Tracker dots on clubface

[salfordlad]

So...

No kind of "tape or similar substance" can be applied to the face "for any purpose".
But it's ok to draw lines with a Sharpie.
In that case, instead of using adhesive dots, if we draw white dots on with a white Sharpie, presumably that would be ok?

You can read the same answer that I did.

 

[cliveb]

You can read the same answer that I did.

You mean post #26?
I have read it, but it's not crystal clear to me and am proposing a possible interpretation.
I'm asking here for actual rules experts (like you) to say whether or not my interpretation is correct.

 

[salfordlad]

You mean post #26?
I have read it, but it's not crystal clear to me and am proposing a possible interpretation.
I'm asking here for actual rules experts (like you) to say whether or not my interpretation is correct.

This is your "interpretation" - In that case, instead of using adhesive dots, if we draw white dots on with a white Sharpie, presumably that would be ok?

Why are you doing this?

 

[cliveb]

This is your "interpretation" - In that case, instead of using adhesive dots, if we draw white dots on with a white Sharpie, presumably that would be ok?

Why are you doing this?

The OP asked about leaving the GC Quad dots on while playing. Presumably he might want to have another session on the GCQ later and doesn't want to bother having to apply a fresh set every time. But we now know that you're not allowed to leave those dots on while playing. And we also know that it's ok to draw lines on the face with a Sharpie.

So if we use a white Sharpie to add the dots instead of the adhesive dots, and if that's legal, he could do that. (Assuming the Sharpie marks work on the GCQ, which of course they might not).

So would it be legal? You're the rules expert. A simple yes or no is all we need.

 

[salfordlad]

The OP asked about leaving the GC Quad dots on while playing. Presumably he might want to have another session on the GCQ later and doesn't want to bother having to apply a fresh set every time. But we now know that you're not allowed to leave those dots on while playing. And we also know that it's ok to draw lines on the face with a Sharpie.

So if we use a white Sharpie to add the dots instead of the adhesive dots, and if that's legal, he could do that. (Assuming the Sharpie marks work on the GCQ, which of course they might not).

So would it be legal? You're the rules expert. A simple yes or no is all we need.

That tells me nothing useful. Here's the email address to send your query to: rules@usga.org.

 

[Swango1980]

The OP asked about leaving the GC Quad dots on while playing. Presumably he might want to have another session on the GCQ later and doesn't want to bother having to apply a fresh set every time. But we now know that you're not allowed to leave those dots on while playing. And we also know that it's ok to draw lines on the face with a Sharpie.

So if we use a white Sharpie to add the dots instead of the adhesive dots, and if that's legal, he could do that. (Assuming the Sharpie marks work on the GCQ, which of course they might not).

So would it be legal? You're the rules expert. A simple yes or no is all we need.

Presumably the easy answer is simply that "drawing" the dots on is fine by the rules (as Rickie Fowler does it), and that is because it is assumed it has not altered the playing characteristics of the driver. But, "attaching" anything to the face is simply not legal. This is because is MAY change the characteristics, although not necessarily. However, as the rule pretty much has a blanket ban on attaching anything, then this is why it is illegal?

I guess Ink is not seen as an attachment.

Last year I got a new hybrid club. After about a week or 2 of using it, I teed up on the 18th tee. I then realised that the club still had the plastic wrapper on the head. I guess I had been using the club illegally?

 

[rulie]

I don't know anyone who posts on this site that claims to be an "expert" on the Equipment Rules. I read pertinent parts of them when I need to, but don't study them in detail. That's why I've posted a link to them so others can do the same when they have questions.
What I do know is that any attachment to the club must be semi-permanent, and that attachments to the face of the club are prohibited regardless of purpose.
And to clarify, the lines on Rickie Fowler's driver are not "drawn" on the face - they are permanent since they are etched into the face.
Imo, the USGA's answer (posted earlier), only refers to using a Sharpie because that is a permanent marker.

 

[Colin L]

You mean post #26?
I have read it, but it's not crystal clear to me and am proposing a possible interpretation.
I'm asking here for actual rules experts (like you) to say whether or not my interpretation is correct.

I think you are overlooking that the USGA answer tells us that if the sharpie marks are to assist with impact assessment or similar form of assistance they would not be allowed but if just for decorative or alignment purposes they would be ok.

 

[salfordlad]

I think you are overlooking that the USGA answer tells us that if the sharpie marks are to assist with impact assessment or similar form of assistance they would not be allowed but if just for decorative or alignment purposes they would be ok.

I invited Clive to identify why he proposes putting white Sharpie dots on the face - what is the actual purpose - and he (still) has not provided anything that answers that. Intent is critical. Without knowing exactly what is the intent, we can't answer the question. I don't see the answer as necessarily being impact assessment but I'm not the person taking the action so we can't get around needing to know the intent to make any ruling. I also read the USGA advice as dealing specifically with live and available impact assessment only, if it is not live/accessible data, then it would potentially relate to recording physical information relating to the stroke - which is not a breach of rule 4.3 providing it is not accessed during the round (and providing no other rule is breached).
And as a minor side point, there is no such thing as a white Sharpie, they do not currently have the technology to produce their 'permanent' ink in white.

I'm happy offering my observations to sensible questions, but when someone runs a juvenile and disrespectful line like "You're the rules expert. A simple yes or no is all we need" I'm disinclined to offer much of a direct response.

 

[Slab]

I can't be the only one that read the posts increasing the likelihood for crossed wires between @cliveb and @salfordlad

The Rules section of the forum can be a minefield to post to

 

[rulie]

From and interview with Rickie Fowler about his driver:
"With it being matte and a similar color the whole way, … it didn't look like it had as much loft as 8.5 (degrees), which is what I was used to seeing. That was one of the reasons we tried more loft, but also having the lines there helps me see face angle, because it's not like there are super hard lines or anything. So that's what's kind of cool (about Cobra) is it kind of allows you to customize it if you want. It started with Sharpie, and now those are laser-etched on the face."

 

[cliveb]

I invited Clive to identify why he proposes putting white Sharpie dots on the face - what is the actual purpose - and he (still) has not provided anything that answers that. Intent is critical. Without knowing exactly what is the intent, we can't answer the question. I don't see the answer as necessarily being impact assessment but I'm not the person taking the action so we can't get around needing to know the intent to make any ruling. I also read the USGA advice as dealing specifically with live and available impact assessment only, if it is not live/accessible data, then it would potentially relate to recording physical information relating to the stroke - which is not a breach of rule 4.3 providing it is not accessed during the round (and providing no other rule is breached).
And as a minor side point, there is no such thing as a white Sharpie, they do not currently have the technology to produce their 'permanent' ink in white.

I'm happy offering my observations to sensible questions, but when someone runs a juvenile and disrespectful line like "You're the rules expert. A simple yes or no is all we need" I'm disinclined to offer much of a direct response.

Apologies for not responding to you earlier. For reasons unknown, I didn't get a notification that there were new posts in this thread, and I only pop into the rules section occasionally.

Anyhow, I thought my previous answer was pretty clear, but obviously not.
The intent of placing marks on the face would be so that they can assist in assessing impact, but only in the context of using a GCQ. Out on the course, they cannot help in that way and serve no purpose whatsoever. So I guess they must be purely decorative in that scenario.

I genuinely thought my previous posts were clear enough about what I was asking. And your brusque responses in posts #41 and #43 seemed unhelpful, hence my request for a simple yes or no answer. If you think that's disrespectful, my apologies. Can you appreciate that I thought your seemingly dismissive comment "You can read the same answer that I did" can also be interpreted as disrespectful?

In any case, I only asked the question out of idle curiosity. It's not an issue that affects me personally.

 

[clubchamp98]

So if these dots were laser etched into the face they would be ok?

 

[salfordlad]

Apologies for not responding to you earlier. For reasons unknown, I didn't get a notification that there were new posts in this thread, and I only pop into the rules section occasionally.

Anyhow, I thought my previous answer was pretty clear, but obviously not.
The intent of placing marks on the face would be so that they can assist in assessing impact, but only in the context of using a GCQ. Out on the course, they cannot help in that way and serve no purpose whatsoever. So I guess they must be purely decorative in that scenario.

I genuinely thought my previous posts were clear enough about what I was asking. And your brusque responses in posts #41 and #43 seemed unhelpful, hence my request for a simple yes or no answer. If you think that's disrespectful, my apologies. Can you appreciate that I thought your seemingly dismissive comment "You can read the same answer that I did" can also be interpreted as disrespectful?

In any case, I only asked the question out of idle curiosity. It's not an issue that affects me personally.

We were, clearly, not understanding each other. I thought the USGA advice clear (in the context of the original question put), saying three things: a) it depends on the why (ie can be no answer without that being explained); b) if it was to assess impact, not acceptable (in the context of immediate feedback) c) decorative only, no issue.
I really couldn't fathom why you were saying paint on dots, I can't imagine what you thought that would achieve. Paint that communicates with a computer? That's beyond my understanding. And as I had no idea what you thought it was doing, I could provide no answer to your question, and definitely not provide a Y/N answer - so I suggested you go to the USGA with your question.
As I said in reply to Colin, if something painted on the face was a mechanism for recording information for later analysis, that seems to be something that does not clash with any guidance we have received from Ruling Bodies to this point - that may be an interesting issue to explore with them - but only if there is any practical technology that can deliver that.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

As a matter of interest how many "dots" are needed for the GCQ to register it's data?

 

[D-S]

As a matter of interest how many "dots" are needed for the GCQ to register it's data?

I've got 3 on my 6 iron and 4 on my driver.

 

[cliveb]

I really couldn't fathom why you were saying paint on dots, I can't imagine what you thought that would achieve. Paint that communicates with a computer? That's beyond my understanding.

I don't know exactly how the system works, but my understanding is that the GC Quad uses lasers and some fiendishly clever optics to detect the position of the dots in order to determine the orientation of the clubface and the way it's moving as it impacts the ball.
It may be that the stick-on dots have some kind of special reflective surface, in which case white paint or similar might not work. But the one time I had a GCQ session, they didn't appear to be anything but plain white dots to me.

 

[rulefan]

I've got 3 on my 6 iron and 4 on my driver.

I hope you are not playing qualifiers

 

[D-S]

I hope you are not playing qualifiers

No, hence my original question. Just a bit of a pain to take them off and get new ones every time.

 

[salfordlad]

I don't know exactly how the system works, but my understanding is that the GC Quad uses lasers and some fiendishly clever optics to detect the position of the dots in order to determine the orientation of the clubface and the way it's moving as it impacts the ball.
It may be that the stick-on dots have some kind of special reflective surface, in which case white paint or similar might not work. But the one time I had a GCQ session, they didn't appear to be anything but plain white dots to me.

I guess we can be 100 per cent certain that the technology will continue to evolve and there will be further questions for the RBs to grapple with over time. But the current keys are nothing external on the face and nothing giving instant information to the player. Other constraints are no processing or interpreting playing information from the current round during the round by app, phone, computer etc or viewing video of the current round on any personal device (big public screen is okay). Anything beyond these current constraints, IMO, is stepping into the realm of speculation.