chainsmoker wrote:This thread could go on like this forever until there is a rule to cover every possible situation and those rules are enforced constantly by an endless supply of rules enforcing officials, or at least one official to follow every player in every sanctioned event. Are the current PDGA rules perfect? No, they are from from perfect, but a larger number of rules isn't better.
I'm not arguing for MORE rules. I simply believe that if you have a rule, it should be enforceable and enforced uniformly. If a rule is being ignored, it should be removed or rewritten.
chainsmoker wrote:I find more parallels between golf discs and the grips on a golf club than I do golf discs and the heads of golf clubs or golf balls.
There are several clauses which cover the legality of grips in the Rules of Golf. Golf equipment is an order of magnitude more complex than disc golf equipment, but I'm trying not to compare this to golf per se, just "rules" from other sports in general.
Disc golf is still playing, from where I'm standing, with a set of rules that are much closer to sandlot or playground rules rather than the true, established rules. Golfers by and large roll their golf balls, concede their own putts, and all sorts of stuff that isn't allowed during their casual rounds, just as there are varying rules for three-on-three basketball with one hoop, or sandlot baseball with four players on a side and no catcher, but those rules tighten up and get much longer at the top levels, and for people playing in sanctioned competitions, whether they're the NFL or high school football.
Chuck Kennedy wrote:The disc specs came about for a variety of reasons with safety (read: liability) and some dimensional uniformity being the primary driving forces as the game evolved. If you have weight, material, edge sharpness and flex standards, the thought was that at least the sport overall had some nominal standards to reduce possible injury should the feared "big lawsuit" ever come about.
That's interesting. Thanks for sharing that.
So to be clear, you're saying that the primary driving force behind disc golf's equipment rules was not to set boundaries for disc performance, but to try to make the game as safe as possible? That boundaries for performance were second (or maybe third - depends on what you mean by "uniformity") behind safety.
I applaud the desire for safety. It makes sense, as disc golf is often played in public parks and not on established fields where people know that a baseball or hockey puck may come whizzing at their heads if they're not paying attention.
Chuck Kennedy wrote:The max & min size standards had more to do with allowing the target manufacturer (DGA at the time) to know what they might be expected to catch and retain in the basket and not fall thru.
This seems to indicate that boundaries for performance is not included in the "uniformity" section, making that at least third on the list of priorities? Or have I read that wrong?
Chuck Kennedy wrote:The post production modification clause was inserted to make sure enough players would have access to some unknown new disc design tweak. That's why minimum production quantities were also in there. Apparently, some players were either getting or had in the past been getting access to new discs before their competitors, sometimes right before Worlds. The design advances at the time with the new beveled edge technology were enough that it mattered. It probably matters quite a bit less at this point now that many discs are bumping up against the spec limits. So as Ellis points out, no one is really afraid of someone tweaking a disc for an advantage. But the spec remains more for the competitive fairness issue where enough players should have access to some sort of tweak via the disc approval process and sufficient production quantities being available for player access.
Thanks. I understand all of that, but don't you agree that a putter that's overweight is an advantage on a windy day? Do you agree that the Rules regarding post-production modification, as they're currently written, are not enforceable?
Again, if a rule is not followed, I suggest that it's a bad rule and should be removed or re-written. If disc golf isn't set up (i.e. doesn't have the money) to enforce some of these rules regarding modifications, why have 'em? Players can pour boiling water in their discs to flatten them or add dome, but they can't put a sticker with their name on the underside of the disc to keep the value higher for resale because a sticker has "detectable thickness"?
And I see Mark responded to it, but I'd like your take on what I consider the really stupid rule for 2013 about questioning the legality of another player's disc. Given the letter of the rules right now, is this not a potentially problematic rules change?
Mark Ellis wrote:If a player throws his disc into a thick bush but tries to take his next shot from the middle of the fairway I will stop him and tell him he cannot do this under the rules. The rules should prevent anyone from an unfair competitive advantage. But if a player is sneaking a beer at lunch in a park which is alcohol free I won't call the cops on him. He is breaking a rule which doesn't matter to the fairness of the competition. Some rules I just don't care about.
Rules aren't the same as laws.
Life's not fair, but at the same time, a person jaywalking has not gained an advantage over me in the "game" of "life." They're not more likely to "win" at life because they jaywalked, or drank a beer in a non-alcohol zone. Conversely a player breaking a rule in a game HAS gained an advantage, he HAS affected my ability to win. Competition is zero-sum, life is not.
Mark Ellis wrote:Yet to you evidently every rule should be enforced (or re-written so it can be enforced). But you say YOU don't call players on rule violations. Why don't you call everything and make citizens arrests for every law you see broken anywhere in society? Why bother to write any rules if even you won't enforce them?
Rules aren't laws.
And I never wrote that I didn't call players on rules violations. In match play situations I've not because ignoring them is still within the rules. The only person that potentially harms is me. If I'm putting for three from 20 feet and my opponent is lying four in the bunker, brushes the sand on his backstroke and splashes out to 25 feet, I'm not going to call the bunker violation because I'll win the hole regardless. That's perfectly acceptable under the Rules for match play.
In stroke play, however, I've never called a rules violation. That's not because I have decided not to, it's because I've never witnessed one. If I did, I'd call it. I have an obligation to protect the field. I will not hesitate to call a penalty should it ever occur in a stroke play event. That's not to say there haven't been penalties called. I've called two penalties on myself in several hundred rounds of stroke play competition, and I recall at least six other instances in which golfers called penalties on themselves. Had they not, I would have. I'm obligated to.
Mark Ellis wrote:If you are correct about the new rule coming in 2013 then this sounds like a terrible rule. My competitor makes his first 3 putts. I question the legality of his putter. Now he can't use it until a TD rules on it? Either a huge backlog occurs as the group waits for the TD to be located (he is playing in a group 3 holes in front of you but you don't know it) or the player is deprived the use of his disc. For all you guys who carry small bags this might be scary. And what is to stop me from questioning every disc in everyone's bag?
Precisely. So we agree that it's a bad rule, particularly given the way the letter of the rules are written regarding what makes a disc legal or illegal, yes?
Mark Ellis wrote:And for any who believe in the STRICT enforcement of PDGA rules, what would happen if every Amateur player were called on every foot fault?
Why shouldn't they?
Why is this "look the other way" attitude so prevalent? If someone stepping to the side of that 30cm line that extends behind their marker is not "unfair" because they're not gaining any advantage, why isn't the rule changed to define the allowable region as a circle, triangle, square, rectangle, or some other shape? Something that's equally as fair but less likely to be missed accidentally and, again, providing no advantage?
Why not change the rules so that "the way they're commonly enforced" is how they actually read? Why not set disc and equipment rules that are enforceable?
From where I'm sitting, if a rule isn't enforceable, it's not a very good rule to begin with, and if players at the top level of the game (not the sandlot equivalent) are routinely ignoring a rule, then it too isn't a very good rule.
Do you agree with that?
P.S. Yes, "rules" discussions interest me, particularly in golf and disc golf where the rules are, by and large, self-enforced. I like that.
I play recreational hockey and there's no real honor code in that sport like there is in golf. We're a non-checking league (grrrr), but if I can hit someone a little bit and get away with it, I do it just like everyone else. The obligation to enforce the rules is not on the hockey players, it's on the refs. Disc golf and golf put that responsibility with the players themselves. That makes them unique and interesting to me - no other sports really do this. They all have officials.