Marking your ball on the green - new rules

[BKN1964]

The USGA finally got back to me on this yesterday.

 

Unfortunately, at the end of the response was "This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting."

[HitEmTrue]

> @BKN1964 said:

> The USGA finally got back to me on this yesterday.

>

> Unfortunately, at the end of the response was "This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting."

 

Yes, they do say that. Because of that folks on here will post a paraphrased answer.

 

 

[Sawgrass]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @BKN1964 said:

> > The USGA finally got back to me on this yesterday.

> >

> > Unfortunately, at the end of the response was "This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting."

>

> Yes, they do say that. Because of that folks on here will post a paraphrased answer.

>

>

 

Yes! Don't copy and paste their answer, but do please put their answer in your own words.

[Augster]

> @BKN1964 said:

> The USGA finally got back to me on this yesterday.

>

> Unfortunately, at the end of the response was "This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting."

 

They always add that. Write the questions you wrote, then paraphrase their answers to you.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @Newby said:

> I can't get that excited about it. As long as the ball gets back in its original position, that'll do

I agree. The objective is to return the ball to its original position.

>

> I remember seeing John Jacobs on (black and white) TV many moons ago, explaining how to mark away from the line of putt. He used a full putter length. He said the directional accuracy was far better with a long stick rather than a short stubby putter head.

John obviously flunked geometry class.

 

[Newby]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Newby said:

> > I can't get that excited about it. As long as the ball gets back in its original position, that'll do

> I agree. The objective is to return the ball to its original position.

> >

> > I remember seeing John Jacobs on (black and white) TV many moons ago, explaining how to mark away from the line of putt. He used a full putter length. He said the directional accuracy was far better with a long stick rather than a short stubby putter head.

> John obviously flunked geometry class.

>

 

I should have added that he used whatever implement to point at a 'feature' (tree etc)

[Roadking2003]

> @Newby said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > I can't get that excited about it. As long as the ball gets back in its original position, that'll do

> > I agree. The objective is to return the ball to its original position.

> > >

> > > I remember seeing John Jacobs on (black and white) TV many moons ago, explaining how to mark away from the line of putt. He used a full putter length. He said the directional accuracy was far better with a long stick rather than a short stubby putter head.

> > John obviously flunked geometry class.

> >

>

> I should have added that he used whatever implement to point at a 'feature' (tree etc)

 

As we all do. But the odds of getting the ball back to its original position with a 36" putter are an order of magnitude less likely than with a 4" putterhead.

[Newby]

1'8" offline in 4 " is a far bigger error than 1/8" in 36"

[Mr. Bean]

> @BKN1964 said:

> The USGA finally got back to me on this yesterday.

>

> Unfortunately, at the end of the response was "This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting."

 

You are allowed to tell others what was in the email, you just cannot distribute it.

[Newby]

A lot of stuff from the USGA is posted here. Sometimes 'as is', sometimes rejigged but I have never heard of the USGA doing anything about it

[Swisstrader98]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @BKN1964 said:

> > The USGA finally got back to me on this yesterday.

> >

> > Unfortunately, at the end of the response was "This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting."

>

> You are allowed to tell others what was in the email, you just cannot distribute it.

 

So you’re saying they have a rule about the rule???

 

[Roadking2003]

> @Newby said:

> 1'8" offline in 4 " is a far bigger error than 1/8" in 36"

 

This is true. A better way to compare it is this; a five-degree error in 4" is minuscule while a five-degree error in 36" is almost 2 inches.

[Newby]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Newby said:

> > 1'8" offline in 4 " is a far bigger error than 1/8" in 36"

>

> This is true. A better way to compare it is this; a five-degree error in 4" is minuscule while a five-degree error in 36" is almost 2 inches.

 

If both are 1/8" out as opposed to measuring in degrees, the effect is different when the pointer is ostensibly aimed at the same distant tree.

[Roadking2003]

> @Newby said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > 1'8" offline in 4 " is a far bigger error than 1/8" in 36"

> >

> > This is true. A better way to compare it is this; a five-degree error in 4" is minuscule while a five-degree error in 36" is almost 2 inches.

>

> If both are 1/8" out as opposed to measuring in degrees, the effect is different when the pointer is ostensibly aimed at the same distant tree.

I seriously doubt you can point your putter at a distant object and then return your marker using the same object and end up within 1/8".

The odds of getting your ball back to its original spot or even within 1/8" from the original spot with a 36" putter are tiny.

But nobody would notice so if you think you are putting the ball back in its original spot, it doesn't matter.

[Newby]

Square one.

I just found my old notes. What he was saying was that using a club was better than incremental putter heads to get a distance away.

[Roadking2003]

> @Newby said:

> Square one.

> I just found my old notes. What he was saying was that using a club was better than incremental putter heads to get a distance away.

 

Good point. He is correct.

[Augster]

> @Newby said:

> Square one.

> I just found my old notes. What he was saying was that using a club was better than incremental putter heads to get a distance away.

 

This is absolutely true.

 

If you’re going to do 2 or 3 putter heads away from the line, you’ll be more accurate replacing by using 1 putter length away. And your coin will be WELL out of the way.

 

[Mr. Bean]

> @Augster said:

> > @Newby said:

> > Square one.

> > I just found my old notes. What he was saying was that using a club was better than incremental putter heads to get a distance away.

>

> This is absolutely true.

>

> If you’re going to do 2 or 3 putter heads away from the line, you’ll be more accurate replacing by using 1 putter length away. And your coin will be WELL out of the way.

>

 

Indeed. Instead of multiple clubheads I use the grip of my putter, about 30 cm long. Short enough to handle accurately but long enough to get my ball clear out of the way. Aiming towards a tree or similar in the distance helps in aligning.

 

However, I remember a discussion from past years if that is actually allowed as use of two of more clubheads was specifically mentioned in the Rules. Personally I am only interested in getting the ball back to its original place accurately enough and use of a grip is faster and more accurate than several clubheads.

[Newby]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

 

> However, I remember a discussion from past years if that is actually allowed as use of two of more clubheads was specifically mentioned in the Rules.

It was but it didn't preclude the use of club or shaft

[Mr. Bean]

> @Newby said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

>

> > However, I remember a discussion from past years if that is actually allowed as use of two of more clubheads was specifically mentioned in the Rules.

> It was but it didn't preclude the use of club or shaft

 

It was not said it is forbidden but not that it is allowed either. Taking the approach 'what is not forbidden is allowed' it would be allowed.

[Newby]

Exactly