News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #750 on: June 04, 2007, 04:33:50 PM »

There have been a lot of pages since I last read this thread, but my question is, if a line is defined as something straight (point A to point B), then the cheater line is only cheating if you have a straight putt. Yes?

NO

Determining the line is determining the path the putt will take, not the linear shortcut.  Every moron in the world, including TEPaul knows that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line in the opposite direction.  "TW"
[/color]

Most putts have some break so the "cheater line" only indicates path of putt, not line.

The two are the same at the moment of impact when the putter meets the ball with perfect perpendicularity

Read Decision 8-2 a/2 if you need clarification.
[/color]

« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 04:35:27 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

tlavin

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #751 on: June 04, 2007, 04:39:58 PM »

I swear, I haven't read a lick of this thread after the first two pages.  But, I'm pretty sure it is a non architecture theme.  

If so... the guys that have run this up to 29 pages better not be coming back on here chastising the rest of us for having a little OT humor and non architecture now and then!  >:( ;)

RJ,

This didn't start as an off topic thread, and I think that that makes a difference.

Insisting that it isn't an off-topic thread is another bit of irrelevant sophistry.  Even if it were on-topic, this horse has been beaten to death.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #752 on: June 04, 2007, 04:41:52 PM »
Quote
8-2a/2 Object Placed Beside or Behind Ball to Indicate Line of Play

Q. May a player place his pipe or a club beside his ball, or an object behind his ball, to indicate the line of play and leave the object there while playing a stroke?

A. No. Such action would be a breach of Rule 8-2a.

I guess I'm ignorant, but how does this decision clarify what Jim asked?

Pat,

You seem to suggest in that response that the ball must then be hit on the line of indication for the rule to be broken...or at least the spirit of that rule...

I know this is not your intent, so please further clarify...

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #753 on: June 04, 2007, 04:44:06 PM »
Terry Lavin,

You're wrong.

Sylvio lives.

As to this thread, it started as an ON topic thread and subsequently took on a life of its own.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #754 on: June 04, 2007, 04:50:13 PM »
JES II,

Don't take this the wrong way, but, as an elite player you should know this stuff backwards and forwards.

It's bad enough that I'm TEPaul's legal guardian, I shouldn't have to be your tutor.

Did you or Jim Franklin bother to look up the "Line of Putt" in the defiinitions section of the USGA Rule Book ?

Let me quote it for you:

Line of Putt

The "line of putt" is the line that the player wishes his ball to take after a stroke on the putting green...."

tlavin

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #755 on: June 04, 2007, 05:01:12 PM »
Terry Lavin,

You're wrong.

Sylvio lives.

As to this thread, it started as an ON topic thread and subsequently took on a life of its own.

I wish Sil was still alive, but he swallowed an awful lot 'o lead...

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #756 on: June 04, 2007, 05:06:37 PM »
I understood that part Pat, and figured you would do just fine on your own in clarifying that point for Jim Franklin...what I wanted you to explain was this idea of, and I'll quote "perfect perpendicularity"[/color].

Your comment about that threw me for a second but, realizing you were typing without your medication again, I just wiped it out of my mind...nice to meet you...again.


Any chance you can explain to me the rationale behind the ball becoming a piece of equipment when it is in your hand during the play of a hole, but not when it is on the ground?   I assume it has something to do with the different circumstances that occur when another player's ball strikes you or your equipment, but I can't quite envision the situation...BUT...is that then a loophole that would have to close for your pending proposal to flow seamlessly?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #757 on: June 04, 2007, 05:29:37 PM »
Terry,

Sylvio is alive and in the hospital, albeit in CCU.

I live a few blocks from Tony Soprano.  He stopped by this morning to tell me he was taking a mini-vacation, and asked if I would hold his mail.

He also asked me if I was still interested in buying his house.
I told him that I was going to hold off making an offer until 2008.

The "Doc" who got whacked a few episodes ago, is a real life doctor from a nearby town who became friendly with Joe Pesci, earlier in his career, when he was a performer.  That led to parts in "Goodfellows" and other films, as well as the part in "The Soprano's".   I've known the "Doc" for years.

Despite numerous invitations to attend our annual block party, TEPaul refuses to leave HappyDale Farms.  
I wanted to introduce him to a few of my neighbors who were searching for secluded real estate in distant locations for the purpose of....... inventory disposal.

I told TE that they'd pay cash, lots of it, but that he'd have to have his name changed to "Tommy Boy Paulerino" in order to do business with them.  

I told my neighbors that they wouldn't be comfortable at HappyDale Farms, that there were too many WASPS in that neighborhood.  They said, "No problem, we excel at exterminations"
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 05:30:34 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #758 on: June 04, 2007, 05:39:19 PM »
JES II,

Perfect perpendicularity occurs at the moment of impact.  
It is the intent of the golfer when he brings his putter into contact with the golf ball, with the line drawn on his ball, aligned directionally toward the intended path, for the purpose of propelling the ball along that intended line.

It's another way of saying that the line on the ball and the putter head are at, or should be at, a 90 degree angle to the intended line of play, at impact.

If you and TEPaul could rustle up a few more patients for me, it would make my weekly trips to HappyDale Farms and surrounds more efficient and more profitable.

Can you have Jim Franklin drive up from Baltimore ? ;D


Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #759 on: June 04, 2007, 05:42:04 PM »
JES II,

I thought about the process and reasons why the ball is transitioned back and forth, from equipment to ball to equipment.

While I'm far from certain, I thought, as you did, that it might be rooted in contact issues

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #760 on: June 04, 2007, 05:46:03 PM »
Pat -

I am guilty. I did not look up Line of Putt in the rule book before I asked the question. Thank you for your assistance.

As to driving up from Baltimore, just let me know when ;). Actually, I will be on the Island next week for a few days. I will be enjoying your favorite place for an afternoon and I can't wait.
Mr Hurricane

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #761 on: June 04, 2007, 05:55:28 PM »
JES II,

Perfect perpendicularity occurs at the moment of impact.  
It is the intent of the golfer when he brings his putter into contact with the golf ball, with the line drawn on his ball, aligned directionally toward the intended path, for the purpose of propelling the ball along that intended line.



That one is going up in the bright lights...what a beaut...

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #762 on: June 04, 2007, 06:01:18 PM »
I am guilty. I did not look up Line of Putt in the rule book before I asked the question. Thank you for your assistance.

Jim -

There is no need to feel guilty. "Line of putt" does not appear anywhere in rule 8. If the USGA meant "line of putt", they would have written "line of putt" and italicized it. Nobody needs to "bother" themselves with that definition for the purposes of this argument.

I think recent posts have helped bolster my argument that the line is not put there to indicate a line for putting, but rather to indicate a point for striking.

"Nothin' wrong with that!"
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #763 on: June 04, 2007, 07:17:16 PM »
I am guilty. I did not look up Line of Putt in the rule book before I asked the question. Thank you for your assistance.

Jim -

There is no need to feel guilty. "Line of putt" does not appear anywhere in rule 8. If the USGA meant "line of putt", they would have written "line of putt" and italicized it. Nobody needs to "bother" themselves with that definition for the purposes of this argument.

I can understand someone so desperate to prove me wrong taking that position, it's one of emotion over intellect.

The USGA specifically differentiates between the "line of play" and the "line of putt" for obvious reasons.   Have Mike Sweeney explain them to you.
[/color]

I think recent posts have helped bolster my argument that the line is not put there to indicate a line for putting, but rather to indicate a point for striking.

Then how do you reconcile your position with Rules 8-2a,
8-2b and Decision 8-2a/2, where placing a pipe (smoking) for the purpose of aiding in determining the "line", is illegal ?

Do you think the USGA wants to penalize golfers for striking pipes, cigars and cigarettes ? ;D

The meaning of the "line" is obvious to all but the most obtuse and/or obstinate
[/color]

"Nothin' wrong with that!"

There is, you just don't get it.
[/color]

« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 07:31:39 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #764 on: June 04, 2007, 07:18:19 PM »
JES II,

I thought you would like that one, I tried to explain and confuse with the same statement.

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #765 on: June 05, 2007, 01:59:59 AM »
And here we have the crux of the pipe analogy, courtesy of our own Bryan Izzat.  Really, Shivas it's Izatt, not Izzat.  Here I use my own name and it doesn't matter because people can't spell it right.  When you scrape away all the non-relevent stuff from the responses to this question, you get this:

Pat:  The same applies to 8-2a/2, placing a pipe (smoking) next to the ball, to aid in determining the line that's a violation of the rules, not the outcome of the putt.

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.

Bryan:  Actually, I did.

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

Bryan:  Because under current rules, decisions and FAQ's the USGA has declared it isn't a violation.  

Pat:  That's not the issue, the issue is how does the functionality of 8-2a/2 differ from placing a line on the ball ?

Bryan: 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.


So in the end, after all the extraneous nonsense is pared away, the answer to the question is:  "because the USGA said so, and I presume they've already thought of this stuff."

Which is the critique of the answers to these and other questions that Pat and I have been asking for 20 pages.  

The plain fact is that when you strip these answers down to things that could pass for logic or reasoning, they are simply not up to snuff.  They're weak and or illogical.  

If I understand your logic and reasoning, you mean that 8-2 says when you're on the green you can't place a mark anywhere to indicate the line of putting.  You say a line on the ball is a mark for the purposes of this rule. A line on the ball falls under "anywhere".  Therefore, logically, placing a ball with a line on it is placing a mark somewhere within the scope of "everywhere" to indicate the line of putting and therefore is in contravention of 8-2.

Secondarily, your logic and reasoning is that Decision 8-2a/2 prohibits the placing of a pipe beside or behind the ball to indicate line, and that a line on the ball so oriented is the functional equivalent of a pipe beside or behind the ball, and therefore would also be prohibited.  Logically, I presume you'd agree that decision 8-2a/2 doesn't specifically prohibit the line on the ball since it is neither an object in the sense of the decision, nor is it behind or beside the line of play.  Hence, you want to rely on the theory of functional equivalency.

It really doesn't matter if I agree or not that they are functionally equivalent. What matters is if the rule makers agree.

My reasoning and logic is that since Rule 8-2 is ambiguous, Decision 8-2a/2 doesn't directly address the question of legality of the line on the ball, that I will rely, not on functional equivalency, but on decision 20-3a/2 which does directly address and permit using a line on the ball for alignment purposes.

It is illogical to argue for functional equivalency in the face of a direct decision on the matter at hand.

To suggest that the rules and decisions must be a coherent logical whole doesn't seem to reflect reality.

If anything is weak and illogical it must be that the dumkopfs at the USGA who reasoned that the line on the ball is OK, but the pipe (smoking or not) isn't.  Or are you suggesting that they didn't think of functional equivalency before they came up with decision 20-3a/2?  Telling them they are weak and illogical seems like a fine way to get them to change the rule.

There, does that constitute another deflection?  A kick save, and a beauty!

All this talk of logic brings to mind a Vulcan mind meld for some reason.  But, nah, that always seemed too painful. :D


It's really that simple.  And it has nothing to do with Pat or me not liking the answer, as Tom has said.  It has everything to do with the fact that the purported answers simply AREN'T answers to the question asked.  They are deflections.  

I must admit that I stand humbled at the feet of the master of deflection - Patrick Mucci.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #766 on: June 05, 2007, 02:18:42 AM »
Gentlemen,

I haven't taken the time to plough my way through the whole thread but over a 1000 replys and still talking about the original topic. AMAZING!!!!!  :D

But does the line really help a 20 handicapper play better? In my experience not.

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #767 on: June 05, 2007, 07:51:33 AM »
Sully:

Yesterday you asked a couple of times why a golf ball "in play" is treated differently under the Rules than a ball that's been taken out of play (a ball being played by a golfer during the play of a hole is defined in the Rules as the "ball in Play" and any other ball belonging to a player such as one taken out of play is defined as his "Equipment").

Sully, you are a very bright guy and you know so much about the game of golf, you grew up with it, it's in your family, you're very good at it, you've been successful at it, and you're also very rationale and thoughtful---I truly mean all of that. And Pat surely knows so much about the game from years and years of experience and interest and he is also rationale and well reasoned (in his own odd way ;) ) about so much that has to do with golf.

But that you would actually seriously ask that question a few times and that Pat would not really know the answer (saying he thought it might have something to do with contact between different players' golf balls) shows me just how far golf has traveled from its original roots and the original essence of the game and the principles behind its fundamental Rules.

I'm not blaming either of you at all for asking a question like that or not knowing the answer---believe me. That you two, of all people, would not know truly does show how far golf and the perception of it by even the most informed players of today has come and how far removed it must be now from what it once was and was once supposed to be.

The idea and concept of "a" golf ball "in play" is probably the very fundamental essence of the entire game of golf.

Let me try to explain why:

That idea marries seamlessly with the very definition of the game of golf that is remarkably simple;

"The GAME OF GOLF consist of playing a ball with a club from the TEEING GROUND into the HOLE by a STROKE or successive STROKES in accordance with the RULES.”

Some of the words in that simple sentence may seem bland or incidental. They aren't and they never have been in golf and in its Rules.

The word "a" ball has huge meaning. It means ONE ball---eg the "Ball in Play". There cannot be two balls "in play" or the Rulesmakers from time immemorial felt golf would then become a game of negotiation. "a" club means the same thing---eg ONE club. A golfer must not play with two or more clubs. The same with "a" stroke---eg ONE stroke etc.

Therefore "a" golf ball "In Play" is essentially sacrosanct in the game of golf and needs to be distinguished and differentiated by definition and in fact from any other golf ball belonging to a player which when taken out of play no longer holds the importance to the essence of the game as it has when it's "in play".

And of course there's more. The fact that a golf ball of a player cannot be moved or even purposely touched when "in play" goes to what Richard Tufts explained as one of the TWO GREAT PRINCIPLES of the game----"Put your ball in play at the start of the hole, play only your own ball and do not touch it until you lift it from the hole".

The other of the TWO GREAT PRINCIPLES of golf as explained by Tufts is---"You play the course as you find it". Essentially that mean you may not touch or alter the golf course as it relates in every way to both the lie and the play of your golf ball "in play".

These two Great Principles, taken together, are really the foundation of what golf (and its Rules) is and was always supposed to be. It is that way because if it weren't the game (or sport) of golf would never be able to maintain the sanctity of how the golf ball's lie (unaltered by the player) is the only TRUE CONNECTION with the golf course, the ground, and ultimately Nature itself unaltered by the player (you play the course as you find it--eg don't alter it during play).

That very connection of "a" ball "in play" (that must not be touched) with the ground unaltered by the player (the ball’s lie or anything immediately around it must not be touched or improved) is the very foundation of what golf is and was always supposed to be. The untouchable ball "in play" and its unaltered lie with and on the ground is the actual physical nexus that makes golf everything that it is.

And that explains why a golf ball "In Play" is defined in the Rules as "Ball In Play" and is in fact its own wholly separate sacrosanct concept as opposed to a golf ball taken out of play or another ball that belongs to the player playing the game that is defined as the "Equipment" of the player which is essentially everything else the player carries with him to play the game.

Again, please don't think I'm being critical of you or Pat. That neither of you knew this or fully appreciated the essence and fundamental importance of it only shows how so many years of evolution in golf with all its incumbent "Relief" situations and such as changed the game so much and even the perception of perhaps its fundamental essence along with its original principles.

Having said all that I'm prepared to also talk about both how and why so many of these changes and evolutions have taken place over the years, both positively and negatively and how I think it has made the game better in some cases albeit in others it has made the game worse, at least in the sense that its so separated now from what it once was.

Is that a good thing? Is the Game along with its Principles and Rules better now than it ever was at any time in its history? I mean that as a very legitimate question.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2007, 08:07:14 AM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #768 on: June 05, 2007, 08:05:13 AM »
Tom,


Woth all due respect, the only bit of knowledge I gleaned from that post of yours is that when a ball is marked on the green and lifted it (the ball) becomes "equipment" again for some reason other than in the resolution of contact situations...

Why is the ball not considered "equipment" when it is on the ground in play?


p.s. I appreciate the original principals and tenets of the game of golf, I also recognize that the game has evolved past the time when those could be used as the sole guidance through the course of a round.

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #769 on: June 05, 2007, 08:32:57 AM »
Sully:

I'm truly shocked you would ask that again.

Try and think both how and why the concept of a golf ball "in play" must be, needs to be, it own wholly separate concept and definition. Try to think what all a golf ball "in play" represents! It and it ALONE is the sole connection with the ground to make the game what it is---the point being when it is lying there and before it is struck at with the "Impliments" of the game (clubs) which by the way does not include a "golf ball", its condition and its natural relationship with the ground must be protected at all costs.

If that is the case, and it is, why then would any other golf ball or a golf ball that has been legally lifted from "in play" to be taken out of play have any connection to or even relevence with that fundamental concept of a golf ball "In Play" and all that means to the sanctity of the game?

"Equipment" on the other hand primarily means anything belonging to the player that he carries with him or uses to strike at a golf ball "in play", meaning a golf club.

Would it really matter if a golf ball "In Play" was also defined as a player's "Equipment"?

Probably not (I mean that both facetiously and sarcastically) OTHER THAN THE FUNDAMENTAL FACT that a player can touch and move his "Equipment" at any time and in any way he wants to during the play of a hole and that is simply not the case with a golf ball "in play" for the obvious reason that it untouched and unaltered is the fundamental connection to the ground and the sanctity of what the ground untouched and unaltered means to golf.

See what I mean and why a golf ball "in play" must remain so different in concept and in definition from a player's "Equipment"?

« Last Edit: June 05, 2007, 08:44:27 AM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #770 on: June 05, 2007, 08:41:11 AM »
I think I am starting to get it, and believe it or not it might help this conversation along...when you say that "a player can touch and move his "equipment" any way he wants to during the play of a hole"[/i]...doesn't that explain why he can replace his ball on the green any way he wants? Once he has taken his hands off of it and lifted his coin, the ball goes back to being "A BALL", and is no longer "EQUIPMENT"...am I on the right track?   Will this violate the Spirit Of The Game argument Shivas and Patrick have migrated to? Maybe...

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #771 on: June 05, 2007, 08:51:24 AM »
"...doesn't that explain why he can replace his ball on the green any way he wants? Once he has taken his hands off of it and lifted his coin, the ball goes back to being "A BALL", and is no longer "EQUIPMENT"...am I on the right track?  Will this violate the Spirit Of The Game argument Shivas and Patrick have migrated to? Maybe..."

Sully, I know precisely where you're going with this point, and I knew it when you first said it a page or two back, and its an excellent one and very thoughtful.

I'll have to give your question a lot of thought. It very well may be, matter of fact I'm quite sure of it, that this point you are making or trying to make might be something that the Rulesmakers sometimes say "is not comtemplated".

In clearer terms that means they have either not really thought of it or have not come up with an answer to it or even whether it is or should be relevent.

On these kinds of points and questions I should warn you there is generally no real agreement, at least at first, between those 35-40 people who are actually charged with interpreting and writing the Rules of Golf.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2007, 08:52:10 AM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #772 on: June 05, 2007, 08:55:41 AM »
Tom,


I am invested in this thread for one reason, and one reason alone...to get either Pat or Shivas to consider the possibility that they might not have considered all the options...I'd take that as a major win.   What kind of odds would you lay on that happening from either of those two?

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #773 on: June 05, 2007, 09:07:53 AM »
"What kind of odds would you lay on that happening from either of those two?"

Sully, you'd have to give me some serious odd, I mean at least 100-1 or better if you want me to bet you that either Shivas or Pat would EVER admit to that possibility.  ;)

The only way, the only way at all, one can ever tell if they feel something they've said on here is wrong is when there is total silence from them.

tlavin

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #774 on: June 05, 2007, 09:10:56 AM »
Tom,


I am invested in this thread for one reason, and one reason alone...to get either Pat or Shivas to consider the possibility that they might not have considered all the options...I'd take that as a major win.   What kind of odds would you lay on that happening from either of those two?

Slim left town on that one...

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back