Shivas's cheater line

« **Reply #400 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:27:02 AM »

Have you proven yet that aligning yourself is a "key principle of the game"...or whatever the terminology you have been using is?

How about addressing my question from a couple of days, and several pages, ago about the ball being an extension of the player while it is in his hand and thus not subject to the wording of 8-2(b)?

« **Reply #401 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:27:09 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 13, 2007, 09:55:56 PM

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 ?

To return to GCA for a moment:

1. No. I believe that markings on the ball (they are NOT, by definition "cheater lines", as they are legal, of course...) might in fact allow GCA's to build MORE challenge into their greens, since ordinary golfers might be better enabled to handle the challenges presented, without becoming frustrated or unduly slowing play.

2. Flatter greens would lead to LESS influence of markings on the ball, since total break would be less, and therefore alignment much more standardized.

My conclusion: From a viewpoint of promoting challenging green contours, markings on the golf ball should be not only allowed, but encouraged by all who TRULY love challenging and interesting GCA.

By the way, Scott Burroughs has posted a really good set of pictures of the restoration work at Cape Fear CC in Wilmington, NC by Kris Spence. When I checked a moment ago, the front 9 thread had 13 replies, the back nine thread only 2, while this thread is now nearing 600 replies. Interesting...

« **Reply #402 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:36:29 AM »

Quote from: Chris Brauner 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.

Think about what you're claiming.
Marking with a dot or two won't help in the least, and, the player doesn't need to do that, the manufacturer already provides ample markings with the logo, number or other marks that would enable the player to use them. You're creating an issue where none exists.

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.

You wouldn't have to.
You're creating, or imagining a problem where none exists.

For the last 25 years how many competitors have you seen making an attempt to align something other than the marks they place on the ball for ID ? It's inefective. In order to align something on the ball you need TWO points of reference that create an IMAGINARY line.

You're creating a bogus issue in an attempt to defend against the removal of a cheater line.

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.

Are you kidding me.
A single dot can't align a putt.
You need two dots at a minimum.

And, there have been ample markings on balls for decades that provide better linear alignment than a single dot, or two.

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 #403 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:38:59 AM »

Shivas,

At what point in the stroke does a ball switch from equipment back to just a ball?

Also, I'll be very disappointed if that answer to my question about how I line up the ball is all you are going to say...please provide guidance...am I a cheat?

« **Reply #404 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:40:31 AM »

AG Crockett,

The process of alignment slows down the game, irrespective of the markings on the ball.

Flatter greens would encourage alignment since "break" and severe "break" would be removed, allowing a firmer putt to be hit.

« **Reply #405 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:44:55 AM »

Frankly, not aligning markings on your ball is no more difficult than not teeing in front of the tee markers. It could be administered and upheld through the honor among competitors.

« **Reply #406 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:54:01 AM »

Shivas,

The obvious question then is, when the ball switches from equipment back to ball, is that the equivalent of lifting the club you might lay at your feet for alignement aid?

Again...am I a cheat in the way I place my ball on the green?

« **Reply #407 on:** May 25, 2007, 11:01:04 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 25, 2007, 10:40:31 AM

AG Crockett,

1. The process of alignment slows down the game, irrespective of the markings on the ball.

2. Flatter greens would encourage alignment since "break" and severe "break" would be removed, allowing a firmer putt to be hit.

1. Not as much as additional, and longer, putts slow down the game.

2. Disagree, and I think you do, too. You know as an expert player that alignment could not possibly be LESS important on a putt with a lot of break than on a flatter putt. That would mean that a breaking putt would be "easier" than a flatter putt, and I know that you don't believe that!

Patrick, I have read literally hundreds of posts by you that seemed to me to lament the trend of ever flatter greens, and I agree with you 100%. I cannot accept that you think that the overall quality of GCA will be enhanced by making it more difficult for players to align themselves on the green. Nor can I accept the fact that you believe that the markings on the ball are as influential in alignment as the design of or markings on the putter (see my earlier post about the Rife Two-Bar or the Ping Craz-E, or a multitude of others), or discolorations on the green, for instance.

What am I missing?

« **Reply #408 on:** May 25, 2007, 11:08:34 AM »

Chris Brauner,

When the "one ball" rule is in effect in a medal play event where you're paired with three other competitors, is your responsibility to the field equal to, greater than, or the same as it would be with respect to observing your competitors to make sure they're not aligning markings on the putting surface to aid with determining the line ?

I forgot who asked me, and I don't have the time right now to research the questions, but, the answer is.

The Rife putter is now in the closet in favor of my Tommy Armour IMG5. but, when I was using it, I didn't think the weight cylinders provided that much assistance with alignment.

What's always helped me, and it's not an issue of determining the line, was a mark on top of the putter that would determine the putter's sweet spot, because that's where I wanted to strike the putt. Unfortunately, many top line marks didn't indicate the sweet spot, which I had to determine for myself.

« **Reply #409 on:** May 25, 2007, 11:21:01 AM »

Quote from: A.G._Crockett on May 25, 2007, 11:01:04 AM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 25, 2007, 10:40:31 AM
AG Crockett,

1. The process of alignment slows down the game, irrespective of the markings on the ball.

2. Flatter greens would encourage alignment since "break" and severe "break" would be removed, allowing a firmer putt to be hit.

1. Not as much as additional, and longer, putts slow down the game.[size=4x]
?[/color][/size]

2. Disagree, and I think you do, too. You know as an expert player that alignment could not possibly be LESS important on a putt with a lot of break than on a flatter putt. That would mean that a breaking putt would be "easier" than a flatter putt, and I know that you don't believe that!

I do agree, however, on flat putts, touch can be removed through firmer putts since the consequence of a failed attempt is a slightly longer, albeit straighter putt.
The stroke can be more confident.[/color]

Patrick, I have read literally hundreds of posts by you that seemed to me to lament the trend of ever flatter greens, and I agree with you 100%.

I cannot accept that you think that the overall quality of GCA will be enhanced by making it more difficult for players to align themselves on the green.

I do.
Today, golfers wants to be spoon fed, everything from yardage to the speed of the green to the break and alignment of the green.

Rodney Dangerfield's putter in "Caddyshack" was a reflection of the trend.

I want the golfer to have to read difficult putts, to traverse swales, mounds, ridges and tiers.

Pretty soon Rodney's putter will be declared "conforming"
[/color]

Nor can I accept the fact that you believe that the markings on the ball are as influential in alignment as the design of or markings on the putter (see my earlier post about the Rife Two-Bar or the Ping Craz-E, or a multitude of others), or discolorations on the green, for instance.

It's a pretty good bet that if they're doing it on the PGA Tour, that it's a benefit.

But, here's a question for you and others.
I maintain that there's no difference between form and substance

What's the difference in a mark you place on the green to aid with indicating the line of a putt and a line you place on your ball to aid with indicating the line of a putt ?

Let's say that the aiming point for a but is a spot of discolored grass. What's the difference in placing a mark there and placing a mark on your ball that points to that location ?

In substance, in playing the golf course, it's the same thing !
[/color]
What am I missing?

See my comments above[/color]

« **Reply #410 on:** May 25, 2007, 12:57:48 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 25, 2007, 11:08:34 AM

Chris Brauner,

When the "one ball" rule is in effect in a medal play event where you're paired with three other competitors, is your responsibility to the field equal to, greater than, or the same as it would be with respect to observing your competitors to make sure they're not aligning markings on the putting surface to aid with determining the line ?

Patrick,
My participation with you on this thread depends on your ability to understand the points I make. I'm not saying that the burden of monitoring the way my competitors mark and place their ball is any greater, less than, or equal to any other burden I presently have to protect the field in a tournament. I'm saying that it is an additional burden, no matter how small it might be, that I'd just as soon not have to take on. But of course I'll take it on if the Rule is changed.

Sorry you can't see that a single dot can indicate a line for putting--there's not much I can say if you can't see that. All I can say is go the putting green and try the experiment I gave to Shivas in reply #571, and then if you still think a single dot can't indicate a line for putting, we'll get you a room at HappyDale Farms close to JES, TEPaul, and me.

« **Reply #411 on:** May 25, 2007, 06:14:42 PM »

Guys, firstly, a golf ball that is in play is not equipment under the definition of equipment. It is only considered to be equipment when it has been lifted and taken out of play.

The word is in from Oracle One on this practice of using an identification mark or identificatin line on a golf ball for the purposes of indicating a line for putting.

It's completely allowable under the Rules of Golf and there is no prohibition against it or violation of the Rules with this practice. By analogy Dec. 20-3a/2 (manufacturer's trademark) makes it not a violation of a Rule of Golf.

On the other hand, in 1988 the wording "on the putting green" was apparently purposefully removed from the last sentence of Rule 8-2b to read: "A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting."

This does mean anywhere with the exception of the golf ball. Previous to 1988 for many decades that Rule (which for many decades was in the Rule "The Putting Green") read "No mark shall be place anywhere ON THE PUTTING GREEN to indicate the line of putt". Obviously, at that time with that wording included that long time Rule only meant a line placed on the putting green to indicate a line for putting.

And now for the elusive reasoning and rationale for excepting the golf ball from the operation of Rule 8-2b.

The USGA/R&A apparently feels that, "the ball is marked by the manufacturer in many ways and there is no practical way to regulate this. But that is where the "line" is drawn."

Again, by analogy to Dec 20-3a/2 a player's "identification" mark or line is treated the same way via Rule 8-2b as a manufacturer's trademark or markings.

« **Reply #412 on:** May 25, 2007, 07:38:52 PM »

Shivas,

I'll take your silence as a concession...so tell me, how do you place your ball on the green?

« **Reply #413 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:16:08 PM »

"What about 14-3?
It's just as bad under 14-3... "

This practice as a violation could never apply to Rule 14-3. Rule 14-3 is all about Articial Devices and Unusual Equipment, period.

If the USGA was to rule a indentification mark or identification line on a golf ball (that they recommend in Rule 6-5 players put on their golf balls) as an artificial device or unusual equipment that would clearly be completely counter-intuitive and frankly ridiculous.

If they were to make using a line on a golf ball to indicate the line for putting a violation of a Rule of Golf they would logically put that practice in Rule 8-2b---a Rule that is partially entitled "Indicating Line of Play".

« **Reply #414 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:56:41 PM »

Quote from: Chris Brauner on May 25, 2007, 12:57:48 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 25, 2007, 11:08:34 AM
Chris Brauner,

When the "one ball" rule is in effect in a medal play event where you're paired with three other competitors, is your responsibility to the field equal to, greater than, or the same as it would be with respect to observing your competitors to make sure they're not aligning markings on the putting surface to aid with determining the line ?

Patrick,
My participation with you on this thread depends on your ability to understand the points I make. I'm not saying that the burden of monitoring the way my competitors mark and place their ball is any greater, less than, or equal to any other burden I presently have to protect the field in a tournament. I'm saying that it is an additional burden, no matter how small it might be, that I'd just as soon not have to take on. But of course I'll take it on if the Rule is changed.

Chris,

The burden to you is de minimus and I have no doubt that if the rule was clarified as Shivas intends, that you and everyone else would have NO problem with it.

In the 40+ years I've been competing I think I've only had five or less incidents where someone was intentionally violating the rules. I've found tournament golfers to be an honorable lot.

Sorry you can't see that a single dot can indicate a line for putting--there's not much I can say if you can't see that. All I can say is go the putting green and try the experiment I gave to Shivas in reply #571, and then if you still think a single dot can't indicate a line for putting, we'll get you a room at HappyDale Farms close to JES, TEPaul, and me.

While I liked your exhibit, it lacked A, if not THE key factor.
The third dimension, afterall, a ball is a sphere, not a circle.

The dot you referenced is less of an aid than the name "Titleist", which appears on their golf balls.

A single dot is of less use than what's already on the ball, and, it's my belief that you would need at least two dots to create an imaginary line.

As to HappyDale Farms, I prefer my current situation where I've been granted unlimited visitation rights for you and TE.[/color]

« **Reply #415 on:** May 26, 2007, 12:13:37 AM »

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.

« **Reply #416 on:** May 26, 2007, 02:44:04 AM »

Shivas,

looking at the length of this thread I think you should patent your cheater line, you'll make a fortune!!!

« **Reply #417 on:** May 26, 2007, 07:07:34 AM »

"Chris,
The burden to you is de minimus and I have no doubt that if the rule was clarified as Shivas intends, that you and everyone else would have NO problem with it.
In the 40+ years I've been competing I think I've only had five or less incidents where someone was intentionally violating the rules. I've found tournament golfers to be an honorable lot."

Patrick:

Your responsibility as a competitor in stroke play to protect the field does not revolve around whether a fellow competitor is intentionally violating a Rule of Golf. And since that's the case Chris's point about monitoring a "cheater line" violation of the Rule (if the USGA insituted such a thing) certainly could become something of an additional burden to stroke play competitors.

In other words, if the USGA instituted such a Rule and a fellow competitor replaced his ball on the green with the identification mark line apparently lining up with his line of putt and hs seemingly was not aware of it would that then also become a violation of this Rule?

The Rule reads: "A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line of putt."

Would competitors then need to become aware of what any fellow competitor's purpose was if this happened or would the fact that the line apparently lined up on the line of putt even if the competitor was seemingly unaware of it become the determination for a violation of this Rule?

If the latter were the case would you want to be checking this with every fellow competitor you played with every time he replaced his ball? And if you decided you did not want to do this do you feel you are upholding your responsibility as a fellow competitor to protect the field?

« **Reply #418 on:** May 26, 2007, 07:39:30 AM »

Obviously this practice of lining up an identification mark line to indicate the line of putt has become much more common than previously. It seems to have become something of a fad these days. So much so that Titleist has even manufactured a line onto some of their balls for this purpose.

I wonder if the practice will last?

There is another modern putting practice that apparently needs to be monitored by Rules officials and fellow competitors, and I very much wonder to what extent most players who do it understand their potential to violate Rule 16-1.

We are seeing many more players these days go to some point on what they apparently consider to be the line of their putt and take a few practice strokes at that point.

Rule 16-1 (ii) provides that a player can place his club in front of the ball in addressing his putt but Rule 16-1 definitely does not allow a player to touch the line of his putt at any other point.

One Rules official asked me to monitor a young player in the recent Pennsylvania Match Play championship regarding this practice. He didn't seem to do it on every putt but he did it enough.

To be honest it was and logically would be extremely hard to tell if his putter did touch the line of putt during this practice unless I got pretty close to him.

Following the match I just went up to him and asked him if he was aware that it was a violation of Rule 16-1 if his putter happened to touch the line of putt during this practice and he said he was aware of it.

How many golfers who adopt that practice understand that? How many competitors feel this is something else they need to constantly monitor with fellow competitors during the course of tournament rounds?

How many competitors who have never thought of adopting this odd new practice putting procedure are aware this is a violation of Rule 16-1 and that in stroke play tournaments this is potentially another factor that technically falls within their responsibility to protect the field?

The USGA has an old saying in the context of the Rules of Golf that it is not a good thing to have too many angels on the head of a pin.

« **Reply #419 on:** May 26, 2007, 08:36:22 AM »

"Can there possibly be anything more written on the subject?"

I don't know Sean. I guess it depends on who wants to continue to split hairs finer and finer.

But at this point for those who have been interested in and who are actively participating in this thread, I think it's important at this point to separate the discussion of what some would like to see this Rule be or this practice be from how the USGA/R&A both treat it in play and how they view it in play in the context of the Rules.

We've now gotten some answers on this from the USGA and also from one whose bone fides on the Rules is virtually unimpeachable, and that even includes the reason and rationale behind this Rule that Shivas kept asking for.

At this point, though, I'm not sure that even those who actively participated on here completely understand both the USGA's reasoning and what all this Rule covers, and what it doesn't cover and why.

« **Reply #420 on:** May 26, 2007, 08:50:44 AM »

"Tom P
Shivas knew the truth of the matter 8 pages ago. For whatever reason he refused to let go,"

Sean:

It would appear that Shivas may've known the truth of the Rule pages ago and refused to let it go, but I think one should look at where he's coming from.

I found out a lot more about that when I had a long telephone conversation with him a day or so ago in the middle of the night.

Shivas seems to look at this in the context of what he thinks the Rule should be and what it should cover but he's also aware of what it does and doesn't cover.

He just thinks it's not written well or clearly enough in what he now understands it both does and doesn't cover. Matter of fact, he believes that the way it is written indicates to a logical reader that it covers some things that he now understands the USGA does not intend it to cover---and that would be the golf ball and any marks on it used to indicate a line for putting.

But the truth of it is that Rule 8-2b now does cover a mark used to indicate a line for putting ANYWHERE other than on a golf ball (with a few other exceptions such as a manufacturer's mark whether cut in or painted on a putter---the legality or illegality of which is covered in the Rules of Golf in the Appendix under CLUBS and their conformance).

« **Reply #421 on:** May 26, 2007, 08:55:27 AM »

I played in my first tournament last night with the cheater line and it was a glowing disaster. A ten man shootout where because of poor play by others I did not need to putt until the fourth hole. Lined up the cheater perfect and forgot to hit it...three putt and out. I am now once again against the line and in the Shivas camp.

« **Reply #422 on:** May 26, 2007, 10:03:30 AM »

I don't know, Sean, I sort of agree with some of your remark above and some of it I don't agree with.

Maybe I'm not the right type of guy to ask for an opinion about this kind of thing because I've been an active tournament Rules official for about twenty years. I know how to read and interpret what the Rules of Golf mean obviously better than most. I hate to say it but there really is something of almost a trick to it---a sort of modus operandi that not many are familiar with or even aware of. That may even be the reason Richard Tuft's wrote his little book that is considered so valuable by some entitled "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf".

Shivas seemed to be under the impression that the ten principles contained in that little Rules Bible could address every single Rules situation that might ever happen on a golf course. It cannot really do that and that, I doubt, was ever even Tufts' purpose. What his purpose was, as he said in his book, was to breath a little life into the necessarily dry bones of the FUNDAMENTAL Principles behind the Rules of Golf.

But apparently your implied point is---should the Rules of Golf and the nuances of them be written in such a way where they can only be interepreted well by people like Rules officials and others apparently very interested in the Rules or should they be written in such a way as to be patently clear to golfers in any and every potential situation that may ever happen who are admittedly not very familiar with the Rules and realistically never will be?

I don't think anyone would deny that the latter would be ideal but the truth is in a practical sense that would be virtually impossible to do due to the myriad things and unidentical things that can and do happen on a golf course.

The truth is the Rules are written in such a way that they can be interpreted in the field due to a myriad of unidentical situations that actually both need and REQUIRE interpretation on the golf course.

If it were otherwise the Rules or their supporting Decisions on the Rules book might need to be so large as to require a medium sized library.

Very few seem to appreciate this or even understand it and I don't care how long a thread like this continues, I am not very optimistic that many ever will appreciate it and certainly ever understand it.

But one thing I am sure of and that is this is the way golf should be and must be in the context of the Rules to be as it is----eg as good as it is.

I'll give you a few examples of the sort of thing i mean in a little while.

« **Reply #423 on:** May 26, 2007, 05:11:23 PM »

Quote from: Chris Brauner on May 26, 2007, 12:13:37 AM

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.

Which would be exactly the same as if you were monitoring the one ball rule, but that's not the point. Your premise is flawed, a single mark cannot help with aligning the ball, and marks close together can't help with aligning the ball.

I've played competitive golf for over 50 years and have never seen anyone use a single mark, or dual mark that they've placed on the ball for alignment purposes. The issue has been created by the introduction of the cheater line, and the manufacturer's cheater line is a clear attempt assist with the process.[/color]

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.

That's just not true.
A ball is a sphere, not a two dimensional circle.
And, the golfer doesn't need to use a placed mark, they've got the manufacturer's logo.

Your argument is mythical.
If a single mark can help golfers determine the line of a putt, why haven't they used it for the last 50 or so years ?
Answer: Because it doesn't provide any REAL assistance.[/color]

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 manufacturer's label would provide an indication, a single dot is useless.[/color]

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.

Just like you have to monitor the one ball rule.

But, the truth is, competitors aren't going to go thru the alignment drill if it's illegal. And if someone does, you can spot it in a heartbeat, it's not like they just put their ball down and pick up their marker.[/color]

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.

I don't think the USGA disagrees.
The rules of golf are quite clear as to what the responsibilities of competitors are[/color]

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.

Inaction doesn't signify intent.

Your conclusion is wishful thinking[/color]

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.

The answer depends upon your perspective.

If you believe that one of the USGA's responsibilities is to protect the integrity of the game, your conclusions would be erroneous.

If you feel that the USGA should be passive and allow the game to deteriorate into a free for all, then I could see where you'd support the anti-Shivas position.[/color]

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."

Marking and replacing your ball have been done for centuries without any problems.

It's the addition of a cheater's line that's caused the problem.
Remove the cheater line or derivations of the cheater's line and the problem is solved.[/color]

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.

I would have been annoyed as well.
But, your annoyance ended when the round ended.
Shivas's and my annoyance continues.
It's at the USGA for doing nothing on this issue.

I see no difference in using the cheater line than I do in placing a mark at a strategic aiming point along the line of the putt. [/color]

« **Reply #424 on:** May 26, 2007, 05:24:03 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on May 26, 2007, 07:07:34 AM

Patrick:

Your responsibility as a competitor in stroke play to protect the field does not revolve around whether a fellow competitor is intentionally violating a Rule of Golf.

You must be kidding.

As a fellow competitor and marker YOU have to attest to the score card.

Are you saying that you can watch a fellow competitor violate the rules, intentionally or unintentionally, and ignore the breach ? And you call yourself a rules official ?

This isn't the HappyDale Farms Open ![/color]

And since that's the case Chris's point about monitoring a "cheater line" violation of the Rule (if the USGA insituted such a thing) certainly could become something of an additional burden to stroke play competitors.

That's pure nonsense.
Chris has the same obligation with respect to the one ball rule.

You, he and others are creating a problem where none exists in order to divert attention from the core of the issue.
The spirit of the game and the LANGUAGE in 8-2 b.[/color]

In other words, if the USGA instituted such a Rule and a fellow competitor replaced his ball on the green with the identification mark line apparently lining up with his line of putt and hs seemingly was not aware of it would that then also become a violation of this Rule?

What idenfication mark line ?
Under Shivas's rule, no straight lines would be permited for marking purposes.[/color]

The Rule reads: "A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line of putt."

Would competitors then need to become aware of what any fellow competitor's purpose was if this happened or would the fact that the line apparently lined up on the line of putt even if the competitor was seemingly unaware of it become the determination for a violation of this Rule?

I'll repeat Shivas's rule.
No straight lines for markings are permited when marking one's ball.[/color]

If the latter were the case would you want to be checking this with every fellow competitor you played with every time he replaced his ball? And if you decided you did not want to do this do you feel you are upholding your responsibility as a fellow competitor to protect the field?

I wouldn't have to.
On the first tee we'd all show our marked balls to the official in charge for approval, understanding that straight lines aren't permited

You're either part of the problem, or encouraging it, or part of the solution. The solution is simple, the cheater's line must go.[/color]

News:

JESII

A.G._Crockett

Patrick_Mucci

JESII

Patrick_Mucci

John_Cullum

JESII

A.G._Crockett

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

CHrisB

TEPaul

JESII

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

CHrisB

Jon Wiggett

TEPaul

TEPaul

TEPaul

TEPaul

John Kavanaugh

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci