I think Val got burned.

[_MTL_]

Whatever it is, calling people out for having a lack of it but not identifying who you are isn't it for sure.

 

[TheLouisianaKid]

Have to be on lead card to see it, and be able to call it live...

That would be hard I guess since I'm DEFINITELY NOT Paul McBeth

 

[SD86]

I'd like to know the PDGA's position on the following scenario.

Mom: "Val, you look tired, want me to carry your bag the last four holes?"
Val: "OK, but you have to drop the beer can."
Mom (dropping can): "OK."
Val: :Mom is my caddie."

IMHO, if that had happened, Val would not have been DQ'd, and might have won the tournament.

No can, no foul.

 

[DG_player]

I mean the majority of people in the world dont understand English so I suppose they are in the same boat as that half of this thread that you reference.

You should probably write to all the dictionary publishers and inform them that "It may rain" is an unacceptable usage of the word.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Ok...so everyone who thinks this situation was mishandled because the wording of the rule is poor let's see your revision to the rule without changing the intent from the PDGA.

I see a lot of stones being thrown but not too many solutions...

Because the rule is vague, I don't know whether the PDGA intended to leave the DQ up to the TD's discretion. So, if they didn't:

"Players are responsible for the conduct of their caddies. Caddies are considered to be players under these rules. Any violation of any rule that is committed by a caddie shall subject both the caddie and the player for whom they are caddying to the same punishment specified by the applicable rule."

If they did:

"Players are responsible for the conduct of their caddies. Caddies are considered to be players under these rules. Any violation of a rule that is committed by a caddie may, at the Tournament Director's discretion, subject the player for whom they are caddying to the punishment specified by the applicable rule."

Just a quick stab after two beers (Gnarly Barley Juicifer). However, I do like the PGA's rule. I just didn't want to plagiarize.

 

[DanJon]

Time will tell.

How exactly will it tell?

Going to do some investigating?

Is there some sort of evidence that hasn't been brought to light yet in this cluster of a thread?

Didn't Val already go on record as saying it was empty?

 

[teemkey]

Time will tell.

Robert, does the disciplinary committee review all disqualifications at NT & Major events?

 

[Bolo058]

Because the caddie violated the rule, not the player, and as such the DQ was discretionary. And by mishandled I mean not optimally handled, not that the TD did anything that was outside of his authority.

I understand exactly what you are saying and completely agree with you. The rules state DQ if the player is drinking and if the caddy is drinking, Then the TD can decide if it deserves a DQ or just a warning. The fact that she didn't have a caddy the whole round leads one to believe that the caddy was drinking, then at some point came in to caddy. The fact she had been drinking before taking the loop was the rules infraction. I doesn't appear she was drinking while on the loop. It also sounded like she finished the round and turned in her card and then was DQ'd. At that point DQ'ing Val for the next round is just being vindictive. Just tell her due to the rules violation, you are not allowed to have your mom caddy for you during round 3.

 

[JC17393]

I understand exactly what you are saying and completely agree with you. The rules state DQ if the player is drinking and if the caddy is drinking, Then the TD can decide if it deserves a DQ or just a warning. The fact that she didn't have a caddy the whole round leads one to believe that the caddy was drinking, then at some point came in to caddy. The fact she had been drinking before taking the loop was the rules infraction. I doesn't appear she was drinking while on the loop. It also sounded like she finished the round and turned in her card and then was DQ'd. At that point DQ'ing Val for the next round is just being vindictive. Just tell her due to the rules violation, you are not allowed to have your mom caddy for you during round 3.

Vindictive on whose part? What reason would the TD have to be vindictive toward the Jenkinses? I'm assuming you mean something else when you say that. Perhaps you're looking for "cruel" or "harsh"?

Also, why is the timing of the DQ (that it came after the round) such a sticking point for people? A DQ isn't something that has to happen promptly, like a stance violation call, in order for it to be valid. In fact, in a situation where DQ is a possible outcome, I would expect the TD to not make a snap, in the moment decision. I'd expect that he would want to talk to all parties involved...Val, Sharon, the rest of the group, any other witnesses...to get the full story from all perspectives before making the call. The whole thing began with four holes left in the round. No reason for the TD to race out on to the course and do anything when they're all coming to him within 30 minutes. It's as simple as that.

 

[NegaSnapples]

Good to see that disc golfers still have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader.

 

[_MTL_]

Robert, does the disciplinary committee review all disqualifications at NT & Major events?

We review a DQ in any PDGA event as well as any request submitted via our complaint form.

 

[_MTL_]

As much as I'd hate to see it (sincerely), you need to turn in your resignation if you want to stick to your word.

The can was empty. The PDGA did not thoroughly investigate. They heard a complaint and ran with it to the TD. She did not possess alcohol, she possessed an empty can.

I said what I said and I stand by it. I won't be resigning, that's for sure.

Let's assume the beer can is empty and never was drank. The rule is clear. It talks about possession, not just consumption.

So, for argument sake, let's say, as you alluded to, that there's a difference between possessing an empty beer can and possessing a bottle unopened / openned of beer. Certainly this is valid and something I considered at first when I made my statement.

There is no doubt that this is at best a gray area and something that hadn't been considered and is not directly addressed. But this isn't uncommon in sports / life that there are scenarios that aren't covered across the board when rules / laws are written. And after the crazy one off scenarios happen, the sport / court rules to the best they can based on the current rules / laws and then usually makes an adjustment based on that.

So if you go with a very tunnel vision approach to the ruling, then no, if everything went down as you presented happened, the ruling was incorrect. However, we need to think about precedent here.

If you allow people to carry empty beer cans, can anyone on camera putt with an empty beer can in his hand? Certainly this is far from the image that we want. What about someone holding an unlit cigarette in a park where smoking is banned? At some point Competition Manual 3.03 Section B's intro kicks in. This says "Players are expected to behave in a professional and sportsmanlike manner while participating in a PDGA-sanctioned event. Actions that are in violation of this conduct include but are not limited to..." and then lists specific things such as possession. I would easily argue that holding an empty beer can isn't professional.

Finally, I think it's interesting that you pointed out that it was in an koozie. Have you ever picked up an empty beer can that you didn't drink and put it in a koozie? I don't know why anyone would put a piece of trash in koozie.

When you consider the spirit of the rule and the overall goal of the rule, the ruling was correct. I would expect clarification on the competition committee about this situation in the next rules update. That would be consistent with most sports when something in the grey happens.

 

[SonicGuy]

Let's assume the beer can is empty and never was drank. The rule is clear. It talks about possession, not just consumption.

Possession of an empty beer can is not possession of alcohol according to the state of California. So not sure why you keep saying this.

 

[_MTL_]

Possession of an empty beer can is not possession of alcohol according to the state of California. So not sure why you keep saying this.

man it's almost like in the very next sentence I explained.

 

[SonicGuy]

man it's almost like in the very next sentence I explained.

So you admit that possession of an empty beer can is not possession of alcohol? So that means the DQ was not supported by the rules. You have an issue on your hands bro.

 

[_MTL_]

So you admit that possession of an empty beer can is not possession of alcohol? So that means the DQ was not supported by the rules. You have an issue on your hands bro.

I would ask if you even read what I said, but based on this question, the answer is no.

 

[_MTL_]

If you allow people to carry empty beer cans, can anyone on camera putt with an empty beer can in his hand? Certainly this is far from the image that we want. What about someone holding an unlit cigarette in a park where smoking is banned? At some point Competition Manual 3.03 Section B's intro kicks in. This says "Players are expected to behave in a professional and sportsmanlike manner while participating in a PDGA-sanctioned event. Actions that are in violation of this conduct include but are not limited to..." and then lists specific things such as possession. I would easily argue that holding an empty beer can isn't professional.

I have to dumb this down and highlight it so SonicGuy can find it and not have to read.

 

[BuiltTooLong]

I'd be beyond floored if a player was DQed for their caddy carrying an empty beer can for 4 holes. Floored. Resign from the disciplinary committee level floored.

I said what I said and I stand by it. I won't be resigning, that's for sure...

It seems like you have already arrived at your conclusion before reviewing the case, that seems troubling to me. I would think that it would be critical to have an open mind and not have a predetermined outcome planned before reviewing.

 

[DiscFifty]

People debating an empty can of beer....in a koozie. Please..... c'mon...the thing had beer in at one point and we all know it!! Sorry... but the park had rules, the pdga had rules. The sport would just look silly if the TD held the koozie up to the camera, turned it upside down and proudly declared... "No beer left in the can, play on!!"

 

[Lazerface]

MTL....I will resign if it was empty

MTL....It doesn't matter if it was empty

I mean, that's just funny.