[Sean_A]

We all know that Shivas has been on a Rule 8-2 witch hunt.  I disagree flat out with Shivas, though I can understand why he holds his view.  Still, the bottom line for me is as follows.  8-2(a) discusses  indicating line of play off the green.  Sure, it doesn't make much sense to have marks on the ball to indicate a line of play since one can't touch the ball to line it up.  Still, I believe the rule is referring to objects such as jumpers or head covers placed to indicate a line of play.  They must be removed before playing - fair enough.  However, let us spose that a mark on the ball had been aligned in the correct direction?  If the mark were not removable (its permanent on the ball) , then I reckon the rule doesn't apply. 

Lovely, now we come to 8-2(b) which discusses indicating line of play on the green.  First off, we have this ball which has marks on it which in theory could have been used for the shot to the green.  Why would the USGA differentiate between on the green or off where a mark on the ball is concerned?  I believe (and this is imo in the spirit of the rules) that like 8-2(a) marks on the ball are not in question.  What the rule is more or less pointing out is that markers on the intended line of play are not allowed while playing on the green regardless of if you are actually stroking the ball or not - unlike while off the green.  This is all that is intended and that is that.  For some reason and quite unfortunately, "a mark must not be placed anywhere" with "anywhere" being the operative word was used when the rule was re-written.  As such, I can understand why Shivas gets his back up, but I do think it is unnecessary.  Some time ago when this row first blew up I looked back at the evolution of the rule and  noticed that the 1908 USGA wording was ."..but no mark shall be placed nor shall any one stand on the PROPOSED LINE, in order to indicate it..."  This wording obviously is quite different and imo much better to convey the difference between rules 8-2(a) & (b). 

Furthermore, I browsed the definitions section of the R&A rules recently.  I could find no special golf related meaning for the term "mark".  However, I did find a definition for the term "line of putt.  Since Shivas seems to have the major issue with 8-2(b) this is the definition I will concentate on.  Included in the definition is "...the line that the player wishes his ball to take AFTER a stroke on the putting green..."  It is reasonable to assume from this, that the ball is not part of the line of putt.   However, Rule 8-2(b) states "A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting." 

This leaves us in a bit of limbo as to what a "mark" is and what does "placing" refer to.  However, we do get some indication that a mark is removable from the wording of 8-2(a).  "Any mark placed by the player or with his knowledge must be removed before the stroke is made."  Since permanent manufacture or personal markings can't be removed it could be interpreted that a "mark" as used in the rules is not under question.  The R&A defacto partially defines a mark as removable.   From this line of reasoning and of course assuming that rules 8-2(a) & (b) are essentially in place to differentiate the indication of the line of play on and off the green, it is reasonable to assume that the use of manufacture or personal permanent marks on the ball as indicators for the line of play are legal.  When I consider this argument, the history of the rule and that no decision by the golf bodies have gone against this practice, then I can only conclude that it is indeed within the rules of the game and the spirit of the rules. 

Ciao

[Dan Herrmann]

Sean - as is usual for you, very well said.

If there were no cheater line, folks would just line up the "Titleist".  Only alternative is to play my after work rules - play the ball as it lies - even on the green.

[TEPaul]

Sean:

I've said it before on past threads on this subject (usually by Shivas) and I'll say it again on this one----eg it is not really up to us (and people like us) to discuss endlessly and search for what some underlying truth is about words like "anywhere" or "mark" on a ball in the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf. Those words and what they mean in the context of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf are only up to the R&A and USGA Rules writers to say.

I realize that upsets and completely pisses some people off but that's just the way it is and the way it's always been. It is not up to us to interpret the underlying meaning of those types of things---it's up to them. It is only up to us to play by those Rules or decide not to for some reason.

[Adam Clayman]

What Tom said....and....there is more than one line to a putt. How could a cheater line point to all of them?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I know that you're aware that the USGA reinterprets the rules and changes them from time to time.

Hence, a rule can't be viewed in an absolute context.

Identifying your ball in a hazard might be a good example.

Just because the cheater line is permitted under the current rules doesn't mean it was permitted under past rules or that it will be permitted in perpetuity.

I feel it's a contrary to the spirit of the game, irrespective of it's present acceptance.

Whether the USGA agrees with me and changes the rule, or continues to support it, will be determined with time.

Snead's putting method, having a caddy stand behind you during your stroke and other issues, which were legal at one time, became illegal, so again, you can't view rules as absolutes.

However, I think the spirit of the game IS an absolute.

[Mike McGuire]

  Still, the bottom line for me is as follows.  8-2(a) discusses  indicating line of play off the green.  Sure, it doesn't make much sense to have marks on the ball to indicate a line of play since one can't touch the ball to line it up. 

Ciao

What about using the cheater line on the tee - or in a lift clean and place scenario - where you can touch the ball to line it up?

[Chris Kane]

However, I think the spirit of the game IS an absolute.

That may be so, but isn't it ultimately for the USGA/R&A to determine how "spirit of the game" is interpreted?  The interpretations aren't absolute, otherwise the rules would never change.

[Peter Pallotta]

Chris - I think you make an important distinction that isn't made often enough, no matter how often it's made, i.e. the "spirit of the game" is one thing, the "spirit of the rules" another -even if they are almost and almost always synonymous. To quote myself from a post on the range-finder thread, and to save myself the trouble of posting on the long putter thread, I'll put it here:

Such threads prove that the term "the spirit of the game" -- which is a wonderful term, and full of nuance and meaning -- would probably be better rendered as "the spirit(s) of the game", i.e. in plural form, to suggest that what moves people most deeply in the playing of golf is a very personal and variable thing; in fact, that's one of the main beauties of the game, that it allows for that kind of individual and unique participation and experience.  Thankfully, the game and its thousands of (non-standardized) fields of play still makes room for all of us and all manner of spirits....within the rules

Peter 

[JohnV]

Sean,

I think your reasoning is very well thought out and I agree with it.

Sean:

I've said it before on past threads on this subject (usually by Shivas) and I'll say it again on this one----eg it is not really up to us (and people like us) to discuss endlessly and search for what some underlying truth is about words like "anywhere" or "mark" on a ball in the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf. Those words and what they mean in the context of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf are only up to the R&A and USGA Rules writers to say.

As Decision 20-3a/2 says, the ruling bodies have interpreted it to not include a mark on the ball.

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.

Certainly, as Pat said, that interpretation could change, but it has been in the rules since 1988 and I see know impetus to change it.

I see know reason that it is contrary to the spirit of the game.  Once you are allowed to lift the ball for a valid reason, there is no reason to restrict the alignment of it when it is replaced.

There has obviously some concern about players lifting their ball when it isn't required which is why Rules 5-3 and 12-2 have recently been changed to say that you have to have a need to lift a ball under those rules.

[Bruce Leland]

Sean,

I think your reasoning is very well thought out and I agree with it.

Sean:

I've said it before on past threads on this subject (usually by Shivas) and I'll say it again on this one----eg it is not really up to us (and people like us) to discuss endlessly and search for what some underlying truth is about words like "anywhere" or "mark" on a ball in the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf. Those words and what they mean in the context of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf are only up to the R&A and USGA Rules writers to say.

As Decision 20-3a/2 says, the ruling bodies have interpreted it to not include a mark on the ball.

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.

Certainly, as Pat said, that interpretation could change, but it has been in the rules since 1988 and I see know impetus to change it.

I see know reason that it is contrary to the spirit of the game.  Once you are allowed to lift the ball for a valid reason, there is no reason to restrict the alignment of it when it is replaced.

There has obviously some concern about players lifting their ball when it isn't required which is why Rules 5-3 and 12-2 have recently been changed to say that you have to have a need to lift a ball under those rules.

John, I completely agree with your analysis here AND with Decision 20-3a/2 as it relates to a "trademark".   The debate on whether or not the line on the Pro V1's and other balls is a trademark has not been brought up here to my knowledge and I feel better leaving it the the R&A and the USGA B&I folks to analyze the semantics of it all. 

On another topic, Titleist through Scotty Cameron has just introduced this ball mark and I'm sure that this violates the intent of the rule even though it is removed prior to making the stroke.  You can view the use of it on this YouTube video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mnZOEkJx50

[Cory Brown]

Bruce,

That mark could possibly be legal in the R & A rules, however I believe that the USGA rules require the ball mark to be round. 

Regardless that ball mark is certainly not fitting with the spirit of the game or of the rules.  Ridiculous.

That video looked like it was filmed in a college dorm room.  I hope it was a joke.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Are you going to require everytime a ball is replaced that it be oriented precisely the same way as when it was  lifted? That seems impossible to me,

If you don't require that how do you restrict how it's replaced?

[JohnV]

Bruce,

That mark could possibly be legal in the R & A rules, however I believe that the USGA rules require the ball mark to be round. 

Regardless that ball mark is certainly not fitting with the spirit of the game or of the rules.  Ridiculous.

That video looked like it was filmed in a college dorm room.  I hope it was a joke.

Cory,  There is no such requirement.  There was a local rule at one time that could require a round object such as a coin to be used, but that was removed a few years ago (2000 I believe).  It was the rule used by the PGA Tour that got David Feherty penalized for using a hotel room key once.  The primary reason for it was that the tours didn't want players using tees stuck in the ground to mark their ball on the green.

Bruce, Just because the decision talks about a "trademark" doesn't mean that no other line or mark on the ball can be used.  The decision was written in 1988 when the trademark was the primary mark on the ball that a player might use.  Any mark on the ball is equal in terms of that decision.

The video does disturb me as it seems to be a mark placed to show the line.  The interesting thing is that I can't find any mention of this on the Scotty Cameron website.  Is it really being produced?

[Sean_A]

Sean:

I've said it before on past threads on this subject (usually by Shivas) and I'll say it again on this one----eg it is not really up to us (and people like us) to discuss endlessly and search for what some underlying truth is about words like "anywhere" or "mark" on a ball in the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf. Those words and what they mean in the context of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf are only up to the R&A and USGA Rules writers to say.

I realize that upsets and completely pisses some people off but that's just the way it is and the way it's always been. It is not up to us to interpret the underlying meaning of those types of things---it's up to them. It is only up to us to play by those Rules or decide not to for some reason.

Tom P

Ahhh, if golfers are to understand the rules then it is up to them to understand the choice diction of the governing bodies.  Not many people carry a rule book and I have never seen a Decision Book flipped out on the course.  Even if a rule book were carried, Rule 8-2(b) could be a prime example of players attempting to play by the rules, but being confounded by the language or at the very least find the language contradictory.  The powers that be must have thought Behr was a good writer.  By choosing to use the word "anywhere" the governing bodies have thrown an element of doubt as to the correct interpretation of the rule - which of course has sent Shivas on a crazed lawyer like hunt for the ultimate truth.  Since the powers that be don't offer explanations for their decisions it is only natural for golfers to try and come up with a plausible line of explanation themselves. 

In my world (a world without expert rules folk hanging on my shoulder), it is down to the players to figure out how to play by the rules.  The governing bodies should make this process as easy as possible.  With this in mind, wouldn't it behoove the governing bodies to change the wording of 8-2(b) to reflect what the rule really is meant to state?  Otherwise, it is very plausible for guys like Shivas to point out on the course that the term "anywhere" means anywhere and make a claim that a common practice is in fact not legal. 

With all that said, and in fairness to Shivas, why did the governing bodies change the wording to a rule that made perfect sense?  Shivas will argue that there must have been some reason (we lowly players are not privy to the reasons) for the change and it is hard to argue with him - except of course on the grounds of the spirit of the rules, but this takes some wierd (and totally unnecessary) logic to figure out and even then, it still is debateable. 

I understand that the decisions book makes it quite clear that the using a mark on the ball to indicate the line of play is legit, but shouldn't the rules themselves reflect this clarity? 

On another note concerning the spirit of the rules.  If the rule were changed either way to reflect the legit use of a mark on the ball that could be used to indicate the line of play or to state that this practice is not legit; would this in any way "comply" with the spirit of the rules?  Is either way a reflection of the spirit of the rules or are we just arguing about the specific rule and how it is applied with no regard to the spirit of the rules?

Ciao

[Dan Herrmann]

You guys have no idea how good we have it with golf rules.

I used to officiate high school football.  It was a LOT of fun to spend Friday nights out with friends working a game and grabbing a drink afterward.

But rules in (US) football are pretty strange compared to golf.  In golf, most everything is pretty cut and dry when you include the decisions into any scenario.

Football is nowhere near as exact.  Fouls occur on each and every play, and it's up to an official to determine if, in the spirit of the game, the person fouling has given his team an unfair advantage. 

Can you imagine that in golf?  We'll just let that violation slip because it's not a big advantage?

Nah - golf has it down pretty darn well.

[Bruce Leland]

Bruce,

Regardless that ball mark is certainly not fitting with the spirit of the game or of the rules.  Ridiculous.

That video looked like it was filmed in a college dorm room.  I hope it was a joke.

Cory, it is definitely NOT a joke!  That mark was just introduced to the market at the Scotty Cameron International Collectors Convention (ICC) in Las Vegas.  It is a limited run "commercial" item by Scotty that presumably will be given to all of the Tour players who utilize Cameron putters as well as some or all who attended the ICC.

I am a Cameron putter collector as are a few other members here who post regularly.

[Bruce Leland]

Cory,  There is no such requirement.  There was a local rule at one time that could require a round object such as a coin to be used, but that was removed a few years ago (2000 I believe).  It was the rule used by the PGA Tour that got David Feherty penalized for using a hotel room key once.  The primary reason for it was that the tours didn't want players using tees stuck in the ground to mark their ball on the green.

Bruce, Just because the decision talks about a "trademark" doesn't mean that no other line or mark on the ball can be used.  The decision was written in 1988 when the trademark was the primary mark on the ball that a player might use.  Any mark on the ball is equal in terms of that decision.

The video does disturb me as it seems to be a mark placed to show the line.  The interesting thing is that I can't find any mention of this on the Scotty Cameron website.  Is it really being produced?

John, thank you, I understand your point which is why I made reference to trademark in quotations.  I, like many other players of my vintage, used to line up the Titleist script with my intended line prior to the introduction of the arrowed line on the seam.  See my previous response to Cory's post as to the status of this item.

[Bruce Leland]

Here is a link to an Ebay auction for one of the ball markers:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330260140087

Apparently somebody thinks that these are going to appreciate in value.  Could it be due to the fact that while it states USGA Legal that it may not stay that way.

I'd be quite certain that Cameron and Titleist did some serious research and consult with the USGA prior to introducing this item.

[Dean Stokes]

Holy cow.  I just watched this video.

I warned everybody here about this.

Now there's not just one stupid cheater line to waste time fidgeting around with.

There are two!  There's a cheater line to help you line up your cheater line.

This is line the damn razor wars - where Gillette comes out with double blades, then Schick comes out with 3, so Gilette has 4, then 5. 


You MUST watch this video.

This is exactly why the cheater line needs to be banned immediately.

Tiger will take FOREVER screwing around with this.

The next version of this stupid contraption will have a lazer that shoots forward so you can really, really cheat....all of the spirit of the game, of course.   

Sheesh.

Shivas, that is a two stroke penalty for emoticon violation .

Ps. I totally agree with you on S Cameron - marketing genius - copy ping design's, change the metal, add fancy colors, cover with a 'zany' headcover and sell to the masses. I've got to thank him though. I once won one off a member at our club in a match. Put it on ebay the other week and got nearly $500 for it. Lovely.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The silliness of all this is shivas trumpeting the 'spirit of the game' yet labeling as cheaters those who follow the rules of golf.

As noted in the ROG under Spirit of the Game: "The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and to abide by the Rules. All players sgould conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf."

[Sean_A]

We all know that Shivas has been on a Rule 8-2 witch hunt.  I disagree flat out with Shivas, though I can understand why he holds his view.  Still, the bottom line for me is as follows.  8-2(a) discusses  indicating line of play off the green.  Sure, it doesn't make much sense to have marks on the ball to indicate a line of play since one can't touch the ball to line it up.  Still, I believe the rule is referring to objects such as jumpers or head covers placed to indicate a line of play.  They must be removed before playing - fair enough.  However, let us spose that a mark on the ball had been aligned in the correct direction?  If the mark were not removable (its permanent on the ball) , then I reckon the rule doesn't apply. 

Lovely, now we come to 8-2(b) which discusses indicating line of play on the green.  First off, we have this ball which has marks on it which in theory could have been used for the shot to the green.  Why would the USGA differentiate between on the green or off where a mark on the ball is concerned? 

Sean, it doesn't matter.  They did differentiate the two parts of the rule.  One of the first rules of interpretation is that you have to give every word meaning.  If the USGA split the rule in two, you have to interpret the rule in a manner consistent with that.  In other words, you can't interpret 8-2(b) to say "oh, it's the same as 8-2(a) and they really didn't have any reason to separate them."

I believe (and this is imo in the spirit of the rules) that like 8-2(a) marks on the ball are not in question. 

That's a flawed interpretation based on what I just said.  You have to give meaning to the distinction between (a) and (b), and the words that do the distinguishing -- and you're not.  If you don't give meaning to the distinguishing words, that's not called interpreting.  That's called RE-WRITING.

What the rule is more or less pointing out is that markers on the intended line of play are not allowed while playing on the green regardless of if you are actually stroking the ball or not - unlike while off the green.  This is all that is intended and that is that.

Maybe so, but that's not what it says - or what it should say. 

For some reason and quite unfortunately, "a mark must not be placed anywhere" with "anywhere" being the operative word was used when the rule was re-written.  As such, I can understand why Shivas gets his back up, but I do think it is unnecessary. 

Again, you're using backwards interpretation analysis.  You're assuming that they must not have meant anything by it, THEN you're interpreting (b) based on that.  You have a false interpretive assumption as your first flawed domino.  And from that first flawed domino, all other dominos are flawed.  You've basically shown why the "fruit of the poisoned tree" theory works...

Some time ago when this row first blew up I looked back at the evolution of the rule and  noticed that the 1908 USGA wording was ."..but no mark shall be placed nor shall any one stand on the PROPOSED LINE, in order to indicate it..."  This wording obviously is quite different and imo much better to convey the difference between rules 8-2(a) & (b).

...assuming that they didn't mean anything by the change in language.  That's the flawed first domino again.

Furthermore, I browsed the definitions section of the R&A rules recently.  I could find no special golf related meaning for the term "mark".  However, I did find a definition for the term "line of putt.  Since Shivas seems to have the major issue with 8-2(b) this is the definition I will concentate on.  Included in the definition is "...the line that the player wishes his ball to take AFTER a stroke on the putting green..."  It is reasonable to assume from this, that the ball is not part of the line of putt.

That is correct.  Your analysis is about to get really squishy next, however. 

However, Rule 8-2(b) states "A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting." 

This leaves us in a bit of limbo as to what a "mark" is and what does "placing" refer to.  However, we do get some indication that a mark is removable from the wording of 8-2(a).  "Any mark placed by the player or with his knowledge must be removed before the stroke is made."  Since permanent manufacture or personal markings can't be removed it could be interpreted that a "mark" as used in the rules is not under question.

No it can't.  First of all, the fact that the ball is not part of the line of the putt is irrelevent.  The rule says you can't place a mark "to indicate" a line.  It does NOT say you can't place a mark ON the line.  This, obviously, makes perfect sense and was clearly intended:  who'd be stupid enough to put stuff ON the line of a putt they want to make?  The putt would hit the mark and kick offline. 

Just as importantly, the cheater line IS removable.  The ball has to be placed back down exactly where it was.  Obviously, the ball is not removable.  But the ball is not the mark.  This is an important point:  the ball and the mark are separate and distinct.  The mark can be removed, ie, placed in such a way that it does not indicate a line for putting.  All that is required is that the mark be removed in such a way that it no longer indicates the line.  Remember my Dismal River caddie example where the caddie threw a towel down on a blind shot?  When I asked him to remove the towel, if he'd picked it up and thrown it 20 yards off to the side, it has been "removed" - even though the towel obviously still exists and has been "placed".  After all, everything is "placed" somewhere...the towel, however, has not been placed to indicate a line, and therefore has been "removed", even though it rests elsewhere.  That's just the laws of physics.

The R&A defacto partially defines a mark as removable.   From this line of reasoning and of course assuming that rules 8-2(a) & (b) are essentially in place to differentiate the indication of the line of play on and off the green, it is reasonable to assume that the use of manufacture or personal permanent marks on the ball as indicators for the line of play are legal.

Wow, that's a huge logical leap.  First, I just refuted reliance on removability as a basis for that conclusion.  Second, I've already cited the flawed interpretation of 8(b) as being consistent with 8(a) despite their distinctions and differences - which you gave no interpretive weight to whatsoever.  You simply can't do that in any serious interpretive exercise.  It's flawed from the get-go.

  When I consider this argument, the history of the rule and that no decision by the golf bodies have gone against this practice, then I can only conclude that it is indeed within the rules of the game and the spirit of the rules.

So now we interpret rules based on subsequent practice?  The ruling bodies haven't specifically outlawed mulligans, have they?  Am I to interpret the rules of golf as permitting them?  This is hogwash passing itself off as legitimate analysis, if I may say so.    

Ciao

Shivas

I kid you not.  What you are failing to realize is that a ball with marks could be so invasive on the surface that it is impossible to "remove" (BTW I disagree totally with your usage of "remove" as the marks are not at all removed in your scheme of things) them by turning the ball.  I have seen it before.  So far as I know this is not illegal.  In theory, it is possible to to be able to indicate your line of putting no matter which section of the ball is up or down.   

I do give meaning between the distiction of (a) and (b) and that was clearly spelled out.  You are not completely understanding the difference so far as I can tell.  (a) allows marks to be placed to indicate a line while off the green so long as they are removed before the stroke.  (b) indicates that this cannot be done on the green even if the player were to remove them before the stroke.  That seems a clear distinction to me. 

I didn't interpret the rules based on subsequent practice, the USGA did.  Their decision defacto makes the procedure legal and in essence an extension of the rules.  I am merely trying to figure out how that jives with the language used in 8-2(b), specifically "anywhere" - which naturally leads me to look at the language used in the entire rule(s).  It is quite clear your interpretation is flawed or the procedure would be allowed.  Either that or you would have me believe that the rule makers are wrong and you are right - its possible I spose, but not a good bet - especially since a directly related decision clearly makes the procedure legal.  This decision implies thought and discussion occurred to derive upon a conclusion.  I only wish the reasoning for the decision were published, but I suspect it has something to do with the 1908 wording I used earlier.   

BTW - what are you on about concerning mulligans?  I'll give all the mulligans you want.  The only thing is they are called lost balls over here and come with a penalty.  What a ridiculous subject to bring up - mulligans - jeepers.  If you can't see the difference between using a line on a ball to line up a putt and a free rehit, then we are wasting our time. 

Ciao     

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't use a mark on my ball or my putter to guide me to the hole. Actually, I spin my golf ball to a position that shows no markings whatsoever, I find marks are a distraction.

I too have looked at almost every year's interpretation of the rule about marking. It appears to me, and I have no agenda, that the rules makers were concerned with the outliers, i.e. the towel in the fringe, the caddie's foot, the scraping of the surface, etc. more than any line on a ball.

When a mark is placed on a ball, the ball is 'equipment' and as we know, there is no provision against doing this. No one has yet proven that alignment aids on equipment, or a line on a golf ball, gives any player an unfair advantage.

As for 20-3a/2, what reasonable person could see any appreciable difference between a line imprinted by a company and one drawn by the player? If the question were submitted to the USGA thus: ...is it permissible for the player to position the ball so that the line he drew on it is aimed along the line of the putt to indicate the line of play? would you now be railing on about trademarks?

[Bruce Leland]

Jim, guys who use cheater lines play in accordance with a one-word, unexplained decision - Decision 20-31/2:

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.

That's it. That's all there is.  They are not playing in accordance with the language of Rule 8-2(b).   And narrowly interpreted to apply only to trademarks,  not even the decision covers a hand-drawn line.

One thing is certain:  a guy who uses no cheater line is absolutely, positively 100% within the rules.

A guy who uses one, however, has to answer to himself whether this unexplained, one-word decision (that if narrowly interpreted doesn't even apply to a hand-drawn line) is sufficient to trump the spirit of the game since the Leith Rules (no marking your way to the hole) and the plain language of Rule 8-2(b) (no "mark" "placed" "anywhere" "to indicate a line for putting").   

Shivas, it is a one word answer because the answer is all encompassing in response to the question.  It's a very simple question requiring ONLY a yes or no answer, IMO.

btw, I agree with you that the decision does not address hand drawn lines.  Today, there is no reason to hand draw a sharpie line on your ball because companies have imprinted, permanently a "trademark" on one side of the ball.  Now if you want to get into a semantic discussion of the meaning of trademark, we can but personally I choose to leave it to the R&A and USGA to come up with the definitions in the ROG.

[CHrisB]

From the USGA Rules (Definitions):

Equipment
"Equipment" is anything used, worn or carried by the player or anything carried for the player by his partner or either of their caddies, except any ball he has played at the hole being played and any small object, such as a coin or a tee, when used to mark the position of a ball or the extent of an area in which a ball is to be dropped. Equipment includes a golf cart, whether or not motorized.

Note 1: A ball played at the hole being played is equipment when it has been lifted and not put back into play.

[Jim_Kennedy]

So the ball in play is not equipment and the "it's equipment and there's no analogous ruling against marks on equipment" rationale is off-base - as I thought.  And as it must be... 

I never said the ball was equipment when it was in play, only that in the act of marking, i.e. before it's put into play, it is equipment. My rationale is sound.

Place your cart on the 'line' and it won't need a mark on it to cost you a penalty.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()