Jump to content
IGNORED

Rules on lining up putts


JackOConnor
Note: This thread is 1903 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

I've read both http://thesandtrap.com/t/58953/is-it-legal-to-use-your-putter-to-line-up-your-putt and http://golfrules.freeforums.org/line-for-putting-t1833.html as referenced in Dormie's post and I figured I'd throw in my tuppence worth. It would probably be more appropriate in  http://thesandtrap.com/t/58953/is-it-legal-to-use-your-putter-to-line-up-your-putt but I didn't want to bump a nearly year old thread.

Anyway, the point that strikes me about the language of 8.2b is "... may, before but not during the stroke, point out a line for putting,"

There seems to have been a lot of discussion about where the 'line for putting' is in relation to the 'line of putt' as discussed in 16.1 but the point I haven't seen made anywhere is that the language 'line for putting' seems to me clearly intended to indicate a point at which the ball would be aimed.

Thus, any point on the green in a direction opposite from that which the ball will be traveling cannot possibly be used to 'point out a line for putting'.

Can't you use a point behind the ball as a basis for your aiming line?  It might not be the most natural way to do it, but a point behind your ball and your ball are 2 points that define a line and it would be possible to think about your aiming line this way., wouldn't it?

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Can't you use a point behind the ball as a basis for your aiming line?  It might not be the most natural way to do it, but a point behind your ball and your ball are 2 points that define a line and it would be possible to think about your aiming line this way., wouldn't it?


I know what you mean and certainly you could align yourself using a natural mark on the ground behind the ball, or even, as some players do, by having a caddie stand directly behind you while you line up.

I guess what I am saying is that I am interpreting the act of 'pointing out a line for putting' as saying 'Aim here' and so touching any point behind the ball can't be taken as saying where to aim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by turtleback

Can't you use a point behind the ball as a basis for your aiming line?  It might not be the most natural way to do it, but a point behind your ball and your ball are 2 points that define a line and it would be possible to think about your aiming line this way., wouldn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

No. 8-2b says A mark may not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting.

To be fair turtleback didn't say anything about 'placing' a mark. I took him to mean that if there was, for example, a spike mark or a discoloured spot on the surface behind the ball that matched up with the line you wanted to take then that could be used to point out the line of the putt.

The question would then be are you allowed to touch that mark on the ground as a way of 'pointing out a line for putting'.

My contention is that 'pointing out a line for putting' and 'aligning' are subtly different.

It's a strangely worded rule and my frustration with it has been compounded by this page:

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-08/#d8-2b-1

At the bottom it says "Other Decisions related to Rule 8-2b : See "Indicating Line for Putting" and "Line of Putt" in the Index." but I can't for the life of me find the Index on the website. Am I being very dumb? Or is it referring just to the Index of the printed material and they've copied it verbatim to the website but not included an Index?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The question would then be are you allowed to touch that mark on the ground as a way of 'pointing out a line for putting'.

This should be:

"The question would then be would touching that mark on the ground constitute 'pointing out a line for putting'."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


At the bottom it says "Other Decisions related to Rule 8-2b: See "Indicating Line for Putting" and "Line of Putt" in the Index." but I can't for the life of me find the Index on the website. Am I being very dumb? Or is it referring just to the Index of the printed material and they've copied it verbatim to the website but not included an Index?!

The latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


No. 8-2b says A mark may not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting.

I expressed my self poorly and, as a result, you misunderstood my intention,  I meant it was possible, not that it was allowable.  Your citation makes explicit what I was trying to say was implicit in the rules.

I was specifically addressing the statement " Thus, any point on the green in a direction opposite from that which the ball will be traveling cannot possibly be used to 'point out a line for putting'." to show that you could use a point behind your ball to establish an aiming point, and that therefore touching such a point would be illegal.

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I don't understand just what the argument is about.  The rules are quite specific.  The line of putt may not be touched, with three exceptions as stated below (this is the line that the player intends for the ball roll on, plus a reasonable distance on either side of the line), and the green may not be touched when indicating the line or for alignment.  This seems quite straightforward to me.  To be safe, just don't touch the putting green unless you are repairing a pitch mark, removing a loose impediment, or marking, lifting, and replacing your ball.

There is no other reason to touch the green, so don't do it and you have nothing to worry about. ;-)

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 1 year later...

Isn't this the best way to putt? You know exactly where you want the putter pointed as your looking directly from the putters point of view rather than above it

Welcome to the forum.

Empirically I would have to say no to your question.  It is just not plausible that the vast majority of the best players in the world putt in a way that is not the best way to putt.  IOW, if facing the hole when you putt was the best way, that is how they would be doing it on tour.

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

Empirically I would have to say no to your question.  It is just not plausible that the vast majority of the best players in the world putt in a way that is not the best way to putt.  IOW, if facing the hole when you putt was the best way, that is how they would be doing it on tour.

Though you may be right, and I would say probably are, golf is such an old world type sport with traditions, that unless a player had near-IMMEDIATE improvement with the side-saddle method, he'd never switch to it because there's too much momentum built in for the existing method. If side saddle putting is better and you can reach proficiency faster, that proficiency is still probably around a few hundred hours, and the player has already invested quite a bit of time putting "traditionally" to really want to go back and start over from step 3 (not step 1 because they obviously understand some of the things they have in common).

Side saddle might be a better way. It's how we do almost everything else. But there's too much momentum AND golf is too traditional to really see someone do this. It would take, say, a junior academy in Korea or something to completely buy in, teach almost all of their juniors to putt that way, and turn out a few PGA Tour players who putted that way, and have success (at least at putting), and sway a few others to invest the time in the off-season or something.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 3 years later...

The move is legal.  The new rules of golf (2019)  spell out an interpretation that covers the exact sample you describe.

However, this prohibition does not prevent a player from setting his or her
clubhead behind the ball, such as when a player stands behind the ball and
places the clubhead perpendicular to the line of play and then walks around
from behind the ball to take his or her stance.

I was so happy to read this because I am one of those guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

@Rick M, the topic is from 2012. 🙂

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 1903 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • Wordle 1,013 4/6* ⬛🟦🟦⬛⬛ ⬛🟦⬛🟦🟦 🟧⬛🟧🟧🟧 🟧🟧🟧🟧🟧 par is good after a double bogey yesterday.
    • I did read the fine print tonight. It said replace with “similar features & function”.  8 yeas ago my purchase had features that today are available on the lower end models and the current version of my model has more “bells & whistles” than what I got 8 years ago.  So I am thinking they honored the agreement and I can’t argue the offer. since getting a credit for the full purchase price all I am really out over the past 8 years was the cost of the extended warranty, which was less than a low end  treadmill would have cost me. now the question is which model to replace with.  I’ll stay with Nordic Track or I forfeit the $1,463 credit so I will get Nordic Track.  And they honored the warranty and were not hard to work with which is a plus.
    • Generally speaking, extended warranties are a terrible deal and should almost always be avoided. They are a huge profit center for the companies that offer them, which should tell you almost everything you need to know about how much value most consumers get when purchasing them.  This is correct, and the old adage applies - only buy insurance when you can't afford the loss. This usually doesn't apply to most consumer goods.  To your second question, no I don't believe the offer is fair. They are replacing it, but it is not being replaced at "no cost to you". Since the amount being disputed (over $500) is non-trivial, I would probably push the issue. Don't waste your time on the phone with a customer service agent or a supervisor. They have probably given you all they have the authority to do. Rather, I would look at the terms of your agreement and specifically legal disputes. The odds are you probably agreed to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute. The agreement will outline what steps need to be followed, but it will probably look something like this.  1. Mail the Nordic Track legal department outlining your dispute and indicate you are not satisfied with the resolution offered.  2. Open up a case with the AAA (American Arbitration Association), along with the required documentation. 3. Wait about 4-5 weeks for a case to be opened - at which point someone from Nordic Track's legal department will offer to give you the new model at no cost to you.  They certainly don't want to spend the time and energy to fight you over $500. 4. Enjoy your new Nordic Track at no cost to you. I recently entered binding arbitration against a fairly large and well known company that screwed me over and refused to make it right. In my demand letter, I made a pretty sizeable request that included compensation for my time and frustration. Once it hit their legal department, they cut me a check - no questions asked. It was far cheaper to settle with me than to send their legal team to defend them in the arbitration.
    • I never thought of looking at it on multiple purchases like you said.  Yes, the extended may help me on 1 or 2 items but not the other 5 or 6.
    • Day 84 - Forgot to post yesterday, but I did some more chipping/pitching.    Back/neck were feeling better today, so I did a much overdue Stack session. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...