#21  
Old 05-23-2018, 09:34 AM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 13.1
Courses Played: 212
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,178
Niced 262 Times in 160 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jenb View Post
Did you post that to show Todd's fatigue on that hole or to show someone caddying for Val? There's a shot at the end as Val holes out with someone carrying a bag, but IDK if that's Val's bag. Just curious.
Jen, there is a shot of the person carrying a bag just like the one Val was shown carrying earlier in the round. It was right after Val holes out and is apparently not carrying her own bag. Imho, that addresses your OP, and that's all I posted it for. Fyi, that same person's hand is shown in a close up slightly earlier. That is my personal conclusion based upon what I saw -- that this person (later identified as her mom) was indeed caddying for Val. Val's own statement later confirmed.

As far as Lesli Todd, I noticed her frustration but to me it was an afterthought.
Sponsored Links

Last edited by araytx; 05-23-2018 at 09:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-23-2018, 05:28 PM
armiller's Avatar
armiller armiller is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: West Virginia
Years Playing: 4.4
Courses Played: 183
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,122
Niced 665 Times in 441 Posts
Default

I'm still curious about this. I posted something over in the General thread, but there's a lot of other stuff going on in there...

Question: we have the common sense sentiment that someone can be a "part time caddie." Nevertheless, the rule (3.05) seems pretty clear that the player is responsible for their caddie's behavior from the time they tee off at the beginning of the round to the time score cards are submitted. The rule doesn't say anything about that only being true WHILE the individual is actually caddying, aka carrying the player's bag. I suppose a player could also theoretically have many individual caddies within one round.

Also, I understand that the player is "responsible" for the caddie's behavior. What I don't see is a clear statement in the rules that a player absolutely needs to receive the same penalty for the caddie's rule violation.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-23-2018, 06:22 PM
JC17393 JC17393 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Years Playing: 21.7
Courses Played: 150
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 7,640
Niced 3,406 Times in 1,430 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armiller View Post
I'm still curious about this. I posted something over in the General thread, but there's a lot of other stuff going on in there...

Question: we have the common sense sentiment that someone can be a "part time caddie." Nevertheless, the rule (3.05) seems pretty clear that the player is responsible for their caddie's behavior from the time they tee off at the beginning of the round to the time score cards are submitted. The rule doesn't say anything about that only being true WHILE the individual is actually caddying, aka carrying the player's bag. I suppose a player could also theoretically have many individual caddies within one round.

Also, I understand that the player is "responsible" for the caddie's behavior. What I don't see is a clear statement in the rules that a player absolutely needs to receive the same penalty for the caddie's rule violation.
The rules regarding caddies are written in a way that assumes the caddy is present from the start of the round because one would think that's usually how a caddy works. Obviously that's not how it works in a lot of cases, but it shouldn't be a surprise that the rules are worded with that assumption in mind (right or wrong).

Since caddies can't really be penalized for misconduct since they have no score and therefore no stake in the game, does it make any sense for the player responsible for them to not receive whatever penalties are appropriate for the caddy's violation(s)? Does it really need to say specifically "the player will receive all appropriate penalties for their caddy's misconduct" or can't that just be assumed based on the obvious intent of the rule?

I'm not saying the language can't or shouldn't be clearer, I just find the argument that because it isn't 100% exact in its wording, the rule should be ignored or is somehow nullified to be a bit asinine.

If a caddy is constantly talking while other players are trying to throw, courtesy violations (warnings and penalties) mean nothing to him directly. Logically, they should be assigned to the player who, by rule, is responsible for the caddy's behavior. Same if a caddy, all on his own, goes ahead and breaks a bunch of branches off a tree in front of their player's lie to clear a throwing lane. Rule book says that is an automatic two-throw penalty (803.03). Should that not apply to the player whether they asked for it to be done or not since they're, by rule, responsible for the caddy and what good do penalties do for someone (the caddy) who isn't playing?

Seems to me that that logic should extend all the way up to and include behavior that warrants automatic disqualification.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-23-2018, 06:42 PM
armiller's Avatar
armiller armiller is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: West Virginia
Years Playing: 4.4
Courses Played: 183
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,122
Niced 665 Times in 441 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC17393 View Post
Seems to me that that logic should extend all the way up to and include behavior that warrants automatic disqualification.
The problem is that the rules are leaving too much to logic. I can see both sides of the argument in this case. If the TD gave a warning, or required the caddie to stop caddying, or did something else that was short of disqualifying Val outright, it would seem defensible to me.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:11 AM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 13.1
Courses Played: 212
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,178
Niced 262 Times in 160 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armiller View Post
The problem is that the rules are leaving too much to logic. I can see both sides of the argument in this case. If the TD gave a warning, or required the caddie to stop caddying, or did something else that was short of disqualifying Val outright, it would seem defensible to me.
And by the same extension and/or logic, do you see the DQ also as defensible?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-24-2018, 02:51 PM
armiller's Avatar
armiller armiller is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: West Virginia
Years Playing: 4.4
Courses Played: 183
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,122
Niced 665 Times in 441 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
And by the same extension and/or logic, do you see the DQ also as defensible?
Yes. That's what I meant by seeing both sides of the argument.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-24-2018, 03:52 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,513
Niced 487 Times in 221 Posts
Default

The DQ was an enforcement of one or more of the following rules of conduct:

Quote:
Competition Manual 3.03.B (Player Misconduct)

7. Activities which are in violation of federal, state or local laws or ordinances, park regulations or disc golf course rules. Tournament Directors are granted the discretion to disqualify a player based on the severity of the offending conduct. An official tournament warning prior to disqualification may be issued by a Tournament Director where appropriate.

8. The possession of illegal substances in violation of federal, state or local laws. The use of marijuana is not permitted at PDGA events, regardless of federal, state or local laws, or the possession of a medical marijuana card.

9. Excessive use of alcohol or public intoxication at the tournament site.

10. Possession of alcohol from the start of play until the player’s scorecard is submitted is not allowed. Such possession shall result in immediate disqualification at PDGA events sanctioned at B-Tier or higher. The Tournament Director may, at his sole discretion, elect to issue a warning to the offending player in lieu of disqualification solely at PDGA events sanctioned at C-tier and below. If a player has been previously issued a warning for alcohol possession at the same event, all subsequent violations shall result in immediate disqualification.
The official definition of a caddy, and pertinent rules regarding a player's responsibility for their caddy are:

Quote:
Competition Manual 3.05
B. Players will have the option to bring a caddie or carrying device during their round of play. Although a player’s caddie is subject to all items within the PDGA Rules of Play and the PDGA Competition Manual including the dress code. A caddie need not meet membership or certified official requirements.

C. Players choosing to use a caddie will be solely responsible for their caddie’s conduct from the two minute warning until the player’s card is turned in. Misconduct by a caddie may subject both the player and caddie to disqualification and/or suspension.
...
G. In PDGA Majors and National Tour events, the group consists of the players themselves, each player’s individual caddy, any active Tournament staff such as leaderboard attendants, Tournament Officials, etc. and any credentialed media ONLY. No other people may be with the playing group. All others (including players who have already finished their round) are considered spectators and must remain in designated spectator areas away from the playing group.
(Note that there is no requirement that the caddy actually carries the player's bag (or pulls the player's cart).)

Val did not designate her mother as a caddy until late in the round (last 4 holes). She may have done that so her mother could join the player group (per 3.05.G), because she (Val) was tired, or any other reason. It really doesn't matter why, the player has the right to designate a person (305.B) as their caddy, and the caddy becomes a member of the playing group (as opposed to the gallery), and the caddy's conduct becomes the responsibility of the player (305.C).

Here are the questions I see in the interpretation of 303 resulting in Val's DQ, given Val's statement that the beer can was empty while her mom was her caddy..

1. Is possession of an empty beer can proof of possession of alcohol?

(note: if Mrs. Jenkins had picked up the beer can to remove litter from the course, would possession of litter be deemed possession of alcohol?

2. Assuming Mrs. Jenkins consumed the beer while in the gallery was Val retroactively responsible for her mother's conduct?

(note 1: 303.C "Players choosing to use a caddie will be solely responsible for their caddie’s conduct from the two minute warning until the player’s card is turned in.").

(note 2: If Mrs. Jenkins have handed the empty can to another gallery member or tossed it on the ground prior to being named Val's caddy, would Val still be DQ'd).

(note 3: consumption of alcohol is not permitted in DeLa -- according to locals.)

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-25-2018, 10:06 AM
ThomasOrion's Avatar
ThomasOrion ThomasOrion is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Courses Played: 20
Posts: 3,700
Niced 569 Times in 417 Posts
Default

After looking at the PDGA statement - didn't I see "the Tournament Director may issue a warning for such behavior" ? Like if they wanted to the TD could have just given a WARNING and not DQ her?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-25-2018, 10:12 AM
tonyroberts's Avatar
tonyroberts tonyroberts is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Minnesota
Years Playing: 7
Courses Played: 86
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 239
Niced 65 Times in 30 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasOrion View Post
After looking at the PDGA statement - didn't I see "the Tournament Director may issue a warning for such behavior" ? Like if they wanted to the TD could have just given a WARNING and not DQ her?
The "may issue a warning" language applies to C-Tier and below tournaments. For B-Tier and above the language is "shall result in immediate disqualification."

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
 

  #30  
Old 05-26-2018, 04:22 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,513
Niced 487 Times in 221 Posts
Default

The relevant "may" giving the TD discretion to DQ the player or not is in the text of Competition Manual 3.05.C

Quote:
...
Misconduct by a caddie may subject both the player and caddie to disqualification and/or suspension.
One interpretation is the "may" gives the TD a choice to remove the caddie and not the player.

Another interpretation is that it designates the player and caddie as a pair that receives the same penalty.

The first interpretation is supported by "disqualification and/or suspension" since a caddie may not be a PDGA member and hence not subject to either penalty. It could be more clearly worded.

as a side note, I do wish the PDGA would decide whethe they want to use "caddie" or "caddie" as the spelling. In 305 B, C, and E use "caddie," but in G it's "caddy."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spectator vs Caddy krupicka Rules Questions & Discussion 16 02-12-2015 01:42 PM
caddy question Punisher Rules Questions & Discussion 8 07-12-2011 01:29 PM
Would You Use A Caddy? vonDrehle General Disc Golf Chat 50 04-09-2011 11:58 PM
Need a caddy for saturday! SmoothSailor General Disc Golf Chat 9 04-04-2011 04:29 PM
Caddy's skinner21 General Disc Golf Chat 61 05-13-2010 02:47 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.