Shivas's cheater line

[John_Cullum]

I understand 8-2 a and 8-2 b as well if not better than anyone, including its amended history.

That is perfect, and I know you really believe that Pat.

[JR Potts]

I understand 8-2 a and 8-2 b as well if not better than anyone, including its amended history.

That is perfect, and I know you really believe that Pat.

John, you idiot, read the thread.  He does understand it better than everyone.  Better than the USGA, better than you, better than anyone.  Just ask him...actually, we didn't need to....he told us.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I understand 8-2 a and 8-2 b as well if not better than anyone, including its amended history."

Patrick:

You do not understand Rule 8-2b as all well as most or there is no way you could or would have said what you have on this thread.

Your problem is that you haven't differentiated what I've said from what Shivas has said, go back and reread what I've said.[/color]

"That's not my issue.
My issue is that the "cheater line" violates the spirit of the game, and as such, its introduction and use should be declared against the rules when the USGA and R&A meet in 2008."

Well, then, if that is in fact 'your issue' you don't have much idea what is meant by the "spirit of the game" either.

I sure do.
I felt that golfers who interchanged balls during a round to gain a performance edge were violating the spirit of the game even though the practice was permited under the rules.
FINALLY, the USGA agreed with me and instituted a rule to ban the practice.

I'm hopeful that they'll catch up to me on this issue as well.[/color]

Most of that "spirit of the game" is and always has been that you play by the accepted interpretation of the Rules of Golf whether you like it or not and if you don't like it then make them a formal proposal of how you would like them to interpret it.

I've always played by the rules, that's not MY issue.
As to influencing change, one doesn't have to make a formal proposal to exert influence.[/color]

If you don't win the day with that proposal than you should go back to playing the game as they interpret it rather than trying to lord your personal opinion and interpretation over everyone else including the Rules writers and interpreters.


Why don't you try reading what I've written and stop confusing it with what Shivas has written, then, and only then will you gain the proper perspective on my position[/color]

If you or Shivas or anyone else don't do that or can't do that and you in fact get into trying to lord your personal opinion over other golfers, including the Rules writers, regarding a practice such as aligning a golf ball to indicate a line of putt when THEY have told you in no uncertain terms that it is not a violation of the Rules, then frankly you are no better than a premediated cheater in golf, in my opinion.

Then you'd better go back and reread Rule 8-2 b and the Decisions book, the only two OFFICIAL documents governing the rules of golf, and show Shivas and myself where THEY
have told us that in either of those two documents.

Could it be that 8-2 b needs to be rewritten in clarifying language and/or that a Decision should be published clarifying the situation ?[/color]
 

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I just wonder how many people lining up putts using this method have the intent to "cheat"...NONE I am sure...mush like using a blade of grass as an intermediate target or a ball mark on the green as an intended line...."in the true spirit of the game," this thread really is missing the point...branding those who use the line as cheaters is a little over the top, I have never viewed Tiger as a cheat, nor those I compete against who choose this mode of alignment...in the "true spirit of the game"...I believe this issue is really okay.
let's move on and even explore more serious issues that threaten the integrity of the game.

[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?

Bryan, I'll  have to let Pat speak for himself on that one.  I never said the rule was ambiguous.  My position has always been that it's crystal clear.

Patrick did in his own inimitable way obfuscate his clear oxymoron.  I was just trying to point out to you that there was at least one person who thought 8-2 was ambiguous.

I would argue that before a court that 8-2 is a general rule that prohibits everything that's a mark, whereas the Decision is a subsequent exception to that rule.  I'd have JVB as my expert witness, since he said so about 10 pages ago in this thread.  

As an exception to a general rule, Decision 20-3a/2 applies only to that of which it speaks (trademarks) and that if the USGA had wanted the exception to be broader than that to encompass hand-drawn lines, they'd have said so.  They didn't, and therefore since at least 1988, the hand-drawn cheater line has been and remains verboten.  The fact that nobody seems to want to enforce a rule is not relevent to statutory construction.

And, how would you argue in court the FAQ on the USGA web site that allows the hand drawn mark to be used for alignment?  Are you in Mucci's camp that it doesn't really count because it's not part of the official Rules and Decisions?  How would you argue that point in court?

You didn't answer my question from above about operationalizing your version of the rule.  Could you?  

"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?"

For the record, I do use a line on the ball to align putts.  I am not a cheater under the current rules.  If the rules changed to disallow it, then I would stop (it doesn't do much demonstrable good anyway).  I can and do play in 3.25 hours, walking, so timeliness is not an issue.  

And, I play within the spirit of the game.  I play with integrity, show consideration for other players, and abide by the Rules. I also conduct myself in a disciplined manner, demonstrate courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of my competitiveness.  This is the spirit of the game of golf as enunciated by the USGA.

And, finally, how do you align your putts.  Do you use a mark on the top of your putter in any way?  Do you pick a "natural" mark on the green?  Do you align your feet with the line?  Are any and all of these more in line with your spirit of the game?

 

[Doug Sobieski]

"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?"

Bryan:

Another great example of how difficult it will be to WRITE a rule that can be enforced. You CANNOT call the penalty before he plays the stroke because the player always has the option to re-mark (it would be akin to penalizing someone for teeing up in front of the markers before he takes his first swing!). Once the ball is putted, how does one confirm that it was aligned on the line of putt?

I'll ask for the third or fourth time on this thread, can someone (Shivas?) PLEASE provide the suggested language that could be used as an enforceable rule!!!! Once you try to do that, we'll all be able to see more clearly how difficult (or easy) this could be to enforce.

[JR Potts]

"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?"

Bryan:

Another great example of how difficult it will be to WRITE a rule that can be enforced. You CANNOT call the penalty before he plays the stroke because the player always has the option to re-mark (it would be akin to penalizing someone for teeing up in front of the markers before he takes his first swing!). Once the ball is putted, how does one confirm that it was aligned on the line of putt?

I'll ask for the third or fourth time on this thread, can someone (Shivas?) PLEASE provide the suggested language that could be used as an enforceable rule!!!! Once you try to do that, we'll all be able to see more clearly how difficult (or easy) this could be to enforce.

I don't want to speak for Shivas but since the use of a "cheater line" is treated as a criminal endeavor to bastardize the game of golf and destroy its spirit, I would think that he would support the rule as is most often enforced under modern criminal jurisprudence.  There needs to be a mens rea and actus rea.  Screw the fact that they aren't aligned.  This is a strict liability offense.

[John_Cullum]

Tom Paul has pronounced that the use of latin phrases is not helpful here.

[John_Cullum]

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.[/b][/color]

What on earth are you babbling about here?

[CHrisB]

Do me a favor and take a stab at this one--Which of the logoed balls below, if they were oriented as they appear in the images, do you think would indicate a line for putting, which would not, and why?


You've already said:

Any of those marks you showed could very easily be placed in the intended line of the putt.  And under my rule, that'd be just fine, so long as they're either (A) unintentional (and extemely strong evidence that they were not would be the fact that they weren't showing up on every putt, or every short putt or whatever) or (B) removed before the stroke, ie spun around a little so that nobody in your group has anything to squalk about.

But you still have to be able to look at a mark on a golf ball and say definitively, as it is sitting there on the ground, whether it indicates the line for putting or not.

What would be the guideline for determining that?

OK, as they sit there, they ALL could be placed that way to indicate a line for putting.  So the next question is "were they placed that way to indicate a line for putting?"  That would depend on whether the player jiggered them to get that way or not.  And if a guy was really adept at quickly and ALWAYS getting the logo on top upon replacement of the ball, then I'd take that as de facto intent.  

(Shivas, keep in mind that this is all in good fun and in fact I am sympathetic--or is it empathetic?--to your position. But I am going to continue to challenge you on this issue until you can come up with some sort of solution to some of these problems that I'm convinced could arise should your new rule go into effect.)

OK--so you cannot say definitively whether those balls as they sit indicate the line for putting or not.

So now you're essentially stuck with player intent as the sole factor determining whether a violation occurs.

So let's suppose you're playing in the U.S. Am with a member of the University of Texas golf team, and you notice that he aligns all of his putts so that Bevo is on the top center of the ball like shown above.

Well, you decide to call a rules official over, saying that you think he is in violation of the new rule banning the use of marks on the golf ball to indicate the line for putting.

The rules official asks the guy if he aligns his ball that way to get any assistance in aligning himself to putt, and he says "No, that's not what I'm trying to do--I just like putting with Bevo on top and I've practiced and putted that way for 4 years now. The logo helps my eyes focus on a specific part of the ball, and I find that when I place the ball the same basic way each time I putt more consistently."

What should be the ruling? Under your reasoning, the official would have to let him continue to place the ball the same way, because his intent was not to use the mark to indicate the line for putting.

Now suppose his teammate, also in the field, does one of those chalk line putting drills on the putting green, and discovers that if he aligns his ball the exact same way, that he can use the Bevo logo to see right down the line and he starts making everything. So he's excited, forgets about the new rule, and starts to putt that way in his first round.

His playing partner calls him on it, and the rules official comes over and asks the guy if he aligns his ball that way to get any assistance in aligning himself to putt, and he says "Yes, I do--I discovered that if I align the ball the way I can really see the line while I putt."

What should be the ruling? Under your reasoning, the rules official should penalize the player for using the mark on his ball for aligning the putt.

So now you have two golf balls, both aligned the exact same way, and one guy gets a penalty and the other guy does not?

I know, I know--what are the odds of this happening? Well, as you know, weird stuff happens all the time w.r.t. the rules (why do you think there are official decisions written about things like half-eaten pears, banana peels, dead land crabs in bunkers, worms partially underground, ball imbedded in fruit, etc.?) and the rules have to be able to deal with those kinds of situations.

I also know of a drill where players put a red dot on their ball and align it so that they try to strike the dot with their putter because they feel it clears their mind and improves contact--what if the dot also indicates the line but the player doesn't use it for that reason?

That's part of why I think it could get sticky if player intent is the sole determinant of whether a rules violation has occurred. There are going to be cases where the official will also have to look at the mark and determine whether it indicates the line for putting or not, regardless of why the player placed the ball as he did.

Which is partly why Doug and I have been saying that there will need to be a guideline that rules officials everywhere can use to say which marks indicate the line and which marks do not, for those non-clear-cut cases where player intent has to be taken out of it.

And given the Bevo or any other logo example, or the single dot, or the V, or the Titleist label placed so that the clubface strikes it, etc., where two equally experienced rules officials might disagree on whether the mark indicates the line or not, how should such a guideline be written to help them determine the answer?

[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".  

Chris:

I raised this issue on page 5 of this thread...and I was serious about it. I do see a distinction between using a mark for indicating the line of the putt (the Shivas-Mucci strict constructionist view of the rule) vs. using a mark to help align the putter face square with the ball. The former I can see as skirting the rules, per the Shivas argument. The latter I don't have trouble with, because my alignment of the ball has nothing to do with the line of the putt; it has everything to do with aligning it square to the putter face, and I see nothing in 8-2 A or B that would prohibit that practice.

[CHrisB]

No marks to indicate a line for putting.  No explanations.  No horseshit end-arounds.  No rationalizations.  Put your ball down and putt it.  If you fidget around to get the line or if the same marks keep showing up and they indicate a line for putting, it's a penalty.  Simple.

Agreed. The fidgeting around and the same marks showing up--that may or may not be easy to spot but at least it's clear what to look for. Asking the player his intent will also clear things up in some cases. So about those marks that keep showing up (or perhaps even if they only show up once or twice)--how do you determine if they indicate a line for putting or if they do not?

Come up with that guideline and you'll have everything you need for your proposal to the USGA.

[CHrisB]

Phil,

Sorry I didn't remember seeing that when you wrote it--this thread is getting so long that it's hard to remember what was written all those pages ago. To show you how long this thread is, I think the last time the Astros won a game was before it started.

[Dan Kelly]

How about if we require that all marks placed on the golf ball -- by manufacturer and/or player -- be on one hemisphere, and that the naked hemisphere be pointing up after a player has marked his ball?

That would be easily enforceable, wouldn't it?

Apologies if this was mentioned somewhere in the past 800-some posts.

[TEPaul]

"Your problem is that you haven't differentiated what I've said from what Shivas has said, go back and reread what I've said."

Patrick:

I don't need to do that. What you've said on this thread should stand completely on its own anyway. And what you've said on your own indicates you have no real understanding of Rule 8-2b because of what you've said about players who use the practice of aligning a mark on the golf ball to indicate the line for putting. And you have less understanding of what the "spirit" of the Rules of golf was and is, particularly in the context of this thread's subject.

[Steve Wilson]

How about we require the manufacturers to include a half gallon of white out with every dozen golf balls?  
Or failing to coerce the manufacturers we could fill the ball washers with white out.  The layer of gunk could go a long ways toward solving the distance problem as well, but somehow I don't think this is going to speed up play much.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"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?"

Bryan:

Another great example of how difficult it will be to WRITE a rule that can be enforced. You CANNOT call the penalty before he plays the stroke because the player always has the option to re-mark (it would be akin to penalizing someone for teeing up in front of the markers before he takes his first swing!). Once the ball is putted, how does one confirm that it was aligned on the line of putt?

That's not true.

Examine Rule 8-1.

A breach does not have to coincide with or follow a stroke, it
can occur prior to the stroke.[/color]

I'll ask for the third or fourth time on this thread, can someone (Shivas?) PLEASE provide the suggested language that could be used as an enforceable rule!!!! Once you try to do that, we'll all be able to see more clearly how difficult (or easy) this could be to enforce.

The language is unimportant, it's a detail that can be easily codified.

The important issue is the concept, the prohibition against using markings on the ball to aid in determining the line.
Once that becomes the USGA's stated policy, the rest is easy.

The current language contained in 8-2 b could be used with respect to marks, with a corresponding Decision clearly stating that markings other than non-linear ID marks are permited as long as they're not used to aid in determining the line.  Additional language could be added about prohibiting the process of alignment as well.  It's not that difficult and I'd trust the USGA to settle on the language and clarification through the Decisions book.

You fellows are so focused on minutia that you've taken your eye off the big picture, which is banning the practice.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

Don't allow the attempts to divert the focus from markings on the ball, the creation of a cheater line, to markings placed on putters, irons and drivers by the manufacturers.

It's a sign the opposition is weakening.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Your problem is that you haven't differentiated what I've said from what Shivas has said, go back and reread what I've said."

Patrick:

I don't need to do that.

I know, you'd rather fabricate and/or misinterpret the entirety of what I've said because it furthers your cause, despite not being reflecting of the facts.[/color]

What you've said on this thread should stand completely on its own anyway.

It does.
Alas, if only you had bothered to read what I've said..[/color]

And what you've said on your own indicates you have no real understanding of Rule 8-2b because of what you've said about players who use the practice of aligning a mark on the golf ball to indicate the line for putting.

I've said that its LEGAL and that I think the rule should be changed, and at the very least, clarified in the Rule book or the Decisions book because the language in the Rule book is ambiguous and the Decisions book is silent on the matter, and those are the only two official documents detailing the rules of golf.[/color]

And you have less understanding of what the "spirit" of the Rules of golf was and is, particularly in the context of this thread's subject.

Your idea of what constitutes the "spirit of the game" is range finders, GPS systems, the Cheater Line and using different balls to take advantage of conditions during a round, when permited to do so.

Namely, anything that the rules say is OK to use or do.

My understanding is well above that.

I'll leave it for you to decide who's more in tune with the "spirit of the game"[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Shivas,

Don't allow the attempts to divert the focus from markings on the ball, the creation of a cheater line, to markings placed on putters, irons and drivers by the manufacturers.

It's a sign the opposition is weakening.  

Patrick:

The "opposition", as you call it is very clear here. You can try to divert the discussion from what the subject really is and specifically is, but I think you know me well enough to know that I will never let you do that.

You're on the wrong side of this issue, Patrick, and eventually it will show.

[JR Potts]

You can try to divert the discussion from what the subject really is and specifically is, but I think you know me well enough to know that I will never let you do that.

TEPaul:

Patrick started this thread.  He knows what it is about.  Read his posts above, it's about architecture.

If he can't admit that 100.00% of his posts on this thread are OT, he certainly won't concede that he and Shivas have preposterous positions that are wholly unenforceable and in direct conflict with the rules as enforced by the USGA.

[Doug Sobieski]

Patrick:

With regard to 8-1, you are correct that there is no way to undo it once the breach has occured. With regard to playing from outside the teeing ground, you can avoid that penalty before the stroke occurs. With regard to placing your ball in the cheater line position, where is the specific point of no return?

The language is unimportant? Those of us that work in an officiating capacity all seem to agree that there is no way to write such a rule that can be enforced without ambiguity as to what an infraction is and when an infraction would occur. The lack of any proposed language for a rule bolsters the case that it can't be done effectively!!!

If it's a detail that can easily be codified, lay it out for us, and let's take it to the USGA to see what they think.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm convinced that I"m on the RIGHT side of this issue as evidenced by the USGA's alteration of the first sentence of Rule 8-2 a.

You may recall that that practice was becoming wide spread on the Tour and elsewhere until the USGA amended 8-2 a and banned the practice.

I think the USGA may do the same with the Cheater Line in 2008 or 2012..

When you consider the relatively recent modification of Rule 8-2 a, especially in the context of aiding in determining the line during the stroke, the prohibition against touching the putting surface to indicate the line and the prohibition against placing a mark to indicate the line, the logical extension is to also ban the practice that involves marking the ball to aid in determining the line.

I think my view represents a "purer" understanding and adherence to the "spirit of the game "

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

With regard to 8-1, you are correct that there is no way to undo it once the breach has occured. With regard to playing from outside the teeing ground, you can avoid that penalty before the stroke occurs. With regard to placing your ball in the cheater line position, where is the specific point of no return?

Doug,

I outlined that earlier[/color]

The language is unimportant? Those of us that work in an officiating capacity all seem to agree that there is no way to write such a rule that can be enforced without ambiguity as to what an infraction is and when an infraction would occur. The lack of any proposed language for a rule bolsters the case that it can't be done effectively!!!

Doug,

I also addressed the language issue, and the two phases of safeguarding adherence to the rule.

What you and so many others are erroneously assuming is that once the rule prohibiting the practice is enacted, golfers will attempt every way possible to CHEAT through nefarious or obvious methods, and that's a theory I reject based on playing golf with an enormous number of competitors over the years.

GOLFERS ADHERE TO THE RULES
They don't try to cheat to get an edge.
It's a non issue.
Enact the Rule and the practice will disappear.[/color]

If it's a detail that can easily be codified, lay it out for us, and let's take it to the USGA to see what they think.

I'll repeat what I've already said, the critical issue isn't the language, that's easy.  The critical issue is the USGA's head set on banning the practice.

If there's a will, there will be a way, and I'm not concerned about the legalese or weasel words.

Golfers that are honorable will abide by the rule.
Golfers that are NOT honorable will cheat.

The rules as writtten adequately deal with cheaters.
And, in a non-rule context, I won't play with them.
It's part of my idea of what constitutes "the spirit of the game"[/color]

[JR Potts]

What you and so many others are erroneously assuming is that once the rule prohibiting the practice is enacted, golfers will attempt every way possible to CHEAT through nefarious or obvious methods, and that's a theory I reject based on playing golf with an enormous number of competitors over the years.

GOLFERS ADHERE TO THE RULES
They don't try to cheat to get an edge.
It's a non issue.
Enact the Rule and the practice will disappear.[/b][/color]

And we finally agree on something.  The language of any Muchivas rule is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

The inquiry is whether it violates the rules of the game of golf and the spirit of the game...not how do you parse the language in any proposed rule.

Golf, by its solitary nature, permits competitors the opportunity to cheat dozens of times throughout the round...in manners not directly addressed in the rule book.  Why don't people do it, because they respect the game and their honor as competitors.  Find me someone who cheats at golf and is looking to exploit the game, and I show you a terrible individual...in life and in business.

If the rule were changed to what Patrick and Shivas suggest, and even if it were written poorly with all of the loop-holes in the world, one would not be a true custodian of the game and a competitor/deserving of respect if he/she attempted to exploit that loop hole.  If the rule said you couldn't use a mark on the ball for aligning your shots, then as far as I'm concerned, that is all that need be written.

The absence of such clear language in the rules, as they are written today, speaks volumes as to the proper side of this debate.