"Line of Putt, Jordan."

[ChrisP]

1 hour ago, No Mulligans said:

There are several rules I disagree with, including this stepping on the line of putt rule, but that seems off topic to this thread.

Did he break a rule by stepping on the line of his putt?  I think he did.  If he breaks a rule should he be penalized?  I think he should (even though I don't like that particular rule).  

(FWIW, I'm a Spieth fan and that is irrelevant to this thread and to my opinion.  Just saying so someone doesn't troll by calling me a Spieth hater).

I agree with you except for the fact that it states he had to do it intentionally. With thousands of cameras on him, I can't imagine him thinking "They'll never see me do this. Let me step on my line, put some spike marks in front of my ball and let me read it from a few yards closer. Maybe I'll get away with it." I honestly don't see the advantage of what he did. Others may, I don't. He sure as hell didn't come close to making it, so if he did it intentionally, it sure didn't work out.

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I'm just following the logic here.  I say there is no way that stepping on your line with spiked shoes could improve it, and I think that every golfer on the planet including Jordan Spieth knows that, and therefore, there's no way that he did that intentionally.  And since I think everybody would reasonably agree that it certainly wouldn't improve his line, that leads me to the conclusion that the answer to the question in 16-1a/12 in this case is "no."

I get all that. I don't think that decision is correct. Though it's what we have to live with. I think it they should take the improvement part. I think they need to clarify the level of accidental. It just seems like now you can walk all over the green as long as you don't yet read your putt. 

I still think it muttles the joint ruling by the USGA and R&A on Aimpoint that we are told to stand a reasonable distance away from the line.  I just try never to really stand or walk on my line. It's just something basic. I was kinda shocked that Jordan did walk on his line, incidental or accidental. 

 

[Golfingdad]

18 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I still think it muttles the joint ruling by the USGA and R&A on Aimpoint that we are told to stand a reasonable distance away from the line.

Not sure what muttles means  but anyways ...

"Reasonable distance" is already in the definition of "line of putt."  I don't think that is a new thing that relates to Aimpoint.  Unfortunately, there is no actual definition for "reasonable distance."  Also, keep in mind that line of putt is also defined as the line you INTEND to putt across.  So even if it turns out that the ball did cross where he walked (and at this point, I will stipulate that it looks like he did) you can't actually say that that is the "line of putt" because it's possible that he hit it poorly (not very likely in Jordan's case, though) or that he didn't think it was his line at the time he was walking there.

24 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I just try never to really stand or walk on my line.

Why?  Only because you are afraid of an infraction?  Or also because you don't want to screw up your putt?  It's both right?  That's why I'm "sure" Jordan wouldn't have intentionally walked in his own line.

[pumaAttack]

3 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Wouldn't you think that would be illogical considering the risk of putting spike marks in your own line?  I'm failing to see the advantage gained by walking in your own line intentionally.  It just doesn't add up.

"Yay, I have a slightly better idea which way it'll curve when I get up there, (which I could have never figured out by standing close to my line and leaning over a bit. /s).  The only problem is that now I don't know which way it'll bounce off the marks I just made with my feet."

He clearly wanted to see how his putt would break once it reached the ridge. He walked his line, looked down and made another read.  

 

[saevel25]

16 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

"Reasonable distance" is already in the definition of "line of putt."  I don't think that is a new thing that relates to Aimpoint.  Unfortunately, there is no actual definition for "reasonable distance."  Also, keep in mind that line of putt is also defined as the line you INTEND to putt across.  So even if it turns out that the ball did cross where he walked (and at this point, I will stipulate that it looks like he did) you can't actually say that that is the "line of putt" because it's possible that he hit it poorly (not very likely in Jordan's case, though) or that he didn't think it was his line at the time he was walking there.

You see him walking where his putt traveled. He is such a good putter. He has to have a high level read, bead and speed going for him. It looks like he tries to walk around but then just walks along where his ball traveled. I get that isn't necessarily the line. You could pull a putt left into where you walked.

I think he should have taken more diligence in having that reasonable distance. If they state you must keep a reasonable distance then I don't think Spieth cleared that hurdle in the rule. If he can get away with not keeping a reasonable distance because it was an accident, then why even have the words, "reasonable distance" in the rules? 

26 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Why?  Only because you are afraid of an infraction?  Or also because you don't want to screw up your putt?  It's both right?  That's why I'm "sure" Jordan wouldn't have intentionally walked in his own line.

Infraction 100% because I wear spikeless shoes 

I get he didn't do it with intention. I don't think intention should be part of the rules. I believe the USGA is wrong on that. I get it's part of the rules. The decision contradicts the words "reasonable distance". If you never have intent then it doesn't matter if you keep a reasonable distance. 

 

[No Mulligans]

One interpretation...

I'd say he did intend to walk where he did, there was no accident, and he knew where the line was.  He just forgot about the rule in the heat of the moment (i.e. a brain fart).  He didn't intend to break the rule, but he did.

If that is what happened how would you rule?

What if you knew where the line was but lost track of it in the heat of the moment.  In this scenario there wasn't intent but there also was a mistake due to a brain fart.

How would you rule on that one?

How to interpret intent and accident is vague to me.  Clearly, if you trip and step on the line as you are catching yourself that is an accident.  But if you just have a mental lapse and consequently step on your line, is that an accident?

 

[Howling Coyote]

3 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Wouldn't you think that would be illogical considering the risk of putting spike marks in your own line?  I'm failing to see the advantage gained by walking in your own line intentionally.  It just doesn't add up.

"Yay, I have a slightly better idea which way it'll curve when I get up there, (which I could have never figured out by standing close to my line and leaning over a bit. /s).  The only problem is that now I don't know which way it'll bounce off the marks I just made with my feet."

Golfingdad,  I must admit, that the rules are very confusing to me and don't understand many of them.  It might be more useful to understand why a rule was created and the situation it was intended to prevent.

However, if he walks on his line but not where the ball will roll (because of the break), he can leave a tiny mark that he could use.  Not too long ago, there was this tall palm tree that cast a shadow across the green.  When I teed off, my ball landed exactly on this shadow's edge.  The shadow pointed slightly to the left of the hole and I knew it would break to the right so that if I followed the shadow's line it would lead me into the hole.  So I did and my ball went right in.  Having any kind of visible mark on the green to follow is a big advantage.

[JLeeWildcat9]

You know. That one day, took me from being a Jordan fan, to hell no! Selfish - one word

[ChrisP]

13 minutes ago, JLeeWildcat9 said:

You know. That one day, took me from being a Jordan fan, to hell no! Selfish - one word

haha yeah I'm sure it did, pal.

[Golfingdad]

36 minutes ago, JLeeWildcat9 said:

You know. That one day, took me from being a Jordan fan, to hell no! Selfish - one word

Okie dokie.

[Buckeyebowman]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Right, and as I look back at the decision quoted previously, that's true about this one as well.  The decision states that for it to be a violation he would have had to do it intentionally OR he would have had improved his line.

Can we all agree that stepping on your own line in a pair of shoes that look like this:

at Augusta National (or probably just about anywhere) is not going to improve you line?

  If I wanted to cheat and repair a spike mark, there are much easier ways to do it.  Just pull out a tee and repair it like its a ball mark, and tamp it down with the bottom of your flat putter.  Nobody would even bat an eye or question him - those guys do that all of the time. Not saying they necessarily repair spike marks all of the time, but they frequently will repair 2, 3, 4 or more "pitch" marks that are in their line before a make-able putt.  FCs NEVER question each other over whether the marks in question actually pitch marks or not.

Um, not exactly. I have seen telecasts where a golfer will have his ball mark repair tool out and call his FC over to point out what he was going to repair. Did the FC agree that this was an old ball mark which could be repaired and tamped down. I used to not pay much attention to unrepaired ball marks because there weren't many of them. Until recently. Nowadays greens seem to be riddled with them! I pay attention to them now having had some putts jump nearly a foot in the air, and die 5-6 feet short of the hole!

5 hours ago, Joe from MD said:

Didn't take long for the haters to get on Spieth after what happened at the Masters. 

Man, you got that right! He's just the most awful, rotten guy ever!

2 hours ago, JLeeWildcat9 said:

If they are going to let him blatantly cheat, on Saturday at The Masters, for ratings so the good ole' boy from Texas wins, at least get him to speed up his pace of play. If I was Rory I would have yelled across at him to pick up the pace. If I took that much time, over every shot, I could go to my club and put up a 67-68 on the card. I'm sure many of you could shave 5-6 shots off each round if you took 75 seconds to upwards of 3 minutes to study every shot. 

This is an absolute jet flight into fantasyland! As a 12 HI (I'm about a 13), we'd probably do better taking less time! See the shot, pull a club, hit it!  The extensive discussions between caddie and golfer that take place, would fry my brain. To attain such a mastery of the game, and be able to process all that information and still pull off the shot is astounding to me. 

I also tried to quote another post of yours, but it didn't "take". Don't know if there is a limit on the "multi-quote", still kind of new around here.

But, no. I am not important, I'm just a little ticked off! So, I decided to announce a vent, or rant if you will, so that those who didn't want to read it could skate on by. 

I'm ticked off by a couple of things. One is the "hi-def officiating", and the second guessing that can take place in golf. Is there any other sport on earth where armchair officials, watching on television, can affect the outcome of the event? It hasn't determined a winner, YET, but we all remember Craig Stadler and the "building a stance" ruling. Or Tiger Woods and the "ball moving" non ruling.

Some might claim this points out the "egalitarian spirit" of the game. Others might see it as incompetence. If the governing body of the sport can't adjudicate an event within the field of play, then what the hell are they doing there? Why should they need input from the bleacher bums?!

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Um, not exactly. I have seen telecasts where a golfer will have his ball mark repair tool out and call his FC over to point out what he was going to repair. Did the FC agree that this was an old ball mark which could be repaired and tamped down.

Yes, they do that occasionally too, but what I said doesn't dispute that.  What I said was that they often times repair the pitch marks themselves without conferring, and I've never once seen an FC object.  My point was that if somebody actually wanted to cheat, they could just repair it as if it's a ball mark, no questions asked.

This in response to the silly comments above that suggested that he was tamping down a spike mark with his ... Spiked shoes.

[JLeeWildcat9]

I backed off this keyboard 3 times before I typed this! It's a bit windy here: Slow play is selfish. How can anyone say it's not? 

[dchoye]

This issue needs addressing as many golfers are using their feet to read the break. Some are very close to walking on the line. With popularity of aim point there's going to be more questions in the future 

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, dchoye said:

This issue needs addressing as many golfers are using their feet to read the break. Some are very close to walking on the line. With popularity of aim point there's going to be more questions in the future 

It's not hard to stay a reasonable distance away from the line and do Aimpoint. 

Even if I get dinged with a penalty once every few years. I make up that stroke by a large margin in being able to read my putt much more accurately with Aimpoint. 

[14ledo81]

Is it also possible that the greens were so hard/firm/dry that walking on the line (with soft spikes) would not cause damage?

This could explain "why" he would not mind intentionally walking on his line.

I still contend the "why" does not matter that much.  He (to me) clearly walked on his line.

[Howling Coyote]

7 hours ago, 14ledo81 said:

Is it also possible that the greens were so hard/firm/dry that walking on the line (with soft spikes) would not cause damage?

This could explain "why" he would not mind intentionally walking on his line.

I still contend the "why" does not matter that much.  He (to me) clearly walked on his line.

I always walk very carefully on the greens because I am afraid of marking them up.  I figure the greenskeeper is going to come out like an angry bee and get me!  Having said that -the bottom of my shoes look very much like the pict posted by golfing dad- the only way to mark the line with spiked shoes, is to point the toe and jab a hole in.

So I don't think he was doing that.  I think he was walking close to his line in search of a natural defect, one that could give him something to follow.  I don't think it is against the rules, though.

[JLeeWildcat9]

There is nothing illegal about searching out and aiming at a natural defect. It is illegal, if you are not a reasonable distance from your putt line, on purpose. He was all over the line for a long enough period of time, and also very near his ball, which makes the "accident" exception, hard to defend.