[CHrisB]

Phil,
I just don't think 30 seconds is an unreasonable time to play a golf shot, particularly in competition.

BTW, the problem I had wasn't in getting timed--any tournament golfer is going to have his group get timed every once in a while if there are ball searches, rulings, etc. My problem is getting penalized by loss of hole, which really reversed the momentum and hurt my chances to come back in the match, based on going exactly 1 second over the time allotment. That rules official had to be damn confident that he started the clock at the exact second he should have, because if he erred by even 1 second then he did the wrong thing. It's kind of like the feeling of getting a speeding ticket for going 31 in a 30 (although at least in that case the officer has an speed-measuring device and doesn't have to rely on his judgment).

Plus, right after he penalized me he said "you guys are now back in position" and that he wasn't going to time us any more. So we had accomplished the larger goal of getting back into position, but because I took 1 second over the allotment on one of my shots, I was penalized in such a way that caused a "two-hole-swing" in the match. It seemed a little harsh and it was a hard pill to swallow.

[Sean_A]

Shivas,

I think the logic behind your opinion is fine, I think enforcing it is the biggest issue...is your complaint purely on the aiming function? Or could it be primarily a pace of play issue?

It's principle first; practical second.  This is wrong in concept; and wrong in effect.

If these guys could do it immediately and with no re-do's, would you have a problem?

Hell no, because it's still wrong in principle.

Would a shot clock be a good answer in competitive golf?

No.  You don't need one if players have something resembling the spirit of the game.  All I see is narcissistic me, me, me over all else.

As you know, unless you/your group is out of position you can take as long as you want to hit a shot today...should we put a 60 second rule in even when the player is in position?

No, a shot clock is as against the spirit of the game as Cheater Lines and Range Cheaters.  The spirit of the game is first and foremost, that it's a gentleman's game.  Gentlemen call penalties on themselves.  And gentlemen do not selfishly waste other peoples' time. 

Here's the sick thing: 

A hundred years ago, this stuff was so obvious, it didn't even even need to be said.

Fast forward 100 years, and I'm almost a lone voice.  Our society has gone to shit and it's now polluted golf, too. 

The interesting thing here, and it was a question I never received an answer to previously, does the cheater line go against the spirit of the rules?  To state the use of the cheater line is wrong in principle suggests that it is isn't in the spirit of the rules.  Now, if we look back at the history of this rule, which I pointed out on another thread, I think it is easy to say the cheater line is wrong in principle, but much harder to back up with evidence especially in context with the history of the rule. 

Personally, I think it is a badly worded rule which was a mistake because it clearly does not follow the logic of the previous version of the rule.  Which again leads me to the question, if the  rule were written so that a line on the ball was clearly permissable (such as from a fairway shot), would this be against the spirit of the rules?

Ciao

Sean, I think you're confusing the uses of the word mark as a verb and as a noun.

The very first use in the Leith Rules is as a verb. 

Today's rule uses it as a noun.

Under the Leith Rules, you couldn't mark your way to the hole with anything.

Under today's rule, you can't place a mark anywhere to indicate a line.

No marking with anything.

No marks anywhere.

What's so unclear about that?

What we have is essentially bookend violations such that under the language of the very first rule, the Cheater Line is illegal and under the language of today's rule is also illegal.

The only time the Cheater Line would not have been illegal is for that period of time where the only mark that was prohibited was a mark "on the green" and the rulesmakers specifically changed that language to make it broader and pick up more marks as illegal.

So yeah, I see it as violative of the spirit of the game.  I also see it as violative of the original rules of the game. 

I hope TEP is right and lots of USGA guys read this site (and specifically this thread) and that this Kittleson kid is the final straw for them. 

If they take action, (A) it'll be long overdue, (B) it'll speed up the game; (C) it'll purify the game; (d) it'll reverse the erosion of judgment as fundamental to the game and (E) most players will immediately comply and I don't expect any serious issues to result. 

The game will be better as a result and they ought to do it ASAP.

Shivas

This is why I think you are wrong in spirit and in practice.  The rule makers have stated uncategorically that using a manufacturer's line is legit.  Now, you can debate the difference between this and a personal mark (which are allowed for identification purposes) til you are blue in the face.  In practice, there is NO DIFFERENCE.  So, I am not interested in debating that aspect in the slightest because it makes no material difference who places the mark on the ball if it is used to indicate the line of play on the green. 

I am not at all interested in club rules either.  Sure, these early rule makers such as Aberdeen and Leith eventually influenced the R&A, but critically, these early clubs did not represent all clubs because some rules were specific to a course or local situation.  Besides, it could well be argued that the R&A interpreted Leith etc (and it must be noted that St Andrews was amongst these influential clubs) rules as they were written for the 1899 rules.  Therefore, so far as I am concerned, the earliest rules to look at so far as all (existing) UK clubs were concerned was the R&A.   This committee (approved by all the leading clubs of the UK) was formed shortly before the turn of the century and comprehensive rules were released a few years later.  The USGA was quick to adopt the rules with a few differences.

1899

"20.  When the ball is on the putting-green, no mark shall be placed, nor line drawn as a guide. The line of the putt may be pointed out by the players caddie, his partner, or his partner’s caddie, but the person doing so must not touch the ground."

1902

19.  When the ball is on the putting-green, no mark shall be placed, nor line drawn as a guide. The line of the putt may be pointed out by the player’s caddie, his partner, or his partner’s caddie, but the person doing so must not touch the ground.
The player’s caddie, his partner, or his partner’s caddie, may stand at the hole, but no player nor caddie shall endeavour, by moving or otherwise, to influence the action of the wind upon the ball.
The penalty for a breach of this rule is the loss of the hole.

1904 - same as 1902.

1908

Rule 29

Direction for Putting
(1)  When the player’s ball is on the putting-green, the player’s caddie, his partner, or his partner’s caddie may, before the stroke is played, point out a direction for putting, but in doing this they shall not touch the ground on the proposed line of putt. No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting-green.

The same wording remained through 1946. 

1950

"RULE 8 ADVICE (Def. 2)

1. Asking for advice
A player shall not ask for, nor take any action which could result in his receiving advice, except from his caddie, his partner or his partner’s caddie.

2. Indicating position of the putting green
A player may have the position of the putting green indicated to him by anyone.
(For indicating position of the hole - Rule 38,1(i)).

3. Indicating line of play
A player may have the line of play indicated to him, but only by his caddie, his partner or his partner’s caddie.
No one shall place a mark on, or while the stroke is being made, stand on the PROPOSED LINE OF PLAY in order to indicate it.
(Indicating line of play on putting green - Rule 39,1(ii)(b)).

Penalty for breach of Rule - One stroke.2"


1952

" RULE 35     THE PUTTING GREEN (Def. 25)

1. General
a. Loose Impediments.
A player may move any loose impediment from the putting green either by picking it up or brushing it aside either with his hand or a club; nothing may be pressed down, and if a club is used it shall not be pressed with more than its own weight on the ground.
If the player's ball move after any loose impediment lying within six inches of it has been touched by the player, his partner, or either of their caddies, the player shall be deemed to have caused the ball to move and shall incur a penalty stroke. The ball shall be played as it lies.
b. Touching Line of Putt.
Except as provided for in Clause 1a of this Rule, the line of the putt must not be touched. The player shall, however, incur no penalty in placing the club in front of the ball in the act of addressing it, but nothing may be pressed down.
c. Direction for Putting.
When the player's ball is on the putting green, the player's caddie, his partner or his partner's caddie may, before the stroke is played, point out a line for putting, but the line of the putt shall not be touched in front of, to the side of, or behind the hole.
No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting green to indicate a line for putting."


1954 -1980 the rule was stated the same.


1984

"8-1. Advice

Except as provided in Rule 8-2, a player may give advice to or ask advice from, only his partner or either of their caddies.

Note: In a team competition without concurrent individual competition, the Committee may in the conditions of the competition (Rule 33-1) permit each team to appoint one person, e.g., team captain or coach, who may give advice to members of that team. Such person shall be identified to the Committee prior to the start of the competition.

8-2. Indicating Line of Play

a. Other Than on Putting Green
Except on the putting green, a player may have the line of play indicated to him by anyone, but no one shall stand or close to the line while the stroke is being played.
Any mark placed during the play of a hole by the player or with his knowledge to indicate the line shall be removed before the stroke is played.

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

b. On the Putting Green
When the player’s ball is on the putting green, the player’s caddie, his partner or his partner’s caddie may, before a stroke is played, point out a line for putting, but in so doing the putting green shall not be touched in front of, to the side of, or behind the hole. No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting green to indicate a line for putting.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE:
Match play - loss of hole;   Stroke play - Two strokes."

1988

"Rule 8. Advice; Indicating Line of Play

Definitions

"Advice" is any counsel or suggestion which could influence a player in determining his play, the choice of a club or the method of making a stroke.
Information on the Rules or on matters of public information, such as the position of hazards or the flagstick on the putting green, is not advice.

8-1. Advice

A player shall not give advice to anyone in the competition except his partner. A player may ask for advice from only his partner or either of their caddies.

8-2. Indicating Line of Play

a. Other Than on Putting Green
Except on the putting green, a player may have the line of play indicated to him by anyone, but no one shall stand or close to the line while the stroke is being played.
Any mark placed during the play of a hole by the player or with his knowledge to indicate the line shall be removed before the stroke is played.

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

b. On the Putting Green
When the player’s ball is on the putting green, the player, his partner or either of their caddies may, before but not during the stroke, point out a line for putting, but in so doing the putting green shall not be touched. No mark shall be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE:
Match play - Loss of hole;
Stroke play - Two strokes."


Finally, it isn't until 1988 that the rule, as you believe to be in the spirit of the rules, finally appears.  So, for the first 90 years of formally agreed upon rules amongst nearly all clubs outside of North America (and I would be surprised if N America's weren't worded similarily, but I aint gonna check), Rule 8 was not worded the you seem to believe as the spirit of the rules. 

Again, I believe the current decision to allow markings on the ball to indicate the line of play is within the spirit of the rules.  In 1988 the powers that be changed the wording, but got it terribly wrong in spirit and what would be in practice. 

Of course, all my ideas could be complete bunk if the wording of holing out was altered because of the development of formalizing the putting green!

Ciao

[Phil McDade]

Phil,
I just don't think 30 seconds is an unreasonable time to play a golf shot, particularly in competition.

Folks in competition should take LESS time to play their shots, in my view. They know to the Nth degree how far their 7-iron goes, and the nature of their Pro-V1s, and quartering winds from the left, and grain against in the rough, and all that other stuff they've faced under pressure a gazillion times. I know exactly none of that. I know, roughly, that from 150 yards, I can get a 7-iron on the green. If the pin is back or in front, it usually means a club difference. Same with wind against or behind. All of which takes me about 10 seconds to figure out, and is calculated (usually) when I'm walking to my ball from tee to fairway, and/or waiting for my playing partners to hit their shot. None of which seemed to be on display in the disgrace that was the US AM today.

Shiv -- it's a slippery slope. Sure, I can see someone taking more than 30 seconds in a shifty, breezy day faced with an uncertain lie. But bad habits are bad habits, usually, in life and in golf. It surprises me not in the least that Kittleson's on-the-green routine is replicated in his approach to a 30-yard pitch.

One more rant and I'll get off my high horse -- I bet my next paycheck that Kittleson grew up learning the game at some high-falutin' country club, membership courtesy of his parents, and because he has the ability to shoot in the 60s, he's whisked off to a big-time D-1 college program that coddles him with tutors and training tables and coaches who think his slow-play routine is just his way of getting him into his comfort zone to play well. Wish that these kinds of players could run into the likes of Trevino circa mid-1960s, learning the game on a crappy West Texas driving range and earning their stripes hustling regulars in Dallas for his next meal. Trevino would kick the crap out of Kittleson -- literally, I'm certain --  if they ever played a round together.

[Sean_A]

Shivas

This is why I think you are wrong in spirit and in practice.  The rule makers have stated uncategorically that using a manufacturer's line is legit. 

Based on what?  There's nothing.

Now, you can debate the difference between this and a personal mark (which are allowed for identification purposes) til you are blue in the face.  In practice, there is NO DIFFERENCE. 

I agree.  I don't take the position that there's a difference.  The act of placing ANY mark (whether the manufacturer's mark or a hand-drawn mark) ANYWHERE to indicate a line for putting is my issue.

So, I am not interested in debating that aspect in the slightest because it makes no material difference who places the mark on the ball if it is used to indicate the line of play on the green. 

Couldn't agree more.  Another convert. 

I am not at all interested in club rules either.  Sure, these early rule makers such as Aberdeen and Leith eventually influenced the R&A, but critically, these early clubs did not represent all clubs because some rules were specific to a course or local situation.

Good try.  However, the first rules are the first rules.  What is the USGA but a bog club?  How about the R & A? Big club.  So if you're not interested in club rules, what are you, an anarchist?  Besides, there's nothing unique about one club's greens over another club's greens that would dictate different versions of the rule about marking one's line to the hole...

Therefore, so far as I am concerned, the earliest rules to look at so far as all (existing) UK clubs were concerned was the R&A.   This committee (approved by all the leading clubs of the UK) was formed shortly before the turn of the century and comprehensive rules were released a few years later.  The USGA was quick to adopt the rules with a few differences.

1899

"20.  When the ball is on the putting-green, no mark shall be placed, nor line drawn as a guide.

Well, Sean, there you have it!  No mark shall be placed as a guide.  Game over.  The Cheater Line is a mark placed as a guide. 

The line of the putt may be pointed out by the players caddie, his partner, or his partner’s caddie, but the person doing so must not touch the ground."

This merely creates a safe harbor for pointing, because some smarty pants would say that pointing to the line is tantamount to a mark...

1902

19.  When the ball is on the putting-green, no mark shall be placed, nor line drawn as a guide. The line of the putt may be pointed out by the player’s caddie, his partner, or his partner’s caddie, but the person doing so must not touch the ground.

Ditto what I said earlier.

The player’s caddie, his partner, or his partner’s caddie, may stand at the hole, but no player nor caddie shall endeavour, by moving or otherwise, to influence the action of the wind upon the ball.
The penalty for a breach of this rule is the loss of the hole.

1904 - same as 1902.

1908

OK, to recap, we've gone from the original Leith Rules through 1908 and the Cheater Line would have always been illegal, either as "marking your way to the hole" or as "a mark placed as a guide."  Thusfar, Sean, I'm failing to see where you're going with this.... 

Rule 29

Direction for Putting
(1)  When the player’s ball is on the putting-green, the player’s caddie, his partner, or his partner’s caddie may, before the stroke is played, point out a direction for putting, but in doing this they shall not touch the ground on the proposed line of putt. No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting-green. OK so starting in 1908 (when (A) nobody would have ever thought of using a line on the ball to indicate a line for putting and (B) nobody would have been dishonest, crafty or wordsmithy enough to make the argument that because the mark is on the ball, rather than the putting green itself, the Cheater Line is OK), if you want to take the highly lawyerly and nuanced position that the Cheater Line is not actually on the green, but rather is on the ball, it was legal back then -- well, I guess that's your prerogative. 

However, Sean, I thought that just a few paragraphs ago, you were taking the position that where "in practice, there is NO DIFFERENCE", a distinction is not even worth discussing!!

Wasn't that your position?  Well, you can't have it both ways.  There's no difference between a line or club on the ground as a guide and a mark on the ball as a guide.  Sorry, Sean, but that's the problem with splitting hairs and making nuanced arguments.  They come back to bite you.

The same wording remained through 1946. 

1950

"RULE 8 ADVICE (Def. 2)

1. Asking for advice
A player shall not ask for, nor take any action which could result in his receiving advice, except from his caddie, his partner or his partner’s caddie.

2. Indicating position of the putting green
A player may have the position of the putting green indicated to him by anyone.
(For indicating position of the hole - Rule 38,1(i)).

3. Indicating line of play
A player may have the line of play indicated to him, but only by his caddie, his partner or his partner’s caddie.
No one shall place a mark on, or while the stroke is being made, stand on the PROPOSED LINE OF PLAY in order to indicate it.
(Indicating line of play on putting green - Rule 39,1(ii)(b)).

Penalty for breach of Rule - One stroke.2"

OK, so now we're back to the cheater line being illegal because of the Tee-rule.  The former argument used to be that this rule was only concerned with the line between Point A (the ball) and point B (the hole).  But the Tee is AT Point A.  So the logic that bans a tee that indicates the line applies to a line on the ball.  Thus, Cheater Line is back to being 100% illegal under this rule.

1952

" RULE 35     THE PUTTING GREEN (Def. 25)

1. General
a. Loose Impediments.
A player may move any loose impediment from the putting green either by picking it up or brushing it aside either with his hand or a club; nothing may be pressed down, and if a club is used it shall not be pressed with more than its own weight on the ground.
If the player's ball move after any loose impediment lying within six inches of it has been touched by the player, his partner, or either of their caddies, the player shall be deemed to have caused the ball to move and shall incur a penalty stroke. The ball shall be played as it lies.
b. Touching Line of Putt.
Except as provided for in Clause 1a of this Rule, the line of the putt must not be touched. The player shall, however, incur no penalty in placing the club in front of the ball in the act of addressing it, but nothing may be pressed down.
c. Direction for Putting.
When the player's ball is on the putting green, the player's caddie, his partner or his partner's caddie may, before the stroke is played, point out a line for putting, but the line of the putt shall not be touched in front of, to the side of, or behind the hole.
No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting green to indicate a line for putting."

Still illegal, Sean.


1954 -1980 the rule was stated the same.

OK, then ....still illegal.
1984

"8-1. Advice

Except as provided in Rule 8-2, a player may give advice to or ask advice from, only his partner or either of their caddies.

Note: In a team competition without concurrent individual competition, the Committee may in the conditions of the competition (Rule 33-1) permit each team to appoint one person, e.g., team captain or coach, who may give advice to members of that team. Such person shall be identified to the Committee prior to the start of the competition.

8-2. Indicating Line of Play

a. Other Than on Putting Green
Except on the putting green, a player may have the line of play indicated to him by anyone, but no one shall stand or close to the line while the stroke is being played.
Any mark placed during the play of a hole by the player or with his knowledge to indicate the line shall be removed before the stroke is played.

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

b. On the Putting Green
When the player’s ball is on the putting green, the player’s caddie, his partner or his partner’s caddie may, before a stroke is played, point out a line for putting, but in so doing the putting green shall not be touched in front of, to the side of, or behind the hole. No mark shall be placed anywhere on the putting green to indicate a line for putting.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE:
Match play - loss of hole;   Stroke play - Two strokes."

Still illegal, Sean.
1988

"Rule 8. Advice; Indicating Line of Play

Definitions

"Advice" is any counsel or suggestion which could influence a player in determining his play, the choice of a club or the method of making a stroke.
Information on the Rules or on matters of public information, such as the position of hazards or the flagstick on the putting green, is not advice.

8-1. Advice

A player shall not give advice to anyone in the competition except his partner. A player may ask for advice from only his partner or either of their caddies.

8-2. Indicating Line of Play

a. Other Than on Putting Green
Except on the putting green, a player may have the line of play indicated to him by anyone, but no one shall stand or close to the line while the stroke is being played.
Any mark placed during the play of a hole by the player or with his knowledge to indicate the line shall be removed before the stroke is played.

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

b. On the Putting Green
When the player’s ball is on the putting green, the player, his partner or either of their caddies may, before but not during the stroke, point out a line for putting, but in so doing the putting green shall not be touched. No mark shall be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE:
Match play - Loss of hole;
Stroke play - Two strokes."

Still illegal, Sean.

Finally, it isn't until 1988 that the rule, as you believe to be in the spirit of the rules, finally appears. 

Sean, that's simply 100% wrong.  The only possible, conceivable argument you have is from 1908-1950, and I think I addressed that well:  it simply was not conceivable to the rulesmakers of the day that somebody would put a line on the ball to indicate a line for putting or as a guide, and it was probably more inconceivable that somebody would make the lawyerly, nuanced argument that the line is on the ball, not the green, and therefore legal. 

So, for the first 90 years of formally agreed upon rules amongst nearly all clubs outside of North America (and I would be surprised if N America's weren't worded similarily, but I aint gonna check), Rule 8 was not worded the you seem to believe as the spirit of the rules. 

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  It was worded exactly as I believed.  Marks could not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting. 

Always was.  Always has been.  It didn't matter whether "mark" was used as a verb.  Or as a noun.  Or whether they limited it to "on the green" or said "anywhere".  Marks to indicate line have always been illegal.  Always.  I think you're making my point for me.

Again, I believe the current decision to allow markings on the ball to indicate the line of play is within the spirit of the rules.  In 1988 the powers that be changed the wording, but got it terribly wrong in spirit and what would be in practice. 

I think they are failing miserably in their charge as guardians of the game, in understanding the spirit of their own game, and in interpreting the history of their own rules, as written.

Sean, I really don't see how you think this chronology does anything but indicate a consistent ban on marks placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting.  It's in every version of the rules you cite!! 

Ciao

Shivas

Club rules are just that, club rules.  They carried no weight outside of their competitions.  Hence the brilliant idea to unify the rules - whadda know!  Enter the R&A in 1899 with unified rules.  If you want to go on about how club rules are more important than R&A/USGA rules, be my guest, but it doesn't fly with me. 

Shivas, go back and read the text of the rules.  You are well wrong in your interpretation.   Nearly all of the versions state "on the putting surface".  The idea of no markings "anywhere" doesn't appear until 1988 after it disappears in 1908.  Thats 80 years of a unified rule flying directly in the face of what you are claiming the intent of the rule was.  This is what I meant by historically the rule is not nearly as black and white as you try to paint it. 

As for a nuanced argument, I have no idea what you are on about.  The use of a manufacturer's line is clearly allowed.  Your disagreement with its legality is another matter.  I argued that there is no difference who places the markings on th ball if they are used for a certain purpose, ie indicating the line of a putt.  To make the manufacturer's line legal and a personal line illegal is stupid, to say the least.   

As I stated before, the history of this rule isn't so clear as to what the spirit of the rules are.  You claim that it is obvious, you may be right, but it ain't so clear to me.  Your concepts of folks not having the idea of marking the ball to indicate the line may be true.  I honestly don't know, just as I honestly don't know why the wording changed substantially in 1908 or again 1988.  As I stated earlier, it may have something to do with the formalizing of a putting green.  All I do know is that "on the putting green" was made quite clear.  This language was erased in 1988, but the ruling bodies essentially didn't uphold their own language in a decision.  Wording which, as you state, should include not being able to mark the ball. 

Ciao

[CHrisB]

Folks in competition should take LESS time to play their shots, in my view. They know to the Nth degree how far their 7-iron goes, and the nature of their Pro-V1s, and quartering winds from the left, and grain against in the rough, and all that other stuff they've faced under pressure a gazillion times. I know exactly none of that. I know, roughly, that from 150 yards, I can get a 7-iron on the green. If the pin is back or in front, it usually means a club difference. Same with wind against or behind. All of which takes me about 10 seconds to figure out, and is calculated (usually) when I'm walking to my ball from tee to fairway, and/or waiting for my playing partners to hit their shot. None of which seemed to be on display in the disgrace that was the US AM today.

Phil,
I'm with you on the need to get these guys to play faster, but you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about competitive golf. You seem to view pros and plus handicap ams as some sort of robots that take into account all of the variables and instantly come up with a solution to whatever problem they face. And you completely disregard the strategy of each hole and the strategy of the competitive situation that every competitor from pro to high handicapper has to take into account.

Are you suggesting that these guys in the U.S. Am this week figure out "roughly" how far they are to the green, given that pins are put close to steep falloffs that can be the difference between winning or losing the hole, winning or losing the match, winning or losing the tournament, earning an exemption into next year's U.S. Open/Masters or not, etc.?

Would you also suggest that they select their precise shot before even knowing where their match play opponent's ball ends up, or considering what the state of the match is?

And what would that shot be--would it always be a "stock 7-iron shot" or would it be a specific shot trajectory that takes into account the pin location, the lie, the wind, the firmness of the green, where the acceptable places to miss are, where the opponent's ball is, what the state of the match is, how the player feels, how the player has been playing, etc., etc.?

If competitive golfers play slower than recreational golfers, it is because (1) they have more variables to deal with, and (2) because they have to be so much more precise with their shots--that's what they have to do to be competitive.

I doubt you'd tell an Olympic pistol shooter or archer to just "get up there and fire". These guys have to be so precise that they have to learn to fire between heart beats. It makes no more sense to tell a competitive golfer at the highest levels to just "step up there and hit it". Unfortunately that can make it harder to watch on TV.

Of course, none of this means that these guys can't become more time efficient. But strict enforcement of pace of play rules is the only way to make it happen.

[CHrisB]

Dave S,
You may have missed this before, but Michael Moore emailed the USGA about this last year (don't know how he phrased his question) and received the following response:

"It would be unwise for the Rules to attempt to prohibit certain markings on a ball or a certain orientation of the ball when it is replaced."

What do you think the USGA means by that?

[Dan Herrmann]

Shivas,
If you were King of Golf, would you ban marking and placing a ball on the green?

I think this was once the rule, and I sure wouldn't mind putting it back in play.

A dirty ball on the green would just be a rub of the green.

And, boy - would it speed up play!

(only exception would be for a ball in somebody else's line.  If you got this, it'd be the same rule as if you need to mark in through the green - no cleaning, and put it back as you found it)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave S,
You may have missed this before, but Michael Moore emailed the USGA about this last year (don't know how he phrased his question) and received the following response:

"It would be unwise for the Rules to attempt to prohibit certain markings on a ball or a certain orientation of the ball when it is replaced."

What do you think the USGA means by that?

Who authored the response ?

[Dan Herrmann]

Funny - wasn't the old Polara ball designed to work based on the orientation of that day's "cheater line"?

[CHrisB]

Patrick,
I don't know. I don't think Michael ever said who exactly it was who answered him. Maybe he'll see this and answer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

But you wouldn't be OK with a player aligning the "Titleist" name along the line of the putt and using that, would you?

Take a look at the word "Titleist" on a golf ball.
Do you think you can line it up with any degree of accuracy/certainty ?
If you could, it would have been done 40 years ago.
As long as the word isn't reconfigured by being narrowed and elongated, I have no problem with it.

The practice would disappear in all but the most insecure putters.

If not, how would you enforce the new rule? (I assume you'd let Titleist continue to put their name on their ball )

As I stated above, if the word "Titleist" had any merit in being aligned, it would have been done for the last 40 years.

It seems to me that enforcement has to begin on the green when the player replaces his ball, not when the manufacturer produces it or when the player marks it.

If the manufacturer is prohibited from making a cheater line and the golfer is prohibited from adding a cheater line, it eliminates the problem.

[Dan Herrmann]

Shivas - mais oui, mon ami!

[Phil McDade]

Folks in competition should take LESS time to play their shots, in my view. They know to the Nth degree how far their 7-iron goes, and the nature of their Pro-V1s, and quartering winds from the left, and grain against in the rough, and all that other stuff they've faced under pressure a gazillion times. I know exactly none of that. I know, roughly, that from 150 yards, I can get a 7-iron on the green. If the pin is back or in front, it usually means a club difference. Same with wind against or behind. All of which takes me about 10 seconds to figure out, and is calculated (usually) when I'm walking to my ball from tee to fairway, and/or waiting for my playing partners to hit their shot. None of which seemed to be on display in the disgrace that was the US AM today.

Phil,
I'm with you on the need to get these guys to play faster, but you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about competitive golf. You seem to view pros and plus handicap ams as some sort of robots that take into account all of the variables and instantly come up with a solution to whatever problem they face. And you completely disregard the strategy of each hole and the strategy of the competitive situation that every competitor from pro to high handicapper has to take into account.

Are you suggesting that these guys in the U.S. Am this week figure out "roughly" how far they are to the green, given that pins are put close to steep falloffs that can be the difference between winning or losing the hole, winning or losing the match, winning or losing the tournament, earning an exemption into next year's U.S. Open/Masters or not, etc.?

Would you also suggest that they select their precise shot before even knowing where their match play opponent's ball ends up, or considering what the state of the match is?

And what would that shot be--would it always be a "stock 7-iron shot" or would it be a specific shot trajectory that takes into account the pin location, the lie, the wind, the firmness of the green, where the acceptable places to miss are, where the opponent's ball is, what the state of the match is, how the player feels, how the player has been playing, etc., etc.?

If competitive golfers play slower than recreational golfers, it is because (1) they have more variables to deal with, and (2) because they have to be so much more precise with their shots--that's what they have to do to be competitive.

I doubt you'd tell an Olympic pistol shooter or archer to just "get up there and fire". These guys have to be so precise that they have to learn to fire between heart beats. It makes no more sense to tell a competitive golfer at the highest levels to just "step up there and hit it". Unfortunately that can make it harder to watch on TV.

Of course, none of this means that these guys can't become more time efficient. But strict enforcement of pace of play rules is the only way to make it happen.

Chris:

In 1972, Jack Nicklaus sat as the leader in the clubhouse at Muirfield during the British Open at -5. Trevino and Tony Jacklin were at -6, playing together on the tough par 5 17th. Hard to imagine a more nerve-wracking situation than that. Trevino had played his fourth shot past the green, up on a small knoll behind the green. Jacklin was on the green in 3, 15 feet away from a birdie. Trevino walked up to his ball, took out a 9-iron, took his stance, and knocked the ball in for a par. Jacklin three-putted for a bogey, losing the Open in the process. Kittleson, faced with a similar circumstance, would've taken several minutes to assess and then take his shot; it took Trevino all of about 10 seconds.

Nobody seems to play the game at the pace of Trevino these days. No one save Tiger, either, seems to be close to replicating Trevino's record of accomplishment. Instead we have the likes of very good golfers like Kittleson, Furyk, and Ben Crane who win the occasional tournament or major, and make a travesty of how the game ought to be played, in a sport that is said to pride itself on sportsmanship and courtesy. Kittleson's a good golfer, no question, and he may be a nice kid, but I'll say what Shivas hinted at today -- his pace-of-play today on the course was unsportsmanlike to his opponent.

Does great golf really take a long time to play? Does anyone on the board really doubt that the typical PGA player these days takes longer to play a round -- for reasons soley due to his own pace of play, not course length, but simply pace of play and preparation for shots  -- than in Trevino's day?

Cheater lines are symptomatic of the liberties that current-day players take with pace of play.

[CHrisB]

Take a look at the word "Titleist" on a golf ball.
Do you think you can line it up with any degree of accuracy/certainty ?

Patrick,
Considering that in the 90's I used to putt by aligning the Titleist logo perpendicular to the line of putt, yes I do.

BTW if it was so difficult to align the trademark, then why did the USGA feel the need to write Decision 20-3a/2?

20-3a/2 Trademark Aimed Along Line of Putt When Ball Replaced

Q. When a player is replacing his ball, is it permissible for him to position the ball so that the trademark is aimed along the line of putt to indicate the line of play?

A. Yes.

[Dean Stokes]

Should being allowed to use a divot 6 feet ahead of you in the fairway to align yourself for your approach shot be allowed?

Surely this is just another way to line yourself up. What is the difference in using an old divot or throwing your towel on the ground?

[CHrisB]

In 1972, Jack Nicklaus sat as the leader in the clubhouse at Muirfield during the British Open at -5. Trevino and Tony Jacklin were at -6, playing together on the tough par 5 17th. Hard to imagine a more nerve-wracking situation than that. Trevino had played his fourth shot past the green, up on a small knoll behind the green. Jacklin was on the green in 3, 15 feet away from a birdie. Trevino walked up to his ball, took out a 9-iron, took his stance, and knocked the ball in for a par. Jacklin three-putted for a bogey, losing the Open in the process. Kittleson, faced with a similar circumstance, would've taken several minutes to assess and then take his shot; it took Trevino all of about 10 seconds.

Phil,
What you forgot to mention is that, after Trevino hit his 4th shot up on that knoll, he was famously heard to mutter "That's it, I've thrown it away", and later admitted that he paid little attention to the subsequent shot and got extremely lucky to have the shot go in. That shot was the exception, not the rule, to the amount of time Trevino took to play.

But I agree that pace of play has slowed since then, but that is due to a lot of factors including a huge increase in prize money and endorsements, way more competition, and more extreme playing conditions as a response to technology, to name a few.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Take a look at the word "Titleist" on a golf ball.
Do you think you can line it up with any degree of accuracy/certainty ?

Patrick,
Considering that in the 90's I used to putt by aligning the Titleist logo perpendicular to the line of putt, yes I do.

Chris,

It was my understanding that your eyesight was so bad that your opponents used to remind you to make sure you tried to align the name "Titleist".

As long as the name doesn't get smaller and elongated I have no problem with it.

BTW if it was so difficult to align the trademark, then why did the USGA feel the need to write Decision 20-3a/2?

Decision 20-3a/2 has nothing to do with difficulty.
It's the general principle that's being questioned, probably due to Rule 8-2b and others.

20-3a/2 Trademark Aimed Along Line of Putt When Ball Replaced

Q. When a player is replacing his ball, is it permissible for him to position the ball so that the trademark is aimed along the line of putt to indicate the line of play?

A. Yes.

[Phil McDade]

But I agree that pace of play has slowed since then, but that is due to a lot of factors including a huge increase in prize money and endorsements, way more competition, and more extreme playing conditions as a response to technology, to name a few.

Well, the competition -- at least for majors -- is of a lesser quality than in Trevino's day. Course conditions on the PGA Tour are far more uniform, and improved, than 40 years ago. And the rise of the all-exempt tour, the growth of the Nationwide Tour (where players can earn a full-time living without promotion to the main Tour), and the pronounced rise in purses (where players can earn exemptions into next year's Tour w/ a few top-10 finishes) means far more players have much more financial security these days than in Trevino's day.

[Dean Stokes]

Do you all think that if the cheater line were outlawed, Tiger would not putt as well? Serious question.

[CHrisB]

Take a look at the word "Titleist" on a golf ball.
Do you think you can line it up with any degree of accuracy/certainty ?

Patrick,
Considering that in the 90's I used to putt by aligning the Titleist logo perpendicular to the line of putt, yes I do.

Chris,

It was my understanding that your eyesight was so bad that your opponents used to remind you to make sure you tried to align the name "Titleist".

As long as the name doesn't get smaller and elongated I have no problem with it.

BTW if it was so difficult to align the trademark, then why did the USGA feel the need to write Decision 20-3a/2?

Decision 20-3a/2 has nothing to do with difficulty.
It's the general principle that's being questioned, probably due to Rule 8-2b and others.

20-3a/2 Trademark Aimed Along Line of Putt When Ball Replaced

Q. When a player is replacing his ball, is it permissible for him to position the ball so that the trademark is aimed along the line of putt to indicate the line of play?

A. Yes.

Actually, the Maxfli balls were even better--all uniformly sized block letters. Much easier to use for aiming. But I like seeing nothing but white now and have for a long time.

[Sean_A]

Sean, your entire argument is based on this false notion that "clearly, a manufacturer's mark is allowed".

Of course, it's allowed to distinguish the ball.  I hope that's not your argument.

But point me to anything in any of these rules that indicates that the manufacturer's mark was contemplated as a mark that was a permitted way to indicate a line for putting.

I won't hold my breath because it's simply not there.

What you're drawing is a conclusion that "of course" the practice of lining up the manufacturer's mark was allowed simply because it wasn't enunciated as an act specifically banned.

That is way, way, way horrible logic when general bans against the use of marks on the green exist in every version of the rule that has ever existed. 

By your logic, I can mark the line with a beer can because they didn't specifically ban beer cans.  This, of course, is preposterous.  And so is the conclusion that "of course" you could use the manufacturer's mark by virtue of the fact that it isn't specifically enunciated as prohibited.

And, BTW, I read each version of these rules very carefully.

1899 contains a broad, unqualified prohibition.

1902 contains a broad, unqualified prohibition.

1908 limits the prohibited marks to the putting green.  So for someone back then to claim that a Cheater Line was legal, it would have required the nuanced, lawyerly argument that the mark on the ball is not on the putting green.  First, in a gentleman's game, as it was back then, nobody would have even dreamed of making this argument.  Second, YOU can't make it because you argued earlier that if "in practice, there's NO DIFFERENCE" then a distinction is BS and not worth discussing.

Well, the distinction between a line on the green and a line on the ball, where both have the same purpose is a distinction with NO DIFFERENCE, therefore you cannot now argue that distinctions (such as on the green vs. on the ball) actually DO make a difference.

1950:  the rule limits prohibited marks to those on the line of play.  Again, a distinction without a difference under the Tee Rule and the intent of the rule.

1952-84:  prohibits marks on the putting green.  Same logic as before.  Besides, the Cheater Line is on the putting green.  Where do you think it is?  Through the green?  In a hazard?  There are only 3 options and the other two are ridiculous.  BTW, "anywhere" is in this rule. 

1988:  we both know all too well. 

So there you have it.  From the first time anybody ever bothered to write down rules of golf through the present day, the clear intent of all of these rules is that when your ball is on the putting green, you're not to mark your way to the hole or place a mark to indicate a line for putting.

Your whole argument hinges on this unsupported notion that using the manufacturer's line is not marking your way to the hole or indicating a line for putting.  Where is the support for this notion (other than the completely illogical expectation of a specific prohibition of that particular form of marking in a general rule that doesn't contain specific prohibitions of any particular forms of marking)?

Here's what I've got on my side:  long-standing precedent prohibiting marking your way to the hole and placing marks to indicates a line for putting.  Use any words you want, play with them a little here and there, whatever.  That's the general principle that flows through all these rules.

What do you have?  Deference to the manufacturer (and his mark).

Come to think of it, I've changed my mind:  Apparently, according to you and by virtue of the ruling bodies recent history, the spirit of the game was, always has been, is and always will be buckling to manufacturers and ignoring principle .... that's your logic -- and it appears that you're right.








 

Shivas

You are wrong.  A trademark can be used to indicate the line of play.  I am not going to argue if a line provided by the manufacturer is part of the trademark.  One of the main reasons I used Titleist is because the trademark is straight, unlike Callaway.  All that has happened with a line on the ball is that I am now open to buying any ball.  This doesn't in anyway alter the fact that a mark can be used to indicate the line of play. 

You are caught cold.  Admit it.  For 80 years there was no mention of markings other than on the putting green.  If you want to include the ball as part of the green because it has a mark on it, that is your right, but it ain't so.  The ball has never been considered part of the green and if the mark is on the ball it can't be on the green.  To be precise, the mark is above the green.  You can call it BS all you want, but it shows how your line of thought has wrinkles and that is my objective. 

The entire point of my comments was to demonstrate that your argument of obvious clarity is about as clear as mud.  There is a very strong precedent against your interpretation and without further info I am guessing that the USGA MEANT the wording of the rule as written in 1988 to mean putting green as it was worded for 80 years previously and as how most people interpret the rule,.  Presumably, even the USGA meant for marks on the ball to be allowed for indicating the line of the putt because of their decision on the matter. 

I don't know what else to say on the matter, other than you are one of the most stubborn son of a gun I have ever been in contact with.  Not quite in the league with Mucci though!

Ciao

[Michael Moore]

Dave S,
You may have missed this before, but Michael Moore emailed the USGA about this last year (don't know how he phrased his question) and received the following response:

"It would be unwise for the Rules to attempt to prohibit certain markings on a ball or a certain orientation of the ball when it is replaced."

What do you think the USGA means by that?

Who authored the response ?

John Morrissett.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't know how anyone watching Kittlesons "performance" yesterday could have construed that as within the spirit of the rules.

1)  Crouches behind ball, lines up cheater line to show the line to hole.
2)  Gets up stands over ball, checks to see if its lined up from the viewpoint of his stance.
3)   Decides its not good enough, back to step 1.  Repeat as necessary.

On one hole, he did this 4-5 times alternating back and forth between positions.

How in the hell could this possibly be intrepreted as anything else but using the cheater line as alignment for his next shot?  How could this not be a violation of the spirit of the rules?  How is this any different than him putting a towel on the green behind the hole for an aiming point and going back and forth to move it until he finally felt it was correct?

And more importantly, how can the USGA just sit back and let this happen again, and again, and again?

[Michael Moore]

Shivas -

Try reading the entire response.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know how anyone watching Kittlesons "performance" yesterday could have construed that as within the spirit of the rules.

1)  Crouches behind ball, lines up cheater line to show the line to hole.
2)  Gets up stands over ball, checks to see if its lined up from the viewpoint of his stance.
3)   Decides its not good enough, back to step 1.  Repeat as necessary.

On one hole, he did this 4-5 times alternating back and forth between positions.

How in the hell could this possibly be intrepreted as anything else but using the cheater line as alignment for his next shot?  How could this not be a violation of the spirit of the rules?  How is this any different than him putting a towel on the green behind the hole for an aiming point and going back and forth to move it until he finally felt it was correct?

And more importantly, how can the USGA just sit back and let this happen again, and again, and again?

Kalen,

I bet you never thought that we would be in COMPLETE agreement on a subject.

I couldn't agree with you more.

And now, an entire generation of golfers will begin to emulate this practice, especially if he wins the U.S. Amateur.

This is not good for the game.

If the USGA doesn't act on this absurd practice play will head toward 5-6 hours.

Who amongst you would like to play with a golfer who re-aligns his ball 4-5 times on every green on every putt ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()