Post-production Hot Stamps are Illegal

[txmxer]

So I think we are mostly saying the same thing. This shouldn't be that hard to interpret for an average player. Hot stamps should be legal, the "detectable with fingernail" rule is the problem, the intent originally is likely to stop someone from modifying the disc. Such as adding weight(s), wings, what have you, or perhaps even to stop the use of unsightly duct tape patching to a broken disc. We wouldn't want to look like bums

Perhaps it reads more like "... other than hot stamping.

Google keyboard is getting a bad review on yelp for its affair with Stamos.

"hot Stamos"

 

[araytx]

The PDGA does not list Only The Best Discs nor OTB as a manufacturer of any approved discs. All of the OTB Open stamped discs are MVP discs, as they are the disc manufacturer that sponsors the OTB Open.

As to hanging one's hat on whether the people are DD employees or not, the ridiculousness of the distinction is the whole point. Why does it matter whether the disc is stamped in a DD warehouse or not?

Imagine the exact same hot stamp machine brought in a van to DDO and "loaned out" to a local children's cancer charity. They collect donations and in turn let people hot stamp their own discs. No DD employee is present and it's not at a DD warehouse. There are just a bunch of custom hot stamps, a unique experience for fans and some money raised for kids. If you are telling me that the exact same hot stamps, applied by the same machine, change the legality of the disc not based on what they are, nor how they were applied, nor what equipment they were applied with, but based on the exact location in which they were stamped and whether or not a DD employee was "supervising", this seems to be distinction without a difference.

If you somehow think that's legal, but that some other hot stamp should be illegal because Powergrip, Flight Factory, or some other retailer applied it … I don't see the logic.

Congrats on missing the entire point of us pointing out how dumb this interpretation of the rule is. DD (in this case) or OTB, or Infinite, or Mint, or Hooligan etc all have contracts for other companies to manufacture their discs. Some stamp their own, some have the manufacturer stamp them for them. Is the only difference between that and you or I stamping our own discs a contract? What is your local club buys 1000 blanks and you guys stamp your club logo on it. According the to the PDGA, that's illegal. But certain retailers, who aren't even considered manufacturers by the authority of the old heads on this page, can post production stamp and it is legal. See the problem?

I don't think I've missed yall's point -- I think you guys are missing mine. Correct me if I am wrong, but most of the objecting opinion seems to be hanging on basically this: "But if I or my friend or my local retailer use the exact same process [sic] as the disc manufacturer, what does it matter and what is the difference?" Am I right? Is that the counter-argument? If not please correct me, but if so, then continue and consider my counter-arguments.

IMHO, it seems silly in any sport in general to make the argument that "if I can make the exact same equipment as the companies authorized and contracted with the sport's governing body, then I should be able to bring my own and use it in sanctioned competition." Hanging ya'll's hat on "what's the difference" is a post hoc argument that just sounds like a good one. That isn't the one I am arguing.

Imagine hearing, "I bought an old machine from Head Graphite and can make my own tennis rackets, so I should be able to use them at Wimbledon next week -- Djokovic be darned!" And, "...plus my friend down the street owns a golf supply store and has a brand new Titlist machine he won on a 18-hole bet. Heck, I should be able to use the blank golf balls Titlist sent me that we decorated and stamped ourselves. And so should anybody on the PGA Tour, LIV, or Champions Tour. Never mind that you all don't know for sure what my buddy really did -- we can "promise you" we use the same process as the brand company!" Oh, AND "...by the way, I ordered some blank Nike Vapor footballs from the Pacific Northwest. Got them all 'UGa'ed up' to reflect the two-time defending CFP Champion Georgia Bulldogs too. They are breaking those footballs out against Tennessee- Martin September 2 at Sanford Stadium." And so on and so on.

Ok, Ok,. So those are somewhat extreme examples, but maybe someone will see what I am trying to get at. Where is the line? I think it has to be drawn somewhere. Very few respondents seem to have a line, I mean it's seems popular and cool to a lot of folks out there sometimes to just bash at the PDGA. Did any of you ask Krupicka why? It ain't that hard to get in touch with him. But many on here seem to just want hot stamping willy-nilly free no problem. That, to me, is a can of worms waiting to get out of control. Truthfully, at least by saying that the PDGA rule currently states 3rd-party hot stamping is illegal does at least put some controls on things. If PDGA ever said, "OK anyone can hot-stamp anything," does anyone out there really believe, that is where it would end? I don't.

But I am willing to hear your en total proposals. Let em' fly! I'm listening for a well-thought out, complete proposal. Not just "let my local buddies make some extra money easier."

 

[Rastnav]

I don't think I've missed yall's point -- I think you guys are missing mine. Correct me if I am wrong, but most of the objecting opinion seems to be hanging on basically this: "But if I or my friend or my local retailer use the exact same process [sic] as the disc manufacturer, what does it matter and what is the difference?" Am I right? Is that the counter-argument? If not please correct me, but if so, then continue and consider my counter-arguments.

IMHO, it seems silly in any sport in general to make the argument that "if I can make the exact same equipment as the companies authorized and contracted with the sport's governing body, then I should be able to bring my own and use it in sanctioned competition." Hanging ya'll's hat on "what's the difference" is a post hoc argument that just sounds like a good one. That isn't the one I am arguing.

Imagine hearing, "I bought an old machine from Head Graphite and can make my own tennis rackets, so I should be able to use them at Wimbledon next week -- Djokovic be darned!" And, "...plus my friend down the street owns a golf supply store and has a brand new Titlist machine he won on a 18-hole bet. Heck, I should be able to use the blank golf balls Titlist sent me that we decorated and stamped ourselves. And so should anybody on the PGA Tour, LIV, or Champions Tour. Never mind that you all don't know for sure what my buddy really did -- we can "promise you" we use the same process as the brand company!" Oh, AND "...by the way, I ordered some blank Nike Vapor footballs from the Pacific Northwest. Got them all 'UGa'ed up' to reflect the two-time defending CFP Champion Georgia Bulldogs too. They are breaking those footballs out against Tennessee- Martin September 2 at Sanford Stadium." And so on and so on.

Ok, Ok,. So those are somewhat extreme examples, but maybe someone will see what I am trying to get at. Where is the line? I think it has to be drawn somewhere. Very few respondents seem to have a line, I mean it's seems popular and cool to a lot of folks out there sometimes to just bash at the PDGA. Did any of you ask Krupicka why? It ain't that hard to get in touch with him. But many on here seem to just want hot stamping willy-nilly free no problem. That, to me, is a can of worms waiting to get out of control. Truthfully, at least by saying that the PDGA rule currently states 3rd-party hot stamping is illegal does at least put some controls on things. If PDGA ever said, "OK anyone can hot-stamp anything," does anyone out there really believe, that is where it would end? I don't.

But I am willing to hear your en total proposals. Let em' fly! I'm listening for a well-thought out, complete proposal. Not just "let my local buddies make some extra money easier."

You don't seem to be actually engaging with the arguments being made.

Let me try and take a different approach. Your contention is that the hot stamp at the factory is simply part of the manufactured disc.

813.01.B Allowed modifications to a disc after production are limited to:
1. Wear and tear from usage during play;
2. Moderate sanding to address wear and tear or small molding imperfections;
3. Marking with dye or permanent marker ink.

Wiping the stamp from a disc would be illegal if it was actually part of the manufactured disc. We know Lizotte has wiped the stamps from his putters. By your interpretation, his putters are illegal discs. And so are lots and lots of other discs, thrown by a huge swath of players with discs that have been dyed.

I'd venture to guess that approximately no one thinks that it is the case that these disc aren't legal.

Hot stamps are not actually considered an integral part of the manufactured disc. The claim that they are is only made when attempting to justify their addition by the manufacturers. This is just trying to shoehorn in the legality of hot stamps without modifying the rules. That's the actual objection being raised here.

As to making rules, I've already indicated one rule that I would like to see added, which is that modifying discs (other than through wear) with the intent of changing the flight characteristics would be illegal. To allow hot stamps, simply specify a rule that allows the addition of decorative films of minimal thickness so long as they do not substantively change the flight characteristics of the disc. Also, specifically allow the removal of these decorations.

This is not rocket science.

 

[txmxer]

The slippery slop argument loses traction with me.

Could you modify a disc to achieve a certain flight. Maybe. I doubt you could consistently be successful to the extent you would perform better on a regular basis such that it would matter.


Would hot stamping be a way to do it? Seriously?

I get that there has to be a line somewhere. The boundary as currently drawn is fudged.

It could be simplified: modifications which alter the natural flight of the disc are not allowed. Or something similar.

I can assure you, a couple of pieces of glow tape aren't leading me to win worlds or even my local league event.

 

[robdeforge]

It could be simplified: modifications which alter the natural flight of the disc are not allowed. Or something similar.

how do you know if a certain modification does or does not alter the natural flight of the disc?

 

[araytx]

You don't seem to be actually engaging with the arguments being made.

Let me try and take a different approach. Your contention is that the hot stamp at the factory is simply part of the manufactured disc.



Wiping the stamp from a disc would be illegal if it was actually part of the manufactured disc. We know Lizotte has wiped the stamps from his putters. By your interpretation, his putters are illegal discs. And so are lots and lots of other discs, thrown by a huge swath of players with discs that have been dyed.

I'd venture to guess that approximately no one thinks that it is the case that these disc aren't legal.

Hot stamps are not actually considered an integral part of the manufactured disc. The claim that they are is only made when attempting to justify their addition by the manufacturers. This is just trying to shoehorn in the legality of hot stamps without modifying the rules. That's the actual objection being raised here.

As to making rules, I've already indicated one rule that I would like to see added, which is that modifying discs (other than through wear) with the intent of changing the flight characteristics would be illegal. To allow hot stamps, simply specify a rule that allows the addition of decorative films of minimal thickness so long as they do not substantively change the flight characteristics of the disc. Also, specifically allow the removal of these decorations.

This is not rocket science.

Rast:

I'll engage. But just this once, because I thought I made the point earlier. Whether or not my local guy hot-stamping or not changes disc characteristics (to me) is not the point. But I can certainly see why many people would say it doesn't. Just like hot-stamping your own disc at the Dynamic Discs Warehouse, it can be the exact same process. The reason I'm not arguing that point is because I don't think it is in dispute -- at least in the cases that have been brought up thus far. I can agree that in the vast majority of cases previously brought up it hasn't.

Wiping the stamp from a disc -- I am just sticking with the rules. The rulebook currently is silent on whether wiping is legal or illegal. So no, I disagree with what you've stated on Simon's putters, and anyone else who has "wiped" other than from normal wear and tear.

As far as the rule proposed -- how may times have people stated "well XYZ rule seems unenforceable"? Many. I can't speak for the Tech Standards Committee, but I see "...that modifying discs (other than through wear) with the intent of changing the flight characteristics would be illegal," to be an unenforceable rule. How does one legislate someone's intent when it happened way outside the course. And what if Local Retailer A had great intent to make certain disc modifications that would change a disc's flight characteristics, sold them to unknowingly Players B, C, & D, who had no such intent. And to continue my answer...

The slippery slop argument loses traction with me.

Could you modify a disc to achieve a certain flight. Maybe. I doubt you could consistently be successful to the extent you would perform better on a regular basis such that it would matter.


Would hot stamping be a way to do it? Seriously?

I get that there has to be a line somewhere. The boundary as currently drawn is fudged.

It could be simplified: modifications which alter the natural flight of the disc are not allowed. Or something similar.

I can assure you, a couple of pieces of glow tape aren't leading me to win worlds or even my local league event.

..., sorry txmixer & Rast, I am all about slippery slopes and conspiracy theories

 

[ThrowaEnvy]

Rast:
..... Just like hot-stamping your own disc at the Dynamic Discs Warehouse, it can be the exact same process. The reason I'm not arguing that point is because I don't think it is in dispute -- at least in the cases that have been brought up thus far. I can agree that in the vast majority of cases previously brought up it hasn't.

Wiping the stamp from a disc -- I am just sticking with the rules. The rulebook currently is silent on whether wiping is legal or illegal. So no, I disagree with what you've stated on Simon's putters, and anyone else who has "wiped" other than from normal wear and tear.

As far as the rule proposed -- how may times have people stated "well XYZ rule seems unenforceable"? Many. I can't speak for the Tech Standards Committee, but I see "...that modifying discs (other than through wear) with the intent of changing the flight characteristics would be illegal," to be an unenforceable rule. How does one legislate someone's intent when it happened way outside the course. And what if Local Retailer A had great intent to make certain disc modifications that would change a disc's flight characteristics, sold them to unknowingly Players B, C, & D, who had no such intent. And to continue my answer...

Not taking sides, I think we are all saying the same thing... as far as hot stamps not being in dispute, I think we agree that hot stamps should be allowed. The problem is the vaguely written rule that seems to make 3rd party hot Stamos illegal and possibly wiping.

I am curious now about case history of these violations.

Modifying discs is pretty much an unenforceable rule to begin with whether it is to alter flight or not. Perhaps an allowance like:

..4.3.2 Addition/removal of decorative stamps or foil is permitted so long as they are not exceeding the approved PDGA max weight for the mold (or changing/compromising the durability/thickness of plastic?)

As far as disc tuning and mods go... you can predictably alter a disc but good luck catching me.... im no hack haha. There are lots of clean ways to simulate months of wear. Hot stamps and hot dips modify the dome on the plate, some of my best envy are hot dipped dye and I don't think it's psychological, they have a flatter top and a flight a year or two ahead of other new ones. I also know of a run of aviars/mrv's ? from a local tourney a decade ago that were snapped up, the hot stamp flattened the dome and made them amazing. The TD got several calls from people wanting more of the greatest run ever..

A strip of glow tape adds stability and changes the flight, I'm all for allowing it since I don't care but what happens when it's 10strips of tape and some are flying off and flagging in the wind? Easiest way is to say no.

Also there already are many discs exceeding max approved weight in the wild. That concerns me, let me tell you about my amazing 178 champ Ontario rhyno that I dumped since the weight was still legible on the back. Or my dfx mandala rhythm triple foil that is detectable Thickness and then some, weighing in at 181g. Gorgeous so luckily it's not in my throwing pile yet.

 

[txmxer]

how do you know if a certain modification does or does not alter the natural flight of the disc?

That is kind of my point. The rule is not enforced in general. Nobody is checking weights.

But, you still need to have a rule to prevent extremes.

 

[Rastnav]

Wiping the stamp from a disc -- I am just sticking with the rules. The rulebook currently is silent on whether wiping is legal or illegal. So no, I disagree with what you've stated on Simon's putters, and anyone else who has "wiped" other than from normal wear and tear.

I quoted the rule. The rule isn't silent, it names the very specific ways you can do something to a disc. In addition it is very clear that anything other than that is illegal:

813.10.C
Other modifications to a disc after production make the disc illegal, including but not limited to:

The rule is just as silent on adding hot stamps as it is on removing them. If adding hot stamps is illegal, so is wiping them.

Are you just playing devil's advocate? Trolling? Based on your history on the board, I'm really confused how you can say the rules are silent on this.

 

[PastorofMuppets]

I say the PDGA bans all hot stamps and we have to draw on them with sharpies like toddlers to personalize them... lulz

Can you imagine if the PGA banned manufacturers from putting any markings on personalized Golf Balls because it affects the flight...

 

[BillFleming]

I say the PDGA bans all hot stamps and we have to draw on them with sharpies like toddlers to personalize them... lulz

Can you imagine if the PGA banned manufacturers from putting any markings on personalized Golf Balls because it affects the flight...

Just to set it correct.....you aren't the only one using the PGA as an example regarding rules....but the PGA doesn't create the rules. They really just run the tournaments.

Simply.....

USGA = PDGA
DGPT = PGA

Also, for ball golf, it isn't just the USGA for rules. The R&A (Royal & Ancient Golf Club of Saint Andrews). The USGA and R&A work together to make the rules for ball golf.

 

[araytx]

I quoted the rule. The rule isn't silent, it names the very specific ways you can do something to a disc. In addition it is very clear that anything other than that is illegal:



The rule is just as silent on adding hot stamps as it is on removing them. If adding hot stamps is illegal, so is wiping them.

Are you just playing devil's advocate? Trolling? Based on your history on the board, I'm really confused how you can say the rules are silent on this.

Not trolling. I simply disagree with your interp of 813.01B. And we aren't going to agree so I'll leave it there. If the rule meant ONLY, there would be no need for 813.01C at all -- but -- guess what? It is there. I do not think that the bolded part you stated is accurate; it is an extrapolation or extension. But I do see your point as well. I am sure it'll get addressed by 2025's update, so I'll leave it alone from now on.

 

[txmxer]

813.01.B. Allowed modifications to a disc after production are limited to:
1. Wear and tear from usage during play;
2. Moderate sanding to address wear and tear or small molding imperfections;
3. Marking with dye or permanent marker ink.


813.01.C. Other modifications to a disc after production make the disc illegal, including but not limited to:
1. Modifying the disc in a way that alters its original flight characteristics;
2. Excessively sanding the disc;
3. Etching, carving, or engraving the disc;
4. Adding a material of a detectable thickness such as paint.
5. Intentionally deforming a disc such that it is not in a circular, saucer-like configuration.

Adding a hot stamp (Stamos?) aftermarket violates 813.01.C.1.?

If adding a hot stamp is in violation of the rule, how can wiping a hot stamp not be a violation?

They both have the same potential to alter the original flight characteristics.

This is not a knock on the PDGA or the rules committee. It's just a point where at a minimum there is a conflict in how the rules are currently interpreted. That means the interpretation and implementation needs to be revised or the rule as written needs to be revised to match it's current implementation.

PS: rumor has it that hot Stamos does like to be wiped.

 

[Rastnav]

Adding a hot stamp (Stamos?) aftermarket violates 813.01.C.1.?

If adding a hot stamp is in violation of the rule, how can wiping a hot stamp not be a violation?

They both have the same potential to alter the original flight characteristics.

This is not a knock on the PDGA or the rules committee. It's just a point where at a minimum there is a conflict in how the rules are currently interpreted. That means the interpretation and implementation needs to be revised or the rule as written needs to be revised to match it's current implementation.

PS: rumor has it that hot Stamos does like to be wiped.

I believe that adding a hot stamp aftermarket is being interpreted as violating 813.01.C.4, not .C.1, but that really doesn't matter as .C.1 through .C.5 are only examples of things which are prohibited. Wiping off a hot stamp using chemicals isn't any different, in principle, as sanding it off, which is an example of something prohibited.

 

[ThrowaEnvy]

See I wouldn't be as worried about 813.01c1 it's 3 and 4 that hot stamps violate or ghost stamps. If you have wiped a stamp you feel the etching. If you hot stamp it you add a detectable foil. Possibly with the hot stamp or a hot dip you change the dome. I got one dye that clovered a fission pretty bad.

 

[txmxer]

I said c1 because that was mentioned earlier in the thread. Someone adding multiple stamps to alter the flight.

In turn, a detectable thickness would certainly apply to a stamp added to a blank disc.

So, multiple possibilities.

 

[roblee]

Maybe just create a new Section 814 that lists those rules that the PDGA will be silent regarding implementation during broadcasts of Elite & Major tournaments: falling putts, chalking discs, throwing clock, hot stamps, others?

 

[txmxer]

814. SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT

Don't take this personally. I think it's funny.

Rules making and enforcement is not an easy task in a "sport" that is much more hobby than profession with limited backing.

Very few people that enable this sport actually profit from it as far as I can tell.

 

[dmoore1998]

If MVP put the graphic on, not illegal.

If Powergrip put it on, illegal.

Logical? Not so much.

I get the logic a bit...it's probably about oversight. If I'm the PDGA and I can choose between regulating and communicating with disc manufacturers...or I can choose to regulate and communicate with every person on the planet who might put a stamp on a disc...I choose the former. Choosing the latter means I now have to come up with specific regulations about stamping (how thick, how many, how heavy perhaps, etc...in a way that can be enforced). If a manufacturer tries to skirt the intent of the rules, I have a hammer ("Knock it off or we're going to make your discs not certified for play")...and that seems like a lot less of a nightmare than regulating every possible scenario.

There's no advantage gained if Powergrip put the stamp on instead of MVP...but the logistical nightmare it potentially unleashes to allow it might be worth it.

People make the point "how is a consumer supposed to know who put the stamp on it"...imagine if a consumer doesn't have to worry about who put the stamp on it...but now has to worry about how thick the stamp is, how much it weighs, the material, etc.

 

[dmoore1998]

I believe that adding a hot stamp aftermarket is being interpreted as violating 813.01.C.4, not .C.1, but that really doesn't matter as .C.1 through .C.5 are only examples of things which are prohibited. Wiping off a hot stamp using chemicals isn't any different, in principle, as sanding it off, which is an example of something prohibited.

I think technically you're right, but I also think if there were a question posed specifically to the rules committee we'd likely hear back that stamp-wiping is fine (and maybe that question has been asked? i haven't looked).