I think Val got burned.

[DiscFifty]

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

For sure..wth was going on? Jenkins dq, Todd with the 888 (and that usually means a walk off without talking to the TD). Unless....Todd was the one that reported it...and some "healthy communication" took place, that would put a twist in the story for sure.

 

[Dire Wolfy]

It actually was her mom though. Not a frat joke at all.

I know.

 

[deyo7]

I don't know Jack about the rules but Sonic guys interpretation of the may language in 305c (was it?) makes sense to me... i.e discretionary call.

As a spectator I'd rather see the tournament played out without a DQ in this situation. Heck if I was competing against her I'd rather see her play...

Instead it's hey Val, you know why you lost the tournament? Your mom.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

The way I see it, to a certain degree, whether the TD's call to:
a) just boot the caddy, vs....
b) DQ the player responsible for the caddie's actions

...was discretionary or mandatory, is somewhat moot.

As an experienced player, Val knows she could be DQ'd for such an infraction.
As a player, not only do you have to be aware of the possibility you might have to pay the price for any infractions your caddy commits... I think you have to expect you actually will. I think this is true, regardless of the level of play.

While I don't necessarily think it's "right" to expect more of big name players, as a someone who's been in the spotlight as long and as often as Val has been, the reality is you have to expect you're being scrutinized (and likely being held to a higher standard) than "common folk."

 

[tampabay]

I don't know Jack about the rules but Sonic guys interpretation of the may language in 305c (was it?) makes sense to me... i.e discretionary call.

As a spectator I'd rather see the tournament played out without a DQ in this situation. Heck if I was competing against her I'd rather see her play...

Instead it's hey Val, you know why you lost the tournament? Your mom.

I really think the issue you and Sonic both are missing is I feel like you guys are arguing that the rule should be changed. What is the scenario where you think this "discretionary" option should be enforced? never? in that case...you are saying the rule shouldn't exist, which is fine. But I think the TD did absolutely nothing wrong

 

[SonicGuy]

I really think the issue you and Sonic both are missing is I feel like you guys are arguing that the rule should be changed. What is the scenario where you think this "discretionary" option should be enforced? never? in that case...you are saying the rule shouldn't exist, which is fine. But I think the TD did absolutely nothing wrong

What are you talking about? How can you pretzel logic your way to that conclusion? Because I want the rule enforced AS WRITTEN I am actually saying I want the rule to not exist?

To your question, I think the player should be DQ'd if their caddie's misconduct either benefited the player or the player knew that the misconduct would take place and wilfully enabled the caddie to be a part of the tournament. That is how I would determine it if I ran the zoo.

For instance, let's say that Val and her mom wanted to give her brewery some advertising so they both agreed to get a beer can on camera via he mom. That kind of wilfull violation would warrant a DQ.

 

[wolfmandragon]

In that case, it worked...so many people talking about it

 

[tampabay]

What are you talking about? How can you pretzel logic your way to that conclusion? Because I want the rule enforced AS WRITTEN I am actually saying I want the rule to not exist?

To your question, I think the player should be DQ'd if their caddie's misconduct either benefited the player or the player knew that the misconduct would take place and wilfully enabled the caddie to be a part of the tournament. That is how I would determine it if I ran the zoo.

For instance, let's say that Val and her mom wanted to give her brewery some advertising so they both agreed to get a beer can on camera via he mom. That kind of wilfull violation would warrant a DQ.

You are literally re-defining the rule to say "benefited the player." That is not in the rules. You are the pretzeler, my friend.The discretion part is C tier and below.

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.

 

[SonicGuy]

You are literally re-defining the rule to say "benefited the player." That is not in the rules. You are the pretzeler, my friend.The discretion part is C tier and below.

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.

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.

 

[tampabay]

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.

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 did read the rules. I put two rules together. so amaze. no need to make attacks at my character

 

[bwgort]

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.

As an aside, they removed the word "shall" from the federal rules of evidence because it was too ambiguous of a term that sometimes does not mean "must." I think there's a credible argument to be made that the caddie's DQ was not mandatory either, based on how shall has legally been interpreted in court decisions.

 

[brutalbrutus]

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.

Wouldn't the punishment only be discretionary if the rule being applied is discretionary? In this case, at a Btier or above, the rule being applied calls for a mandatory DQ.

 

[SonicGuy]

As an aside, they removed the word "shall" from the federal rules of evidence because it was too ambiguous of a term that sometimes does not mean "must." I think there's a credible argument to be made that the caddie's DQ was not mandatory either, based on how shall has legally been interpreted in court decisions.

I like it . (although I believe shall to mean must in statutory construction)

Wouldn't the punishment only be discretionary if the rule being applied is discretionary? In this case, at a Btier or above, the rule being applied calls for a mandatory DQ. There is no discretion the way I read it.

The rule violation was made by the caddie. That DQ (is that even the right term?) was mandatory. Val didn't actually violate any rules, there is just a provision allowing a TD to take action against a player for the actions of their caddie.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Val got screwed. Caddie should have been asked to leave, Val should have played on.

Nope. That was up to the TD. The suspension was consistent with the rules. If Val didn't want to get suspended, she shouldn't have had a caddie that was violating the alcohol possession rule. It's not hard to not violate the rules.

 

[SonicGuy]

Nope. That was up to the TD. The suspension was consistent with the rules. If Val didn't want to get suspended, she shouldn't have had a caddie that was violating the alcohol possession rule. It's not hard to not violate the rules.

- yes it was up to the TD, nobody is disputing that
- Val didn't violate any rules, there is no rule saying you must keep your caddie from breaking rules. It merely states that if your caddie does happen to break rules you can be DQ'd
- Whether not violating rules is difficult or not for a caddie has nothing to do with Val who did not violate those rules.

 

[tampabay]

- yes it was up to the TD, nobody is disputing that
- Val didn't violate any rules, there is no rule saying you must keep your caddie from breaking rules. It merely states that if your caddie does happen to break rules you can be DQ'd
- Whether not violating rules is difficult or not for a caddie has nothing to do with Val who did not violate those rules.

So is your complaint that the TD interpreted it this way or that the rules should change? **went back and read, saw you thought the TD could have handled it differently**.

Do you think the rules should change?

 

[JC17393]

For sure..wth was going on? Jenkins dq, Todd with the 888 (and that usually means a walk off without talking to the TD). Unless....Todd was the one that reported it...and some "healthy communication" took place, that would put a twist in the story for sure.

Barring actual reports to the contrary, there's no reason at all to believe Todd and Jenkins absences in round 3 are related to one another. Lesli was scheduled for a tee time for round three and didn't show up, hence the 888. Jenkins, on the other hand, was DQed just after round 2 and was never scheduled for a tee time for Sunday. One would think if the two were missing the third round for related reasons, they'd both be shown the same way (999 with no tee time set).

 

[@iDiscGolf]

For sure..wth was going on? Jenkins dq, Todd with the 888 (and that usually means a walk off without talking to the TD). Unless....Todd was the one that reported it...and some "healthy communication" took place, that would put a twist in the story for sure.

Good point. Could be, could be coincidence? We'll see.

 

[SonicGuy]

So is your complaint that the TD interpreted it this way or that the rules should change?

My biggest complaint is with people saying the DQ was mandatory.

My much smaller side complaint is with the TD going with the nuclear option. I would have done it differently. I value the athletic and competitive aspect of tournaments over the rule following aspect.

 

[tampabay]

My biggest complaint is with people saying the DQ was mandatory.

My much smaller side complaint is with the TD going with the nuclear option. I would have done it differently. I value the athletic and competitive aspect of tournaments over the rule following aspect.

that makes more sense and is less incendiary than some of the other things you posted. I think they should clarify the rule one way or another to make it more clear. As I read it, I saw you are responsible for your caddie -> alcohol = DQ -> caddie has alcohol -> you inherit DQ.

I personally think the problem with softening the impact on the player would be caddies doing things that are truly disruptive/stupid e.g. harassing players, impacting play, etc. Caddies only add value for the individual who is utilizing them so I think they go nuclear to ensure that caddies are pretty much ghost as they at best make the game better for only one person and at worst can do all sorts of dumb nonsense.