Do these ball markers violate rule 10-2b?

[Newby]

> @antip said:

 

> For my part, I find the wording of the definition of an alignment device to be ambiguous. The vertical height criteria is clear - greater than one inch means it meets the definition; but what about horizontal length of 4 inches but no marking whatsoever other than a plain straight line/arrow of less than two inches? The drafting suggests something long but without "the features noted below..." would not meet the definition. Perhaps "and incorporates..." should be "or incorporates..."?

 

May I suggest you write to the R&A before it is too late.

 

Edit:

 

A further thought. Given the definition " or another small piece of equipment", do you think anything with a dimension of more that 2" would qualify as 'small'?

 

[antip]

> @Newby said:

> > @antip said:

>

> > For my part, I find the wording of the definition of an alignment device to be ambiguous. The vertical height criteria is clear - greater than one inch means it meets the definition; but what about horizontal length of 4 inches but no marking whatsoever other than a plain straight line/arrow of less than two inches? The drafting suggests something long but without "the features noted below..." would not meet the definition. Perhaps "and incorporates..." should be "or incorporates..."?

>

> May I suggest you write to the R&A before it is too late.

>

> Edit:

>

> A further thought. Given the definition " or another small piece of equipment", do you think anything with a dimension of more that 2" would qualify as 'small'?

>

 

That's a good suggestion, and I will send a comment to Mr Scott. As to whether the R&A considers 1.9" to be small but 2.1" to not be small, I would not even hazard a guess - I'm not seeing that as a useful line of inquiry.

[antip]

An update: I have had some exchanges with the R&A contact. It was confirmed that any ball marker larger than 2" in any horizontal direction but **without **any of the 'features' (see #28 above) would not be considered an alignment device. I replied noting that a longer narrow ball marker, entirely plain and with none of the proscribed features may actually be a very effective alignment device by virtue of the parallel outer lines of the marker but still legal. The response was that is an excellent observation that will be considered in their further processes. Now we wait while the next stage unfolds.

[Sawgrass]

> @antip said:

> An update: I have had some exchanges with the R&A contact. It was confirmed that any ball marker larger than 2" in any horizontal direction but **without **any of the 'features' (see #28 above) would not be considered an alignment device. I replied noting that a longer narrow ball marker, entirely plain and with none of the proscribed features may actually be a very effective alignment device by virtue of the parallel outer lines of the marker but still legal. The response was that is an excellent observation that will be considered in their further processes. Now we wait while the next stage unfolds.

 

Now we know who to blame if my hotdog-shaped marker becomes illegal.

[antip]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @antip said:

> > An update: I have had some exchanges with the R&A contact. It was confirmed that any ball marker larger than 2" in any horizontal direction but **without **any of the 'features' (see #28 above) would not be considered an alignment device. I replied noting that a longer narrow ball marker, entirely plain and with none of the proscribed features may actually be a very effective alignment device by virtue of the parallel outer lines of the marker but still legal. The response was that is an excellent observation that will be considered in their further processes. Now we wait while the next stage unfolds.

>

> Now we know who to blame if my hotdog-shaped marker becomes illegal.

 

A bent hotdog is probably fine. By the way, do you match up the bend in the hotdog to the slope on the green?

[Newby]

> @antip said:

> An update: I have had some exchanges with the R&A contact. It was confirmed that any ball marker larger than 2" in any horizontal direction but **without **any of the 'features' (see #28 above) would not be considered an alignment device. I replied noting that a longer narrow ball marker, entirely plain and with none of the proscribed features may actually be a very effective alignment device by virtue of the parallel outer lines of the marker but still legal. The response was that is an excellent observation that will be considered in their further processes. Now we wait while the next stage unfolds.

 

I am surprised they hadn't considered the use of a 4" pencil.

[Ty_Webb]

> @Newby said:

> > @antip said:

> > An update: I have had some exchanges with the R&A contact. It was confirmed that any ball marker larger than 2" in any horizontal direction but **without **any of the 'features' (see #28 above) would not be considered an alignment device. I replied noting that a longer narrow ball marker, entirely plain and with none of the proscribed features may actually be a very effective alignment device by virtue of the parallel outer lines of the marker but still legal. The response was that is an excellent observation that will be considered in their further processes. Now we wait while the next stage unfolds.

>

> I am surprised they hadn't considered the use of a 4" pencil.

 

Or a tee, most of which are over 2" long and are frequently used to mark a ball.

[Newby]

> @Ty_Webb said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @antip said:

> > > An update: I have had some exchanges with the R&A contact. It was confirmed that any ball marker larger than 2" in any horizontal direction but **without **any of the 'features' (see #28 above) would not be considered an alignment device. I replied noting that a longer narrow ball marker, entirely plain and with none of the proscribed features may actually be a very effective alignment device by virtue of the parallel outer lines of the marker but still legal. The response was that is an excellent observation that will be considered in their further processes. Now we wait while the next stage unfolds.

> >

> > I am surprised they hadn't considered the use of a 4" pencil.

>

> Or a tee, most of which are over 2" long and are frequently used to mark a ball.

 

Yes but they usually sit vertically as opposed to horizontally

[Ty_Webb]

> @Newby said:

> > @Ty_Webb said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > > @antip said:

> > > > An update: I have had some exchanges with the R&A contact. It was confirmed that any ball marker larger than 2" in any horizontal direction but **without **any of the 'features' (see #28 above) would not be considered an alignment device. I replied noting that a longer narrow ball marker, entirely plain and with none of the proscribed features may actually be a very effective alignment device by virtue of the parallel outer lines of the marker but still legal. The response was that is an excellent observation that will be considered in their further processes. Now we wait while the next stage unfolds.

> > >

> > > I am surprised they hadn't considered the use of a 4" pencil.

> >

> > Or a tee, most of which are over 2" long and are frequently used to mark a ball.

>

> Yes but they usually sit vertically as opposed to horizontally

 

I often see people put them in at an angle facing the ball. If that direction was in the same direction as their intended starting line then I think they'd be in breach no?

[LeoLeo99]

> @Ty_Webb said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @Ty_Webb said:

> > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > @antip said:

> > > > > An update: I have had some exchanges with the R&A contact. It was confirmed that any ball marker larger than 2" in any horizontal direction but **without **any of the 'features' (see #28 above) would not be considered an alignment device. I replied noting that a longer narrow ball marker, entirely plain and with none of the proscribed features may actually be a very effective alignment device by virtue of the parallel outer lines of the marker but still legal. The response was that is an excellent observation that will be considered in their further processes. Now we wait while the next stage unfolds.

> > > >

> > > > I am surprised they hadn't considered the use of a 4" pencil.

> > >

> > > Or a tee, most of which are over 2" long and are frequently used to mark a ball.

> >

> > Yes but they usually sit vertically as opposed to horizontally

>

> I often see people put them in at an angle facing the ball. If that direction was in the same direction as their intended starting line then I think they'd be in breach no?

 

Or is it only the length along the x-axis that counts. The length of tee protruding from the green multiplied by the cosine of the angle of the tee to the green cannot exceed 4 inches.

[antip]

> @Ty_Webb said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @antip said:

> > > An update: I have had some exchanges with the R&A contact. It was confirmed that any ball marker larger than 2" in any horizontal direction but **without **any of the 'features' (see #28 above) would not be considered an alignment device. I replied noting that a longer narrow ball marker, entirely plain and with none of the proscribed features may actually be a very effective alignment device by virtue of the parallel outer lines of the marker but still legal. The response was that is an excellent observation that will be considered in their further processes. Now we wait while the next stage unfolds.

> >

> > I am surprised they hadn't considered the use of a 4" pencil.

>

> Or a tee, most of which are over 2" long and are frequently used to mark a ball.

 

I don't see a tee ever being caught in the net - it is normal accepted use of a tee. Just like you can use a club as a plumb line.

[antip]

> @Newby said:

> > @antip said:

> > An update: I have had some exchanges with the R&A contact. It was confirmed that any ball marker larger than 2" in any horizontal direction but **without **any of the 'features' (see #28 above) would not be considered an alignment device. I replied noting that a longer narrow ball marker, entirely plain and with none of the proscribed features may actually be a very effective alignment device by virtue of the parallel outer lines of the marker but still legal. The response was that is an excellent observation that will be considered in their further processes. Now we wait while the next stage unfolds.

>

> I am surprised they hadn't considered the use of a 4" pencil.

 

I would imagine the conversation will extend to pencils. At some point, length-wise, they could become more alignment device than pencil. I don't think I've ever seen anyone mark a ball on the putting green with a pencil.

[antip]

The January Clarifications Document is out. It contains the clarification on this ball marker/alignment issue. Clarifications of the 2019 Rules of GolfIt comes with a companion, an updated Equipment Rules document.https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/Equipment%20Rules%202020%20v2.pdf

The key change in there relates to a new section (see p71) on the ball markers/alignment devices issue. The drafting is as previously released for public comment but with some minor additional 'Notes' at the end of the section.

In respect of our earlier discussion, I think the conclusion is clear: a plain ball marker (eg pencil), even one much longer than 2 inches (but not higher than 1inch) that has none of the proscribed features, is legal.

[b.helts]

How about this one? The World's First Adjustable Ball Marker | TRIDENT ALIGN

[antip]

You would obviously need to measure per the Equipment Rules, the web site doesn't seem to provide specs. I'm pinging the demonstrating pro for slow play though.

[Newby]

The website saysWHAT SIZE IN TRIDENT ALIGN?

It’s 1.38″ wide and 1.50″ high.But I think it means 1,50" long

[Roadking2003]

 

I plan to do just that on the course this morning and take a picture so you can cross it off your list of things you've never seen on a golf course.

[Roadking2003]

Wow! So an 18" pencil is OK? Surely that is an oversight.

[antip]

Just don't take too long, I don't want you getting an unreasonable delay penalty.

And the pencil better be plain, if it has a line on it you're cooked.

[Sawgrass]

Among the list of features which would make a ball marker an alignment device, it says the following. Would this not exclude pencils longer than 2"?

 

o the object has an appendage(s) or an extended feature(s) greater than 2.0” in length or that extends a feature of the object to a length greater than 2.0”.

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

'I don't think I've ever seen anyone mark a ball on the putting green with a pencil.'

How about a 4" tee..?

[Mr. Bean]

I apologize for stepping aside but the Clarification for Rule 15.3 to me is a bit feeble. Instead of giving guidance how to rule such situations it merely suggests how the players should conduct. I know there are players (not to mention quite a few professionals) who think backstopping is something like a general good available once in a while and it is just nice to have such situations but to me it has always been clear that not lifting a possible backstop is always against the spirit of this game as the old D3-4/1 (IIRC) so clearly explained.

Thoughts?

[LeoLeo99]

If it's legal to use one of those stand on its own putters or lining up a line on your bal with the intended putting line is legal, I struggle to understand how a fancy ball maker is more advantageous and illegal.

[Sawgrass]

My confusion/concern over this inspired me to write to the USGA, and a gracious senior equipment rules person immediately responded to my question regarding the use of a pencil or tee longer than 2 inches.

I was advised that the new equipment rules (part of which I quoted in post #50 above) are specifically for objects manufactured to be ball markers. Tees and pencils are allowed as they were manufactured for other purposes and qualify as ball markers under the definition of ball marker in the ROG -- explicitly in the case of tees and as "another small piece of equipment" in the case of pencils.

[Newby]

My recollection of trig says that the diagonal is over 2"

[Newby]

[antip]

I'm not sure I'm following your argument. The quoted section seems to be about appendages - because some ball markers have an extendable component. Something very plain and longer than 2 inches (not more than one inch high) seems not to transgress any element of the new alignment device edict.

[Hawkeye77]

You'd need to ask Bill Clinton.

[antip]

My thought is they laboured long and hard weighing up the pros and cons of proscribing in this space and concluded the cons won - that banning would bring more complications that it resolved. So the choice then became do we identify good and ,by implication, poor behaviours, or do we do nothing. They have gone with the former and I don't see any downside with trying it this way. I doubt it will impact the club golfer at all, but perhaps the current generation of social media obsessed touring pros will improve their behaviours with this very public reminder of 'the right thing'.

On this theme, I'm a little surprised that the pros own associations don't do more in the 'bringing the game into disrepute' behavioural space. I don't think the USGA and R&A can do all that needs to be done through the blunt instrument of the Rules.

[antip]

Yes, courtesy of Mr Pythagoras. A squared + B squared = C squared for a right angled triangle. Those numbers get you a little over 2".