Aligning putt with tee

[Sawgrass]

Since you're permitted to scratch a line in the green to mark the ball's location, surely creating a hole with a tee is also permitted?

A segment from D20-1/16 says:

 

However, under Rule 20-1 it is necessary to physically mark the position of the ball. Reference to an existing mark on the ground does not constitute marking the position of a ball. For example, it is not permissible to mark the position with reference to a blemish on the putting green.

 

Note the underlined portion. IMO the question becomes, "after I make a hole on the green when originally placing a tee as a marker or using a marker with a spike, has it become "an existing mark on the ground" and therefore prohibited as a marker?

[copperjeff]

Interesting question about ball marker indicating line of play.

 

I use the logo on my ball marker to indicate which side of the marker to replace my ball on. When the logo isnt positioned towards the hole it reminds me if I moved the marker out of the line of another player's putt.

 

Interested to hear the USGA response, and have to see if I need to rethink my ball marking procedures.

[rogolf]

Since you're permitted to scratch a line in the green to mark the ball's location, surely creating a hole with a tee is also permitted?

A segment from D20-1/16 says:

 

 

However, under Rule 20-1 it is necessary to physically mark the position of the ball. Reference to an existing mark on the ground does not constitute marking the position of a ball. For example, it is not permissible to mark the position with reference to a blemish on the putting green.

 

Note the underlined portion. IMO the question becomes, "after I make a hole on the green when originally placing a tee as a marker or using a marker with a spike, has it become "an existing mark on the ground" and therefore prohibited as a marker?

My answer to your question is 'no', it was made by me at the time of marking and is therefore not an "existing mark"- it didn't exist before I marked my ball.

[Sawgrass]

Since you're permitted to scratch a line in the green to mark the ball's location, surely creating a hole with a tee is also permitted?

A segment from D20-1/16 says:

 

 

However, under Rule 20-1 it is necessary to physically mark the position of the ball. Reference to an existing mark on the ground does not constitute marking the position of a ball. For example, it is not permissible to mark the position with reference to a blemish on the putting green.

 

Note the underlined portion. IMO the question becomes, "after I make a hole on the green when originally placing a tee as a marker or using a marker with a spike, has it become "an existing mark on the ground" and therefore prohibited as a marker?

My answer to your question is 'no', it was made by me at the time of marking and is therefore not an "existing mark"- it didn't exist before I marked my ball.

I think I like your side of this debate.

[BiggErn]

What would be the point? I mean after you replace the call you have to pick up the tee.

[Sawgrass]

Since you're permitted to scratch a line in the green to mark the ball's location, surely creating a hole with a tee is also permitted?

A segment from D20-1/16 says:

 

 

However, under Rule 20-1 it is necessary to physically mark the position of the ball. Reference to an existing mark on the ground does not constitute marking the position of a ball. For example, it is not permissible to mark the position with reference to a blemish on the putting green.

 

Note the underlined portion. IMO the question becomes, "after I make a hole on the green when originally placing a tee as a marker or using a marker with a spike, has it become "an existing mark on the ground" and therefore prohibited as a marker?

My answer to your question is 'no', it was made by me at the time of marking and is therefore not an "existing mark"- it didn't exist before I marked my ball.

I think I like your side of this debate.

But Barry Rhodes would have penalized the player marking with a tee hole. See first comment from "Mike" and Barry's answer:

 

http://www.barryrhodes.com/2013/03/marking-ball-on-putting-green.html

[rogolf]

Since you're permitted to scratch a line in the green to mark the ball's location, surely creating a hole with a tee is also permitted?

A segment from D20-1/16 says:

 

 

However, under Rule 20-1 it is necessary to physically mark the position of the ball. Reference to an existing mark on the ground does not constitute marking the position of a ball. For example, it is not permissible to mark the position with reference to a blemish on the putting green.

 

Note the underlined portion. IMO the question becomes, "after I make a hole on the green when originally placing a tee as a marker or using a marker with a spike, has it become "an existing mark on the ground" and therefore prohibited as a marker?

My answer to your question is 'no', it was made by me at the time of marking and is therefore not an "existing mark"- it didn't exist before I marked my ball.

I think I like your side of this debate.

But Barry Rhodes would have penalized the player marking with a tee hole. See first comment from "Mike" and Barry's answer:

 

http://www.barryrhod...ting-green.html

I'd use the same argument with him - the mark was not existing when my ball came to rest or before I marked it. There were several times that I disagreed with Barry's interpretations of the Rules, just as there are likely several people who disagree with mine.

[bknaepen]

Since you're permitted to scratch a line in the green to mark the ball's location, surely creating a hole with a tee is also permitted?

A segment from D20-1/16 says:

 

 

However, under Rule 20-1 it is necessary to physically mark the position of the ball. Reference to an existing mark on the ground does not constitute marking the position of a ball. For example, it is not permissible to mark the position with reference to a blemish on the putting green.

 

Note the underlined portion. IMO the question becomes, "after I make a hole on the green when originally placing a tee as a marker or using a marker with a spike, has it become "an existing mark on the ground" and therefore prohibited as a marker?

 

The same decision allows (but discourages) to mark the ball by making a scratch on the green. So in my opinion making a hole for the specific purpose of marking a ball is of the same nature. As I understand it, an 'Existing mark' is a mark not made by the player for marking his ball.

[Newby]

Exactly. The mark did not exist before the ball came to rest.

[bknaepen]

A decision I find interesting for the current discussion is:

 

Decision 20-1/6.5

 

Q: In a match, the player’s ball-marker on the putting green is pressed down by the opponent. Is the opponent in breach of the Rules?

 

A: No. Rule 18-3b does not apply to ball-markers. However, if the ball-marker were moved such that it no longer accurately marked the position of the ball, in equity (Rule 1-4), the opponent would incur a penalty of one stroke. If the opponent pressed down the ball-marker with the authority of the player and that act caused it to move, there would be no penalty to either player (see Decision 20-1/6).

 

The decision makes a distinction between moving a ball and a ball-marker. It also emphasises that even if the ball marker is moved (vertically in this case), what matters in that context is that it still accurately marks the position of the ball...

 

It's clearly a particular situation but it's one example where moving the ball-marker is ok as long as it continues to properly mark the position of the ball.

 

On the other hand, maybe the whole process is still considered as a normal part of 'marking the ball'...

[Sawgrass]

Since you're permitted to scratch a line in the green to mark the ball's location, surely creating a hole with a tee is also permitted?

A segment from D20-1/16 says:

 

 

However, under Rule 20-1 it is necessary to physically mark the position of the ball. Reference to an existing mark on the ground does not constitute marking the position of a ball. For example, it is not permissible to mark the position with reference to a blemish on the putting green.

 

Note the underlined portion. IMO the question becomes, "after I make a hole on the green when originally placing a tee as a marker or using a marker with a spike, has it become "an existing mark on the ground" and therefore prohibited as a marker?

 

The same decision allows (but discourages) to mark the ball by making a scratch on the green. So in my opinion making a hole for the specific purpose of marking a ball is of the same nature. As I understand it, an 'Existing mark' is a mark not made by the player for marking his ball.

Don't get me wrong, I'm unsure about this. But I will point out that in our example the player put a tee in the ground to mark his ball he didn't put a hole in the green to mark his ball. That is, he didn't make "a hole for the specific purpose of marking a ball." The hole was made, the hole existed, prior to his using it as a mark.

[raynorfan1]

Since you're permitted to scratch a line in the green to mark the ball's location, surely creating a hole with a tee is also permitted?

A segment from D20-1/16 says:

 

 

However, under Rule 20-1 it is necessary to physically mark the position of the ball. Reference to an existing mark on the ground does not constitute marking the position of a ball. For example, it is not permissible to mark the position with reference to a blemish on the putting green.

 

Note the underlined portion. IMO the question becomes, "after I make a hole on the green when originally placing a tee as a marker or using a marker with a spike, has it become "an existing mark on the ground" and therefore prohibited as a marker?

 

The same decision allows (but discourages) to mark the ball by making a scratch on the green. So in my opinion making a hole for the specific purpose of marking a ball is of the same nature. As I understand it, an 'Existing mark' is a mark not made by the player for marking his ball.

Don't get me wrong, I'm unsure about this. But I will point out that in our example the player put a tee in the ground to mark his ball he didn't put a hole in the green to mark his ball. That is, he didn't make "a hole for the specific purpose of marking a ball." The hole was made, the hole existed, prior to his using it as a mark.

 

I agree with this assessment. The Barry Rhodes question was different - "I used a tee to mark my ball, and then subsequently used the hole made by the tee". IMHO, Rhodes is correct in that the hole was not made for the purpose of marking, and to subsequently claim it as such would be to use an "existing" feature to mark. It would be different if the player's intent all along was to use the hole as his mark.

 

The above quoted decision (Decision 20-1/6.5) changes my view of what is meant by "move". In my view, rotating is no more or less "moving" than pressing down, and if pressing down is allowed, so too should rotation be. Especially where they clarify that pressing down is allowed because it does not impact the accuracy of location.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

A ball with lines on it to help point the direction to the hole is, strictly speaking, surely illegal under the new 10.2b? Do you think that was an oversight on the part of the rules committee, and might it be amended to clarify that such balls are in fact OK to use?

Interpretation 14.2c/1

 

Sorry, I can't find that on the R&A site. 14.2 only goes to b. Could you link it, please?

 

Thank you!

 

I come to this part of the site to learn. Problem is, I always forget more than I learn!

[Newby]

A ball with lines on it to help point the direction to the hole is, strictly speaking, surely illegal under the new 10.2b? Do you think that was an oversight on the part of the rules committee, and might it be amended to clarify that such balls are in fact OK to use?

Interpretation 14.2c/1

 

Sorry, I can't find that on the R&A site. 14.2 only goes to b. Could you link it, please?

14.2c/1 Ball May Be Replaced in Almost Any Orientation

When replacing a lifted ball on a spot, the Rules are concerned about only the location. The ball may be aligned in any way when being replaced (such as by lining up a trademark) so long as the ball's vertical distance to the ground remains the same.

For example, when using a Rule that does not allow cleaning, the player lifts his or her ball and there is a piece of mud sticking to it. The ball may be aligned in any way when replacing it on the original spot (such as by rotating the interfering mud towards the hole).

However, the player is not allowed to replace the ball in an alignment so the ball rests on the mud unless that was its position before it was lifted. The "spot" of the ball includes its vertical location relative to the ground.

[Newby]

Since you're permitted to scratch a line in the green to mark the ball's location, surely creating a hole with a tee is also permitted?

 

It would appear that from 2019 there are only two legitimate ways of marking a ball.

i) with a ball marker (defined)

ii) with a club

So a mark on the ground would not be permitted and would render the ball unmarked.

[Augster]

Since you're permitted to scratch a line in the green to mark the ball's location, surely creating a hole with a tee is also permitted?

 

It would appear that from 2019 there are only two legitimate ways of marking a ball.

i) with a ball marker (defined)

ii) with a club

So a mark on the ground would not be permitted and would render the ball unmarked.

 

Good find.

 

“marks its spot in a wrong way”. Yikes.

[Sawgrass]

Since you're permitted to scratch a line in the green to mark the ball's location, surely creating a hole with a tee is also permitted?

 

It would appear that from 2019 there are only two legitimate ways of marking a ball.

i) with a ball marker (defined)

ii) with a club

So a mark on the ground would not be permitted and would render the ball unmarked.

20-1/16 currently gives us detailed information on this topic. I agree with you in your use of the words "it would appear" above, it certainly appears to say this. I do wish though that at least the Official Guide explicitly provided more detail or a specific note of this change. For instance, we currently may use a loose impediment to mark a ball's position. It "appears" that we still can (if we consider a loose impediment to be a ball marker). Since this activity typically happens more than once on every hole, it would "appear" to be useful.

[Colin L]

For instance, we currently may use a loose impediment to mark a ball's position. It "appears" that we still can (if we consider a loose impediment to be a ball marker). Since this activity typically happens more than once on every hole, it would "appear" to be useful.

 

How so? A ball marker is defined as an artificial object. That rules out loose impediments as ball markers.

[rogolf]

Since you're permitted to scratch a line in the green to mark the ball's location, surely creating a hole with a tee is also permitted?

 

It would appear that from 2019 there are only two legitimate ways of marking a ball.

i) with a ball marker (defined)

ii) with a club

So a mark on the ground would not be permitted and would render the ball unmarked.

20-1/16 currently gives us detailed information on this topic. I agree with you in your use of the words "it would appear" above, it certainly appears to say this. I do wish though that at least the Official Guide explicitly provided more detail or a specific note of this change. For instance, we currently may use a loose impediment to mark a ball's position. It "appears" that we still can (if we consider a loose impediment to be a ball marker). Since this activity typically happens more than once on every hole, it would "appear" to be useful.

 

The definition of "ball-marker" says it is an artificial object - loose impediments no longer qualify, imo.

[Sawgrass]

For instance, we currently may use a loose impediment to mark a ball's position. It "appears" that we still can (if we consider a loose impediment to be a ball marker). Since this activity typically happens more than once on every hole, it would "appear" to be useful.

 

How so? A ball marker is defined as an artificial object. That rules out loose impediments as ball markers.

I acknowledge your point, it is valid.

 

But IMO your response is in effect evidence of the value of a clarification for this significant change. The new definition of ball marker also says, "an object made to be a ball marker." If I place an acorn down, have I "made" it to be a ball marker?

 

Further, we know we can change a natural object into an "artificial" one by "manufacturing" it. Cutting a log into a plank for example. If I pop off the top of an acorn, is it now an artificial object? If I scratch my initials into it. Scratch a line on it?

[nsxguy]

As with the "marker" and now with the "loose impediment" (as a marker), as a NON-Rulie, I would respectfully request that during the next 3 months you guys kindly refer to "New" or "Current" when you post, especially when giving rule/decision/interpretation numbers.

 

You may not believe the Rules are confusing but the posts sure can be.

 

And I thank those of you who are already doing some of that. :hi: (and yes, "interpretation" implies "new" and "decision" "old. I get that part.)

 

 

And BTW, wasn't at least part of the purpose of the new rules to speed up play ?

 

Andybody have an idea why the ball marker with the straight line (showing the way) is illegal ?

 

It seems to me, if a marker with a straight line was used to indicate the line of the putt for the player, this presumably would be done while marking, and therefore while another player was using time "going through the motions", often of putting, himself.

 

So if this action was permissible the player, while replacing his ball, would already have the straight line on the ball oriented correctly (by way of the ball marker) therefore saving time by removing the annoying and seemingly endless acts of re-orienting the ball 100th of an inch in either direction 4 or 5 times before the player's satisfied, no ?

 

Thanks to sawgrass for asking the USGA. Will be interesting to hear the result, if not the exact quote.

[Halebopp]

 

It seems to me, if a marker with a straight line was used to indicate the line of the putt for the player, this presumably would be done while marking, and therefore while another player was using time "going through the motions", often of putting, himself.

 

So if this action was permissible the player, while replacing his ball, would already have the straight line on the ball oriented correctly (by way of the ball marker) therefore saving time by removing the annoying and seemingly endless acts of re-orienting the ball 100th of an inch in either direction 4 or 5 times before the player's satisfied, no ?

 

Thanks to sawgrass for asking the USGA. Will be interesting to hear the result, if not the exact quote.

 

I'm just thinking out loud here but I'm not sure using a ball marker to indicate the line of putt would be a fast way to do things.

 

I assume you'll place your mark directly behind the ball, like pretty much everyone does. Once you get to align your ball with your line of putt, you must first replace the ball, then move the marker behind your line of putt, orientate it correctly and only then do you get to align your ball with the line on the marker and your line of putt.

 

In case you don't like the outcome, you might need to realign both of them again and ensure your ball is replaced at the correct spot each time. I'm not sure how fast this process would be as opposed to simply lining up the ball.

[Newby]

Andybody have an idea why the ball marker with the straight line (showing the way) is illegal ?

 

 

 

Assuming you are referring to the 2019 rules, it isn't.

 

Nor is it under the current rules. But it is breach to leave it in position when making the stroke if it is intended to indicate the line of putt

 

Of course it can't be left in position next year anyway.

[Colin L]

For instance, we currently may use a loose impediment to mark a ball's position. It "appears" that we still can (if we consider a loose impediment to be a ball marker). Since this activity typically happens more than once on every hole, it would "appear" to be useful.

 

How so? A ball marker is defined as an artificial object. That rules out loose impediments as ball markers.

I acknowledge your point, it is valid.

 

But IMO your response is in effect evidence of the value of a clarification for this significant change. The new definition of ball marker also says, "an object made to be a ball marker." If I place an acorn down, have I "made" it to be a ball marker? [1]

 

Further, we know we can change a natural object into an "artificial" one by "manufacturing" it. Cutting a log into a plank for example. If I pop off the top of an acorn, is it now an artificial object? If I scratch my initials into it. Scratch a line on it? [2]

 

1. The acorn is not an artifical object and cannot therefore be a ball marker. It is a loose impediment. Putting it down behind your ball does not make it anything else. "Made" in the context here signifies something that has been fashioned into an object that can satisfactorily mark a ball, I reckon.

 

2. I don't doubt a ball-marker could be "made" out of an acorn. To my mind, the word implies a physical process involving the use of a tool or tools to shape it for its end purpose. A process such as scratching on it would not shape it in any way towards being a ball marker. If you fashioned an acorn into something that was clearly made for the purpose of marking, I'd be fine with that. Just taking the top of it off would just turn a loose impediment into two loose impediments in the same way as snapping a twig in two would. Cutting and fashioning a disk shaped object from the acorn would do the job for me, though.

[Sawgrass]

Just sent this off to the USGA:

 

 

 

I see that new Rule 10.2b says in part, “The player or caddie must not set an object down anywhere on or off the putting green to show the line of play. This is not allowed even if that object is removed before the stroke is made."

 

I have a question about a ball with an alignment line drawn on it, and a ball marker with some sort of straight line (text for example) printed on it. Both of these are “objects” which could be used to indicate a line.

 

I presume that new interpretation 14.2c/1 exempts one from a violation when orienting a lined ball, but I’m unclear if it would be a violation if, prior to removing the ball mark, a player used it to help with indicating his line of play.

 

 

Am I correct in my presumption about the lined ball? And is it a violation to align some marking on a ball marker?

Okay, I've got some information. It is, as I presume we all expected, legal to mark and orient a line on your ball to indicate your desired line of play on the green. (I got that some time back via an email response, but wasn't yet satisfied that the ball mark question was clearly responded to.) Anyway, I just got back from a 3 1/2 day USGA/PGA Rules Workshop where I had the opportunity to ask the (very justifiably) esteemed Thomas Pagel about a line or a bit of type on a ball mark. I was told that if it was a typical ball mark there is no rules issue. But that this is a bit complicated, since there are some illegal ball marks out there. He referenced one that might be six inches long which would be illegal to use.

 

So, there you go!

[LeoLeo99]

Just sent this off to the USGA:

 

 

 

I see that new Rule 10.2b says in part, “The player or caddie must not set an object down anywhere on or off the putting green to show the line of play. This is not allowed even if that object is removed before the stroke is made."

 

I have a question about a ball with an alignment line drawn on it, and a ball marker with some sort of straight line (text for example) printed on it. Both of these are “objects” which could be used to indicate a line.

 

I presume that new interpretation 14.2c/1 exempts one from a violation when orienting a lined ball, but I’m unclear if it would be a violation if, prior to removing the ball mark, a player used it to help with indicating his line of play.

 

 

Am I correct in my presumption about the lined ball? And is it a violation to align some marking on a ball marker?

Okay, I've got some information. It is, as I presume we all expected, legal to mark and orient a line on your ball to indicate your desired line of play on the green. (I got that some time back via an email response, but wasn't yet satisfied that the ball mark question was clearly responded to.) Anyway, I just got back from a 3 1/2 day USGA/PGA Rules Workshop where I had the opportunity to ask the (very justifiably) esteemed Thomas Pagel about a line or a bit of type on a ball mark. I was told that if it was a typical ball mark there is no rules issue. But that this is a bit complicated, since there are some illegal ball marks out there. He referenced one that might be six inches long which would be illegal to use.

 

So, there you go!

 

There we go...

 

I need pictures. What's legal and what's illegal? Why not limit the size of ball marks if that was their intention?

 

I mean you pointed out common ball marks that are illegal by a plain reading of the rules, but that's not the case according to an esteemed golf rules expert.

 

And BTW, I did notice your absence. Glad all is well.

[Sawgrass]

 

And BTW, I did notice your absence. Glad all is well.

 

Well, thank you!

 

(I was too busy talking about the Rules to come here and talk about the Rules.)

[sui generis]

And BTW, I did notice your absence. Glad all is well.

 

Well, thank you!

 

(I was too busy talking about the Rules to come here and talk about the Rules.)

 

Surely, you were busy being talked to about the Rules. ;)

[Sawgrass]

And BTW, I did notice your absence. Glad all is well.

 

Well, thank you!

 

(I was too busy talking about the Rules to come here and talk about the Rules.)

 

Surely, you were busy being talked to about the Rules. ;)

If only there were a prize for asking the most questions . . .

[sui generis]

And BTW, I did notice your absence. Glad all is well.

 

Well, thank you!

 

(I was too busy talking about the Rules to come here and talk about the Rules.)

 

Surely, you were busy being talked to about the Rules. ;)

If only there were a prize for asking the most questions . . .

 

I've asked exactly one question in six workshops. :)