Knowing D

[Cgkdisc]

The 1997 rulebook was first to include a statement and penalties regarding use of certain Artificial Devices, but it was unclear if rangefinders were not allowed: "802.04 A. During a round, a player shall not use any artificial device that may assist in making a throw, except those devices that reduce or control abrasion to the skin such as gloves, tape, bandages, gauze, etc. Items used to prevent slipping on the teeing surface are also allowed. A player is specifically prohibited from using any artificial device that changes the position of the disc in the player's hand or artificially lengthens any of the player's throwing levers (fingers, wrist, arm, shoulder, etc.)."

The next rulebook in 2002 specifically called out rangefinders as illegal during play: "The use of devices which assist in determining distances, such as range finders, are prohibited."

The 2006 and 2011 rules continued with rangefinder prohibition statements with the 2011 rules also excluding use of GPS devices, i.e., smartphone apps. As a side note, a parent was caught using a smartphone app to determine distances for their Junior at the 2012 Worlds in Charlotte. Not sure if any penalty was applied.

The 2013 rules removed the statement prohibiting rangefinders and GPS devices which was de facto approval of rangefinders and GPS measurement methods without publicly stating it. And this de facto, unstated approval has continued since 2013.

 

[ru4por]

I have never had an issue with rangefinder picking up a basket other than in rainy/foggy conditions and I use them all the time in course work. If deer are suitably reflective then baskets certainly are.

My preference would be for them to be illegal for play as I believe judging distance to be an improvable skill but that cat is out of the bag already. I believe i have used one in an event exactly once.

Knowing the distance and executing a shot to go that distance, is not something I spent time connecting, over my years. Taking the time to go to a rangefinder and making a distance determination, is time away from my thought process of getting my disc to my spot/pin. Forever, I have looked at my landing spot/pin, and made a quick decision on disc (based on terrain, elevation, wind...) then tried to dial in the distance (not a number) in my pre routine. I am fairly confident, at this point, that a number is not going to help. I suppose I play by "feel"?

I am not sure that makes sense. Perhaps it explains why I am not so good.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Slight digression, but, I'm a big proponent of players having to assess the situation for each throw, distance being just one factor.

Others have mentioned elevation change and wind, but players also account for skips, location of/distance to OB or punishing lies... even your score relative to competitors.

All these situational variables factor into how player chooses to play each individual shot. These are skills that need to be developed.

Range finders have started to erode the need to develop those skills. Pretty sure some already tell angle of elevation/descent, if not actual elevation change.

Probably not long before they tell us wind speed and direction. Maybe even distance to OB/hazard if linked to an accurate map via U-Disc.

Now that rangefinders are par for the course, that toothpaste is out of the tube.

Probs just a matter of time before they start adding another feature every couple of years, just to entice people to get the latest and greatest. You can't just yield that advantage to the field, right? Competition requires you to take advantage of every edge you can get.

Let's see how it plays out...
opcorn:

 

[chevis]

disc golf needs a movie like this

 

[Countchunkula]

Let's see how it plays out...
opcorn:

iswydt :thmbup:

I'm usually not a backer of slippery slope arguments, but what you are talking about seems very plausible. Almost inevitable, really.

 

[txmxer]

If you do field work and practice set distances a lot, knowing (not estimating) the distance could be very beneficial. You step up to repeat a specific throw you've practiced 100s of times. Muscle memory and confidence will be on your side.

Reference Ezra Aderholds practice video he put out recently.

 

[Jukeshoe]

Page two and nobody's made a "knowing D" joke yet? :|

What have we become?

 

[Steve West]

...

The 2013 rules removed the statement prohibiting rangefinders and GPS devices which was de facto approval of rangefinders and GPS measurement methods without publicly stating it. And this de facto, unstated approval has continued since 2013.

It's stated:

QA-EQU-1
Q:

Can I use rangefinders?
A:

Yes, but you must still throw within the 30 seconds allowed by the Excessive Time rule.

 

[trashmonster1985]

Page two and nobody's made a "knowing D" joke yet? :|

What have we become?

I don't get it. Are you talking about Deez?

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's stated:
Quote:
QA-EQU-1
Q: Can I use rangefinders?
A: Yes, but you must still throw within the 30 seconds allowed by the Excessive Time rule.

Would have been clearer and easier to find if stated in the rule versus QA.

 

[biscoe]

Would have been clearer and easier to find if stated in the rule versus QA.

I hate the darn QA section and the fact that some have chosen it as a place to legislate- if a rule is unclear the rule should be modified in the body of the rules.

 

[DavidSauls]

Would have been clearer and easier to find if stated in the rule versus QA.

That's true of most things in the Q&A.

Many decades ago when I coached basketball (and possibly now, for all I know), the basketball rulebook would have "approved rulings" in italics, under each rule, to clarify situations that commonly arose relating to that rule.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I hate the darn QA section and the fact that some have chosen it as a place to legislate- if a rule is unclear the rule should be modified in the body of the rules.

That has been a strategy recommended to the RC 15 years ago, i.e., create QAs as needed in-between rules updates, then blend most of them into the next rules update. Some of that has been done but more QAs could probably be merged. The past 15 years has been a transition from relying more on paper to more online rule access which has made it difficult to maintain continuity in both forms as new rulings emerge between updates.

 

[txmxer]

That has been a strategy recommended to the RC 15 years ago, i.e., create QAs as needed in-between rules updates, then blend most of them into the next rules update. Some of that has been done but more QAs could probably be merged. The past 15 years has been a transition from relying more on paper to more online rule access which has made it difficult to maintain continuity in both forms as new rulings emerge between updates.

Going back to the DGJ article, there is room for improvement in the rules language.

 

[ThrowaEnvy]

I think it's pretty funny people put so much faith in their arm to throw as accurately as those rangefinders measure.

I've considered doing some testing with a rangefinder out in the field and see if there is something that could be placed on baskets to make the measuring easier. While having never used one it seems that the big issue with those is finding a suitable reflective surface to get a reading off of. I wonder if maybe using retroreflective tape on the center pole or elsewhere on the basket would help in that process.

Actually if you buy a rangefinder made for golf with "pin lock" it registers the shortest distance. You press the button and kind of move it across the pin/tree/power pole (bought a cheap boblov for work) seems to work all right even on baskets. Never tried it a 300' + though, might have to pick a nearby tree.

I used it one time to try and get a more accurate idea of distances at my place, it was disappointing haha. Not as far as I thought. Use it for work all the time and it's saved me a lot of slugging through the Bush with a tape measure.

I suppose if you wanted to get serious you could take the course map and a rangefinder the day before and just scratch down some rough measurements from obstacles.

 

[Steve West]

Would have been clearer and easier to find if stated in the rule versus QA.

What are you using, the clay tablet version? Modern folk'll type "ranger finder" into a search function.

 

[Steve West]

I hate the darn QA section and the fact that some have chosen it as a place to legislate- if a rule is unclear the rule should be modified in the body of the rules.

In progress.

 

[Cgkdisc]

What are you using, the clay tablet version? Modern folk'll type "ranger finder" into a search function.

Considering that you weren't using a smartphone until recently, you may not have known that the words "rangefinder" or "range finder" were not found in the 2013 rules, QA or Summary of Changes (try searching with your new phone). It did mention GPS devices were now allowed but how many think a range finder is a GPS device? The current QA you posted was added in 2018 rules and can be found if you enter the appropriate search words.

 

[Steve West]

Considering that you weren't using a smartphone until recently, you may not have known that the words "rangefinder" or "range finder" were not found in the 2013 rules, QA or Summary of Changes (try searching with your new phone). The current QA you posted was added in 2018 rules and can be found if you enter the appropriate search words.

That would be a good point, if this were 2017.

 

[Cgkdisc]

That would be a good point, if this were 2017.

The history I posted thru 2013 is still true. The 2018 rules did not directly approve rangefinders in the rules (as it "should" have), just in the QA as you indicated.