teemkey
* Ace Member *
I do think the PDGA should publicly state which of the four case types initiated the suspension. In summary, these are:
(see the PDGA disciplinary pdf for full text)
Case 1) If in the course of a PDGA sanctioned event, a member takes an action that is disruptive to the event and that is not specifically addressed within the PDGA Rules of Play, that action may be reported to the PDGA by any active PDGA member who witnessed the incident;
Case 2) Any disqualification of an active member from a PDGA sanctioned event;
Case 3) If an active member demonstrates behavior that is inconsistent with the well being of the PDGA or another active member(s), any PDGA Board member or the Executive Director may instigate a disciplinary investigation on their own;
Case 4) If an active member demonstrates behavior that is inconsistent with the well being of the PDGA or another active member (s), an active member may petition the DC to carry out a disciplinary investigation of that member. Such a petition must include contact information and signatures of at least 10 active members who witnessed the incident.
For Case 1, it's odd that the bar for initiating a disciplinary action is lower than calling a rules violation resulting in a penalty stroke during play (other than tournament officials):
Case 2 is clear.
Case 3 does not require a formal complaint from an active member. Actions of this type really need a public statement from the Board (briefly) describing why the action was initiated.
Case 4 requiring 10 active members witnessing the incident seems like a weirdly high bar. I suspect either there was a specific past incident and/or it is a catch-all for multiple actions at different tournaments (although "the incident" argues against this interpretation).
My guess regarding Williams is that, although at least one member submitted a DAF (Disciplinary Action Form), since his actions are addressed in the PDGA Rule Book (he was assessed a courtesy violation), the penalty was a Case 3 investigation since it covers actions impacting the image (well being) of the PDGA.
(see the PDGA disciplinary pdf for full text)
Case 1) If in the course of a PDGA sanctioned event, a member takes an action that is disruptive to the event and that is not specifically addressed within the PDGA Rules of Play, that action may be reported to the PDGA by any active PDGA member who witnessed the incident;
Case 2) Any disqualification of an active member from a PDGA sanctioned event;
Case 3) If an active member demonstrates behavior that is inconsistent with the well being of the PDGA or another active member(s), any PDGA Board member or the Executive Director may instigate a disciplinary investigation on their own;
Case 4) If an active member demonstrates behavior that is inconsistent with the well being of the PDGA or another active member (s), an active member may petition the DC to carry out a disciplinary investigation of that member. Such a petition must include contact information and signatures of at least 10 active members who witnessed the incident.
For Case 1, it's odd that the bar for initiating a disciplinary action is lower than calling a rules violation resulting in a penalty stroke during play (other than tournament officials):
It would be helpful if the PDGA offered some examples of actions "not specifically addressed within the PDGA Rules of Play"
Case 2 is clear.
Case 3 does not require a formal complaint from an active member. Actions of this type really need a public statement from the Board (briefly) describing why the action was initiated.
Case 4 requiring 10 active members witnessing the incident seems like a weirdly high bar. I suspect either there was a specific past incident and/or it is a catch-all for multiple actions at different tournaments (although "the incident" argues against this interpretation).
My guess regarding Williams is that, although at least one member submitted a DAF (Disciplinary Action Form), since his actions are addressed in the PDGA Rule Book (he was assessed a courtesy violation), the penalty was a Case 3 investigation since it covers actions impacting the image (well being) of the PDGA.
