#1  
Old 01-24-2016, 11:16 AM
Three Putt's Avatar
Three Putt Three Putt is offline
*Super Moderator*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rolla, MO.
Years Playing: 24.8
Courses Played: 135
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,120
Niced 2,279 Times in 864 Posts
Default Innova 3 series discs-approved?

I can't seem to find this answer so I'll post it and hope Chuck chimes in.

The Innova 3 series discs are not on the PDGA approved list, but they are used in PDGA play. The assumption would be that they are legal and covered under the original disc approval, but that would be somewhat inconsistent given what happened with the L molds. Once those discs came out in Star and were sold as TL, FL and SL those had to be approved becasue that was considered a name change. Also confusing is that the vRoc is approved but the Roc3 is not. So a v before the name would be a name change but the 3 after is not? That seems inconsistent so it's unclear if the 3 series discs are OK or if there has been an oversight like there was with the L molds and the Gremlin.

Does the PDGA have an official stance on this? Are they legal or not? If they are legal, shouldn't the PDGA just add the disc names to the approved list to clear up the confusion? If they are not legal, shouldn't there be a big blurb on the PDGA homepage about them not being legal like there was when Gateway forgot to get the VooDoo approved?

Or does nobody care? That's also a possibility.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-24-2016, 11:21 AM
tbird888's Avatar
tbird888 tbird888 is offline
Salient Disc Test Team
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Blue Ash, OH
Years Playing: 14.6
Courses Played: 214
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 16,546
Niced 1,388 Times in 711 Posts
Default

On the same line of thinking, the Ontario and Sanny Rocs were briefly sold as distinct molds in Star plastic, but I can't say I remember seeing those being approved separately either.

I've mentioned this in the past and was told that because they don't veer far enough from the approval specs to be considered illegal and are "Rocs", they don't need to be approved. That was several years ago so things may have changed.

Legacy reapproved the Outlaw mold when they tweaked it, and they hadn't even released any of the old mold. Kind of funny how much Innova seems to have the PDGA in their pocket.

Last edited by tbird888; 01-24-2016 at 11:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-24-2016, 11:48 AM
Three Putt's Avatar
Three Putt Three Putt is offline
*Super Moderator*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rolla, MO.
Years Playing: 24.8
Courses Played: 135
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,120
Niced 2,279 Times in 864 Posts
Default

If they are going to say they are fine because they "don't veer far enough from the approval specs to be considered illegal" that would be a very slippery slope. Who decides that they don't veer far enough if they are not submitted? Obviously that would be the manufacturers call, and that seems to defeat the purpose of having an approved disc system if a manufacturer can just opt out through a technicality.

To me if they are going to play this game the discs would need to be submitted and tested. The PDGA could decide that the discs were close enough not to need reapproval and refund the fee, but the discs would need to be on the approved disc list to clear up any confusion.

Or they could just be transparent about it and make the discs be approved.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-24-2016, 11:57 AM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 30.6
Courses Played: 692
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,193
Niced 1,546 Times in 701 Posts
Default

Here are excerpts from an email I just got back from Chair of Tech Standards:

A name change alone doesn't trigger when testing is required. It has to be an entirely new name, not just a variant change. New disc models, however, are still supposed to be tested, even if the name change for these new models seems more like a new variant (that is, new models that lack entirely new names). I know it can be confusing. We would still prefer that any name change would trigger the need for testing/approval because that policy is less ambiguous. As you'll recall, we had that policy for a year or so but the Board reversed it to where we are now partly because it was seen as too cumbersome for manufacturers.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-24-2016, 11:58 AM
Three Putt's Avatar
Three Putt Three Putt is offline
*Super Moderator*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rolla, MO.
Years Playing: 24.8
Courses Played: 135
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,120
Niced 2,279 Times in 864 Posts
Default

RE: that confusion.

I wonder if a TD could declare them illegal in the players meeting because they are not on the list. That's the kind of confusion I'm talking about. That is what ultimately happened with the L molds, Discraft announced before AM Nats one year that you couldn't throw the SL becasue it wasn't approved. Until they did that, the fact that it wasn't approved didn't seem to bother anybody.

Of course when Gateway didn't approve a disc it was on the front page of PDGA.com...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-24-2016, 12:01 PM
Three Putt's Avatar
Three Putt Three Putt is offline
*Super Moderator*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rolla, MO.
Years Playing: 24.8
Courses Played: 135
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,120
Niced 2,279 Times in 864 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
Here are excerpts from an email I just got back from Chair of Tech Standards:

A name change alone doesn't trigger when testing is required. It has to be an entirely new name, not just a variant change. New disc models, however, are still supposed to be tested, even if the name change for these new models seems more like a new variant (that is, new models that lack entirely new names). I know it can be confusing. We would still prefer that any name change would trigger the need for testing/approval because that policy is less ambiguous. As you'll recall, we had that policy for a year or so but the Board reversed it to where we are now partly because it was seen as too cumbersome for manufacturers.
So how is a TD supposed to know the difference between a Roc3 (doesn't need approval) and a vRoc (did need approval)? Everybody just assumes everything is legal? Shouldn't the variants be listed somehow to clearly show that they are OK?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-24-2016, 12:04 PM
tbird888's Avatar
tbird888 tbird888 is offline
Salient Disc Test Team
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Blue Ash, OH
Years Playing: 14.6
Courses Played: 214
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 16,546
Niced 1,388 Times in 711 Posts
Default

Don't forget about the recent G9i debacle where they asked Gateway to stop making them (but didn't declare them illegal for competition despite them not passing well-established flex specs), but the highly sought after 10X Aviar wouldn't have passed either and was allowed to be sold without any intervention.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-24-2016, 12:06 PM
biscoe biscoe is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: spotsylvania, va
Years Playing: 24.4
Courses Played: 94
Posts: 6,565
Niced 1,944 Times in 814 Posts
Default

why does the pdga care what a disc is called? imo they should approve molds as designated by something other than the name they are sold under (simply numbers would be fine) and any change in a mold should require retesting. the manufacturers can then communicate to their customers what mold is what name if it comes into question..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-24-2016, 12:08 PM
Three Putt's Avatar
Three Putt Three Putt is offline
*Super Moderator*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rolla, MO.
Years Playing: 24.8
Courses Played: 135
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,120
Niced 2,279 Times in 864 Posts
Default

Also LOL at "too cumbersome for manufacturers." You mean "too cumbersome for Innova." Nobody else is doing this. Discraft has all the OS/SS discs approved so far as I can tell.
Reply With Quote
 

  #10  
Old 01-24-2016, 12:10 PM
Three Putt's Avatar
Three Putt Three Putt is offline
*Super Moderator*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rolla, MO.
Years Playing: 24.8
Courses Played: 135
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,120
Niced 2,279 Times in 864 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biscoe View Post
why does the pdga care what a disc is called? imo they should approve molds as designated by something other than the name they are sold under (simply numbers would be fine) and any change in a mold should require retesting. the manufacturers can then communicate to their customers what mold is what name if it comes into question..
Exactly. Allowing the manufacturers to tweak molds with no retesting is a huge loophole that should be closed.

In this case I'd settle for the discs that are considered "legal" to be clearly listed as such, though.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Used Innova Series/Tour Series discs sumo21 The Marketplace 11 05-02-2018 12:08 PM
Innova Krait-Approved Titan037 Discs 145 02-07-2014 11:52 PM
Innova champion series discs Smoothrida85 The Marketplace 6 05-17-2012 01:32 PM
2011 Avery Jenkins Signature Series Innova Team Star Discs Avery Jenkins The Marketplace 55 05-16-2011 04:55 PM
Innova Vulcan approved Cgkdisc Discs 228 03-20-2011 09:28 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.