I think Val got burned.

[davetherocketguy]

Was it really an empty can in a koozie???

What difference does that make?

It's real simple here folks. Play dumb games with the TD win dumb prizes. No ones taking the perspective of the TD here. That poor TD had to make a really tough call. People have probably seen this caddy drinking which is why it was brought to the TD's attention in the first place. Then the TD has to make the absurd decision of 1. If I don't do anything, people will be pissed. 2. If I eject the caddy. People will be pissed. 3. If I eject the player and caddy. People will be pissed. Make whatever argument you want. This is a stupid catch 22 for the TD. Personally, I would have done the EXACT same thing just out of principle for the BOTH of them for being irresponsible and putting me in a rock and a hard place.

Hey, here's a thought...If you're playing a major tourney how about going through the bag the night before to make sure there are no questionable items in there. Getting rid of any and all things that might be remotely questionable that "may" get you DQ'ed and then asking your caddy to do the same. Is that too difficult? I kinda call that common sense but that's just me...

 

[@iDiscGolf]

Was it really an empty can in a koozie???

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

What difference does that make?

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

Cmon... smh

 

[Chiefstang]

You need to step back and read this twice. I am not contesting the rules you quoted. Val did not violate those rules. Her caddie did. As such her caddie's DQ was mandatory. A separate rule covers how the player is punished for the actions of their caddie, and in that rule the punishment is discretionary. Please let me know if this is still too complicated for you to understand.

Pretty sure the "may" was left in there because it depends on the infraction. In this case, in an NT, the infraction is clearly listed as an instant disqualification with the player sharing the burden of the caddy's mistake.

 

[juju]

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

 

[davetherocketguy]

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

Cmon... smh

Pretty simple really. The TD has to decide if the caddy consumed said contents. Again, play dumb games with the TD win dumb prizes. Don't put the TD in that position in the first place and leave empty containers in your bag for people to see. Common sense. SMH

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

There is some wiggle room as Sonic Guy has pointed out.

But it comes down to decision. And the TD executed his decision which has the right to do. And if you have an issue with that, don't blame the PDGA. It's not their call. If anything, they should be applauded for giving some leeway for a scenario that clearly isn't black and white.

How would you handle this situation if it comes up in 2 months? Observe the caddie for sobriety? Give a verbal warning? Would it matter if the player were on the leader board in the final round or if it was a hack on day 2?

This is the type of crazy situation that comes up in sports that has to make officials go crazy.

 

[Chiefstang]

Just read this and thought it might be relevant lol!

https://nypost.com/2018/05/21/golf-tournament-ends-when-caddie-allegedly-punches-rival/

 

[jvphobic]

This is getting VERY hair splitting. IF the can was empty when Val's mom picked up the bag for the last few holes, then I think there would be an argument about whether true "possession" was had. For instance, can you pick up an empty you find on the course to clean it up?

If her caddie finished the drink WHILE caddying, then that is pretty black and white.

I don't know the full story. It sounds like a mistake was made and Val paid the price. I don't know if we will get much more detail because of the parties involved.

 

[Consult20]

Valarie Jenkins, whose 6-over par second round dropped her to second place on the leaderboard at 11-over, was disqualified from the event after the round when it was determined that her caddie was in possession of alcohol while on the course. As a result, Jennifer Allen will take the fourth spot on the final round lead card.

The final round will be notable not only for its move down the hill to the DeLaveaga Golf Course, but also for Jenkins' absence. Tournament Director Braden Coolidge said the decision to disqualify her from the event was made in keeping with the integrity of the competition.

https://www.pdga.com/news/pierce-widens-gap-after-masters-cup-marathon

Still haven't heard the story behind why Lesli Todd didn't show up for her tee time on Sunday, hopefully Steve Hill can fill in the blanks on both stories when he gets a chance.

 

[JC17393]

I don't know the full story. It sounds like a mistake was made and Val paid the price. I don't know if we will get much more detail because of the parties involved.

Agreed and I don't think we need to get much more detail. Unless a party involved (Val, her caddy, the TD, someone at the PDGA) wants to pursue the story further, we have all the info we really need. A caddy violated a rule and the TD acted accordingly by holding the player responsible for the caddy's actions. Doesn't really matter who the player was, who the caddy was, who the TD was. We weren't there. We're not judge and jury. We're not entitled to any more than what has already been reported.

 

[SonicGuy]

Pretty sure the "may" was left in there because it depends on the infraction. In this case, in an NT, the infraction is clearly listed as an instant disqualification with the player sharing the burden of the caddy's mistake.

If don't care what "they" intended by leaving the "may" in there, it reads in plain English as permissive. It would have been incredibly easy to write the rule to pass the punishment down to the player from the caddie. They abstained from doing that. Therefore the may should be read as it is written. As permissive. If they want it differently they have all the opportunity in the world to correct their mistake.

 

[@iDiscGolf]

Pretty simple really. The TD has to decide if the caddy consumed said contents. Again, play dumb games with the TD win dumb prizes. Don't put the TD in that position in the first place and leave empty containers in your bag for people to see. Common sense. SMH

Are you "assuming" in this scenario you are speaking to? You keep saying "if".

Also, I understand a TD having to make a call for posterity sake. All I'm saying is it's kinda ****ed that THAT someone didn't let her know, hey ditch the beer or else. Some people... smh

Oh also, I love you're avatar. Hilarious, given the parties involved and how adiment you are, dontcha think!

 

[davetherocketguy]

Are you "assuming" in this scenario you are speaking to? You keep saying "if".

Also, I understand a TD having to make a call for posterity sake. All I'm saying is it's kinda ****ed that THAT someone didn't let her know, hey ditch the beer or else. Some people... smh

Sure, a nice person should have alerted her/caddy to the possible infraction implications. Of course, if she didn't have it on her person in the first place it wouldn't be an issue would it?

Oh also, I love you're avatar. Hilarious, given the parties involved and how adiment you are, dontcha think!

Hilarious? You have an odd sense of humor. See, I enjoy my lagers, ales, stouts, etc like a lot of folk but I'm smart enough to not be drinking it where I shouldn't be.

 

[JC17393]

If don't care what "they" intended by leaving the "may" in there, it reads in plain English as permissive. It would have been incredibly easy to write the rule to pass the punishment down to the player from the caddie. They abstained from doing that. Therefore the may should be read as it is written. As permissive. If they want it differently they have all the opportunity in the world to correct their mistake.

Write the rule as you believe it should be written and submit it to the rules committee. It's been written the way it is written for a while and also interpreted as a number of people have already pointed out. They're not going to re-write a rule that is understood to mean what they intended it to mean unless someone (like you) points out the ease in which their wording can be misinterpreted.

 

[StevenSeagal]

Someone got a photo of the person that called the PDGA over the matter. I think this is her...

Can I just say I'm am EXTREMELY offended at all those internet trolls that keep saying this woman looks like Steven Seagal. She looks nothing like the great Steven Seagal and i believe to say so is complete 100% hate speech.

 

[SonicGuy]

Write the rule as you believe it should be written and submit it to the rules committee. It's been written the way it is written for a while and also interpreted as a number of people have already pointed out. They're not going to re-write a rule that is understood to mean what they intended it to mean unless someone (like you) points out the ease in which their wording can be misinterpreted.

I don't have to rewrite anything, I have the English language and a group of people able to read above an elementary level behind me, and you have... Not sure who is on your side.

 

[tampabay]

I don't have to rewrite anything, I have the English language and a group of people able to read above an elementary level behind me, and you have... Not sure who is on your side.

If I'm not mistaken JC is a touring pro...so I feel like he would have a pertinent opinion on this. No need for all the salt dude.

 

[JTacoma03]

Did she get the dq during the round or after? Same for Leslie Todd. Weren't they all on the lead/filmed card together? Did they end the round with only 2 players lol

Report back Jamie

Honestly I'm not sure what happened with Lesli. TOTAL conjecture here, but maybe that's what Dustin Keegan was referencing originally?

When I saw Lesli she ran into a few tough holes, wasn't playing extremely poorly or anything, but DeLa is a grinder and they were tussling. She was a bit frustrated with her shot placement off of the tee, but hit some good par and bogey saving putts. I chalked it up to standard tournament competitiveness. Maybe things went off the rails later, but if so I didn't see it.

There's still pieces to the story that Im confused about. Was the caddy drinking or did she have only a beer bottle on her possession?

Seems odd as Val is so seasoned in the sport, he'll the whole Jenkins family are, kind of a weird oversight.

And couldn't someone of tapped her on the shoulder and gave her a courtesy heads up wtf

According to the party involved, it was holding an empty beer can contained within a koozie. The Jenkins family, as has been said, are veterans of the tour life and tremendous ambassadors for the sport. Sharon felt terrible (and slightly annoyed, for reasons I'll get into on the 'cast) that it went down like that. Anyone who knows her (and who knew Leroy) knows they are basically treated as locals at DeLa despite living in Ohio. They've put many volunteer hours into that course, they come out West for Masters Cup regularly, I've seen them spotting before, etc.

I have mixed feelings because people on all sides of this (TD, PDGA, and the accused) are all friends of mine...but business is business and I'm going to weigh in honestly this week.

 

[lyleoross]

Was it really an empty can in a koozie???

I wonder if it was the same empty can that Bradley Williams had in his bag when he got busted for drinking during a tournament?

 

[lyleoross]

If don't care what "they" intended by leaving the "may" in there, it reads in plain English as permissive. It would have been incredibly easy to write the rule to pass the punishment down to the player from the caddie. They abstained from doing that. Therefore the may should be read as it is written. As permissive. If they want it differently they have all the opportunity in the world to correct their mistake.

I know it's all fun to debate, but Sonic is correct. May has a definition. You can argue that the Rules Committee blew it, but may means may. Should, Could, Will. They could have written the rule in a lot of ways to make it a solid, they chose not to.

This statement by Sonic hits the nail, their intent doesn't matter. We don't know all the intent of the founding fathers in writing the Constitution, we only know the language and how it works. You take the language and use it in its context.

However, the TD has full rights to make the decision. That's his call. Also, we weren't there. That's a biggy. The notion that a player got DQed cause someone picked up a can on the course is ridiculous. The notion that the player left a can in their bag, or someone else did is ridiculous. It takes a whole lot of malicious to make a case around such things and I can't think of anyone who'd do that to Val. Naw, this situation is complex and we don't know squat.