[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Do you believe that the manufacturers will do what's in the best interest of the game ?  

They adopted the cheater line as a marketing ploy.

What I would be interested in knowing is the following.

Is that manufacturer's line on the axis of symmetry that Michael Moore alluded to vis a vis his testing methods.  
In other words, will those balls have to have TWO lines on them, one from the manufacturer and one from the golfer to identify the actual axis of symmetry  ?

If the line isn't on the axis of symmetry, it's a cheater line, since it's only purpose would be to aid in indicating the line on the putting green.

Michale Moore,

Your thoughts on that issue ?

[Robert_Walker]

Is anyone who uses a club with a line on it Cheating?

[Eric_Terhorst]

Shivas,

Sometimes when I'm lining up a putt, I see a shimmering white line that shows me the way.  Sometimes the white line has little tiny white golf balls springing out from it.  Distracting?  No, I find it inspiring that the Golf Gods have chosen to bestow this vision on me.

My therapist says it's an hallucination, or maybe an anomalous reaction to my medications.  I don't think so.  Trust me, it's really there.

Please don't tell me this is cheating, as I'm not sure what that do to my already fragile self-esteem.

Thanks, Eric

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,

Do you believe that the manufacturers will do what's in the best interest of the game ?

For the most part, yes. After all, their livelihoods depend on it.

I'll let Michael argue symmetry, I'm sticking to the 'no consequences from using a line on the ball' and the 'not breaking any rules' ploy.
 

Looking at the stats I posted on an earlier response should make it clear that there has been little gain in putting prowess over the past 20 years. The difference in GIR putts from the top players in 1986 and 2006 is only .018. That means the guy in in 2006 makes one more putt than the guy in 1986 but only after putting on 55 greens.

Forget all the other factors that should have made putting easier in the past two decades.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Shivas,

To paraphrase golfer Huey Lewis,

It's a new drug
One with no doubt
One that makes me putt real good
And lets my true talent out...


Careful about those performance-enhancing drugs.  We've all known guys who can't play without Marlboros and Bud Light.

John Daly at Crooked Stick--was he on performance-enhancing drugs?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

From the perspective of function, what's the difference between the influence that a cheater's line that a golfer marks on his golf ball has on aiding with alignment, versus his caddy remaining, standing behind him while aiding him with alignment ?

I'm trying to understand the functional difference.

[Phil McDade]

I just have to say, this is much better than those Merion threads.

Shivas -- I'm a creature of habit. With so many things that can go awry  on a golf course, I find comfort in certain rituals. One of them is this -- I line up my "Top Flight XL 3000" logo (yes, I'm cheap, too...) on the green so that it faces me at something like a 45-degree angle, parallel to my putter and perpindicular to my putting line. I do this EVERY time, more out of habit than anything else. I guess wrong on the line of my putts roughly 90 percent of the time.

Am I cheatin'?

Yup, if you're using it to indicate a line for putting, yes.

After all, the rule doesn't say "gaurantee an accurate line for putting".  

Shivas:

Do you see a distinction between a Sharpie line/mark put on the ball for purposes of alignment with the line, vs. alignment with the putter? The example I'm thinking of (and I still sometimes tend to do this) is a Billy Mayfair slicer putter, who's trying to rid himself of the habit and make square contact with the ball. So his Sharpie line is placed to "square the ball" to the putter, and not to help him line up the putt.

[JESII]

Shivas,


You've made a hell of  case...one question , if I may...does it have to be a line?

[JESII]

No, no, no...I actually thought about including the disclaimer that that was no my intent.

My thing is that every player picks something on the ball to confirm their alignment...some may be able to just use the ball itself, but if you're driving towards "intent" as the primary evidence for "cheating", why would it have to be a line? Just a dot can provide confirmation as to a square clubface...

[Michael Moore]

In other words, it seems to me that one dot cannot "indicate a line for putting" without another point of reference.  

That's OK, we can just have a rule that says "A player may all not place a mark anywhere to indicate a line for putting, NOR may he place a mark anywhere that, when combined with the point on the ball where the player intents to strike the ball, indicates a line for putting.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

Is the manufacturer's line on the axis of symmetry that you alluded to vis a vis your testing methods ?

In other words, would those balls have to have TWO lines on them, one from the manufacturer and one from the golfer to identify the actual axis of symmetry  ?

If the manufacturer's line isn't on the axis of symmetry, in Shivas's eyes it might be a cheater's line, since it's only purpose would be to aid in indicating the line on the putting green.

And, if a ball was perfectly balanced, perfectly symmetrical, and you added a circular line, wouldn't you agree that the ONLY purpose of that marking was to aid you with determining the line of the putt ?

Your thoughts on that issue ?

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

The manufacturer's line is not necessarily on the axis of symmetry. If in a particular instance it were, it would be a coincidence.

Could a line on the ball help you determine a line for putting? I doubt it. It seems however that such a line might come in very handy for reminding you where to strike the ball.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, without more, that's nothing more than saying "it is what they say it is"."

Shivas:

Regarding your entire post #287, that's probably a fairly accurate way of looking at how a lot of the Rules of Golf and their interpretation work.  

There's no question that the Rules and the Decisions on the Rules probably aren't written in a way that would gramatically satisfy a good number of lawyers and others. Nevertheless, that's the way they are.

Again, if anyone wants an interpretation of the Rules of Golf as they pertain to various real life situations (such as a player aligning an identification line to indicate a line for putting) the Rules Committees of the USGA and R&A are the ultimate and final arbiters and interpreters (you can ask any Rules question of any good Rules official and if you don't like the answer you can then ask or even appeal to the USGA or R&A Rules of Golf Committee).

It's very true they may never have contemplated lines on golf balls to be used to align golf balls to indicate the line for putting, particularly as it applies to whatever the original principle of Rule 8-2b was or is, but they certainly are aware of it now and they do not at this time consider or deem the practice to be a violation of Rule 8-2b. That does not mean they may not at some point in the future consider it to be a violation of Rule 8-2b and make that clear in a Rule or a Decision but they do not consider it a violation at this time.

As for an explanation of their reasoning about the answer to Decision 30-3a/2 (or the wording of Rule 8-2b), there very well may be some reasoning behind that in the minutes of some Joint USGA/R&A Rules Committee meeting when that Decision was discussed and adopted but they don't make that reasoning available in the printing of the Decisions on the Rules of Golf book.

Again, if you want a Rule or a Decision interpreted don't go through the excercise you have on here on your own---simply ask the USGA's Rules Committee and they'll explain it to you, because as you said it's that way because they say it is.  

If you want to make a proposal to them that they should alter a Rule or clarify a Rule or a Decision then you must make a written proposal to them to do so. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about as I've done that three or perhaps four separate times over the years.

My "Honor" proposal (Rule 10-1a) was considered by the USGA and the R&A and then the USGA/R&A Joint Rules Committee for six years!  

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

I should warn you (as I thought I already had in some of our phone conversations on the way the Rules of Golf work in practice) that for you to proceed down this road with your own logic that you have in this thread and over this particular situation of lines on golf balls and the practice of using them to align the golf ball to indicate a line for putting, you are entering into a virtual maize or labrynth of argumentation from which you will never find your way out or your way out with any real satisfaction.

There are literally hundreds of things, situations, decisions,  even Rules that seem illogical to many people. As much of that is the things they do not say as it is the things they do say and how they say it.

But having read some of your posts, particularly on the last three or so pages, you are now beginning to state that there are some ACTUAL truths about these things that are contrary to the way the Rules are written or the way golfers play by the Rules that are contrary to either the letter or spirit of the Rules or their underlying principles.

I don't mean any disrespect to you but the ultimate interpretation of the Rules of Golf does not fall to Shivas or Dave Schmidt and his moral compass---the ultimate interpretation of the Rules rests with the Rules Committees of the R&A and USGA, the final stop being the so-called "Joint R&A/USGA Rules of Golf Committee" (that was formed in the 1950s to attempt to apply Rules unity worldwide).

If you don't like their Rules, Decisions or the logic of them you can appeal to those two Rules Committees (basically you need to start with the USGA because they control the purview of your place of residence and play) to reconsider their Rules and Decisions and the wording and logic of them.

This is actually not some arbitrary advice on my part----the Rules of Golf are actually constructed in such a way to provide for this kind of thing---eg appeal.

Perhaps one of the greatest interpretative minds on the Rules of Golf and even their principles is Lew Blakey, and in response to a question of mine in the last several years about what was right or wrong regarding a particular Rules situation, said, there really isn't a right or wrong---it's a matter of whose proposal and thinking and logic gets the VOTES on any Rules situation or Rules issue on the Joint R&A/USGA Rules Committee. This committee is responsible for monitoring and writing and interpreting the Rules of Golf and Rules questions and situations that come up and are deemed to be worth actually reviewing and considering.

Clearly, even in the most ideal world there will be all kinds of decisions and interpretations made by these committees that really are the ulimate arbiters of the Rules of Golf that many golfers may not agree with but the point is the Rules are there to provide a form of unity for how the game is played despite whether some agree with those decisions and interpretations or not.

And this is why the Rules of the game does not operate by Shivas's moral compass, it operates by and under the moral compass of the people who serve on that Joint R&A Rules of Golf Committee.

Again, even they don't agree on various situations and how to interpret them---they do vote on these issues if there is not total consensus of opinion amongst the committee members and the interpretation that gets the most votes on the committee becomes the interpretation under which the Rules of Golf are written and applied.

You can continue to say on here that your way is better than their way or their interpretation----that your interpretation is more moral, more in tune with the letter and spirit of the game or its principles or that you know how to write the Rules in a more gramatically correct or understandable way then they do but in the end that doesn't really matter.

In the end that doesn't matter at all unless you and your logic are able to persuade them to see it your way, write it your way and interpret it your way.

I've been through all that in the last 25 years, and so I feel pretty qualified to warn you that you probably shouldn't go down that road on here this way unless you really want to drive yourself nuts and frustrate yourself.

If there is something about the Rules that's allowable that you don't like then by all means don't do it or use it yourself but try not to accuse golfers who are playing within the Rules and using practices that are allowable within the Rules of cheating.

Again, even if you disagree with some of the Rules, their Decisions and logic and wording, remember, you are not the final arbiter and interpreter of the Rules of Golf---the R&A and USGA Rules of Golf Committees are.

But they very much do provide you with a mechanism to appeal the writing and meaning of the Rules of Golf.

I suggest you use that mechanism if any of this disturbs you as much as it seems to. Use that mechanism that is actually part of the construction of the Rules of Golf and if you persuade them to accept your proposal then you can tell us about the validity of your moral compass and such, but, in my opinion, not until you do that.  

[JESII]

Shivas,


Here is my issue, and how it relates to the dot question...I believe you are mistaken when you say the player is to be left to his own devices when aligning to hit a shot. I believe the ball is purely an extension of the player (see the definition of "equipment") and therefore is able to participate in the alignment of that player so long as it does not exceed the basic functional form of that object.

Whether someone gets help from a dot or a line is irrelevant in your analysis. You've hung your hat on two things...INTENT and the word ANYWHERE. You have gramatically proven (well enough to me at least) that the wording of 8-2(b) is unclear. What you have not proven to me at all is why a player cannot use his ball to help with alignment. Thoughts?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

You're on the right track, I think, to go to the definitions first and begin to analyze how a golf ball and equipment factor into this discussion which really is one that goes to "Assistance" (Rule 14-2).

Shivas, is now trying to create an analogy of assistance from a line for identification on a golf ball being used to indicate the line for putting with a player's caddie lining him up and advising him during a stroke. This is not a particularly useful analogy, in my opinion, to Rule 8-2b and Dec 20-3a/2 and the discussion of what he calls a "cheater line" on a golf ball.

Shivas also is trying to use the principle in Golf's Rules of "like situations shall be treated alike" to explain or defend his point somehow.

I've already pointed out that if that principle is actually used in this discussion it would be that the Rules of Golf do not make a distinction between using a manufacturer's trademark as a line to indicate a line for putting and using a player's identification line as a line to indicate the line of putting. In the Rules of Golf in the context of Rule 8 or Rule 20 there is no difference in practice. That, in fact, would be "like situations are treated alike" in the context of logic or even in how it is sometimes used in the Rules of Golf, if the Rules makers decided to use that principle in this discussion's situation.

He may not like this fact but nevertheless that's the way it is and the way the Rules makers interpret it.

[JESII]

Tom,


I understand exactly where he's coming from, and don't blame him for it. I believe strongly in the rules as well as the idea of intent, I just think he is overly hung up on the writing of 8-2(b)...as well as the idea of intent. To equate a line on your ball pointing to your target with a tee contraption with a gigantic arrow lined up at the hole is a stretch IMO. Functionality is the key part of that debate...what would be the functionality of the arrow for the purposes of holding up a golf ball? The functionality of the manufacturere stamping the ball with their logo should be pretty clear.

[tlavin]

Over 350 replies and thousands of viewings for a thread about using a line on the ball as an alignment aid.  If this isn't proof that OT discussions related to rules and tournaments is still vital and necessary on this site, then it just can't be proved.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Re: your reply #357 I'm not blaming Shivas at all. I'm only pointing out the way things are in the Rules and why.

But there's frankly a ton more to it in the real world, even if he or I or you may not necessarily agree with it technically.

Part of why the Rules makers may not make this a violation of the Rules is this----just think for a moment how difficult and how contentious it may be to actually enforce something like this or even expect compliance.

What are they supposed to do, tell all the manufacturers they can only put trademark markings on golf balls in such a way or tell golfers they can only mark balls in such a way?

And what if they don't make identificaion lines on golf balls a violation of the Rules, what are golfers and officials supposed to do then----should all golfers monitor how any other golfer at any time replaces his golf ball to putt? Should this too be something that all Rules officials are forced to monitor too.

This entire issue is just a teeny little tempest in a teapot, and I'm sure Shivas understands that. There's too much technical claptrap in the Rules as it is. As Richard Tufts said in his "Principles on the Rules of Golf", we do not need a code on how to play the game that fills a small library!  

In my opinion, what he is attempting to do here is to point out again that his moral compass is more pure than the Rules makers and that his ability to write clearly is better than theirs is.

Technically, Shivas has a point here but he needs to consider other factors. Is his recommendation really worth it in the broad scheme of things?

Personally, I don't think so.

[John_Cullum]

Over 350 replies and thousands of viewings for a thread about using a line on the ball as an alignment aid.  If this isn't proof that OT discussions related to rules and tournaments is still vital and necessary on this site, then it just can't be proved.

And do take note of who started this thread

[tlavin]

Over 350 replies and thousands of viewings for a thread about using a line on the ball as an alignment aid.  If this isn't proof that OT discussions related to rules and tournaments is still vital and necessary on this site, then it just can't be proved.

And do take note of who started this thread

I think even the estimable Mr. Mucci would recognize that some diversity of topics is appropriate here, even though the architectural matters should predominate...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas has mentioned the phrase on a few occassions.

I've never understood why a golfer is prohibited from using an aid to assist him with the line of play, such as laying a club down to help him position his feet and to align his swing, but, if that's so, what is the reasoning for allowing a golfer to use an outside influence, a marker to to circle the ball such that it can be used as an aid to help the golfer position and align himself ?

[size=4x]
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 ?[/color][/size]

John Cullum,

How convenient that you omitted reading and/or referencing the last two paragraphs of my opening post which initiated this thread.  They were clearly focused on GCA.

Your memory is failing.

Terry Lavin,

That responders chose to ignore the architectural issues isn't my doing.

The initial post/thread clearly deals with GCA and is NOT OT.


I accept your apologies in advance. [/color]

[JESII]

For me, and me alone...NO...the couple of weeks I tried to line up the cheater line were painfully frustrating...

I would say the best way to challenge my putting would be to implement usage of the cheater line into the rules...


Perhaps that is why I just don't see the tremendous advantage in using them that Shivas does...

[A.G._Crockett]

Shivas,
It seems to me that doing what you advocate would add judgment calls rather than reduce them, which is contrary to what sports rules making bodies normally try to do.  

Also, I find it odd that you want to rule against little tiny lines on the ball as contrary to the spirit of the Rules because they MIGHT aid in the making of a stroke, but have no problem with the long and belly putters, implements with which the stroke is ACTUALLY made and totally contrary to anything that the founding fathers of the Rules could have possibly foreseen, much less intended.  Isn't consistency one of the guiding principles of the Rules?

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

I'm sorry but I think I've had about enough of this.

All you're doing here is picking out basically inconsequential practices in golf and trying to turn them into some almighty moral issue on the part of players and rules makers.

The rules makers apparently do not see your parsing of words in the Rules as an issue of much consequence. And I don't blame them really. But why don't you do us all a favor and instead of all this arguing on here with people who may know the Rules well but do not make them, why don't you just write a proposal to the USGA Rules of Golf Committee and ask them to consider making using an identification line on a golf ball that is used for indicating the line of putt a violation of the Rules and then just see what they have to say about it? After all, they really are the Rules makers. You are aware of that, aren't you?

Obviously you don't like the practice because you think the fact that the Rules allow the practice is not clear enough within the writing in the Rules. But I can assure you this practice takes place all the time and I don't see any players or Rules officials confused by it or completely resistant to it.

There are no red herrings in what I'm telling you here. I'm telling you why it's that way and probably will continue to be. That doesn't mean they may not change it some day but as of now that's the way it is.

If you want to consider some really odd inconsistencies in Rules practice that seem counter to the written word of the Rules or counter to common logic I'd be glad to tell you not only what they are by why they're that way.

In my opinion, the subject of this discussion is really not one of them, or one of the most glaring of them.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()