[John Moore II]

No.  I want purple.  I'll share it with Tiger (LSU) and Smolens (NU) and that's it. 

OK Shiv, you can be allowed first use of Purple. However, Pat, under no circumstances is allowed first use of red, that is my color, and mine only.

How about GOLD GREY BROWN CYAN  VIOLET  CRIMSON  TEAL

[Kalen Braley]

Dave S,
I think I've finally figured out how the Rules make the distinction between

a) placing a mark or object to indicate a line for putting

and

b) aligning an object or mark with the line of putt.

The Rules seem to say that anything that is "already there" (someone else's coin on the green, some tree in the distance, some discoloration of the green, his caddie's foot while tending the flag as long as the foot wan't placed there intentionally to mark the line, etc.) can indicate the line for putting to the player who wants to aim at those things...

while something new that the player or his partner or his caddie introduces (touching the green with the flagstick, placing a water bottle on the fringe, laying a club down along the line, a caddie intentionally standing somewhere or casting his shadow to indicate the line, etc.) cannot. And since the line on the ball, the trademark on the ball, and the line on the putter are all "already there", the player can use it as an indicator of the line for putting.

The player is not introducing anything new when he places his ball down with the line on it. The ball was "already there" (sitting on the green waiting to be putted), the line was "already there" (already on the ball). True, the line wasn't "already pointing that way" (orientation), but it was "already there" (location) and all the player is doing is changing the orientation of the ball, using the line that was "already there" to align the ball.

Similarly, the line on the putter was "already there". The only things that aren't "already there" are the player himself and the putter itself, but I think Rule 1-1 handles that one well enough.

Shivas,

In the spirit of whale hunting, I'm curious what you think about Chris's post?

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:

Allow me to introduce you to a term:  enabler.

Learn it, live it.

You just made shivas fall into language even Bill Clinton (it depends on what is is) would be ashamed of.  Come on man, we're here to help the man.  Aren't we?

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:

Allow me to introduce you to a term:  enabler.

Learn it, live it.

You just made shivas fall into language even Bill Clinton (it depends on what is is) would be ashamed of.  Come on man, we're here to help the man.  Aren't we?

TH

Come on Huck,

Didn't you watch that little firecracker last night.  She quoted where McCain said he'd rather lose the election instead of losing the war.

Its pretty clear Shiv would much rather lose his mind, than lose the Cheater Line "war" as well!!

[John Moore II]

Kalen--Ahh yes, that little firecracker last night. I'd like to crack her fire. Hah.

[Tom Huckaby]

Now now guys, the last thing I wanted was to turn this into a political thread... we know the short-lived fate of those....

But wait a second.... this is GENIUS...

Yeah, that firecracker last night was something else.  She seemed to do great by me.  Who says otherwise?

TH (finding a way to end shivas' madness at last!)

[John Moore II]

I have sworn off discussions of politics. My comment was of a purely sexual nature.

[CHrisB]

I actually made the "stuff that's already there" argument in support of banning the cheater line pages and pages ago.  And I think the argument works when used as a rationale for banning it.

But I think the whole argument falls apart as a rationale in favor of the cheater line and here's why:

1.  The line is already there when the ball is on the green.  But where is "there"?  It's in a certain place INDICATING a certain direction - likely NOT the intended line of the putt.  So there's no issue with it at that point.  But once it's picked up and PLACED, it obtains a new "there" -- and that new "there" is in a place indicating a line for putting.  THAT is where the violation is.

2.  The "there" "there" argument fails for another reason:  it presumes that the cheater line is already there.  But what if you're playing a "clean" ball into the green?  You mark.  Then it suddenly dawns on you to draw a cheater line?  In that case, the cheater line WASN'T there.  Yet who'd bet $1MM against me when I predict that the USGA would say that's perfectly fine? 

And if the USGA would say that this newly-drawn cheater line is perfectly fine, then the "there there" argument can't be used as the rationale for the legality of the cheater line, can it?

That's why the "there there" argument ONLY works as an argument AGAINST the cheater line, not in favor of it.

Dave S,
Regarding #1, "there" refers to location (where the line is, i.e. already on the ball), not orientation (where the line is pointing). And if you try to argue that something on the right side of the ball is in a different location than something on the left side of the ball, then you will have reached new heights of Clintonism because location here can easily be considered with respect to the ball, not just empty space. So all you have left now is #2.

Regarding #2, that was a followup question I posed to the USGA. I don't know whether or not a player is allowed to put an ID mark his ball after lifting it during the play of a hole.

If he's not allowed to, then it doesn't matter to this argument because it's a rules violation anyway.

If he is allowed to, then maybe the case could be made that drawing a line only after you're on the green (because you're introducing something new) is "placing a mark to indicate the line for putting" and therefore a violation. But it's just as easy to say that the principle of being able to put an ID mark on the ball overrides the restriction on placing the mark to indicate the line for putting.

Either way, we're whittling this down to the answer. What started as a redwood is down to about the size of a toothpick now.

[Kalen Braley]

Now now guys, the last thing I wanted was to turn this into a political thread... we know the short-lived fate of those....

But wait a second.... this is GENIUS...

Yeah, that firecracker last night was something else.  She seemed to do great by me.  Who says otherwise?

TH (finding a way to end shivas' madness at last!)

Tom,

I can't take all the credit for being the one who finally brought this thread to its knees.  I had a fine example in JKM who clearly opened the path for effective ways to get your threads booted from the site!!! 

[John Moore II]

Now now guys, the last thing I wanted was to turn this into a political thread... we know the short-lived fate of those....

But wait a second.... this is GENIUS...

Yeah, that firecracker last night was something else.  She seemed to do great by me.  Who says otherwise?

TH (finding a way to end shivas' madness at last!)

Tom,

I can't take all the credit for being the one who finally brought this thread to its knees.  I had a fine example in JKM who clearly opened the path for effective ways to get your threads booted from the site!!! 

Hey Kalen, kiss my a$$!   

[JESII]

Another very tentative tip-toe into the deep end...

Shivas,

Is it any mark on the ball used to indicate a line for putting? Or just an actual line?

[CHrisB]

Dave S,
That example doesn't work either. The intent you described would be to deflect the ball into the hole, not to indicate a line for putting.

A better example would be "what if there was a pebble with a light side and a dark side, and a player rotated the pebble so he could make it easier to aim at?" I honestly don't know what the ruling is for rotating loose impediments instead of removing them, but now we're getting into the other 0.01% of the situations the rules wouldn't easily handle (like the mud-tee, I've never seen that one in all my years either), and there would probably have to be a separate decision made for that. There's a reason that the Decisions book is so much thicker than the Rules book!

Allowing a player to use what is "already there" to indicate a line for putting, combined with allowing a player to orient the ball anyway he wants, appears to be able to handle 99.99% of the situations that can reasonably come up.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, please.  Yes you TRIED to make this architecturally-related, but that lasted all of five posts.  After that, shivas stepped in, and it’s been 42 more pages of our friend chasing his white whale.  And while it remains good entertainment, and a fine psychological case study of shivas, to say this thread is related to architecture is a stretch of Jack LaLane proportions.


The questions you pose are indeed interesting, though.  Let’s get back to those:

Do cheater lines thwart the intended challenge of the putting surfaces.

I’d say no – I’m among those who believe they might be a psychological crutch, but don’t really help.  One still has to align the ball correctly, and make a proper stroke.

So it's your contention that young Mr Lee, Tiger Woods and other PGA Tour Pros don't gain any benefit from employing the practice, that it's just a psychological crutch for them ?

It's your contention that Tiger Woods, perhaps the greatest putter on the PGA tour, needs a psychological crutch ?

Want to rethink your opinion ?

And, if more and more putting surfaces are flattened to accomodate increased speeds, will these markings have even more influence on aligning the golfer ?

Again, no.  They don’t really help on any greens, so I can’t see how they’d help any more on flatter greens.

Because there's less contour and they do help with alignment, otherwise Tiger Woods and others who are amongst the greatest golfers in the world wouldn't use it.

You can bet that if the PGA Tour Pros do something, it works.

[Rich Goodale]

Dave

You should trademark/copyright "Shivas's Cheater Line."

Every time anybody marked their ball with a line or used that mark to indicate the line of putt you could demand a royalty.  Even $.05 per use would give you a tidy income into your dotage and/or finance a quixotic lawsuit against the USGA.  Don't tell me you haven't thought of that and are just building a case for your legal rights through this insane thread......

Rich

[CHrisB]

Dave S,
It is not the orientation of marks that seems to be the unassailable principle, but the orientation of the golf ball (as John Morrisett indicated earlier); i.e., being able to orient the golf ball however you want.

Location of marks trumps orientation of marks only in determining what was "already there"; i.e., what can indicate the line of putting to the player without penalty.

So you're saying that re-orienting the mud clot in your example would result in the green being touched and therefore a violation of 8-2(b)? OK, let's go with that.

So it now appears that a player can:
(a) use whatever is "already there" as an indicator of the line of putting. Anything that was already located where it was--the coin on the green, the old ball mark, the mud clot, and apparently the line on the golf ball that was already on the golf ball. How any of these marks are oriented has nothing to do with whether it was "already there" or not, whether the mud clot or the line on the ball.
(b) orient the golf ball however he wants as long the ball is replaced and not moved.

I can find no counterexamples to (a), i.e. something that was "already there" that a player cannot use to indicate the line for putting. (Sounds like you think the mud clot might be one if you just re-orient it, but the violation would be because the green is touched, not because it still indicates the line for putting.)

I can find no counterexamples to (b), i.e. any rules situation that does not allow the player to orient the ball however he wants as long the ball is replaced not moved. Not even the mud tee.

And it appears as if a player/partner/caddie can not:
(a) introduce something that wasn't "already there" to indicate the line for putting. That's putting the club down, touching the line, water bottle on the fringe, caddie intentionally standing somewhere or casting his shadow, etc.
(b) re-orient a mark that is "already there" (the mark would still be "already there", and it could still be used to indicate the line for putting, but the putting green would be touched which would be the violation).

The only counterexample to (a) (because Rule 1-1 handles the player and the putter) could be if a player puts a new line on an unmarked ball after it has come to rest on the green. This could be "placing a mark to indicate the line for putting" and therefore a violation (I don't know), but the Rules could also say that the principle of being able to put an ID mark on the ball when lifted overrides the restriction on placing the mark to indicate the line for putting.

The only counterexample to (b) could be re-orienting a mark that's off the green, but again we're getting into another absurd situation--one of the 0.01% of the situations the rules wouldn't easily handle (again, I've never seen anyone do it).

It feels like we're getting close to tidying this one up unless you can find some counterexamples I can't.

[Michael]

Dave

You should trademark/copyright "Shivas's Cheater Line."

Every time anybody marked their ball with a line or used that mark to indicate the line of putt you could demand a royalty.  Even $.05 per use would give you a tidy income into your dotage and/or finance a quixotic lawsuit against the USGA.  Don't tell me you haven't thought of that and are just building a case for your legal rights through this insane thread......

Rich

 great post

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

He'd lose to Titleist and I fear he sadly knows it.  TV commercials are a bit more powerful than obscure website diatribes. So no, though that is a very good practical thought and I too hope he does have that in mind, I fear the answer is sadder:  he is just plain insane.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Shivas:

I get all that.  I like your arguments; I just don't like you against the big boys.  Titleist would find a way.  They could start by subpoenaing me; I'd testify to hell and gone that your use here was simply the rambling of an obssessed maniac, throwing out terms constantly here and there and everywhere with zero meaning behind any.

 

[SL_Solow]

Huck;  No doubt you could be qualified as an expert on incoherent irrational ramblings. (the old trial lawyer in me couldn't resist)

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck;  No doubt you could be qualified as an expert on incoherent irrational ramblings. (the old trial lawyer in me couldn't resist)

EXACTLY what I was counting on.  Titleist ain't stupid.

 

[John_Cullum]

Does this debate have an end?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Shivas, fork over $210.00 and you can buy a copy at Amazon. I know you'll be tied up, but  the floor nurse will turn the pages for you.

[CHrisB]

Does this debate have an end?

Looks like we're getting close--see my post #1481. I for one am looking to put this to rest.

[JWinick]

For the life of me, I cannot understand how a friggin' line on a golf ball has generated this much debate.   Not even Congress could filibuster this issue like we have here.

Since I haven't yet weighed in, there is nothing wrong with the line, if it is ok for you to draw the line yourself.   Once that is allowed, there is no reason the manufacturer can't do it for you.   To me that is just Titleist responding to a need of its customers.

[John_Cullum]

Shiv, Please refresh my memory. How do long putters anchored against the torso fit into the cheating equation?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()