[TEPaul]

Pat and Chris:

From the sound of the way the R&A/USGA looks at Rule 8-2b the subject of marks or lines or whatever on golf balls used to indicate a line for putting and the discussion of it is a totally moot point and issue. This does not look like an area they will be getting into via the Rules of Golf for the reasons given above.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & Chris,

Time will tell.

I certainly feel that Shivas's position is closer to the spirit of the game than the current USGA positon.

[Rick Shefchik]

If this has been brought up before, forgive me -- I took a break from this thread about seven pages ago -- but it occurs to me that if "cheater lines" become illegal, the onus will then fall on the player to prove he has NOT deliberately aimed his cheater line in the direction he wants his putt to travel. That might create almost as much fussing with the ball as aiming your cheater line does now.

I think the only practical and fair way to outlaw the cheater line is to outlaw touching one's ball on the green (except for stymies?) You putt it as you find it -- no cleaning it, and no aligning it, either to aim your putt, or to be sure you're not accused of trying to aim your putt.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rick,

If you can't draw a straight line on your ball it eliminates the problem.

If the USGA rules in favor of Shivas, I'm sure they'd ban straight lines placed on the ball by the manufacturers.

[Rick Shefchik]

Patrick,

That was the issue I was thinking of -- the manufacturer's line, such as the one found on the ProV1 this year. You're right -- if that's outlawed, the problem would be greatly diminished, except for company logos that are printed on the ball in straight lines. A player could still aim his company logo at his line.

[JR Potts]

I can't wait for the day!  This will look great on golf balls!

             T
T          S
 I         I
  T    E
       L

Afterall, we need to stop those "cheaters."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan Potts,

In 50 years of playing in competitions, I've NEVER seen a player line up the name Titleist.

The concept is a figment of overactive imaginations.

It's the cheater line that's being lined up, not the brand name.

[Brian_Ewen]

Sean
Me too , I started doing it about 20 years ago , after seeing it as tip in a golf magazine .

[TEPaul]

Maybe some day the R&A/USGA will make it a violation to use anything on a golf ball to align to indicate a line for putting but the point is that has never been a violation, it is not a violation now, and it doesn't look like they are considering it.

It should also be clarified that the expanded interpretation of Rule 8-2b (1988) makes it a violation to use a "mark" (not just a line) ANYWHERE (other than on a golf ball and a putter) to indicate a line for putting. This would include something like a tee placed off the putting green.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Too bad we didn't discuss it the other night but the Rules makers and Rules writers and Rules officials try pretty hard to stay away from player "intent" in golf. In the context of administering the Rules of Golf, situations and violations just are or aren't violations to them, period. Mostly the question of "intent" doesn't enter into it. Personally, I think that's the way it ought to be. In a real way it's just a lot cleaner that way.

Obviously that's not the way it is in civil or criminal law. Lawyers are all about trying to prosecute or defend people and I guess intent necessarily enters into that and should.

That's not the way the Rules of Golf or the administration of the Rules of Golf should be.

It really surprised you the other night when I told you the Rules of Golf have almost never mentioned the word or the concept of cheating, didn't it?  

[Michael Moore]

Chris, what don't you get about this:  a single dot, without more, cannot indicate a line for putting.  For a single dot to HELP indicate a line for putting, it needs a reference point on the green.  When you think about it, a single dot on the ball is no different than the ball itself in terms of the ability to create a line between two points, one of them being a spot on the green) to indicate a line for putting.  

A dot lined up for putting can be SCREWED UP by the player from above the ball at address.  A line can't.

David -

Just because a dot on the ball can't indicate a line for putting and doesn't fit in with your supposed loophole, does not mean that the dot cannot be placed exactly in line with the tangent on the far side of the ball and the intended line for putting. There is no need for a "spot on the green". Just hit the ball on the dot with a square clubface. I thank Brauner for his excellent illustrations.

If the line is outlawed (it won't be, the USGA considers rules regarding ball orientation to be "unwise") you will still have to endure the practice of golfers lining up a dot, because it can show the golfer where to strike his ball and is therefore extremely helpful.

The true essential core purpose of the line on the player's ball is not to indicate a line for putting, but to indicate a point for striking. Same as the dot. The dot really works. Try it!

[TEPaul]

"To borrow from the NRA, "lines don't violate 8-2(b); people violate 8-2(b).""

To borrow from the NRA?? From the National Rifle Association???  

That might just be your all-time worst and most bizarre analogy to date, not to mention that NRA ralling cry line is about the biggest crock of horsehit and about the biggest rationalization imaginable. Have you ever heard of someone SHOOTING someone else to death without a GUN, counselor??  

[TEPaul]

"However, it plainly doesn't mean that, and they should have clarified that when they issued Decision 20-3a/2.  Or better yet, issued it as a one-word decision saying "No."

You just don't get it, do you Dave?

Decision 20-3a/2 serves as an "exception" to Rule 8-2b. That's what it's there for. And as such, it makes this entire subject clear and a line or mark on a golf ball clear vis-a-vis Rule 8-2b or Rule 14-3 or any other Rule that some word-parsing maniac calls into question on this practice.

If you've never noticed it before many Rules are written as seemingly all encompassing but for sometimes numerous "exceptions" to them.

That's the way the Rules of Golf are written on purpose and there's a very good reason for that.

Someday, you're just going to have to get over this notion that the Rules of Golf should be written like some legal document. The Rules of Golf were never that way and they aren't suppose to be that way. And that's probably precisely why it has always been said that the last thing the Rules of Golf needs is a bunch of lawyers writing the Rules. Even Richard Tufts said that in his book. You obviously take great umbrage at that but the irony is you are just continuing to show just how true that is by what you say on here.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom, it was a tag line."

I know it was, and it sucks anyway. And so did Johnny Cochran and his OJ Simpson defense. Biggest travesty of American jurisprudence there ever was, in my opinion. But what do you expect with an ultra idiotic jury like that one was? It was sort of like the old adage that you get out of a toilet what you put into it.

[TEPaul]

"Sound familiar?  Funny how it works when the shoe's on the other foot, isn't it?       "

Yes it is funny David, very funny, and as it is apparently used by you to draw some analogy between the travesty and idiocy of the OJ Simpson trial and the way the USGA/R&A write and interpret the Rules of Golf it is also a bunch of unadulterated horseshit. But apparently that hasn't mattered to you and it doesn't look like it's going to any time soon.  

[CHrisB]

What is up with this persistent desire some of you have to get away with everything you can get away with by conjuring up all these cock-a-mayme schemes to try to push the envelope and bend, if not outright break, the rules?

Shivas,

That's exactly why I brought up the single dot and all the other stuff (V's, arrows, dots, shapes, etc.) -- the argument is that regulating the use of ID marks and how player place the ball on the green is impractical (and apparently the USGA agrees for now), and reasons for this may include:

(i) that there indeed will be all these "cock-a-mayme" schemes, some of which will be difficult to detect, if people want to break the rule,

but just as importantly,

(ii) even if players aren't trying to break the rule, there are all sorts of ways that players can place their ball so that the ball actually does indicate the line for putting.

Remember that "intent" doesn't really matter when it comes to rules situations. For example, it doesn't matter whether a player "intends" to tee off in front of the tee markers or not--he incurs a penalty. But here's the key difference:

The guideline for determining if a player tees off in front of the markers is crystal clear--draw a line connecting the front of each tee marker, and if the entire ball is in front of that line, he incurs a penalty.

But what is the crystal clear guideline for determining if a mark on a ball indicates a line for putting? I mean, look at this thread--you and Patrick Mucci don't think that a single dot can indicate a line while Michael and I do. Patrick doesn't think someone can use the Titleist logo to align the ball (and hasn't seen it in 50 years of competing) and then 2 people come out and say they've done it for years? Even if you place a ball so that it appears randomly placed (say, with the trademark at a 45 degree angle from the line of the putt), who's to say that if a player practices night and day using that same orientation, that soon that orientation won't begin to indicate the line of putting for him?

Again, I don't use a cheater line or any other mark when I putt, so I don't have a personal stake in this, and yes, I think that your argument has a lot of merit and in an ideal world would carry the day (maybe some day it will). But I think the arguments that many of us have brought up on this thread illustrate that enforcing a "cheater line Rule" would be more difficult than you think.

[TEPaul]

"What is up with this persistent desire some of you have to get away with everything you can get away with by conjuring up all these cock-a-mayme schemes to try to push the envelope and bend, if not outright break, the rules?"

Once again, Shvas, you are totally over-reaching there.

Cock-a-mayme schemes to push the envelope and bend, if not outright break the Rules??

What's that about exactly?

I remind you again that no one on this thread has advocated cock-a-mayme schemes to try to push the envelope and bend if not outright break the Rules.

They are all willing to play within the Rules of Golf and the interpretation of them by those who are responsible for interpreting the Rules.

Perhaps they don't conform to the schemes of what you think the Rules should be or even are but that is of no consequence at all to a golfer who is playing by the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf as they exist today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

If someone wants to reference the rules of the game in a historical perspective, at one time, you teed your ball up, hit it and kept on hitting it until you holed out, and then, only when you retrieved your ball from the hole were able to touch it again.

Isn't that the true spirit of the game ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Brauner,

For the last 50 or so years the methods you've mentioned  have been ineffective in substantively helping the player determine the line of the putt.

It's ONLY with the advent of the cheater line that the issue has arisen.

Get rid of the cheater line and/or its alter ego, and the problem goes away.

[CHrisB]

Patrick,

So are you saying that you would be OK with the USGA still allowing players to align their golf balls for putting, but just not using straight lines? In other words, don't allow straight lines on golf balls but still allow dots, arrowheads, shapes, the trademark, etc.?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

I played with a fellow today who aligned every one of his putts, even 2 footers.  It must have added a half an hour to the round.

The fellows behind us approached me after the round and asked how I could tolerate the pace.  I told them it was very difficult and that I tried to finish out before he putted.

So, my take is that I'd prefer that there be NO aligning of the ball, FIRST for consideration of pace of play and second because I feel it violates the true spirit of the game.

With respect to marking your ball for ID purposes, it's not that complex.  I dot the I's in the word "Titleist" with a black sharpie.  I also use #'s 5's, 6's, 7's and 8's to avoid confusion.

To paraphrase JFK, "some men look at things and ask "why", others look at things and say, "why not".

Where there's a will, there's a way.
I don't think that the USGA's silence on the issue is a signal that they endorse your position.

The USGA can dictate logo size and intent, prohibit straight lines, clarify how golfers should mark/ID their ball, and prevent aiding with alignment.

It's really quite simple.

[TEPaul]

"If someone wants to reference the rules of the game in a historical perspective, at one time, you teed your ball up, hit it and kept on hitting it until you holed out, and then, only when you retrieved your ball from the hole were able to touch it again.
Isn't that the true spirit of the game?"

Patrick:

I don't think one would say that was the "spirit" of the game (The "spirit of the game, at least as outlined by one such as C.B. Macdonald was basically an interesting old fashioned culture of general sportmanship that one did not take advantage of one's opponent perhaps via the workings of some Rules technicalities).

The idea that one put one's ball in play on the teeing ground and did not touch it until it was removed from the hole was cited by Richard Tufts' in his book "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" as one of the "Two GREAT PRINCIPLES" of golf. The other "GREAT PRINCIPLE" of golf----actually the first GREAT PRINCIPLE of golf is; "You play the course as you find it."

The abolition of the stymie by both the R&A and USGA in the 1952 Rules is the first time it became allowable in the Rules to mark and lift a golf ball on a putting green other than what had previously been allowed with the six inch stymie rule (through which, by the way, the traditional length scorecard came into being for stymie measurement purposes).

[Tim Pitner]

I'm sure this thread jumped the shark several pages ago (I haven't read it for days), but with the O.J. verdict now cropping up, I think it's definitely time for this thread to die.  

[CHrisB]

Chris,

I played with a fellow today who aligned every one of his putts, even 2 footers.  It must have added a half an hour to the round.

The fellows behind us approached me after the round and asked how I could tolerate the pace.  I told them it was very difficult and that I tried to finish out before he putted.

So, my take is that I'd prefer that there be NO aligning of the ball, FIRST for consideration of pace of play and second because I feel it violates the true spirit of the game.

With respect to marking your ball for ID purposes, it's not that complex.  I dot the I's in the word "Titleist" with a black sharpie.  I also use #'s 5's, 6's, 7's and 8's to avoid confusion.

To paraphrase JFK, "some men look at things and ask "why", others look at things and say, "why not".

Where there's a will, there's a way.
I don't think that the USGA's silence on the issue is a signal that they endorse your position.

The USGA can dictate logo size and intent, prohibit straight lines, clarify how golfers should mark/ID their ball, and prevent aiding with alignment.

It's really quite simple.

Patrick,
I understand and appreciate your position. Perhaps the USGA will attempt to change the rule someday if opponents of the "cheater line" can convince them to do so (with pace of play being a strong part of the argument).

Just one point of clarification--I don't have a "position" for the USGA to agree with in this argument. I don't align the ball with any mark and I really don't care that there are those who do. And I have never said that the USGA shouldn't ban the cheater line. My participation in this thread has been about trying to come up with the reasoning behind the USGA's decision not to ban it (for now).

The positions I do have related to this issue are:
(i) the cheater line is not against the rules as currently written, and so anyone doing it is not cheating,
(ii) the USGA must have a reasoned argument for not banning it,
(iii) I'd rather not have the additional burden of monitoring my competitors aligning their golf balls (though certainly I will take on that burden if the rule is changed), and
(iv) banning the cheater line, while seemingly an easy thing for the USGA to do, wouldn't be as simple as a lot of people think because of new issues/problems that would come up.

But as you say, "where there's a will there's a way", so we'll have to see if the USGA's will on this issue can ever be changed or not.

[TEPaul]

"To paraphrase JFK, "some men look at things and ask "why", others look at things and say, "why not"."

First of all, Patrick, it wasn't JFK who used that line all the time it was RFK. Another example of how you're almost always wrong. Actually, RFK used that line so much at the end of his speeches it was used by the press as a signal to cut and run out of his speeches to get good seats on the bus.

"Where there's a will, there's a way.
I don't think that the USGA's silence on the issue is a signal that they endorse your position.
The USGA can dictate logo size and intent, prohibit straight lines, clarify how golfers should mark/ID their ball, and prevent aiding with alignment.
It's really quite simple."

Yeah, right, Patrick. You think it's that simple, do you?

A remark like that has got to come from a man who has never gone about making a written proposal to the USGA to actually CHANGE a Rule of Golf. Why don't you just put what you wrote there in a written proposal to the USGA and see what they say about it. If you expect them to say: "Hey, great idea, let's just do it" you are going to be very sadly mistaken.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()