I think Val got burned.

[pauldst]

Y'all are ignoring the political side of this.

Acknowledging that I do not have all the facts, assuming that a player or caddie had a beer while participating in an official event in a park where possession of alcohol is illegal (at least in that part of the park), and assuming that the sponsoring organization and/or the PDGA would like to have future events in that park, then the infraction almost certainly must be punished in a meaningful, verifiable way in order to maintain good relations with the park and its owners/operators.

Think of it this way: Your parents have a house rule that there is no drinking on the property. They are very strict about their house rules. You invite a friend over, explaining the house rules beforehand. Your friend comes, has fun visiting with you and your family, but then goes to the car, gets a beer, and brings it in the house. Because you need to maintain good relations with your parents (for whatever reason), you have to show your friend (and the beer) the door (and probably promise not to bring the friend over for a while, since there is nothing else to forfeit). Whether you like the rule or not, whether it is your rule or not, maintaining a good relationship with the host demands action.

 

[lyleoross]

Btw this is just another example of Boomer mentality. Boomers set up the rules for them to succeed, therefore they want the rules abided by. This is why ball golfers are such jerks with country club rules. "That polo is off-white not white, I'm sorry Chadderick but you are disqualified."

Any time a rule is used to take skill out of the equation I am offended by it unless there is an iron clad need for that to take place. In this case the rules violation could have easily been handled by asking the caddie to leave, allowing the skill of Val and her competitors to decide the outcome of the event.

While I agree with Sonics general feelings about rules meant to impart decorum, they're horse pucky imo, alcohol is different. If it really was her mother I'm fairly disappointed.

 

[illyB420]

Dude, it clearly states and C tier and below the TD has the option, at B tier and above, TD has no choice but to DQ. It's simple, cut and dry. Caddy and player are the same, caddy broke a rule at a Major, both player and caddy get DQ, no choice at all.

 

[davetherocketguy]

- 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.

It has everything to do with Val. The rules are obviously written making the player responsible for caddy behavior. If you can be dq'ed for your caddies nonsense then it has everything to do with you. The caddy is carrying your bag. Pretty simple to go rifle through the thing to know what all is in there.

 

[Alexplz]

Val's caddie had a beer. TD decided to DQ her.

And yes it was a decision because the rules state that the TD may (or may not) DQ a player for the conduct of their caddie. Many people are claiming that it was mandatory but they are wrong.

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

Wasn't the Master's Cup B tier or higher? It would seem in this case that there was no room for discretion.

 

[lyleoross]

Something to consider, Texas States for a number of years was held at Tom Bass Regional Park just outside of Houston. They have a no alcohol policy and if I recall, that meant having a police officer at the event. Public Park. If you gave a wink and a nod to someone drinking at such an event and said police officer got wind or saw something, how would that go down with the park? Would you be allowed back?

The TD, in this case, knows the park, he knows the area and how they see such things. He's playing by the rules of the park as much as the rules of the PDGA. He has to or he jeopardizes future events at that location. Who wants to be the TD who got Masters banned from DeLa over a beer?

Now I'm not there, and I don't know the TD, but I support his decision one hundred percent. If you come to a tournament and you literally can't make it through a round without a beer, maybe you should spend your day at the beach? This isn't something new, it isn't a protest against the man, it is common sense behavior in public. Frankly, unless you're at a beer garden or a drinking event, you might wanna give it a pass, one way or the other. If you're the lone person drinking in public...

I like and admire Val and her family, and I still don't know what happened, but the rule states that if you decide to accept a caddie, you are responsible for their behavior. Before you play in a major you have to pass that exam and it presumed that you understand the rules. It's on you.

I can only see one exception. Your caddie pulls out a beer and before you can say, "hey, don't do that," the TD runs over and DQ's you. If that happened, well, Val can challenge. Yes, she loses DeLa.

This is one of those times when I'd love to have a timeline of what happened.

 

[AHagglund]

My interpretation of the rule matches sonicguy's.

The caddie was subject to automatic removal. No doubt about that one. The other rule people referenced states that the player is directly responsible for their caddie. Yes, but that's not quite the same thing as saying that any punishment given to the caddie must also be given to the player. The part of the rule that directly references sharing punishments does not use the word "must". It reads:

"Misconduct by a caddie may subject both the player and caddie to disqualification and/or suspension."


It seems to me that the PDGA intentionally left some wiggle room there.

Bottom line is I think the TD was well within his rights to DQ Jenkins, but he would have also been within his rights not to.

 

[_MTL_]

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.

 

[Alexplz]

I keep typing up a comment on this situation and then deleting the whole thing because I feel ambivalent about it. On one hand, what a crying shame that Paige's only competition (I assume she took the tourney, haven't finished watching) was DQed for such a silly, mickey mouse reason. On the other hand, rules are rules and I would agree that intoxicants and pro level tourneys do not and should not mix.

I guess I figure that a rules violation that has nothing to do with the actual play of the game should have matching consequences that also do not impact actual play of the game. Some kind of penalty or fine, I dunno.

 

[lyleoross]

My interpretation of the rule matches sonicguy's.

The caddie was subject to automatic removal. No doubt about that one. The other rule people referenced states that the player is directly responsible for their caddie. Yes, but that's not quite the same thing as saying that any punishment given to the caddie must also be given to the player. The part of the rule that directly references sharing punishments does not use the word "must". It reads:

"Misconduct by a caddie may subject both the player and caddie to disqualification and/or suspension."


It seems to me that the PDGA intentionally left some wiggle room there.

Bottom line is I think the TD was well within his rights to DQ Jenkins, but he would have also been within his rights not to.

I guess that raises the question of relationships? If the player was assigned a caddie, I'd be a little more forgiving. If the player brought their own caddie, and that caddie misbehaved I'd tend to hold that player more accountable.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

- Whether not violating rules is difficult or not for a caddie has nothing to do with Val who did not violate those rules.

The rules specifically state that players are responsible for the actions of their caddies. No other approach would provide any practical means of enforcing the rule. You want to keep alcohol wielding caddies out of the game, you have to enforce against the players for whom they are caddying.

 

[SonicGuy]

I guess I don't understand how the political/legal thing plays into it. Val's mom having a beer violated the park regulation no matter what she was doing. Does her caddying a single hole make it more likely that the disc golf tournament be banned from returning? So disc golf spectator with beer = fine, and disc golf caddie with beer = ban? And DQing Val turns that ban back into a fine?

 

[oddjob]

this thread is making me thirsty.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Okay, so leave this "may" interpretation out of it.

The others rules clearly say that the caddie MUST follow all competition manual rules. The competition manual also says the player is solely responsible for all caddie conduct. If the caddie is responsible to adhere to all competition manual rules and the player is responsible for all caddie conduct... then all caddie conduct IS player conduct. The caddie and the player are two souls, one entity.

Anything the caddie does is technically also what the player does. If the rules say alcohol is an immediate DQ, it doesn't matter if it was the player or the caddie because they are one entity.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with this.
I have no problem with caddy's = players infraction.

You can't stroke, or DQ a caddy. And merely ejecting the caddy basically amounts to BFD.
Expecting the TD to come down any more lenient fashion on the player would seem out of line, IMHO.

 

[kenjiac]

My interpretation of the rule matches sonicguy's.

The caddie was subject to automatic removal. No doubt about that one. The other rule people referenced states that the player is directly responsible for their caddie. Yes, but that's not quite the same thing as saying that any punishment given to the caddie must also be given to the player. The part of the rule that directly references sharing punishments does not use the word "must". It reads:

"Misconduct by a caddie may subject both the player and caddie to disqualification and/or suspension."


It seems to me that the PDGA intentionally left some wiggle room there.

Bottom line is I think the TD was well within his rights to DQ Jenkins, but he would have also been within his rights not to.

I think this may is dependent on the rule infraction that is broken. Courtesy violation is not going to get you DQ'd where the alcohol rule will. That's why it says "may".

 

[SonicGuy]

I think this may is dependent on the rule infraction that is broken. Courtesy violation is not going to get you DQ'd where the alcohol rule will.

I can think of many courtesy violations by a caddy I would DQ someone for. Imagine if I paid my caddie to yell during my opponent's putt. DQ for sure.

 

[SonicGuy]

this thread is making me thirsty.

Makes me hungry. Hungry for... DQ

 

[tampabay]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with this.
I have no problem with caddy's = players infraction.

You can't stroke, or DQ a caddy. And merely ejecting the caddy basically amounts to BFD.
Expecting the TD to come down any more lenient fashion on the player would seem out of line, IMHO.

That's the point I ended up at as well. Taking this to the full extreme, if penalties only went to the caddy - it could actually be a legitimate strategy to bring a caddy to disrupt the card and see how long you can get away with it before your card gets them kicked out. Obviously a hyperbolic example, but DQing the caddy doesn't really impact the player. I don't know how else you could penalize the player without some sort of arbitrary stroke penalty or $$

 

[Halcón]

Makes me hungry. Hungry for... DQ

I chuckled.

 

[rj29274]

Was Val's mother seriously the caddy? She DEFINITELY should have known better.

And, who dropped the dime? I have heard someone say it was Catrina, but people also seem to dislike her so that may bias the answer. . .

Anyone care to shed light or keep the rumor mill turning?