[TEPaul]

"Tom, that's hogwash.

If I were so inclined, I could go back into this thread and cite at least a dozen times where I made it perfectly clear that I agree with you that the rules should be written in plain and simple, non-criminal type terms.  In fact, the rule as I wrote it was in the affirmative for that very reason -- so that the folks out there can read the rule and know what they're supposed to do.  So don't give me this gobbledygook about wanting  the rules to be some sort of overlawyered, overnuanced "gotcha trap" because that's just a flat out wrong assertion.  

In fact, now that I think about it, I seem to recall that a few pages ago, it was YOU that was over-arching and over-parsing the language of the Rules (not me), with that stuff to Sullly about "a" ball and "a" club, in the singular as opposed to the plural!"



Shivas:

The fact that there is any parsing of Rules words on this thread at all is the results of your questioning of the writing and interpreting of the words in the Rules by Rulesmakers.

I admit, and I've always admitted, that the wording within Rule 8-2b and even Dec 20-3a/2 is not as clear as it might be but the fact is it's apparently clear enough that no players or officials I'm aware of have been seriously confused by it in twenty years!  

Pat and I are going to make a proposal about the wording re this putting practice to the USGA Rules Committee. I don't see you joining us or doing that. And why is that? Perhaps you're just more content to rail against the words in the Rules and the Rulesmakers on here rather than actually asking those who write the Rules for clarification in wording or in interpreting via a proposal.

I'm going to help Pat write this proposal but I feel the likely outcome of it will be not that they will make this putting practice a violation of the Rules but that they may put wording into either Rule 8-2b or perhaps Dec. 20-3a/2 that this practice of aligning an identification mark or line is definitely NOT a violation of the Rules of Golf.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, this is more of the same.  How could I be surprised by something so obvious?  It's clear to anyone who reads that that's the case.  What was interesting, but not surprising (there's a difference) was your explanation of why that's the case (there's also a difference there, too)."

Shivas:

Talk about gobbledygook!

Is that what lawyers do when they communicate with one another?

You were not only surprised by the "why" the word cheat is not in the Rules of Golf, you were surprised, period, that it really never has been in fact!

The reason it never really has been is one of the fundamental essences and principles of what-all the Rules of Golf and golf as originally played was all about.

That, in fact, both was and is what the "spirit" of the game is all about.

You did not realize the fact of it or the "why" of it and that to me is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Rules of Golf are.  

If anything comes out of this thread for you I hope it's at least the complete realization of that.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I think we'll put forth a reasoned request."

Pat:

I'm sure we will. But let me ask you something since I've never been completely sure how your position on this issue difffers from Shivas's position.

If the best our proposal does is get the R&A/USGA to put clearer language into perhaps Rule 8-2b or a Decision that this putting practice IS NOT a violation of the Rules how would you feel about that?  

Disappointed !

[TEPaul]

"Disappointed!"

Pat:

Realistically that may be the best we can hope for. Do you still want to make the proposal anyway?

I hope you do because it will both give you the opportunity to get your feelings about this on record in a real proposal (and historically the written record of proposals is a pretty interesting thing all the way back to Macdonald and such) and it will show you how this Rule change proposal process really works from the outside in.

Some of the guys on here seem to think one can just call them up or write it on here and the USGA Rules Committee will say;

"Hey neat idea, why didn't we think of that before, let's do it."

It doesn't exactly work that way.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I"m keenly interested in making a formal presentation.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I"m keenly interested in making a formal presentation."

Patrick:

Your "keenly" interested in making a formal presentation? KEENLY interested!?

OK. That's a fine adverb. No, it's a super-fine adverb. I like it a lot and I can definitely run with KEENLY (interested) with a formal presentation. But don't start sloughing off with me at some point that you're just "interested" or "sort of " interested or I'll be very pissed at you----eg even more pissed off at you than I generally am for the gratuitous BS you put on this site when I know perfectly well or even know "keenly" that you know better.

KEENLY (interested), huh?

OK, I'm inspired.

Would you like to throw in a combined two-for-one proposal that they consider banning the ban on the stymie too if and when they ban this putting practice?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Presently, there's no DEFENSE in golf.

A reinstatement of the "stymie" would change that and perhaps make golf at the match play level more appealing.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Presently, there's no DEFENSE in golf."

Patrick:

DEFENSE in golf was something that was never exactly intended. The Stymie was not something that was just thought up at some point in golf. It existed for one reason only and that was because a golfer was not permitted to touch his ball once he put it in play on the tee until he removed it from the hole.

[TEPaul]

"What is not clear is the reasoning behind why the Decision is 180 degrees contrary to the Rule.:

Shivas:

Honestly, you really are over the line here in obtuseness about why it's that way. Dec. 20-3a/2 makes an EXCEPTION with a mark (line) ON A GOLF BALL!!!

Do you even realize how many "Exceptions" there are in the Rules, including the Decisions, which are technically considered to be part of the Rules of Golf.

You really are the only one I've heard of in twenty years who seems confused by this or unable to understand why it's that way.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,
Presently, there's no DEFENSE in golf."

Patrick:

DEFENSE in golf was something that was never exactly intended. The Stymie was not something that was just thought up at some point in golf. It existed for one reason only and that was because a golfer was not permitted to touch his ball once he put it in play on the tee until he removed it from the hole.

TEPaul,

Irrespective of its origin, the "Stymie" evolved as a defensive tactic in match play.

Anyone who's seen "Caddyshack" knows that.

And, didn't Gil Hanse tell you, on the 2nd green at Applebrook, that he wanted to design courses with more chipping opportunities, since chipping had become a weak part of the golfer's game since the abandonment of the "Stymie"

TE, you can't for convenience sake, equate a "trademark" with a "line" on a ball.

The two are quite different, and the USGA understood the distinct meaning of the word "trademark" when they issued 20-3a/2.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"TE, you can't for convenience sake, equate a "trademark" with a "line" on a ball.
The two are quite different, and the USGA understood the distinct meaning of the word "trademark" when they issued 20-3a/2."

Patrick:

It would probably be a good idea if you didn't tell the USGA Rulesmakers what they can't equate to a trademark for the purposes of aligning a golf ball to indicate the line of putting.

The point is for the last twenty years they have used Dec. 20-3a/2 to do exactly that.

As for the stymie, yes it did evolve into something of a defensive technique in golf and for that very reason it was eventually taken out of golf and the Rules of Golf.

[Michael Moore]

I have made a small discovery that may assuage those who would wrongly attempt to legislate how I place my golf ball on the green.

At work this morning, I was idly rolling an awesome brand new shiny PRO V1 around my desktop. I gazed upon the <-- PRO v1 --> logo that some players use to indicate a point for striking, and began pointing it at various targets on my desk.

I came to the stunning conclusion that, on this specimen at least, the dimple pattern knocked this mark off line. That is to say, when I released the ball from my hand, it wobbled a degree or two to one side or another before coming to rest.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Michael

You will be happy to learn that Dave Pelz (who else) has researched the effect of dimples on post-impact ball vectors.  (How's that for pseudo-scientific jargoneering!)

I think he said the effect is measurable (forget just how significant) on short putts but on long putts the dimple effect is negated by the force of the putter blow.

There's even a drawing in his putting bible where he shows little "feet" (they look more like chess pawns glued to the ball) sprouting from the balls so as to give them a bit of wobble.

Mark

[Michael Moore]

Michael, serves you right for dirty, rotten cheatin' at the gawf!

Shivas -

Your The Crucible-esque fervor has again caused you to forget that I do not engage in this practice.

[Jeff Fortson]

Shivas,

Describe your putter if you would.  I'm curious about something.


Jeff F.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Edinburgh Burgess, 1838- “No hole shall be held gained unless the ball be holed; and in holing, no mark of any kind shall be made on the green to direct the player, nor shall the ground be smoothed for that purpose.”

Musselburgh, 1829- “Neither shall any party mark by a line upon the ground, the direction he wishes the Ball to take”.

Musselburgh, 1834- “At holing the direction to the hole shall not be marked on the green”


The old rules say don't make or place a mark on the green or don't mark the ground. Our modern rule says don't touch the surface of the putting green and don't place a mark anywhere.

It seems so easy to understand what it was (and still is) that the rulesmakers were saying about not marking the surface of the green or the ground, and it really has nothing to do with marking the ball.


p.s. my view, no response to differing opinions will be forthcoming.

 

[JESII]

...a straightforward question: 

Considering the source...this is the definition of an oxymoron!

[Jeff Fortson]

Shivas,

According to Rule 8-2b, the way you interpret it, you are in violation for using a putter that has a line on it to help indicate the line of putt.  We'll call it the "Putter Cheater Line".  Both a Ping Answer 2 and a B60 have lines on them to help indicate the line of putt.  You're a cheater.

I am too by the way.


Jeff F.

[Ted Kramer]

Shivas,

According to Rule 8-2b, the way you interpret it, you are in violation for using a putter that has a line on it to help indicate the line of putt.  We'll call it the "Putter Cheater Line".  Both a Ping Answer 2 and a B60 have lines on them to help indicate the line of putt.  You're a cheater.

I am too by the way.


Jeff F.

That was addressed long, long ago. 

You can't place a mark to indicate a line for putting.  There's a purpose element to the rule.

Why do you place a putter?  To actually DO the putting.  So the purpose element is lacking.

And the putter moves.
That line isn't static.
It might be static before the stroke.
But once the stroke starts that line doesn't indicate anything.
Your caddy can help you line up before the shot, but he has to move before the stroke.
Same idea with regards to the line on the putter.
And by the way, that caddy lining you up thing should be illegal too . . .

-Ted

[Michael Moore]

Why do you place a putter?  To actually DO the putting.  So the purpose element is lacking.

Shivas -

How come the true purpose of placing your putter is to do the putting but the true purpose of replacing your ball on the green is not, oh I don't know, so your putter will have something hit towards the hole when you swing it?

[Jeff Fortson]

Shivas,

According to Rule 8-2b, the way you interpret it, you are in violation for using a putter that has a line on it to help indicate the line of putt.  We'll call it the "Putter Cheater Line".  Both a Ping Answer 2 and a B60 have lines on them to help indicate the line of putt.  You're a cheater.

I am too by the way.


Jeff F.

That was addressed long, long ago. 

You can't place a mark to indicate a line for putting.  There's a purpose element to the rule.

Why do you place a putter?  To actually DO the putting.  So the purpose element is lacking.

And the putter moves.
That line isn't static.
It might be static before the stroke.
But once the stroke starts that line doesn't indicate anything.
Your caddy can help you line up before the shot, but he has to move before the stroke.
Same idea with regards to the line on the putter.
And by the way, that caddy lining you up thing should be illegal too . . .

-Ted

So your caddy could stand directly behind you and move back and forth on a similar path to your putter and that would be ok?  Can you envision my example?  You think that since the line on the ball is static and the line on the putter moves (even if it's straight back and straight through) that the line on the putter is not cheating, in the context of Shivas's claim re: Rule 8-2b?  Why wouldn't a caddy move one inch back and forward over a short putt in unison with his player's stroke.  He could then stand behind him and not have to get out of the line because his help is no longer static.  Why wouldn't a caddy position a thin stick where he held it hovering over the ball and just ever so slightly move it so it wasn't static?  Would that be legal?  A line on a putter head is no different.

Another example...  A player could rest a stick down next to his ball and as long as his caddy moves it just before he takes the club back it's legal.  Literally, milliseconds before the club is taken back.

This Rule needs better language. 


Jeff F.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

What puzzles me is the following.

If golf has ceased growing, in part due to the time to play, the new demographic and culture in America, why on earth would the governing body encourage a practice that further slows the game ?

Club after club is looking for ways to speed up play, yet, the USGA advocates, through rule introduction or interpretation, a procedure that can only SLOW the game down.

WHY ?

For what purpose ?

Didn't anyone learn anything when Ike warned of the Military-Industrial complex ?  Or, is it Deja Vu all over again ?

[Ted Kramer]

Shivas,

According to Rule 8-2b, the way you interpret it, you are in violation for using a putter that has a line on it to help indicate the line of putt.  We'll call it the "Putter Cheater Line".  Both a Ping Answer 2 and a B60 have lines on them to help indicate the line of putt.  You're a cheater.

I am too by the way.


Jeff F.

That was addressed long, long ago. 

You can't place a mark to indicate a line for putting.  There's a purpose element to the rule.

Why do you place a putter?  To actually DO the putting.  So the purpose element is lacking.

And the putter moves.
That line isn't static.
It might be static before the stroke.
But once the stroke starts that line doesn't indicate anything.
Your caddy can help you line up before the shot, but he has to move before the stroke.
Same idea with regards to the line on the putter.
And by the way, that caddy lining you up thing should be illegal too . . .

-Ted

So your caddy could stand directly behind you and move back and forth on a similar path to your putter and that would be ok?  Can you envision my example?  You think that since the line on the ball is static and the line on the putter moves (even if it's straight back and straight through) that the line on the putter is not cheating, in the context of Shivas's claim re: Rule 8-2b?  Why wouldn't a caddy move one inch back and forward over a short putt in unison with his player's stroke.  He could then stand behind him and not have to get out of the line because his help is no longer static.  Why wouldn't a caddy position a thin stick where he held it hovering over the ball and just ever so slightly move it so it wasn't static?  Would that be legal?  A line on a putter head is no different.

Another example...  A player could rest a stick down next to his ball and as long as his caddy moves it just before he takes the club back it's legal.  Literally, milliseconds before the club is taken back.

This Rule needs better language. 


Jeff F.

Jeff,

I appreciate your comments.
And I don't claim to have the best answer or answers.
I was trying to find a logical difference between the line on the putter and the line on the ball. I do think that a logical and inherent difference exists. Maybe I need to think more about how to explain my feelings . . .
I agree with you.
The rule needs better language.
But I'll restate my opinion:
I don't like the cheater line.
I think it should be illegal to use a line drawn on the ball or any insignia for the purpose of "allignment".

[Michael]

Shivas and Ted..

 kind of new to this discussion, but have played for many years, we used to in the "old days" line up the name on the ball both on the tee and on the green, both as a teaching aid to keep your head still, and I guess a alignment aid as well..now almost every ball has some kind of "Line" on it....


 Have the governing bodies in golf addressed this, and dismissed these "lines" on golf balls?

Michael

[Peter Pallotta]

Shivas - I debated you a little bit on the other threads, and am still not sure about the particulars etc. But as a concept and window into/framing for the question in general, your "erosion of judgement" is a pretty compelling one; it has legs, it seems to me...

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()