Lifting on the green

[flopster]

I'm very torn on the method of using alignment lines on the ball, I more often than not don't like the way the line looks when I stand over the putt, and I know I'm looking from a different angle than when I lined up the ball but I think it just screws me up worse when I stroke the ball on a different line than what the alignment one shows. I find I'm more comfortable stroking the ball towards a spot that's a little discolored or alongside a repaired mark. I think today will be a no lines showing day.

Good day putting, shot 76 not saying this is why for me but I just feel less stressed over the ball not feeling like I have to hit it right through the lines, instead of hitting to a spot on the green.

[march11934]

I have tried using a line on a ball for a little while. I did find a benefit of speeding up my approach for long lag puts where the cup is way outside my line of sight.

I just find it interesting where many of the rules of golf are about defining exactly what you can do and how you can do it. There is so much about not moving the ball, not touching the ball, not causing the ball to move, conditions when you may touché the ball, until a year or so ago the wind could cause you a stroke if the ball were to move just because you're standing over it and never touched it! But because you put a mark down on the green you can clean it and align it and so on. I don't see the consistency.

I have even read about the outrage of lift clean and place in Augusta. But i can't help but shake my head when they do it all day long on the greens.

I guess its a pet peeve of mine that won't go any further.

Thanks

[Fourputt]

I have tried using a line on a ball for a little while. I did find a benefit of speeding up my approach for long lag puts where the cup is way outside my line of sight.

I just find it interesting where many of the rules of golf are about defining exactly what you can do and how you can do it. There is so much about not moving the ball, not touching the ball, not causing the ball to move, conditions when you may touché the ball, until a year or so ago the wind could cause you a stroke if the ball were to move just because you're standing over it and never touched it! But because you put a mark down on the green you can clean it and align it and so on. I don't see the consistency.

I have even read about the outrage of lift clean and place in Augusta. But i can't help but shake my head when they do it all day long on the greens.

I guess its a pet peeve of mine that won't go any further.

Thanks

Look at it like this.  The course is divided into four areas -  the teeing ground of the hole being played, the putting green of the hole being played, all hazards, and through the green.  For much of the 260 years since the rules were first codified, actions, allowances, and penalties  were  differentiated by where the ball lies.  Either different rules applied, or the rules were applied differently if the ball lay in a hazard as opposed to the rough; you are allowed to take actions through the green which are not allowed in a water hazard.  There are even certain differences between water hazards and bunkers in how some situations are dealt with.  It comes down to a combination of maintaining playability and rewarding skillful play.

The reason for those differences is partly owed to an attempt in the rules to maintain playability.  If the game becomes unplayable due to a lie or condition, doesn't it make sense to design a rule to alleviate that?  Sometimes that relief comes with a penalty attached, other times it does not, again all depending on where the ball lies.

Wouldn't you think that it would be logical to allow certain acts when the ball lies on the putting green, simply because not allowing those acts could seriously impact the golfer's ability to play the game as it is intended?  Cleaning the ball, repairing pitch marks become a necessity when play is on a surface where the ball will usually be rolling.  In such a case, the game shouldn't be allowed to come down to luck just to keep the rules the same.  That would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the rules.

The game of golf is about developing and using one's skill to navigate the course from tee to hole.  Forcing the player to putt across old pitch marks with a dirty ball on modern, fast putting surfaces would be placing an undesirable level of luck into a part of the game which should demand a high degree of skill.

[MS256]

I use a line on my ball but it's not for the purpose of aligning to a target. It is simply for feedback on the quality of my roll. In other words I could roll any given putt just as well without a line on the ball but wouldn't see as clearly as it was rolling if I had made a perfect roll. Without knowing I might continue to make bad rolls.

[march11934]

Look at it like this.  The course is divided into four areas -  the teeing ground of the hole being played, the putting green of the hole being played, all hazards, and through the green.  For much of the 260 years since the rules were first codified, actions, allowances, and penalties  were  differentiated by where the ball lies.  Either different rules applied, or the rules were applied differently if the ball lay in a hazard as opposed to the rough; you are allowed to take actions through the green which are not allowed in a water hazard.  There are even certain differences between water hazards and bunkers in how some situations are dealt with.  It comes down to a combination of maintaining playability and rewarding skillful play.

The reason for those differences is partly owed to an attempt in the rules to maintain playability.  If the game becomes unplayable due to a lie or condition, doesn't it make sense to design a rule to alleviate that?  Sometimes that relief comes with a penalty attached, other times it does not, again all depending on where the ball lies.

Wouldn't you think that it would be logical to allow certain acts when the ball lies on the putting green, simply because not allowing those acts could seriously impact the golfer's ability to play the game as it is intended?  Cleaning the ball, repairing pitch marks become a necessity when play is on a surface where the ball will usually be rolling.  In such a case, the game shouldn't be allowed to come down to luck just to keep the rules the same.  That would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the rules.

The game of golf is about developing and using one's skill to navigate the course from tee to hole.  Forcing the player to putt across old pitch marks with a dirty ball on modern, fast putting surfaces would be placing an undesirable level of luck into a part of the game which should demand a high degree of skill.

Thanks for the in depth Fourputt.

I appreciate the discussion. Its the spirit of the rules that i feel should always be upheld.

Based on your description all of this makes sense. I would ask you this. What is your standing on repairing spike marks. You make  a great point about luck. Imagine you have a three foot put on the 18th for a win. What are the rules upholding by not allowing your to fix the drag mark some elephant left behind? So you can lift the ball, clean the ball and replace it in a manner other than the original lie by allowing you to align it with a mark you placed on the ball other than what was allowed by the manufacturer. But you're not allowed to repair a spike mark. Divots, club marks, etc, but not spike marks.

I realize this is a tangent to the original post. Just enjoying the conversation and i thank you all for the input.

Regards,

[Fourputt]

Thanks for the in depth Fourputt.

I appreciate the discussion. Its the spirit of the rules that i feel should always be upheld.

Based on your description all of this makes sense. I would ask you this. What is your standing on repairing spike marks. You make  a great point about luck. Imagine you have a three foot put on the 18th for a win. What are the rules upholding by not allowing your to fix the drag mark some elephant left behind? So you can lift the ball, clean the ball and replace it in a manner other than the original lie by allowing you to align it with a mark you placed on the ball other than what was allowed by the manufacturer. But you're not allowed to repair a spike mark. Divots, club marks, etc, but not spike marks.

I realize this is a tangent to the original post. Just enjoying the conversation and i thank you all for the input.

Regards,

To be honest it's a difficult subject.  Back when that prohibition was put into the rules, greens were slower and spike marks weren't as much of a factor in the roll of a putt, and it was thought that allowing such gardening would be excessively time consuming, potentially delaying play.  Then green speed increases sort of came hand in hand with courses starting to ban steel spikes, thus mostly eliminating the sort of spike damage which has a significant impact on putting.  These days, at least in the US, steel spikes are almost universally outlawed.  Even a lot of Tour pros no longer use them, so they are less of a factor on Tour as well.  For these reasons, there has never been an overriding need to change the rule.

I personally have never seen them as being a significant issue, and I started playing golf on a regular basis in 1973.  I wore steel spikes, carbide spikes, then quickly switched to soft spikes when they became available.  My home course started prohibiting steel spikes soon thereafter.  I generally either play in shoes or sandals with soft spikes, or just in sneakers if I'm too lazy to change shoes.  At the moment, I don't even own a pair of golf shoes - since I only get to play for about one week a year, it made no sense financially to replace my worn out ones.

[johnno]

That's true about pace of play. 4 guys aligning their golf balls can add a few minutes to a hole.

Good point about the mark. Although i doubt the guys i play with would ever enforce a stroke on moving a ball that isn't marked. But that's another topic of discussion i've see on other posts.

Technically of course you are all disqualified under 1 - 3

Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE 1-3:
Match play – Disqualification of both sides;
Stroke play – Disqualification of competitors concerned.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by march11934

That's true about pace of play. 4 guys aligning their golf balls can add a few minutes to a hole.

Good point about the mark. Although i doubt the guys i play with would ever enforce a stroke on moving a ball that isn't marked. But that's another topic of discussion i've see on other posts.

Technically of course you are all disqualified under 1 - 3

Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE 1-3:

Match play – Disqualification of both sides;

Stroke play – Disqualification of competitors concerned.

He never said that anyone agreed to waive a rule, only that they would probably not call it on each other if someone happened to do it.  In match play, the player isn't even required to act on a penalty he observes, since failure to act can only harm himself.  In stroke play, if the fellow competitor only decides to ignore it after the fact then it is not a breach of 1-3, only a one stroke penalty on the player for a breach of 18-2a.

18-2a/33

Rotating Ball on Putting Green Without Marking Position

Q.A player rotates his ball on the putting green to line up the trademark with the hole. He did not lift the ball, mark its position or change its position. Is there a penalty?

A.Yes, one stroke for touching the ball other than as provided for in the Rules (Rule 18-2a). Under Rules 16-1b and 20-1, a ball on the putting green may be lifted (or touched and rotated) after its position has been marked. If the player had marked the position of the ball before rotating it, there would have been no penalty.

[Rulesman]

In stroke play, if the fellow competitor only decides to ignore it after the fact then it is not a breach of 1-3, only a one stroke penalty on the player for a breach of 18-2a.

He would almost certainly be in line for DQ under Decision 33-7/9.

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-33/#33-7/9

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

In stroke play, if the fellow competitor only decides to ignore it after the fact then it is not a breach of 1-3, only a one stroke penalty on the player for a breach of 18-2a.

He would almost certainly be in line for DQ under Decision 33-7/9.

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-33/#33-7/9

True.  Committee would have to make that decision.  It comes under the principle of protecting the field.

[Rulesman]

True.  Committee would have to make that decision.  It comes under the principle of protecting the field.

It is more specific than that. It really comes under 1-3. See 1-3/6.

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-01/#d1-3-6

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

True.  Committee would have to make that decision.  It comes under the principle of protecting the field.

It is more specific than that. It really comes under 1-3. See 1-3/6.

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-01/#d1-3-6

But it is still up to the committee to determine if the facts of the case warrant disqualification.  They have to have evidence that the FC knew the rule and that he observed the infraction and willfully disregarded it.  That decision also states that the offender was the player's marker, something which has not been shown to be the case here.

[Rulesman]

But it is still up to the committee to determine if the facts of the case warrant disqualification.  They have to have evidence that the FC knew the rule and that he observed the infraction and willfully disregarded it.  That decision also states that the offender was the player's marker, something which has not been shown to be the case here.

The Committee always has to be involved when a DQ is involved regarding any rule. Nothing different about this.

Incidentally, the decision was introduced a few years ago to make it clear that the breach extended to all competitors.

[liquor box]

What if you drew a bunch of lines going all sorts of directions so that one of them was always close to the right line?

I have always thought one line is a poor idea, why not have a 90 angle and a cross to line up, this way you have a line for the path of the ball and a line to check you putter alignment.

I have often also wondered why putters don't come in chrome or highly polished to allow the reflection to assist alignment

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

What if you drew a bunch of lines going all sorts of directions so that one of them was always close to the right line?

I have always thought one line is a poor idea, why not have a 90 angle and a cross to line up, this way you have a line for the path of the ball and a line to check you putter alignment.

I have often also wondered why putters don't come in chrome or highly polished to allow the reflection to assist alignment

How would a reflection assist in alignment?  I'd think that it would do more harm than any possible good because it would also reflect the sun in your eyes.

[march11934]

How would a reflection assist in alignment?  I'd think that it would do more harm than any possible good because it would also reflect the sun in your eyes.

Never know? Up until a short time ago clubs were gloss black, then flat black to "decrease glare". Then you start seeing white clubs and putters. White without glare?? I have seen putters that have a clear portion with a line in the top and bottom portions of the putter. You can see the bottom line through the top of the putter and align the two lines. Not sure if they are training aids only or if they are PGA approved. But a reflection might have the same effect as the Odyssey two ball putters with the third circle being the ball. I used one for a while and found a definite advantage in aligning the circles to create a line.

At the very least could be on to the next marketing approach.

[liquor box]

How would a reflection assist in alignment?  I'd think that it would do more harm than any possible good because it would also reflect the sun in your eyes.

I don't know if it would, but if may assist if designed properly