Bradley Williams suspension reduced

[_MTL_]

is this actually the case? i wouldn't think she had the power to do so.

She absolutely does not.

 

[zj1002]

What role does a state coordinator have in a players suspension? Are they just a resource for the board during incidents like this? I may be stirring the pot but his long time girlfriend just became the south Texas coordinator. It was known locally the last month he was coming back early so this was before she took over. I'm more thinking about future instances. It was pretty much handed off to her by the previous coordinator who was doing it only because no one else would/could. She is awesome and one of the most respected disc golfers in the area, but it is interesting to see her take a much larger interest in the PDGA once he got the lengthy suspension.

 

[_MTL_]

What role does a state coordinator have in a players suspension?

Unless they are a potential witness, absolutely none.

 

[lyleoross]

Thanks MTL.

I don't think the direct matrix should be published unless there is a range, and information on inserting judgement into the process. JMO. Hard rules leave Robert's and the PDGA's hands tied.

 

[_MTL_]

Thanks MTL.

I don't think the direct matrix should be published unless there is a range, and information on inserting judgement into the process. JMO. Hard rules leave Robert's and the PDGA's hands tied.

Yeah, that does make sense.

 

[Lazerface]

Thanks MTL.

I don't think the direct matrix should be published unless there is a range, and information on inserting judgement into the process. JMO. Hard rules leave Robert's and the PDGA's hands tied.

Come On! That's ridiculous.

Of course a matrix cannot possibly define every single scenario, but that should not change the fact that the general matrix be released. A disclaimer that each situation is judged independently and the board decides on where the violation falls is all you need. A well written statement in the disciplinary process eliminates any "tied hands". Not releasing it just says to the members "We decide however we want to decide" which I think was the gripe of Paul and many other pros with the whole BW thing.

As it stands they are essentially judges in a courtroom with no sentencing restrictions. They have the laws (PDGA rule book), but no limitations on enforcing them. If there is a range, then it should be public. If there is no range, then the system sucks to begin with.

The bottom line is that if there is not some sort of general classification of offenses with some judgement needed on where a particular violation falls, then the Matrix is bad from the get go and they need to fix it, THEN RELEASE IT.

TWO ISSUES

1) No transparency to a member organization on how suspension lengths are decided/carried out

2) No precedent for a player to base an appeal on. I think it's unfair. We think it's fair. I think it's unfair. We think it's fair.......

Now, if the player is told exactly how they came to the length of the suspension was decided on...."Brad, here is the matrix we use. Based on your prior violations, your probationary status, and the nature of this offense, we landed on 18 months" Otherwise, what is your basis for appeal? Seriously, how does that work?

If they are transparent on EXACTLY how they came to the length of the suspension, including providing a range based on their matrix and why they decided on where to place Brad on that range, then #2 is a non issue.

MTL can you elaborate? Would the player be provided a detailed explanation or more of a, "we do have guidelines, but they are not public"... explanation?

This seems like such a no brainier to me. The current prcess is borderline fascism (LMAO, just kidding).

 

[_MTL_]

Come On! That's ridiculous.

Of course a matrix cannot possibly define every single scenario, but that should not change the fact that the general matrix be released. A disclaimer that each situation is judged independently and the board decides on where the violation falls is all you need.

I agree with this, but then what does this add? We certainly have the ability to show judgement.

Example: (these are examples, not real cases).

Person A chugs a beer right after the two minute warning.
Person B drinks a 12 pack during the round.

These both are the same violation, however we could consider Person A's infraction smaller than Person B's.

So what do we get out releasing the matrix? Possibly more scrutiny and more accusations of being biased.

I'm not 100% convinced it should be released now that I've through this.

A well written statement in the disciplinary process eliminates any "tied hands". Not releasing it just says to the members "We decide however we want to decide" which I think was the gripe of Paul and many other pros with the whole BW thing.

I had about a 30 minute conversation with Paul (and many other touring pros) about this incident and they absolutely wanted clarity.

Paul asked me "I need to know as someone who depends on this for a living what I can't do."

I said "follow the rule book."

That really is the bottom line. Follow the rule book. And as I stated above, we quote the rule the player is accused of breaking.

MTL can you elaborate? Would the player be provided a detailed explanation or more of a, "we do have guidelines, but they are not public"... explanation?

I have a formatted email that I send out when someone is accused of something.

We have someone on our committee, a former attorney actually, who is copied on all correspondence. He knows the legal side of the DC up and down and his job is to basically keep my communication in check.

The email lists the the event, the date, the accusation, the rule it breaks and then gives some information about getting back with me. The original complaint as well as the full discipline process is attached to the email.

If an accused player asks "what am I looking at" in terms of an suspension, I respond with the general punishment, but let them know it is discretionary.

The matrix is nothing more than a guide. The more I've thought about it today, the less I see the point in releasing it. Even though I would say it's followed in 95% of cases.

 

[lyleoross]

Come On! That's ridiculous.

Of course a matrix cannot possibly define every single scenario, but that should not change the fact that the general matrix be released. A disclaimer that each situation is judged independently and the board decides on where the violation falls is all you need. A well written statement in the disciplinary process eliminates any "tied hands". Not releasing it just says to the members "We decide however we want to decide" which I think was the gripe of Paul and many other pros with the whole BW thing.

As it stands they are essentially judges in a courtroom with no sentencing restrictions. They have the laws (PDGA rule book), but no limitations on enforcing them. If there is a range, then it should be public. If there is no range, then the system sucks to begin with.

The bottom line is that if there is not some sort of general classification of offenses with some judgement needed on where a particular violation falls, then the Matrix is bad from the get go and they need to fix it, THEN RELEASE IT.

TWO ISSUES

1) No transparency to a member organization on how suspension lengths are decided/carried out

2) No precedent for a player to base an appeal on. I think it's unfair. We think it's fair. I think it's unfair. We think it's fair.......

Now, if the player is told exactly how they came to the length of the suspension was decided on...."Brad, here is the matrix we use. Based on your prior violations, your probationary status, and the nature of this offense, we landed on 18 months" Otherwise, what is your basis for appeal? Seriously, how does that work?

If they are transparent on EXACTLY how they came to the length of the suspension, including providing a range based on their matrix and why they decided on where to place Brad on that range, then #2 is a non issue.

MTL can you elaborate? Would the player be provided a detailed explanation or more of a, "we do have guidelines, but they are not public"... explanation?

This seems like such a no brainier to me. The current prcess is borderline fascism (LMAO, just kidding).

No it's not fascism. Again, have you read the procedure? Sir, I hate fascism in any form and if this was remotely like it I'd be having a tizzy.

I wrote my post for the following reason. In an effort to take the judgement of judges out of sentencing, politicians wrote sentencing guidelines that courts were to follow. Speaking of fascist. It's been a disaster. As Robert elaborated, it's his job, with a review by the board, to think beyond a hard and fast guideline. Part of the reason why BW is playing again is because they looked at his circumstances and applied judgement.

Robert has been clear, he wants the info out. I simply want an element of flexibility added so they can better serve players. Will that always happen? Well, it certainly can't if the matrix is a hard and fast table.

 

[_MTL_]

Robert has been clear, he wants the info out. I simply want an element of flexibility added so they can better serve players. Will that always happen? Well, it certainly can't if the matrix is a hard and fast table.

I admit that I clearly said I wanted the matrix out.

But your comments about the flexibility were spot on and it me think really hard about it and I'd say I'm more 50/50 now.

 

[lyleoross]

BTW, I don't know that the matrix doesn't have flexibility in it already. It very well may?

 

[lyleoross]

I admit that I clearly said I wanted the matrix out.

But your comments about the flexibility were spot on and it me think really hard about it and I'd say I'm more 50/50 now.

I will add that I've seen the DC and PDGA apply flexibility, so someone understands. I just don't want to see hands tied in a situation where a player deserves a break.

 

[_MTL_]

I will add that I've seen the DC and PDGA apply flexibility, so someone understands. I just don't want to see hands tied in a situation where a player deserves a break.

Absolutely. Most people assume the worst. But flexibility goes both ways. And we have certainly had cases where we felt that the recommended punishment just didn't make sense when looking at the full scenario and recommended a lesser punishment that was accepted by Duffy.

 

[BionicRib]

Wouldn't publishing some sort of matrix help deter people from violating rules in the first place?

Or are we just trying to be like the nfl?

On a side note does anybody know if pros are allowed to gamble on tournaments?

 

[BionicRib]

It just seems that the more upfront and transparent you are, the less room for argument there is....

 

[lyleoross]

It just seems that the more upfront and transparent you are, the less room for argument there is....

I think everyone agrees with that including the PDGA. That's why there's a published procedure. I think the issue becomes can you build flexibility into the punishment rules? As I posted above, politicians wrote sentencing guidelines that courts were to follow and it was a disaster. There has to be a way for Robert and the PDGA to apply outside information that just can't all be encompassed into the guidelines. Otherwise, you punish someone wrongfully.

Perhaps minimums could be published but then I see someone saying, "you went over the published guideline."

 

[Lazerface]

It just seems that the more upfront and transparent you are, the less room for argument there is....

I feel the same, but Lyle seems to feel the opposite.

 

[_MTL_]

Wouldn't publishing some sort of matrix help deter people from violating rules in the first place?

The more serious stuff, probably.

But I think it would increase the minor stuff.

For example (Stressing example) - that the punishment for cheating the first time was only probation.

Someone might get smart and say "well, if I'm going to get probation....why not."

I mean there is a reason why people speed everyday. Mainly they know they aren't going to prison for it.

 

[zj1002]

The more serious stuff, probably.

But I think it would increase the minor stuff.

For example (Stressing example) - that the punishment for cheating the first time was only probation.

Someone might get smart and say "well, if I'm going to get probation....why not."

I mean there is a reason why people speed everyday. Mainly they know they aren't going to prison for it.

To me not making that available, at the very least to the active professionals, leaves the organization open to a very bad situation should the sport ever reach a larger audience. Right now only 1% of disc golfers know what Brad did...but why not take care of that pretty minor stuff before it might become an issue an again when the sport is larger?

 

[biscoe]

Public display of the matrix is a recipe for inflexibility on the part of the DC. It would do more potential harm than good imo.

 

[lyleoross]

I feel the same, but Lyle seems to feel the opposite.

I can't help but feel you're taking me out of context. Please find the post where I said don't publish. If I did, then I grovel in abject humility. My intent is for nuance. If you publish a hard and fast rule you're stuck with it. Is that what you support? A hard matrix with flat rules for each infraction? With no room to maneuver?