discspeed wrote:You are just illustrating why the next step would not be to start enforcing the impossibly impractical rule we have now and write something for the real world that could be enforced. Do top golf pros weigh their golf balls before every competition?
discspeed wrote:Do they question the equipment they receive from their manufacturer/sponsor, or do they assume that they are being given equipment in adherence with all rules? Does their equipment significantly change it's characteristics based on environmental factors like plastic discs do?
discspeed wrote:On another note...Dave M was obviously getting .02 and 2% mixed up. I'm fairly certain it's 2% rather than .02%. I've seen discs gain multiple grams of water weight.
discspeed wrote:Nice research...I guess my memory doesn't serve me 100% true. The real discussion I guess is how to get this rule enforceable, which would need to account for the water weight absorbing/non-static properties of plastic discs. If there is a 3-4g tolerance then there would be no excuses for legitimately having an overweight disc in your bag because it would not fit within the specifications under any conditions.
discspeed wrote:On the example you referenced above about a Pro with max weight discs having all his discs go over weight in high humidity...I can just imagine now 4 competitors staying together in a hotel, and one puts another competitor's favorite disc underwater overnight so that it becomes overweight for the tournament.
garublador wrote:It should just be clarified that the disc weight is taken at time of manufacture. That's really what it means, anyway.
garublador wrote:It's not up to the players or TD's to enforce that rule. It's strictly between the manufacturers and the PDGA. It doesn't make any sense to force players or TD's to measure all of the physical aspects of all of their discs just to make sure that they aren't a tenth of a millimeter or gram off of what the official specs say. It also doesn't make sense to have such a tight tolerance on those specs.
garublador wrote:I agree that there should be a tolerance listed in the rules, but the fact that there isn't doesn't give people license to turn this sport into "disc lawyer" rather than disc golf.
iacas wrote:Apparently I'm bored today.
Apologies for that miniature wall of text. I don't really care about this as much as the length of my previous post might imply.
I do care enough to know that I will never play a disc over the max weight in a tournament round, because personally I am just the type that follows the rules of the sport I'm choosing to play.
BTW, considering the absurd...Could a player bring legal action against a disc golf company if disqualified due to his discs, which say "PDGA Approved", are found to be overweight?
keltik wrote:BTW, considering the absurd...Could a player bring legal action against a disc golf company if disqualified due to his discs, which say "PDGA Approved", are found to be overweight?
It would only make it to small claims court.
That's completely false. Ignoring the intention of the rule in an attempt to give yourself and advantage is "disc lawyer" plain and simple. That is exactly what you are doing. You can justify it all you want in your own brain, but that's a fact.iacas wrote:It's not "disc lawyer" it simply about playing by the established rules.
What about all of the specs that aren't just a max? As the disc lawyer you are, you'd disqualify me for any Teebird I carried that wasn't proven to be exactly 21.2 cm in diameter. Or perhaps you're a hypocrite and use discs that you haven't proven to be exactly the same shape as the specs give, but don't worry about that becasue you're actually concerned about getting an unfair advantage and not about being high and mighty about the rules. Any disc that doesn't perfectly match the approve disc spec (and it has to be 100% exact because you say that tolerances aren't needed) isn't approved according to "disc lawyers." "Disc lawyers" just focus on weight only because they're too lazy to use other measurement equipment. The 200g absolute max doesn't need a tolerance, but everything else does because it's based on a dimension that can't be perfectly replicated.As I said, a tolerance would just effectively raise the ceiling. If that doesn't make sense, tell yourself there's already a 2.5% tolerance built in because discs are only supposed to weigh 8.1g/cm. There, you've got a tolerance, and yet everyone tries to make max weight discs at the upper end of the tolerance.
There is an honor code, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone calling someone else out on a disc that doesn't weight exactly what the manufacturer claims would be violating it. You're just listing a bunch of stuff that's clearly outside the intent of the rules and claiming that's the same as misinterpreting a rule. The written rules for disc golf (or ball golf apparently if they continue to review the rules) aren't perfect. The honor code is the player's responsibility to correctly interpret the rules rather than be a "disc lawyer" and try to use less than ideal wording to their advantage.It may be my background in golf but rules are rules. When I'm playing a tournament I don't roll my ball around, I don't give myself putts, and I certainly don't use equipment I know to be illegal. Maybe I'm in the minority expecting that disc golf would have the same sort of honor code.
Frank Delicious wrote:Garu does make a good point about weight being the only spec we seem to care about when it comes to stuff like this and I do agree it is because it is the only one most of us can measure quickly and easily.
Is a disc that is wider than the specs allow an advantage just like an overweight disc in the wind would be?
Hi-Tech is the designation given to all discs submitted and approved for PDGA competition. Unless otherwise specified or restricted by the tournament director, all discs on the PDGA Approved list may be used in regular PDGA competitions. Hi-Tech approved discs must:
(3) not be less than 21 cm in outside disc diameter, nor exceed 30 cm in outside disc diameter;
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests