Rules need to be written in a manner that allows them to be enforced. That's a large part of the ongoing changes to phrasing in the rule book. It sounds like those in Shiv's camp would like to see....

- A rule outlawing a VERY specific type of marking on a golf ball, whether for identification or a manufacturer's mark. Straight lines would not be acceptable. But what if someone else finds a > to be sufficient to help them align? Maybe I can arrange my pencil indentations in a way that helps me line up. Can the rule be written specifically enough to outlaw a certain shape of marking? Who judges when a curved line, circle, or pencil indentation becomes a "cheater line"? ANY marking on a golf ball is bound to assist SOMEONE if aligned in a way that they see fit.

Let's assume that there is a "cheater line" on a ball. Would it only be a violation of the rule if aligned in a specific manner? If so, you are now contemplating the axes on which a ball rests. There is no rule that contemplates specific positioning of the ball with regard to rotational axes, as it would be impossible to legislate. What if I had such a cheater line, but aligned it nowhere near my intended putting line? Would I still be in violation?

To be an enforceable rule, you would have to outlaw ANY markings on a golf ball, including those for identification. Otherwise, somebody PLEASE suggest how a rule could be written to outlaw such a specific marking and it's alignment. This exercise may give you some appreciation for the USGA's ability to write rules that can actually be legislated.

If I were a guessing man, and I think I am, I'd guess that the USGA does not view the word "mark" as anything other than a physical, movable object. I'd further guess that the easiest thing to do would be clarify it within a definition, with no resulting need to revise the rule.

i.e. "Permanent markings on a ball are considered part of the ball."

"A mark is any object placed to indicate the position of a ball or the extent of an area in which a ball is to be dropped.

Quote from: Dan Kelly on May 24, 2007, 09:51:42 AM

(2) Only a few severely strange souls are still reading this thread (I, myself, skipped about 400 posts in the middle of it), so the rest of our brethren here will miss your story! Which they shouldn't.

That was a mistake. I have some real beauties posted in there......  

Or, maybe not.....

Joe

Joe --

I did a "See the last ... 50 ... posts of this person" for "Joe Hancock."

I can tell, without any context, that this one was a howler:
 
"Chris,

"I should have added:

"3) Other

"

"Joe"

But I'm not going back to read the other 399!

Dan

I'll take a stab at it.

It is the policy of the USGA to encourage players to mark their ball.

If players mark their balls, it is inevitable that they will be replaced on occasion in a fashion such that the mark is aligned with the line of putt. And the same will occur with factory markings.

On those occasions when a ball's markings line up in such a manner as to be of assistance to the player, that player may be bestowed with an advantage as a result of his placement of the ball.

Insofar as this advantage, if any, is gained as a result of placement (as opposed to rub of the green) the result is inequitable to other players who did not replace their ball in such manner.

The advantage, if any, is de minimus. A rule prohibiting conscious alignment of the markings would lead to excessive rules inquiries and delay play.

The more efficient course is to allow a player to place his ball by aligning the markings.

Thank you for your inquiry. The USGA publishes new Decisions on the Rules of Golf every other year, and revises the Rules of Golf every four years. Please visit our USGA store to purchase these items.

et. al.,

The issue of the USGA or any Golf Association monitoring the marking of a golf ball is simple, not difficult.

On the first tee, the official in charge asks the competitors to mark and display their ball to their fellow competitors.

A cheater's line or derivation thereof can be easily spotted and dealt with prior to the start of the round.

Shivas:

I've done some research and I may have some interesting information for you on marks on putting greens within the Rules that goes way, way back.

You said:

"Unfortunately, the reasoned pro-cheater line arguments have been a little lax and slow in forthcoming...I mean, what the hell, we're 16 pages into this and there has not been a single, logical, well-reasoned explanation as to why the cheater line is legal or what overriding principles of the game require it to be legal."

Shivas:

In my opinion, you are not looking at this situation and this practice logically as to whether it’s a violation of the Rules of Golf or should be. You certainly are failing to understand the way the USGA/R&A's Rules evolve, are written and interpreted and what they're basically based on.

Your first mistake is your almost comical treatment of Tuft’s “Principles Behind the Rules of Golf” as if it’s some kind of Rosetta Stone code from which nothing can be done in the Rules of Golf without some reference to a “principle” of golf within that very small book.

There are all kinds of realities and practices that crop up in the play of the game in a Rules context that are not necessarily addressed in that book or in one of the ten “principles” in that book.

Richard Tufts was the President of the USGA, a respected Rules expert of his time, he was one of those who served on that remarkable USGA/R&A Rules Unification committee that managed to basically unify the Rules of Golf between the USGA’s Rules and the R&A’s Rules in 1951.

I will never forget my father thought their task was virtually impossible to do and that they would never be able to pull it off but they did. Tufts wrote that little book on the principles behind the Rules of Golf in 1960 apparently as something of an after-thought as his career in the USGA was basically over then. It just happens to be a lucid book on the principles behind the Rules as he saw them. After while I might even list his ten Principles for you as they appear in his appendix. they're listed as the "Two Great Principles" followed by "The Working Principles".

Since you seem to look at Tuft’s book as some Rosetta Stone-like legal code in which a reference to anything and everything that may go on in a Rules context on a golf course can be found, I suppose that’s why you would assume that something like the practice of using an identification line on a golf ball to align the ball for the purpose of indicating the line of putt must be illegal until it can be proven legal by some Principle in that book.

That’s not the way it works in the Rules of Golf, Dave. Many things that crop in golf and the play of the game may be legal until for various reasons the Rules writers decide (almost always through a vote on the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee) that for whatever reason something does violate some existing Rule of Golf. Sometimes they may even take some issue, piece of equipment or practice and write something into one of the existing Rules to make it illegal. Occasionally they may be simply interpretations and opinions of the Rules writers about things they may not like and they find a way to fit them into some existing Rule to make them violations.

The Andy Martinez case was apparently one of those. He didn’t exactly violate an existing Rule, it was basically that the Rules authorities just didn’t like the look of him crouching behind Miller in the act of a stroke on the putting green. So they decided that he couldn’t be behind Miller during the stroke even though the point and principle of the Rule they put the violation into was based on a prohibition against actual assistance during a stroke or that he may be shielding Miller from something, neither of which had apparently ever even occurred to Miller.

So when I tell you the Rules bodies have not made the practice of aligning an identification mark (line) on a golf ball to indicate the line for putting illegal because they don’t believe it violates a current Rule of Golf (or Principle of Golf) I’m not joking and I’m not avoiding anything either. That is the truth and that’s their rationale and reasoning for condoning it, and for not deeming it a violation of a Rule---- eg they do not think it DOES violate a Rule of Golf.

And if you can’t even understand that, well, then, I really do feel for you man, because frankly I just can’t imagine where you’re coming from other than a basic misunderstanding of the way the Rules of Golf work and evolve.

But I may have some interesting research for you on wording. And I may even hazard an educated guess (as odd as it may seem to you when I tell you) that may help explain why the wording in the last sentence of Rule 8-2b is not as clear or specific as it should be and as they may want it to be to explain that they really do not feel that this “cheater line” practice, as you call it, is a violation of the Rules of Golf or should be a violation. And to confirm the accuracy or not of my guess I think I know who to turn to, and if he doesn’t know or have a good idea I doubt anyone would.

Again, they just don’t feel the practice violates any of the Rules or Decisions on the Rules. Obviously you do, but you’ve given no good reason why that should be other than some over-arching moral opinion on your part that somehow it must be or should be. I have not seen you’ve found a thing within the Rules or Decisions to indicate it should be.

 

"TEPaul are you ever going to at least take a stab at what the convoluted, cluster-f$%& of a situation was that they had to call the front office right then and there??"

Maybe so, Kalen, maybe so, but first let me deal with this over-arching word parsing ultra, super, outta control moralist lawyer from the Windy City (no that's appropriate) David "Shivas" Schmidt first.

Shivas,

Ths problem is that, once you disallow an ID mark to be used for alignment on the putting green, then mustn't you also disallow the trademark or anything else that appears on the ball straight from the manufacturer (for example, the aimer line on the Titleist Pro V1's) from being used to align the ball as well? If so, then mustn't you also disallow lines (either drawn by the player or made by the manufacturer) on putter heads as well?

If not, why not?

Remember that putter that could stand up on its own that came out about a decade ago?  I'd ban that.  Why?  Because it enables the player to blow off alignment skills at address and get the putter aligned from a position behind the ball prior to address.  Did that thing get banned, or was that declared legal?  Anybody know?  To me, that thing was just "Cheater line on a Stick".    

Surprisingly, no. That issue was revisited recently with the Ping Doc putters. The early prototype would stand on its own, so Ping modified it. I came across some other putter that would stand up, and recalling the Ping Doc story, I called the USGA and they said it was not prohibited.

It's not the marks themselves that are the issue.  Any mark on the ball would remain perfectly legal.  The issue is their use.  The issue is whether a guy is lining them up on purpose.  

Shiv:

Clarify something for me. Under your Rules regime, what if a player had the line on his ball, and when it came to rest on the putting green after a stroke from off the green and before he ever marked it, the line was pointing exactly on his line of putt. Would he be subject to penalty? What if in that same situation, he marked his ball and put it back exactly as it was, with the line pointing to his line of putt? Should he be obligated to rotate the ball (thereby putting the first instance of a balls rotational axes into the Rule Book)?

Is the administration of such a rule really a red herring? I'd like to know how you would propose to word the rule so that it can easily be understood without a ruling official on the scene. The Rules endeavor to treat like situations alike (this is normally mentioned in the first 15 minutes of any USGA Rules Workshop). Whether or not a player placed his ball with the line pointing in the cheater position, or if it came to rest in that way on its own can't be treated differently. Believe it or not, some Rules are written specifically so that a player doesn't unknowingly become subject to penalty. What about blind golfers that inadvertantly place the line in a cheater position? Now you are talking solely about intent, and the Rules try to provide traction on that slippery slope.

My guess is that in 1988 probably due to an editing or publishing error "on the putting green" was omitted from the last sentence of Rule 8-2b and it has not been picked up on in the last twenty years.  

I would guess that someone at the USGA figured out that the rule as written did not prohibit placing a marker somewhere off of the putting green.