Shivas's cheater line

[JESII]

I am not dismissing the ambiguity of 8-2. Earlier in this thread I asked Dave if a clarified 8-2(b) would satisfy him if the clarification permitted the use of a cheater-line and he said probably not. From that I interpret his primary issues as being based on player intent and the reading of the wrods disallowing marking your way to the hole...I think 8-2(b) is very clearly in the context of placing markings of any kind on the green surface to indicate a line to putt...not at all to do with the golf ball. Again, I agree that 8-2 is ambiguous so don't hang me.


BTW why would one not be able to visualize a line from a mark on his putter with a mark on the green that travels through a dot on the ball?

[CHrisB]

Maybe you have an opinion...if I told you I could gain alignment help from just a dot on the ball, would you think I should be disallowed from placing that in view?

If you told me that, I'd make sure that they had a room ready for you at HappyDale Farms, right next to TEPaul's room.[/color]

Well, reserve a room for me too, because I think a single dot put on the top of a golf ball could definitely be used along with a line on the putter head to help with alignment--visually the dot would essentially "extend" the line on the putter head to the ball.

[JESII]

Chris,

At least we'll have a game...maybe Tom will shag balls on the range...

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Dare I say that your posts from about #373 on are not very well understood (at least by me)! Could you sort of rephrase your points and questions (to me)?

[JESII]

Shivas,

Two points, both were just addressed up above...

First;I am not dismissing the ambiguity of 8-2.

Second; BTW why would one not be able to visualize a line from a mark on his putter with a mark on the green that travels through a dot on the ball?

In your circle jerk diagram you ommited the key part...the one that includes a mark on the green just in front of the ball that the dot on the ball is instrumental to aligning with...

[TEPaul]

You know something---the Rules making bodies should tell all you over-archingly, know-it-all, arrogant sums-of-bitches to go to the first tee and work out any any all Rules and Rules questions for yo-selves. You people don't deserve a Rules code or a Rules body. In my opinion, the  mentality of Shivas, Dave Schmidt, or whatever the hell else he calls himself on here is everything that's wrong with the golf. All these God-damned lawyers really want is the opportunity to get everyone to listen to them talk. That's all they are, all they're worth and all they do----when they're arguing they think they're successful. None of them are anything more than a bunch of arrogant asses who think they're smarter than everyone else because they ply these ridiculous arguments which are nothing more than runny, tastless grits! The worst thing that ever happened to golf is D-8s, the ignorant application of landscape architecture and f...ing lawyers parsing the Rules of Golf and the words in the Rules of Golf!  


 

[CHrisB]

Shivas,

Do you remember the way Betsy King (6-time major champion) used to line up her putts?

She would get behind the ball in a crouch (same place you would kneel the align the "cheater line") and align her putter head to her intended line, and then hold the putter in place while stepping into her putting stance.

The USGA apparently never had a problem with this either.

[CHrisB]

The reason I brought up Betsy King is because you just asked:

Is the ability to line up a shot from a position above (and to one side of) the ball at address a fundamental skill of the game or not?

If Betsy King was allowed to line up her putts like she did, then perhaps it gives a hint as to the USGA's answer to your question (unless I'm misunderstanding the question).

[TEPaul]

"Is the ability to line up a shot from a position above (and to one side of) the ball at address a fundamental skill of the game or not?"

Is the ability to line up a shot from a position above (and to one side of) the ball at address a fundamental skill of the game or not?

What kind of question is that one Shivas???

Should a line on a golf ball that is aligned by the player to indicate the line of putt be considered a practice that constitutes "assistance" is more like what the question should really be.

And if it is, my personal opinon is, NO!  

And if you want an explanation and the logic behind why I feel that way all you have to do is read the posts that precede this one!  

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Forget about particular questions on here or who asked them. Just tell me where that incredible post by you is that talks about what the "ACTUAL TRUTH" is in this situation of an identification line on a golf ball that is used to indicate the line of putt! That's when I knew there was no way in hell that you could ever prevail in a discussion on this subject or even understand what this entire subject is all about!  

[TEPaul]

"One more:

"Tom, gimme a ruling.

I don't use a cheater line, but when I line up to putt, I like to stick my 2 iron through the beltloops in the front of my pants so as to create a horizontal line along the front of my pants so that when I line up to putt, I can see which way my body is aligned.  The 2 iron never touches the ground, so by the logic of "the mark has to be on the ground", 8-2(b) doesn't apply.  (Actually, better yet, I like to do the same thing with my 12 foot long telescoping golf ball retriever!).  Ruling please?"

OK, Shiv, no problem.

I've seen questions like that one posed to the Rules making body and I've seen their answer. It's pretty simple and applicable.

They simply say: "The Rules of Golf does not contemplate such a situation"----as well they shouldn't.  

By the way, Shivas, are you familiar with the word and the meaning of "hypothetical"?  

What does the judge say about crap like that in the courtroom? I bet it's something like---"stick to the facts, counselor".

[Mike McGuire]

Tell me, if the ability to align yourself from the normal address position above (and to one side of) the ball isn't a fundamental skill of the game, why did they ban croquet style putting?  They banned croquet style putting because it too easy to get the line right!!  

Shivas-

I putt sidesaddle (which except for 12" postion move of my right foot is no differert than croquet). If I don't use a cheater line, am I cheating ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rule 8-2b. says: "When the player’s ball is on the putting green, the player, his partner or either of their caddies may, before but not during the stroke, point out a line for putting, but in so doing the putting green must not be touched. A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting."
A lot has been made about the last sentence, but John VB made a good point early on when he cited the first known rule about this question, that rule says: "No man at holing his ball, is to be allowed, to mark his way to the hole with his club, or anything else."
He said, as I recall, that it relates to a mark on the ground, not a mark on the ball. The argument used to dismiss his reasoning was that no one could possibly read that old version of the rule to mean that you'd have to be marking the ground to be breaking the rule because it says no such thing.
Well, this rule, observed by the Musselburgh Golf Club, 1829 does. It says: "When holing, no party shall play upon his antagonist's ball, if it is not lying directly in his way to the hole. Neither shall any party mark by a line upon the ground, the direction he wishes the ball to take." And again by MGC in 1834, where they say: "At holing the direction to the hole shall not be marked on the green"
That clears it up for me, marking the ground to help with putting is at the heart of these rules, not a mark on the ball.
Actually, the early rule also mentions not marking the way with a club, which doesn't jive with how they look today. (Both putter and ball are legal)
 
On a related issue. When used anywhere else in the world, especially in Europe, "Trademark" is two words. It is a distinctly American styling that combines it into one, but that doesn't change its meaning, it's first and foremost a mark.        

[Rich Goodale]

Here's another one for you Sophistas out there....

What if you find a ball with a cheater line already written on it?  Since YOU haven't made any mark on it, I can't see even in Shivas or Pat's wildest dreams how you could be penalized.

Reducting more and more closely to Absurdium, what if you and a fellow cheater decide before you tee off to mark each others balls and then exchange them?  How can the USGA enforce anything done by consenting adults, no matter how kinky?

BTW--Absurdium National would be a great name for a golf course......

[Norbert P]

Wow, twelve (12) pages cogitating and presenting deep thoughts on lining up the ball (a sphere!) for a putt on an  undulating surface of varying degrees and anomalies.  

[JESII]

RFG,

Shivas and Pat are more concerned with violating the INTENT of "marking your way to the hole" than with whom actually placed the mark...see the issue with recent manufacturer trademarks providing a "cheater-line"[/b]...

JES

[TEPaul]

"What I don't understand, Tom, is why the USGA would acquiesce to a practice that enables the player to do an end-run around one of the fundamental skills of the game by allowing him to essentially perform his alignment from behind the ball, rather than above (and to one side of) the ball at address.  That seems like a major abdication of the USGA's obligation to serve as the guardians of the game."

Shivas:

Clearly the reason they allow this is that they do not agree with you that this practice is some 'end-run' around a fundamental skill of the game. Perhaps they will view it that way some day but they do not now.

If they did view this practice as an end-run around a fundamental skill of the game they would probably view it as a violation in some way of Rule 14, most likely Rule 14-3a.

The USGA has deemed as non-conforming plenty of "equipment" and they have banned the use of many devices that they deem as "artificial" that constitutes some form of artificial "Assistance" or aid in making a stroke (a handwarmer is such an "artificial" aid and device).  

A golf ball in play is not "equipment", and obviously they have never viewed it or anything on it (a line used for identification purposes) in play and during a stroke as an artificial "aid" or device that constitutes improper assistance that would violate Rule 14 ("Striking the Ball").

Don't forget that Rule 14 is not really all about just the act of aligning a ball or a player or his equipment, it's about the act of the player "Striking" the ball and that act is defined in the Rules of Golf as a "Stroke" (and that act is very distinct and different from the act of alignment).  

So I suppose they feel it's not that important to be concerned about how a player aligns himself, his equipment or his golf ball in preparation for a stroke. What is important is that he use no artificial device or aid DURING the stroke itself.

Whether or not a golfer uses a line put on a golf ball for identification purposes as a means to align his ball to indicate the line for putting in preparation for a stroke he still has to make a skillful "stroke" at that ball to be successful and I suppose the Rules makers do not view that line as an artificial device or aid that constitutes "assistance"  DURING a "STROKE" in violation or Rule 14.

Obviously you do, and just as obviously they do not agree with you and either do I.

In any case this practice is not a violation of the Rules of Golf and consequently players who use this practice are not cheating!    

I think that pretty much explains all of this, Shivas. So what are you going to do now, just continue to argue that you're right and they're wrong?  

Again, if you're so concerned about this practice make a written proposal to the USGA Rules Committee that you think this should be a violation of the Rules of Golf and see if you can get them to agree with you and adopt a Rule to that effect. That's what most people do who take some serious exception to a Rule of Golf or some practice that they think should violate a Rule of Golf.  

[JESII]

Now that was funny...


Tom,

Before you deleted the repeat paragraph I thought you had a great and hilarious needle to Shivas about repeating all of this...

[TEPaul]

How do you like that last explanation, Sully?

Maybe it was redundant to something someone else said on this thread and if so I apologize because frankly, I just couldn't force myself to read this entire thread.  

I think the only truly valid point Shivas has made on this thread is that the Rules of Golf sometimes aren't written as clearly as they should be or could be and on that point I completely agree with him and I've always felt that way---and long before I knew Shivas or GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

But the fact is the Rules of Golf are purposely written a bit vague sometimes for the simple reason that it can be easier for Rules officials to interpret various situations and make decisions on them that way. If every imaginable situation was actually written down in the Rules of Golf or in the Decision on the Rules of Golf book it would fill a small library and even the USGA and R&A don't want that.

But perhaps over-arching, word-parsing lawyers do. After all, that's what they do and get paid for, isn't it?  

[JESII]

I like the fact that INTENT is used as the determinant in some of these gray area issues...my disagreement with Shivas through this thread is that the player is not violating any INTENT of the rule when he uses a piece of his equipment to help get set up to the ball...the reality is, even if the golf ball had nothing on it at all (not even a manufacturer logo) I would be able to line some part of it up to my target...whether it be just two dimples, or a seam or whatever.

So in the end, I think Shivas is probably wrong in thinking that the Spirit of the Rules would prohibit using the ball as assitance in alignment...

[TEPaul]

"...the reality is, even if the golf ball had nothing on it at all (not even a manufacturer logo) I would be able to line some part of it up to my target...whether it be just two dimples, or a seam or whatever."

You're right about that and if then the USGA agreed with Shivas's logic they would then probably need to ban the lines and such on the tops of putters.

Speaklng of INTENT, that in and of itself is or can be a very tricky subject in golf and in the Rules of Golf and officiating. Estimating or understanding the INTENT of a Rule is one thing that I feel is most important but estimating the INTENT of what a player is attempting to do in various Rules situations and incidences is another thing altogether.

Many Rules officials don't like to get into a player's INTENT at all----they pretty much like to just keep Rules facts in various situations cleanly cut and bone dry where player's INTENT does not enter into a Rules decision. On the other hand, I'm very interested in a player's INTENT. I guess that's just the old broken down New York liberal in me. Most Rules officials really hate that, by the way!  

[Tommy Williamsen]

After reading this thread,  I am glad that I don't draw a line.  I could never draw it straight anyway.  I don't know if it has been mentioned because it is a bit much to read all the responses but the new Pro-V1 has a line already drwn on the ball.  Would you say it is conforming?

[JESII]

Tommy,

These guys aren't really all that concerned about what's on the ball, it's the act of lining it up on your putt that causes the issue...

[JESII]

Shivas,

Do you have documentation that the USGA banned croquet style putting primarily for alignment purposes?

How is the dot method so easily dismissed by you? I'm certainly not suggesting it's as effective as a line, but it can be done, and if it can it must not be allowed either...are you suggesting every time the player places down their ball they must see no marks of any kind?

What about my assertion that the ball, while in hand, is essentially a part of you and therefore is perfectly able to "be aligned"? We can, after all, intentionally line up our feet, can't we?

[JESII]

Shivas,

You must line up the cheater-line at something as well. there is no difference...

On the feet alignment deal, I was not talking about 'with a club', I was facetiously asking about just my feet and the fact that when in your hand, the ball is viewed as a part of you, just like your feet...