I think Val got burned.

[@iDiscGolf]

Listening to the UpShot now. Everyone should give it a listen. I couldn't agree more with Jamie and his opinions on this situation.

I listened to some other PDGA podcast touch on the issue of the masters dq, but it was nothing at all worth while unfortunately.

 

[@iDiscGolf]

Will someone answer me this, mtl maybe.

So it was a PDGA official that witnessed the issue that warranted the disqualification correct? 1. Why wait until the round was over? 2. Did they witness the act of drinking alcoholic beverage or only the carrying of?

 

[JC17393]

Will someone answer me this, mtl maybe.

So it was a PDGA official that witnessed the issue that warranted the disqualification correct? 1. Why wait until the round was over? 2. Did they witness the act of drinking alcoholic beverage or only the carrying of?

PDGA officials don't have the authority to DQ players. Only the TD has that authority, so it has to get to the TD before anything can be done.

The group had, at most, four holes to go in the round. Even if the official left the course, went to find the TD, and reported what had been seen, I doubt very much that a decision would have been made immediately. And even if it did, should the TD have run out on to the course (up a hill, from what I understand) and boot Val and Sharon right then and there? Or would it be better handled by waiting until after the round when the TD, any PDGA officials or witnesses, and Val and Sharon could have a conversation to figure out exactly what happened?

As for what was witnessed, I don't see why it matters. Whatever was witnessed was enough for the TD (with consultation with the PDGA staff) to determine that a DQ was necessary. Drinking or not, possession of alcohol during play is a disqualifying offense.

 

[teemkey]

Will someone answer me this, mtl maybe.

So it was a PDGA official that witnessed the issue that warranted the disqualification correct? 1. Why wait until the round was over? 2. Did they witness the act of drinking alcoholic beverage or only the carrying of?

According to Jamie Thomas' reporting on the Ultiworld podcast, the witness reported the violation to a PDGA official, and the PDGA official took it to the TD. Jamie did not say who the witness was, or whether the witness was connected to the PDGA or was affiliated with any group or player.

 

[Noill]

Well, I sure hope the PDGA is glad that they knew this exact situation would happen and so perfectly drafted these rules. That is why they wrote these rules right? To catch a mom with a beer?

C'mon

 

[SonicGuy]

Drinking or not, possession of alcohol during play is a disqualifying offense.

FWIW having an empty beer can is NOT possession of alcohol in the eyes of the law.

 

[DanJon]

We have been discussing this for 42 pages.

No one at any point has disputed that the TD had the right to DQ.

So I'm not sure why this is even going on?

OOOOOH it's because people don't know the rules, think that professional disc golf should be a kegger and hate anything the PDGA does.

Dude, the top professionals don't even know the rules.

 

[Dire Wolfy]

Dude, the top professionals don't even know the rules.

In yeti's in the bag, he insisted other pros actually read the rulebook.

 

[Broken Shoulder]

Well, I sure hope the PDGA is glad that they knew this exact situation would happen and so perfectly drafted these rules. That is why they wrote these rules right? To catch a mom with a beer?

C'mon

I understand your point, but I think you're wrong.
You write a rule like this (wording aside, let's assume they made a best-effort attempt to word it clearly) to create fairness and remove the possibility of people accusing TDs of playing favorites, or even hearing 50 varieties of excuses and explanations and being put into difficult judgment situations. It's a zero-tolerance policy created to make the PDGA the bad guy, really...it allows TDs to enforce the penalty and say their hands are tied. As such, you enforce it exactly the same way across the board, regardless of who, where, or why. Doing so means you don't need to know the exact situations and write countless exceptions and loopholes into the process, which would suck for everyone.

I think it's safe to assume that some knuckleheads ruined it for everyone a long time ago and sparked the creation of the rule. It's unfortunate that it had to be applied in this exact situation given the minor nature of the offense, but honestly, so what? They knew the rule and broke it.

Let's not forget that people were touting all that the Jenkinseseses(? ) had done for/at DeLa. Their course away from home, from what I hear. That being true, would they not have known the No Alcohol policy for the park better than most? Assuming all that to be true, then clearly she didn't give a **** and felt said rule didn't apply to her. I'm having a difficult time finding any sympathy for anyone here.

 

[SonicGuy]

You write a rule like this (wording aside, let's assume they made a best-effort attempt to word it clearly) to create fairness and remove the possibility of people accusing TDs of playing favorites, or even hearing 50 varieties of excuses and explanations and being put into difficult judgment situations. It's a zero-tolerance policy .

But they wrote it specifically to give the TD discretion. It is specifically NOT a zero tolerance policy.

How are we slowly swallowing this work of pure fiction? The rule as written allows the TD to do as they wish.

 

[DanJon]

PDGA officials don't have the authority to DQ players. Only the TD has that authority, so it has to get to the TD before anything can be done.

The group had, at most, four holes to go in the round. Even if the official left the course, went to find the TD, and reported what had been seen, I doubt very much that a decision would have been made immediately. And even if it did, should the TD have run out on to the course (up a hill, from what I understand) and boot Val and Sharon right then and there? Or would it be better handled by waiting until after the round when the TD, any PDGA officials or witnesses, and Val and Sharon could have a conversation to figure out exactly what happened?

As for what was witnessed, I don't see why it matters. Whatever was witnessed was enough for the TD (with consultation with the PDGA staff) to determine that a DQ was necessary. Drinking or not, possession of alcohol during play is a disqualifying offense.

If PDGA Officials don't have the authority to DQ, then why did you answer yes to my question earlier?

 

[Broken Shoulder]

But they wrote it specifically to give the TD discretion. It is specifically NOT a zero tolerance policy.

How are we slowly swallowing this work of pure fiction? The rule as written allows the TD to do as they wish.

I was thinking of the auto-DQ at B-tier and above portion. You are correct though, it is not written clearly, hence my statement about their intent to word it clearly. I think they set out to clearly define it and fell short of the mark.

 

[SonicGuy]

I was thinking of the auto-DQ at B-tier and above portion. You are correct though, it is not written clearly, hence my statement about their intent to word it clearly. I think they set out to clearly define it and fell short of the mark.

I just don't understand how you can say that. The rule is not ambiguous, I is extremely clear. How can you simply conjur up ambiguity that simply doesn't exist because you think they intended an automatic DQ for the player?

"Well he specifically ordered a Budweiser but those suck so I'm pretty sure by Budweiser he meant beer so I will get him an IPA."

 

[DG_player]

But they wrote it specifically to give the TD discretion. It is specifically NOT a zero tolerance policy.

How are we slowly swallowing this work of pure fiction? The rule as written allows the TD to do as they wish.

Based upon the albeit limited statement from the PDGA, I think it's safe to say they did write the rule with the intention of it being a zero tolerance party, not to give TD's discretion. Clearly the TD believed he had no choice under the rules based on his statement, and the PDGA said nothing to the contrary. In fact they printed his statement, which suggests they believe the rule is clear and was applied correctly.

What is the work of fiction? Do you believe that they did in fact intend for the TD to have discretion, and are now trying to save face and protect the TD and the other officials involved by changing their mind and saying it's a zero tolerance policy?

 

[Broken Shoulder]

I just don't understand how you can say that. The rule is not ambiguous, I is extremely clear. How can you simply conjur up ambiguity that simply doesn't exist because you think they intended an automatic DQ for the player?

"Well he specifically ordered a Budweiser but those suck so I'm pretty sure by Budweiser he meant beer so I will get him an IPA."

Because I'm stupid?

 

[Jowie]

Based upon the albeit limited statement from the PDGA, I think it's safe to say they did write the rule with the intention of it being a zero tolerance party, not to give TD's discretion. Clearly the TD believed he had no choice under the rules based on his statement, and the PDGA said nothing to the contrary. In fact they printed his statement, which suggests they believe the rule is clear and was applied correctly.

What is the work of fiction? Do you believe that they did in fact intend for the TD to have discretion, and are now trying to save face and protect the TD and the other officials involved by changing their mind and saying it's a zero tolerance policy?

If the PDGA intended to say that players are subject to the same penalty as their caddies, they could have easily done so and with less verbiage in the rulebook. Because they did not, they have left it open to interpretation by design, imo.

I missed Dustin Keegan's observations of the Saturday round. He speaks a little bit about the Val situation, but more revealing to me were his comments regarding the unprofessional manner in which the FPO field was treated by the event staff.

Here is his comment for anyone interested:

Spoiler

Hi everyone, thanks for being so patient and peaceful in all your responses, lol. I might make you all wait longer next time
My post yesterday didn't really have anything to do with Val being disqualified, even tho I disagree with the outcome. A courtesy violation/meltdown (which I witnessed), receives a warning and greatly affects the rest of the tourney for many other ladies. Yet, a hall-of-famer (and mom) caddying for 4 holes with an empty beer can in a koozie gets said player immediately DQ'd. Just doesn't add up to me. Val and Sharon are heroes of mine and represent how I feel like humans should act and live in this world. Kudos to the way you both reacted to the outcome. Everyone should learn a thing or two from these great women.
I'm just disappointed in how the FPO division is being treated at some of the larger events that I have been too this year. I play MPO, so when I get to watch golf at these events, I watch the ladies. It just seems wrong that they pay pretty much the same amount of money and don't get even close as much respect from the event. Saturday at De La was hard for me to watch. The spotters left by the time the ladies got to the holes that really needed them, the water was empty on the ENTIRE course by the time the ladies were halfway through the round, Innova was tearing down banners while the lead card of women had 4-5 holes left, the staff was nowhere to be seen when they finished the round. This was what I witnessed in just 7 holes of following. Ask the ladies, I'm sure that list is a little longer than just that.
I called out the PDGA because they are our governing body and attach their name to this event. They talk about growing the game and all of that, but they are really only growing the men's side of the game. For the women to have no live scoring the final round, except for the lead card, and for them to not have their names called out on the loudspeaker before teeing off like the entire men's division is just not acceptable in my opinion. It really doesn't take that much more effort to just make sure everyone gets the same experience.
I love disc golf and I will always cherish what it has brought to my life. I just have higher standards and hopes for our sport. I apologize to anyone who may have felt disrespected by my post. If you know me, you know I never wish anything negative to anyone. I just wish we can all coexist in a beautiful disc golf world where everyone loves and supports each other. When we all come together is when we will truly grow the sport!
Peace & Love

While on the hand treating Val so harshly and on the other treating the FPO as an afterthought, the PDGA and event organizers look heavy handed and hypocritical, at least to me.

 

[JC17393]

If PDGA Officials don't have the authority to DQ, then why did you answer yes to my question earlier?

I'm making a distinction between a PDGA official on the course, who I presume is a marshal only there to assist and advise the TD, and actual PDGA staff such as the Tour Manager or Executive Director, who I believe do have the authority to override a TD.

 

[DanJon]

I'm making a distinction between a PDGA official on the course, who I presume is a marshal only there to assist and advise the TD, and actual PDGA staff such as the Tour Manager or Executive Director, who I believe do have the authority to override a TD.

That makes sense and I would agree on the last part, thank you.

 

[DiscAnarchy]

FWIW having an empty beer can is NOT possession of alcohol in the eyes of the law.

I don't think this is right. Open container laws come to mind. I was once stopped by a cop who saw a couple empty beer bottles on the floor of my back seat. I was a home brewer at the time. I had brought a couple of my IPAs for a friend to try before we went to shoot pool. Because home brewers reuse bottles, I had rinsed them out with water. Cop said it was beer (at the time, I didn't know all cops were Douche Baggjngtons). This DoucheNozzle didn't show up in court, so it was dropped but I was charged nonetheless.

 

[SonicGuy]

Based upon the albeit limited statement from the PDGA, I think it's safe to say they did write the rule with the intention of it being a zero tolerance party, not to give TD's discretion. Clearly the TD believed he had no choice under the rules based on his statement, and the PDGA said nothing to the contrary. In fact they printed his statement, which suggests they believe the rule is clear and was applied correctly.

What is the work of fiction? Do you believe that they did in fact intend for the TD to have discretion, and are now trying to save face and protect the TD and the other officials involved by changing their mind and saying it's a zero tolerance policy?

The work of fiction is that the rule was ambiguous. Talk of PDGA intentions when writing the rule only matter if the rule is ambiguous. Unambiguous rules have the effect as written regardless of the intent when drafting.

The fact is that the rule is clear and concise. Reading alternative interpretions is intellectually dishonest. And it absolutely does matter. If the TD thought that he had the ability to choose his own response he may have acted differently than he did, as he obviously thought his hands were tied. The argument matters because it fundamentally affects the way in which caddy-player punishments are handed out.