Shivas's cheater line

« **Reply #375 on:** May 24, 2007, 09:51:02 PM »

A number of years ago a manufacturer made a ball with the two hemispheres of different colors. Essentially, that ball allowed the player to line up the ball for putting. It was legal.
If that ball was still manufactur4ed and conforming, and a player put a bold line around the circumference of the ball at the hemisphere line, would that be a problem. He clearly would not gain any advantage.
Also, the Titlest Pro V1 has a short line along the circumference. If you extended it with a series of short dashes would that run afoul, or would it have to be a continuous line.

I don't use a line, but I don't see it as a problem. I can line up the logo name to the line of putt and get the same feedback.

FYI, I have not read the first 16 pages but feel remiss in not participating.

« **Reply #376 on:** May 24, 2007, 10:11:58 PM »

"So they LIED in the second sentence of Decision 14-2/4? They MADE UP reasoning to cover their real reason? Is that what you're telling us? Lovely.

Maybe you have no real idea how to read these Rules and Decisions, Dave. I'm not sure what you think Dec 14-2/4 has to do with what Andy Martinez was doing. If you look closely at the Rule 14 you should be able to deduce that Rule 14-2b was probably the result of the Miller/Martinez practice.

And now I think I'm getting a bit weary of listening to Shivas tell us all what he thinks the Rules of Golf should be. I'm sure I'm like most golfers and would rather just know what the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf ARE.

David Schmidt, like the rest of us, I think the time has come for you to do the best you can to just find out what the Rules of Golf ARE and precisely how all of them are applied and to what practices---in this case the practice of aligning an identification mark for the purpose of indicating a line for putting, and not be so concerned about what the rationale and reasoning is behind why they're that way.

Or would you prefer to play golf by your own Rules of Golf and your own Rules interpretations or by what you think they should be instead of what they are, which includes the interpretations of the people who write them?

« **Reply #377 on:** May 24, 2007, 10:39:53 PM »

"Oh no you don't. I have given good reason. Plenty of them. The three key words that would blow my interpretation clean to Kindgom Come simply aren't in the rule and that's not debatable. And the fact that they were PULLED from the rule lends a hell of a lot of credibility to my position that they intended to expand the prohibition in 1988. Maybe not all the way to the ball. I grant that they may not have been thinking of the ball, in terms of intent. But when they say things like "anywhere" without qualification, my reasoning is awfully damn solid from an interpretive standpoint. Maybe not in the la-la land of Far Hills, but in the REAL world where people bust out a book and read the sentence, where 99.99999% of them have never heard of the Leith Rules, my way is the way people read stuff."

David:

Your reasoning is awfully damn solid from and interpretive standpoint?? Maybe not in the la-la land of Far Hills?

Has it even occured to you yet how ludicrously arrogant some of the things you've said on here are?

Apparently not.

Oh, and you claim emailing is the new technology today so you email them for an answer, then expect to wait two weeks for an answer so you can criticize them?

Pick up the telephone, pat and call 908-234-2300 and ask to speak to someone in the Rules Commitee if you want to ask them for reasons and rationale on something. I promise you that doesn't really require a whole lot of logic.

« **Reply #378 on:** May 24, 2007, 10:59:09 PM »

Quote from: Michael Moore on May 24, 2007, 07:50:30 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 24, 2007, 06:10:05 PM
A cheater's line or derivation thereof can be easily spotted and dealt with prior to the start of the round.

5th hole

Player A - "OK, this is a provisional. Titleist 3 with a short line."

Player B - "Hold on, we need to get an official over here before you put that in play."

Michael Moore,

If you were familiar with the rules you would know that there would be no need to call an official prior to putting the ball in play.

You'll have to figure out why.

« **Reply #379 on:** May 24, 2007, 11:10:07 PM »

Quote from: Chris Brauner on May 24, 2007, 07:38:53 PM

Chris,

How many USGA, Regional and State Golf Association events have you competed in ?

I have competed in USGA, R&A, Regional and State Golf association events--100's in all--for over 25 years now.

I remind you that the Rules of Golf apply not only to these events but to all levels of competition and to regular play.[/color]

Everyone knows that, but, it's at events that are run by those organizations that have that formal meeting on the first tee. It doesn't usually occur in the weekend matches between golfers[/color]

But that is tangential to the issue. You said that the issue of the USGA or any Golf Association monitoring the marking of a golf ball could occur on the first tee, and I pointed out that it is not that simple, that the monitoring would have to occur on each green.[/color][/b]

Not at all, if the competitors on the first tee. who identify their golf balls, produce balls without a cheater's line on it, and then suddenly, the ball on the first green has a cheater's line on it, you know the result, endo, gonzo.[/color]

If 8-2 b was clarified by the USGA to support Shivas's position, are you telling me that you'd knowingly cheat ?

Of course I wouldn't cheat -- but it's not me I'm worried about. I don't want to have to monitor my competitors to see if they are using their golf ball ID marker to line up a putt or not.

Are you kidding me ?

You just told us that you've competed in over 100 sanctioned events.
If that's the case, then YOU KNOW that YOU have an OBLIGATION to protect the FIELD. You have an obligation to make sure that none of your fellow competitors violate the rules, and, you know the consequences of violating the rules in match play, LOSS OF HOLE.[/color]

That you'd risk the stigma associated with those actions ?
That you'd risk your standing in the competitive arena ?

Again, it's not me I'm worried about.

If a competitor started aligning the marks to aid him in determining the line, how long do you think it would be before his fellow competitors brought it to the attention of the officials ?

It depends on the type of ID mark. As even one dot can be used to align a ball to the putting line, you might have to be pretty close to the player to catch him.

Tell me how one dot can aid the competitor in determining and indicating the line/[/color]

You can cheat now, you can use a non-conforming ball, switch balls on the green, change the ball type during the course of a round where the one ball rule is in affect, or, all of the above.

But, do you want to be known by your peers as a cheater ?
Do you want to be sanctioned by the GA ?

Golf's a game of honor, and those who knowingly violate the rules have no place in golf.

So, have at it, try to gain an edge at the expense of your integrity, character and reputation.

People who do that usually end up playing in onesomes

If only that were true.

I'm convinced that it's true.[/color]

Quote

« **Reply #380 on:** May 24, 2007, 11:11:57 PM »

Shivas:

Yes, if someone said that a few pages back I guess I missed it. But that would be my guess since I'm quite sure they didn't remove that wording in 1988 to expand the interpretation of that rule to something other than a mark on the putting green.

If you think they did that then why don't you have a thing to say about what they've done about it in the last twenty years? I asked you that and you apparently don't want to answer it. At least come up with something, even if it's one example.

And for some completely counter-intuitive reason you keep mentioning Dec 20-3a/2 as if it somehow supports your contention and your reasoning on this thing you've termed a "cheater-line" practice.

It doesn't. The fact that Dec 20-3a/2 is in the Decisions book completely destroys your reasoning and this moralist notion of yours that using a trademark or "identification" line to align a ball to indicate the line for putting is a violation of the intent or spirit of Rule 8-2b or the prinicple or spirit of any other Rule in the book.

You know if you hadn't acted like such a pompous moralist on this entire thread i'd tell you that you should have figured out by now on your own that you owe a real apology to a whole lot of golfers out there who use a trademark or identification line to align their golf ball for the purpose of indicating a line for putting that is completely legit and allowable within all the Rules of Golf.

In fact, you have implied all of them are cheaters.

« **Reply #381 on:** May 24, 2007, 11:15:54 PM »

Patrick:

Apparently you don't know much about Chris Brauner.

Oh, and thanks for the additional colored text. Chris was green and you were gray until you turned blue, right? At first, I wasn't sure who was saying what to whom but then again I never am sure what you're trying to say. Are you? Have you got any hot pink in that text color palette of yours?

« **Reply #382 on:** May 24, 2007, 11:18:16 PM »

Peter Pittock,

Alignment wasn't the reason for the two colored ball.

If those balls existed today and the golfer added a line around the border where the two hemispheres meet, under Shiva's interpretation, it would violate 8-2 b because the golfer placed the mark on the ball.

« **Reply #383 on:** May 24, 2007, 11:20:06 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on May 24, 2007, 11:15:54 PM

Patrick:

Apparently you don't know much about Chris Brauner.

I can only go by what he types.

If he's played in medal play competitions he should know that he has an obligation to protect the interests of the field.

In match play, it's obvious that he'd protect his interests.

« **Reply #384 on:** May 24, 2007, 11:33:22 PM »

"If those balls existed today and the golfer added a line around the border where the two hemispheres meet, under Shiva's interpretation, it would violate 8-2 b because the golfer placed the mark on the ball."

Under Shivas's interpretation?

That's just what golf needs, a whole lot more Shivases coming up with their own moralistic interpretations on the Rules of Golf.

If I was officiating and I saw Shivas trying to bully some fellow competitor in playing golf under Shivas's interpretation like this bullshit "cheater line" notion of his I would slap him upside the head with Rule 3-4 and personally escort him off the golf course.

« **Reply #385 on:** May 24, 2007, 11:57:01 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 24, 2007, 11:10:07 PM

Quote from: Chris Brauner on May 24, 2007, 07:38:53 PM

Chris,

How many USGA, Regional and State Golf Association events have you competed in ?

I have competed in USGA, R&A, Regional and State Golf association events--100's in all--for over 25 years now.

I remind you that the Rules of Golf apply not only to these events but to all levels of competition and to regular play.[/color]

Everyone knows that, but, it's at events that are run by those organizations that have that formal meeting on the first tee. It doesn't usually occur in the weekend matches between golfers[/color]

But that is tangential to the issue. You said that the issue of the USGA or any Golf Association monitoring the marking of a golf ball could occur on the first tee, and I pointed out that it is not that simple, that the monitoring would have to occur on each green.

Not at all, if the competitors on the first tee. who identify their golf balls, produce balls without a cheater's line on it, and then suddenly, the ball on the first green has a cheater's line on it, you know the result, endo, gonzo.[/color]

Not so. For example, if a player's ID mark is two dots ( : or . . ) then that player would have to be monitored on each green to make sure he doesn't align those two dots to indicate the line for putting. Even if his mark was a single dot (see below), then he'd still have to be monitored on each green to make sure he doesn't use the dot to indicate the line for putting.

If 8-2 b was clarified by the USGA to support Shivas's position, are you telling me that you'd knowingly cheat ?

Of course I wouldn't cheat -- but it's not me I'm worried about. I don't want to have to monitor my competitors to see if they are using their golf ball ID marker to line up a putt or not.

Are you kidding me ?

You just told us that you've competed in over 100 sanctioned events.
If that's the case, then YOU KNOW that YOU have an OBLIGATION to protect the FIELD. You have an obligation to make sure that none of your fellow competitors violate the rules, and, you know the consequences of violating the rules in match play, LOSS OF HOLE.[/color]

Of course. What I was saying is that part of the reason I don't want 8-2b changed because I don't want to have to monitor the way my competitors place their ball on the green, which I would have to do if the Rule is changed. Of course if the Rule were changed I would uphold my obligation to protect the field, but frankly I don't want it to come to this.

That you'd risk the stigma associated with those actions ?
That you'd risk your standing in the competitive arena ?

Again, it's not me I'm worried about.

If a competitor started aligning the marks to aid him in determining the line, how long do you think it would be before his fellow competitors brought it to the attention of the officials ?

It depends on the type of ID mark. As even one dot can be used to align a ball to the putting line, you might have to be pretty close to the player to catch him.

Tell me how one dot can aid the competitor in determining and indicating the line/[/color]

I'll show you. Suppose you mark your golf ball with a single dot and place the ball on the green 3 different ways so that it looks like following:

It doesn't take much imagination to see that the 1st ball is aligned to the left of the intended line, the 2nd ball is aligned to the right of the intended line, and the 3rd ball is aligned right on the intended line. Crouch behind your ball, find the line, align the ball like the 3rd ball above, and you have used a single dot to indicate the line for putting.

You can cheat now, you can use a non-conforming ball, switch balls on the green, change the ball type during the course of a round where the one ball rule is in affect, or, all of the above.

But, do you want to be known by your peers as a cheater ?
Do you want to be sanctioned by the GA ?

Golf's a game of honor, and those who knowingly violate the rules have no place in golf.

So, have at it, try to gain an edge at the expense of your integrity, character and reputation.

People who do that usually end up playing in onesomes

If only that were true.

I'm convinced that it's true.[/color]

« **Reply #386 on:** May 25, 2007, 12:00:17 AM »

Quote from: Shivas Schmidt on May 24, 2007, 08:41:34 PM

No, you wouldn't.

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.

As to clubs, first of all, those are separate rules. Second of all, that genie is out of the bottle and has been for quite some time. This cheater line thing can still be nipped in the bud.

And even if the genie wasn't out of the bottle as it applies to clubs, I don't think the purpose of those lines is the same as that of the cheater line. I also don't think the fundamental issue they pose is the same. With clubs, you still have to align it from a position above the ball at address!!

To me, that is the most important thing in all of this. The cheater line allows the player to completly eliminate the skill of aligning himself properly from above the ball at address.

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".

Shivas:

Payne Stewart won the '99 US Open using a putter that allowed for proper alignment while standing above the ball, taking his regular putting stance. It was that "red dot" thingy, where you took your stance with your putter, and aligned the angle of the putter until the red dot "disappeared" because it was covered up, through exact alignment, with the putter shaft. (I've been trying to get a close look at US Open favorite Zach Johnson's putter, because it looks nearly exactly the same on TV...)

Isn't that an alignment helper on the putter that is different than the usual markings on a putter, because you can align it while in your usual stance?

« **Reply #387 on:** May 25, 2007, 12:08:22 AM »

"Tom, if your doctor told you that because you have bad knees you can't ever jog for more than 30 minutes at a time or else you would have a heart attack, and then all of a sudden one day in 1988, he told you that you simply can't jog PERIOD, AT ALL, would you go out and jog for 25 minutes? By your logic, you would. If you don't see this, I'm sorry my man, but I can't help you."

I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with anything, particularly my remark you were apparently responding to. And I doubt anyone else would either. If it's an analogy to something you got me as to what it is.

"Well, to start, you never have asked me this question before...."

Yes I did. I asked it earlier this evening

"......but here's what I have to say about it. They should have done something about it as soon as it became a problem. Yes, I was somewhat of the sentinal on this because I'm a slow play hawk and I realized right away when everybody started doing this that it would be a slow play disaster. Before that, I (like everyone else) wasn't worried about this because it was being done extremely rarely and maybe I never saw it or maybe I just didn't care. When I played competively I never saw this at the US Am or the Western AM or the Eastern Am or anywhere else! So the answer to your question is that between 1988 and when Eldrick became Tiger, this was simply not an issue. But once it started showing up about 8-10 years ago, I started piping up. So there's your answer."

Slow play is your answer?? That's ridiculous. Man do you not understand the Rules of Golf. There's been a slow play Rule for years. It's Rule 6-7. Maybe you're not aware of it, and it covers slow play for any reason. The reasoning and rationale behind potentially expanding the meaning of Rule 8-2b has to do with "Advice" and "Indicating the line of Play", not with slow play.

"No I don't. I say it doesn't support ANY position because it contains no reasoning whatsoever."

Decision 20-3a/2 is a real life incident that derived a simple question about whether a trademark positioned to aim along the line of putt to indicate the line of play was permissible. A simple answer of yes or no is sufficient.

"Stop it with this moralist nonsense. I'm not making a moral argument when it comes to the inconsistency between Rule 8-2(b) and Decision 20-3a/2."

Well, then, you're continuing to make a bullshit argument because the entirety of Rule 8-2b means the putting green and not the golf ball.

Again, if you don't believe me just call up the USGA Rules Committee and ask them. And while you're at it try not to refer to Far Hills as la-la land.

They may even tell you that the words "on the putting green" should be in that last sentence. They may even realize from your conversation that it was inadvertently omitted. Maybe they'll get it back in there in the next printing.

Or maybe they'd tell you to simply look at the title of Rule 8-2b which happens to be "On the Putting Green" and that means that is where the Rule means a mark may not go to indicate a line for putting.

But no, you're convinced they pulled those words to expand the Rule to mean anywhere at all and for the last twenty years for some bizarre reason they failed to tell anyone including every Rule official in the world.

Excellent, logic, counselor.

« **Reply #388 on:** May 25, 2007, 12:29:56 AM »

"And that's what I and the USGA have stated over and over and over again should not be taken out of the game. Unfortunately, with them, it's lip service and with me, I take it seriously."

Look, Shivas, I think it's about time you cut out that kind of remark on here.

You're both implying and saying the USGA agrees with you that this kind of identification line on a golf ball used this way is a violation of Rule 8-2b but they won't admit it and enforce it.

That is just not true. You don't know that's what they mean in Rule 8-2b and you haven't even got the guts to call them and ask them. Really what does that say about you?

I'm serious. Those guys read some of these threads too and in my opinion you've become something of an embarrasement to this website with your "know-it-all" arrogance. Do you even know that Ran's brother John is probably the top Rules guy at the USGA and considered by Rules people to be one of the 2 or 3 best Rules experts in the world?

You really should think about cutting this crap out David. Seriously. Talk about the Rules in theory if you want or call them and ask for clarifiction, but for Christ's Sakes stop acting as if you know how to write and apply the Rules of Golf better than they do because you most definitely do not.

« **Reply #389 on:** May 25, 2007, 12:35:56 AM »

Quote from: Shivas Schmidt on May 25, 2007, 12:11:58 AM

Crouch behind your ball, find the line, align the ball like the 3rd ball above, and you have used a single dot to indicate the line for putting.

Yeah, but Chris, you're missing the key fact in your analysis. Yes, you have lined up your single dot with some line you see on the putting green from behind the ball.

That's fine. Nobody is saying you're not entitled to line stuff up to your intended line.

Huh? I thought that you (and what you think the Rule) said was "a mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting".

How is a single dot aligned above not, under your definition, a mark used to indicate the line for putting? It indicates the line--it is placed so that the ball can be aligned along the intended line, which indicates the line to the player.

Are you now saying that a mark can be placed somewhere to indicate a line for putting, but not to assist the player in aligning to that line? If so, that's a very different can of worms.

Quote

We all took geometry. There is a difference between a dot and a line because the line is there is ONLY ONE shortest difference between TWO points and an INFINITE number of lines can go through a SINGLE point.

If that line is in your mind (ie, spot putting), it hasn't been placed.

Shivas,
Go to the putting green tomorrow and do this experiment:
On a dead-center putt, crouch behind the ball, align a single dot to your intended line like shown above (ball just above the equator of the ball and centered on the back of the ball--your eye or the seam can be used to help center it), and then forget about the line or spot-putting; don't look at anything but the putter and ball. Now align the putter to the ball so that the ball looks like this to your eye:

Now look up toward the hole. You'll be able to see that you're aiming too far right.

Now do the same, again forgetting about the line--don't even look at the line, just the putter and ball. Now align the putter to the ball so that the ball looks like this to your eye:

Now look up toward the hole. You'll be able to see that you're aiming too far left.

Now do it again, but align the putter to the ball so that the ball looks like this to your eye:

Now look up toward the hole. You'll be able to see that you're aligned up at the hole.

No spot-putting, no looking down the line--just a single dot used to indicate the line.

Quote

That's fine. Nobody is saying you're not entitled to line stuff up to your intended line.

The point is that AFTER you align the dot, you have to sachay up to the ball and get the INTENDED alignment CORRECT. Without that, you can get it wrong. That, my friend, is called a SKILL.

There doesn't appear to be any logical difference here with the cheater line. You still have to line the putter up perpendicular to the cheater line to get the intended alignment correct (and then trust your eyes as often the line appears to be pointing somewhere different than when you saw the line behind the ball). It might be easier to do with a line than just a dot, but we're not talking degrees here. You either disallow every ID mark used to indicate a line for putting, or you allow all of them.

« **Reply #390 on:** May 25, 2007, 12:37:23 AM »

"Oh, BTW, you still haven't answered my questions. By my count, I've answered 100% of yours... ) "

I've answered your questions completely. That you can't understand those answers isn't my problem.

And I'm done with this thread and your completely over-arching attitude on it. You've crossed the line today and I don't want anymore to do with it or with you.

Matter of fact, I take back my advice to you to call the USGA Rules Committee for clarification. I doubt they'd be willing to talk to you at this point anyway. I know if I were them I wouldn't.

« **Reply #391 on:** May 25, 2007, 12:39:20 AM »

Quote from: Shivas Schmidt on May 25, 2007, 12:13:59 AM

Quote from: Phil McDade on May 25, 2007, 12:00:17 AM
Quote from: Shivas Schmidt on May 24, 2007, 08:41:34 PM
No, you wouldn't.

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.

As to clubs, first of all, those are separate rules. Second of all, that genie is out of the bottle and has been for quite some time. This cheater line thing can still be nipped in the bud.

And even if the genie wasn't out of the bottle as it applies to clubs, I don't think the purpose of those lines is the same as that of the cheater line. I also don't think the fundamental issue they pose is the same. With clubs, you still have to align it from a position above the ball at address!!

To me, that is the most important thing in all of this. The cheater line allows the player to completly eliminate the skill of aligning himself properly from above the ball at address.

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".

Shivas:

Payne Stewart won the '99 US Open using a putter that allowed for proper alignment while standing above the ball, taking his regular putting stance. It was that "red dot" thingy, where you took your stance with your putter, and aligned the angle of the putter until the red dot "disappeared" because it was covered up, through exact alignment, with the putter shaft. (I've been trying to get a close look at US Open favorite Zach Johnson's putter, because it looks nearly exactly the same on TV...)

Isn't that an alignment helper on the putter that is different than the usual markings on a putter, because you can align it while in your usual stance?

No. It has nothing to do with the intended line of the putt, absent the cheater line. Obviously, this putter can be aligned in any direction. It's up to the player as to what specific line he wants it aligned...

That's a pretty fine line you're splitting there, although I admire as always your willingness to give it a go. It seems if I Betsy King-it with my red eye putter, aligning the putter face with the line, then move the putter upright, and do a second alignment with the red eye (granted, not with the line of the putt, but an important alignment nonetheless), I'm skirting the boundaries of fair play. (I forget, because it was so many pages ago -- can you still Besty King-it under the rules?) Thus, one might argue that the red eye putter is not all that dissimilar from the stand-up-alone putter that you rightly castigate as a cheater line in drag.

I'm generally with you on the cheater line; Cullum has provided the only decent rationale in favor of the USGA's interpretation, and his argument about "de minimus" advantage is negated, I'd suggest, by the use of it by Eldrick the Alien.

I still think I ought to be able to use the trademark to align my ball with the putter face, not the line, if the USGA allows a similar circumstance with lines/balls/lollipops on the top/backside of putters.

« **Reply #392 on:** May 25, 2007, 02:34:21 AM »

I say if any of you guys who think this practice is in some way a violation of a Rule of Golf even in spirit, then just make your case to the USGA directly in writing including why you think the Rule should be changed or reinterpreted.

Do not make your case to golfers to stop it as of now because you think the USGA should change this Rule or reinterpret how they apply the Rules with this current allowable practice.

And for God's sake don't accuse or even imply that players who use this practice are in any way cheating because as of now they are definitely not cheating and the USGA will be the first to confirm that.

« **Reply #393 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:06:52 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 24, 2007, 10:59:09 PM

. . . there would be no need to call an official prior to putting the ball in play.

Ah, yes, I see that instead, player A could just play two balls in this situation under rule 3-3. Every time he puts a new ball in play. After his fellow competitor has come running across the fairway. Now what if player B doesn't like the mark on the second ball?

I also see why the USGA, in their response to me, simply said

"It would be unwise for the Rules to attempt to prohibit certain markings on a ball or a certain orientation of the ball when it is replaced."

« **Reply #394 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:14:09 AM »

Quote from: Doug Sobieski on May 24, 2007, 09:30:46 PM

Quote from: Shivas Schmidt on May 24, 2007, 08:41:34 PM

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.

Shiv:

What say you to the above? I really want to know how you will write the rule so the differences in one person's judgement or what they witness doesn't conflict with another.

The most recent posts indicate that the following could be a problem:

"I wasn't looking when he replaced his ball, so I can't penalize him"
OR
"I saw you line up your ball improperly, you are penalized"

Same instance, two different fellow competitors, two different outcomes. Like situations must be treated alike, but now it all depends on who you are playing with.

« **Reply #395 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:24:53 AM »

Guys, keep it going. I love the passion.

« **Reply #396 on:** May 25, 2007, 09:34:11 AM »

It is certainly possible to read rule 8-2b as allowing a mark to be placed on a ball without prohibiting its use for alignment.

« **Reply #397 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:04:23 AM »

I have skipped over most of the last three or four pages, so forgive me if the explanation of why the words "on the putting green" were removed as of 1988, but it seems pretty logical that it was because people could just as easily place an acorn or some such thing on the apron beyond the hole as their alignment target. I know you'll dismiss that Shivas, but I guarantee you that was the origin for the re-wording.

Secondly, listen to this and tell me how you would deal with it in your world...I played a tournament the last two days, andobviously was chuckling every time I placed the ball down on the green, the trouble is I try to place it so I hit the Titleist logo right on the face with as much white as possible pointing up. The side writing on the ball is on the outside (away from me) and I do not put marker dots above the writing TITLEIST so it's just about as bare as it can be...BUT...I do want to hit the Titleist logo square so I position the ball with the logos aligned to my intended target. Let me be clear, I am not using any line or dots or anything as an alignement aid, but rather confirmation.

Tell me if this was not a clear description of my method.

What would be your ruling?

« **Reply #398 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:07:37 AM »

Under my reading of Shivas' rules, you're a cheather.

« **Reply #399 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:11:12 AM »

I agree...considering I putted like I was blind I better figure out a better way to cheat...

News:

Pete_Pittock

TEPaul

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

CHrisB

Phil McDade

TEPaul

TEPaul

CHrisB

TEPaul

Phil McDade

TEPaul

Michael Moore

Doug Sobieski

Jim Franklin

John_Cullum

JESII

John_Cullum

JESII