"Tom, if your doctor told you that because you have bad knees you can't ever jog for more than 30 minutes at a time or else you would have a heart attack, and then all of a sudden one day in 1988, he told you that you simply can't jog PERIOD, AT ALL, would you go out and jog for 25 minutes? By your logic, you would. If you don't see this, I'm sorry my man, but I can't help you."
I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with anything, particularly my remark you were apparently responding to. And I doubt anyone else would either. If it's an analogy to something you got me as to what it is.
"Well, to start, you never have asked me this question before...."
Yes I did. I asked it earlier this evening
"......but here's what I have to say about it. They should have done something about it as soon as it became a problem. Yes, I was somewhat of the sentinal on this because I'm a slow play hawk and I realized right away when everybody started doing this that it would be a slow play disaster. Before that, I (like everyone else) wasn't worried about this because it was being done extremely rarely and maybe I never saw it or maybe I just didn't care. When I played competively I never saw this at the US Am or the Western AM or the Eastern Am or anywhere else! So the answer to your question is that between 1988 and when Eldrick became Tiger, this was simply not an issue. But once it started showing up about 8-10 years ago, I started piping up. So there's your answer."
Slow play is your answer?? That's ridiculous. Man do you not understand the Rules of Golf. There's been a slow play Rule for years. It's Rule 6-7. Maybe you're not aware of it, and it covers slow play for any reason. The reasoning and rationale behind potentially expanding the meaning of Rule 8-2b has to do with "Advice" and "Indicating the line of Play", not with slow play.
"No I don't. I say it doesn't support ANY position because it contains no reasoning whatsoever."
Decision 20-3a/2 is a real life incident that derived a simple question about whether a trademark positioned to aim along the line of putt to indicate the line of play was permissible. A simple answer of yes or no is sufficient.
"Stop it with this moralist nonsense. I'm not making a moral argument when it comes to the inconsistency between Rule 8-2(b) and Decision 20-3a/2."
Well, then, you're continuing to make a bullshit argument because the entirety of Rule 8-2b means the putting green and not the golf ball.
Again, if you don't believe me just call up the USGA Rules Committee and ask them. And while you're at it try not to refer to Far Hills as la-la land.
They may even tell you that the words "on the putting green" should be in that last sentence. They may even realize from your conversation that it was inadvertently omitted. Maybe they'll get it back in there in the next printing.
Or maybe they'd tell you to simply look at the title of Rule 8-2b which happens to be "On the Putting Green" and that means that is where the Rule means a mark may not go to indicate a line for putting.
But no, you're convinced they pulled those words to expand the Rule to mean anywhere at all and for the last twenty years for some bizarre reason they failed to tell anyone including every Rule official in the world.
Excellent, logic, counselor.