Patrick,
Remember the context in which I introduced the single dot argument.
You claimed that it would be easy for Rules officials to monitor the use of ID marks on golf balls to indicate a line for putting -- just check the ID marks on the first tee, and if they resemble a "cheater line", then order the player not to put the ball into play.
I disagreed, saying that all sorts of marks -- in fact, nearly
any mark can be used to indicate a line for putting, and so rules officials couldn't just monitor the use of ID marks at the first tee. Indeed, monitoring would have to occur on each green, each time the player placed his ball for putting.
The single dot example showed that indeed almost any ID mark can be used to indicate the line for putting. As I said, try the experiment in reply #571 -- you'll see. Remember, it's the dot combined with the curve of the ball, not just the dot itself, that indicates the line. But I'll be OK if I can't make you a believer.
The fact that a single dot would not be as effective as a trademark is irrelevant to the argument, which is that, if the Rule is changed, then players and/or officials will have to monitor players placing their ball on every green, and not just on the first tee.
I think you see that now, pointing out that the burden of monitoring players aligning their golf balls won't be anything that players and officials couldn't or shouldn't have to handle anyway. But the USGA apparently disagrees.
It looks like the USGA sees no practical difference between aligning a manufacturer's mark and aligning an ID mark for putting, and if they feel that it is impractical to regulate manufacturer's marks, then they must also feel that it is impractical to regulate ID marks.
Shivas might come back and say that manufacturers and players should be allowed to mark the ball however they want to, as long as the player is not allowed to place the ball in such a way that those marks are used to align for putting.
To that, I'm sure the USGA would say (in the same language reiterated by Tom Paul earlier), "the ball is placed by the player in many ways and there is no practical way to regulate this". I'd agree -- there are so many ways players can align the ball using a mark, some which may not be easily detectable by others. And remember, if ID marks aren't allowed to be used to align the ball, then by analogy manufacturer marks wouldn't be either.
Nothing on the ball could then be used to align the ball for putting. I just don't think it would be as easy as you think it would be to regulate how players place their golf balls on the green.
One solution to the "problem", as you and Shivas see it, would be to require players to mark the ball in the same orientation as they find it on the green (like when a competitor asks you to mark and lift your ball when it is off the green). But again, the USGA's position on that is reflected in their answer to Michael Moore's inquiry:
"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."
As to HappyDale Farms, after 18 pages of this thread I think I am ready to check in.
In fact, I played with a guy in U.S. Open Qualifying the other day who used a bright red cheater line, and I found myself pissed off, not that he was using it, but that I even noticed it.
Maybe a little time at HappyDale would do me some good.