Ball "Scuffs" and G10

I intend to ask Q&A about scuff marks. I am concerned that the blue box definition (“routinely mark”) will make some shooter designs a problem, even if they don’t risk popping or ripping the balls. Anyone seen a definitive answer for this yet? Any thoughts as to what might be said, realizing it’s just opinion?

Did you see the answer posted in the Q&A about this?

Game - The Game » Game Rules
Q114 Q. Rule G10 prohibits team from routinely “marking” the game pieces. Would contacting the ball with spinning wheels leaving a small streak of rubber on the ball be considered a violation of this rule, even if there is no permanent damage to the game piece or tear to the fabric?

A. Per the Blue Box on G10, occasional marking of the BALL is not a violation of G10, but routine marking of the BALL is.

It’s already been asked about on Q&A and the answer won’t get more detailed than that.

This has been in the rule book the last three seasons(at least) and is always asked about in Q&A and is always the same. I’ve never seen a team get a penalty for marking a frisbee/gamepiece. I think the intent of the rule is to make sure all balls are always functional. Ie. 2013, teams that (occasionally and unintentionally) shredded frisbees slightly where okay, teams 2012 plenty of balls ended up marked with black streaks, and it was rarely an issue (in regards to penalites and such)

This isn’t something the GDC can answer on the Q&A because it is very situational and is up to the refs to decide.

If they are large black marks and you make them every time you shoot a ball, you are probably going to get called on it. If they are small inconspicuous marks or they only happen every now and then, the refs will likely let it slide.

One of the designs we considered used rotating wheels to fire the ball out at fast speed. A single shot was enough to leave a pair of black streaks along the ball and also potentially stretch some stitching. If you’re marking up the ball every time you fire then the design will probably get called on.

The analog to 2012 and 2013 seems weak for a variety of reasons, including but not necessarily limited to: a) the fragility of the game piece, b) the likelihood of abuse causing total failure of the gamepiece, c) the likelihood of failure of a game piece affecting match outcome, and d) the cost of a game piece

Exactly, damage a frisbee or foam ball that costs a few dollars VS a $52 ball, you do the math.

In 2008, they were quite strict about this. When they began to find small melted areas or areas that had hardened due to friction on the outer cover, the field officials went robot to robot to determine the most likely culprits and warned them that they would be DSQ’d if they continued to damage the ball.

Teams would do well to make one of their design priorities NOT damaging the ball. It’s really not something you want to worrying about come game day.

Thanks folks, I missed that one. :o

We might have found a reasonable solution, so we’ll see.