Since there was disagreement if the Wheel met the standards, I would say that I'd rather have the simpler case where a player competes with a disc on the list but not conforming.



the Wheel is not on the approved list. the primary reason is that it is "not a disc" according to the interpretation of the standards.

i am carrying one with me during rounds and using it to play catch, putt against trees, etc.

they cant do anything cuz it aint a disc! :D

i am carrying one with me during rounds and using it to play catch, putt against trees, etc.
they cant do anything cuz it aint a disc!


Hope your Texas buddies are reading this because a close look at 802.01D&E might change your (and their) opinion on this.

I may be repeating myself, but:

What obligations, if any, do disc golf manufacturers have regarding the production of discs from a mold that has had samples submitted and approved by the PDGA? From what Dave Mac writes, it doesn't appear that they have any, since if they did, his concern for non-conforming discs should not be as great as it is, IMO.

i am carrying one with me during rounds and using it to play catch, putt against trees, etc.
they cant do anything cuz it aint a disc!


Hope your Texas buddies are reading this because a close look at 802.01D&E might change your (and their) opinion on this.



802.01 D & E applies to discs only. What Pat is saying is that since that "thing" is not a disc, he cannot be penalized with those rules you cited.

Looks like if it ain't a disc, 802.01 doesn't apply, as the rule only refers to illegal discs, not things that aren't discs (such as the Wheel, according to sandalman's interpretation).

the Wheel is not on the approved list. the primary reason is that it is "not a disc" according to the interpretation of the standards.



Pls pardon my nitpicking, but the Tech Std doc nor the rules define what a "disc" is. They do define the characteristics of a disc that would pass technical standards, and the rules also state what types of post-production mods to a disc that was originally approved for play would be.

Here's what the doc says:

"(C) Guidelines for Discs Manufactured for PDGA Competition
To be certified for PDGA competition, discs must:
(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. The flight plate is defined as the upper (or dorsal) section of the disc, which is delineated by the points where the inner rim depth is measured. The saucer-like configuration requires a significant degree of asymmetry between the upper and lower sections, resulting in distinct top and bottom sides of the disc;
(2) be made of solid, non-magnetic plastic material, without any inflatable components;"

and so on.

I think in order to provide a definition of a disc, the wording should be altered thusly (with my alterations in red):

(C) Guidelines for Discs Manufactured for PDGA Competition

<font color="red"> The PDGA defines a disc as having </font>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. The flight plate is defined as the upper (or dorsal) section of the disc, which is delineated by the
points where the inner rim depth is measured. The saucer-like configuration requires a significant degree of asymmetry between the upper and lower sections, resulting in distinct top and bottom sides of the disc;

To be certified for PDGA competition, discs must:

<font color="red">(1) </font>be made of solid, non-magnetic plastic material, without any inflatable components;

and so on.

The way the current tech std is written, we know the attributes of a conforming disc, but we do not know a disc is.

Looks like if it ain't a disc, 802.01 doesn't apply, as the rule only refers to illegal discs, not things that aren't discs (such as the Wheel, according to sandalman's interpretation).


The Wheel is in the subset that includes all discs, just not PDGA Approved discs for competition. Even some of those are illegal for some competitions if they get damaged or are non-compliant for Vintage class shape or weight in Accuracy competitions for example. Even if someone is tossing around a CD or pie tin, they should get called for throwing an illegal disc and/or practice throws.

bill, the answer to the question lies in this phrase from the standards: "upper (or dorsal) section of the disc".

the TSC ruled that because the Wheel had no upper/dorsal section (the flight plane is precisely in the middle, that is was not a disc.

therefore, it is just a plastic artifact. throwing it during the round is no more problematic than throwing a set of keys to a buddy.

chuck, the statement The Wheel is in the subset that includes all discs, just not PDGA Approved discs for competition. is not true. the tsc said quite clearly that the Wheel is not a disc.

I may be repeating myself, but:

What obligations, if any, do disc golf manufacturers have regarding the production of discs from a mold that has had samples submitted and approved by the PDGA? From what Dave Mac writes, it doesn't appear that they have any, since if they did, his concern for non-conforming discs should not be as great as it is, IMO.


i believe the answer is what you already figured out: barely any. as long as the mold does not structurally change, and the marketing name of the disc does not change. an mfg could do pretty much anything they want with plastic as long as they dont change the marketing name.

in effect the standards approve MOLDS, not discs. its the "approve the species, not the individual" argument.

the net effect is that we can say this with certainty about discs legally used in play in PDGA events:
discs used in PDGA events must be formed from a mold that has been certified as capable of producing discs that are compliant with PDGA technical standards.

approval means the mold could produce a legal discs - it does not mean that it did for some particular disc. except for the three submitted samples, who knows. nothing in today's reality says anything about any particular disc, the disc in your bag, or the disc in your competition's.

bill, the answer to the question lies in this phrase from the standards: "upper (or dorsal) section of the disc".

the TSC ruled that because the Wheel had no upper/dorsal section (the flight plane is precisely in the middle, that is was not a disc.

therefore, it is just a plastic artifact. throwing it during the round is no more problematic than throwing a set of keys to a buddy.

chuck, the statement The Wheel is in the subset that includes all discs, just not PDGA Approved discs for competition. is not true. the tsc said quite clearly that the Wheel is not a disc.



I like Chuck's idea of using subsets to help explain, so I will try:

The "real world (RW)"

1) Non-Discs
2) Discs
<ul type="square">A) Non-conforming
B) Conforming[/list]

PDGA Rules:

1) Conforming discs
<ul type="square">A) With no post-production modifications
B) With post-production modifications[/list]
<ul type="square">i) Which don't alter original flight characteristics
ii) Which alter original flight characteristics[/list]
2) Everything else

Only anything in category RW-2B, or categories PDGA 1A or 1Bi is to be used in PDGA competition, agreed? And if something is used that is in category RW-2A, then rules 802.01D and E would apply. If I throw a rock to knock a disc out of a tree, these rules would not apply, since a rock is not a disc, right? That's only common sense. But what if, using Chuck's example, I used a pie plate or LP to knock a disc out of a tree, or threw the same off of a fairway if I happened on one. Do the rules apply there?


That is why the PDGA Tech Stds need to go one more step, and define what a disc is, so we can have the following:

PDGA Rules:

1) Discs - Give PDGA definition of a disc

A) Conforming discs
<ul type="square">i) With no post-production modifications
ii) With post-production modifications
a) Which don't alter original flight characteristics
b) Which alter original flight characteristics[/list]
B) Non-Conforming Discs - all discs not in part A

That way, we can point to a PDGA standard to say that what you threw was a disc is that not approved for use in a PDGA tournament vs what you threw is not a "PDGA-approved disc".

There is a difference.

that general approach has merit. in the meantime, players can toss Wheels back and forth during sanctioned play and not suffer a penalty.

that general approach has merit. in the meantime, players can toss Wheels back and forth during sanctioned play and not suffer a penalty.



Only under the rule regarding practice throws.

Now, as a courtesy violation...

if it didnt distract or interfere, where is the courtesy violation?

To me, it would be a distraction.

There's already enough plastic flying about at an event, I don't need to worry about an extra one on my card. Wanna play catch, try Ultimate or Guts.

(This is a reply to Dave's post)

Dave, if you really care about this; step up, put your money where your mouth is, and set the standard for manufacturers:



Once you do that, then you can a) lean on other manufacturers to follow your lead and/or b) renew your testing crusade. Until then you just sound like many of the others on this board that have a lot to say, but do nothing.



Krupicka,
I wouldn't go so far as to say I am doing nothing.
How could you know??

Do you know how many phone calls, emails and posts Ive made about some of the problems we could be facing when it comes to enforcing the rules?
The first step here is awareness, and for some players, they are more aware now than before!


I can bet you one thing:
ALL disc manufactures are paying closer attention to the weights of the discs they are making since this thread started.
It may take a while for all discs that are shipped out the doors of each company to be part of the new found awareness, but it will get there someday soon.
Believe me when I tell you things are heading in the right direction since these discussion started and we will eventually come up with a good solution to assure fairness during competition.! ( which is all the really should matter to anyone anyway!!)

The pdga just revised the TECH standards for discs and didnt make one single rule or procedure for enforcing them ( at least not one that I have heard of that will work)
This seems to a big oversight and of gross negligence to me!

I guess you guys are missing out on one vital point about enforcement and testing.

IN THE FUTURE NOT ALL DISCS MADE WILL BE MEANT FOR USE IN PDGA PLAY.
These discs will be made by one or all of the current manufactures and certainly by new manufactures.
This means there may be 20.5 cm diameter discs 4% rim depths and 2.7 wing lengths.
Nothing about any of these specs are unsafe and most likely they are almost unnoticeable without a measuring device.

to answer your suggestions:
BTW idea # 1 is directly related to this thread and discussion I have had with the TSC from the last 6 months!
1- For all PDGA approved discs, have PDGA approved AND the mold designation engraved in the mold.
most likely the discs can be stamped with a pdga approved stamp as better way as the bottoms of the molds are OFTEN shared for different models where the engraving is located.

2- If you change a mold at all, rename it and resubmit it.
Pretty sure we have done this already!

3- If you weigh a disc coming off the line and it is nonconforming (or nonconforming for other reasons), take a hole punch and put a hole in the flight plate. If you want to sell it, give it away, or destroy it, that's up to you.

First of all with ALL manufacturing companies the "you's" are not usually the owner.
We all try our best to keep over weight discs off the market, but some will always get by ( human and scale error)
There is really no need for poking holes in discs as most that are over wieght by a few grams get ground up.

I am not leaning on any manufactures nor do I intend to,
'this is about pdga rules and enforcing them through the competitions.
Players are responsible for the equipment they compete with in every other sport.

If I'm not mistaken we were the first company to have PDGA approved on the engraving and just like all companies to date, we try to make sure our discs are within the rules.
I could see removing this from the molds and only putting a stamp on discs we are CERTAIN are withing the specs.

If 0nly 5% of all discs made will ever be used in a pdga event, but all discs have pdga approved on them, the advantage of having the PDGA acronym on ALL discs seems to be more benificial to the pdga for marketing purposes.

Somehow this discussion always comes back to weight which is really not as important as some of the other ways a disc may be nonconforming in the future! <font color="blue"> </font>

2- If you change a mold at all, rename it and resubmit it.
Pretty sure we have done this already!

if the change is structural it must be retested. i believe there are physical changes that may be made to a mold that do not require retesting. bead size was offered as an example, if i remember the discussion correctly.

Players are responsible for the equipment they compete with in every other sport.

so far the Board has held the position that responsibility for a player's equipment used in competition lies with the mfg. personally, i think thats about as backwards as one can get. but, i am in the minority so far.


it comes back to weight mostly because when you start looking at the standards the only ones well-suited to easy onsite testing are weight and diameter.


this is my prescription:
1. APPROVE THE MOLD
2. TEST THE DISC
it really can be that simple.