"One can use a cheater line on a driver and a cheater line on a putter and a cheater line on the ball....and still be totally misaligned.  

The USGA recognizes that and thus, makes the distincition between a mark that is part of the equipment, and a mark that external to the equipment and thus,......"

I wonder whether adding markings to a club during a stipulated round would be within 4-2 a.
It might be deemed a violation of 4-2 a.[/color]

Ryan:

That's a very good statement.

If the USGA were to consider making this putting practice a Rule violation that is where they'd probably begin----with the definitions of "Equipment", the "Ball in Play" etc. What falls within those two definitions is essentially what they have "excepted" from being a violation of Rule 8-2b.

And why is that? Why did they except those two areas of definition in the Rules?

Obviously, they either don't consider those two areas to be areas where a mark or line can be considered an "artificial device" or "unusual equipment" that can be of functional "assistance" in the making of a stroke or they feel if they did consider them to be it would be very difficult to regulate practically.

There's another reason.
They may not have addressed the issue because the practice was virtually unheard of in 2003 and earlier.[/color]

But what if, for whatever reason, they did decide to make this basic putting practice of aligning a mark or line on a golf ball or a mark or line on a putter head for the purpose of indicating a line for putting a violation?

How would they go about it?

They could do that by making "equipment" or the "Ball in Play" with marks or lines on it "non-conforming" in Appendix III of the Rules of Golf or they could not do that and make the practice itself of a golfer actually aligning a mark or line on "Equipment" or the "Ball in Play" a violation.

Attempting to do the former would be difficult as they'd have to get the manufacturers to conform in production and they would obviously need some strict definitions in the Rules of Golf of what did and didn't constitute a mark or line.

Perhaps more difficult would be a strict definition in the Rules of Golf about what kind of player "identification" mark constituted a "non-conforming" golf ball in play.

If they did none of that via "Equipment" or "The Ball" (in play) and just made the actual practice a violation where would they draw the line on that? If an opponent or fellow competitor or Rules Official noticed a player replace his ball on the putting green and look from his ball down his intended line a time or two would that constitute lining up some mark to indicate a line for putting and be a violation of a Rule?

I think we can begin to see why one of the top Rules experts said to make this line or mark thing on a golf ball or putter head a violation of the Rules or to make the use of same to indicate the line for putting is impractical to regulate.

I disagree, and let's stick with the ball.
It's easy to make the practice of placing marks on the ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line, illegal.[/color]

There is another avenue that no one has thought of on here to my knowledge that does not fall within either Rule 8 or 14 or 20, and that would be to make this practice if it was excessively time consuming a violation of Rule 6-7.

I mentioned Rule 6-7 ages ago in this thread.[/color]

It is not infrequent that the Rulesmakers completely surprise us in how and why they come at some problem. There's no doubt in my mind that they are not oblivious to this increasingly popular putting practice and there's not much doubt to me either that the thing that disturbs them most is it's contributing to slower play.

But if they tried to combat it through Rule 6-7 how would that be regulated practically? Rules officials have the ability to time players and call 6-7 penalties on them but I'm not sure what players and opponents and fellow competitors can do in that vein other than to appeal to a Rules official during the course of play.

Essentially this putting practice would just be very difficult to regulate in practice no matter what they tried to do, and at the end of the day that may be the real reason they treat it as an exception to Rule 8-2b or Rule 14 or Rule 20, and why it has never been a violation of a Rule of Golf.

It wasn't a violation because nobody did it years ago.
It's akin the the implementation of the one ball rule, nobody did it so there wasn't a prohibition against it, then, when a wide variety of performance based balls were introduced, the need to ban the practice was implemented.

Timing is everything.

And, it's now time to ban the cheater line on golf balls irrespective of their origin.

It's a simple issue.
Let's not cause paralysis by over analysis.[/color]

Patrick,

Good to hear that you'll be taking this to the USGA. Hopefully all of the back-and-forth in this thread will have been useful to the process. Please keep us posted.

I don't know how the formal process works, but I predict the easier part will be for them to be convinced of the need for a rule change, and the harder part will be for them to be convinced that such a rule change could be practically regulated.

But it's worth doing and good luck with it.

Quote

Bryan,

In fairness, Chris actually posted the above.  But I also am glad to see you take some action on your convictions.

I think it's an issue worthy of the USGA's consideration.

With the assistance of TEPaul, I'm hopefull that my proposal  will be well received.

Does this mean you'll be taking up residence at Happydale Farms for the duration?  

Time will tell.

Thanks.

Quote from: Bryan Izatt on June 04, 2007, 03:00:42 AM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on June 02, 2007, 10:33:02 AM

Quote from: Bryan Izatt on June 02, 2007, 03:00:54 AM

Patrick,

How does the line on the ball aid in "determining" the line of the putt.  Surely determining the line of the putt is a skill that the player (and/or their caddy) possess to varying degrees.  As Adam points out, there can be multiple lines that will work for a putt based on the pace of the putt (excepting, of course, the perfectly straight putt).  The line on the ball doesn't help determine the line of the putt.  At best it might help the player putt on the line he has determined with his green-reading skills.

You know, you may have a point.
Maybe all those PGA Tour guys are really trying to differentiate "True" North from "Magnetic" North.
You must be either kidding or desperate.[/color]

Is that the best you can do Patrick, another condescending non-answer?


Not at all, but, it was the first thing to spontaneously jump into my mind when I saw the absurd question.

The "line" is the path that the golfer wants his ball to follow based on his decision as to how he's going to execute his stroke.

That line extends from the hole, back to the ball.

Sure, as long as you'll concede that the majority of paths are curvilinear lines.

The line on the ball aids in reconfirming and translating the mental picture of the line into a physical, visual signal and directional aid.

I don't think it provides a physical, visual signal of the path.  At best it provides a visual signal of the the initial direction of the intended path.  If the initial direction is wrong or the pace is wrong for that initial direction then the putt will miss and the line on the ball has not been of any functional assistance is sinking the putt.  It may well have slowed play, but it was not functional.

You continue to refuse to answer the question regarding the functional equivalency of a pipe placed next to a ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line and a line ON the ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line.

Actually, I did.

You know that the former is clearly a violation of the rules, so why wouldn't the latter be a violation as well ?

Because under current rules, decisions and FAQ's the USGA has declared it isn't a violation.  I hope in your submission to the USGA that you don't try to use a logical extension or analogy argument.  I presume they already considered that.  You might want to try slow play, or some unfair advantage gained (although that would be hard to prove).  Using the spirit of the game is likely a tough one as well.  Presumably they considered that as well in creating the exception that now rules.

What I don't understand is why people who have nothing to do with a thread that's long come on that thread and recommend killing the thread. If the people contributing to the thread are having a good time with it why should others who really aren't involved want to kill it? Probably at least 3/4 of the threads on here I never read a word of but I sure wouldn't think to make a post on any of them that they should be killed because I'm not interested in them or their subject.