Plastic bottle caps used as a tee

[2bGood]

3 hours ago, rogolf said:

Imo, that is not what it says.  It says modifying another object - modifying another object, such as a bottle cap or a pencil, to be used as a tee is unacceptable.

Perhaps you could follow-up with the USGA with your question, as Sawgrass so gratefully did.

They can be contacted here - 

Rules of Golf
Phone: 908-326-1850 (7 days a week)
E-mail: [email protected]

 

So you say modifying a pencil would be illegal? So would that  be the same as taking wooding bat and recycling it by carving tees out of it - is it also illegal? (I think so)

 

So how is it any different melting a bottle cap into a tee mould? That would be extensively modifying it - making it un acceptable. 

 

That is my read of the ruling.

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by 2bGood

[2bGood]

34 minutes ago, antip said:

This has been a rather painstaking and often painful thread but we do have the reward of clarity at the end (despite the strange argument of some to suggest an original design precludes use of recycled materials). 

 

I have a nice clear addition to my book's definition of tee "(& must be originally designed to be a tee").

 

Personally, I think the USGA is being unnecessarily paranoid here, the other limitations in the equipment rules prevent mischief, IMO. But that is is a little quirk that worries me not.

 

Thank you to @Sawgrass.

I guess what some of are are saying is what is the line between extensively modifying something and recycling something? To me there is no line defined in the ruling. 

 

 

 

 

[sui generis]

Recycling seems a reductio argument. It's a bit much to consider that the ruling bodies would countenance such a narrow interpretation.

[rogolf]

34 minutes ago, sui generis said:

Recycling seems a reductio argument. It's a bit much to consider that the ruling bodies would countenance such a narrow interpretation.

Agree.  Why would the ruling bodies want to involve themselves in such a definition/discrimination?  In fact, they did not.

Anyone who has different feelings/opinions, please feel free to contact your national association or the ruling bodies! 🙃

[2bGood]

16 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Agree.  Why would the ruling bodies want to involve themselves in such a definition/discrimination?  In fact, they did not.

Anyone who has different feelings/opinions, please feel free to contact your national association or the ruling bodies! 🙃

 

54 minutes ago, sui generis said:

Recycling seems a reductio argument. It's a bit much to consider that the ruling bodies would countenance such a narrow interpretation.

Agreed why would they?

 

still:

 

I guess I am curious in your view how much alteration is required before it is okay.

 

If I was to heat up a bottle cap and shape it into a tee, I suspect based on the ruling that would clearly be illegal. So melting plastic to make into a tee is illegal.

 

Yet I think it fair to say some tees are made from bottle caps (and bottles) as this is common source for plastic. In this case melting plastic to make into a tee is legal.  

[sui generis]

4 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 

Agreed why would they?

 

still:

 

I guess I am curious in your view how much alteration is required before it is okay.

 

If I was to heat up a bottle cap and shape it into a tee, I suspect based on the ruling that would clearly be illegal. So melting plastic to make into a tee is illegal.

 

Yet I think it fair to say some tees are made from bottle caps (and bottles) as this is common source for plastic. In this case melting plastic to make into a tee is legal.  

 

 I have no inside knowledge of this particular opinion from the Rules desk. Perhaps the ruling bodies (as are others) fed up with the antics of John Daly and Laura Davies et al.

[LeoLeo99]

Glad we got clarification on this even if it didn't align with my interpretation.  But to extrapolate this ruling to the use of recycled raw materials is silly.  

[2bGood]

9 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

Glad we got clarification on this even if it didn't align with my interpretation.  But to extrapolate this ruling to the use of recycled raw materials is silly.  

 

Silly? We are in a 8 page thread on bottle caps used as tees.😁

 

I do like what you did there adding 'raw material' in to the debate. That does seems like a logical distinction. What I interrupt you saying is - if an object designed to be something else is broken down to raw materials it can then be made into a tee legally. 

 

So how about our friend the pencil? Remove the lead and you have wood (a raw material). If you fashion a tee out of it, it would be legal? Is that accurate?

 

 

 

 

[LeoLeo99]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

 

Silly? We are in a 8 page thread on bottle caps used as tees.😁

 

I do like what you did there adding 'raw material' in to the debate. That does seems like a logical distinction. What I interrupt you saying is - if an object designed to be something else is broken down to raw materials it can then be made into a tee legally. 

 

So how about our friend the pencil? Remove the lead and you have wood (a raw material). If you fashion a tee out of it, it would be legal? Is that accurate?

 

 

 

 

Not quite.  It's still a pencil made to look and or function as a tee.   If you ground the pencil to saw dust, added glue and whatnot and formed that into a tee  that would be legal. 

[Phireside]

On 10/29/2020 at 11:20 PM, antip said:

Not done yet, we don't know that answer!

 page 8 and counting

[Nels55]

It is estimated that the U.S. golf markets use about two billion wood golf tees per year.

Read more: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Golf-Tee.html#ixzz6ego1gYR1

 

Perhaps there is some motivation to prevent golfers from using bottle caps or other recycled items as tees?  For instance if recycled tees were legal what would happen to the tee industry if Tiger started using bottle caps as tees in tournaments as part of an endorsement deal with a soda company?

[James the Hogan Fan]

I am going to have to disagree with the USGA on this. I mean it's their game and their rules, so they get to be right, but there no point that I can see to their ruling. The tee rule provides four criteria for what a tee must do. Provided any object meets that criteria, why does design intent matter? 

 

A tee needs to hold up a ball to be hit. It can't be longer than a certain length or indicate line of play. Why the object needs to be "designed" to be a tee makes no sense. If a bottle cap provided such an advantage as a tee, surely someone would be marketing and producing bottle cap tees. If there is no significant advantage gained, and seems to be within the spirit of the rules, why would anyone care? Prior to this thread, would any of you have given it a second thought if you saw someone playing with a bottle cap tee? 

 

I mean this abomination is legal:

and it's a brush. Yes a brush designed as a tee, but still a brush. Which leads me to think if you glued a normal tee peg to a bottle cap, you have now designed a tee, insofar as the above is a effectively a tee peg glued to a brush. 

 

I also find it interesting that you could, if you so desired, install a piece of pvc pipe or rebar in a club as a shaft and that would be perfectly acceptable, because I can't seem to find a requirement that a shaft be "designed" to be a shaft, only that the total club be "designed" to strike a ball. Incidentally, the flagstick need not have been designed to be a flagstick, again a piece of rebar with a ribbon on top would be fine. 

 

It just seems ridiculous that

1) the USGA would care

2) the USGA would care enough to say it is illegal.

 

[david.c.w]

I agree with @James the Hogan Fan on this one.  How does the USGA decide on design/manufacture intent?  Do they go into a companies records to review drawings and patent filings and internal company communications? The USGA could argue that the brushy tee thing is actually an innovative toothbrush and toothpick combo if they wanted to.  What would stop Titleist from having a business partnership with Coke where in return for having custom golf themed Coke cans Titlest got slightly defective bottle caps where they printed "Titleist" on the side, popped them in a baggie and sold as tees?

 

I get that the it is USGA's rules and their decision, but this seems dumb, and not sure what they are trying to protect.

 

Seems like it is really more marketing intent than design intent.  I know it is not a rule, but if someone had started wearing a mock t-shirt from Lands End on the PGA tour, they would have told them to change into a collared shirt.  But when Nike make one and slapped it on Tiger, it was fine, since it was marketed as golf apparel.   

[Mr. Bean]

At this point I repeat my earlier post:

 

Just playing with the definition of a tee I cannot avoid thinking why the RBs have taken the long and winding road instead of a short and straight one?

 

'A tee is a device used to lift a ball off the ground on the teeing area. A tee must not be longer than 100 millimeters and cannot have any such property that would help player in his stroke other than lifting the ball off the ground.'

 

Probably I am missing an aspect here but at the first glance it seems rather easy to interpret, and even a bottle cap could be used as a tee.

[Mr. Bean]

13 hours ago, sui generis said:

Recycling seems a reductio argument. It's a bit much to consider that the ruling bodies would countenance such a narrow interpretation.

 

In principle I totally agree, but.... the wording Sawgrass gave us leaves room for improvement in that aspect. The phrase 'however extensively' certainly includes returning an object at hand into its construction materials and reforming it into something else, or carving a tee from a wooden baseball bat. Thus I believe USGA has given out a clarification that does not meet the demand and that could have been avoided in the first place by defining a tee in a different way. OR they could have left out that 'however extensively' altogether.

 

Well, this has been an entertaining issue but I think we have reached the finishing line and remain waiting that the RBs wake up and change the Definition of a tee (to my liking).

Edited November 24, 2020 by Mr. Bean

[Nels55]

7 hours ago, James the Hogan Fan said:

I am going to have to disagree with the USGA on this. I mean it's their game and their rules, so they get to be right, but there no point that I can see to their ruling. The tee rule provides four criteria for what a tee must do. Provided any object meets that criteria, why does design intent matter? 

 

A tee needs to hold up a ball to be hit. It can't be longer than a certain length or indicate line of play. Why the object needs to be "designed" to be a tee makes no sense. If a bottle cap provided such an advantage as a tee, surely someone would be marketing and producing bottle cap tees. If there is no significant advantage gained, and seems to be within the spirit of the rules, why would anyone care? Prior to this thread, would any of you have given it a second thought if you saw someone playing with a bottle cap tee? 

 

I mean this abomination is legal:

and it's a brush. Yes a brush designed as a tee, but still a brush. Which leads me to think if you glued a normal tee peg to a bottle cap, you have now designed a tee, insofar as the above is a effectively a tee peg glued to a brush. 

 

I also find it interesting that you could, if you so desired, install a piece of pvc pipe or rebar in a club as a shaft and that would be perfectly acceptable, because I can't seem to find a requirement that a shaft be "designed" to be a shaft, only that the total club be "designed" to strike a ball. Incidentally, the flagstick need not have been designed to be a flagstick, again a piece of rebar with a ribbon on top would be fine. 

 

It just seems ridiculous that

1) the USGA would care

2) the USGA would care enough to say it is illegal.

 

I am curious why a brush tee is an abomination? 

 

I have used these tees for my driver for a number of years now:

 

Am I doing something abominable in your opinion?

 

As for bottle cap tees as I mentioned in another post there are tees similar to a bottle cap sold now:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Flat-Tee-Profile-Irons-Hybrids-White/dp/B07XZMQHZH/ref=asc_df_B07XZMQHZH/?tag=bingshoppinga-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=&hvpos=&hvnetw=o&hvrand=&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4584276305130628&psc=1=1

 

[Imp]

20 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

Just playing with the definition of a tee I cannot avoid thinking why the RBs have taken the long and winding road instead of a short and straight one?

 

'A tee is a device used to lift a ball off the ground on the teeing area. A tee must not be longer than 100 millimeters and cannot have any such property that would help player in his stroke other than lifting the ball off the ground.'

 

Probably I am missing an aspect here but at the first glance it seems rather easy to interpret, and even a bottle cap could be used as a tee.

By changing "designed" to "used" in your definition changes what a tee is from having been designed with a specific purpose, in this case, as a tee, vs using what you want as a tee and avoiding the circus that would ensue by interpreting "used" as literally: anything. They're avoiding the allowance of "anything" to be used by using the key word, "designed" in the definition.

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, Imp said:

By changing "designed" to "used" in your definition changes what a tee is from having been designed with a specific purpose, in this case, as a tee, vs using what you want as a tee and avoiding the circus that would ensue by interpreting "used" as literally: anything. They're avoiding the allowance of "anything" to be used by using the key word, "designed" in the definition.

 

Can you tell what would be the downside of my proposal as the definition? That is, why any object that does not give the player any advantage could not be used as a device to lift a ball off the ground?

 

I would appreciate any aspect.

 

Just to add, I can easily design a tee that is not conforming even though I have designed that to be a tee and nothing else. Then again, I could use a plastic bottle cap as a tee and could not find any possible advantage over a regular tee by using that cap. So...

Edited November 24, 2020 by Mr. Bean

[2bGood]

16 hours ago, LeoLeo99 said:

Not quite.  It's still a pencil made to look and or function as a tee.   If you ground the pencil to saw dust, added glue and whatnot and formed that into a tee  that would be legal. 

Okay, so how about a 2' x 4' it was designed to be another type of product. Could I make tees out of that, or do I have to grind that down to sawdust too?

 

If yes. Then how about 1" x 10" hardwood shelving?  

[LeoLeo99]

3 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Okay, so how about a 2' x 4' it was designed to be another type of product. Could I make tees out of that, or do I have to grind that down to sawdust too?

 

If yes. Then how about 1" x 10" hardwood shelving?  

Good lumber is good lumber.  Every tee manufacturer worth their salt knows that.  

[rogolf]

As our public health officer said yesterday about her "rules" for the pandemic, we need more people following the rules and their intent and fewer people trying to find loopholes and ways around them.

Edited November 25, 2020 by rogolf

[2bGood]

50 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

Good lumber is good lumber.  Every tee manufacturer worth their salt knows that.  

So I could use the recycled logs from a cabin, but not a pencil?

 

 

[rogolf]

15 hours ago, 2bGood said:

So I could use the recycled logs from a cabin, but not a pencil?

 

 

You must have a goal or objective to your pursuit/questions?  Perhaps you could identify/explain it?

[Mr. Bean]

17 hours ago, rogolf said:

As our public health officer said yesterday about her "rules" for the pandemic, we need more people following the rules and their intent and fewer people trying to find loopholes and ways around them.

 

Agree.

 

However, the intent of any rule has to be easily understood to avoid need to find loopholes. Unfortunately, lots of laws and regulations, including Rules of Golf, need improvement in that...

Edited November 25, 2020 by Mr. Bean

[2bGood]

2 hours ago, rogolf said:

You must have a goal or objective to your pursuit/questions?  Perhaps you could identify/explain it?

One goal is just to debate the rules as a hobby. If I was simply looking for an answer of 'can I use bottle caps as tees"  I would have been out of this thread a long time ago.

 

But I really enjoy exploring the unintended and intended consequences of the RoG and the little oddities that come with them. I find this particular rule fascinating as so far what I assumed would be okay has not been, and the new ruling seems to create some additional technical issues. 

 

"Modifying another object, however extensively, is unacceptable"

 

This part of the ruling is what really in my view causes problems. The word object means: a material thing that can be seen and touched

 

A tree is an "object".

 

Strictly speaking making a wooden tee is modifying another object. So as carefully as the RB's chose their words I think they just cause more issue.

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by 2bGood

[Sawgrass]

I wish people would stop parsing MY words and attributing them specifically to the USGA. 
 

Please review the specific questions I asked them.  For instance, you can’t file off the edges of a bottle cap and use it as a tee.  As I explained earlier, I stand by my paraphrased report, but since it is I who reported, we might as well leave the USGA out of it.  
 

(And maybe go buy a couple of tees.)

[phil75070]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

One goal is just to debate the rules as a hobby. If I was simply looking for an answer of 'can I use bottle caps as tees"  I would have been out of this thread a long time ago.

 

But I really enjoy exploring the unintended and intended consequences of the RoG and the little oddities that come with them. I find this particular rule fascinating as so far what I assumed would be okay has not been, and the new ruling seems to create some additional technical issues. 

 

"Modifying another object, however extensively, is unacceptable"

 

This part of the ruling is what really in my view causes problems. The word object means: a material thing that can be seen and touched

 

A tree is an "object".

 

Strictly speaking making a wooden tee is modifying another object. So as carefully as the RB's chose their words I think they just cause more issue.

 

A tree may be an "object" bit the wood that comes from it is considered a raw material.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

A tree is an "object".

 

Not in this respect. Lumber is raw material, though.

 

However, an object can be made from lumber. And this 'interpretation' from USGA forwarded to us by Sawgrass tells us that an object made from lumber that is not a tee cannot be modified to be a tee. This I find absurd as any object can be transferred into another object without knowing which object it has been before.

[2bGood]

5 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Not in this respect. Lumber is raw material, though.

 

However, an object can be made from lumber. And this 'interpretation' from USGA forwarded to us by Sawgrass tells us that an object made from lumber that is not a tee cannot be modified to be a tee. This I find absurd as any object can be transferred into another object without knowing which object it has been before.

I would say lumber is raw material AND an object given the definition of object is so broad.

 

But at this stage the wording means nothing as Sawgrass has let us know that he provided his own wording rather than that of the RB's. 

Edited November 26, 2020 by 2bGood

[2bGood]

3 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

I wish people would stop parsing MY words and attributing them specifically to the USGA. 
 

Please review the specific questions I asked them.  For instance, you can’t file off the edges of a bottle cap and use it as a tee.  As I explained earlier, I stand by my paraphrased report, but since it is I who reported, we might as well leave the USGA out of it.  
 

(And maybe go buy a couple of tees.)

Sorry I missed you follow up post to clarify that you had provided your own summary of the information you received rather than their words.

 

I don't want to put word in your mouth, but it sounds like what you received was an opinion on interpreting the rules from a USGA official and not a ruling? Is this accurate or did they give you a ruling or something different?

 

I ask more out of curiosity as my recent inquires in this thread resulted in only a non-binding opinion rather than a ruling. I found it kind of let down as I was hoping for something definitive.