Shivas's cheater line

[CHrisB]

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?

A mere dot cannot, without another mark, cannot indicate a line for putting.  It requires another mark.  If both, you have the violation.

What if the 2nd mark is on the putterhead?

[Patrick_Mucci]

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?

A mere dot cannot, without another mark, cannot indicate a line for putting.  It requires another mark.  If both, you have the violation.

What if the 2nd mark is on the putterhead?

Many, if not most putter heads have a line on them.

If a golfer is capable at looking at both a dot on the ball and the line on his putter, more power to him.  I doubt it can be done, and if it can, I'd like to play against that golfer.

[CHrisB]

Dave S and Patrick,
My spare putter is a Scotty Cameron with a black head and a single white dot on the top.

I could use a single dot on the golf ball with the single dot on the putterhead to indicate the line for putting. Should this be a violation or not?

[CHrisB]

Of course, we never see anybody try this method for an obvious reason:  nobody except someone trying to refute the clear logic that argues against the legality of the cheater line would even consider this foolish stretch as even a remote possibility!

Would this be as foolish of a stretch as considering an inclined mud clot sitting next to the hole, or a ball-to-be-lifted sitting on a mud-tee even a remote possibility? We're birds of a feather in this regard...nothing wrong with that.

And of course no one would try this now--they can legally use the line instead. But if you ban using the line (and other marks) to indicate the line for putting, this is an example of what some players could turn to, because it would still assist them in lining up.

I think Tom Huckaby brought it up before--ban the cheater line (and other marks) and players will find a new creative way to do the same thing without violating the new rule. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it's a reality nonetheless.

[JESII]

Shivas,

To be clear, I use the three dots...in place of smiley faces. I don't actually not believe you.

Keep in mind that my position on this is not to defend the cheater line, but rather, what's next? Might be a dot used illicitly and it would be a hell of alot toughr to enforce...why not just enforce the shot clock tighter, kill alot of birds with one stone...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave S and Patrick,
My spare putter is a Scotty Cameron with a black head and a single white dot on the top.

I could use a single dot on the golf ball with the single dot on the putterhead to indicate the line for putting.


Tell me how you align a stationary dot on a golf ball with a dot on a putter head that's moving away from and then back toward the stationary dot on the golf ball in a non-linear fashion ?

Should this be a violation or not?

No, and Shivas and I want to arrange a match with you for large sums if you promise to employ this method of putting.

[John_Cullum]

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

Please explain to me, John, how the strike (not the stuff leading up to the strike, but the strike itself) with a long putter is any different than the stike with a short putter.

Please make this explanation consistent with the rules and the decisions on the rules, particularly the one dealing with the 1/2 inch backswing, which is clearly not a traditional stroke, but the USGA says is nevertheless capable (at least in theory) of creating a fair strike, and therefore capable of being legal.

Thanks. 

My post 1509 above adequately addresses that. You just refuse to accept that you are cheating when you use your long putter

[CHrisB]

Dave S and Patrick,
My spare putter is a Scotty Cameron with a black head and a single white dot on the top.

I could use a single dot on the golf ball with the single dot on the putterhead to indicate the line for putting.


Tell me how you align a stationary dot on a golf ball with a dot on a putter head that's moving away from and then back toward the stationary dot on the golf ball in a non-linear fashion ?

Patrick,
Obviously I'm talking about lining up and not talking about what is happening during the stroke. Your point is well-taken that the cheater line remains there indicating the line during the stroke, whereas in my example the indicator of the line disappears during the stroke. But the current rule doesn't discriminate against when the mark is placed--it can be taken away altogether before the stroke starts and it is still a violation.

Should this be a violation or not?

No, and Shivas and I want to arrange a match with you for large sums if you promise to employ this method of putting.

Like I said to Dave S, of course no one would try this now--they can legally use the line instead. But if you ban using the line (and other marks) to indicate the line for putting, this is an example of what some players could turn to, because it would still assist them in lining up. As Tom Huckaby mentioned before, if you ban the cheater line (and other marks), then players will find a new creative way to do the same thing without violating the new rule. Again, doesn't mean that a ban shouldn't happen, but it's something to think about.

[Tom Huckaby]

Chris:

Yep, and that's part of why I find shivas to now be WORSE than Ahab ever was in his madness here... and why I find this whole thing so maddeningly stupid.  Hell yes:  ban the cheater line today, those who want to use the ball to align putts would use DIMPLES tomorrow... or the seam.. or SOMETHING else.  This simply cannot be legislated away.  But I'm sure nothing you or I say will stop Shivasahab from his quest....

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave S and Patrick,
My spare putter is a Scotty Cameron with a black head and a single white dot on the top.

I could use a single dot on the golf ball with the single dot on the putterhead to indicate the line for putting.


Tell me how you align a stationary dot on a golf ball with a dot on a putter head that's moving away from and then back toward the stationary dot on the golf ball in a non-linear fashion ?

Patrick,

Obviously I'm talking about lining up and not talking about what is happening during the stroke.

Your point is well-taken that the cheater line remains there indicating the line during the stroke, whereas in my example the indicator of the line disappears during the stroke.

But the current rule doesn't discriminate against when the mark is placed--it can be taken away altogether before the stroke starts and it is still a violation.

You're confusing issues.

The mark (dot or line) on the putter is NOT used to create an alignment aid/device/methodology in concert with a mark on the ball.  It's meant to assist in centering the ball at address and in determining the contact point with the ball.

It's no different than many marks that appear on the tops of drivers and fairway woods, and, even irons.

It's not a vehicle to assist with determining the line, only where to center the ball.

Should this be a violation or not?

No, and Shivas and I want to arrange a match with you for large sums if you promise to employ this method of putting.

Like I said to Dave S, of course no one would try this now--they can legally use the line instead. But if you ban using the line (and other marks) to indicate the line for putting, this is an example of what some players could turn to, because it would still assist them in lining up. As Tom Huckaby mentioned before, if you ban the cheater line (and other marks), then players will find a new creative way to do the same thing without violating the new rule. Again, doesn't mean that a ban shouldn't happen, but it's something to think about.

The dot or line on a putter is intended to guide the golfer to the intended sweet spot on the putter.  That indicator, the spot or line is meant to contact the ball, not the outer edges of the putter. 

It is NOT a device for determining the line of the putt, alone, or in concert with a dot on a golf ball.

[TEPaul]

My God, I just cannot believe this thread and this subject is still going on. How can one talk about this for 45 pages? What more is there to say?

Shivas:

Have you called or written the USGA yet on this issue or considered making a formal proposal to the R&A/USGA to ban this procedure or even change their Rule wording to explain it better for the mentally Rules challenged and if not why not?

[CHrisB]

Dave S and Patrick,
My spare putter is a Scotty Cameron with a black head and a single white dot on the top.

I could use a single dot on the golf ball with the single dot on the putterhead to indicate the line for putting.


Tell me how you align a stationary dot on a golf ball with a dot on a putter head that's moving away from and then back toward the stationary dot on the golf ball in a non-linear fashion ?

Patrick,

Obviously I'm talking about lining up and not talking about what is happening during the stroke.

Your point is well-taken that the cheater line remains there indicating the line during the stroke, whereas in my example the indicator of the line disappears during the stroke.

But the current rule doesn't discriminate against when the mark is placed--it can be taken away altogether before the stroke starts and it is still a violation.

You're confusing issues.

The mark (dot or line) on the putter is NOT used to create an alignment aid/device/methodology in concert with a mark on the ball.  It's meant to assist in centering the ball at address and in determining the contact point with the ball.

It's no different than many marks that appear on the tops of drivers and fairway woods, and, even irons.

It's not a vehicle to assist with determining the line, only where to center the ball.

Should this be a violation or not?

No, and Shivas and I want to arrange a match with you for large sums if you promise to employ this method of putting.

Like I said to Dave S, of course no one would try this now--they can legally use the line instead. But if you ban using the line (and other marks) to indicate the line for putting, this is an example of what some players could turn to, because it would still assist them in lining up. As Tom Huckaby mentioned before, if you ban the cheater line (and other marks), then players will find a new creative way to do the same thing without violating the new rule. Again, doesn't mean that a ban shouldn't happen, but it's something to think about.

The dot or line on a putter is intended to guide the golfer to the intended sweet spot on the putter.  That indicator, the spot or line is meant to contact the ball, not the outer edges of the putter. 

It is NOT a device for determining the line of the putt, alone, or in concert with a dot on a golf ball.

Maybe it is, maybe it's not, but it could be, and so my point (in red) stands.

[Tom Huckaby]

Now wait a second, let me get this straight.

Your too lazy to write what wouldn't need to be more than a two page letter to the USGA... and you don't care enough to do so... yet you have spent the equivalent of 5000 man hours writing posts on this site trying to convince all of us how right you are?

Hmmmm... something doesn't add up here, my friend.

[Tom Huckaby]

Correct.  It takes basically zero effort or thought to post on this site, as your posts attest.... 

Touche!
I'd also add, however, that posts to this site require next to no accountability.

[Sean_A]

My God, I just cannot believe this thread and this subject is still going on. How can one talk about this for 45 pages? What more is there to say?

Shivas:

Have you called or written the USGA yet on this issue or considered making a formal proposal to the R&A/USGA to ban this procedure or even change their Rule wording to explain it better for the mentally Rules challenged and if not why not?

Tom P

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!  Step back my man, you need some perspective!

Ciao

[Dan Herrmann]

In honor of Shivas and Jay Flemma, who asked "what's the 2nd most responded-to thread on GCA", I bring you The Cheater Line

[Wayne_Kozun]

In honor of Shivas and Jay Flemma, who asked "what's the 2nd most responded-to thread on GCA", I bring you The Cheater Line

Necroposter!

[Lloyd_Cole]

Sombre note - dark humour maybe, but I'm not laughing -

Seve on returning to play and hoping to be at St Andrews next year "With putting, I have to make a mark on the ball then use it to line up the putter."

[Matthew Mollica]

A new generation has taken up the fight - Laz Versalles writes for golf dot com here.

[Colin Macqueen]

MM,
My goodness I thought that a line had been drawn under this!
Cheers Colin

[Laz Versalles]

Hi Guise,


I am grateful that Mr. Mollica gave this an early read and that the editor's at GOLF.com were game to run the story. There is an war on decency in the world and the line on the ball is the most meaningless of battle fields.


First they came for rule 10.2
And I did not speak out
Because I don't put a line on my ball.

Then they came for out of bounds
And I did not speak out
Because I don't hit the ball out of bounds

Then they came for the Rules of our Game
And there was no one left
To speak for the game.

[JohnVDB]

At the risk of being taken down this rathole again, the article says the new rules don’t address this and that is wrong.


Interpretation 14.2c/1 says:



14.2c/1 – Ball May Be Replaced in Almost Any Orientation
When replacing a lifted ball on a spot, the Rules are concerned about only the location. The ball may be aligned in any way when being replaced (such as by lining up a trademark) so long as the ball’s vertical distance to the ground remains the same.

[Jeff Schley]

How did this thread get brought back to life by MM?

[Sean_A]

At the risk of being taken down this rathole again, the article says the new rules don’t address this and that is wrong.


Interpretation 14.2c/1 says:

14.2c/1 – Ball May Be Replaced in Almost Any Orientation
When replacing a lifted ball on a spot, the Rules are concerned about only the location. The ball may be aligned in any way when being replaced (such as by lining up a trademark) so long as the ball’s vertical distance to the ground remains the same.

Yes, I found the article to be odd given the decision. I also find the wording of the rule to be odd given the decision.

Ciao