Shivas's cheater line

[JR Potts]

Shivas,

I think Ryan Potts agrees that if the rule was passed golfers would adhere to it and not look to cheat in order to gain an edge.  I believe he feels, as I do, that the actual language isn't as significant as the concept and the rule banning the practice.

Mucci is right.

It would just be another dumb rule that I follow.  Like not being able to putt with the pin in and not being able to remove removable out-of-bounds stakes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan Potts,

How do you feel about the rule prohibiting the use of a pipe or a club, placed near the ball, to aid in determining the line of the putt ?

If you think those are dumb rules, then your thinking is consistent, but, if you feel that those are valid rules, then your thinking that marking and aligning your ball for the same purpose is OK, is contradictory.  How do you reconcile those contradictory positions ?

[JR Potts]

Ryan Potts,

How do you feel about the rule prohibiting the use of a pipe or a club, placed near the ball, to aid in determining the line of the putt ?

If you think those are dumb rules, then your thinking is consistent, but, if you feel that those are valid rules, then your thinking that marking and aligning your ball for the same purpose is OK, is contradictory.  How do you reconcile those contradictory positions ?

How do I reconcile those?

One involves a club or alignment device uninvolved in the stroke.  The other (latter) is pivotal to the stroke.

That distinction cannot be ignored.

[Doug Sobieski]

Rules are different than Conditions of the Competition.


Rule 33-1 mandates that the Conditions of competition MUST be defined by the committee, and that includes the "one ball" rule.

The USGA states that implementation of the prohibition against playing anything other than "one ball", shall be a note to Rule 5-1, hence, once implemented, it becomes a notated rule under 5-1[/color]

The USGA has not banned the ability to change types of balls during a round. That's done by the Committee.

But, once done by the committee it becomes a note to rule Rule 5-1.[/color]

Given your extensive playing resume, you are sure to have known that, but may have misspoken.

As you know, it's not a RULE because it would be too easy for most players to inadvertantly breach it, and such Rules tend to be written so that players don't run afoul of them unintentionally.

Inadvertant breach is not the reason that the USGA decided to deal with the practice of changing balls during a round.

It was due to the advantage/edge created by the performance qualities of different balls under different conditions and the practice of choosing a ball on a hole to gain that performance edge.

For a zillion years, the USGA didn't care what balls you played with, you could change on a whim after each hole, using 18 different balls if it pleased you.  It was the competitive edge brought about by hi-tech that enhanced performance under different conditions[/color]

I agree with Michael Moore

That's your problem
Michael Moore was being disengenuous when he made his comments.[/color]

Patrick:

Rule 33-1 certainly doesn't mandate the use of the "one ball rule" by the committee for all competition.

"Inadvertant breach is not the reason that the USGA decided to deal with the practice of changing balls during a round." Correct. It's not the reason they dealt with it, but it's why the "one ball rule" isn't ALWAYS in effect under 5-1. I'm sure you know how often you hear the word "impractical" during a Rules Workshop.

The Rules of Golf apply to the Ladies 9-holers on their Thursday round, as well as on the PGA Tour. Far more golf is played in this country without the one ball rule than with it. For everyday play, it's impractical to require players to play only one brand/model of ball. If it were included in 5-1, most club players would be penalized during every round they play. And it would make an already expensive game even more expensive. Believe it or not, there are people that play by the Rules that actually use golf balls that they find!!!! They are not playing in the US Open, but they pride themselves on playing by the Rules nevertheless.

You are right that in high level competition, the Committee has the OPTION of implementing the one ball rule, and that's normally the case. But the vast majority of players don't play high level competition.

Unless the Rules become bifurcated, you and I are allowed to change the type of ball we use on every tee if we teed it up tomorrow.

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

I see now that, regarding the "one ball" rule you were talking about a local rule for USGA competitions and not the general USGA rules.

However, I think I can be forgiven for thinking that you might have been purposefully conflating Rules and Local Rules if doing so were convenient to your purposes, because earlier you made the untrue statement "Rangefinders are also legal.", which is the logical equivalent of saying "Picking your ball up out of the fairway, cleaning it, and putting it down one club length away is legal."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

I don't know of a club that bans the use of rangefinders for everyday play, but, I'm sure there are a few.

My comment to TEPaul about rangefinders, GPS systems, multiple balls and cheater lines was related to "the spirit of the game".

I think all of the above violate the "spirit of the game" irrespective of their status under the rules of golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Rule 33-1 certainly doesn't mandate the use of the "one ball rule" by the committee for all competition.

Doug, I never said that it did.
Please reread what I've typed, and connect the dots on the relationship of 33-1 with the one ball rule and 5-1.[/color]

"Inadvertant breach is not the reason that the USGA decided to deal with the practice of changing balls during a round."

Correct.

Thanks[/color]

It's not the reason they dealt with it, but it's why the "one ball rule" isn't ALWAYS in effect under 5-1.

I'm sure you know how often you hear the word "impractical" during a Rules Workshop.

The Rules of Golf apply to the Ladies 9-holers on their Thursday round, as well as on the PGA Tour. Far more golf is played in this country without the one ball rule than with it.

That's not the issue.
The issue is about practices that bend or violate "The spirit of the game".  Using various balls to gain a performance edge isn't in keeping with "the spirit of the game"[/color]

For everyday play, it's impractical to require players to play only one brand/model of ball.

I'd disagree with that.
Most golfers play matches against the golfers in their group and there's no reason not to play it.

Besides, the reality of the situation is that most golfers buy and play with one specific brand and type of ball, the one that best fits their game.   I don't know many, if any golfers who keep 3-6 types of golf balls in their bag.[/color]

If it were included in 5-1, most club players would be penalized during every round they play.

I disagree with that[/color]

And it would make an already expensive game even more expensive.

I disagree with that as well.
Most golfers benefit by buying one ball type in quantity.[/color]

Believe it or not, there are people that play by the Rules that actually use golf balls that they find!!!!

That's true, but, I don't know of any golfers who depend upon "finds" to keep them adequately supplied with golf balls.[/color]

They are not playing in the US Open, but they pride themselves on playing by the Rules nevertheless.

You are right that in high level competition, the Committee has the OPTION of implementing the one ball rule, and that's normally the case. But the vast majority of players don't play high level competition.

Most play against their pals, and as such, using various balls to gain a performance edge is clearly contrary to the "spirit of the game"[/color]

Unless the Rules become bifurcated, you and I are allowed to change the type of ball we use on every tee if we teed it up tomorrow.

Not with some of the guys I play with.
I use one brand, one type.

But, let me add another thought for you to contemplate.

You and I tee off, me playing a Pro V1 with high numbers, say, # 5.  We're playing against two guys for dinner or caddies or something we both care enough about that we don't want to lose.

You tee off with a Callaway 2.

On the last hole, with everything riding on it, I hit it OB right. you reach into your pocket, grab a ball and tee off, hitting your drive in the woods left.

We go to the general area and the only ball we can locate is a Nike.  You reach into your pocket and state, Oh, the Nike is mine, I teed off with it inadvertantly.

Do you think we have a problem with the other two guys ?

Guess what,  YOU"RE paying for dinner. [/color]

[Adam Clayman]

Patrick, You should know there's more than one line of putt inorder to make the putt. There's a range of lines, that depending on speed, the ball will go in the hole.

Placing the ball on the green is a point of reference?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Further to Adam's point, some time ago you made the following statement:

I discussed the issue of player drawn lines for aiding in determining the line and manufacturer drawn lines for aiding in determining the line, and I think both violate the spirit of the game and slow down the pace of play.

How does the line on the ball aid in "determining" the line of the putt.  Surely determining the line of the putt is a skill that the player (and/or their caddy) possess to varying degrees.  As Adam points out, there can be multiple lines that will work for a putt based on the pace of the putt (excepting, of course, the perfectly straight putt).  The line on the ball doesn't help determine the line of the putt.  At best it might help the player putt on the line he has determined with his green-reading skills.

On another of your deathless statements:

Besides, the reality of the situation is that most golfers buy and play with one specific brand and type of ball, the one that best fits their game.  I don't know many, if any golfers who keep 3-6 types of golf balls in their bags

........................

That's true, but, I don't know of any golfers who depend upon "finds" to keep them adequately supplied with golf balls.

Well, let me introduce you to one.  I have at least three and more likely six types of balls in my bag at the moment.  And I have used only "finds" for the at least the last three years.  And, the majority of balls I have are a variety of ProV1s.

BTW, is this year's version of the ProV1 the same as last year's for the sake of the one ball rule.

BTW2, the last time I played in the provincial senior Am, they did not invoke a one ball rule.

But then again we live in parallel universes trying to play in the spirit of the game and, within the rules.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick and Shivas,

I know you will have different answers to this, but can you explain how lines (I refuse to use your pejorative term, because it is not cheating under the current rules) on the ball violate the spirit of the game, if the spirit is as stated by the USGA, below.

Is it inconsiderate of other players?  How so?

Is it undisciplined? How so?

Is it discourteous?  How so?

Is it unsportsmanlike?  How so?

Or by the spirit of the game are you intending to say the way things used to be done in the good old days?

Tom & Patrick,

Just today I got one of those USGA mass emails which contained a section called "The Spirit of the Game". Here's what it said:

The Spirit of the Game

Unlike many sports, golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and to abide by the Rules. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf.

[TEPaul]

"How does the line on the ball aid in "determining" the line of the putt.  Surely determining the line of the putt is a skill that the player (and/or their caddy) possess to varying degrees."

Bryan:

Maybe, but I hear Titleist is soon to unveil a ball with a line on it that does determine the line of putt for the golfer. Apparently the ball is being called the ProVxyz Dowser.

The ex-NASA scientists at Titleist are also working on a ball that can determine various lines to the hole depending on the speed of the putt. If the player hits it too soft it will speed up and if he hits it too hard it slow down. The only drawback to date is this ball will cost $12, 999.99 a sleeve.

[TEPaul]

"My comment to TEPaul about rangefinders, GPS systems, multiple balls and cheater lines was related to "the spirit of the game".
I think all of the above violate the "spirit of the game" irrespective of their status under the rules of golf."

Patrick:

Yes, I've certainly gotten the impression that you do think that.  

So, here's a question for you.

Who do you think has the right or should have the responisibility in the context of the Rules of Golf to write and adopt local Rules or Conditions of Competition?

Do you think that responsibility should rest solely with the R&A/USGA Rulesmakers or do you think it should rest with local committees?

At the present time it appears that a committee may adopt any "Local" Rule or "Condition" of Competition as long as it doesn't waive a R&A/USGA Rule of Golf.

And if that is the case one wonders why there're various "Local" and "Special" Rules and "Conditions" of competition listed in the appendix of the R&A/USGA Rule book and the Decisions book.

What do you suppose the R&A/USGA put those various local and special Rules and conditions of competition in the appendix for if they seemingly allow any committee to adopt any local or special rule of condition of competition on their own as long as it doesn't violate a Rule of golf?

Do you think they did it for the convenience of local committees to adopt standard wording in those cases or do you think the R&A/USGA was trying to make some point in various situations, such as perhaps about something to do with the "spirit" of the game?

I can tell you what is by far and away the most interesting "condition" of competition adopted recently. It was by the Ohio State Golf Association (OGA) when they adopted basically their own "competition" ball "condition" of competition.

Much of the point of the report from the OGA about that tournament was based on the fact that they had the right under the R&A/USGA Rules to adopt that "condition" independent of the USGA if in fact that "condition" did not otherwise waive a Rule of golf.

It seems at first the USGA's Rules Committee and other Rules officials assumed that for a local committee to adopt such a "condition" that the R&A/USGA should adopt one first and put it in the appendix to the Rules to be adopted by local committees or not.

It may still be an open question with the Rulesmakers but for now it seems they may be content to just let this kind of thing be an autonomous act on the part of a local committee provided that "condition" in no way waives a Rule of golf.

I'm quite certain you feel the adopting of this "condition" of competition by the OGA independent of the USGA is something done to protect and preserve the "spirit" of the game.

However, this is not the first time the OGA has tried to adopt a "condition" of competition or a "local" Rule independent of the USGA. Some years ago they tried to adopt a "condition" of competition or a "Local" or "Special" Rule permitting golfers or competitors to fix spike marks.

In that case the USGA responded that that did violate a Rule of Golf and if the OGA played under that "local" or "special" Rule or "condition" of competition they would not be playing by the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf, and if the OGA asked them any rules question in such a competition they would have nothing to say about it.  

[TEPaul]

"Guess what,  YOU"RE paying for dinner.  "

Patrick:

I'd agree with that. If it were me I'd buy you dinner even if all you'd get for dinner from me would be a single grit.

[TEPaul]

"I think your Parkinson's player is also a red herring....and a perfect example of why "with regard to" is the type of language you'd want in a rule like this.  I'd never be confused by this, and I don't think any thinking person or rules official would be, either."

Shivas:

You apparently think anything that doesn't completely agree with your sentiments and your proposal is a red herring argument.

I don't think so. And you continue to say that no thinking reader can read this Rule supported by Dec 20-3a/2 and not be confused by it. On the other hand, I've officiated for twenty years and I've never seen a single Rules official or golfer confused by the legality of this practice and the way it's handled in the Rules.

You can continue to just avoid this fact or deny it but it doesn't make you or your ideas look very credible.

[Doug Sobieski]

Shivas:

I agree, for your first stab, I think it's VERY good (it actually surprised me!). I just have to be contrarian so that I can figure out how viable it really is, hence the school of "red herrrings" to test it. We all need to see how consistently the typical player (i.e. my dad) will apply the rule, not the officials. Introducing such a judgement call into the Rules had better be well written  

Patrick:

You and I and the people WE normally play with tend to play one type/brand. We are but a subset of everyone that plays golf (Big World Theory?). There are FAR more people playing the game that don't play one type. Don't look in the bag room at Garden City or NGLA. Look in the trunks at Rolling Meadows, or stand on the tee there during league night for the local auto factory. The grass roots of golf are people that don't care what type of ball they play. When I drag three of my neighbors (all 100 shooters) to play out at Rolling Meadows, it's likely that all of them will play with a found ball at some point in their round (they don't consider any potential benefit of playing one type)!! I don't think my dad has ever bought a golf ball, so playing one brand/type would definitely be an added cost.

Also, since I tend to live in the left rough, I probably would have made birdie anyway (after I had announced on the tee that I was now playing a Nike), so the other guys owe us dinner  

[John_Cullum]

Patrick:

Rule 33-1 certainly doesn't mandate the use of the "one ball rule" by the committee for all competition.

Doug, I never said that it did.
Please reread what I've typed, and connect the dots on the relationship of 33-1 with the one ball rule and 5-1.[/color]

"Inadvertant breach is not the reason that the USGA decided to deal with the practice of changing balls during a round."

Correct.

Thanks[/color]

It's not the reason they dealt with it, but it's why the "one ball rule" isn't ALWAYS in effect under 5-1.

I'm sure you know how often you hear the word "impractical" during a Rules Workshop.

The Rules of Golf apply to the Ladies 9-holers on their Thursday round, as well as on the PGA Tour. Far more golf is played in this country without the one ball rule than with it.

That's not the issue.
The issue is about practices that bend or violate "The spirit of the game".  Using various balls to gain a performance edge isn't in keeping with "the spirit of the game"[/color]

For everyday play, it's impractical to require players to play only one brand/model of ball.

I'd disagree with that.
Most golfers play matches against the golfers in their group and there's no reason not to play it.

Besides, the reality of the situation is that most golfers buy and play with one specific brand and type of ball, the one that best fits their game.   I don't know many, if any golfers who keep 3-6 types of golf balls in their bag.[/color]

If it were included in 5-1, most club players would be penalized during every round they play.

I disagree with that[/color]

And it would make an already expensive game even more expensive.

I disagree with that as well.
Most golfers benefit by buying one ball type in quantity.[/color]

Believe it or not, there are people that play by the Rules that actually use golf balls that they find!!!!

That's true, but, I don't know of any golfers who depend upon "finds" to keep them adequately supplied with golf balls.[/color]

They are not playing in the US Open, but they pride themselves on playing by the Rules nevertheless.

You are right that in high level competition, the Committee has the OPTION of implementing the one ball rule, and that's normally the case. But the vast majority of players don't play high level competition.

Most play against their pals, and as such, using various balls to gain a performance edge is clearly contrary to the "spirit of the game"[/color]

Unless the Rules become bifurcated, you and I are allowed to change the type of ball we use on every tee if we teed it up tomorrow.

Not with some of the guys I play with.
I use one brand, one type.

But, let me add another thought for you to contemplate.

You and I tee off, me playing a Pro V1 with high numbers, say, # 5.  We're playing against two guys for dinner or caddies or something we both care enough about that we don't want to lose.

You tee off with a Callaway 2.

On the last hole, with everything riding on it, I hit it OB right. you reach into your pocket, grab a ball and tee off, hitting your drive in the woods left.

We go to the general area and the only ball we can locate is a Nike.  You reach into your pocket and state, Oh, the Nike is mine, I teed off with it inadvertantly.

Do you think we have a problem with the other two guys ?

Guess what,  YOU"RE paying for dinner. [/color]

Pat

You are totally out of touch with reality. Plenty of junior players rely on found golf balls, along with other people of limited means who scrape themselves aroud munis. It is a very simple means of playing the game. I do it now and then. It takes me out of my routine, and I enjoy seeing how the rock hard balls react. I bet you haven't played a beat up muni in decades.

The spirit of the game is available to everyone. You should avail yourself of it.

[Michael Moore]

I don't know of a club that bans the use of rangefinders for everyday play, but, I'm sure there are a few.

Pat -

A club does not ban the rangefinder - the rules have already done so. A club allows the rangefinder.

If you go to a club, and there is no note on the scorecard, or in the pro shop, or over the urinal, or out of the starter's mouth that says rangefinders are OK - then they're not OK.

[JESII]

Shivas,


Is it fair to assume you still have found no evidence or documentation or any other resson to truly believe that a "FUNDAMENTAL SKILL" of golf is self-alignment while over top of the ball? For about 10 pages I have been in and out, so if you have done so I'd be curious to see it...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Further to Adam's point, some time ago you made the following statement:

I discussed the issue of player drawn lines for aiding in determining the line and manufacturer drawn lines for aiding in determining the line, and I think both violate the spirit of the game and slow down the pace of play.

How does the line on the ball aid in "determining" the line of the putt.  Surely determining the line of the putt is a skill that the player (and/or their caddy) possess to varying degrees.  As Adam points out, there can be multiple lines that will work for a putt based on the pace of the putt (excepting, of course, the perfectly straight putt).  The line on the ball doesn't help determine the line of the putt.  At best it might help the player putt on the line he has determined with his green-reading skills.

You know, you may have a point.
Maybe all those PGA Tour guys are really trying to differentiate "True" North from "Magnetic" North.
You must be either kidding or desperate.[/color]

On another of your deathless statements:

Besides, the reality of the situation is that most golfers buy and play with one specific brand and type of ball, the one that best fits their game.  I don't know many, if any golfers who keep 3-6 types of golf balls in their bags

........................

That's true, but, I don't know of any golfers who depend upon "finds" to keep them adequately supplied with golf balls.

Well, let me introduce you to one.  I have at least three and more likely six types of balls in my bag at the moment.  And I have used only "finds" for the at least the last three years.  And, the majority of balls I have are a variety of ProV1s.


Bryan, the only problem is that you're finding these balls in other golfer's bags. [/color]

BTW, is this year's version of the ProV1 the same as last year's for the sake of the one ball rule.

I haven't seen this year's version, but, what difference does it make ?  The USGA compiles a list of conforming balls, if there are two (2) Pro V1's on it, the 2006 and 2007 models, they would be deemed different balls for the purpose of the one ball rule.  You should know that.[/color]

BTW2, the last time I played in the provincial senior Am, they did not invoke a one ball rule.

I specifically referenced USGA events, didn't you read that part.  The R&A governs the rules in Canada and everywhere else except the U.S. and Mexico.[/color]

But then again we live in parallel universes trying to play in the spirit of the game and, within the rules.

I only know that I play by the rules and am in harmony with the spirit of the game.  I can't speak for you.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick and Shivas,

I know you will have different answers to this, but can you explain how lines (I refuse to use your pejorative term, because it is not cheating under the current rules) on the ball violate the spirit of the game, if the spirit is as stated by the USGA, below.

In the same fashion that standing behind the player to aid him in determining the line violates the spirit of the game.

That practice was fully within the rules for some time, until the USGA saw the light and banned it.

I've asked you numerous times to tell me the FUNCTIONAL difference between placing a pipe or placing a 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, and to date YOU"VE FAILED to address that critical issue.

WHY ?[/color]

Is it inconsiderate of other players?  How so?

Is it undisciplined? How so?

Is it discourteous?  How so?

Is it unsportsmanlike?  How so?

Or by the spirit of the game are you intending to say the way things used to be done in the good old days?

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

Have someone explain it to you.

But, whatever you do, address the issue of functionality, if you can.[/color]

Tom & Patrick,

Just today I got one of those USGA mass emails which contained a section called "The Spirit of the Game". Here's what it said:

The Spirit of the Game

Unlike many sports, golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and to abide by the Rules. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf.

I posted that excerpt long before Chris found it.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know of a club that bans the use of rangefinders for everyday play, but, I'm sure there are a few.

Pat -

A club does not ban the rangefinder - the rules have already done so. A club allows the rangefinder.

A club makes a choice, allow or ban rangefinders, in or out of competitions.
The ban is dictated by the USGA, the allowance is the club overriding the USGA and permitting their use.

Your pettiness is approaching femininity.[/color]

If you go to a club, and there is no note on the scorecard, or in the pro shop, or over the urinal, or out of the starter's mouth that says rangefinders are OK - then they're not OK.


That's not true.
I haven't seen a club that bans their use.
What's the club going to do, confiscate them ?

It's only for competitions that most clubs don't permit them.  Once the USGA caved on the use of rangefinding equipment, the floodgates of reality opened and their use is now systemic.

Try to add something substantive to the issue, any issue.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael and Pat:

Can I chime in on the multi-ball issue?

I've never viewed playing with multiple balls as being against the spirit of the game.  They're all legal, right?  

Shivas, if you equate legality with the spirit of the game, why are you arguing about the cheater line, whether it's placed their by the player or manufacturer.[/color]

Frankly, Pat, I'd like you to explain how playing multiple balls based on the holes or course you're playing is any different than playing a mixed set of clubs.

If all the clubs are legal, what's the difference of you play Hogan short irons and MacGregor mid-irons and Callaway long irons, etc.?  

Whatever clubs you start with, you must play and finish with.

With balls, you could interchange them on every hole, based upon the conditions.  You use a ball on every hole.  You don't use every club on every hole.[/color]

I view playing different balls the same way.  They're all legal, so they're all within the spirit of the rules.  

Then how do you justify your stance on the Cheater Line, it's legal, especially the one that Titleist places on the ball.[/color]

Pat, there are a LOT of players (I'd say the majority) that have a favored brand, but have no real objection to playing just about any ball.  Heck, I'm one of them.  With my twisted sense of fun, I'd play a Flying Lady if I found it (especially at Wilmette if and when I ever play there again).  I probably have 4-5 different types of balls in my bag right now, frankly.  Now, of course, the NXT's and Callaway Reds are balls that I found that remain in the bag as "emergency balls", but the point is that they're legal for me to play as long as the one ball rule isn't in effect.  I don't find it any more outside the spirit of the game to tee up a rock on a par 5 and a soft ball on a par 3 than it is to hit a cavity-backed iron downwind to get it in the air and hit a blade into the wind to keep the ball down.  

Pat, I also wouldn't mind an answer to this question:  how can playing multiple balls be against the spirit of the game, given the fact that when the game started balls were EXTREMELY different in their playing characteristics and totally non-uniform, so NOBODY could play a single ball that performed the same way all the time?  

Shivas, the latter is a matter of quality control, an issue beyond the control of the golfer.  The former, picking a ball to maximize performance based on the conditions IS a choice the player makes.

Do you not recall the balloon Titleist, great for extra distance downwind, and other balls the were great into the wind, etc., etc..

If you don't think that's contrary to the spirit of the game, how do you reconcile your position on the cheater line ?[/color]

[JESII]

Shivas,


Is it fair to assume you still have found no evidence or documentation or any other resson to truly believe that a "FUNDAMENTAL SKILL" of golf is self-alignment while over top of the ball? For about 10 pages I have been in and out, so if you have done so I'd be curious to see it...

Fair, but wrong.  I haven't begun to look yet...

And yet for 27 pages you have made an argument based on that as fact...what a waste of time...

[Patrick_Mucci]

I reconcile the position on the cheater line as follows:

1.  The cheater line is, by any logical English-language interpretation of the rules, illegal.  The one-ball requirement is not, except when the one ball rule is a condition of competition.

Shivas,

When the USGA permits the cheater line in the U.S. Open, and it's viewed by millions on TV who could call in and report a violation, wouldn't you say that the USGA approves of its use ?[/color]

2.  The cheater line is a recent phenomenon in contravention of (or at least a massive envelope-pushing of) the rules, IMO.  Playing multiple balls during a single round is not.

In its time, multiple ball use was a recent phenomenon, until the USGA ruled on it.[/color]

3.  I am aware of no fundamental spirit or tenent or precept regarding the game that contemplates that an honorable man will play the same ball all the way around.  

Why do you think the USGA introduced a rule prohibiting the use of multiple balls ?  Because golfers were gaining an unfair edge over their opponents and the golf course by being able to select, on every hole, a ball with different performance characteristics.

How is it conceptually different than rule 5-2 ?[/color]

If you have it, I'd love to hear it.  I'd prefer to be swayed.  But I do not know, frankly, why the one ball rule ever came into being in the first place, or what the reasoning was behind it.

See my above comments[/color]

4.  The game was played for hundreds of years without the one ball rule.  

There's a reason for that.
It's because there weren't pronounced performance differences in the ball, any ball.  But, when hi-tech started to heat up, they produced balls that had different performance characteristics that would be put into play on each hole, based upon the conditions.[/color]

The same can be said of the cheater line.  Therefore, unless the game was played for hundreds of years contrary to its own spirit (a position that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me), it seems to me that the spirit of the game over multiple centuries would have permitted the use of multiple balls, but would not have permitted the cheater line.  

Listen, I agree that the cheater line should go, but, your argument is critically flawed, you can't compare quality control issues, and I can go into great depth about them,  to deliberate attempts to gain performance enhancement based on conditions and ball selection.[/color]

Would Tom Morris have allowed a player to pick balls from his bag during a single round?  Admittedly, without much basis for this (other than the fact that he almost certainly did it all the time!), I'd say the answer was "yes".  

That's because the balls were essentially built to perform the same.  Only quality control precluded consistent performance.[/color]

Would Tom Morris have permitted the cheater line?  I think not.

I don't disagree, but, they're two, seperate, UNRELATED issues.[/color]

Pat, I see where you're going with this, and like I said, I'm inclined to agree, but I think there needs to be a little meat on the bone before I can conclude that a relatively recent phenomenon (the one ball rule) is a reflection of the spirit of the game.  I see it as a rule that is "spirit of the game agnostic" (there are plently of those), rather than one that is intended to reflect or protect the spirit of the game.

Then, my above explanations should have fully converted you to a believer.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Tom, you need to be more careful.  I did NOT say that "no thinking reader can read this Rule supported by Dec 20-3a/2 and not be confused by it", as you just said.
I said that no thinking reader can read Rule 8-2(b) and come to the conclusion that it doesn't include marks on the ball.  
That is what I said.
You added the "supported by Dec 20-3a/2" part.  
What you just did was take a perfectly logical position and make it totally circular.  The whole point is that no thinking person could read the post-1988 rule and then COME TO a Decision like 20-3a/2.  But by assuming the absurd result, you make the absurd interpretation make perfect sense..which, of course, is absurd."

Shivas:

This is why you just don't understand the Rules of Golf. There are all kinds of Rules that have exceptions to them. If some golfer only read those various Rules and neglected to notice the exceptions to them then maybe they would be confused by the wording of those Rules. Some of those exceptions follow the wording of a Rule itself and others have exceptions to Rules in the Decisions. Rule 8-2b is one of them with the practice of using a mark on the golf ball excepted by Decision 20-3a/2, that, I again remind you, has been in the Decisions since at least 1988 when the wording "on the putting green" was removed from Rule 8-2b.  

Perhaps you think the entire Rules of Golf should be constantly rewritten every time some exception is interpreted and established. But I remind you again, I have never seen a player or a Rules official confused by the fact that an exception exists in the Rules of Golf for this putting practice, other than you, of course. Obviously one of the primary reasons this is true is no violation has ever been called on a player for this practice of aligning a mark on a ball to indicate a line for putting. Therefore no confusion exists.

You think a trademark or identification line used in this manner is an artificial device or assistance of some kind. I don't see that many golfers or anyone else has ever agreed with you on that, therefore there has been no confusion regarding the legality of this practice.

The first time you became confused by this you should have just asked a good Rules person to explain it to you and that would have been the end of the confusion. But no, that's not your style, you think you should be allowed to rewrite it or have it rewritten because nobody can understand it well enough. That is simply not the case no matter how long you try to claim that on here.

Obviously not many golfers spend their careers trying to find loopholes in the wording of legal documents as you do, so if there's no confusion in the application of a Rule they don't worry about it as you seem to. If there was some general or widespread confusion over this practice via Rule 8-2b I could begin to see your point but there isn't.