Concerning the stated rule against treating the disc after production in ways that alter its flight characteristics (FC): 1) I have a disc that has changed its FCs over time as a result from several hard impacts with trees and other objects. This change is most apparent in the outer edge of the disc being no longer on the same geometric plane (ie bent rim). Would the application of heat and shop-made forms to return the rim to a uniform plane (where the FC is more like the original) be permitted under the rule? 2) I have a disc that preforms more to my liking after it is worn-in including the effects of hard impacts. May I take a brand new disc and stand close to a grove of trees and repeatedly blast the disc into the trees before I use the disc in tournament competition? 3) I have just received two discs from an on-line purchase. They are the same mold and same plastic. However their profiles are quite different, where one is a flat top and the other has a pronounced dome. May I use one of the "twins" in competition after I have applied heat and shop-made forms to make its profile like the other? 4) I have discovered over time that discs I have left on the back deck of my station wagon on long hot days have flattened and even "puddled" at the flight plate. I prefered the FCs after these accidental modifications. May I use in competition new discs that I have deliberately arranged on my car deck over several hot days? No doubt the reader here will notice the post-production modifications that truly effect the FCs of discs. When is a beat disc noticeably in violation... When it is too young to be so warped? How can a new flattened disc be said to have a changed FC when it has a production-flat twin? Shaving, grooving, and "building" edges and plates are easy ways to find violations.Method beating, heating and pressing seem to be tolerable treatments to discs without incurring a violation.

A TD would have to make the call if asked on each disc.
You won't get the same answer from every TD so discs may be declared OK at one event may not be declared OK at another.
Some of these certainly are in violation of the spirit of the rule.
2 is OK, 1 might be OK, but I don't think 3 and 4 would be OK.

Other opinions may differ

Revised thoughts about these issues are found below/

The following rules changes are offered in service to the interest of players wishing to have improved clarity of the rules as they contemplate the use of certain techniques to condition, repair and refurbish their discs. None of these changes should be viewed as circumventing the purposes of the PDGA technical standards or those current rules dedicated to the principles of fair play.

Please consider the following:


A. Discs used in play must meet all of the conditions set forth in the PDGA Technical Standards, except that flight plate "puddling", rim-scrapes, and rim-warping as a result of play and related handling may deviate from these Technical Standards (Sections___) without disqualifying the subject disc.

B. A disc shall not be modified after production, except under the following conditions:

1) A disc that has experienced surface wear, impacts with solid objects, cold and heat during play and related handling, even where the appearance of the disc is significantly affected. A disc which is cracked or perforated has been modified beyond this exception.

2) A disc having experienced the conditions in 1) above, that has been subsequently treated with sanding, hot-tip instrument smoothing, or heat and pressure devises so as to bring the surface, shape or alignment closer to its original state.

3) A disc that has been cracked or perforated that has been subsequently treated with hot-tip smoothing. Perforations larger than .5cm, and cracks wider than 1mm and longer than 2cm, are beyond this exception. Minute particles of plastic of a distinctly different color may be used to show the treatment area.

4) A new disc that has been treated with sanding or hot-tip instrument smoothing to correct mold imperfections.

5) A new disc that has been treated with heat and pressure devices, only to the extent needed to cause the disc to have the same shape as other discs of the same mold. Rare deviations from the range of shapes known to occur with a particular mold do not qualify as models for this exception.

6) A disc with material added in accordance with rules applicable to play in the snow or night.


C. A disc that is questioned by another player or an official is illegal unless it is subsequently approved by the Director. No question will be considered without being supplied with the particular nature of the violation.

D. A player who throws an illegal disc during play shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning. A player who repeatedly throws an illegal disc during the round may be subject to disqualification in accordance with Section 3.3 of the PDGA Competition Manual.

E. All discs used in play, except mini marker discs, must be uniquely marked. (A disc marked with paint, tape or other material of a detectable thickness is a modified disc and subject to Section B above.) A player shall receive a warning for the first instance of throwing an unmarked disc. Each subsequent throw by the player with an unmarked disc shall incur one penalty throw.

Fred, I don't believe you are going to get much traction with these ideas but I will offer my comments since you asked.

1 - When you show up at a tournament and have one of your discs questioned it isn't feasible to ask the TD to determine if a disc meets the technical standards. The technical standards include things like these.

....(1) have a circular, saucer-like configuration, with a flight plate unbroken by perforations and an underside inner rim depth that is between 5 and 12 percent of the outside disc diameter.
.....(4) not exceed 8.3 g per cm of outside disc diameter;
.....(6) have a flight plate that does not exceed 0.5 cm in thickness, including any raised features such as lettering, ridges, nipples, and other thickened parts
....(11) have a rim configuration rating of 26.0 or greater;
....(12) pass the leading edge radius test with a 1/16" (1.6 mm) radius gauge;
....(13) have a flexibility rating no greater than 27 lb. (12.25 kg);

Even just looking for the PDGA Approved stamp on the disc has problems since there are PDGA approved discs that aren't legal regardless of that. TDs don't even have scales to determine if discs exceed maximum allowable weights by diameter

2- It just says most repairs are legal. Seems to me like you are just moving the line as to what is legal to a more "judgement call required" position. I think that means you increase the likelihood of a disc being ruled legal this week, illegal the next 2 weeks, and legal again after that. One of the last things TDs want is to be put in additional positions where they have to make judgement calls that are likely to result in a ****** off player whose disc was ruled OK last week.

3 - Yes, this is good
4- This means 98% of the extremely rare calls questioning the legality of a disc go away. Too many players don't know the rules well enough today to determine if a disc in a pond is OB or a lost disc. To ask them to cite a rule number isn't feasible. Seems to me like your sole intent here is to make it harder for people to question repaired or damaged discs.
5 - fine
6- fine but even this has issues. Perhaps "uniquely marked" could be defined. I regularly play with someone who throws a disc with a custom dye job of his favorite baseball team. Since it is a one of a kind disc he considered it uniquely marked. His name isn't on it but is it uniquely marked? Hard to say it isn't.

If you want to go forward with your proposals the next step would be an email to the Rules Committee. They will take your suggestions, consider them, and if they are interested in pursuing them they will debate them before the next edition of the PDGA Rules. I don't know when that is scheduled. Or they may respond with thanks and explain their reasoning for not considering them further.

I understand why you want to extend the life of your discs. Discs aren't cheap and the cost seems to be rising every year. In the area where I live it is pretty easy to get discs without buying them. Help a TD with a tourney. Spend some time marking OB or preparing a course before the tourney(or whatever the TD needs) and you are likely to get a disc, or 2, in appreciation.

The idea that few people care about rules concerning disc modifications is not a surprise. The absence of controversy may be due to the fullness and clarity of the current rules, or tolerance of ambiguity and the resignation felt about enforcement difficulties. Much of the energy put into this relates to my intentions for the upcoming playing season. I am announcing my future practices concerning the treatment of discs. Rather than beginning those practices and arguing (on a tournament by tournament basis) that the current rules do not clearly prohibit those practices, I am broadly advancing the issues for the sake of full disclosure, understanding, and easy relations during future events. Here is what I would do and openly disclose to all at any event:

Smooth scrapes and burrs by using a hot-tip instrument. (not sand away plastic from my disc)

Straighten bent rims and flight plates that have been contorted due to the rigors of play. This would involve the application of heat and pressure to the disc. (eg. Heat gun, heat lamp, mixing bowls, serving dishes, plaster molds, heavy weights).

Alter the flight plate of a new disc so that its shape/contour is not outside the range of flight plate variations in the same mold. Heat and pressure applied as with used disc corrections. (Manufacturers achieving greater consistency in the final contours (and resulting FC) of their molds may, over time, reduce the need for players to achieve their preferred version of a mold.)

Fill small holes (eg. thorn tree damage) and hair-line cracks, with minute particles of plastic of a noticeable color to allow inspection by others. A hot-tip instrument would be used.

I might do all these things and expect that I would remain underground, perhaps as some other disc-cooks have. But I mean to brag about my techniques without fear of disputes when I play.

It is important to note that none of my plans include the treatment of discs to achieve the distortions that are only allowed as a result of regular practice/play. (The current problem that exists, for any person trying to determine if a particular distortion is natural or not, remains here.) Much appreciation goes to Pete Kenny, who has help test some of my ideas. Here are some added comments in the order of the rule letters.

Rule A
This is revised to accommodate possible changes away from the Technical Standards resulting from play. Puddling could be severe, where the top dips close to the plane of the bottom rim-edge. After only a few big impacts and rock scrapes during play, gaps can be detected between the bottom rim-edge and any table top.

Rule B
This eliminates the reference to "flight characteristics", as that criteria is already understood as the reason behind the rule against modification, but it opens an unnecessary debate about whether a disc's behavior is, at the moment of play, different than the past. The word "its" is likewise removed due to the question it creates about the particular disc versus the assumptions about the behaviors of a particular mold. Administration of the rule is more effective where any change of the surface and shape of the disc is regarded equivalent to a change in the behaviors of the disc.

The new exceptions to the rule against modifications deal with the full range of physical changes a disc may experience. The current exception appears to have presumed that departures from original flight characteristics are a necessary and acceptable consequence of changes in the disc's appearance due to play. This revision introduces exceptions intended to "correct" the effects of play and, to give the player community a means to adjust their discs when they have a new disc that does not conform to the shape they prefer within the range of shapes available in a given mold.

Rule C - incorporated into Rule B

Rule D (now Rule C)
FIRST SENTENCE IS CURRENT RULE. The current rule operates on a “guilty until proven innocent” basis. While that remains in this revision, there is added specificity that helps the owner understand the claim made against a disc, and the TD can better hear the problem and decide. Should it ever be “easy” for one player to dispute another’s use of their disc? These basic principles of fairness are probably assumed in the original rule. The added revision makes it clear.


Rule E (now Rule D, unchanged)

Rule F (now Rule E)
Revised to inform that marks should not cause a violation of Rule B.
(note: "uniquely marked" should be construed as marked in ways that unambiguously identify the person using the disc at the event. Someone named “Mike Smith” may want to include his PDGA number…sorry Mike ;)

Proposed rules were submitted yesterday. Some revisions were made to the above.

Any response?

There have been thoughtful responses. I am hopeful that something will be done to improve the rules concerning disc modifications. In the meantime I am proceeding with my plans to throw in PDGA tournaments discs that have been treated with heat and/or pressure. The basic claim is that no alteration of the original flight characteristics have occurred as a result of those treatments. The current rule makes way for that claim.