Shivas's cheater line

[TEPaul]

"...hence, the term "schmuck" is a term of endearment."

Well, I'll buy that one particularly since all you guys in North Jersey are certifialbly weird. You're all very funny but weird nonetheless.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sully has already sort of eludued to this Please read ALL of Rule 8-2.

Everyone is aware that Rule 8 is divided into two rules, 8-1 and 8-2 and that Rule 8-2 has two sub-paragraphs dealing with "other than the putting green" and "the putting green"

One can't automatically assume, as you suggest, that the rules have a cause and effect relationship upon one another whereby 8-2 a influences and governs 8-2 b.

Your premise is just as off base as your categorization of this thread as OT.[/color]

8-2 Indicating Line of Play
 a. Other Than on Putting Green
Except on the putting green , a player may have the line of play indicated to him by anyone, but no one may be positioned by the player on or close to the line or an extension of the line beyond the hole while the stroke is being made. Any mark placed by the player or with his knowledge to indicate the line must be removed before the stroke is made.

Tom Paul's rules maven should have known this, but like everybody else (except Sully) who's been bouncing around in this Pat Mucci off topic post, he got caught up in focusing only on the words in 8-2b.

How do you know this ?
I certainly didn't examine 8-2 b while neglecting 8-2 a.[/color]

Exception: Flagstick attended or held up — see Rule 17-1.

Rule 17-1 has nothing to do with rule 8-2 a and 8-2 b.[/color]

 b. On the Putting Green
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.
 
Penalty for Breach of Rule:
Match play — Loss of hole; Stroke play — Two strokes

When trying to construe a rule, one should consider the entire rule to ensure that the proper meaning is given to that portion of the rule in dispute. (The Latin maxim is Nemo aliquam partem recte intelligere potest antequam totum perlegit. No one can properly understand a part until he has read the whole.)

8-2 b is the entire rule as it relates to indicating the line on the putting green.

Why don't you try imparting your logic and "Nemo aliquam partem recte intelligere potest antequam totum perlegit on
Rules 7-1 a and 7-1 b

It doesn't work as you'd like everyone to believe.[/color]

8-2a refers to placing marks prior to making strokes and then moving the mark out of the way. So rule 8-2(a and b) is discussing movable marks, not identification marks drawn permanently onto a ball.

That's flawed reasoning.

The history of 8-2a related to someone placing a club or similar object at their feet to indicate their alignment.
Perhaps you interpret the marks as the caddy was placing stones every ten yards from the ball to the hole.

There's nothing in 8-2 b that references movable marks.
The USGA vis a vis the Rules of golf, references marks on the ball in Rule 6-5 and Rule 12-2.[/color]

The rule is carefully written to allow a player to put out markers along the way until he gets to the putting green, then he can't do it, on or off of the green.

I think you'll find the genesis of Rule 8-2 a is closer to the players feet, and not in putting marks along the way, from the player to the hole.[/color]

That is why the USGA changed the rule to say "ANYWHERE."


How do you KNOW that ?
On what basis do you make that claim ?[/color]

There is no other way to read the rule so that it makes sense in its entirety.

Yes there is, you just don't like that interpretation.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is the cheater line any good on the fourth putt?

That brings up a good question for Shivas. Is it a 2 stroke penalty on each putt, or just once per green. I think there should not be a penalty after the second putt, even the rules of golf occasionally deem that a player has suffered enough.

John Cullum,

What's the penalty for failure to adhere to the "one ball" rule.

And, what's the procedure when the breach is discovered ?

This could be no different.

Has there been a problem with monitoring and enforcing the "one ball" rule, or do you think the transgressing player has suffered enough ?

[TEPaul]

"Rule 17-1 has nothing to do with rule 8-2 a and 8-2 b."

Technically, you are absolutely right, but a "tournament" ball "Condition of Competition" has even less to do with Rule 8-2b Patrick.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Rule 17-1 has nothing to do with rule 8-2 a and 8-2 b."

Technically, you are absolutely right, but a "tournament" ball "Condition of Competition" has even less to do with Rule 8-2b Patrick.  

That's true, my reason for bringing it up had nothing to do with Rule 8-2 b and everything to do with committee decisions, but, you knew that.

[TEPaul]

"That's true, my reason for bringing it up had nothing to do with Rule 8-2 b and everything to do with committee decisions, but, you knew that."  

Of course I did, Patrick, but then one wonders why you didn't actually say it that way. The fact is you know I'm going to catch you at your BS logic every single time but you keep it up nonetheless. You must just be a glutton for punishment.  

[John_Cullum]

John Cullum,

What's the penalty for failure to adhere to the "one ball" rule.

And, what's the procedure when the breach is discovered ?

You mean you don't know. Interesting.

[John_Cullum]

Sully has already sort of eludued to this Please read ALL of Rule 8-2.

Everyone is aware that Rule 8 is divided into two rules, 8-1 and 8-2 and that Rule 8-2 has two sub-paragraphs dealing with "other than the putting green" and "the putting green"

One can't automatically assume, as you suggest, that the rules have a cause and effect relationship upon one another whereby 8-2 influences and governs 8-2 b.

Your premise is just as off base as your categorization of this thread as OT.[/color]

8-2 Indicating Line of Play
 a. Other Than on Putting Green
Except on the putting green , a player may have the line of play indicated to him by anyone, but no one may be positioned by the player on or close to the line or an extension of the line beyond the hole while the stroke is being made. Any mark placed by the player or with his knowledge to indicate the line must be removed before the stroke is made.

Tom Paul's rules maven should have known this, but like everybody else (except Sully) who's been bouncing around in this Pat Mucci off topic post, he got caught up in focusing only on the words in 8-2b.

How do you know this ?
I certainly didn't examine 8-2 b while neglecting 8-2 a.[/color]

Exception: Flagstick attended or held up — see Rule 17-1.

Rule 17-1 has nothing to do with rule 8-2 a and 8-2 b.[/color]

 b. On the Putting Green
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.
 
Penalty for Breach of Rule:
Match play — Loss of hole; Stroke play — Two strokes

When trying to construe a rule, one should consider the entire rule to ensure that the proper meaning is given to that portion of the rule in dispute. (The Latin maxim is Nemo aliquam partem recte intelligere potest antequam totum perlegit. No one can properly understand a part until he has read the whole.)

8-2 b is the entire rule as it relates to indicating the line on the putting green.

Why don't you try imparting your logic and "Nemo aliquam partem recte intelligere potest antequam totum perlegit on
Rules 7-1 a and 7-1 b

It doesn't work as you'd like everyone to believe.[/color]

8-2a refers to placing marks prior to making strokes and then moving the mark out of the way. So rule 8-2(a and b) is discussing movable marks, not identification marks drawn permanently onto a ball.

That's flawed reasoning.

The history of 8-2a related to someone placing a club or similar object at their feet to indicate their alignment.
Perhaps you interpret the marks as the caddy was placing stones every ten yards from the ball to the hole.

There's nothing in 8-2 b that references movable marks.
The USGA vis a vis the Rules of golf, references marks on the ball in Rule 6-5 and Rule 12-2.[/color]

The rule is carefully written to allow a player to put out markers along the way until he gets to the putting green, then he can't do it, on or off of the green.

I think you'll find the genesis of Rule 8-2 a is closer to the players feet, and not in putting marks along the way, from the player to the hole.[/color]

That is why the USGA changed the rule to say "ANYWHERE."


How do you KNOW that ?
On what basis do you make that claim ?[/color]

There is no other way to read the rule so that it makes sense in its entirety.

Yes there is, you just don't like that interpretation.[/color]

Good God Pat, that's weaker than Babtist coffee. Go start another OT thread. You're losing what little credibility you have on this one.

[TEPaul]

JohnC:

I like the way you answered Patrick's question in post #748. That's the best way to handle his incessant "rhetorical" questions on here.  

Oh, and re post #749 didn't you know that credibility and Patrick are mutually exclusive?

[John_Cullum]

Tom P

I'm just trying to get the message home to the erstwhile Hamilton B.

[JESII]

For what it's worth JC, I really thought your post back at the end of the last page was 100% on the money...

[TEPaul]

JohnC:

You didn't answer why you think the Rules Maven didn't know what you mentioned on the last post of the previous page.

[John_Cullum]

Shivas, you should be able to acknowledge that the word mark can mean different things. It can be tangible (as in the instance of objects place along the intended line of play) or intangible (as in lines drawn on a ball).

The inherent unclarity reveals itself in this now 21 page discussion.

I have always despised Ruth Ginsberg on so many levels, but she is one hot babe.

[John_Cullum]

JohnC:

You didn't answer why you think the Rules Maven didn't know what you mentioned on the last post of the previous page.

If he had thought the thing through, he would have told you what I did.

[John_Cullum]

And besides, a mark on a ball is most definitely tangible.  You can see it.  You can touch it.  You can align it.  Heaven forbid, you could even erase it!  

But you can't pick it up and move it. (not w/o the ball any way)

You can see and touch a share certificate too.

[Rich Goodale]

Dave

You and John are not only tangible, you are fungible.  Why don't you two change sides for a while, just for fun, and show us some real lawyerly legerdemain?

[Bryan Izatt]

Shivas,

Far be it from me to argue your well-reasoned legal brief on statutory construction, but regarding the statement:

I think anyone on this board would be hard-pressed to argue that the rule is ambiguous unless the ambiguity stems from outside sources, like the fact that the rule isn't enforced, or the fact that everybody does it or the fact that the rule used to say this-or-that.

I give you the words of Judge Mucci:

I stated that the language is clearly ambiguous.
I then quoted rule 8-2 b, capitalizing the words that make it ambiguous.

I note that there is a nice oxymoron there - clearly ambiguous.  

How would you argue before the courts the clarity of 8-2 versus the clarity of Decision 20-3a/2?  Or even the clarity of the FAQ on the subject?  Other than that they are cowardly mistaken legislation by the legislators?  

BTW, in the new Shivas rule regime should the penalty for alignment be called before the stroke is played when the intent is clear?  Or after the stroke when the breach of the rule is completed but there is no evidence of the alignment left?

[mike_malone]

 Aren't they referring to something placed on the green to create "two points that make a line"?

[John_Cullum]

Dave

You and John are not only tangible, you are fungible.  Why don't you two change sides for a while, just for fun, and show us some real lawyerly legerdemain?

We reserve that for the paying clientele

[JESII]

Shivas,


How would you define the word tangible?

I'm serious, I have a poor vocabulary, and would define tangible as 'something of substance', or 'having definition'. I have a hard time believing the USGA would let you place something on the ball that has substance...wouldn't that make the ball non-conforming?

[Dan Kelly]

Dave

You and John are not only tangible, you are fungible.  Why don't you two change sides for a while, just for fun, and show us some real lawyerly legerdemain?

We reserve that for the paying clientele

Do it pro bono gca.comico, just this once. It would be awfully entertaining, and would guarantee this thread its rightful status as #1.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,


How would you define the word tangible?

I'm serious, I have a poor vocabulary, and would define tangible as 'something of substance', or 'having definition'.

I have a hard time believing the USGA would let you place something on the ball that has substance...wouldn't that make the ball non-conforming?

JES II,

NO,

There's a caveat in the language in Rule 5-2,
namely "......for the purpose of changing its playing characteristics"[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Cullum,

What's the penalty for failure to adhere to the "one ball" rule.

And, what's the procedure when the breach is discovered ?

You mean you don't know. Interesting.

Who said I didn't know ?

And, why haven't you answered the questions I posed ?

Not being a coffee drinker, what's Baptist Coffee ?
That one I don't know.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan Izatt,

To some, like that obtuse idiot-savant, TEPaul, ambiguity is not always apparent, hence the need to state that something was clearly ambiguous, meaning, that EVEN TEPaul, understood it to be ambiguous, which means that it's not open to debate.

However, subsequent to posting that language I received 249 IM's from TEPaul asking what the words "ambisextrous" and "ambidexrous" meant, and was I certain about their definition and usage, or was I being clearly ambiguous ?

[JESII]

Thanks Pat,

But TANGIBLE still has not been defined for me on here, and the definitions in Websters would all seem to change the playing characteristics of the ball...


Just an FYI, my line of reasoning here is to support my belief that dots and markings of any kind on the ball could (if lines were disallowed) aid in the alignment of a putt, and that would also be counter to your's and Shivas' position.

I am not interested in going through that with any of you because I think Chris Brauner did a great job illustrating it. I do have trouble with Shivas dismissing my claim that I gain alignment help by replacing the ball so I hit the logo square...Under his rules I would call that on someone else...