Shivas's cheater line

[Robert_Walker]

The rules allow you to replace a ball on the green in ANY orientaion as long as you replace it in the correct spot. Since there is no restriction on how you mark your ball, calling a line drawn on a ball a cheater line and those who do it cheaters is improperly impuning a lot of golfers who play by the rules.
The RandA and the USGA meet every four years to review and to revise (if necessary) the rules. I would suggest that those who are callling people who choose to mark their ball with a line cheaters ought to refrain from such accusations, and instead pursue a rule change or clarification with either the RandA or the USGA.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

That's a nice list, however, I asked you what tests were used and when were they conducted that support any of Pelz's contentions.

The critical issue remains:   When did Pelz conduct his tests ?

If you examine the list you provided, it's overwhelmingly outdated, and based on tests 7-10 years ago and  20 years ago

All outdated and hardly credible.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I'd like to explore this part of what you said a little further.  If the principle is that that like situations shall be treated alike, and a trademark is like a Sharpie line, why aren't both practices illegal because they're both "marks" "placed" "to indicate a line for putting"?"

Shivas:

Because quite obviously the Rules and the Rules makers are not talking about lines on golf balls in Rule 8-2b. You can continue to say they should be talking about lines on golf balls in Rule 8-2b but the point is they very clearly are NOT.

You can also continue to say that their use of the word 'anywhere' should mean the golf ball as well since it doesn't say otherwise but the point is still very clearly they do not mean a line on a golf ball in Rule 8-2b.

You can also continue to say that the Rule probably isn't written as well or as clearly as it should be and you'd probably be right, but the point still remains a line of any kind on a golf ball and put on a golf ball by anyone, including the player and used to align the golf ball to indicate the line of putting is not a violation of Rule 8-2b or any other Rule of Golf.

Now, if you want to make a proposal to the R&A/USGA Rules Committees that it should be a violation of Rule 8-2b or some violation of the spirit of the prohibition against indicating the line of putting that's an entirely different matter. Maybe they'd consider such a Rule change and maybe they wouldn't.

But the point is that at this time players who use a line whether it be a trademark line or an identification mark line put on the ball by the player and use it to align the ball to indicate the line for putting are not cheating because they are not in violation of any Rule of Golf.

[Michael Moore]

The critical issue remains: When did Pelz conduct his tests ?

Pat -

Unless you are proposing a rule that requires golfers to play a ball with no preferred axis of symmetry, why is this issue critical?

The point is that Pelz alerted us to a variable that many may have never known about. Through the miracle of small motors, I can do my own research, and I don't need to call up Dave Pelz every spring and ask "how are the manufacturing standards this year?"

If I buy a fresh box of PRO-V1, and determine that one of them returns to the same axis of symmetry over and over again

OR

If I buy a box of Titleist Professional 90 on EBay (yes I still do it, as I really really like the sound they make, and I still compete with them - our beloved Sweeney is out one lobster roll and two pints) and determine that all of them are just ever so slightly off-balance (.0005 inches?)

then I believe that I should be allowed to place these as I wish, I resent the notion that I would be cheating, and I commend the USGA for allowing me to do.

I don't need to read any more from Pelz on the matter, or find out what was published when. I can do my own research where it is "critical", on my own equipment.

[JESII]

Is there no clearly enunciated reasoning as to the principle that led to Decision 20-3a/2?  Nothing?  

Shivas,


Is it fair to say that this is your primary objection to this whole "cheater line" issue? Would a comprehensive explanation of the reasoning that led to Decision 20-3a/2 satisfy you?

[JESII]

I don't understand why (in the eyes of the accusers) lining up the seam is not viewed as a violation of the spirit of the rules...the seam is distinctly visible and creates a visual symmetry that could only further help the alignment process...

[JESII]

Thanks,


Based on those responses I cannot fathom another possible thought I could express on this thread...

[Jordan Wall]

Here is my favorite way to mark my golf ball that always helps me putt better.






btw, I hope this post which is semi ot to the topic ends this petty rules thread.

[CHrisB]

Though I've enjoyed batting this around (because I have no real dog in this fight), I guess the big problem I have with this whole exercise is calling it a "cheater line", and saying that anyone who lines up his golf ball with a trademark, ID line/mark, seam, etc. on the green is at least violating the spirit of the rules and, in the case of the ID line/mark, is cheating. It's just not true, and it won't be true until the USGA and R&A say it is.

You can't blame players for doing what the governing bodies allow them to do. Sean O'Hair was not violating the spirit or letter of the rules when he was aligning his ball at The Players last week. If you really think the practice is against the spirit or letter of the rules, then blame the governing bodies for allowing it and make a push to get the rules changed. But don't blame the players.

If I were to use a line (I don't) to line up the ball and someone came up to me and called it a "cheater line" or told me I was violating the spirit of letter of the rules, I don't know what I'd do but it wouldn't be friendly, I'm sure of that.

Players don't have the responsibility of deciding which rules they think are right, which rules they think are written correctly, or even what the spirit of the rules is. So I would lay off the players, lay off calling it a "cheater line", and take it up with the governing bodies.

[To me, this is reminiscent of the arguments I used to hear about the long putter, and I know guys (I'm certainly not one of them) who still think that using the long putter is against the spirit of the rules and should not be allowed. And I know guys who don't putt very well but who will never go to the long putter for that reason. But I have never once heard anyone call it a "cheater putter" or say that anyone using a long putter should be blamed for using one.]

[CHrisB]

Shivas,

I understand and you've argued your point well. My point is that you need to lay off the players--you can't blame the players for doing what the governing bodies allow them to do, and you can't call them cheaters. You cheat when you knowingly break a rule. These guys using the line on their ball don't think there is a rule against it, and the governing bodies allow them to do it. You can't shame people into stopping a practice that you think is against the rules--you have to get the governing bodies to stop allowing the practice.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The critical issue remains: When did Pelz conduct his tests ?

Pat -

Unless you are proposing a rule that requires golfers to play a ball with no preferred axis of symmetry, why is this issue critical?

The point is that Pelz alerted us to a variable that many may have never known about.

Yes, 20 years ago when the golfing universe was using wound golfballs, which are now extinct.[/color]

Through the miracle of small motors, I can do my own research, and I don't need to call up Dave Pelz every spring and ask "how are the manufacturing standards this year?"

If I buy a fresh box of PRO-V1, and determine that one of them returns to the same axis of symmetry over and over again

Why would you play with a ball that you know is clearly out of line/balance ?  You wouldn't.  So, please don't tell me that you're intentionally playing with a ball that you know is defective.[/color]

OR

If I buy a box of Titleist Professional 90 on EBay (yes I still do it, as I really really like the sound they make, and I still compete with them - our beloved Sweeney is out one lobster roll and two pints) and determine that all of them are just ever so slightly off-balance.

then I believe that I should be allowed to place these as I wish, I resent the notion that I would be cheating, and I commend the USGA for allowing me to do.


I agree, as long as you're only allowed to "mark" them with dots and not a line, especially a line that extends around the entire ball.

The moment you mark the ball to aid you with the line, it violates the spirit of the game, and, under the rules of golf is open to debate as to whether you violate rule 8-2 b.[/color]

I don't need to read any more from Pelz on the matter, or find out what was published when. I can do my own research where it is "critical", on my own equipment.

Then mark your ball with dots to indicate the point of imbalance or imperfection, but, don't mark your ball with a line around the entire golf ball which is unnecessary in determining the point of imbalance.[/color]

[JohnV]

Robert, point me to the language that specifically allows replacement of a lifted ball in any orientation on the green, including to indicate a line for putting, please.  There is none.  I think you are assuming that there is no restriction.  Rule 8-2(b) provides precisely such a restriction.

I know you'll say the following doesn't apply, but it clearly says you can put a ball down in any orientation (with the obvious exception of "teeing it up" on a piece of mud.)

21/5 Player Lifts Ball Under Rule Not Permitting Cleaning and Rotates It When Replaced


Q. A piece of mud adheres to a player’s ball. The player lifts the ball under a Rule which does not permit cleaning. When he replaces the ball, may he place it facing another direction so that the mud would not interfere between the clubface and the ball?

A. Yes, provided the ball is replaced on the spot from which it was lifted. However, if the player rotated the ball in such a way so as to “tee” it on the mud, he would be in breach of Rule 20-3a.

Obviously if the player was on the green where he is allowed to clean the ball he could remove the mud and place it in ANY orientation he desired.  If he had to put it in the same orientation it would make no sense.

By the way, this decision is a little disconcerting to me as it could be abused by a player who had mud on his ball and said he wanted to lift it for identification simply to change the orientation.

And of course, while you and Pat continue to says the rules don't allow a person to align a mark on the ball, it is clearly allowed under this decision which has been quoted before but deserves to be put after every one of your posts.

20-3a/2 Trademark Aimed Along Line of Putt When Ball Replaced

Q. When a player is replacing his ball, is it permissible for him to position the ball so that the trademark is aimed along the line of putt to indicate the line of play?

A. Yes.

You can argue all you want about the meaning of "placing a mark" and you might be correct in that putting the mark on the ball (or not) and aligning the ball along that mark in a position to assist is technically a violation of 8-2b, but the decision above makes it a legal exception to that rule.

The rules of golf have many basic statements such as not allowing a mark to be placed, then they have rules or decisions that allow more specific exceptions to these rules.  Whenever they get more specific, it overrides the basic statement.  If I gave you the benefit of the doubt that Rule 8-2b prohibits actions such as this, you have to yield that the decision above allows it and since it is a more specific statement of the action, it overrides the other rule.

Or the rule could be rewritten to be similar to Rule 18-2a where it says you can't cause your ball to move and then gives a bunch of circumstances where you can.  Lets say that Rule 8-2b were reworded to say:

A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line of putting.  Under the Rules there is no penalty if the player replaces the ball so that the trademark (or other mark on the ball) is aimed along the line of putt.

The actions you object to would be allowed.  Well, that is what Decision 20-3a/2 does.  Yes, I know you can argue that the decision doesn't allow the homemade line, but you know that doesn't matter.

[Kalen Braley]

This has been an interesting thread and Shivas has been bull-dogging this thing like a mad man.

I just don't see any resolution here because both sides appear to be arguing two different concepts here.

Shivas is arguing the "morality" of the action, while the other side is arguing the "legality" of it.  I can clearly see both sides on this one, even though I tend to favor shivas side.  I think Shivas makes a really good point though. Just because its legal to walk in a players line, or cough during another players backswing, doesn't mean that you should do it.

I guess this is really just a religious argument where people do and accept things just because someone said so.  But if your world view is there is no right or wrong, just legal or illegal, then I guess there is no need to continue in this debate.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Kalen,
Another misguided interpretation from Shivas. Walk in my line or cough in my backswing more than once and it might force me to see if you didn't earn the penalty under 33-7.

Pat,
It is debatable, as evidenced here, but not under the rules of golf.

[JohnV]

Kalen,

If you intentionally walk is someone line of putt, it isn't legal.  See Decision 1-2/1.  It is not allowed and is at least a loss of hole or two stroke penalty, although the Committee may DQ the player for doing it.  Similarly breaches of etiquette such as coughing in the backswing can be penalized with a DQ if the Committee decides it is intentional and repeated.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

If you intentionally walk is someone line of putt, it isn't legal.  See Decision 1-2/1.  It is not allowed and is at least a loss of hole or two stroke penalty, although the Committee may DQ the player for doing it.  Similarly breaches of etiquette such as coughing in the backswing can be penalized with a DQ if the Committee decides it is intentional and repeated.

John,

I should have clarified it better in my original post.  What I was trying to imply is doing it while making it seem "unintentional".  Obviously doing this hole after hole would be suspicious, but a "inadvertent" cough on the 18th green while the other playing is putting for the match could be done innocently enough.

[Michael Moore]

I can't directly quote Shivas because what he wrote was quickly edited . . . but it was something similar to "well, you shouldn't have been playing a ball that was .0005 inches out of round in the first place" . . . which leads us to the following skit . . . in which, for dramatic effect, Shivas is imagined as a grizzled 60 year old Southerner.

Chairman Schmidt - "Son, before you sign that card, I want to have a word with you about the practice ball you returned to our range. Your playin' pardner says that you might have been practicin' durin' our toon-a-mint."

Player A - "No, sir. I casually flicked that ball back to its home. I can assure you that I was not practicing."

Chariman Schmidt - "Son, you look like a good kid, and I believe you. But what the hail are you doin' messin' with our range balls? Hail, we got us Class A pro-fessionals pickin' this range. Two strokes. Bangs gavel. Lemme give you some advice son . . . stay the hail away from stuff that ain't yours.



Chairman Schmidt - "Says here that you been usin' your water bottle as level on our toon-a-mint greens. Serious charges, son.

Player B - "No sir, I can assure you that I was just using it to drink from. It's terribly hot down here."

Chairman Schmidt - "Son, you look like a good kid, and I believe you. But what the hail are you doin' carryin' around a water bottle? Is the ice cold water in our coolers not dee-licious enough for you, or are you just too damn proud to drink out of a paper cone? DQ, and I ain't talkin' about the Dairy Queen. Bangs gavel. Son, get the hail outta my rules tent, and I better not see you in here ever again.

[JohnV]

Dave,

The Decision says the only restriction is that you can't tee the ball on the mud.

Since the ball wasn't on the green, 8-1 applies.  8-1 says, "Any mark placed by the player or with his knowledge to indicate the line must be removed before the stroke is made."

Therefore, there should be an additional restriction in that decision that you can't place it such that a mark on the ball didn't indicate the line of play.  But there isn't because it is allowed anywhere on the golf course, including on the putting green.

The reason the decision doesn't refer to the putting green is that you can position the ball any way you want after you've cleaned it.  As you well know and refuse to admit.

20-3a/2 Trademark Aimed Along Line of Putt When Ball Replaced

Q. When a player is replacing his ball, is it permissible for him to position the ball so that the trademark is aimed along the line of putt to indicate the line of play?

A. Yes.

[JohnV]

For all of you out there, don't tee up your ball with the line on it pointing down the fairway if you don't want Dave to yell at you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

Don't you find it interesting that people have to resort to extremes in an attempt to marginalize what is a clear premeditated act, the encircling of a golf ball with a sharpie, to aid them in indicating the line of the putt while on the putting surface ?

Noone can dispute that marking their ball with a sharpie, such that the ball is encircled with "straight" line is a premeditated and not an accidental act.

And, that aligning that linear mark on the ball along the intended line of the putt is also premeditated and not accidental.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,

And, that aligning that linear mark on the ball along the intended line of the putt is also premeditated and not accidental.

Same thing you would do with a trademark or seam, no? (That's a generic you, I know the 'you' you wouldn't do it, neither would the 'I'  I ).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

And, that aligning that linear mark on the ball along the intended line of the putt is also premeditated and not accidental.

Same thing you would do with a trademark or seam, no? (That's a generic you, I know the 'you' you wouldn't do it, neither would the 'I'  I ).

Jim,

There's a difference.

Especially when the mark/line on the ball to aid in determining the line on the putting surface was put there by the golfer.  Rule 8-2 b indicates that a mark to aid in alignment on the putting green must not be placed ANYWHERE.

Rule 8-2 b needs to be clarified in a decision.

What would Joe Dey, P.J Boatright, Harry Easterly and Frank Hannigan say ? [/color]

[Robert_Walker]

Shivas- an interesting name. There is, coincidentally, a golf novel called Shivas Irons. Also, did anyone ever tell Shivas Schmidt that he looks a lot like that actor/golfer that clubbed a car with his 6 iron?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I agree that some clarification might be warranted, but I just don't think there is much difference in a factory vs. player added line.

Not many left from that group, only Frank Hannigan? Wonder if he's ever thought about this.  

[Robert_Walker]

My position is in reply #292 on page 9.