I think Val got burned.

[rj29274]

Not starting anything. . .sharing the facts huckleberry

Can't tell if you're starting these rumors or not, but let's say you aren't.

Every bit of difference. If it's an empty can, what's the effect..

Cmon... smh

 

[lyleoross]

Mrs. Scarlett, in the schule, with a golf club?

Did I win?

 

[SD86]

The TD did the only thing he could do under current rules. Terrible for Val and her mom, but the rule is clear and it was applied fairly and correctly.

I do hope they'll consider a rule change for the future, so that a player would not have to be DQ'd for a caddy's unintentional violation of a rule like that. Perhaps a two-stroke penalty on the first offense, and DQ on subsequent offenses...

 

[Dire Wolfy]

The TD did the only thing he could do under current rules. Terrible for Val and her mom, but the rule is clear and it was applied fairly and correctly.

I do hope they'll consider a rule change for the future, so that a player would not have to be DQ'd for a caddy's unintentional violation of a rule like that. Perhaps a two-stroke penalty on the first offense, and DQ on subsequent offenses...

that's odd to hear from someone who doesn't actually disc golf.

 

[armiller]

that's odd to hear from someone who doesn't actually disc golf.

It makes me more sad to hear this from DW than any number of other DGCR users, for some reason...

 

[bmcgov1209]

I haven't seen it brought up at all, but does anyone know if the strictness of enforcing the alcohol rules has anything to do with the liability insurance that the pdga covers for sanctioned events?

 

[Discette]

that's odd to hear from someone who doesn't actually disc golf.

That was so far over the line......




















even Ricky would admit it was a foot fault!

 

[thirtydirtybirds]

I don't see the grey area some of you see I guess. I read the rules, DQ is mandatory for alcohol at that level tournament, player is responsible for caddy actions, ergo the actions of the caddy transfer penalty to the player. I read that may as depending on the infraction the appropriate or required penalty will vary.

In any event, it wasn't a good move by the offending parties. Fair penalty was assessed according to the bounds of the rules, no legal action was taken against the parties involved or tournament organizers. Perhaps this will help the pdga clarify the rules, though they seem quite clear to me.

 

[BuiltTooLong]

That was so far over the line......

even Ricky would admit it was a foot fault!

No chance.

 

[Audible Vibration]

Has anyone from the PDGA chimed with the official interpretation of the wording that is being debated? I haven't had a chance to check out any of the podcasts or ultiworld articles.

From what I've read in this thread and the rule book, both interpretations could be correct. The way it is written, I think "may" could be referring to the TD's discretion, or it could also mean it is dependent on the rule that is broken. In my opinion, it refers to the latter, but that's just my interpretation.

And, for anyone that is attacking other people or calling them names because they disagree with their interpretation, get a life. Even if they are clearly wrong, making fun of someone's reading comprehension skills just makes you look like a piece of sh*t.

 

[@iDiscGolf]

The TD did the only thing he could do under current rules. Terrible for Val and her mom, but the rule is clear and it was applied fairly and correctly.

I do hope they'll consider a rule change for the future, so that a player would not have to be DQ'd for a caddy's unintentional violation of a rule like that. Perhaps a two-stroke penalty on the first offense, and DQ on subsequent offenses...

And it strikes again. Either someone who hasn't followed the thread or someone who ignores the debate, yet posts another quality opinion... Smh

 

[ThrowBot]

It does seem to me that Val got "burned" (as the thread title so colorfully suggests).

It's true that the TD acted within his authority, and may have even been compelled to hand down the DQ once the issue was brought to his attention. (Not even necessarily compelled by his own interpretation of the PDGA rules. There could have been a standing agreement with the park, or discussion with a higher PDGA official, etc. etc. etc.)

But anyway, Val got the book thrown at her. I understand that it's within the rules. My gut still says that the punishment was vastly disproportionate to--candidly speaking--the meagerest alcohol violation I've ever heard of.

If the honest motivation was concern over the optics of disc golf mixed with alcohol, then things could've been handled more discretely. Seems like a casual warning, player-to-player, would've been a much quicker and cleaner way to address the issue. Instead someone ran off to an official and made this a much bigger story.

Trying to think of a possible motive to do that.
Tourney payouts?
NT standings?
Pointless speculation on DGCR?

opcorn:

 

[BlazedOrangeHat]

Has anyone from the PDGA chimed with the official interpretation of the wording that is being debated?

from this post by the PDGA

https://www.pdga.com/announcements/statement-valarie-jenkins-disqualification-santa-cruz-masters-cup

This decision weighs heavily, to say the least. Val is one of the most respected players in our sport with contributions that resonate much wider than the casual observer might know. Unfortunately, the definition of the rules are clear in this instance, and they were applied to her as they would be any other player at the tournament.

now, this doesn't explicitly give a breakdown, but, he says the rules are clear and she was DQ'd. He didn't say he had to use any personal discretion or that he even had a choice and decided to DQ her because of X, Y, Z.

I personally feel that since this was a NT event with actual PDGA staff on-site, there is no way they weren't consulted before a decision of this magnitude. Also, if he had discretion in this decision with all this "may" talk, I'm sure he would have touched on that and said why he DQ'd her instead of only giving her a warning. Instead, he says the rule was clear and she was DQ'd. (because the caddie is responsible to follow all comp book rules, the player is responsible for the caddie, alcohol is automatic DQ offense, therefor if the caddie has alcohol that infraction is applied to the player... DQ)

 

[ILUVSMGS18]

It does seem to me that Val got "burned" (as the thread title so colorfully suggests).

It's true that the TD acted within his authority, and may have even been compelled to hand down the DQ once the issue was brought to his attention. (Not even necessarily compelled by his own interpretation of the PDGA rules. There could have been a standing agreement with the park, or discussion with a higher PDGA official, etc. etc. etc.)

But anyway, Val got the book thrown at her. I understand that it's within the rules. My gut still says that the punishment was vastly disproportionate to--candidly speaking--the meagerest alcohol violation I've ever heard of.

If the honest motivation was concern over the optics of disc golf mixed with alcohol, then things could've been handled more discretely. Seems like a casual warning, player-to-player, would've been a much quicker and cleaner way to address the issue. Instead someone ran off to an official and made this a much bigger story.

Trying to think of a possible motive to do that.
Tourney payouts?
NT standings?
Pointless speculation on DGCR?

opcorn:

My pointless speculation, is that PP was worried about losing, thus she paid the TD to DQ Val, similar to how Ricky paid his other cardmates (besides Nikko) to not second his foot faults.

 

[SD86]

My pointless speculation, is that PP was worried about losing, thus she paid the TD to DQ Val, similar to how Ricky paid his other cardmates (besides Nikko) to not second his foot faults.

Catrina is the one who is known to be the stickler for the rules, to the point she was stepping off the distance to the basket on one hole to see who was closer (it was on the "gravity" hole). And of course we remember the controversy when Sarah Hokom had that car accident and arrived late. So if anyone would say something, it'd likely be her. No, I'm not saying that she actually did.

 

[teemkey]

According to Steve Hill on the PDGA podcast, the TD was alerted by a third party.

Watching CCDG"s video , it doesn't appear the Val was DQ'd until after finishing her round.

 

[Audible Vibration]

from this post by the PDGA

https://www.pdga.com/announcements/statement-valarie-jenkins-disqualification-santa-cruz-masters-cup



now, this doesn't explicitly give a breakdown, but, he says the rules are clear and she was DQ'd. He didn't say he had to use any personal discretion or that he even had a choice and decided to DQ her because of X, Y, Z.

Thanks for the link. I agree with you. Based on this response, I would say that the PDGA's official interpretation of the rule is that the TD did not have any choice in the matter, and that the rules required Val to be DQ'd. But let's not let that stop us from keeping this thread going a few more pages.

 

[mshelton]

I'm gonna go on a limb here and say the the Val Tour series Thrashers will sell pretty well after all this.

 

[JC17393]

I haven't seen it brought up at all, but does anyone know if the strictness of enforcing the alcohol rules has anything to do with the liability insurance that the pdga covers for sanctioned events?

Of course it does. But sshhh, it puts the lie to the argument that the PDGA is stupid and foolish for being motivated by a desire for a more "professional" image.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Didn't someone say you can see a pdga official in the background?