Is anyone who uses a club with a line on it Cheating?

Pat,

Do you believe that the manufacturers will do what's in the best interest of the game ?

For the most part, yes. After all, their livelihoods depend on it.

I'll let Michael argue symmetry, I'm sticking to the 'no consequences from using a line on the ball' and the 'not breaking any rules' ploy.
 

Looking at the stats I posted on an earlier response should make it clear that there has been little gain in putting prowess over the past 20 years. The difference in GIR putts from the top players in 1986 and 2006 is only .018. That means the guy in in 2006 makes one more putt than the guy in 1986 but only after putting on 55 greens.

Forget all the other factors that should have made putting easier in the past two decades.

Shivas,

From the perspective of function, what's the difference between the influence that a cheater's line that a golfer marks on his golf ball has on aiding with alignment, versus his caddy remaining, standing behind him while aiding him with alignment ?

I'm trying to understand the functional difference.

Shivas,


You've made a hell of  case...one question , if I may...does it have to be a line?

In other words, it seems to me that one dot cannot "indicate a line for putting" without another point of reference.  

That's OK, we can just have a rule that says "A player may all not place a mark anywhere to indicate a line for putting, NOR may he place a mark anywhere that, when combined with the point on the ball where the player intents to strike the ball, indicates a line for putting.

Pat -

The manufacturer's line is not necessarily on the axis of symmetry. If in a particular instance it were, it would be a coincidence.

Could a line on the ball help you determine a line for putting? I doubt it. It seems however that such a line might come in very handy for reminding you where to strike the ball.

Shivas:

I should warn you (as I thought I already had in some of our phone conversations on the way the Rules of Golf work in practice) that for you to proceed down this road with your own logic that you have in this thread and over this particular situation of lines on golf balls and the practice of using them to align the golf ball to indicate a line for putting, you are entering into a virtual maize or labrynth of argumentation from which you will never find your way out or your way out with any real satisfaction.

There are literally hundreds of things, situations, decisions,  even Rules that seem illogical to many people. As much of that is the things they do not say as it is the things they do say and how they say it.

But having read some of your posts, particularly on the last three or so pages, you are now beginning to state that there are some ACTUAL truths about these things that are contrary to the way the Rules are written or the way golfers play by the Rules that are contrary to either the letter or spirit of the Rules or their underlying principles.

I don't mean any disrespect to you but the ultimate interpretation of the Rules of Golf does not fall to Shivas or Dave Schmidt and his moral compass---the ultimate interpretation of the Rules rests with the Rules Committees of the R&A and USGA, the final stop being the so-called "Joint R&A/USGA Rules of Golf Committee" (that was formed in the 1950s to attempt to apply Rules unity worldwide).

If you don't like their Rules, Decisions or the logic of them you can appeal to those two Rules Committees (basically you need to start with the USGA because they control the purview of your place of residence and play) to reconsider their Rules and Decisions and the wording and logic of them.

This is actually not some arbitrary advice on my part----the Rules of Golf are actually constructed in such a way to provide for this kind of thing---eg appeal.

Perhaps one of the greatest interpretative minds on the Rules of Golf and even their principles is Lew Blakey, and in response to a question of mine in the last several years about what was right or wrong regarding a particular Rules situation, said, there really isn't a right or wrong---it's a matter of whose proposal and thinking and logic gets the VOTES on any Rules situation or Rules issue on the Joint R&A/USGA Rules Committee. This committee is responsible for monitoring and writing and interpreting the Rules of Golf and Rules questions and situations that come up and are deemed to be worth actually reviewing and considering.

Clearly, even in the most ideal world there will be all kinds of decisions and interpretations made by these committees that really are the ulimate arbiters of the Rules of Golf that many golfers may not agree with but the point is the Rules are there to provide a form of unity for how the game is played despite whether some agree with those decisions and interpretations or not.

And this is why the Rules of the game does not operate by Shivas's moral compass, it operates by and under the moral compass of the people who serve on that Joint R&A Rules of Golf Committee.

Again, even they don't agree on various situations and how to interpret them---they do vote on these issues if there is not total consensus of opinion amongst the committee members and the interpretation that gets the most votes on the committee becomes the interpretation under which the Rules of Golf are written and applied.

You can continue to say on here that your way is better than their way or their interpretation----that your interpretation is more moral, more in tune with the letter and spirit of the game or its principles or that you know how to write the Rules in a more gramatically correct or understandable way then they do but in the end that doesn't really matter.

In the end that doesn't matter at all unless you and your logic are able to persuade them to see it your way, write it your way and interpret it your way.

I've been through all that in the last 25 years, and so I feel pretty qualified to warn you that you probably shouldn't go down that road on here this way unless you really want to drive yourself nuts and frustrate yourself.

If there is something about the Rules that's allowable that you don't like then by all means don't do it or use it yourself but try not to accuse golfers who are playing within the Rules and using practices that are allowable within the Rules of cheating.

Again, even if you disagree with some of the Rules, their Decisions and logic and wording, remember, you are not the final arbiter and interpreter of the Rules of Golf---the R&A and USGA Rules of Golf Committees are.

But they very much do provide you with a mechanism to appeal the writing and meaning of the Rules of Golf.

I suggest you use that mechanism if any of this disturbs you as much as it seems to. Use that mechanism that is actually part of the construction of the Rules of Golf and if you persuade them to accept your proposal then you can tell us about the validity of your moral compass and such, but, in my opinion, not until you do that.  

Sully:

You're on the right track, I think, to go to the definitions first and begin to analyze how a golf ball and equipment factor into this discussion which really is one that goes to "Assistance" (Rule 14-2).

Shivas, is now trying to create an analogy of assistance from a line for identification on a golf ball being used to indicate the line for putting with a player's caddie lining him up and advising him during a stroke. This is not a particularly useful analogy, in my opinion, to Rule 8-2b and Dec 20-3a/2 and the discussion of what he calls a "cheater line" on a golf ball.

Shivas also is trying to use the principle in Golf's Rules of "like situations shall be treated alike" to explain or defend his point somehow.

I've already pointed out that if that principle is actually used in this discussion it would be that the Rules of Golf do not make a distinction between using a manufacturer's trademark as a line to indicate a line for putting and using a player's identification line as a line to indicate the line of putting. In the Rules of Golf in the context of Rule 8 or Rule 20 there is no difference in practice. That, in fact, would be "like situations are treated alike" in the context of logic or even in how it is sometimes used in the Rules of Golf, if the Rules makers decided to use that principle in this discussion's situation.

He may not like this fact but nevertheless that's the way it is and the way the Rules makers interpret it.

Over 350 replies and thousands of viewings for a thread about using a line on the ball as an alignment aid.  If this isn't proof that OT discussions related to rules and tournaments is still vital and necessary on this site, then it just can't be proved.

Over 350 replies and thousands of viewings for a thread about using a line on the ball as an alignment aid.  If this isn't proof that OT discussions related to rules and tournaments is still vital and necessary on this site, then it just can't be proved.

And do take note of who started this thread

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 ?

[size=4x]
Do cheater lines thwart the intended challenge of the putting surfaces.

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

John Cullum,

How convenient that you omitted reading and/or referencing the last two paragraphs of my opening post which initiated this thread.  They were clearly focused on GCA.

Your memory is failing.

Terry Lavin,

That responders chose to ignore the architectural issues isn't my doing.

The initial post/thread clearly deals with GCA and is NOT OT.


I accept your apologies in advance. [/color]

Shivas,
It seems to me that doing what you advocate would add judgment calls rather than reduce them, which is contrary to what sports rules making bodies normally try to do.  

Also, I find it odd that you want to rule against little tiny lines on the ball as contrary to the spirit of the Rules because they MIGHT aid in the making of a stroke, but have no problem with the long and belly putters, implements with which the stroke is ACTUALLY made and totally contrary to anything that the founding fathers of the Rules could have possibly foreseen, much less intended.  Isn't consistency one of the guiding principles of the Rules?