Differences in Standard scoring practice across the IATF led us to make a clarifying post on November 27th, 2024. That post, unfortunately, was unintentionally erased from the website.


In Standard Rules gameplay, both sides of the axe must be measured to determine the score of the throw if the axe head has landed across two point areas.


TL:DR Measure both sides of the axe at the surface of the target. To determine the result of the throw, compare the largest segment in the lower point value area to the largest segment in the higher point value area. Whichever segment is larger, the corresponding point area is the measurement result for that side.

Discussion on Device Measurement

Here we consider, after taking measurements on both sides of the axe head, whether comparing the largest measurements from each side is enough to determine where the majority of the axe head has landed.


Definitions


Let’s say we have 2 target areas A and B. These could correspond to the area outside the black ring circumference and inside the black ring circumference, or the red ring or the blue ring.


We have an axe to measure where some of the axe head is in contact with area A and some is in contact with area B. All of this discussion is referring to contact at the plane of the surface of the target.


Let’s call the measurements on Side 1 of the axe head A1 and B1, where A1 is the total length of the segment of the axe head in contact with area A, and B1 is the total length of the segment in contact with area B. Similarly, let’s call the measurements on Side 2 of the axe head A2 and B2.


Equal Length on Both Sides of the Axe Head


Let’s call the total length axe head in contact with the target X. Let’s assert that X is independent of the side on which it is measured.

So, we would expect:


A1 + B1 = X, and


A2 + B2 = X


=> A1 + B1 = A2 + B2


Some comments about this assertion:

  • This equality holds when the faces of the blade are parallel to each other
  • Further, this equality holds when the faces of the blade are symmetrical, and not strictly parallel, given the radius of curvature on the face of the blade is not smaller than some value that would introduce a meaningful difference between the straight line path and the path that follows the curve of the side of the blade from the end of the segment and the point of measurement
  • This assumption on blade symmetry is reasonable, given real world examples
  • This assumption on the radius of curvature is reasonable, since the radii of curvature of the side of real world axe heads are large (axe heads aren’t shaped like mallet heads)


Measurement Agreement on Both Sides of the Axe Head


Suppose we measure Side 1 and determine that


A1 > B1


and we measure Side 2 and determine that


A2 > B2


then it is trivial to see that A1 + A2 > B1 + B2, meaning most of the axe head is in contact with area A.


Measurement Disagreement Between the Sides of the Axe Head


Now, suppose we measure Side 1 and again determine that


A1 > B1


However, we measure Side 2 and determine that


B2 > A2


In this case, we have determined that the measurements on either side of the axe head are in disagreement, Side 1 shows more contact with area A and Side 2 shows more contact with area B.


So, we compare A1 and B2 and determine


A1 > B2


Is this enough information to conclude that most of the axe head is in contact with area A, meaning is A1 + A2 > B1 + B2 always?


Let’s consider A1 > B2

or, to rephrase,

A1 = B2 + ∆, where ∆ is the positive valued difference between A1 and B2


Since A1 + B1 = A2 + B2


=> (B2 + ∆) + B1 = A2 + B2


=> ∆ + B1 = A2


=> A2 = B1 + ∆


Meaning that the difference between the largest measurements on either side is the same as the difference between the smaller measurements on either side.


Comparing the Largest Measurements from Both Sides: Is That Enough?


Now let’s test whether the total of the measurements for area B can ever be larger than the total of the measurements for area A, meaning whether B1 + B2 > A1 + A2 can ever be true.


B1 + B2 > A1 + A2


since A1 = B2 + ∆ and A2 = B1 + ∆ 


=> B1 + B2 > (B2 + ∆) + (B1 + ∆)


=> 0 > 2∆


=> ∆ < 0



Recall that ∆ is the positive valued difference between A1 and B2.



So, ∆ < 0 is false, which means B1 + B2 > A1 + A2 is false.



So, A1 > B2 implies A1 + A2 > B1 + B2



Meaning comparing the largest measurements from both sides of the axe head does indicate the majority measurement if we were to add measurements for each area from both sides.


Crossing a Ring Circumference Twice


Notice that we said A1 and B1 were the total lengths of the segment of the axe head in contact with area A and area B. This means that in the cases where the axe head is in contact with the ring circumference twice, it is necessary to:

  • measure the whole length in contact with all areas of the target
  • measure the length in contact with the area inside the ring circumference
  • subtract the length from the inside area from the whole length to arrive at the total length for the segments in contact with the area ring outside the circumference


Conclusion


In cases where the axe head, measured at the plane of the board, crosses a ring diameter, the procedure is as follows:

Both sides of the axe head must be measured at the surface of the target.

  1. To determine the result of the throw, compare the segment in the lower point value area to the segment in the higher point value area. Whichever segment is larger, the corresponding point area is the measurement result for that side.
    1. If the axe head crosses the ring circumference twice,
      1. measure the whole length in contact with all areas of the target
      2. measure the length in contact with the area inside the ring circumference
      3. subtract the length from the inside area from the whole length to arrive at the total length for the segments in contact with the area ring outside the circumference
  2. If the result on both sides of the axe head agree, that indicates the result.
  3. If they differ, then compare the largest segment measurement from one side to the largest segment measurement on the other side.
  4. The target area that corresponds to the larger segment measurement is the result.
    1. In the event that a larger segment cannot be determined, the result is the lower point value target area
      1. This scenario is expected to be rare. Measurements must be retaken to confirm the lengths.

For example, measuring the first side shows that the 3-point segment is larger than the bullseye segment, and the second side shows that the bullseye segment is larger than the 3-point segment. We compare the 3-point measurement from the first side to the bullseye measurement from the second side. If the bullseye segment is larger, then the result is a bullseye. If the 3-point segment is larger, then the result is 3 points. If the segments are exactly equal, then the result is 3 points.

VIEW RULEBOOK PAGE

The International Axe Throwing Federation has redrawn the North American regions to more accurately reflect local throwing communities and foster long term growth.


The most recent iteration of the IATF regions was drawn in 2020 when COVID-19 restrictions prevented or discouraged cross-border travel. This led to some regions being overly dense, geographically enormous, or both.



The new IATF regions in North America, effective immediately:

While the European and Pacific regions are continuing to grow, they will remain as they are for the time being. We will revisit those regions as necessary in the future.


Considerations for creating the above regions:

  • Relative size of thrower base
  • Geographical size and travel considerations
  • Number of venues and thrower hubs within proposed regions
  • Historical and cultural relationships within proposed regions
  • Feedback from IATF Member Owners, Panel of Throwers representatives, and the community-at-large
Huron - Northeast Region border in Ontario

The Province of Ontario is divided between the Huron and Northeast IATF Regions. (See Map)


Simcoe County and Durham Region are included in the IATF Huron Region, along with all other Ontario municipalities to the south and west.


Northern Ontario, Muskoka District, Kawartha Lakes, Peterborough and Northumberland County are included in the IATF Northeast Region, along with all other Ontario municipalities to the north and east.

Huron - Central divide in Michigan

The State of Michigan is divided between the Huron and Central IATF Regions.


The Lower Peninsula is included in the Huron IATF Region.


The Upper Peninsula is included in the Central IATF Region.

States and Provinces by IATF Region

NORTHEAST REGION

  • New Brunswick
  • Newfoundland and Labrador
  • Nova Scotia
  • Ontario - excl. Southwestern
  • Prince Edward Island
  • Quebec
  • Connecticut
  • Maine
  • Massachusetts
  • New Hampshire
  • New York
  • Rhode Island
  • Vermont

HURON REGION

  • Ontario - Southwestern
  • Michigan - Lower Peninsula

NORTHWEST REGION

  • Alberta
  • British Columbia
  • Saskatchewan
  • Idaho
  • Montana
  • Oregon
  • Washington
  • Wyoming

CENTRAL REGION

  • Manitoba
  • Colorado
  • Illinois
  • Iowa
  • Kansas
  • Michigan - Upper Peninsula
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • Nebraska
  • North Dakota
  • South Dakota
  • Wisconsin

SOUTHEAST REGION

  • Alabama
  • Arkansas
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • North Carolina
  • South Carolina
  • Tennessee

SOUTHWEST REGION

  • Arizona
  • California
  • Nevada
  • New Mexico
  • Oklahoma
  • Texas
  • Utah

EAST REGION

  • Delaware
  • District of Columbia
  • Indiana
  • Kentucky
  • Maryland
  • New Jersey
  • Ohio
  • Pennsylvania
  • Virginia
  • West Virginia
VIEW RULEBOOK PAGE

Last summer, the International Axe Throwing Federation (IATF) established an annual integrated circuit of tournaments to foster competition among IATF players. Organizing tournaments into a circuit successfully increased the profile of these tournaments, their hosts, their competitors and the IATF. We also learned a great deal from the inaugural season and have made some adjustments to the Integrated Tournament Circuit based on our learnings and the community’s feedback.

TL;DR at the end of the document.

Unified IATF Axe Throwing Season.

The Tournament Circuit will start and end in March at the same time as the League Qualification Season. This year’s qualification period ends March 7, 2025.


Grand Slam and Major tournaments held between the end of the throwing season and that year’s IATC will be part of the following year’s path to IATC.

Changes to Major Tournaments

Number of Grand Slam reserved spots

Only the 2nd and 3rd place winners at all future Majors will be guaranteed a spot at a Grand Slam.

Grand Slam spots dictated by Major

The 2nd and 3rd place winners’ reserved spots will be for a specific, predetermined future Grand Slam. The Grand Slam will be selected based on geographical location and position on the Tournament Circuit calendar. See below for 2024-2025 Tournament Circuit Calendar.

The IATF is making these changes:

  • To streamline and simplify the process for throwers to move from Major to Grand Slam over the course of the Tournament Circuit.

  • To simplify the process of determining which throwers have earned reserved spots.

  • To increase the number of winners who take advantage of their Grand Slam spots.

  • To reduce the workload to the IATF team in assessing, tracking, and coordinating Major winners over the course of multiple throwing seasons.

The 2024-2025 IATF Tournament Circuit

The schedule of IATF Tournament Circuit events is as follows:

Grand Slams

Event

Host

City

Date

Info

Urban Open

Urban Axes

Baltimore, MD, USA

Aug 2-4, 2024

UK Open

Valhalla North Axe Throwing

Newton Aycliffe, England, UK

Aug 16-18

Asia Pacific Axe Throwing Championship

MANIAX Axe Throwing

Sydney, NSW, AUS

Sep 27-29, 2024

The Choptober Challenge

Chopper's Hatchet House

Cherry Hill, NJ, USA

Oct 25-27, 2024

Golden State Grand Slam

LA AX

North Hollywood, CA, USA

February 2025

US Championship

Ace Axe Throwing

Homestead, PA, USA

March 2025

The top 4 finishers from each of these events’ marquee tournaments will be reserved a spot in Rounds 1 & 2 of the Wilson Cup.

Majors

Event

Host

City

Date

Grand Slam

Info

Red, White and Bullseyes

Urban Axes

Somerville, MA, USA

June 28-30, 2024

Choptober Challenge

Urban Open: Swiss Tournament

Urban Axes

Baltimore, MD, USA

Aug 2-4, 2024

US Championship

Shieldmaiden Slam

Valhalla North Axe Throwing

Newton Aycliffe, England, UK

Aug 16, 2024

UK Open 2025

Unicorn Classic

The Range

Priddis, AB, CAN

Aug 31, 2024

Golden State Grand Slam

Labour Day Classic

The Range

Priddis, AB, CAN

Sept 1, 2024

Golden State Grand Slam

BAT Outta Hell

Battle Axe Throwing

Wollongong, NSW, AUS

Aug 30-Sept 1, 2024

APATC

Charlotte Open

BATL Axe Throwing

Charlotte, NC, USA

Sept 7-8, 2024

Choptober Challenge

Florida Man Games

Game of Axes

Boynton Beach, FL, USA

Sept 21-22, 2024

Choptober Challenge

Three Ring Circuit*

Detroit Axe

Detroit, MI, USA

Oct 11-13, 2024

US Championship

Pink Ribbon Classic

Axe Thro Co

San Diego, CA, USA

Oct 19-20, 2024

Golden State Grand Slam

Urban Ladyblades

Urban Axes

Durham, NC, USA

January 2025

US Championship

Urban Madness

Urban Axes

Durham, NC, USA

January 2025

US Championship

Battle Axe Open

Battle Axe Throwing

Wollongong, NSW, AUS

Jan 24-25, 2025

APATC

Seattle Throwdown

Axe Kickers

Seattle, WA, USA

Jan 25-26, 2025

Golden State Grand Slam

Winter Axe Games

Game of Axes

Boynton Beach, FL, USA

February 2025

US Championship

Going Up Cup

LumberJaxs Tamworth

Tamworth, England, UK

February 2025

UK Open

Warriors' March To Glory

Warriors Axe Throwing

Cobourg, ON, CAN

March 2025

Urban Open

Last Ditch To Canada

Lumber Punks Axe Throwing

Melbourne, VIC, AUS

March 2025

APATC

The winner from each of these events’ marquee tournaments will be reserved a spot in Rounds 1 & 2 of the 2025 Wilson Cup.

* These majors include two marquee tournaments that will each reserve the winner a spot in the Wilson Cup.

Players Declining A Reserved Spot

Clarification on current system: Throwers who have earned a reserved spot in Rounds 1 & 2 of the Wilson Cup may decline their invitation. This spot is then returned to the general pool of spots awarded to throwers through the League Qualification Path and will be assigned to a member venue according to representation.


New for this season of the Tournament Circuit, throwers will have the option to decline a bid when it is awarded* OR they may self-identify prior to competition as ineligible to receive a bid. If the winning thrower initiates either of these options, the bid will immediately trickle down to the next eligible thrower at the tournament.


*The thrower must decline within 24 hours of the conclusion of the tournament and make their intention clear to the tournament host. Otherwise, the bid will be treated like any other Round 2 invitation and upon refusal, will reenter the general pool of Round 2 bids for League Qualification.


TL;DR

The 2nd and 3rd place finishers from Major tournaments will be reserved spots at a specific Grand Slam.


Regionals will be held in November 2024.


Throwers may remove themselves from contention for a Wilson Cup bid prior to or immediately following a tournament.

VIEW RULEBOOK PAGE