Balls without Logo

[D-S]

Is it within the rules to have a ball without a manufacturer’s logo? I am thinking that the manufacturer’s Logo may prove that the ball is conforming.
The reason I ask is that I would like to remove, if allowed, for example the wording ‘Titleist’ and ‘ProV1‘ and replace them with just my own wording.

 

[SammmeBee]

How?

 

[salfordlad]

Nothing in the rules requires the logo to be maintained on the ball.

 

[rulefan]

Nothing in the rules requires the logo to be maintained on the ball.

In fact the rules don't require logos at all.

 

[Robster59]

Is it within the rules to have a ball without a manufacturer’s logo? I am thinking that the manufacturer’s Logo may prove that the ball is conforming.
The reason I ask is that I would like to remove, if allowed, for example the wording ‘Titleist’ and ‘ProV1‘ and replace them with just my own wording.

I'm curious how you plan to do this without damaging the outer skin or integrity of the ball.

 

[jim8flog]

In fact the rules don't require logos at all.

Surely it is there by default. If a ball has no markings how do you prove what ball it is and whether or not it is conforming. How can a ball without markings be identified on the conforming ball list.

 

[jim8flog]

Is it within the rules to have a ball without a manufacturer’s logo? I am thinking that the manufacturer’s Logo may prove that the ball is conforming.
The reason I ask is that I would like to remove, if allowed, for example the wording ‘Titleist’ and ‘ProV1‘ and replace them with just my own wording.

Surely the only way to do this would be with some sort of paint stripper which would also remove the white paint.

 

[salfordlad]

Surely it is there by default. If a ball has no markings how do you prove what ball it is and whether or not it is conforming. How can a ball without markings be identified on the conforming ball list.

While Rule 4.2a requires a player to use a conforming ball, there is no general requirement to prove a ball is conforming. Also, there is no general requirement to check a ball against the conforming ball list. Interpretation 4.2a(1)/1 also notes that any person alleging a ball does not conform has the requirement to prove their case.

 

[nickjdavis]

What is your proposed wording?

If it is anything that makes it sound like a brand....I dunno...something like D-S Golf for example, then you could be opening yourself up to claims of product plagiarism. (Before folks jump on me, I know its highly unlikely but all manner of weird **** happens in this weird world of ours and folks often do things that are seemingly quite innocently intended and then find themselves in all manner of doo-doo because some big corporate doesn't like it).

 

[DickInShorts]

Surely the only way to do this would be with some sort of paint stripper which would also remove the white paint.

And that could well make the ball non conforming- surely?

 

[rulie]

A couple paragraphs from the Equipment Rules for golf balls (my highlighting):

Markings applied using a felt-tip pen are not contrary to Rule 4.2a(2).
Rule 6.3a encourages the player to put an identification mark on his or her
ball to help ensure that he or she plays their own ball throughout the round.
There are no regulations to limit what or how many markings can be applied
to the ball by the player, provided its original markings can be discerned.

Normally, only the Committees in charge of competitions involving expert
players (professional-level players and/or players at the highest levels of
amateur golf) should introduce a Model Local Rule requiring a player to
use a ball included in the List of Conforming Golf Balls, the penalty for
breach of the Local Rule being disqualification. However, if this Local Rule
is not in place, then the assumption is that a ball used by a player conforms
unless there is strong evidence to the contrary e.g. a player used a 1.62 inch
diameter golf ball (a ball which used to be in circulation and was permitted
under the Rules before finally being prohibited worldwide in 1990)

 

[D-S]

So the ‘original markings’, which I asume the the manufacturer’s name and brand must therefore be able to be discerned otherwise I am breaking a rule.
Shame as I would like to be able to say I’m playing a D-S Bomber or a Shank proof Stinger or whatever rather than the boring Titleist 3 with two blue dots or my initials on.
If it was within the rules to buy/play an all white Pro V that I could get logoed, I’d pay a premium.

 

[Robster59]

You can buy blank golf balls if you want to go down that route. Obviously not Pro V's but it depends on what you are after.

 

[D-S]

You can buy blank golf balls if you want to go down that route. Obviously not Pro V's but it depends on what you are after.

Where from?

 

[Robster59]

Where from?

https://www.marcs-golfshop.com/uk/blank-golf-balls.html
https://www.best4balls.com/golf-balls/budget/non-branded-white
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blank-Golf-Ball-Printed-image/dp/B07P7QZB5H

 

[D-S]

https://www.marcs-golfshop.com/uk/blank-golf-balls.html
https://www.best4balls.com/golf-balls/budget/non-branded-white
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blank-Golf-Ball-Printed-image/dp/B07P7QZB5H

Thanks - shame premium balls aren’t available (happy to pay a premium to forgo the advertising loss to them).

 

[Colin L]

Advertising loss? You must be a top player then. Manufacturers would do well to pay me to play a blank version of their ball in case anyone thought that what I did with it was the ball's fault.

 

[D-S]

Advertising loss? You must be a top player then. Manufacturers would do well to pay me to play a blank version of their ball in case anyone thought that what I did with it was the ball's fault.

A bit like Glenn McGrath when he was number 11 for the Australian test side, he asked if all the well known bat manufacturers would pay him not to use their bats!

 

[salfordlad]

A couple paragraphs from the Equipment Rules for golf balls (my highlighting):

Markings applied using a felt-tip pen are not contrary to Rule 4.2a(2).
Rule 6.3a encourages the player to put an identification mark on his or her
ball to help ensure that he or she plays their own ball throughout the round.
There are no regulations to limit what or how many markings can be applied
to the ball by the player, provided its original markings can be discerned.

Normally, only the Committees in charge of competitions involving expert
players (professional-level players and/or players at the highest levels of
amateur golf) should introduce a Model Local Rule requiring a player to
use a ball included in the List of Conforming Golf Balls, the penalty for
breach of the Local Rule being disqualification. However, if this Local Rule
is not in place, then the assumption is that a ball used by a player conforms
unless there is strong evidence to the contrary e.g. a player used a 1.62 inch
diameter golf ball (a ball which used to be in circulation and was permitted
under the Rules before finally being prohibited worldwide in 1990)

Thank you for pointing to related references in the Equipment Rules. Playing in an event with the conforming balls list MLR in place without original markings on the ball may be a potential issue, but the second para above notes that the no MLR world assumes conformance unless strong evidence exists to the contrary. So D-S, you have your guide: providing no original markings can be discerned you are good to go.

It is interesting that there is absolutely no policing of that highlighted first para reference in any big tournament golf (or not so big) - because there are very many players at all levels using balls with black lines added that entirely obliterate part of the original markings such that they cannot be discerned. So very many players at the highest level are in breach of that part of the Equipment Rules. Yet clearly Ruling Bodies and Tours are not excited about that. It is therefore tempting to conclude that Ruling Bodies only mean "provided at least some of its original markings can be discerned"? If so, D-S could obliterate all the large "Titleist" logos (for example) and replace them with his favoured version, and just leave the little 'proV' side marking in place as proof that the ball is kosher. Another fix with everybody happy!

Much as I love the 2019 Rules for the massive progress they made, some curious wrinkles, inconsistencies and genuine problems remain. Only 18 months to the next tidy up but likely it will only be evolution, not revolution.

 

[rulie]

All of this advice, and 4 pounds, will get you a nice cup of coffee at Starbucks.
It will be up to the Committee in charge of the competition's interpretation of the Rules and Equipment Rules.