Shivas's cheater line

[Tom Huckaby]

Hey, I am all for this stance.  I would love it if all distance markings were removed.  I just can't see the logic of leaving some and prohibiting others.

TH

Dear Mr. Middle-of-the-Road:

The answer is:

Because nicotine is a drug and so are herion and PCP. 

And you really see these devices as that much worse than using other markings?

I just don't get it.  They make the game go faster, providing information that's available anyway, derived from exactly the same means.  You continue to make zero sense on this one.  Stick to the cheater line.  As inane as that issue remains, at least you do make logical sense there.

TH

[JESII]

Shivas,

The "cheater-line" is placed on the ball and the ball is replaced.

And it is you parcing words and intentions, not I.

By the way, my disagreement with your position is not based in my desire to use the cheater-line, I do not, it's based in the fact that I couldn't use it...I didn't have the patience the kid from FSU had, and I rarely got it right the first time...mindbogglingly frustrating to think you are going to help yourself and you can't get it right...

[Sean_A]

This entire debate is crazy simply because Shivas refuses to acknowledge (in true Muccian fashion) that anybody else's interpretation could be correct for what is obviously a rules sanctioned action.  Shivas, your logic must be incorrect because a decision was given which makes it so.  All other folks have tried to do (in the absence of a USGA explanation) is come up with an explanation - there must be one however dissatifactory it may be to you - that doesn't make the explanation incorrect.  The bottom line is, we know the answer, now we are looking for the reasoning for the answer.  Continuing to to spout on about BS this and give me a break that doesn't make the answer wrong.  In other words, you are shooting the messengers who in this case, aren't even carrying a message!

Ciao 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

The game has slowed down, it hasn't sped up, despite all the hi-tech devices that will tell you exactly where you are, instead of telling you where you should go.

Do basketball players stop to determine the distance to the basket ?

Or, is part of their skill, inherently calculating that distance ?

Golf needs to get back to basics in order to speed up play.

Golfers with hi-tech devices ask me all the time if I want to know how far I am from the hole.  My automatic response is no.

My theory is along these lines.

If someone else reads your putts for you and tells you where to putt, will that make you a better golfer, the same golfer or a worse golfer ?

I like reading my OWN putts and determining where I want to hit the ball, and, playing as a foursome in three (3) hours is par for the course.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Why is this addressed to me? 

I think shivas is right about the cheater line (in that it should be illegal, and truly is).  I just find it to be so much ado about nothing, for so many reasons, that I find the amount of energy he's devoted to it to be downright scary, for his health and sanity.

As for electronic distance devices, it's all been covered before AD NAUSEAM in at least 5 other threads, so I do not have the energy to go over it again.  Just rest assured it has been rather proven that for those who actually use the devices, it makes the game go faster.  And in terms of eliminating the skill required in judging distance, good lord man, given all the distance information available all over damn near every course, how can you possibly claim that exists at all any more?

Look, if you want to eliminate all distance markings, I am right with you.  I too think that after some readjustment period after people get used to using their eyes again, the game would go faster.  But do you REALLY believe that has a snowball's chance in hell of occurring?  I sure don't.  And  I too think the game is better when judging distance is one of the required skills.  But that skill has been eliminated from the game already!  And the genie simply is not going back in the bottle.  So since this skill has been eliminated, give me devices which will make these slaves to distance information go faster - and I firmly believe that the electronic devices do so.

TH

[Ted Kramer]

Call me Tedhab.

-Ted

[Tom Huckaby]

shivas:  if Tom Lehman comes back to you saying he hates the cheater line and it should be illegal, will you put up a poster of him in your room?  Perhaps wallpaper a room with shots of him?  Name your next kid Thomas?  Strike that, that was already going to happen given your admiration for me.

If he says it's no big deal and you're nuts to spend so much time fixated on it, how will you handle the disappointment?

 

[CHrisB]

OK, I got my response back from the USGA (I won’t reveal the identity of the sender), and here is the answer. Read carefully:

A distinction must be made between:

a) placing a mark or object to indicate a line for putting

and

b) aligning an object or mark with the line of putt

Rule 8-2b prohibits placing a mark (e.g. touching the green with a flagstick, placing a water bottle on the fringe, etc) on the green to indicate a line for putting.

There is nothing in the Rules of Golf that prohibits a player from aligning an object (e.g. a line drawn on a ball, a trademark on the ball, a line on the putter, etc) with the line of putt (see Definition of "Line of Putt") once the line of putt has been determined.

Therefore, a player may align the line drawn on a ball with the line of putt which he had previously determined.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, here’s my take on this. Dave S, you can go line by line and rebut, but my whole interest in all of this is just to understand why the USGA allows the use of the “artist-formerly-known-as-the-cheater-line”. Again, I don’t use it and I don’t care if others do, but I am interested in the Rules and how they are made.

1. The Rules appear to make a very nuanced distinction between something that helps the player choose the line (e.g. touching the green with a flagstick, placing a water bottle on the fringe, etc) and something that helps a player align himself along the line he has already chosen (e.g. a line drawn on a ball, a trademark on the ball, a line on the putter, etc). But the only things I can think of in that would be allowed in that 2nd category are: the ball (and any line/mark on it), the putterhead (and any line/mark on it), and the player himself.

2. “Placing” does seem to refer to putting an object down on the ground, but I suppose if you go spray-paint an X in the distance to aim at, or spray-paint a line next to the ball, then that would be a violation also.

3. There does not seem to be a distinction in the Rules between a line on the ball and a line on the putter, because both are used by the player to help him line up after the player has chosen the line of putt (as opposed to an object placed in the distance that says “aim here” and helps the player choose the line). Something to think about if you want to propose a ban to the USGA—you’d either have to get them to see a distinction between a line on the ball and a line on the putter (which Dave S has tried to lay out already), or get them to ban all lines/marks on balls and putters.

4. Does this mean that the Rules consider determining where to aim a fundamental skill of the game, but not alignment? The Rules don’t appear to care too much about alignment, if you look at Decision 8-2a/1 (placing club on the ground to align your feet) and others. This is also something to think about if you want to propose a ban to the USGA—logically they’d also have to consider banning all alignment aids.

5. Nothing in the response says anything about enforceability, but I still have a hunch that if lines/trademarks on balls (and apparently by extension, putters) were banned, then it would open introduce problematic situations for players and rules officials. And it may get the USGA deeper than they want to be with manufacturers of balls and putters.

6. Still, if you really want to try to ban this practice, it is probably worth “putting your money where your mouth is” (which would amount to a fortune for some ), and submitting a proposal to the USGA. I think we really have covered just about all of the bases, and if I really cared enough about this to try to get the rule changed, I think I can see the roadmap for how to go about it. I hope those who really want to see this practice banned would try do something about it and not just complain idly about it--between another hot Texas summer and this thread, I've had just about enough of hot air.

[JohnV]

I keep saying that I'm not going to get into this again, but here I go.

Chris,

Since you don't reveal the person who sent you the reply, I can't be sure, but I'd guess it wasn't someone who is in the Rules and Competitions department.  I say this because their wording was not exact enough as Dave correctly points out. 

8-2b has two sentences:

1) The putting green may not be touched in indicating a line for putting.  This means that the fringe may be touched, just not the putting green.

2) A mark (which includes an object) can not be placed anywhere (including the fringe, the next tee, the water tower off the course etc.)   This is why the water bottle cannot be put on the fringe, an X painted on the putting green or anything else placed anywhere to line up with.

The act of placing the ball with a mark on it pointing in the desired direction is allowed, while placing something on that direction to make it easier to line up that mark is not. 

The difference is that the player still has to envision the desired direction in aligning the ball vs. aiming at a target of some sort that he has placed in a position to aid him with that.

Dave, since you feel that a player cannot line up a line on his ball (including a mark printed by the manufacturer) along the line of the putt, do you also feel that he may not put it in a orientation that would would be parallel to the blade of his putter when it was properly aligned?

[CHrisB]

I keep saying that I'm not going to get into this again, but here I go.

Chris,

Since you don't reveal the person who sent you the reply, I can't be sure, but I'd guess it wasn't someone who is in the Rules and Competitions department.  I say this because their wording was not exact enough as Dave correctly points out. 

John,
I didn't feel it was appropriate to reveal the sender unless they consented. I agree the reponse was inexact (obviously the sender doesn't know me or Dave S ) but I understood the gist of it.

8-2b has two sentences:

1) The putting green may not be touched in indicating a line for putting.  This means that the fringe may be touched, just not the putting green.

2) A mark (which includes an object) can not be placed anywhere (including the fringe, the next tee, the water tower off the course etc.)   This is why the water bottle cannot be put on the fringe, an X painted on the putting green or anything else placed anywhere to line up with.

The act of placing the ball with a mark on it pointing in the desired direction is allowed, while placing something on that direction to make it easier to line up that mark is not.

That's the best way I've seen it phrased so far. You're placing the ball, not the mark on the ball. You are aligning the mark on the ball, not placing it. There's your answer right there, Dave S.

The difference is that the player still has to envision the desired direction in aligning the ball vs. aiming at a target of some sort that he has placed in a position to aid him with that.

Dave, since you feel that a player cannot line up a line on his ball (including a mark printed by the manufacturer) along the line of the putt, do you also feel that he may not put it in a orientation that would would be parallel to the blade of his putter when it was properly aligned?

I think Dave has answered "yes" to this before--any mark that indicates the line or assists in alignment should be a no-no. There are countless ways that a mark/trademark/logo/etc. can be used to assist in alignment, which is why it is not enough to simply ban a line on the ball, you'd have to ban using any mark to assist in alignment.

[RJ_Daley]

Damned if I"m going to go back and search 42 pages for this, but I'll ask Dave... can you make the cheater line work for you and give you an unfair advantage in a reasonable test?  Of course that would mean that you have to try very hard to make the putts with and without the cheater line.  But, over any reasonable putting course, with varying distance for putts, and varying breaks, can you make more putts with the cheater line consistently, that you can without it?

[Jim Franklin]

Listening to Roger Maltby talk about Vijay lining up his ball with the line on the ball sure sounded like Shivas is right. He was using the line to assist him in putting his ball. Shivas may be right.

[JohnV]

Dave,

As I said, whoever gave the response to Chris did not state things in a precise or proper manner.  You will use this response until you are blue in the face to justify your refusal to believe that Decision 20-3a/2 says that it is legal to align the ball in any manner the player chooses.

20-3a/2 Trademark Aimed Along Line of Putt When Ball Replaced

Q. When a player is replacing his ball, is it permissible for him to position the ball so that the trademark is aimed along the line of putt to indicate the line of play?

A. Yes.

Rule 8 says you can't place a mark, but Decision 20-3a/2, because it is regarding a more specific action, trumps it .

There are many cases where the Rules have a specific rule or decision that overides the more general one.   This is one of those.

[JohnV]

John:  thanks for countering an argument I'm not making.  

Of course, the Decision makes it perfectly clear that you can use a trademark.

And, yes, by analogy, the cheater line.
...

John, I think the simple fact is that I've proven, and continue to prove my point:  (1) that the cheater line is illegal under the language of the rule ...

The fact that you can't see the discontinuity between these two statements proves your lack of logic.  Even if you believe that Rule 8 makes would prohibit it, you can not use one rule while disregarding all the others.

I believe (as I said above) that the statement that Chis quoted from someone at the USGA was improperly phrased.  Since Chris feels he can not say who made it, I assume it did not come from someone who is as careful with phrasing as John M would have been.

That is unfortunate as you will continue to say this is the "official" word from the USGA when I don't believe it was.

I've got a plane to catch so I'm done with this ( I hope I can have the willpower to quit arguing with someone who tries to bend every statement to prove something he knows is wrong.)

[Michael Blake]

gotta love lawyers!   

[CHrisB]

Dave S,
I think I've finally figured out how the Rules make the distinction between

a) placing a mark or object to indicate a line for putting

and

b) aligning an object or mark with the line of putt.

The Rules seem to say that anything that is "already there" (someone else's coin on the green, some tree in the distance, some discoloration of the green, his caddie's foot while tending the flag as long as the foot wan't placed there intentionally to mark the line, etc.) can indicate the line for putting to the player who wants to aim at those things...

while something new that the player or his partner or his caddie introduces (touching the green with the flagstick, placing a water bottle on the fringe, laying a club down along the line, a caddie intentionally standing somewhere or casting his shadow to indicate the line, etc.) cannot. And since the line on the ball, the trademark on the ball, and the line on the putter are all "already there", the player can use it as an indicator of the line for putting.

The player is not introducing anything new when he places his ball down with the line on it. The ball was "already there" (sitting on the green waiting to be putted), the line was "already there" (already on the ball). True, the line wasn't "already pointing that way" (orientation), but it was "already there" (location) and all the player is doing is changing the orientation of the ball, using the line that was "already there" to align the ball.

Similarly, the line on the putter was "already there". The only things that aren't "already there" are the player himself and the putter itself, but I think Rule 1-1 handles that one well enough.

[John Moore II]

Chris--not to get too technical, but if I remember correctly, your opponent or fellow competitor can move his mark on the green if he feels it benefits his opponent by giving him a point to aim at. I could be wrong though, I didn't feel like reading through the entire rules book to find out the rule or decision.


And just out of curiosity, what does this thread have to do with golf course architecture? What bearing does an alignment aide, legal or not have on the design of golf courses? I say this has nearly no relation to the discussion of architecture related matters.

[CHrisB]

Chris--not to get too technical, but if I remember correctly, your opponent or fellow competitor can move his mark on the green if he feels it benefits his opponent by giving him a point to aim at. I could be wrong though, I didn't feel like reading through the entire rules book to find out the rule or decision.

John K. Moore,
Yes, that's Decision 20-1/11. It doesn't really challenge my point at all, though. A player can aim at the coin wherever another player leaves it if it helps him (because it was "already there").

And just out of curiosity, what does this thread have to do with golf course architecture? What bearing does an alignment aide, legal or not have on the design of golf courses? I say this has nearly no relation to the discussion of architecture related matters.

I'd say that's a good observation. Just as non-architecture-related as this:

Take your pick...

I'll take both please!!! 

Oh yes indeed

You see, non-architecture-related threads can add some value to this site

[John Moore II]

Oh I'm just wondering where the consistency is. Some OT thread are taken down after 8 or 10 posts and others are allowed to go on for 1450 posts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Oh I'm just wondering where the consistency is. Some OT thread are taken down after 8 or 10 posts and others are allowed to go on for 1450 posts.

You wouldn't have to wonder if you'd bothered to read the opening post, the one that initiated this thread.

HINT:  It's architecturally related.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick, please.  Yes you TRIED to make this architecturally-related, but that lasted all of five posts.  After that, shivas stepped in, and it’s been 42 more pages of our friend chasing his white whale.  And while it remains good entertainment, and a fine psychological case study of shivas, to say this thread is related to architecture is a stretch of Jack LaLane proportions.


The questions you pose are indeed interesting, though.  Let’s get back to those:

Do cheater lines thwart the intended challenge of the putting surfaces.

I’d say no – I’m among those who believe they might be a psychological crutch, but don’t really help.  One still has to align the ball correctly, and make a proper stroke.

And, if more and more putting surfaces are flattened to accomodate increased speeds, will these markings have even more influence on aligning the golfer ?

Again, no.  They don’t really help on any greens, so I can’t see how they’d help any more on flatter greens.

[tlavin]

Let's talk about Sarah Palin.  She's probably been to a golf course.  She has mounding that resembles some I've seen on golf courses.  Or maybe we could talk McCain.  Surely he's used a cheater line with a female lobbyist or two.

Let's talk about anything except Shivas Agonistes.  This has become an OCD thread.

[Tom Huckaby]

Nobody here thinks that the USGA's inability to understand the flaws in their own rules affects GCA?  That this inability isn't in part responsible for the explosion in distance from hot drivers and balls - which is most certainly GCA related? 

Nobody here thinks that the inability to interpret their own rules has had an impact on GCA?

Nobody here thinks that the failure to "check" the scorecard and pencil medal play handicap mindset (the driving forece behind the cheater line) has an impact on GCA?

C'mon, that's beyond belief.

My belief is this:  in the grand scheme of things, yes, this certainly could have some impact on GCA.  But how that might play out vis a vis the cheater line was asked and answered in the first 5 posts in this thread.  If you want to ask these larger questions, that's great... But in this thread, the rest remains your quest for the white whale.  But it's cool, you SHOULDN'T be able to see this... Ahab didn't either.  Let's just hope you don't end up like him... I'd hate to see you tied via harpoon to a giant cheater-lined golf ball.

 

[Carl Nichols]

I opened this thread just to get it to 20,000 views.  Amazing.

[John Moore II]

Let's talk about Sarah Palin.  She's probably been to a golf course.  She has mounding that resembles some I've seen on golf courses.  Or maybe we could talk McCain.  Surely he's used a cheater line with a female lobbyist or two.

Let's talk about anything except Shivas Agonistes.  This has become an OCD thread.

I'm just not going to go there. But it did make me laugh.


Pat Mucci--Why on earth did you type in RED letters?? Red is my color. Your official color is GREEN.  We need to have a convention on who can use what colors at what time in a post. I say I am allowed Red, Orange and Maroon. You can be allowed Green, Blue, and Purple. Then if it gets too bad, we can both use Pink, Yellow, and any other color left for use. But you sir, are forbidden from using RED.

Oh, and yes, it did stay on topic, sort of, for as was said before, exactly 5 replies, thats when Shivas posted reply #6, and we went totally off the topic of architecture.