Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
It's the difference between those who desire a black & white world and the real world with its 50 shades of grey.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Legalities of disc flattening/adjustments/etc... Change?
- Thread starter Fighter
- Start date
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
I already pointed out that the dome was not part of the dimensions or spec, just the "shoulder" of the rim that produces the height. Producing flat top Rocs is not a different disc in terms of needing approval any more than using a different plastic in the mold changes the approval status UNLESS the manufacturer needs it tested to make sure it still meets the flex standard. Again, the specs pertain to some specific dimension max and minimums but have nothing to do with whether the look or performance can be consistently reproduced beyond falling within those specs.
Chris A
Bogey Member
Ahh, So now the rules have a shades of gray? Look I completely understand the reality of it. We don't want people modding disc's and you can get into the "slippery slope" argument by allowing any type other than "light sanding". I get it.
I would say that if I wanted to take production run of disc's that have been approved by the PDGA and I waned to say flatten the dome, then market and sale them as PDGA legal "Cradams Flat-Top's". I would have a good legal argument as to why I could tell the PDGA to shove off about getting them recertified as they don't make other companies do it.
...
So I can start Cradams's disc's and flatten all the Roc's I want, then resale them and they will be PDGA legal?
Last edited:
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
The tiedye industry already does something similar without any repercussions at this point.
Chris A
Bogey Member
barneco
Birdie Member
Ultimately, the day-to-day reality of the rule really does reflect its validity. It's not black and white. It's %100 unenforceable. The only thing stopping me from flattening a roc is me(i.e. i can alter a disc which is undetectable as altered).
Enforcement is, by necessity, left up to individual ethics, which vary drastically. There are many people who will follow a rule simply because it's a rule. There are others who adhere more to the spirit, or intent, of the rule(which is also subject to interpretation). Then there are those who break the rules because they don't like the rule or rules in general.
The underlying problem with the rule in question is that all 3 ethical positions can easily co-exist within the parameters of the existing rule, simply because there's no way to determine whether or not someone has violated the rule. A rule with this kinda basis is, imho, the definition of pointless. Rules exist to eliminate ambiguity and one that doesn't is useless for its intended purpose. Rules are there to take ethics out of the equation(or more specifically to impose a specific set of ethics on the situation). What's the point of a a rule that doesn't, other than symbolism? Why have a symbolic rule? Wouldn't it be better to continue to improve it so that it has actual application?
Now, how to improve the rule is still elusive. Personally, I lean towards the thought previously expressed in this thread that if there was way to describe a legal disc in such terms that provided a high confidence that anything within those parameters would not be considered outside of the desired equipment function(disc range, for instance), then it wouldn't matter what modifications occurred, as long as the disc remained in those parameters(think wooden baseball bats). The whole modification question is off the table. The challenge, here, tho, is 1) how do you express those parameters in quantifiable terms, and ideally in terms that could be verified in the field without special equipment, and 2) we don't know what we don't know...there could always come along a new way to tweak a disc that lets the disc perform outside of its intended function.
Not yet having the perfect solution, however, shouldn't prevent questioning of a current rule. Often it's discussion like this that actual leads to a better solution.
Good discussion, regardless.
Enforcement is, by necessity, left up to individual ethics, which vary drastically. There are many people who will follow a rule simply because it's a rule. There are others who adhere more to the spirit, or intent, of the rule(which is also subject to interpretation). Then there are those who break the rules because they don't like the rule or rules in general.
The underlying problem with the rule in question is that all 3 ethical positions can easily co-exist within the parameters of the existing rule, simply because there's no way to determine whether or not someone has violated the rule. A rule with this kinda basis is, imho, the definition of pointless. Rules exist to eliminate ambiguity and one that doesn't is useless for its intended purpose. Rules are there to take ethics out of the equation(or more specifically to impose a specific set of ethics on the situation). What's the point of a a rule that doesn't, other than symbolism? Why have a symbolic rule? Wouldn't it be better to continue to improve it so that it has actual application?
Now, how to improve the rule is still elusive. Personally, I lean towards the thought previously expressed in this thread that if there was way to describe a legal disc in such terms that provided a high confidence that anything within those parameters would not be considered outside of the desired equipment function(disc range, for instance), then it wouldn't matter what modifications occurred, as long as the disc remained in those parameters(think wooden baseball bats). The whole modification question is off the table. The challenge, here, tho, is 1) how do you express those parameters in quantifiable terms, and ideally in terms that could be verified in the field without special equipment, and 2) we don't know what we don't know...there could always come along a new way to tweak a disc that lets the disc perform outside of its intended function.
Not yet having the perfect solution, however, shouldn't prevent questioning of a current rule. Often it's discussion like this that actual leads to a better solution.
Good discussion, regardless.
Smigles
* Ace Member *
We need to approach disc regulation with a wider view IMO.
Just make rules like
- max diameter
- only plastic allowed ( have a chemist define that if necessary )
- only circular shapes allowed
and let people work within these rules. Some slight scratching or bending of the disc should never be forbidden. If there is a little hole in the flight plate, who cares ? It certainly will not improve aerodynamics...
Just make rules like
- max diameter
- only plastic allowed ( have a chemist define that if necessary )
- only circular shapes allowed
and let people work within these rules. Some slight scratching or bending of the disc should never be forbidden. If there is a little hole in the flight plate, who cares ? It certainly will not improve aerodynamics...
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
How big can a "little hole" be before it's an Aerobie?
A tricky issue related to this is when a thorn goes all the way thru the disc and fills the hole. If you didn't know better, it would look just like a brown dot on the disc. Probably not legal but I would be unlikely to call it even if a player showed it to me and I was acting as a marshal.
A tricky issue related to this is when a thorn goes all the way thru the disc and fills the hole. If you didn't know better, it would look just like a brown dot on the disc. Probably not legal but I would be unlikely to call it even if a player showed it to me and I was acting as a marshal.
Last edited:
Is it Irony that people think disc golf is a laid back hippy sport? I am not really feeling a laid back vibe, people are getting really intense about the dome of their plastic.
BY THE WAY....USE THE SEARCH FEATURE.
BY THE WAY....USE THE SEARCH FEATURE.
Chris A
Bogey Member
BY THE WAY....USE THE SEARCH FEATURE.
I don't wanna read all 10k+ of your post's!
The rule is the way it is for obvious reasons.
They want to disallow modifying the disc to fly differently than what was approved (under the understood circumstances that not all discs come out exactly alike). They don't want people digging crevices in the wings, creating artificial dimples and so on. We can all think of some major work that someone would do to a disc to make it a completely different beast than what was approved - and completely outside normal specs.
So instead of going into specifics about all the different things you can't do and create all kinds of discussions every time someone comes up with something that was not covered, they tell us we can't do anything of the sort on purpose. Relying - like so many other things in the rules - on sportsmanship.
You might say your disc is the same as another in the same mold after you are done flattening it. But who are you to say, really?
Instead: Easily understood rule. "Don't fiddle with it on purpose."
Understanding the nature of the game they still have given us the right to return a warped disc to its original state. If it bends by accident, bend it back. If it bulges by accident, unbulge it. Or vice versa. Accident being the keyword.
The rule is completely manageble by any honest player. That it is not 100% enforcable is not cause for changing it.
They want to disallow modifying the disc to fly differently than what was approved (under the understood circumstances that not all discs come out exactly alike). They don't want people digging crevices in the wings, creating artificial dimples and so on. We can all think of some major work that someone would do to a disc to make it a completely different beast than what was approved - and completely outside normal specs.
So instead of going into specifics about all the different things you can't do and create all kinds of discussions every time someone comes up with something that was not covered, they tell us we can't do anything of the sort on purpose. Relying - like so many other things in the rules - on sportsmanship.
You might say your disc is the same as another in the same mold after you are done flattening it. But who are you to say, really?
Instead: Easily understood rule. "Don't fiddle with it on purpose."
Understanding the nature of the game they still have given us the right to return a warped disc to its original state. If it bends by accident, bend it back. If it bulges by accident, unbulge it. Or vice versa. Accident being the keyword.
The rule is completely manageble by any honest player. That it is not 100% enforcable is not cause for changing it.
They are not my posts, you search for one of the other 12 disc modification threads.
Do you even know what the search feature is? It is not a "Best of Prerube"
MNcyclone
Double Eagle Member
The whole point of disc specs is to draw money into the PDGA through the approval process and legitimize the existence of the PDGA in general. The rule achieves this goal. If the goal were to produce clear standards for our "sport" it would create a standard that can be tested by those not within the PDGA.
The situation we have now is the same system with any government. Those that dare to question the rule of law are shouted down. "Hey, its the rules, made by the people in charge, who are you to question them?!" I guess I am just a nobody who wishes it was still 1998 before anyone cared what the PDGA said about anything.
The situation we have now is the same system with any government. Those that dare to question the rule of law are shouted down. "Hey, its the rules, made by the people in charge, who are you to question them?!" I guess I am just a nobody who wishes it was still 1998 before anyone cared what the PDGA said about anything.
barneco
Birdie Member
The problem with that is there are varying degress of honesty and sportsmanship. It's subject to interpretation by different individuals. Even by your interpretation, it's a matter of degree. Is dying a disc "fiddling with it on purpose"? Does it give an advantage? Based on whose definition of advantage? Why is that person's definition better than someone else's? It's still ambiguous.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
The manufacturers lobbied for the PDGA to create and manage the specs. It wasn't work or a profit center the PDGA was looking for. If most manufacturers chose (like some have) to not get discs approved, they wouldn't have to. But they willingly feel it's worth it. The PDGA does not make money on the process. They've looked at outside vendors to do it but the cost was prohibitive.
MNcyclone
Double Eagle Member
Of course the manufacturer want it. It helped solidify the biopoly that existed for so long. It also preserves the marketability of new discs. Nobody would have cared about the MVP volt had I been able to take my dremel tool to my Vectors to bevel the edge (oh wait, I did it anyways...)
barneco
Birdie Member
You are the first person in 13 pages of civil, but lively, discussion to complain about this thread. Please go drop your name somewhere else.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Not sure what biopoly you're referring to? DGA and Wham-O were a significant part of the disc golf world in the early 80s besides Innova and Discraft if that's who you think had a biopoly. I know you seek PDGA bashing opportunities but it's certainly unwarranted in this case.
Last edited:
MNcyclone
Double Eagle Member
You are right, this is more related to my overall dislike of the PDGA in general. The specs are just a small part of my distaste. That doesn't mean I would like the specs independent of the PDGA though. The way it is currently run, the specs only certify that certain branding is legal, as opposed to disc configuration. Any disc with a Roc on the front would be presumptively legal even if it were grossly outside the specs. Any disc without a brand name attached to it is presumptively illegal despite being fully within the specs. Why can't we make the specs actually regulate the dimensions of the disc instead of what company it comes from?
Wait I was just told this thread was civil.
This topic goes the same route each time.
Player 1: leaves his roc in the hot car and it flattens
Player 2: tacos his roc on the very first throw and when returning it to it's original shape it flattens
Player 3: gets a new roc and decides he wants a flat top so he heats it up and flattens it
Now you are the 4th person on the card, try to tell me you can pick out the illegally flattened roc.
Last edited:
