Nikko LoCastro intimidating a PDGA official at European Open '22

[Countchunkula]

You don't seem to understand the players weren't even the ones timing him. Do you actually have any idea what happened? You seem very confused about the entire order of events.

It's easier to take a consistently contrary stance when you don't care if you're right.

I don't think he cares what happened. He's just trying keep the back and forth going and get a rise out of as many people as possible.

 

[dmoore1998]

Because that is part of the rule. if you warn a player for bad times, the onus is on you to time them going forward. if you don't follow through on the next step of the rule, the previous step (warning) should no longer apply.

The official did not step in to time until the 18th hole as far as i know. Are you saying the official was timing Nikko for 11-12 holes and kept doing so even though he got no bad times for 11-12 holes? if that was the case, and i don't believe it was, it makes even a greater argument for Nikko being specifically targeted.

Can you please quote the rule the says once a warning is given, a player must time every throw or the warning is rescinded? I'll wait.

If we're going by "as far as you know"...as far as you knew this happened on hole 5 or 6 and Nikko continued talking at the official for "the rest of the round".

 

[ballgolfconvert]

The player continues to be on warning and no new warning needs to be given.



Bold added.

What is not in the rule is anything about the other players performing an unbroken string of timing every throw between the warning and the evaluation.

Thus my lobbying to put that into the rules. you shouldn't be entitled to warn a player if you aren't going to follow up and penalize him for violations. In fact, failing to do so should be a penalty on the players who issued the warning. It is anti-competitive to put a player on the clock with no intention to penalize or time them under the rules.

 

[dmoore1998]

Thus my lobbying to put that into the rules. you shouldn't be entitled to warn a player if you aren't going to follow up and penalize him for violations. In fact, failing to do so should be a penalty on the players who issued the warning. It is anti-competitive to put a player on the clock with no intention to penalize or time them under the rules.

Ok, but that's a hypothetical potential future rule change...which has nothing at all to do with this situation that occurred in the real world based on current rules.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Most troll feeders don't realize they're feeding trolls...

 

[RowingBoats]

I never interacted with this dude before, I can see that mistakes have been made, and I shall mend my ways.

Sorry for feeding it lol. I usually stick to the technique side of this place, I was ignorant.

Ugh, reminds me of this Rodeo clown shoes guy that used to post in technique.

 

[Streets]

oldmanbirdiesmoothballdiscermachineplayerconvert is just a boring troll who finds these weird, contrarian "hills to die on."

 

[Future_Primitive]

Had to add dmoore to ignore list due to the trollfeeding.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

Ok, but that's a hypothetical potential future rule change...which has nothing at all to do with this situation that occurred in the real world based on current rules.

How many times do i need o repeat myself? Reread my posts if you are still stuck on this. I've addressed it multiple times.

 

[dmoore1998]

How many times do i need o repeat myself? Reread my posts if you are still stuck on this. I've addressed it multiple times.

Ok, I reread your posts...it's unfair that Nikko got his penalty on Hole 5 or 6 because nobody had ever timed him before that moment, and he never got a warning at all, and then he kept yelling at the official from hole 5 or 6 onwards through the end of the round, and they wouldn't even let him retee when a UFO landed on the teepad, and it's outrageous that they let Nikko's ex-wife's new husband be the official, and how are we sure the person who suspended Nikko from the tournament is even a human being and not a human body with a fishbowl for a head?

I think I agree.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

Most troll feeders don't realize they're feeding trolls...

believe me... I know i am just feeding the trolls accusing me of doing the same thing they are doing.

Anyways, I am out of time on this issue. Vacation is about over and I'm off to run my second league of the week. i've sent my thoughts to the PDGA. i am confident at least someone there will be smart enough to figure out what I'm saying and work to fix these issues that have resulted in this incident. Fairness and professionalism should be the guiding principles in the rule book and in the enforcement of the rule book.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

Ok, I reread your posts...it's unfair that Nikko got his penalty on Hole 5 or 6 because nobody had ever timed him before that moment, and he never got a warning at all, and then he kept yelling at the official from hole 5 or 6 onwards through the end of the round, and they wouldn't even let him retee when a UFO landed on the teepad, and it's outrageous that they let Nikko's ex-wife's new husband be the official, and how are we sure the person who suspended Nikko from the tournament is even a human being and not a human body with a fishbowl for a head?

I think I agree.

UFO's are a distraction which do not let you reset the timing period. It's in the rules.

 

[araytx]

Because that is part of the rule. if you warn a player for bad times, the onus is on you to time them going forward. if you don't follow through on the next step of the rule, the previous step (warning) should no longer apply.

The official did not step in to time until the 18th hole as far as i know. Are you saying the official was timing Nikko for 11-12 holes and kept doing so even though he got no bad times for 11-12 holes? if that was the case, and i don't believe it was, it makes even a greater argument for Nikko being specifically targeted.

If you are *still* asserting that, then you haven't listened to most of the posts. It's been said and documented that BOTH Nikko & Chandler Kramer were given excessive time warnings earlier in the round. That in and of itself impacts your "multiple players need to time him all the time after that..." philosophy, a philosophy that is not part of the rules. Accordingly the players asked for a marshal for the remainder so there'd be no bias. Clearly the marshal didn't show up right away -- he got there as quickly as logistically possible -- but missed some throws mid-round. But it has been identified as it was much earlier than hole 18. And it's been said he was timing ALL the players, not just Nikko. So, since these "JUST THE FACTS" as you call them don't change your mind, why is anything else troll-claiming untrue?

What most of us are asserting is that the PDGA Europe Tour Manager, who served as that marshal, didn't call a violation every time he got to 31 or 32 or 33 seconds once he started timing -- granted, there can be discrepancies in when the criteria starts. But the first time any of the players he was timing (it just happened to be Nikko) went well beyond any reasonably doubt (that word in disc golf rules oft repeated, "clearly and completely") that the 30-second time frame had been violated, THEN he called the 1-throw penalty>

Now, BGC, go ahead and argue with my minor points here and ignore the main one. And quit adding things not in the rules just because you think they should be. (the onus... blah, blah)

 

[Rastnav]

Class A offense carries a 24 month suspension. I'm not sure how this offense is not going fall under any other category of offense per the disciplinary committee. If he doesn't get two years then something is fishy.

With this high profile of a player I'm baffled it's taking this long to make a decision on his punishment.

I don't see how this is a Class A offense:

Class A Offenses are the most serious category, and generally involve actual harm to other players. Physical battery, sexual assault, credible threats of imminent harm to another player, stalking, and intimidation are among potential Class A offenses. Class A offenses carry a standard penalty of a 24-month suspension followed by twelve months of probation. Aggravating factors may lead the Committee to consider penalties up to or including a permanent ban. Mitigating factors may lead the Committee to consider lesser penalties.

There was no actual harm. You could potentially justify "intimidation", but given the context of the rest of the description of a Class A, I don't believe that is the intent of the class. At the very least, the lack of actual harm would have to be considered as a potential mitigating factor.

Class C seems potentially applicable:

Class C Offenses generally involve instances where intent is difficult to prove, but there is an articulable and provable pattern of misbehavior. Harassment without physical threat (such as, but not limited to, discrimination on the basis of sex, race or color, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs, or disability; unwanted sexual advances; or racist, sexist, or prejudiced language or epithets), repeated failure to adhere to the Rules of Play without proof of intent to cheat, and habitual violations of courtesy rules are among potential Class C offenses. Class C offenses carry a standard penalty of a six-month suspension followed by three months of probation. Aggravating factors may lead the Committee to consider penalties up or including a twelve-month suspension with six months of probation. Mitigating factors may lead the Committee to consider lesser penalties.

Here I am not talking repeated violation of the time rule, but, rather repeated courtesy violations. If Nikko is actually making a habit of engaging in some kind of behavior like this, even if not this extreme, when he is called for some other violation, a Class C could be appropriate, perhaps?

 

[VictorB]

I think you immediately step up the applicable class when the offenses are directed at tournament officials. Intimidation tactics to try and circumvent rules from being applied is slimy behavior and should immediately be quashed by the PDGA. This is still golf, and there are certain rules of etiquette that should be followed even if they are not codified.

 

[roblee]

.......
- Now that the heat of the moment is over, does anyone actually think he is subject to discipline for "stalking"? .....

Probably not. I think intimidation is the operative word for this incident.

Class A Offenses. Class A offenses are the most serious category, and generally involve actual harm to other players. Physical battery, sexual assault, credible threats of imminent harm to another player, stalking, and intimidation are among potential Class A offenses. Class A offenses carry a standard penalty of a 24-month suspension followed by twelve months of probation. Aggravating factors may lead the Committee to consider penalties up to or including a permanent ban. Mitigating factors may lead the Committee to consider lesser penalties.SIZE="4"]

They say "generally involve actual harm" but then give 3 examples that don't. So recon there is some wiggle room if they want it.

 

[hurricaine]

not a fan of nikko at all but he was just chirping and running his mouth. Unless he said something like im gonna beat your ass after the round. Thats not intimidation in my eyes. Childish drama, yes. Intimidation, no.

 

[RowingBoats]

not a fan of nikko at all but he was just chirping and running his mouth. Unless he said something like im gonna beat your ass after the round. Thats not intimidation in my eyes. Childish drama, yes. Intimidation, no.

He literally told him to step away, then walked up to him posturing like he wanted to physically start something. That is basically textbook intimidation in this context.

 

[Smigles]

edit: nevermind.

somehow 5 pages of discussion were added while i was typing haha.

 

[dmoore1998]

not a fan of nikko at all but he was just chirping and running his mouth. Unless he said something like im gonna beat your ass after the round. Thats not intimidation in my eyes. Childish drama, yes. Intimidation, no.

If he said "I'm gonna beat your ass", that falls under "threats", not "intimidation". Obviously it could fall under intimidation if threats weren't already clearly written...but the fact that both threats and intimidation are listed leads me to think that the intent of "intimidation" is something that is not an overt verbal threat...like getting up in someone's face, staring them down, etc.