Should Lines On Ball Be Illegal?

[darthweasel]

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2020 at 7:25 AM, saevel25 said:

Umm... did you read my post... I said, I didn't see any benefit from it. 

No idea why you are calling me an outlier. 

not you.. the "you" there was the people who were coming in to say "Oh, I putt much better with it", they are the outliers if they actually do and it is not just confirmation bias, sorry about the confusion there.

[saevel25]

46 minutes ago, darthweasel said:

not you.. the "you" there was the people who were coming in to say "Oh, I putt much better with it", they are the outliers if they actually do and it is not just confirmation bias, sorry about the confusion there.

Ok, it's just you quoted me, so I thought you were talking to me. No problem! 

 

[David in FL]

A.  It’s ridiculous to consider a drawn line on the ball to be an “object” as meant in the rules.  So no, it shouldn’t be illegal.

B.  Draw anything you like, just don’t slow down pace of play with your alignment routine.  Hell, I know knuckleheads who spend time aligning their ball on the freaking tee!

C.  However you do it, at least mark your ball for identification.  Too many still don’t do that... 

[ghalfaire]

I read the article.  I voted yes although, as the article says, it is sort of murky with respect to the rules.  But I do believe it slows up play and doubt it allows very many if any to putt better.

[bweiss711]

28 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

I read the article.  I voted yes although, as the article says, it is sort of murky with respect to the rules.  But I do believe it slows up play and doubt it allows very many if any to putt better.

Whether or not a line is drawn on the ball won't affect how slow someone lines up their putt.  Imagine a scenario where you aren't allowed to draw a line (let's not get into the particulars about the definition of a line and enforcing that).  Won't players who believe they need that line and are instead using a manufacturers logo or some other non-linear player marking take even more time on a method that is harder to use?

If people have an issue with slow play on the greens, I don't think the problem is the type of "alignment aid" on the ball.  The ability to aim your ball with any marking is the problem. There are already rules in place for slow play. No need to amend or add other rules for special cases of slow play.

And I actually don't think its murky.  A line on a ball is not an object.  A line is a marking on an object.  And that object is required to play the shot.  And it is explicitly permissible to pick up and replace that object on the green in whatever orientation is preferred.  If this is still considered murky, I'd suggest amending the rule which forbids the alignment aid to specifically exclude the ball from consideration as an object. Or stated another way, the ball is the only permissible object to be used as an alignment aid. No more grey area, no more discussions about issues that most people here don't even seem to think give golfers and advantage anyways.

[Bonvivant]

1 hour ago, David in FL said:

 Draw anything you like, just don’t slow down pace of play with your alignment routine.  Hell, I know knuckleheads who spend time aligning their ball on the freaking tee!

By definition, lining it up slows down pace of play. 

@iacas, I think that the mental disconnect that I am having is that I consider the ball an object. The ball itself isn't an alignment aid but the line makes it one if you are lining it up with your intended path (at least in my head). 

"(3) No Setting Down Object to Help in Taking Stance. A player must not take a stance for the stroke using any object that was set down by or for the player to help in lining up his or her feet or body, such as a club set down on the ground to show the line of playLine of Play: The line where the player intends his or her ball to go after a stroke, including the area on that line that is a reasonable distance up above the ground and on either side of that line.(...Continued)."

I made the key words in my head bold. As I read it, using a line on a ball is illegal and should be a 2 stroke or loss of hole penalty. Can you help me understand why the ball (with a line) isn't covered under "any object"

[ChetlovesMer]

13 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

Can you help me understand why the ball (with a line) isn't covered under "any object"

Because that would violate "The Spirit of The Rule".

Just kidding

[Double Mocha Man]

Hopefully the folks on this site who use the lines on their ball for putting, lining the lines up 2-3 times see themselves in these threads... and stop!  You're slow and you're pissing the rest of us off (as golfing partners), legal or not legal. Line it up once.  When you get over the ball to putt and realize your friggin' lines are off by one-half degree just fix it on the fly in a subconscious change in your putting stroke.  All is good.  You weren't going to make it anyway.

[bweiss711]

11 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

By definition, lining it up slows down pace of play. 

@iacas, I think that the mental disconnect that I am having is that I consider the ball an object. The ball itself isn't an alignment aid but the line makes it one if you are lining it up with your intended path (at least in my head). 

"(3) No Setting Down Object to Help in Taking Stance. A player must not take a stance for the stroke using any object that was set down by or for the player to help in lining up his or her feet or body, such as a club set down on the ground to show the line of playLine of Play: The line where the player intends his or her ball to go after a stroke, including the area on that line that is a reasonable distance up above the ground and on either side of that line.(...Continued)."

I made the key words in my head bold. As I read it, using a line on a ball is illegal and should be a 2 stroke or loss of hole penalty. Can you help me understand why the ball (with a line) isn't covered under "any object"

 

In your use of this definition, the line on the ball is irrelevant.  You're saying you don't want the ball, or anything on the ball, to aid in alignment.  The nature of the marking should make no difference if you want to use this rule to make a line illegal.  Everything on a ball would have to be illegal.

Now if you want to get really into what that rule is saying, it specifically says "help in lining up his or her feet or body."  I think it is reasonable to say that a round ball, even with a line on it, does minimal help to aligning ones feet, and body.  And the example of a club set down on the ground is another clue that the objects being talked about are external to the ones required to take a shot.  The ball is a required object that is explicitly permissible to be replaced on the green in any orientation.

I'll maintain that if clarity on this rule is needed, it should explicitly make it clear that markings on a ball are not considered an object in this definition.

[Bonvivant]

2 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

In your use of this definition, the line on the ball is irrelevant.  You're saying you don't want the ball, or anything on the ball, to aid in alignment.  The nature of the marking should make no difference if you want to use this rule to make a line illegal.  Everything on a ball would have to be illegal.

Markings would still be allowed the way I am reading it, but you wouldn't be allowed to place the ball in an orientation that aids you in aligning the shot. Between "place any object" and "to show the line of play" is enough for me to think that this is already illegal. Obviously I am missing something about why it is currently allowed.

I agree that the nature of the marking doesn't make a difference but everything on the ball would be illegal to USE (or be placed) in alignment aiding along the line of play.

I am really struggling this and just want clarification on how the ball doesn't fall under "any object", because if it does, then it shouldn't be allowed.

[DaveP043]

6 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

I agree that the nature of the marking doesn't make a difference but everything on the ball would be illegal to USE (or be placed) in alignment aiding along the line of play.

Interpretation 14.2c/1 specifically allows you to line "align" some marking on the ball when you replace it.   The example is aligning the trademark, but it would apply equally to any other marking on the ball.  This very specific permission overrides any more general prohibition elsewhere in the rules.  That's how Rules work, with generalities, and then more specific (overriding) exceptions.

This isn't too dissimilar to the idea of "play it as it lies."  Generally, you may not ever intentionally move your ball during the play of a hole, other than by striking it with a club.  Then there are exceptions, a bunch of specific circumstances where you have specific permission to move it, in a specified manner.

[Double Mocha Man]

Hmmm... stand-up putters, that you can stand behind, with lines on top, are legal.  Where do those factor in???

[Vinsk]

58 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

Can you help me understand why the ball (with a line) isn't covered under "any object"

An object is something you can pick up, move independent of the ball. You can’t pick up a line on a golf ball. 

[DaveP043]

13 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Hmmm... stand-up putters, that you can stand behind, with lines on top, are legal.  Where do those factor in???

Check out this Interpretation:

10.2b(3)/1 – Setting Clubhead on Ground Behind Ball to Help the Player Take a Stance is Allowed

I didn't quote the rest hoping that you'll do the look-up on your own.

[Bonvivant]

3 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

An object is something you can pick up, move independent of the ball. You can’t pick up a line on a golf ball. 

I didn't know that the ball can't be an object. Can you show me this?

 

17 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Interpretation 14.2c/1 specifically allows you to line "align" some marking on the ball when you replace it.   The example is aligning the trademark, but it would apply equally to any other marking on the ball.  This very specific permission overrides any more general prohibition elsewhere in the rules.  That's how Rules work, with generalities, and then more specific (overriding) exceptions.

Thank you. This is what I was looking for. Clearly from my previous statements you could probably tell that I don't like this rule after reading it, but I can at least accept it.

[ChetlovesMer]

1 minute ago, Bonvivant said:

Thank you. This is what I was looking for. Clearly from my previous statements you could probably tell that I don't like this rule after reading it, but I can at least accept it.

We understand. 
For example. I don't like cake, but I can at least accept it. 

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

Thank you. This is what I was looking for. Clearly from my previous statements you could probably tell that I don't like this rule after reading it, but I can at least accept it.

There are a few rules that I don't care for, but that's life.  Overall, I think they're pretty remarkable, and the 2019 changes made most things much more consistent.

[billchao]

8 hours ago, TourSpoon said:

Maybe we should go back to the Vardon Gutta Percha Balls. Wait, upon further inspection this only confuses the issue. Looks like a built in alignment aid to me. Time to move on from this topic. 

I'm pretty sure all golf balls have seams on the cover.