I think Val got burned.

[SonicGuy]

As long as this was a viable option for the TD, but it wasn't.......

"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."

As a 8 year TD,
I warn everyone about the rules enforcement during the players meeting.
"If i see it OR someone calls out a player by name, I am obligated to take action. It's not personal its the rules"

Hey captain didn't-read-the-thread. There is strong consensus that it was at the TD's discretion to DQ Val because the rule in question is the caddie rules, not the rule you quoted. The question after that is whether the TD was correct in using his discretion to DQ a player for having a caddie with an empty beer can.

Count me on the side of "don't DQ players because their caddie has an empty beer can".

 

[lyleoross]

Lock her up?

Exaggerate much?

Um, I think he was being funny?

 

[Noill]

Not just anyone can kick her out. An official would have to notify the TD and the TD has to DQ.

Yea i get it. But we all don't know the details of how it went down. And really we aren't entitled to know those details. At this point it's only Val, her mom, the TD and the PDGA's business.

I agree on your last sentiment...still, it's pretty harmless to consider it.

I also feel for the mom...the last thing she wanted to do was cause this DQ... All over a single beer. Seems there was an alternative given the mom wasn't actually a caddy... it's sort of a confusing scenario and should have gone to the player's benefit IMHO.

 

[armiller]

I just read the last 29 pages. Agree that it's got to be one of the heaviest 24-48 hour post flurries I've seen on DGCR.

I've read the thread and some of the PDGA rules book. I still have some questions.

What is a caddy? The rules don't define it clearly. From 3.05, I'm guessing it's anyone who carries your bag at any point during your round. In that case, the rules also say the player is responsible for their behavior at any time during the tourney. So... technically if the caddy during 4 holes drank alcohol at the event at any point during the day, wasn't that just as much of a violation, even if she had dumped the can/coozie before picking up Val's bag?

Side note: Ricky is obviously the consummate pro, using a bag instead of a caddy to avoid this kind of infraction and punishment.

For my part, that issue of what a caddy is needs to be clarified in the rules. Perhaps players should be required to declare one before the round? Again, as the rule states below, how long the caddy is "caddying" has no bearing on when the player is responsible for said caddy's behavior.

FROM 3.05
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.

I'm still inclined to agree with folks saying the TD would have been within the rules NOT to disqualify Val, but I admit I am not that clear. I don't see clear rules that caddy punishment translates to player punishment automatically. I can see how the "may" in 3.05 is problematic.

303.B.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. ...

This rule is also pretty clear, regardless of park rules. So since Val was responsible for her caddy's behavior "from start of play to scorecard submission," does that automatically require her disqualification? Does caddy's possession equate to player's possession? I still don't see that connection.

I'm rambling. My point is that I can still see both sides of the argument.

I'm glad Val appears to have taken the DQ graciously and professionally. I bet being at the end of 48 DeLa holes is enough to cause a lapse in judgement.

 

[dorseymatt]

Again, Val said the can was empty. If so, it would appear her caddie did not possess alcohol during the time she was in her role as a caddie; rather, she possessed a container that used to have alcohol in it, which she presumably drank prior to becoming a caddie.

 

[CaptainAnhyzer]

Hey captain didn't-read-the-thread. There is strong consensus that it was at the TD's discretion to DQ Val because the rule in question is the caddie rules, not the rule you quoted. The question after that is whether the TD was correct in using his discretion to DQ a player for having a caddie with an empty beer can.

Count me on the side of "don't DQ players because their caddie has an empty beer can".

Yea i didnt read thru all of this.
I'm on the side that "TD discretion" would not be up for debate/judgement/etc. by other players.

Also on the side of "don't DQ players because their caddie has an empty beer can", if that was the actual reason. What's to say she didn't pick up said can on the course that was left behind from someone NOT playing? I wouldnt DQ a player/caddie for picking up litter on the course.

 

[DG_player]

It's impossible to remove all ambiguity, but it'd be ideal to remove as much as possible. I think the problem is that the lawyer or lawyers would need to have a lot of disc golf specific knowledge and understand the intricacies of the game to be able to give a thorough review of the rules.

I imagine there are a few lawyers that play disc golf that would be willing to do this though. I guess the current PDGA leadership prefers to have rule issues every week of the year. It's amazing that the PDGA took 5 years to come up with the 2018 rules update and still had mutliple large problems that did not appear to be thoroughly vetted.

You don't need to hire lawyers. Fortunately there is a tremendous resource available, it's called the USGA rules of golf, they've been refining it for over 100 years. Presumably all of the issues we're dealing with they dealt with a long time ago. Outside of the nature of the target, the object we propel at the target, and the means of propulsion, the games are almost identical, so there's no reason not to use it as a resource.

What's the golf rule on a caddy: "The player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the Rules. During a stipulated round, for any breach of a Rule by his caddie, the player incurs the applicable penalty." It's crystal clear your caddie is resonsible for knowing the rules, and if he breaches them you get the penalty.

I'm not saying there should be a direct verbatim copy and paste, but it would be sensible to take a look at every golf rule and compare it to the way it is written for disc golf. If there is a difference, ask the question "why did they write their rule the way they did?" There is probably a good reason.

 

[CaptainAnhyzer]

Again, Val said the can was empty. If so, it would appear her caddie did not possess alcohol during the time she was in her role as a caddie; rather, she possessed a container that used to have alcohol in it, which she presumably drank prior to becoming a caddie.

Well then THIS totally changes my view..........

If Val said this at the time the TD approached her to DQ her, I would hope the TD would've had the "discretion" not toss her. She was basically carrying said can so she wouldn't litter on the course(another rule).

 

[armiller]

it would appear her caddie did not possess alcohol during the time she was in her role as a caddie

Based in 3.05, I don't think it matters.

 

[armiller]

What's the golf rule on a caddy: "The player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the Rules. During a stipulated round, for any breach of a Rule by his caddie, the player incurs the applicable penalty." It's crystal clear your caddie is resonsible for knowing the rules, and if he breaches them you get the penalty.

Is that the USGA rule? That's much more clear. The "player incurs penalty for caddy infraction" is exactly what I think was missing from the PDGA rules in this situation. Clearly that's what happened, I just don't (yet) see convincing evidence that it had to happen based on 3.03 and 3.05.

 

[lyleoross]

Again, the assumption that the TD was dumb enough to toss someone with an empty beer can seems a stretch.

We seem to be moving away from egregious error on the part of the TD to a more rational discussion of should the TD have used the discretion allowed in the rule, that whole may thing again, to make a different decision. Whew. Again, the TD had the right, and the rules were clear. Even if I might not like the decision, I have to recognize that the TD is in his purview.

Was it the right decision? Well, I wasn't there and I've seen too many armchair quarterbacks throw interceptions to lose games to feel too comfortable thinking I know better. If the case is a simple she was drinking, not a designated caddie, and she picked up the bag mid round, I'd likely ask the caddie to leave off or possibly leave the park, my call. If she walked the full round drinking I have to DQ.

Honestly, multiple people were on the card and someone should have warned her way before it got to this. It shows just how difficult it is too enforce the rules. That said, carrying a drink through a round in a sport where there is a clear indication that they look for such things takes a whole lot of I'm not thinking.

 

[TheOtherBill]

Side note: Ricky is obviously the consummate pro, using a bag instead of a caddy to avoid this kind of infraction and punishment.

He's said before that this is direct result of being distracted by having one of his younger brothers caddy for him the year he lost the Worlds playoff in Oregon.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Since a lot of you guys like to argue over semantics and not the actual issue at hand...



...even if was an "empty" did she drain out the leftovers then rinse it with water? I doubt it...

 

[lyleoross]

Again, Val said the can was empty. If so, it would appear her caddie did not possess alcohol during the time she was in her role as a caddie; rather, she possessed a container that used to have alcohol in it, which she presumably drank prior to becoming a caddie.

Can you give us the link? It seems odd, "my caddie has an empty can, TD is going to DQ me, I'm taking this lying down."

 

[lyleoross]

He's said before that this is direct result of being distracted by having one of his younger brothers caddy for him the year he lost the Worlds playoff in Oregon.

The kid was like ten? Scarred for life.

 

[JC17393]

It's impossible to remove all ambiguity, but it'd be ideal to remove as much as possible. I think the problem is that the lawyer or lawyers would need to have a lot of disc golf specific knowledge and understand the intricacies of the game to be able to give a thorough review of the rules.

I imagine there are a few lawyers that play disc golf that would be willing to do this though. I guess the current PDGA leadership prefers to have rule issues every week of the year. It's amazing that the PDGA took 5 years to come up with the 2018 rules update and still had mutliple large problems that did not appear to be thoroughly vetted.

I agree that it is impossible to remove all ambiguity, that's why we have the Q&A (and why every other sport has one too). I don't agree that lawyers necessarily have to be involved. Or more specifically, it doesn't have to be lawyers that proof and edit the book for precision but there needs to be another layer in the process.

My understanding of how the rule book gets written and updated is that the rules committee first collectively create their list of prospective changes and goals, then discuss/write/re-write amongst themselves for months maybe years. Once they reach a certain point, perhaps during the year before an update, they get PDGA staffers involved in the discussion (Big Dog, Downes, etc). Then they finalize everything and give it to the board, and the board votes yay/nay on each rule/change.

I think that's too insular, and the extra layer I would add is a collection of TDs/players (maybe 20-25 in total) who get an early look at the rules and whose task is to comb through everything looking for the ambiguity and the potential loopholes. Essentially doing exactly what happens on message boards/social media and at tournaments in general for the first 6-12 months after an updated book is published. And their feedback would allow the RC to fine tune language they may not have even realized was imprecise, and do so before the rules are officially published and put into use.

I think too often rules are added or re-written with too much institutional knowledge baked in. By which I mean to correctly interpret what the rule intends, you often have to know what it used to say and fill in the blanks where that language or intent has been inexplicably removed from new wording. Or if it isn't an old rule/wording, it's a discussion had within the RC of a point that they know and understand but fail to include unintentionally.

The TL;DR version would be...they need more fresh eyes proofing the rules before they publish them.

 

[TheOtherBill]

The kid was like ten? Scarred for life.

It was a really terrible shot into the nearest branch that lost the playoff.

Later Ricky said he was focused on making sure his brother was still having fun despite the extremely tense situation and didn't want to reneg on his promise to let his bro caddy.

Poor kid likely can't even look at a disc anymore without flashbacks.

 

[BuiltTooLong]

He's said before that this is direct result of being distracted by having one of his younger brothers caddy for him the year he lost the Worlds playoff in Oregon.

Nothing like blaming an epic choke job on your little brother. Ricky threw a forehand straight into a tree 40 feet in front of him. I must have missed the part where his caddy was prancing around distracting him.

 

[Major Tomahawk]

This is a very sad situation for Sharon Jenkins. She recently lost her husband and now she probably feels guilty for getting Val DQ'd. None of the involved parties needed any more added stress and negativity in their lives. I feel bad for both Val and Sharon. <3

 

[lyleoross]

It was a really terrible shot into the nearest branch that lost the playoff.

Later Ricky said he was focused on making sure his brother was still having fun despite the extremely tense situation and didn't want to reneg on his promise to let his bro caddy.

Poor kid likely can't even look at a disc anymore without flashbacks.

I have a new found respect for Mr. Wysocki. It may have cost him, but his heart was where it should have been.