Shivas's cheater line

[JWinick]

Sounds like you're degenerating to the slippery slope fallacy - the only refuge of absolutists.   The line is considered legal by the ruling bodies.  They have ratified their decision by allowing Titleist to simply put the line on the ball.   To my knowledge, they have not allowed any other of your ridiculous examples.

Boy, you're full of shingles sometimes.

Yeah, I really don't think it's that big of a deal either.... 

I don't really care if people brush a few grains of sand in their backswing in a hazard. 

I don't really care if a guy taking a practice swing clips a branch and knocks down a few leaves or pine needles. 

I don't really care if a guy bumps his ball half-an-inch when he replaces it.

I don't really care if a guy swipes a little morning dew or afternoon sweat from his brow onto his driver intentionally to get a vaseline effect.

Hell, I don't even care if a guy fluffs his lie.

None of these things matter.  There are no rules.  Do what you want.  Play illegal clubs.  Kick the ball.  Fluff the ball.  Improve your stance.   Improve the area of your intended swing.  Touch the line of putt.  Use artificial aids to indicate the line of play.

Go ahead.  As long as we're going to cheat, let's just go whole hog and get it over with. 

After all, once you're willing to stretch a rule, then you might as well just break the damn rule. 

And if you're going to break one rule, why not just break them all?

I'm sure we'll all really enjoy this new version of the game just as much ...   

[CHrisB]

Dave S,
This is just the latest domino to fall as a result of the rulesmakers deciding to allow the player to lift his ball on the green way back when.

In the purest form of the game, the player wouldn't touch the ball at all until holing out.

[Bill_McBride]

Playing today, I tried to deliberately position the ball -- when replacing it on the putting green -- where I couldn't see anything but white.

That's hard to do!  The current Titleist balls have a lot of stuff on them.  If I can see anything printed on the ball, I hate for it to be aimed off line, so I usually put the Titleist logo at right angles, more or less, to the line.

Dear Shiv,

Is that cheating by your definition?

Signed,
Curious

[Mike_Cirba]

Is it ok to use artificial aids if you aren't cheating?

My lord, this is some thread.

I was wondering where all you guys went to...we were missing you over on the Merion threads! 

Instead, you're all here and I'm saddened that nobody invited us.   

[John_Cullum]

John:  this was addressed weeks ago.

There is a long history in the game and the rules that you can swing any doggone way you want to.  This was the flipped-over, backwards, lefty 5 iron discussion, and even Jeff Fortson (who asked the same question) was satisfied.

You wanna swing cross handed? The rules say go ahead.

One handed?  Go ahead.

Sitting on your butt with the grip held between your toes, swinging with your legs, instead of your arms?  Go ahead.

Swing with one arm while doing a handstand with the other?  Go ahead.

You get the point. 

The only stroke the rules have ever gone after was the croquet style of putting, and I believe that was more for the fact that the player was able to see his line and align himself from a position behind the ball than it was for the pendulum stroke (which is the common rationale for its banning). 

The fact is that if the pendulum stroke was what they wanted to ban, they'd have banned side saddle and the long putter stroke, which are both pendulum strokes.  But they haven't.  Why?  Because an overriding principle of this game has always been that you swing any doggone way you want.   
 

I knew you had previously addressed that matter, but I didn't want to search for it. I guess I just can't get my hands around because of that rule  about the ball being FAIRLY struck and preventing the use of UNUSUAL equipment or using equipment in an UNUSUAL way.

It is very clear that a club over 50 inches long that is anchored to the sternum is unusual to the game

[John_Cullum]

It is very clear that a club over 50 inches long that is anchored to the sternum is unusual to the game

See, I disagree.  The issue isn't what's unusual to the game. 

There are two issues:  (1) should the club itself be non-conforming based on something inherently unusual about it?  (2) is the stroke itself unusual, so as to require banning.


As to (1) is it really an unusual club?  Not based on anything but it's length.  And if unsual length, by itself, made a non-conforming....well, like I said before, that puts US Kids golf out of business.

And as to (2), it might be an unusual stroke, but the USGA doesn't get into what's usual or traditional, stroke-wise.  And in my view, that's for good reason.  The fundamental spirit of the game is that you hit the ball any way you damn well please, with whatever funky stroke you want - just so long as it's a stroke. 

So you seem to acknowledge that the length is unusual.

Secondly, a player cannot use a pool cue type stroke, or swat at a stationary club with his hand to make it strike the ball, so dangling a club from the chest seems pretty unusual to me.

[John_Cullum]

I don't see anything in the rules that allows a player to dangle and swing his club around until it makes contatct with the ball. That is not "fairly striking" the ball. It's cheating

[John_Cullum]

That's an interpretation...but it's based on fautly logic. 

Everything going on around the strike, whether before or after, is irrelevent.  The issue is the strike itself, not the method by which the club gets to the ball.  And the strike itself with the long putter is exactly the same as the strike with the short putter.

 

Things going on around the strike are certainly relevant. And the strike with a standard putter is an athletic movement requiring a synchronization of a shoulder turn and hands and arms movement. That's a far cry from using a plumbob to hit the ball

[Ted Kramer]

Still with Shivas 100%.
That explanation from the USGA guy did absolutely nothing for me . . .

-Ted

[John_Cullum]

Put another way...you're confusing "strike" with "stroke".

Sorry partner, "Stroke" is a defined term. Rule 14 says the ball must be fairly struck at with the head of the club

[John_Cullum]

Things going on around the strike are certainly relevant.

  How are they relevant to whether the ball is fairly struck at with the head of the club?

They are relevant because the rule uses the descriptive term "fairly." This means you have to review the method of the strike to determine if it's fair

[John_Cullum]

It means no such thing.  What it means is that you can't push, scrape or spoon, lift or anything like that.  It has nothing to do with the nature of the stroke.  It's all about the nature of the contact between club and ball. 

The rules speak to "fairly striking" the ball (which the long putter does).  They say nothing -- and never have -- about "making a fair stroke". 

I am not confusing stroke with strike. The long putter stroke is not fairly striking. That's all I'm saying. Your logic is skewed

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas & John,

A stroke is the forward movement of the club made with the INTENTION of striking at and "moving" the ball.

Why they added the "moving" part is beyond me.

How can you strike the ball without the intention of moving it ?

Forget the technical aspects of the discussion for a moment and view the issue in the context of "historical perspective" and tradition.

Allowing a directional aid to be attached to the ball is not within the confines of historical perspectives or tradition, regardless of who places the directional aid on the ball.

[Tom Huckaby]

That's great, Pat. 

But they're arguing about the broomstick putter now.

TH

[JESII]

Allowing a directional aid to be attached to the ball is not within the confines of historical perspectives or tradition, regardless of who places the directional aid on the ball.

but Pat, what if a mere dot or mark on the ball is used to help the player allign himself to his intended line?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

If you could explain how a dot would accomplish the act of alignment I'd be happy to comment.

[Chris Kane]

A stroke is the forward movement of the club made with the INTENTION of striking at and "moving" the ball.

Why they added the "moving" part is beyond me.

How can you strike the ball without the intention of moving it ?

Patrick, if you're making a swing and abort the shot (ie Tiger on the 13th tee at the Masters a couple of years ago), you will usually continue "striking at" the ball without the intention of "moving" it.  If you don't get out of the way in time, the definition assists you.

[JESII]

JES II,

If you could explain how a dot would accomplish the act of alignment I'd be happy to comment.

When Shivas dissects the word "anywhere" in 8-2b (I think) to include placing the ball in a manner which lines up the cheater-line he includes gaining any alignment assistance from a mark on the ball if it is intentionally placed so as to assist with alignment...

I believe a nice large "identification" dot (or two, or three) on the ball would / could work exactly the same as the line. They are mid-referrence points between the sweet-spot indicator on your putter and a natural marking (i.e. ball mark) on the green.

By Shivas's argument one would have to intentionally replace their ball differently each time they putt to avoid potential accusations.



By the way, I think this is more about pace of play then cheating and I have said that. If these guys could, and did, do this cheater-line thing dead right the first time and played quickly would you care about it? Shivas says he would, but I don't believe him...

[Sean_A]

Shivas & John,

A stroke is the forward movement of the club made with the INTENTION of striking at and "moving" the ball.

Why they added the "moving" part is beyond me.

How can you strike the ball without the intention of moving it ?

Forget the technical aspects of the discussion for a moment and view the issue in the context of "historical perspective" and tradition.

Allowing a directional aid to be attached to the ball is not within the confines of historical perspectives or tradition, regardless of who places the directional aid on the ball.

Pat

I explained before, in great detail, that since the R&A (later to be joined by the USGA) took over the rules (meaning clubs agreed to one set of rules rather than having club rules used for comps) that for approximately 80 of the past, call it 110 years, there was no mention in (what came to be known as) Rule 8 about "anywhere".  The rule in question specifically concerned the green with no mention of a mark on the ball for the purposes of indicating the line being illegal.  This is clear as a bell.  I would consider this within confines of historical tradition.  For some reason, the wording of the rule was changed which imo would include the ball under "anywhere".  However, the USGA has effectively over-ruled itself and has essentially gone back to interpreting the rule as it was worded previously. 

I can buy all the stuff about disagreeing with the USGA decision to over-rule itself and agree that it is nonsensical (personally, I think they goofed up and will change the wording in the future), but I can't buy any stuff about "historically".  It is clear that the throughout the majority of the history of the rules as administered by a unified body, that it doesn't support the historical argument against the use of a mark on the ball. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

A stroke is the forward movement of the club made with the INTENTION of striking at and "moving" the ball.

Why they added the "moving" part is beyond me.

How can you strike the ball without the intention of moving it ?

Patrick, if you're making a swing and abort the shot (ie Tiger on the 13th tee at the Masters a couple of years ago), you will usually continue "striking at" the ball without the intention of "moving" it. 


No you won't.
When you abort/check your swing you discontinue the acceleration toward the ball, ceasing the attempt to strike it, hence, no stroke occurs.

The definition of a stroke incorporates the aborting/checking of the attempt


If you don't get out of the way in time, the definition assists you.

If you don't get out of the way in time and hit the ball, it's a stroke.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I explained before, in great detail, that since the R&A (later to be joined by the USGA) took over the rules (meaning clubs agreed to one set of rules rather than having club rules used for comps) that for approximately 80 of the past, call it 110 years, there was no mention in (what came to be known as) Rule 8 about "anywhere". 

The rule in question specifically concerned the green with no mention of a mark on the ball for the purposes of indicating the line being illegal. 

This is clear as a bell.  I would consider this within confines of historical tradition.  For some reason, the wording of the rule was changed which imo would include the ball under "anywhere".  However, the USGA has effectively over-ruled itself and has essentially gone back to interpreting the rule as it was worded previously. 

I can buy all the stuff about disagreeing with the USGA decision to over-rule itself and agree that it is nonsensical (personally, I think they goofed up and will change the wording in the future), but I can't buy any stuff about "historically". 

It is clear that the throughout the majority of the history of the rules as administered by a unified body, that it doesn't support the historical argument against the use of a mark on the ball. 

Just because a rule is silent on an issue doesn't mean that the rule was meant to exclude the issue.

I believe that you're incorrect in that, historically, one was not permited to touch his ball until it was holed.   

I also believe that my beloved Stymie was only removed and marking Stymies permited circa 1951.

One can also draw the extension that if it's illegal to place an object or ANY MARK on the ground for purpose of alingment, that it's illegal to place an object/MARK on the ball for the purpose of alignment.

Today, it remains illegal to place an object/MARK on the ground for the purpose of determining the line.

The USGA got this one wrong and they need to fix it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

ONE DOT, no way.

Multiple dots, sure, they can easily be used to indicate the line.

The answer to the multiple dot issue is to prohibit linear alignment of the dots.

[Sean_A]

I explained before, in great detail, that since the R&A (later to be joined by the USGA) took over the rules (meaning clubs agreed to one set of rules rather than having club rules used for comps) that for approximately 80 of the past, call it 110 years, there was no mention in (what came to be known as) Rule 8 about "anywhere". 

The rule in question specifically concerned the green with no mention of a mark on the ball for the purposes of indicating the line being illegal. 

This is clear as a bell.  I would consider this within confines of historical tradition.  For some reason, the wording of the rule was changed which imo would include the ball under "anywhere".  However, the USGA has effectively over-ruled itself and has essentially gone back to interpreting the rule as it was worded previously. 

I can buy all the stuff about disagreeing with the USGA decision to over-rule itself and agree that it is nonsensical (personally, I think they goofed up and will change the wording in the future), but I can't buy any stuff about "historically". 

It is clear that the throughout the majority of the history of the rules as administered by a unified body, that it doesn't support the historical argument against the use of a mark on the ball. 

Just because a rule is silent on an issue doesn't mean that the rule was meant to exclude the issue.

I believe that you're incorrect in that, historically, one was not permited to touch his ball until it was holed.   

I also believe that my beloved Stymie was only removed and marking Stymies permited circa 1951.

One can also draw the extension that if it's illegal to place an object or ANY MARK on the ground for purpose of alingment, that it's illegal to place an object/MARK on the ball for the purpose of alignment.

Today, it remains illegal to place an object/MARK on the ground for the purpose of determining the line.

The USGA got this one wrong and they need to fix it.

Pat

I don't think you are correct.  Players have been allowed to mark and replace a ball in stroke play since the unified rules took effect and I thjink even before this time.  I believe you are talking about matchplay where the stymie was banned in for 1951 rules.  Though, I think there was some wierd business about 6 inches. 

Ciao 

[JESII]

JES II,

ONE DOT, no way.

Multiple dots, sure, they can easily be used to indicate the line.

The answer to the multiple dot issue is to prohibit linear alignment of the dots.

Maybe, maybe not...Shivas would bar the attempt with the single dot, would you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

ONE DOT, no way.

Multiple dots, sure, they can easily be used to indicate the line.

The answer to the multiple dot issue is to prohibit linear alignment of the dots.

Maybe, maybe not...Shivas would bar the attempt with the single dot, would you?

I think you have to make allowances for markings for identification purposes versus markings that can assist in alignment.