Are these glasses against the rules?

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by iacas

Not really, but the clubhead must be "plain in shape". The lines aren't necessarily part of the "shape" and we've seen some weird looking designs that are legal (often in putters), but a line will not make a putter "not plain in shape" and, as was noted, clubs have had logos and alignment aids on them since the beginning of time. So, they're fine, and the glasses aren't.

What does "plain in shape" mean in practice? I am using a RAM Zebra putter I bought some 15 years ago and it does not only have painted lines but actual alignment grooves on top of the clubhead.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Got it.

Alignment line on ball, yes.

Alignment line on putter, yes.

Alignment line on glasses, no.

And an alignment line on the ground is illegal as well, which is essentially what these glasses are projecting.

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

And an alignment line on the ground is illegal as well, which is essentially what these glasses are projecting.

We were discussing the legality of the glasses in the initial post. They are sunglasses with darker tint at the top and bottom. You can still see through them, its just darker at the top and bottom.

The glasses you are referencing (ProAim), which project a definitive alignment line on the ground, are definitely a training aid.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

What does "plain in shape" mean in practice?

Manufacturers can submit a sample to the USGA and they will decide. Go ahead and try to define it. Good luck. That's why they don't bother.

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

We were discussing the legality of the glasses in the initial post. They are sunglasses with darker tint at the top and bottom. You can still see through them, its just darker at the top and bottom.

Yep. And they're illegal. Your original (sole) question has been answered. They're illegal.

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by iacas

Yep. And they're illegal. Your original (sole) question has been answered. They're illegal.

Thanks for pinning it down.
When all else fails, just be insistent.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

When all else fails, just be insistent.

Seems to be your strategy. Is it working?

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Seems to be your strategy. Is it working?

Not really.
I was just trying to get a inference where the USGA has specifically addressed to legality of lines on the lenses of glasses.

I truly regret ever asking.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Not really.

I was just trying to get a inference where the USGA has specifically addressed to legality of lines on the lenses of glasses.

Remember the episode of The Young Ones when Vivian was putting toast into a video player and when told not to he said the instructions didn't say said you shouldn't? Same thing.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

And an alignment line on the ground is illegal as well, which is essentially what these glasses are projecting.

We were discussing the legality of the glasses in the initial post. They are sunglasses with darker tint at the top and bottom. You can still see through them, its just darker at the top and bottom.

The glasses you are referencing (ProAim), which project a definitive alignment line on the ground, are definitely a training aid.

Ah, thanks for clarifying for me.

[fairplay]

This is why I disagree with golf's arcane rules. I can think of no other sport that would outlaw these kinds of glasses. If an opthomologist wrote a prescription because not have lines to guide me made me dizzy, would the rules limit the use/ Are turbulators on a golf driver head not making them look less than traditional and more like an aerodynamic space craft? Is it not clear that people can argue back and forth about rules interpretation that maybe, just maybe, the rules are too complicated to be applied uniformly and consistently. And while I am on the subject of rules, in what other sport can a bystander phone in and have a rules infraction imposed after the fact. Shut the eff up, mind your own business, and have a coke!

[mmoan2]

Got it.

Alignment line on ball, yes.

Alignment line on putter, yes.

Alignment line on glasses, no.

yes!

[fairplay]

Alignment groves are as old as dirt. All these odd shapes like the 2 ball odyssey are certainly not conventional yet these are allowed. we keep bending the rules. Like catholics can eat meat and touch the host. Time marches on and the rules of life change. The R&A; is slower to adopt or admit they have adopted new interpretations than the Catholic Church. You still have to read the green, execute the stroke, etc.

Is it fair that some people use and can afford to have an experienced caddie read the greens and assist in other ways. Is that fair? It's not player versus player because the caddie is a separate and tangible difference maker. Why allow that but shun a line on your glasses, neon arrows on the putter,etc?

we can use pine tar on our grips and presumably put cork in the putter insert. All illegal in baseball because it effects the grip of the bat. Odd, that golf does not view crop aids unnatural for a golf club?

[fairplay]

Wait. if the the glasses merely have diff shades of gray on top and bottom, one could focus on the path in lighter shade but have no definitive line. It might help, or might not. Is that illegal? why should definitive lines on a putter be okay while shades of gray in glasses are not? The rules are arbitrary and often capricious.

You can't ground the club in the bunker but you can use the club as a crutch and "accidentally" touch (read test) the sand. What????

As if touching the sand with the club lightly would provide any relevant information for even the best bunker player, let alone the rest of you!! What?????

You can elect to play from a hazerd or get point of relief plus one club length (a driver even if the shot calls for a wedge (WHAT??) YET if you are not in a staked hazard and have an unplayable lie, you may not have any relief (no better point no closer to the hole and in bounds. So the guy who hits it into the hazard gets a better break than the guy who hits it into an area that maybe should have been staked a hazard but was not. Real fair rule /situation that is.

I guess craig stadler should have stripped down to his underwear (now that would have been a site worthy of some kind of penalty I would say) then execute his infamous shot sans the use of a towel? That way, the ******* who called the penalty by way of a phone call could not argue. The point here is that he used the towel to avoid soiling his pants, no other reason, and sustained a penally that cost him the title. WHAT????

Stop trying to beat the other guy by imposing rules, hit the ball count the strokes and let the least strokes decide who is the better golfer, not better at imposing or avoiding the hazards of golf (and by hazards I include the poorly written and ill-conceived rules of golf.

[fairplay]

Typical, using obscure references to make a point. Who the eff is Vivian. And that's not the same thing as this question about the glasses. I think visual aids to aid those who are visually challenged is exactly the same as wearing a cap, goggles, snow goggles, etc. Having lines on my glasses 5-6 feet from the ball and intended line is no different than looking down 5-6 feet away at a line on the putter.

Sam Snead used to purposely take divots with his wedge when he wanted less spin on a pitch shot. Would you call someone for having dirty grooves? technically you could. I say anything you can also do to alter the swing, shot , etc. is fair. You butter your butt in cycling or golf for that matter. Go ahead and slather it on the clubs or by our balls (either set0 for all I care.

[Ernest Jones]

Typical, using obscure references to make a point. Who the eff is Vivian. And that's not the same thing as this question about the glasses. I think visual aids to aid those who are visually challenged is exactly the same as wearing a cap, goggles, snow goggles, etc. Having lines on my glasses 5-6 feet from the ball and intended line is no different than looking down 5-6 feet away at a line on the putter. Sam Snead used to purposely take divots with his wedge when he wanted less spin on a pitch shot. Would you call someone for having dirty grooves? technically you could. I say anything you can also do to alter the swing, shot , etc. is fair. You butter your butt in cycling or golf for that matter. Go ahead and slather it on the clubs or by our balls (either set0 for all I care.

Welcome to the Trap. Who's Vivian?

[wadesworld]

This is why I disagree with golf's arcane rules. I can think of no other sport that would outlaw these kinds of glasses. If an opthomologist wrote a prescription because not have lines to guide me made me dizzy, would the rules limit the use/ Are turbulators on a golf driver head not making them look less than traditional and more like an aerodynamic space craft? Is it not clear that people can argue back and forth about rules interpretation that maybe, just maybe, the rules are too complicated to be applied uniformly and consistently. And while I am on the subject of rules, in what other sport can a bystander phone in and have a rules infraction imposed after the fact. Shut the eff up, mind your own business, and have a coke!

You know, why should baseball ban roughening up the ball?  Whoops, banned.

How about football receivers and stickum?  Hmm...that's banned too.

Seems like a lot of other sports have arcane rules.

Invent glasses that give you an advantage over other players in baseball and see how long they remain legal.

As for "call-ins," you do realize that a caddy, another player, a marshal, a spectator or the coke vendor himself can notify a rules official of an infraction right?  How is that different?  When there's video evidence of an infraction, the Tour is just supposed to say, "Oh well?"

[wadesworld]

Wait. if the the glasses merely have diff shades of gray on top and bottom, one could focus on the path in lighter shade but have no definitive line. It might help, or might not. Is that illegal? why should definitive lines on a putter be okay while shades of gray in glasses are not? The rules are arbitrary and often capricious.

You can't ground the club in the bunker but you can use the club as a crutch and "accidentally" touch (read test) the sand. What????

As if touching the sand with the club lightly would provide any relevant information for even the best bunker player, let alone the rest of you!! What?????

You can elect to play from a hazerd or get point of relief plus one club length (a driver even if the shot calls for a wedge (WHAT??) YET if you are not in a staked hazard and have an unplayable lie, you may not have any relief (no better point no closer to the hole and in bounds. So the guy who hits it into the hazard gets a better break than the guy who hits it into an area that maybe should have been staked a hazard but was not. Real fair rule /situation that is.

I guess craig stadler should have stripped down to his underwear (now that would have been a site worthy of some kind of penalty I would say) then execute his infamous shot sans the use of a towel? That way, the ******* who called the penalty by way of a phone call could not argue. The point here is that he used the towel to avoid soiling his pants, no other reason, and sustained a penally that cost him the title. WHAT????

Stop trying to beat the other guy by imposing rules, hit the ball count the strokes and let the least strokes decide who is the better golfer, not better at imposing or avoiding the hazards of golf (and by hazards I include the poorly written and ill-conceived rules of golf.

How can I "count the strokes" if I don't have a set of rules to play by?  Or how will I know if the other guy has beaten me if he's not playing under the same rules as I?  After all, maybe he feels some of the rules are ridiculous and he should just ignore them.

Oh, but you know more than the hundreds of people who have devoted their careers to the writing and maintenance of the rules over hundreds of years.  Because, you know, you're indignant.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fairplay

This is why I disagree with golf's arcane rules. I can think of no other sport that would outlaw these kinds of glasses. If an opthomologist wrote a prescription because not have lines to guide me made me dizzy, would the rules limit the use/ Are turbulators on a golf driver head not making them look less than traditional and more like an aerodynamic space craft? Is it not clear that people can argue back and forth about rules interpretation that maybe, just maybe, the rules are too complicated to be applied uniformly and consistently. And while I am on the subject of rules, in what other sport can a bystander phone in and have a rules infraction imposed after the fact. Shut the eff up, mind your own business, and have a coke!

You know, why should baseball ban roughening up the ball?  Whoops, banned.

How about football receivers and stickum?  Hmm...that's banned too.

Seems like a lot of other sports have arcane rules.

Invent glasses that give you an advantage over other players in baseball and see how long they remain legal.

As for "call-ins," you do realize that a caddy, another player, a marshal, a spectator or the coke vendor himself can notify a rules official of an infraction right?  How is that different?  When there's video evidence of an infraction, the Tour is just supposed to say, "Oh well?"

Unless you're Jerry Rice!