Shivas's cheater line

[Doug Siebert]

All joking about "jiggering" aside, I think you guys are being too hard on Shivas here.  He's a lawyer trying to define what he thinks this rule should be like a lawyer would want to see a law written, so it is easy to convict someone who violates it.

The Rules of Golf aren't written that way, they are written quite simply, and many of the things one does are in a gray area where it is open to interpretation.  Basically we rely on the golfer to be his own judge.  Think about the rule that allows you to fix a ball mark but not a mark that was made perhaps by a pissed off player banging the heel of his putter a bit too hard into the green.  If I see a mark and isn't quite round like a ball mark and more putter-heel shaped, I'm probably the only one who will know if I violate the rule by fixing it.  A cheater can get away with a lot in golf before they are caught red handed, it is the nature of the game and the way the rules are written.

Similarly, a rule that simply disallowed lining up the ball in a particular way to indicate the line of the putt would serve to eliminate the cheater line.  If a golfer was good enough at accurately placing his ball that he could quickly place it down and have it lined up the way he wants every time, he could continue to use the cheater line and only he'd know.  But guys who do like some of the pros do now where they spend 5-10 seconds replacing it trying to get it to line up just right would no longer be able to do so, it would be as obvious as if they repaired what was visible to everyone within 30 feet as a spike mark and not a ball mark, and they'd rightly be penalized.

This thread has gone on for over 1000 posts so I assume that those of us who agree with Shivas that the cheater line should be made illegal aren't going to change our minds, and those who disagree aren't going to either.  So what's left to debate, other than whether the word "jigger" should be introduced to the USGA lexicon?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JSlonis,

My position differs from Shivas's in several areas.

I have no problem with markings on the golf club.

My sole concern is markings on, and aligning the ball and the functional equivalency of 8-2 a/2

As to why I seperate I from B, it's simple.

The ball is stationary, the club moves.

You can line up a club all you want, but, you still have to take it back, stop and move it forward, and in doing so, two things happen,
1   You stop looking at the club and have no further frame of
     reference as to its position
2   Your swing plane changes everything.

If you could "push" the ball, I would object, but, since that's against the rules, it doesn't concern me.

The line on the ball is functionally equivalent to the pipe in Decision 8-2a/2, which is illegal.  The line provides a dual benefit of aiding in determining the line and providing a strike point along the line, and, it slows up play.

Bryan Izzat,

You presented Rules 12-2 and 6-5 as if they contained the language in the FAQ and nothing could be further from the truth, that's what was disengenuous.   I'm aware of what the FAQ states, but, in your earlier arguments you blended the concepts as if they were incorporated in 12-2 and 6-5.

Previously, you've made false statements to further your argument.  One of them appears below, so I'm sure you understand my concern.  False in one, false in many.


"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 [size=2x]does directly address and permit using a line on the ball for alignment purposes."[/size]

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

I said:

"Having said all that I'm prepared to also talk about both how and why so many of these changes and evolutions have taken place over the years, both positively and negatively and how I think it has made the game better in some cases albeit in others it has made the game worse, at least in the sense that its so separated now from what it once was.

Is that a good thing? Is the Game along with its Principles and Rules better now than it ever was at any time in its history? I mean that as a very legitimate question."

That's my conclusion and I am prepared to discuss how and why those changes and evolutions have taken place over the years and why the Second Great Principle of Golf has changed and evolved over the years from its original prohibition of touching the golf ball "In Play".

You said:

"Wait a second...what a tease....where's the big finish?  Where's the conclusion?  Aw, hell, I guess I'll have to do it myself..."


Again, my post to JESII was not about why the practice of using a mark to indicate the line for putting should be a violation of the Rules, it's about why the "Ball In Play" is not considered to be "Equipment". As for the liberalization ("Lifting and cleaning" the ball) within the Rules of Golf over the years of the prohibition against touching the ball "In Play" that's a long and interesting story and although there may be some evolutionary relationship it is not the same thing as the prohibition on indicating a line for putting. The latter has a much closer relationship to the First Great Principle of Golf that you play the course as you find it.

[TEPaul]

Jamie Slonis said:

"**"These two Great Principles…maintain the sanctity of how the golf ball's lie (unaltered by the player) is the only TRUE CONNECTION with the golf course, the ground, and ultimately Nature itself unaltered by the player (you play the course as you find it--eg don't alter it during play)**

"You only play the course as you find it until you reach the putting green.  Once on the putting green, the rules permit you to alter the "course as you find it" during play.  You can fix ball marks that were already there, brush away sand, etc. You can improve your intended line of play by doing these things.  It's not the same as the rest of the course."

Jamie:

Of course you play the course as you find it until you reach the putting green at which point you can lift and clean your ball and fix ball marks and such thereby improving your intended line of play some.

But it did not used to be that way originally in golf or even before 1952.

The abiliity to lift and clean your ball on the putting green evolved from the abolition of the stymie, and not long before that a player could not even fix ball marks on the green. These are good examples of how the Two Great Principles of Golf----eg "You play the course as you find it" AND "You put your ball in play at the tee and you do not touch it until you remove it from the hole" have been liberalized over the years.

The reasons why or even how is a very interesting subject.  

[Ted Kramer]

Tom,

I hope you don't mind my asking you this, and sure, it is a bit hypothetical, and I don't mean to be immature by asking, but:

Would you prefer the game be played with or without players using a line on the ball to line up putts? Just imagine that the decision was yours and yours alone. What would you choose?

Actually, I'd like to hear from all of you guys . . .
What would you choose?

I don't want to talk about the actual writing of the rule in response to this question. I simply want to know what you think is best for the game.

If the issue is the difficulty of writing the rule, that is one thing. And that can be discussed seperately. All I want to know right now is what you think about the practice of using a line on the ball to help line-up putts. In a perfect world, should it be part of the game or not?

-Ted

[Jim Franklin]

Ted -

Good question. I could care less if a line was used as I do not see how it helps inept players anyway. Most people do not read enough break and are looking at the wrong line anyway so it really doesn't matter.

I, too, have a question. What do you anti-cheater line people think about the long putter? IMO, the long putter is not a golf stroke because part of the club is anchored to your body. What do you think?

[Ted Kramer]

If I was the All Powerful Sole Rule Maker, I'd outlaw the long putter IMMEDIATELY. And the reason would be, "Because I Said So!" - that is the nice thing about being the APSRM

-Ted

[TEPaul]

Ted:

Good questions in post #1108

Personally, I feel the practice of using a mark or line on a golf ball to indicate the line for putting is not a big deal in the context of that practice offering golfers "Assistance" the way the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf and the Rulesmakers look at or have written the Rules to address this particular subject (marks or lines on golf balls)----eg "artificial devices" or "unusual equipment" (Rule 14-3). I say that while admitting I've never tried the practice.

On the other hand, I do think this practice is gaining popularity, it does take too many players too much time to do and consequently has or will become a problem in pace of play (Rule 6-7--Undue Delay; Slow Play).

I also feel the Ruleswriters and Rulesmakers are more than aware of this but in the recent past and currently they view it as a practice that would be very hard for them to regulate or  for golfers to regulate and enforce.

They have stated this (their reason and rationale) so if someone like Shivas or Pat is looking for their reasons or rationale at this point as to why this practice is not a violation of the Rules they have that rationale and reason from the Rulesmakers, even if Pat or Shivas seem unwilling to accept their rationale or reason simply because they don't like the practice.

Shivas or Pat seem to think making this practice a violation of the Rules would be easy to regulate. The point is at this time the Rulesmakers do not seem to agree with them.

That's one of the reasons I've told Pat I will help him make a proposal to the USGA Rules Committee that this practice should become a violation of the Rules of Golf somehow. I'm doing that mostly so that Pat can see how the process of Rules change really works in the context of the only way the Rules of Golf can change---eg through the USGA Rules Committee, the R&A Rules Committee and ultimately through the Joint Rule Committee of the USGA and R&A.

I'm doing this because, frankly, I've gotten a bit tired of listening to people like Shivas and Pat tell all of us the Rulesmakers and Ruleswriters don't even know how to interpret and apply their own Rules that they write and make and iterpret.  

In my opinion, if the Rulesmakers were to make this practice a violation of the Rules somehow they have three basic options to do that which are:

1. Attempt to ban all lines or marks on golf balls (or putterheads) that any player may use to indicate a line for putting.

2. Not do #1 and simply attempt to ban the player practice of aligning almost anything on a golf ball (or putterhead) for the purpose of indicating the line for putting. I guess the working principle would have to be that the player could align nothing to the line of putt other than himself and his putter blade.  

3. Do not make this practice a technical violation of Rule 8 or 14 or 20 but attempt to deal with the problems of pace of play this practice seems to be creating within the Rule where this problem really lies----which is Rule 6-7 (Undue Delay; Slow Play).

I hope that answers your questions.

[Ted Kramer]

Tom,

Thanks for the answer.
But because I'm not all that bright, would you mind participating the following multiple choice questionaire for me so I can better understand your position?

As the All Powerful Sole Rule Maker, I, Tom, declare that players:
a. may use a line on their ball to line up a putt.
b. may not use a line on their ball to line up a putt.

Thanks
-Ted

[tlavin]

That's one of the reasons I've told Pat I will help him make a proposal to the USGA Rules Committee that this practice should become a violation of the Rules of Golf somehow. I'm doing that mostly so that Pat can see how the process of Rules change really works in the context of the only way the Rules of Golf can change---eg through the USGA Rules Committee, the R&A Rules Committee and ultimately through the Joint Rule Committee of the USGA and R&A.

I'm doing this because frankly, I've gotten a bit tired or listenting to people like Shivas and Pat tell all of us the Rulesmakers and Ruleswriters don't even know how to interpret and apply the Rules that they write and make.  

Tired?  How about exhausted, spent, beaten like a dead horse?

I've seen "You're wrong" countless times on this thread and we're talking about a matter of interpretation, because the the rules neither specifically permit or prohibit this widely utilized technique.  Nobody is "right" or "wrong" on this issue; it remains to be seen if the USGA is even willing to discuss this matter.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,

Thanks for the answer.
But because I'm not all that bright, would you mind participating the following multiple choice questionaire for me so I can better understand your position?

As the All Powerful Sole Rule Maker, I, Tom, declare that players:
a. may use a line on their ball to line up a putt.
b. may not use a line on their ball to line up a putt."

Ted:

(a.)--may use a line on their ball to line up a putt so long as it does not violate Rule 6-7 (Undue Delay; Slow Play).

[TEPaul]

"it remains to be seen if the USGA is even willing to discuss this matter."

Terry:

They have discussed it. They've stated that this practice is not a violation of Rule 8-2b. They've stated that the word "anywhere" in the last sentence of Rule 8-2b means a mark anywhere other than on a golf ball or a putterhead.

What they have not yet discussed is whether or not they are willing to change that interpretation. If we make a proposal to them we will find out if they are willing to consider changing this allowable putting practice and make it a violation of the Rules somehow.

[Ted Kramer]

"Tom,

Thanks for the answer.
But because I'm not all that bright, would you mind participating the following multiple choice questionaire for me so I can better understand your position?

As the All Powerful Sole Rule Maker, I, Tom, declare that players:
a. may use a line on their ball to line up a putt.
b. may not use a line on their ball to line up a putt."

Ted:

(a.)--may use a line on their ball to line up a putt so long as it does not violate Rule 6-7 (Undue Delay; Slow Play).

Thanks Tom.
Who else agrees with Tom?

-Ted

[tlavin]

"it remains to be seen if the USGA is even willing to discuss this matter."

Terry:

They have discussed it. They've stated that this practice is not a violation of Rule 8-2b. They've stated that the word "anywhere" in the last sentence of Rule 8-2b means a mark anywhere other than on a golf ball or a putterhead.

What they have not yet discussed is whether or not they are willing to change that interpretation. If we make a proposal to them we will find out if they are willing to consider changing this allowable putting practice and make it a violation of the Rules somehow.

Okay, now I get it.  So we've had 1200 posts on something that is already decided.  Perfect.

[JESII]

I'd throw in with Tom on this one. I don't much care if you do it so long as I don't have to stand around watching you do it.

That being said, I'd have to read and gain a better understanding of just what Rule 6-7 says...



An by the way Shivas, I am being truthful, I do not use the 'cheater-line", I tried for a short stretch and never made a putt...

[TEPaul]

Ted:

Just so you completely understand my own position, I'm fine with the way the Rulesmakers currently interpret that this practice is not a violation of the Rules. On the other hand, if they want to find a way to make it a violation of the Rules I'm fine with that too.

I think the Rulesmakers over the years have done a pretty good job with Rule making, Rule writing and Rule interpeting even if I've made a number of formal proposals over the years that they consider changing the way they write and interpret the Rules with various practices.

To me this is not at all some moral issue of the "spirit of the game" or issue of principle within the Rules of Golf, particularly one that served the game a 150-250 years ago when the game of golf was quite different than it is now. I actually appreciate how the Rulesmakers have accomodated some of modern golf's realities and practices (modern golf being golf in the last century to century and a half or so) into the Rules of Golf.

For instance, to repeal the practice of lifting and cleaning one's ball on the putting green in match play would in effect reestablish the stymie and I'm not for that. Pat is but I'm not.

The practice of allowing a stroke play player to have the ball of a fellow competitor marked and lifted if it is considered to be of interference has been part of the Rules of Golf since the end of the 19th century.

There are some people like Dan King and apparently Shivas and perhaps even Pat who think golf would be better served if the Rules of Golf were taken back to the way they were 150-250 years ago. I view that kind of attitude and suggestion as both quaint as well as interesting but I don't see it as very practical in a general sense today.

The irony is that there is really nothing within the Rules of Golf that I know of that would not allow them to play golf under those old Rules with others who would accept them.

A problem would arise, however, if they attempted to force others, particularly in stroke play, to play that way without the Rulesmakers allowing it within the Rules (if Dan or Shivas or Pat actually attempted to force any player to do that in Stroke Play they would all be subject to disqualification for violating Rule 3-4).

This is true since some of the Rules we are talking about here are "player optional" within the context of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf. Other Rules are not "player optional".

[TEPaul]

"Okay, now I get it.  So we've had 1200 posts on something that is already decided.  Perfect."

Terry:

Yes, it sure is decided. Sorry you missed it. Refer to the middle of post #952 (page 28) and the paragraph that begins "Here's how it is with respect to..."

That's from one of the best Rules minds, Rules makers, Rules writers and Rules interpreters in the world, in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure Shivas and Pat saw that but they don't appear to accept it. So they just keep arguing that it shouldn't be that way or interepreted that way in the Rules of Golf but that in fact is the way it is interpreted by the Rules of Golf and the Rules makers and Rules writers.

And that's why me and some others such as Chris Brauner recommended that if they still don't like it and want to do something about it such as get it changed they need to make a proposal to the USGA that the USGA Rules Committee consider making a change.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted:

Just so you completely understand my own position, I'm fine with the way the Rulesmakers currently interpret that this practice is not a violation of the Rules. On the other hand, if they want to find a way to make it a violation of the Rules I'm fine with that too.

I think the Rulesmakers over the years have done a pretty good job with Rule making, Rule writing and Rule interpeting even if I've made a number of formal proposals over the years that they consider changing the way they write and interpret the Rules with various practices.

To me this is not at all some moral issue of the "spirit of the game" or issue of principle within the Rules of Golf, particularly one that served the game a 150-250 years ago when the game of golf was quite different than it is now. I actually appreciate how the Rulesmakers have accomodated some of modern golf's realities and practices (modern golf being golf in the last century to century and a half or so) into the Rules of Golf.

For instance, to repeal the practice of lifting and cleaning one's ball on the putting green in match play would in effect reestablish the stymie and I'm not for that. Pat is but I'm not.

The practice of allowing a stroke play player to have the ball of a fellow competitor marked and lifted if it is considered to be of interference has been part of the Rules of Golf since the end of the 19th century.

There are some people like Dan King and apparently Shivas and perhaps even Pat who think golf would be better served if the Rules of Golf were taken back to the way they were 150-250 years ago. I view that kind of attitude and suggestion as both quaint as well as interesting but I don't see it as very practical in a general sense today.

The irony is that there is really nothing within the Rules of Golf that I know of that would not allow them to play golf under those old Rules with others who would accept them. A problem would arise, however, if they attempted to force others, particularlyin stroke play, to play that way without the Rulesmakers allowing it within the Rules. This is true since some of what we are talking about here is "player optional" within the context of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.

Tom,

It is obvious to me that you have a great deal of respect for the Rulesmakers and the processes involved with governing this game. I think that I understand your position clearly and for whatever it is worth I think that your stance is very logical, respectable, and consistent.

With that being said, I think that this "use of a line on the ball to aid with alignment" has no place in golf. I'd much prefer the game without this practice.

I'll be first to admit that I'm no expert with regards to the rules, actually I probably don't know a lot of simple ones. But why can't the following rule be added without any confusion or difficulty in terms of enforcement:

A player may not, under any circumstance, use a mark on his/her ball to aid in the alignment of any shot.

That seems very simple to me.
I find that wording to be quite easy to understand.
I don't see why that would cause anyone any difficulty at all.
If I'm missing something, pls let me know.

-Ted

[JESII]

Ted,


What exactly is the point of disallowing the use of your own equipment (which is being used on that shot) to improve your chances of a successful shot?

Why is it substantially different than telling someone they are not allowed to intentionall line up their feet square to the target?

[TEPaul]

“I'll be first to admit that I'm no expert with regards to the rules, actually I probably don't know a lot of simple ones. But why can't the following rule be added without any confusion or difficulty in terms of enforcement:

A player may not, under any circumstance, use a mark on his/her ball to aid in the alignment of any shot.

That seems very simple to me.
I find that wording to be quite easy to understand.
I don't see why that would cause anyone any difficulty at all.
If I'm missing something, pls let me know.”

Ted:

This has got to stop somewhere but I'll try to answer that last question of yours.

The Rules-makers apparently feel at this time that attempting to regulate a Rule written like that is not practical. How would a Rules official or certainly any other golfer determine if and when a player is doing something like that? Where would the line be drawn (no pun intended) so to speak?

I don’t think the Rulesmakers want to tamper with the right of a golfer to use any marking he wants to use for identification purposes so they are not likely to ban a player’s identification line on a golf ball or a manufacturer’s trademark that functionally has been used as a line to indicate a line for putting or even a manufacturer’s alignment line as we now see on some Titleists. If they don’t ban those things what constitutes violating the wording of your wording? Would it be if the line seemingly lined up with a player’s line of putt in the opinion of opponents and fellow competitors even if the player in question may not have even thought of such a thing when he replaced his ball of the putting green?

Would it be when an opponent or fellow competitor noticed a player in question looking at something on his ball and then down some intended line of putt or not?

These are just not easy or practical things for the Rules of Golf to regulate even if Pat and Shivas don’t see it that way. The fact is at this time the Rulesmakers apparently do view that type of regulation as not practical. They have said so.

Furthermore, the Rulemakers probably feel if they were to institute wording such as yours that since Rules officials are the only ones who can formally penalize players (opponents and fellow competitors cannot formally penalize other players because of the appeals process within the Rules of Golf) that such a thing would probably set the entire “appeals” process in Golf (Rule 2-5 in Match Play and the comparable appeals process in Stroke play) into a frightening overdrive.

On one of your last few posts, Ted, you asked who agrees with me on this subject. I guess you'd also like to know who agrees with Shivas or Pat or whomever.

That may be important to you on here on the GOLFCLUBATLAS.com discussion group but those opinions and this discussion is not particularly important in the real world of golf.

The reality of this subject in the Rules of Golf and what happens "on course" in that context has nothing to do with my opinion or their opinion. It only has to do with the opinions of the Rulesmakers and how THEY interpret these things.

I'm really not sure why the likes of Shivas and Pat don't understand this and just let this thing go on here and make an appeal and a proposal to the Rulesmaker to consider changing how this practice is interpreted vis-a-vis the Rules of Golf, if they are so adamant about it.

None of us can change the interpretation of this practice in a Rules context. Only the Rulesmakers can do that.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted,


What exactly is the point of disallowing the use of your own equipment (which is being used on that shot) to improve your chances of a successful shot?

Why is it substantially different than telling someone they are not allowed to intentionall line up their feet square to the target?

Fair question.
And I'm not running from it, I just don't have time to answer right now. I'll answer later on when I have some time.

-Ted

[Peter Pallotta]

"For instance, to repeal the practice of lifting and cleaning one's ball on the putting green in match play would in effect reestablish the stymie..."

TE
for what it's worth, I think that's a very good point. It hints at the many potential "unintended consequences" that the rulemakers have to try to factor in and consider in making/changing the rules. To me it also implicitely gets to the heart of this discussion/debate.

Peter

[JohnV]

Does anyone remember how Betsy King used to line up her putts?

She would stand behind the ball and line the putter up exactly where she wanted to hit it and then move around to the side and putt.

Given that there was a line on her putter, didn't she do the same thing as lining up a mark on the ball?

So, if you want to ban lines on the ball being used, I think you also have to ban all markings on top of the club.

The Rules-makers apparently feel at this time that attempting to regulate a Rule written like that is not practical.

It is either that or they don't think it is so important that a "discussion" of it should become the most replied to topic in GCA history.

[Bryan Izatt]

Ted,

I'd also go with Tom's reply:

(a.)--may use a line on their ball to line up a putt so long as it does not violate Rule 6-7 (Undue Delay; Slow Play).

although in truth it doesn't really matter to me if it went the other way.

JES,

The question about the functional equivalency of using your feet for alignment has been asked before.  There was no answer that I recall.  Perhaps you'll have better luck.  

[JohnV]

Bryan,
You can do anything you want so long as it doesn't violate Rule 6-7.  There is no need to specify that in any rule.

If a group is on the clock, the time a player spends re-marking his ball is counting towards his time he has to play a shot so he better get on with it.