Shivas's cheater line

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan Potts,

You were correct about everything you said ....

until you got to the last sentence, which may have been deliberately left vague.

[JR Potts]

until you got to the last sentence, which may have been deliberately left vague.

What, you think I was trying to act a catalyst to force this thread into page 40?  Not me...never.

[CHrisB]

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]

Hi again Patrick (and Ryan),

I wanted to clarify my position in response to what you wrote above.

What I said was that the USGA can't JUST ban the cheater line and marks with linear components, because then there will be all of these other ways for players to still use the mark on the ball to align it--not because they will be trying to CHEAT the new rule, but because they think doing so will be LEGAL under the new rule. As a parallel, look what's happening now--players are using the "cheater line" in mass numbers not because they are trying to CHEAT Rule 8-2b, but because they think it is LEGAL to do so (and it is).

That's why the ban can't JUST be on lines and marks with linear components--it will will have to be on ALL marks used to indicate the line for putting.

And because player intent alone won't be able to determine in all cases whether a violation of the new rule has occurred (see previous examples), there will be situations where rules officials will have to look at a mark on a golf ball and determine whether the mark, as it appears on the ball and as the ball sits on the ground, indicates the line for putting or not.

So there has to be some sort of guideline for them to use to determine, in fact, whether the rule is being violated or not (don't you have to be able to tell whether a rule is being violated or not?). Something that goes beyond "a mark on the ball is deemed to indicate a line for putting if it is linear in nature (be it continuous or segmented) and if the ball is oriented such that the configuration of the mark is parallel to the putting line", which isn't encompassing enough to effectively ban ALL marks used to indicate the line.

I suppose they could leave the language intentionally vague and just leave it up the judgment of the individual rules officials or committees--kind of a "you'll know it when you see it" approach--but then I'd be concerned that the same action could be a violation in some tournaments and not a violation in others.

Anyway, that's what I was saying...so fire away (although I hope you find some validity in what I've been arguing here...)

[John_Conley]

I pulled up this thread for the first time just to see why there are 800 replies and 10,000 page views.

Can't everyone agree to disagree?

I putt down the writing.  If the ruling body told me I couldn't I wouldn't.  I doubt they'll do that, but if they do I'm prepared.

[Rich Goodale]

The only possible way to enforce the Shivas Cheater Rule would be to require balls with no markings at all, but that would lead to chaos vis a vis ball identification, and those with truly gifted eyesight could still employ the Brauner Method, using the dimples for alignment.  So, the next logical step, Which I cal the Farnsworth Conjecture is:

1.  The removal of all dimples and logos, giving us a pristine sphere to play with.
2.  Identification by shades of color (special glasses allowed for those affected by Daltonism).
3.  No marking of any kind allowed.

Now, I hear rumblings for rural New Jersey, how will the infamous Golf Ball Manufacturers Cartel stand for that?  No Logos?  You might as well print a Bible without "The Word."  But, just think a bit out of the tee box...

If no marking of any kind is allowed, players will be obliged, under penalty oif disqualification, to unwrap a new pelota every time they make any sort of mark on their ball.  Bingo!  Sales of golf balls will triple in the first year of adoption of this rule.  But, continue the most nerdish of you, what about the lack of dimples?  Didn't the original gutties fly like knuckleballs until somebody discovered that gashes (i.e. dimples) made them fly farther and straighter?  Of course, and this is the most elegant genius of the Conjecture.....

As perfectly spherical balls will fly shorter and more crookedly, both the Distance and the Anti-Strategy Conundra are solved and resolved, in one swell foop!  Not only that, but after a while trying to golf those unblemished orbs, demand will rise and then grow for a return to the feathery.  Stocks of top hat manufacturers will soar on Wall Street.  The only losers will be the ducks, and the influence of their lobby at the courts of Far Hills and Pilmour place is insignificant.

Quod erat demonstrandum, post hoc ergo propter hoc et reductio ad absurdum!

[Doug Sobieski]

I took the time to re-read all 24 pages, and I've flip flopped on the subject. This will be just as clear cut as 4-4, Maximum of 14 Clubs. I called the USGA this morning, and they said they'll get to work on it as soon as they can. They appeared to be busy with a party or something, given all the laughter I heard in the background. I wish they hadn't put me on speakerphone.

Now that I've come to that conclusion, I'd like to mention how I've figured out how to stop the sale of guns to potential criminals. Personally, I don't like guns and don't go near them, but as long as they are legal, it doesn't bother me if people own them as long as they only use them for hunting tasty animals. It's the people with criminal intent that I have figured out how to stop and put behind bars with 100% accuracy. Typically, you have to wait until someone points the gun directly at someone to know that they intend to shoot a person or commit a robbery. Yet I've come up with a foolproof way to stop these people at the point of purchase, well before they aim and pull the trigger. I've talked to law enforcement about this, but the only stumbling block I've had is that I can't figure out how to explain it to them.  

[TEPaul]

"I've talked to law enforcement about this, but the only stumbling block I've had is that I can't figure out how to explain it to them.    

Doug:

Did you hear a lot of laughter on the spearkerphone when you called law enforcement. Maybe they were having a party too.


If some of the people on this thread who think the practice of aligning a mark on a golf ball for the purpose of indicating a line for putting think the Rulesmakers should make that practice a violation of Rule 8-2b (or 14-3a) I guess they'll have to convince the Rulesmakers that a line on a golf ball is an artificial device or unusual equipment first and really does offer "assistance" during putting. I'm not sure the Rulesmakers see it that way. Some on here certainly don't. On the other hand if the Rulesmakers deem this practice to be one that contributes greatly to slow play they may make it a violation basically using that rationale.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Brauner,

You're forgetting about the second part of the ban, the "process".

Arranging marks on a ball to aid in determining the line is a tedious, meticulous process, one not undertaken casually due to the perceived consequences.

When you combine the ban on linear markings with the process, the issue fades into oblivion, especially because golfers play BY the rules.  They don't seek ways to thwart them.

You and others seem to feel that golfers by the droves will attempt devious ways to get around the ban and that it will cause chaos with officials and competitors.

I disagree, especially in match play.  

In an attempt to speed up play, I believe there was a rule that said that you couldn't move forward of your ball, since many golfers were walking from their ball all the way to the green and back.  I believe it came under 6-7, which would be another component of rule banning the practice of using markings to aid in determining the line.

Hence, you would have the markings, the process and slow play as the determining factors.

Once the USGA agrees to ban the practice, the rest is easy.

[TEPaul]

"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."

Patrick:

I'm glad you clarified your position in that remark above. It certainly is legal at this time. So, consequently stating or implying that players who use the practice are cheating by violating the Rules or some spirit of the Rules is irrelevent. Hopefully you haven't said that or implied that on here but Shivas certainly has. I'm glad you disagree with him, as I do, if in fact you do disagree with him.

As far as attempting to get this Rule or its interpretation changed by the Rulesmakers---that may require a formal proposal to the USGA on your part. If they're interested in considering it the USGA Rules Committee would take up the issue, perhaps vote on a proposal at which point it would be sent to the R&A's Rules Committee. If they were interested in considering it the issue would go before the Joint R&A/USGA Rules Committee to be decided. If the members of that Joint Rules Committee endorsed the idea of making it a violation of the Rules it would be written into the book and/or the Decisions book.

At this time Rule 8-2b states "A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting".

Having checked with one of the premier Rules interpreters in the world I was told that does mean "anywhere" with the exception of a golf ball and a manufactured line or mark on a putter head. This interpretation is supported by Dec 20-3a/2 that speaks about a manufacturer's trademark line and by analogy an identification mark or line is also interpreted to not be a violation of the Rules when used to align a golf ball for the purpose of indicating a line for putting.

If the Rulesmakers wanted to make the fact that this practice is not a violation of the Rules clearer they could merely change the language in Decision 20-3a/2 to read a manufacturers trademark line or mark or an identification mark or line and the fact that the practice is not a violation of the Rules would be crystal clear.

Sometimes the Rulesmakers make interpretations on various things by analogy to a Rule or Decision and this is one of those times. As Rules officials we use those analogies "on course" since we are aware of the Rulesmakers' interpretation by analogy because we have obviously asked them.

By the way, if the Rulesmakers decided to make this practice a violation of Rule 8-2b I would certainly endorse that. It certainly does seem to contribute to slower play.

[TEPaul]

"I suppose they could leave the language intentionally vague and just leave it up the judgment of the individual rules officials or committees--kind of a "you'll know it when you see it" approach--but then I'd be concerned that the same action could be a violation in some tournaments and not a violation in others."

Chris:

You hit on something there that's truly something of a two way stretch dynamic in officiating or Rules application "on course".

By necessity the Rules of Golf are written somewhat vague simply so various situations can be interpreted. If it was otherwise the Rules of Golf and the Decisions on the Rules of Golf would virtually have to contemplate and write down a resolution to any possible situation that might happen out there and if they did that the Rules (and Decisions) would require a small library to contain.

On the other hand the modern "ethos" of Rules officiating is to do everything possible to assure that the Rules are interpreted and applied similarly across the board. Rulesmakers just hate the idea that different Rules officials might make entirely different rulings in completely similar situations. The fact of that happening really does offend their sense of "equity" even if they do realize they can do no better than to operate in basically a "like situations shall be treated alike" world and that that does require "on course" interprettation involving subjectivity.

I'll give you an example of how that kind of subjectivity can and does apply in the real world of even top level officiating. In a few of the "relief" Rules there's an "Exception" that states;

".....(b) interference by the (thing from which relief is being considered) would occur only through the use of an abnormal stance, swing or direction of play."

The fact is that some of these Rules officials who know players well will not enforce that exception so strictly on a player such as a Ballesteros compared to some other player who they feel is not as capable of executing such imaginative (abnormal) shots.

When I first heard that they actually do use that kind of subjectivity I was sort of shocked and I asked some of the best Rules experts about that and they confirmened that fact. But if one thinks about it how else could a good Rules official make those situational interpretations? I would certainly hope they would not make those interpretations based on their own capablitiies because I think it is safe to say that a Ballesteros or Woods etc is far more capable of actually executing what may seem an abnormal stance, swing and direction of play than they are.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I'm glad you clarified your position in that remark above.


I clarified my position pages and pages ago.
That's why I asked you to reread what I typed[/color]

It certainly is legal at this time. So, consequently stating or implying that players who use the practice are cheating by violating the Rules or some spirit of the Rules is irrelevent.


No, it's not.
While it's legal, It clearly violates "the spirit of the game", just like using a variety of golf balls during a round did, until the USGA banned that practice.

Do you think that using a variety of balls during a round was in harmony with the spirit of the game, and then, the day after the USGA ruled against the practice it suddenly violated the spirit of the game ?

The "spirit of the game" is fairly static, not amorphous[/color]

Hopefully you haven't said that or implied that on here but Shivas certainly has. I'm glad you disagree with him, as I do, if in fact you do disagree with him.

Shivas's position might be deemed similar but not congruent with mine.  There are differences in our views and opinions, that's why I asked you to reread what I wrote versus what Shivas wrote.[/color]

As far as attempting to get this Rule or its interpretation changed by the Rulesmakers---that may require a formal proposal to the USGA on your part. If they're interested in considering it the USGA Rules Committee would take up the issue, perhaps vote on a proposal at which point it would be sent to the R&A's Rules Committee. If they were interested in considering it the issue would go before the Joint R&A/USGA Rules Committee to be decided. If the members of that Joint Rules Committee endorsed the idea of making it a violation of the Rules it would be written into the book and/or the Decisions book.

TE, that's administrative detail, and I'm sure that the USGA and R&A can figure that out.  It's the underlying concept that's the key.  If those in the USGA and R&A feel as I do, they'll fix it.

It's no different from when PGA Tour Players had their caddies stand behind them, before, during and after the stroke on the putting green.  The USGA banned the practice by amending 8-2 a.[/color]

At this time Rule 8-2b states "A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting".

Having checked with one of the premier Rules interpreters in the world I was told that does mean "anywhere" with the exception of a golf ball and a manufactured line or mark on a putter head.

Then your premier Rules interpreter needs to bone up on the rules.  Marks can be placed on irons and woods as well, they are not limited to balls and putters.[/color]

This interpretation is supported by Dec 20-3a/2 that speaks about a manufacturer's trademark line and by analogy an identification mark or line is also interpreted to not be a violation of the Rules when used to align a golf ball for the purpose of indicating a line for putting.

Decision 20-3a/2 does NOT speak to the player placing a mark on his ball, it relates SOLELY to the manufacturers markings, which I discussed pages age.

But, ask yourself and the premier rules interpreter this question.

Read Decision 8-2a/2 and tell me what the FUNCTIONAL difference is between a pipe or a club placed near the ball to aid in indicating the line and a mark placed ON the ball by the player to indicate the line ?[/color]

If the Rulesmakers wanted to make the fact that this practice is not a violation of the Rules clearer they could merely change the language in Decision 20-3a/2 to read a manufacturers trademark line or mark or an identification mark or line and the fact that the practice is not a violation of the Rules would be crystal clear.

Welcome aboard.
For 24 or more pages I've said that Rule 8-2 needs to be clarified, and/or, a clarifying decision needs to be added to the Decisions book.[/color]

Sometimes the Rulesmakers make interpretations on various things by analogy to a Rule or Decision and this is one of those times. As Rules officials we use those analogies "on course" since we are aware of the Rulesmakers' interpretation by analogy because we have obviously asked them.

TE, everything in the rules points to an intent to prohibit outside or artificial influences from aiding in the determining of the line, therefore, it's a logical extensioin that the Cheater line should be prohibited.  The analogous rulings are obvious.[/color]

By the way, if the Rulesmakers decided to make this practice a violation of Rule 8-2b I would certainly endorse that. It certainly does seem to contribute to slower play.

TE, there's a fellow at our club who has undertaken this practice.  He's typically got two holes open in front of him.
What makes this practice worse, and comical is that he's got bad eyesight.  He's added close to 1/2 an hour to his rounds because he lines up EVERY putt, tediously and meticulously.

The practice is contrary to the spirit of the game and the process is murder on pace of play.[/color]

[Dan Boerger]

Count me as one who is not convinced that using a mark/logo on your ball to line up putts slows down play. In fact, if it helps the player make more putts (why else do it?), then less time could be spent on the putting green.

[Rich Goodale]

I played a game yesterday with one of our most distinguished (but least self-promoting) lawyers, and he drew a cheater line through the trademark telling me that under English Common Law, "Two wrongs make a right."

Hard to argue with the big guy.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Count me as one who is not convinced that using a mark/logo on your ball to line up putts slows down play.

How much time does it take to replace your ball and pick up your mark ?

How much time does it take to replace your ball, align it and pick up your mark ?

Unless you can align your ball, instantaneously, it takes more time, a LOT of time.[/color]

In fact, if it helps the player make more putts (why else do it?), then less time could be spent on the putting green.

Then, I'm sure that you'd agree that if it helps the player make more putts that he must be meticulous with establishing the line, which equates to far, far more time.

In your estimation, how many fewer putts does a golfer take when he meticulously aligns his ball, versus no alignment ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

I said:

"It certainly is legal at this time. So, consequently stating or implying that players who use the practice are cheating by violating the Rules or some spirit of the Rules is irrelevent."

Patrick Mucci responded:

"No, it's not.
While it's legal, It clearly violates "the spirit of the game", just like using a variety of golf balls during a round did, until the USGA banned that practice.

Do you think that using a variety of balls during a round was in harmony with the spirit of the game, and then, the day after the USGA ruled against the practice it suddenly violated the spirit of the game ?

The "spirit of the game" is fairly static, not amorphous."


Well, Patrick, that then is where you and I differ. I have every confidence that the Rulesmakers who both consider and vote on the interpretations, making and writing of the Rules of Golf are every bit as capable of understanding and applying the "spirit" of the game as you or I are or certainly Shivas is. Apparently you think you know more than they do and it's pretty obvious Shivas thinks that given what he's said on here.

There are all kinds of things I don't personally agree with about the way the Rules and Decisions are written and interpreted and applied and I've made at least 3-4 formal proposals to the USGA Rules Committee and the Joint R&A/USGA Rules Committee over the years. Some of those proposals were considered for years. My "Honor" proposal was considered for six years. Those formal proposals were;

1. The Honor--giving the player with the Honor in match play the right to choose to go first or second.

2. That clearer language should be put into the Rules regarding continuous putting (re the differences in match play and stroke play).

3. The fact that it is illogical that it is a violation of the Rules if a player moves his ball during search "through the green" when it is not a violation of the Rules if he moves his ball during search in a hazard. I'm aware of the reason the Rules are this way but nevertheless it is illogical to me most particularly since a ball in a hazard following a shot is inherently a worse shot than one "Through the Green."

So while there are many things that I do not personally agree with I am more than prepared to accept their logic regarding my concerns on those Rules and to play by their Rules, their interpretations and their situational applications and not my own.

The fundamental essence and purpose of the Rules of Golf is that all golfers accept them and play by them whether they personally agree with all of them or not.

To me, essentially THAT is what they are all about. THAT, in fact, essentially IS what the true "spirit" of the game is all about.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

That doesn't address the issue of the "spirit of the game" in the context of the time frame surrounding the implementation of the "One Ball" rule, where it was legal one day but illegal the next.

Irrespective of the legality, using multiple balls during a round to gain a performance edge is clearly not within the spirit of the game.

Placing a pipe or club NEXT to your ball to aid in determining the line of a putt and placing a line ON your ball to aid in determining the line of a putt are NOT in "the spirit of the game"

That's why they teach LAW and that's why they teach ETHICS.

[TEPaul]

“TEPaul,
That doesn't address the issue of the "spirit of the game"”

Patrick: (from above post)

So while there are many things that I do not personally agree with I am more than prepared to accept their logic regarding my concerns on those Rules and to play by their Rules, their interpretations and their situational applications and not my own.
The fundamental essence and purpose of the Rules of Golf is that all golfers accept them and play by them whether they personally agree with all of them or not.
To me, essentially THAT is what they are all about. THAT, in fact, essentially IS what the true "spirit" of the game is all about.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

So, the day before the USGA ruled against the practice of using more than one ball during a round, you found that practice to be within "the spirit of the game" and, the very next day, when the USGA banned the practice, you found that practice to be within "the spirit of the game" ?

And you don't see the conflict in that position ?

In other words, anything that's within the rules is within the spirit of the game, like laser range finders, GPS sytems and Cheater Lines ?

I always thought that the "spirit of the game" transcended the ever changing rule book.

[Rich Goodale]

Pat and Tom

Everybody knows that the spirit of the game is malt whisky.  Take two and call me in the morning.

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

Rangefinders are against the rules.

Using different kinds of balls during a round is within the rules.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

Rangefinders are against the rules.

Using different kinds of balls during a round is within the rules.

Just when I thought you couldn't make any more dumb remarks and attempts at diversion, you rise to the occassion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

What nobody's answered, what nobody wants to answer is:

What's the FUNCTIONAL difference between placing a pipe or cigarette next to your ball to aid in determining the line of a putt, and placing a mark on your ball to aid in determining the line of a putt ?

Decision 8-2a/2 states that the former is prohibited.

[Rich Goodale]

Pat

The same difference as between the pipe or cigarette and the manufacturer's logo on the ball, or a dot on the ball, or a scuff mark on the ball, or whatever.

The former stunt your growth and the latter do not.

[TEPaul]

"That's why they teach LAW and that's why they teach ETHICS."

Patrick:

And that is essentially why neither you nor Shivas really understand the essence of the Rules of Golf and the "spirit" of them.

The Rules of Golf and the spirit of them is a code and a code of conduct under which golfers essentially agree to play by for the purpose of the resolution of situational problems. The Rules of Golf are not supposed to be the same thing as civil or criminal law around which there is the capacity to mete out monetary or criminal penalty with its attendant opprobrium.

The Rules of Golf and its "spirit" is in a real sense its own "ethic" which has evolved particularly from St Andrews years ago (who the world of golf eventually turned to as the origninator of the code of golf's Rules for all to play by for the purpose of general unity).

The currency of penalty in golf's Rules is nothing more than the loss of "strokes" and "disqualification" around which there was never meant to be some attendant opprobrium. The pointing out of this fact is perhaps the most valuable element of Richard Tufts' "Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" This is an essential and a fundamental principle of the Rules of Golf and the "spirit" of the game contained within the Rules that few seem to be aware of or to understand, and you seem to be one of them.

For instance, in a recent telephone conversation Shivas was truly surprised to learn that the word or the concept of cheating has never even been mentioned in the Rules of Golf and I hope it never is.

That is because the Rules only contemplate that golfers will do the "right thing" by one another in the old fashioned world of the "gentleman" who originally played the game with one another. That "right thing" is what the "spirit" of the Rules and the game is and it means that golfers do agree to play by the Code of The Rules of Golf whether they agree with them or not.

 
 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Since when does "the spirit of the game" vascilate and/or change due to a 5-4 committee vote ?

Could you answer the following question ?

What's the FUNCTIONAL difference between placing a pipe or cigarette next to your ball to aid in determining the line of a putt, and placing a mark on your ball to aid in determining the line of a putt ?

Decision 8-2a/2 states that the former is prohibited.

Could you define how one act is outside the spirit of the game, but, the other, functionally similar act, is within the spirit of the game ?

Thanks