• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

Bradley Williams Suspended

Given what we know, was the PDGA suspension of Bradley Williams correct?

  • Yes, and the amount of time was correct.

    Votes: 122 51.5%
  • Yes, but the amount of time was not correct.

    Votes: 69 29.1%
  • No, the process was flawed.

    Votes: 30 12.7%
  • No, Bradley Williams should not have been suspended at all.

    Votes: 16 6.8%

  • Total voters
    237
The key point here is that the process is not complete.
BW will most likely appeal the punishment.
After that plays out, we should get a explanation.

Asking for answers now is a bit premature.
 
I just want to say. Because this seems like it's getting mentioned allot.

I do not care or feel I need an explanation from the pdga regarding the issue. It's being taken care of.
 
Why can't we question whether the punishments are appropriate? The DC is made up of people who make decisions. They're not perfect and it seems possible that they may be out of step with the players. Or not. I don't know. But why can't we question it?
You can question it all you want to, just like you can question whether punishments in actual legal statutes are appropriate.

It doesn't change the fact that this isn't your fight to have a dog in.

The PDGA certainly seems out of step with all the players who were there on the card and several other of the best pros.

I think these questions have to be asked as the sport grows. Right now, it appears that the PDGA has a level of discipline for such infractions as drinking beer and kicking baskets that far exceeds the discipline given in larger, more established sports for much worse infractions.

I think the question of whether the DC is exceeding itself is a worthwhile question.

I'll restate my opinion - I think Williams sounds like a repeat offender, a real dick, who deserves some form of discipline. YET I think his punishments are excessive. His peers seem to agree on that as well.
And here we go with more the same abstract "the big bad PDGA is out to get us and won't tell us why" authority complex bulls--t that I've been hearing for three days now.
 
I think you're confusing "judged" and "outcome". The case should be judged on it's own merits, then after the judgment is made, if found guilty, other factors such as history can be used to factor in the sentence.

Which brings up something McBeth "may" be concerned about -- the idea of card mates ganging up on a player. When you're at the top it's a legitimate concern.

You are right. The past transgressions would be more important in the sentencing or "outcome".

I think concerns over inappropriate "ganging up" on card mates, should be addressed if it becomes an issue.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me, among the Anthony Wiener and Josh Anthon jokes, and the 60 pages of comments, I missed that.

But then I have a follow up: Is that explanation of 18 months explicitly from the PDGA? Or someone's logical guess on this thread?

And a second question (and I'm being sincere): do you feel his punishments so far (all deserved) have been appropriate in length? I'm talking beer, basket, shoulder./
Honestly think it is light. I think 6 months (minus the 12 month reinstated probation) for a report assault, is generous. I DO NOT want my sole sanctioning body to allow for ANY misunderstanding in regards to assaulting other players. It is a line that should never be crossed in a game.
 
You are right. The past transgressions would be more important in the sentencing or "outcome".

I think concerns over inappropriate "ganging up" on card mates, should be addressed if it becomes an issue.

And I am purely speculating here, but all those factors may very well have been in play in this case. Maybe not necessarily by Matt's card mates, but possibly by others after the fact. I could see Matt being talked into filing the complaint by others who don't like Brad, just to get him in more trouble. I find it hard to believe Matt made the decision on his own, especially since it was seemingly over before the hole was even played out.
 
From pdga http://www.pdga.com/announcements/pdga-disciplinary-process-statement

Statement

Recently, there have been questions raised in social media regarding the specifics of the PDGA Disciplinary Process. This process may not be well known, especially by some of the newer members. Now seems like a good opportunity to let our members review the system that has been in place since October 15, 2009. While no member wants to be personally involved in this part of the sport, unfortunately, there sometimes are circumstances that require oversight and intervention.

The disciplinary process begins with a written complaint from a PDGA member or from the Tournament Director report when there is a disqualification involved. The chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee decides if the complaint is warranted and presents it to the committee. During this process, the chairperson attempts to procure written statements and initiate phone conversations with all parties involved. The statements/findings are presented to the committee for review and discussion. All infractions, past and present, are taken into consideration. Infractions incurred while under probation and multiple infractions can typically result in a combination of suspension periods. After discussion of all relevant considerations, a choice of disciplinary actions is presented for a vote in the form of a poll. Each committee member then votes on an action that he/she feel are the most appropriate match with the infraction or infractions. Those decisions, of course, are informed by the collective experience of the committee and the evolving history of the committee's findings.

The Disciplinary committee next sends its recommendation to the President of the Board of Directors. The President then reviews all of the information provided and either decides to accept the recommendation or to request additional consideration. The recommendation is also discussed with the Executive Board of Directors and it is either accepted or modified by vote of the Executive Board. A letter is then constructed and sent to the Executive Director of the PDGA who both emails and mails a certified letter to the members involved. The resulting disciplinary action goes into effect the day of the email/postmark.

A more detailed form of our disciplinary process can be found at http://www.pdga.com/pdga-disciplinary-process

The member is allowed to appeal as written in our policy. PDGA does not divulge specific details of the findings until such time as the member has exhausted all of his/her appeal rights. Such public discussion is necessarily limited to protect the privacy rights of the individuals involved.

These concerns are both legal and ethical. The posting of such information could easily jeopardize the interests of a member if it came to the attention of a potential employer or other interested party. PDGA would only divulge such information if the member involved were to provide a signed letter granting that permission.

PDGA is, of course, a non-profit organization. Our sport is an emerging one. As such, we have to work consistently to maintain a positive and professional image. We do, of course, provide a Competition/Rule book and have all of our disciplinary processes posted on our website. We count on our members to help each other follow the rules and we hope that members who have questions will feel free to contact us directly. Please remember that we are all disc golfers and we do care. Our policies have been developed by members and are in place to help us keep our members safe and to provide a fair and consistent process.

In summary, this is a challenging job and we are volunteers. The disciplinary committee is always interested in hearing from members who are willing to serve in some capacity as some part of this difficult, but essential part of sustaining our sport.

Rebecca Duffy
PDGA Board President
Speaking for the PDGA Board of Directors and Disciplinary Committee
 
From pdga http://www.pdga.com/announcements/pdga-disciplinary-process-statement

Statement

Recently, there have been questions raised in social media regarding the specifics of the PDGA Disciplinary Process. This process may not be well known, especially by some of the newer members. Now seems like a good opportunity to let our members review the system that has been in place since October 15, 2009. While no member wants to be personally involved in this part of the sport, unfortunately, there sometimes are circumstances that require oversight and intervention.

The disciplinary process begins with a written complaint from a PDGA member or from the Tournament Director report when there is a disqualification involved. The chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee decides if the complaint is warranted and presents it to the committee. During this process, the chairperson attempts to procure written statements and initiate phone conversations with all parties involved. The statements/findings are presented to the committee for review and discussion. All infractions, past and present, are taken into consideration. Infractions incurred while under probation and multiple infractions can typically result in a combination of suspension periods. After discussion of all relevant considerations, a choice of disciplinary actions is presented for a vote in the form of a poll. Each committee member then votes on an action that he/she feel are the most appropriate match with the infraction or infractions. Those decisions, of course, are informed by the collective experience of the committee and the evolving history of the committee's findings.

The Disciplinary committee next sends its recommendation to the President of the Board of Directors. The President then reviews all of the information provided and either decides to accept the recommendation or to request additional consideration. The recommendation is also discussed with the Executive Board of Directors and it is either accepted or modified by vote of the Executive Board. A letter is then constructed and sent to the Executive Director of the PDGA who both emails and mails a certified letter to the members involved. The resulting disciplinary action goes into effect the day of the email/postmark.

A more detailed form of our disciplinary process can be found at http://www.pdga.com/pdga-disciplinary-process

The member is allowed to appeal as written in our policy. PDGA does not divulge specific details of the findings until such time as the member has exhausted all of his/her appeal rights. Such public discussion is necessarily limited to protect the privacy rights of the individuals involved.

These concerns are both legal and ethical. The posting of such information could easily jeopardize the interests of a member if it came to the attention of a potential employer or other interested party. PDGA would only divulge such information if the member involved were to provide a signed letter granting that permission.

PDGA is, of course, a non-profit organization. Our sport is an emerging one. As such, we have to work consistently to maintain a positive and professional image. We do, of course, provide a Competition/Rule book and have all of our disciplinary processes posted on our website. We count on our members to help each other follow the rules and we hope that members who have questions will feel free to contact us directly. Please remember that we are all disc golfers and we do care. Our policies have been developed by members and are in place to help us keep our members safe and to provide a fair and consistent process.

In summary, this is a challenging job and we are volunteers. The disciplinary committee is always interested in hearing from members who are willing to serve in some capacity as some part of this difficult, but essential part of sustaining our sport.

Rebecca Duffy
PDGA Board President
Speaking for the PDGA Board of Directors and Disciplinary Committee

Translation: You millennials go ahead and have your little social media tantrum.....this is how things are done in the real world.
 
Well that was posted here yesterday shortly after it was posted on the PDGA site, post #526 by juju for those that missed it.
 
Last edited:
You can question it all you want to, just like you can question whether punishments in actual legal statutes are appropriate.

It doesn't change the fact that this isn't your fight to have a dog in.


And here we go with more the same abstract "the big bad PDGA is out to get us and won't tell us why" authority complex bulls--t that I've been hearing for three days now.

Incorrect, my friend. I don't think the PDGA is out to get anyone and didn't say so. My experience in disc golf in general and PDGA in particular has been positive. By comparison, I also love my local club, which I support overall yet critique when there's a problem.

What is clear is that the PDGA still has work to do in establishing the severity of its discipline decisions in a way that all players can fully support. In that regard, I do have a dog in the fight - I'm a player.
 
Can't believe I quoted Grod
 
And I am purely speculating here, but all those factors may very well have been in play in this case. Maybe not necessarily by Matt's card mates, but possibly by others after the fact. I could see Matt being talked into filing the complaint by others who don't like Brad, just to get him in more trouble. I find it hard to believe Matt made the decision on his own, especially since it was seemingly over before the hole was even played out.

I don't doubt that this is a possible scenario. But, in our game of self governance, it should have been reported, regardless of where or how the situation was resolved. Physical confrontation is a step above most reportable infractions. I do agree that the decision should be made by the direct parties involved, unless others are consulted by those. I can see uninvolved people encouraging action, but again, until stated or proven it is speculation.
 
It is logical, but I think most people's concern is that, while logical, it has not been explicitly articulated by the PDGA that this was the rationale for the suspension. Dots should not have to be connected. It's easy enough to put it together, but it's also easy for the PDGA to explain that part without compromising privacy.

This is only partly in response to One's post. While in one sense this is true, on the other hand, the rules, the past punishments and interpretations, are all in the public venue. Only the details of the incident are withheld. What kind of communication is important. I agree that communication has to be better, but not because the info isn't there, but because some don't have the patience to go look it up. By my memory of this thread, only one person has shown that they have gone and read the process as published, that would be JC. Even I am relying on memory of the process from six years ago.

Part of the question becomes, does the PDGA have an obligation to lay out the rules every time there is an incident like this one? No, but it is in their best interest to do so. A statement to the effect: BWs suspension for an altercation at the Ledgestone event is 18 months. In 2015 he was disciplined, with Y, for drinking during a PDGA event (link). In 2015 he was disciplined for damaging a course during a PDGA event, while another player was putting, with Z (link). That punishment included a 12 month prohibition that BW agreed to. At the Ledgestone, BW violated his prohibition, thus reinstating the 12 month suspension. For being involved in an altercation at the Ledgestone BW receives an additional 6 month suspension -gives a timeline and helps members understand what happened. Some are going to disagree with the length, but heck, that is inevitable.

Now, even with that, some are going to ask, why isn't M$ getting a suspension, it takes two to fight? Well, that's all you are going to get, and it's all you should. We have to assume there were interviews, and that the evidence convicted BW but not M$. Remember, the DC looks at this, the Board looks at this, and BG looks at this. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that all of them colluded to punish BW no matter what the evidence presented.
 
Top