriented is the functional equivalent of a pipe beside or behind the ball, and therefore would also be prohibited.  

Logically, I presume you'd agree that decision 8-2a/2 doesn't specifically prohibit the line on the ball since it is neither an object in the sense of the decision, nor is it behind or beside the line of play.  

Hence, you want to rely on the theory of functional equivalency.

Correct, especially when coupled with Rule 8-2a and 8-2b.[/color]

It really doesn't matter if I agree or not that they are functionally equivalent. What matters is if the rule makers agree.

My reasoning and logic is that since Rule 8-2 is ambiguous, Decision 8-2a/2 doesn't directly address the question of legality of the line on the ball, that I will rely, not on functional equivalency, but on decision 20-3a/2 which does directly address and permit using a line on the ball for alignment purposes.

You are WRONG.

Decision 20-3a/2 does NOT permit using a LINE on the ball for alignment purposes.

Obviously, you didn't read the decision before you typed your response [/color]

Oh, Patrick, stop being so anal.  


It's got to do with being factually accurate.
Decision 20-3a/2 does not mention a line or any line on the ball, Decision 20-3a/2 ONLY references the TRADEMARK, placed there by the manufacturer.

A trademark is a far cry from a line drawn by the competitor, before or during the round.  And, it's also a far cry from a line drawn on the ball by the manufacturer for the purpose of aiding in determining the line.


Decision 20-3a/2 permits use of a logo to align a ball.  

NO, it doesn't, it permits the TRADEMARK.


The logo includes a line on the current ProV1, ergo a line is permitted.  

That's also incorrect.
The "Trademark" is unique, protected and proprietary, a line is not.

In addition, Decision 20-3a/2 was rendered prior to the introduction of the current Pro V1 with the cheater line incorporated into an area other than that reserved for the
"Trademark"


If you want to be more anal and parse this down to a hand drawn line then that is permitted under the FAQ for rule 6-5 which I will quote for you again:

"Rule 6-5

Lines or Arrows Used to mark Golf Ball

That's not what Rule 6-5 states.

Rule 6-5 states the following:
"The responsibility for playing the PROPER ball rests with the player.  Each player should put an identification mark on his ball."


Q.  It is recommended placing an identification mark on my golf ball. May I use a line or an arrow that will also help me align the club face?

A.  Rules 6-5 and 12-2 state that each player should put an identification mark on his ball. Thus, the Rules do not limit the type of markings a player may put on the ball (i.e. arrows, lines, words, etc). Additionally, there is no penalty for using such lines to "line up" prior to a stroke on the putting green or any place else on the course."

Ooops, I forgot, the FAQs are meaningless to you.  

The ONLY two official documents which govern the rules of golf are:
The Rules of Golf
The Decisions on the Rules of Golf.


Functional equivalency certainly must take precedence over the FAQ in your world.

You can now reread the rest of the post in that context and stop deflecting.


The non-standing of the FAQ as an official document governing the rules of golf was discussed pages ago.

How do you reconcile the USGA's ban of the practice of using markings or objects to aid in determining the line ?

The issue of drawing lines to aid in determining the line, be they manufacturer's or competitors is a relatively new practice and will probably be addressed in the January, 2008 Joint Rules session.

My money's on the extension of the ban to include the ball

It is illogical to argue for functional equivalency in the face of a direct decision on the matter at hand.

You need to get your FACTS correct before making definitive statements.  Decision 20-3a/2 does NOT permit drawing a line on the ball, NOR does it reference ANY lines be permisable.[/color]

To suggest that the rules and decisions must be a coherent logical whole doesn't seem to reflect reality.

Try actually reading Decision 20-3a/2 before telling us what it means.[/color]

If anything is weak and illogical it must be that the dumkopfs at the USGA who reasoned that the line on the ball is OK, but the pipe (smoking or not) isn't.  

They NEVER reasoned that.
PLEASE, READ Decision 20-3a/2 so that you will know what you're talking about, before you posit erroneous facts and flawed conclusions.[/color]

Or are you suggesting that they didn't think of functional equivalency before they came up with decision 20-3a/2?  

READ Decision 20-3a/2
In addition, Decision 20-3a/2 was decided before lines were being placed on balls for the purpose of aiding in determining the line.[/color]

Telling them they are weak and illogical seems like a fine way to get them to change the rule.

If you'd READ Decision 20-3a/2 before typing, you might find that your argument fails miserably.[/color]

There, does that constitute another deflection?  A kick save, and a beauty!

NO, it doesn't, it's a flawed argument based on a misunderstanding of the rules and decisions and a total misrepresentation of the facts.  Read Decision 20-3a/2[/color]


I must admit that I stand humbled at the feet of the master of deflection - Patrick Mucci.


I can understand that, but, my reasoning remains sound as do the facts I've presented.

Please, read Decision 20-3a/2[/color]

[TEPaul]

"You are WRONG.
Decision 20-3a/2 does NOT permit using a LINE on the ball for alignment purposes.
Obviously, you didn't read the decision before you typed your response."

Patrick:

To the extent the Rulesmakers consider the trademark on a golf ball to be a line or functionally similar to a line for the purposes of aligning a ball to indicate a line for putting, he is not wrong.

Furthermore, it's pretty clear that trademark mentioned in Dec 20-3a/2 is what they do consider a "mark" or "line" or functionally similar to a player's "identification" line.  

It is my understanding that Decision 20-3a/2 is the wording in the Rules of Golf that has been most used to justify this interpretation that this putting practice is not a violation of the Rules and is the reason this putting practice has never been called on any player as a violation in the last twenty years since this Decision has been in the book.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"You are WRONG.
Decision 20-3a/2 does NOT permit using a LINE on the ball for alignment purposes.
Obviously, you didn't read the decision before you typed your response."

Patrick:

To the extent the Rulesmakers consider the trademark on a golf ball to be a line or functionally similar to a line for the purposes of aligning a ball to indicate a line for putting, he is not wrong.

The Rulesmakers DON'T consider a line to be a trademark.
The word/term "Trademark" is quiet specific.

A "Trademark" is:
"A device (as a word) pointing distinctly to the origin or ownership of merchandise to which it is applied and legally reserved to the exclusive use of the owner as maker or seller."

I think the esteemed Rulemakers understood the word "trademark" quite clearly.

In no way did they confuse it with a line[/color]

Furthermore, it's pretty clear that trademark mentioned in Dec 20-3a/2 is what they do consider a "mark" or "line" or functionally similar to a player's "identification" line.

Absolutely NOT.  20-3a/2 is SPECIFIC.
No mention of a line is incorporated anywhere in that decision.
They knew EXACTLY what a "TRADEMARK" is.
You don't need to be a patent attorney to know that one.
Only you and Bryan remain in the dark as to the definition and meaning.[/color]

It is my understanding that Decision 20-3a/2 is the wording in the Rules of Golf that has been most used to justify this interpretation that this putting practice is not a violation of the Rules and is the reason this putting practice has never been called on any player as a violation in the last twenty years since this Decision has been in the book.

The wording in 20-3a/2 is clear, crystal clear.

20 years ago the cheater line didn't exist.

Only this year did a manufacturer include it on the cover of a golf ball, and only recently did players begin drawing it on their golf ball.

What you don't get, and I'm trying to help you get, is that the manufacturers have been ahead of the USGA since Karsten Solheim filed his suit.  They're interests conflict with the best interests of golf, and incorporating the cheater's line at the manufacturing level is just another example.

That the USGA has lagged behind the manufacturer's in testing and understanding I&B isn't a defense by which you form the basis of your argument.

The one ball rule didn't exist 40 years ago because NOONE engaged in the practice of switching balls during a round.
Once they did, the USGA acted.
Hopefully, they'll do the same with the cheater's line.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Tangentially, how can the USGA uphold and not revoke Decision 8-2a/2 if they were to incorporate the language in the FAQ into Decision 20-3a/2

[Craig Sweet]

Mucci, I see you refuse to pull this OFF TOPIC thread that YOU started.

You say it WAS on topic and then it took on a life of its own.

However YOU started this thread and YOU could have easliy brought this thread back ON TOPIC.

But apparently you HAVE and ANOTHER AGENDA.

And that is what I really dislike about you Mucci....you have no problem beating people up for OFF TOPIC posts when it suits you, and being a hypocrite when you want to PUSH YOUR agenda....

Delete this thread please.

[Pete_Pittock]

In re trademark
It takes some time for agreement upon the language of a decision or rule of golf. I cannot think of one word which can
adequately describe all of what is marked on the surface of a golf ball by the manufacturer. Trademark was likely the result of a compromise that looked both at what was written on the golf ball and what a golfer using common sense would perceive as the intent of the word.

In re Decision 20-3/c2 (?)
   A dredging of the seldom view storage areas of my brain wonders about the why of the decision. Was there a complaint about a particular golfer lining up "Titlest" or "MacGregor" for a putt once continuous putting went by the wayside.
   Since the ball is 'not in play' when teed up, some golfers may have aligned their ball along the manufacturers name
to help them in the line of play. If you allow lining up a ball not in play for a drive, then what is the rationale for not allowing the golfer to align the ball, also not in play, when it has been lifted, for cleaning, on the putting green.

   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mucci, I see you refuse to pull this OFF TOPIC thread that YOU started.

And, how would I go about doing that ?
Don't you know that you can't delete the opening post.
And, I wouldn't want to, especially because you're requesting it.[/color]

You say it WAS on topic and then it took on a life of its own.

I"m glad to see that you have some degree of reading comprehension.[/color]

However YOU started this thread and YOU could have easliy brought this thread back ON TOPIC.

How ?
Is Shivas my Charlie McCarthy ?
A puppet to be silenced at my command ?
I guess you think that Shivas doesn't have a mind and will of his own, not to mention the other participants. [/color]

But apparently you HAVE and ANOTHER AGENDA.

Why don't you tell us what that is.[/color]

And that is what I really dislike about you Mucci....you have no problem beating people up for OFF TOPIC posts when it suits you, and being a hypocrite when you want to PUSH YOUR agenda....

I had NO agenda when I started this thread.
Now, my only agenda is to annoy you.[/color]

Delete this thread please.

If you had a brain, you would know that you can't delete the opening post.

And, I don't want to, especially because you do.

With 1048+ replies and over 12,600 views, someone must be interested in the thread.   If you don't like it, don't click on it.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter Pittock,

Read the last sentence in Rule 8-2a, which references "other than on the Putting Green, in the context of using a mark to indicate the line and the requirement to remove it prior to the stroke.

[Pete_Pittock]

Patrick,
   I am well aware of Rule 8-2a, which allows indicating the line of play as long as the indication is removed before the stroke. The breaking down of the rule about indicating line of play into two sections, one on the putting green and the other elsewhere supposes we are talking about the golf course. To inject this to include the golf ball passes by my version of common sense.
   One point that I was trying to make was that there is another common point where a ball is not in play, and the player may decide to line his ball up with the "cheater line".
(To digress, congratulations on framing the argument with your title.) We have covered the putting green when a ball
is marked and lifted. We have not covered when a ball is placed on a tee.
   If a player positions a teed ball with the 'cheater line' aimed at the line of play, wouldn't they be in equal violation of the rule or its spirit? As you so adroitly pointed out, they would have to remove the indication before the shot.    

[Bryan Izatt]

....................................


If you want to be more anal and parse this down to a hand drawn line then that is permitted under the FAQ for rule 6-5 which I will quote for you again:

"Rule 6-5

Lines or Arrows Used to mark Golf Ball

That's not what Rule 6-5 states.

Having a little trouble with comprehension, aren't you. The quoted text is from the FAQ on rule 6-5.  It is not the rule.  I never said it was.  But it is the published FAQ.  Why are you trying to deflect?
 
Rule 6-5 states the following:
"The responsibility for playing the PROPER ball rests with the player.  Each player should put an identification mark on his ball."


Q.  It is recommended placing an identification mark on my golf ball. May I use a line or an arrow that will also help me align the club face?

A.  Rules 6-5 and 12-2 state that each player should put an identification mark on his ball. Thus, the Rules do not limit the type of markings a player may put on the ball (i.e. arrows, lines, words, etc). Additionally, [size=4x]there is no penalty for using such lines to "line up" prior to a stroke on the putting green or any place else on the course.[/size]"

Ooops, I forgot, the FAQs are meaningless to you.  

The ONLY two official documents which govern the rules of golf are:
The Rules of Golf
The Decisions on the Rules of Golf.


Functional equivalency certainly must take precedence over the FAQ in your world.

You can now reread the rest of the post in that context and stop deflecting.


The non-standing of the FAQ as an official document governing the rules of golf was discussed pages ago.

Indeed it was.  You didn't answer my questions then about why you think the FAQs have no standing.  Why would the USGA publish FAQs if they have no standing?  [size=4x]Have you ever called a penalty on someone in competition for using the so-called "cheater line"?  If not, why not?  After all you say that the rule and the decision forbid it's use and the FAQ has no standing.[/size][/color]

How do you reconcile the USGA's ban of the practice of using markings or objects to aid in determining the line ?

I don't have to reconcile it.  The USGA reconciled it when they published the decision on "trademarks" (I suppose you don't think that the <. ProV1 .> marking is a trademark or the functional equivalent of a line either).  And, when they published the FAQ under rule 6-5.  Why don't you ask the USGA, instead of me, how they reconciled it?

The issue of drawing lines to aid in determining the line, be they manufacturer's or competitors is a relatively new practice and will probably be addressed in the January, 2008 Joint Rules session.

My money's on the extension of the ban to include the ball[/color][/b]

I don't suppose that their focus on this issue will distract them from rolling back the ball.  Where would you want them to focus their efforts?

.................................

[Patrick_Mucci]

....................................


If you want to be more anal and parse this down to a hand drawn line then that is permitted under the FAQ for rule 6-5 which I will quote for you again:

"Rule 6-5

Lines or Arrows Used to mark Golf Ball

That's not what Rule 6-5 states.

Having a little trouble with comprehension, aren't you. The quoted text is from the FAQ on rule 6-5.  It is not the rule.  I never said it was.  But it is the published FAQ.  Why are you trying to deflect?

Not at all, you were the one who conveniently blended 6-5 into the FAQ, I merely pointed out exactly what Rule 6-5 stated, since you were trying to mislead readers into thinking the that language in the FAQ was incorporated in Rule 6-5
 
Rule 6-5 states the following:
"The responsibility for playing the PROPER ball rests with the player.  Each player should put an identification mark on his ball."


Q.  It is recommended placing an identification mark on my golf ball. May I use a line or an arrow that will also help me align the club face?

A.  Rules 6-5 and 12-2 state that each player should put an identification mark on his ball. Thus, the Rules do not limit the type of markings a player may put on the ball (i.e. arrows, lines, words, etc). Additionally, [size=4x]there is no penalty for using such lines to "line up" prior to a stroke on the putting green or any place else on the course.[/size]

[size=4x]  
It's disengenuous of you to imply that the above statement in the FAQ is part of Rule 6-5 and 12-2, it's not.  It's merely an informal response and not part of the Rules of Golf or the Decisions of Golf, the only two official documents governing the Rules of Golf.  Are you certain that the answers to FAQ's haven't changed in the past ?[/size] [/color]


Ooops, I forgot, the FAQs are meaningless to you.  

The ONLY two official documents which govern the rules of golf are:
The Rules of Golf
The Decisions on the Rules of Golf.


Functional equivalency certainly must take precedence over the FAQ in your world.

You can now reread the rest of the post in that context and stop deflecting.


The non-standing of the FAQ as an official document governing the rules of golf was discussed pages ago.

Indeed it was.  You didn't answer my questions then about why you think the FAQs have no standing.  Why would the USGA publish FAQs if they have no standing?

You'd have to ask them.

[size=4x]
Have you ever called a penalty on someone in competition for using the so-called "cheater line"?  If not, why not?  [/size]
[size=4x]
NO, for two reasons, one, because I've never been in a competition where my fellow competitor used a cheater line.[/size]
[size=4x]

After all you say that the rule and the decision forbid it's use and the FAQ has no standing.[/size][/b]
[size=4x]
That's NOT what I said.
Please quote me correctly[/size]

How do you reconcile the USGA's ban of the practice of using markings or objects to aid in determining the line ?

I don't have to reconcile it.  The USGA reconciled it when they published the decision on "trademarks"

That was published LONG before the manufacturers created cheater lines IN ADDITION to their trademark


(I suppose you don't think that the <. ProV1 .> marking is a trademark or the functional equivalent of a line either).  


No, I think the word Titleist is THE trademark, the ProV1 markings identify the type of ball and the linear nature of the markings a clear cheater line.


And, when they published the FAQ under rule 6-5.  Why don't you ask the USGA, instead of me, how they reconciled it?[/b]

Because you're on line defending the practice, not them.

The issue of drawing lines to aid in determining the line, be they manufacturer's or competitors is a relatively new practice and will probably be addressed in the January, 2008 Joint Rules session.

My money's on the extension of the ban to include the ball

I don't suppose that their focus on this issue will distract them from rolling back the ball.  Where would you want them to focus their efforts?

I think they can handle multi-tasking and focus on both issues.

.................................

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I am well aware of Rule 8-2a, which allows indicating the line of play as long as the indication is removed before the stroke. The breaking down of the rule about indicating line of play into two sections, one on the putting green and the other elsewhere supposes we are talking about the golf course. To inject this to include the golf ball passes by my version of common sense.
   
One point that I was trying to make was that there is another common point where a ball is not in play, and the player may decide to line his ball up with the "cheater line".
(To digress, congratulations on framing the argument with your title.) We have covered the putting green when a ball
is marked and lifted. We have not covered when a ball is placed on a tee.
   
If a player positions a teed ball with the 'cheater line' aimed at the line of play, wouldn't they be in equal violation of the rule or its spirit? As you so adroitly pointed out, they would have to remove the indication before the shot.  

You'd have to ask Shivas.

His position is different from mine.

Haven't you been reading the last 31 pages carefully ?[/color]  

[Jim Franklin]

Shivas -

Are either you or Pat sending something to the USGA for further clarification? If not, you should, but if so, please keep us posted.

[JESII]

Shivas,


Tuesday evening passed, so beers are on you...and let me tell you something, if I make it out to Chicago to collect the bet and you don't look exactly like Jack Nicholson screaming about wanting the truth I'm going to be pissed...

[JESII]

Shivas,

I really and truly hope that wasn't your BIG FINISH. Please tell me there's more...

[JSlonis]

For the purposes of this discussion, would the guys that want the line on the ball banned also prefer putters with alignment aids banned as well?  Do they also violate the principles of the game?  These markings are obviously on the clubhead to help the golfer align themselves to their intended line.

[JESII]

You will note that the Two Great Principles have nothing to do with the nature of the golf club.  That ought to be a good starting point right there.  

...or the ball Shiv, so don't go too far there...

[JESII]

Shivas,

"But if it has to be touched, there is only one conclusion to be drawn from the rules: that the player ought not benefit from violating the Great Principle"[/i]

Where did you pull that load of crap from?

Ought not benefit...what would you call cleaning mud off the ball? This is getting more pathetic by the post Shivas. If you're going to hold up The Great Principles as sacrosanct, at least have the decency to not then say OK, you can bend those Principles a bit, but such and such would be going too far.

It's becoming clearer all the time that your only real issue here is pace of play...I'll ask again, why don't you think of a way to attack that head on?

[JSlonis]

Oh, I'm going there because Great Principle Number One is that the ball is not to be touched during play of the hole.

But if it has to be touched, there is only one conclusion to be drawn from the rules: that the player ought not benefit from violating the Great Principle.  That's why the Rules of Golf have penalties in the first place.  

This is why I asked for the Great Principles and the reasoning behind them 20 pages ago or whatever.  ALWAYS tip the first domino.  From there, they all fall.

BUT...

The current Rules of Golf state in Rule 16-1b:

 b. Lifting and Cleaning Ball
A ball on the putting green may be lifted and, if desired, cleaned. The position of the ball must be marked before it is lifted and the ball must be replaced (See Rule 20-1).

Are you arguing that the current Rules of Golf as they are written also violate these "Great Principles"?

[John_Cullum]

Shivas,


Tuesday evening passed, so beers are on you...and let me tell you something, if I make it out to Chicago to collect the bet and you don't look exactly like Jack Nicholson screaming about wanting the truth I'm going to be pissed...

You'll be disappointed,but I can report that he bears more resemblence to Jack Nicholson that to Freddi Prinze.