[Patrick_Mucci]

The caddy can stand behind you and work with your line but he must move prior to the stroke.  This is a separate rule.

NO, IT"S NOT.

It's the same rule, RULE 8-2 b[/color]

Shivas is talking about marks....a word that doesn't contemplate a line on the ball.  

I know what Shivas is talking about, that's why I started this thread.

Rule 8-2 b states "...A MARK must not be placed ANYWHERE to indicate [size=4x]A LINE[/size] for putting.

It's that simple.

If it was that simple you wouldn't have made the mistake of alleging that it was two (2) seperate rules that applied to the caddy and placing a mark anywhere to indicate a line for putting.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

So when you come to Michigan in July, you won't be sporting any cheater lines?  

Joe

Joe,

I've never, and will not use a cheater's line in golf.

The last cheater's line I used was, " I don't think your boyfriend appreciates you."

[JR Potts]

The caddy can stand behind you and work with your line but he must move prior to the stroke.  This is a separate rule.

NO, IT"S NOT.

It's the same rule, RULE 8-2 b[/color]

Shivas is talking about marks....a word that doesn't contemplate a line on the ball.  

I know what Shivas is talking about, that's why I started this thread.

Rule 8-2 b states "...A MARK must not be placed ANYWHERE to indicate [size=4x]A LINE[/size] for putting.

It's that simple.

If it was that simple you wouldn't have made the mistake of alleging that it was two (2) seperate rules that applied to the caddy and placing a mark anywhere to indicate a line for putting.[/color]

Mucci:

You use my incorrect statement that it is two separate rules, as ammo to yet again, degrade and belittle.

Nonetheless, bolding and capitalizing LINE does little to support this argument.  Something on the ball, be it a logo or a line, is not a mark within the interpretation of the rule.

It is a well established legal maxim that one must first look to the plain language when interpreting a rule/statute.  When that language is vague, one must look to legislative history, floor debates and committee notes.  The USGA's "committee notes" clearly indicate that it is appropriate to use a logo to help with alignment on the putting surface.  Thus, the USGA has spoken that a logo is not a "mark."  If a logo isn't a mark, a line is not a mark.

It's as simple as that.

I do still wonder, if you believe what you profess to believe, why you entitled this thread "Shivas's cheater line" and not "Shivas's cheater mark."

[Scott Stearns]

gents-GET A LIFE

reduce your caffiene intake by half

spend 1/4 of the time you spend on this website PLAYING golf, instead of arguing abt stuff.

The rules make sense, trust me, they do.

spend less time on the rules, more time on your game.  

[JR Potts]

You have yet to point to one fact as to how/why a line on the ball is consered a mark within the confines of the rule.  How else is mark used throughout the rule book?

It is simple, if a line is not a mark, then there is no violation.  It's that simple.

I'm a simple minded man...and I stand by my simplicity.

[JR Potts]

I do still wonder, if you believe what you profess to believe, why you entitled this thread "Shivas's cheater line" and not "Shivas's cheater mark."

Because a line is a subset of marks.  Duh.  That's the whole point.

Shivas:

When your player partner says, please mark your ball.......what do you do?

[CHrisB]

Disclaimer: I do not use a "cheater line".

8-2 Indicating Line of Play
b. On the Putting Green
When the player’s ball is on the putting green, the player, his partner or either of their caddies may, before but not during the stroke, point out a line for putting, but in so doing the putting green must not be touched. A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting.

Shivas,

I think the problem with your argument doesn't lie as much with the word "mark" as it does with the word "place". Consider this: how can you "place" something that is not a physical, tangible object? I read the USGA as saying that you cannot take an object and "place it" (that is, set it down) anywhere to assist with the line of play.

How can you "place" a pen mark anywhere? Do you "place" words on a page when you write? How can you "place" a label or stamp on a golf ball?

Tape is different than marker.  So they're not like situations.  Since like situations must be treated alike, they can be treated differently.  

See how easy it is?

Furthering my point, you would have to "place" directional tape on the club because it is a tangible object. But a pen mark is not "placed" on a ball.

So as you say, since like situations must be treated alike, and different situations can be treated differently, the fact that a pen mark, stamp or label are not objects and therefore cannot be "placed" means that the USGA can treat pen marks, stamps and labels differently than clubs, coins, tees, caddies, and other objects. And they do.

I don't think the intent of the USGA is to prohibit "indicating a line for putting". After all, as mentioned before, putters have alignment aids, golf balls have alignment aids, caddies are allowed to indicate a line for putting without touching the green, and are allowed to indicate proper alignment as long as they move before the player putts.

Rather, I think the intent of the USGA as reflected in Rule 8-2b is to prevent objects or props from being used in certain ways to assist in putting. No object can touch the putting line (unless repairing damage), a caddie (object) can't intentionally tend the pin such that his foot is an aiming point for a putt, a caddie (object) can't stand behind the line during the stroke, a player (object) can't straddle the line to putt, and no object can be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting.

Therefore, I would contend that using a "cheater line" doesn't violate the letter of the rule, nor does it violate the spirit of the rule, because again the rulebook doesn't appear to want to do away with indicating a line for putting, but rather it wants to limit where and how objects can be used on the putting green.

Regarding the original Leith Rule #9: "No man at Holling his Ball, is to be allowed, to mark his way to the Hole with his Club, or anything else." I believe the original intent of that rule was to prevent players from creating indentations in the ground (with their club, or anything else) leading to the hole to make it easier to hole the putt.

Again, I don't use a "cheater line".

[JR Potts]

You have yet to point to one fact as to how/why a line on the ball is consered a mark within the confines of the rule.  How else is mark used throughout the rule book?

It is simple, if a line is not a mark, then there is no violation.  It's that simple.

I'm a simple minded man...and I stand by my simplicity.

"If", if, if, if.

Ryan, your whole argument is based on "ifs".  

If a line is not a mark...

How is a line NOT a mark?

I pointed to Rule 6-5, which tells you you should place a "mark" on your ball for identification.  So a player-drawn drawing on the ball is a "mark".

So precisely where is the vagueness that requires interpretation?  If you draw something on your ball, the Rules say it's a mark.  Simple.

And remember, anything (even a fricking SHADOW!) can constitute a mark for purposes of Rule 8-2(b).  

So if a shadow can constitute a mark, how does a player's drawing on the ball that is referenced in Rule 6-5 as a mark NOT constitute a mark?  You go before judges.  I don't.  But I have a feeling you'd be getting an earful from the bench for pushing this argument too far...

shivas:

You might find it enlightening to look at the USGA Rules of Golf and search the word mark.  I just did and attempted to post it but I was denied due to length (first time I've ever had that problem  ).

"Mark" is never used in the Rules in the way you attempt to position it.  Mark is an indentation or artificial spot on the green, a tangible implement used to position the ball or a scorekeeper.  Not once is mark used to describe something ON the ball.  Don't you think that trademark was used on purpose in the decision and not mark?

You need to stop drinking the yellow grass kool-aide.  You've already given up keeping score...what's next, hickories?

[JR Potts]

I need to go to bed but I'll leave you with this.

From www.usga.org

8-2a/3  Player Places Mark to Indicate Distance for Pitch Shot

Q. A player who has a pitch shot places a club on the ground off his line of play to indicate the distance he would like his ball to carry and leaves the club there during the stroke. What is the ruling?

A. In view of the purpose of Rule 8-2a, in equity (Rule 1-4), the player incurs the general penalty of loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play.

[CHrisB]

Shivas has mentioned the phrase on a few occassions.

I've never understood why a golfer is prohibited from using an aid to assist him with the line of play, such as laying a club down to help him position his feet and to align his swing, but, if that's so, what is the reasoning for allowing a golfer to use an outside influence, a marker to to circle the ball such that it can be used as an aid to help the golfer position and align himself ?

Getting back to the original question posed on this thread, I think the reason as outlined in my post above must be that the club is a physical, tangible object but a pen mark is not.

[Michael Moore]

Why don't you cite the date of the tests which supplied the data for the "several books, dozens of articles, and numerous research papers" you indicated he published.

What was the date of Pelz's most recent, definitive study ?

. . . it's not my responsibility to spoon feed you everything I've observed or read.  Do your own research

PS - Here's a reading comprehension tip for nonfiction - when the author states "blah blah blah today blah blah blah" and the publication date of the book is June 2000, then "today" means "nowadays", right around June 2000.

[JESII]

Shivas,


I don't think the USGA distinguishes between the two types of marks in the way you propose. They simply realize that you and I could very likely come to the first tee with the exact same ball (eg: Titleist 1 black) and that we need to do something to distinguish them ourselves. That's all I see. I don't think you can hang your hat on the USGA treating them differently with respect to alignment based on the above...

[John_Cullum]

A line on the ball is not a mark because the USGA says it's not a mark. They write the rule and they get to interpret it. Sort of like the way the Supreme Court gets to say Congress gets to regulate  every scintilla second of your life under the commerce clause.

Why doesn't the USGA just rewrite the last sentence of 8-2b to make it clear that markings on the ball are OK? Because they are lazy and are more interested in whether the dry cleaners will mess up their blue coat before the next convocation in Far Hills.

[JESII]

Shiv,


This is where I think you are over-reading the word mark in 8-2(b)...8-2(b) is only talking about the line of the putt, and placing a mark on that line. You are obviously going to place your ball on that line, but the mark (cheater line)...is already on the ball, you did not place it there for the line of that putt.


And Pat Mucci: as to my earlier post about the player still has to hit the shot...that's the truth. Do you ever see guys miss a putt? Even with the help of a cheater line...

[Jim Franklin]

Shiv, again, light case load this week ?

[CHrisB]

Shivas,
I still say the answer lies in what I wrote in post #233 (don't know if you read it). Furthermore, look at the writing of the following two rules:

8-2 Indicating Line of Play
b. On the Putting Green
When the player’s ball is on the putting green, the player, his partner or either of their caddies may, before but not during the stroke, point out a line for putting, but in so doing the putting green must not be touched. A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting.

6-5 Ball
The responsibility for playing the proper ball rests with the player. Each player should put an identification mark on his ball.

Rule 6-5 doesn't say each player must "place" an identification mark on his ball--it says "put"--because you can't "place" an identification mark. An identification mark is not a tangible object that can be placed anywhere.

Again, the intent of the USGA as reflected in Rule 8-2b is to prevent objects or props from being used in certain ways to assist in putting, not to prohibit indicating a line for putting.

[JESII]

Dopey...do you think that might be because balls already have a book on what works and what doesn't...do you think tees need a book too?

[CHrisB]

Shivas,

Don't dismiss what I said that quickly.

It doesn't matter if you don't see the distinction --I'm saying that the USGA does. You keep asking for a reasonable counter-argument and I've given you what I think the USGA's would be. Of course, you could always ask them for their interpretation, but these rules dissections are more fun I guess.

I said:

The intent of the USGA as reflected in Rule 8-2b is to prevent objects or props from being used in certain ways to assist in putting, not to prohibit indicating a line for putting.

You disagree with this?

The reason Rule 8 exists is to limit how people and objects can be used to aid the golfer--the two sections are Advice and Indicating the Line of Play. The phrase "A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting" is there to prevent the player, caddie or anyone else from placing an object either along or behind the line that the player can use as a target.

Regarding Decision 8-2b/1, it arose because some caddie, not allowed to use his foot or anything else to indicate a line, decided to cast his shadow for the same purpose. So what the USGA is saying is that it considers a shadow an extension of whatever object casts it. See, objects can cast shadows. Can cheater lines cast shadows?

[CHrisB]

If that's all they were worried about, you could spray paint yourself a line to the hole because the line is not an object or a prop.

Not so -- the rule says that the putting green must not be touched, and the putting green would certainly be touched by the spray paint.

(By the way, these wouldn't necessarily be my definitions of "object", "mark" and "place"--I'm just saying they appear to be the USGA's definitions...)

[CHrisB]

So let me get this straight, a line (which is not an object) cannot be "placed" but a putting green can be "touched" by it?

Yes, a cheater line is not an object that can be "placed", and yes, a putting green can be touched by it (if it's an identification mark it becomes part of the ball), just as the putterhead can touch the green behind the ball. But the line to the hole starts in front of the ball, and so spray paint would be mark the line to the hole.

[A.G._Crockett]

I've read most of this, but not all, so forgive me if this has been covered.

Shivas, what about spot putting?  If I aim my ball over an old ballmark, or hole cut, or whatever on the green, in what way is that different from lining up a logo on the ball, since the player didn't make either mark, but is using either or both?  How would the USGA ban one and not the other, and, more to the point, why?

Would the USGA's unwillingness to go down the road of banning marks on the ball for putting alignment be a good example of the G.B. Shaw quote?  "It is harder by far to write a good law than to write a good play, and there are not a hundred men alive who can write a good play."  (paraphrase, but close...)

I'm asking, by the way, not telling.

[JESII]

Shivas,


There is a clearly visible seam on Titleist balls...could I use that seam as a cheater line?

[CHrisB]

For what it's worth, I found this passage from "The Rules of the Green -- A History of the Rules of Golf" which discusses the evolution of Rule 8:

Rule 8 furthermore prohibits indicating the line of play, both on and off the putting green. This concern appeared in the oldest code, in 1744:

"No man, at Holing his Ball, is to be allowed to mark to the Hole with his Club or anything else."

This rule is probably best associated with our Rule 8-2b governing what we do on the putting green, even though there were no areas that could be clearly distinguished as putting green in the eighteenth century. All codes of all clubs subsequently included some version of this rule.

...

The earliest clear direction on how the putting line could be indicated appeared in the 1882 R&A code, which states that, except for the removal of loose impediments,

"the putting line must not be touched by club, hand, nor foot. If the player desires the "line to the hole", it may be pointed out by a club shaft only."

The first rule specifically allowing someone to indicate the line of play other than while "holing out" or on the putting green appeared in the 1908 R&A revision of the rules, which had been undertaken with input from the USGA:

"When playing through the green, or from a hazard, a player may have the line to the hole indicated to him, but no mark shall be placed nor shall any one stand on the proposed line, in order to indicate it, while the stroke is being played."

Our present rule is rephrased slightly but is essentially identical to this 1908 rule. In 1933 the exception was added that allows the flagstick to be hold to indicate the position of the hole.

The rule on indicating the line of play is an example of how a rule must change as the conditions of play change. Because there were no clearly distinguishable putting areas on the golf courses of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, quite naturally no distinctions were made, such as we find in the two clauses of our present Rule 8-2. The only concern was indicating the line at "Holing the Ball". Only the Aberdeen golfers, progressive as usual, attempted to make a distinction on the basis of whether the player was close enough to see the hole or not. If he could, "no Person shall be allowed to stand at it for direction". When distinct putting greens became common, the rule had to be rephrased to accommodate them.

So it looks like the original rule had to do with indicating where the hole was (no flagsticks until the 1800's), then evolved into indicating where the putting line was. Once players started using objects to align themselves (like laying a club down), then the phrase "Any mark placed by the player or with his knowledge to indicate the line must be removed before the stroke is made" was added to 8-2a, and "A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting" was added to 8-2b.

Now players are using the ball to indicate the line--is it against the rules as currently written? I say "no" for reasons previously stated. Should it be? Honestly, I don't care but if the putterhead is allowed to have a line on it, then I don't see why a ball shouldn't be allowed to.

[Ken Moum]

Tape is different than marker.

FWIW, the difference between a marker line and tape on a putter is the result of questions about putting a line on top for alignment. The marker line is allowed, while the pinstripe tape is not, simply because someone in Far Hills believes the tape constitutes an adjustable line, while marker doesn't.

Adjustability is prohibited... for the most part... for the time being.

Also, I agree with you, re. the line on the ball. The prohibition on placing a mark "anywhere" to indicate the line of a putt is crystal clear. If you position ANYTHING to indicate the putting line, you're in violation of that rule

That they choose to interpret or enforce that rule in this instance makes at least as much sense as their decision to not enforce the old rule that prohibits spring-like effect in a clubface.

In fact the cases are sort of similar. Here, they issued a Decision that covers the situation--at least indirectly.

In the spring-like effect situation they wrote a definition of NO spring-like effect that allowed a whole class of non-conforming, springy-faced clubs to suddenly become retroactively conforming.

Ken

[JESII]

In the spring-like effect situation they wrote a definition of NO spring-like effect that allowed a whole class of non-conforming, springy-faced clubs to suddenly become retroactively conforming.

Ken

Ken,


I am not sure of your meaning in this part of your post...are you suggesting they could have kept a rule stating that any club that provides a spring-like effect during impact with the ball is non-conforming?

Were there any drivers prior to the writing of this rule that demonstrated zero spring like effect?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()