Bradley Williams suspension reduced

[Lazerface]

Lazer, I absolutely agree that having public input over the infractions is a good thing. But going public with it and letting the chips fall is bad IMO.

Here's how the government does it. They write a rule, then have an open forum for public input. What that really means is that those with an agenda show up and comment.

I'd like something like that but don't have a good feel for what it should be as of yet. But you are fundamentally correct. Member input into the matrix would be a good thing.

I'm not sure what you read, but I did not mention anything about public input. I did mention the NFL has collective bargaining as a way to describe how different and complex it is, but I was not saying we need the same if that's how you took it. I'm not against player input, but just wanted to clarify I was not trying to make that point.

 

[zj1002]

I don't think you would have much of a professional disc golf tour if you instituted random drug testing.

Exactly my point. But I don't think it would be for weed, as the public perception is changing on it. Most major sports take something like Adderall more serious than weed. You have forces creating the largest pro tours we'eve seen in disc golf history, and this sport isn't ready to handle more attention if the PDGA needs to rely so heavily on volunteers to run certain aspects of it.

 

[BuiltTooLong]

78 Pounds

 

[lyleoross]

I'm not sure what you read, but I did not mention anything about public input. I did mention the NFL has collective bargaining as a way to describe how different and complex it is, but I was not saying we need the same if that's how you took it. I'm not against player input, but just wanted to clarify I was not trying to make that point.

By public I meant player. You want it in the open. If you just put it out there, you're gonna get commentary and lots of it. Might as well make a process and be proactive.

 

[dreadlock86]

In the case where a player is charged with a felony they are suspended from the PDGA until that charge is resolved. Assuming of course that we agree that being charged with a felony is worthy of temporary suspension?

Is there anyone here who actually has a problem with the PDGA suspending a player charged with a felony?

absolutely. there's no reason for that whatsoever, except maybe if someone is charged with assault at a disc golf course.

The notion is that you want some distance from felons. Felons being those who commit violent crimes.

then that is a very poor definition of a felon. there are tons of felonies that are not violent crimes.

further, why should one be punished for being accused of something? sometimes being charged with a crime can be nothing more than politics at work. and what of victimless crimes, moral policing, political crimes, etc? no offense but this line of thinking smacks of some degree of ignorance on the state of modern law enforcement in the US.





unrelated, i can't find the post i saw about it but i agree with the person that said this is just another reason we need a separate body in charge of the pro tour(s).

 

[lyleoross]

absolutely. there's no reason for that whatsoever, except maybe if someone is charged with assault at a disc golf course.





then that is a very poor definition of a felon. there are tons of felonies that are not violent crimes.

further, why should one be punished for being accused of something? sometimes being charged with a crime can be nothing more than politics at work. and what of victimless crimes, moral policing, political crimes, etc? no offense but this line of thinking smacks of some degree of ignorance on the state of modern law enforcement in the US.





unrelated, i can't find the post i saw about it but i agree with the person that said this is just another reason we need a separate body in charge of the pro tour(s).

You're correct, I blew it. I looked up the dictionary definition:

fel·o·ny
ˈfelənē/Submit
noun
a crime, typically one involving violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death.
"he pleaded guilty to six felonies"

And skipped right over the, "typically."

I still think you could make a rule, but it might have to be more nuanced. The OP on consistency should be revisited. I agree with Wart, giving a guy with pot a suspension, just cause he stated he had an association, and giving someone who committed a violent crime a pass, because they didn't, seems unfair to me.

 

[lyleoross]

As to separation from someone charged with a crime. You're correct her too. What I should have written is if you are found guilty of said crime.

Thanks for the corrections.

 

[pearlybakerbest]

You're correct, I blew it. I looked up the dictionary definition:

fel·o·ny
ˈfelənē/Submit
noun
a crime, typically one involving violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death.
"he pleaded guilty to six felonies"

And skipped right over the, "typically."

I still think you could make a rule, but it might have to be more nuanced. The OP on consistency should be revisited. I agree with Wart, giving a guy with pot a suspension, just cause he stated he had an association, and giving someone who committed a violent crime a pass, because they didn't, seems unfair to me.

Dreadlock makes a valid point. Your definition posted here is terribly antiquated. In this day and age of over-policing one can earn a felony moniker for driving too many times without a license (which happens fairly often from an inability to pay traffic fines and needing to get to work to pay them) , possessing personal amounts of an arbitrarily scheduled controlled substance and even your first dui if your ABC is more than twice the limit. The notion of violence was a cornerstone of classification for a felony in the past but sadly is no longer the case. The revenue generated from a crime being classified as a felony is the direct reason for this change, as law enforcement's goal has turned from public service to indirect taxation.

 

[lyleoross]

Dreadlock makes a valid point. Your definition posted here is terribly antiquated. In this day and age of over-policing one can earn a felony moniker for driving too many times without a license (which happens fairly often from an inability to pay traffic fines and needing to get to work to pay them) , possessing personal amounts of an arbitrarily scheduled controlled substance and even your first dui if your ABC is more than twice the limit. The notion of violence was a cornerstone of classification for a felony in the past but sadly is no longer the case. The revenue generated from a crime being classified as a felony is the direct reason for this change, as law enforcement's goal has turned from public service to indirect taxation.

Well that might be an effort on the part of the federal government to increasingly punish the poor and working class by moving their criminal violations into the felony class. But that ignores the original intent of the term. If you really want to litigate the use of the term you should go to the politics thread under water cooler. I'm more interested in how the PDGA treats said offenses and consistency.

 

[pearlybakerbest]

Well that might be an effort on the part of the federal government to increasingly punish the poor and working class by moving their criminal violations into the felony class. But that ignores the original intent of the term. If you really want to litigate the use of the term you should go to the politics thread under water cooler. I'm more interested in how the PDGA treats said offenses and consistency.

The point relating to the thread and your posts was that using a felony as a base for PDGA suspension is as baseless as the governments classification.

 

[lyleoross]

The point relating to the thread and your posts was that using a felony as a base for PDGA suspension is as baseless as the governments classification.

But I already conceded that. So what's your point? Perhaps that I didn't concede the point to your comfort level? Okay, use of felony isn't sufficient since it has too wide a range of criminal definition.

Even if you accepted felony as a base, or some other higher mark, something I'd agree to, the PDGA should decide if it wants to set a point at which a non PDGA violation gets a suspension, what that mark is and to be consistent in an implementation.

 

[pearlybakerbest]

But I already conceded that. So what's your point? Perhaps that I didn't concede the point to your comfort level? Okay, use of felony isn't sufficient since it has too wide a range of criminal definition.

Even if you accepted felony as a base, or some other higher mark, something I'd agree to, the PDGA should decide if it wants to set a point at which a non PDGA violation gets a suspension, what that mark is and to be consistent in an implementation.

The point is that using off course conduct that has no relevance to the rules of disc golf as criterion for PDGA action opens up too large a can of worms and is inadvisable at best.

 

[dreadlock86]

sorry Lyle, i think i had a good point but rereading it i could have been nicer about it


i'm in the camp of thinking that not publishing the matrix ought to give the board more flexibility in their approach. i like what someone said about taking action based on whether or not the PDGA brand has been affected. i also acknowledge what someone else said about flexibility in the guidelines will be a result of how well-written the guidelines are. honestly, i think most of what is driving this thread is just people's curiosity to "know stuff" and wanting to second guess decisions of the board.

just like some commentators have said about the Ezekiel Elliot situation, it doesn't matter if it's fair. the NFL (or the PDGA) is not a democracy and its members don't have any rights. by being a member you fully accept the rules and their consequences, whether those consequences are published or not. i might sound reductionist but i'm with MTL, just follow the rules.

 

[SD86]

Do you know exactly what every speeding ticket will cost based on how fast you were going?

Doesn't Law Enforcement have flexibility in their punishment/s for speeding?
.

Picking nits a bit, but it's not Law Enforcement that decides the punishment, it's the Court.

The LEO does have some discretion in giving a ticket, a warning, or making an arrest. But the actual punishment is decided in Court.

 

[pearlybakerbest]

Picking nits a bit, but it's not Law Enforcement that decides the punishment, it's the Court.

The LEO does have some discretion in giving a ticket, a warning, or making an arrest. But the actual punishment is decided in Court.

This is not always the case, I was pulled over ten years ago flying down a remote rural South Carolina "highway". I see a red Camaro coming toward me going fast as I. Thinking nothing of it and only 19 I just zip past him. In the rear view he slams the breaks and 180s. When he gets close enough I see his little dash-lights blinking. I pull over and before he gets out he puts on a trooper hat. After some some scolding he writes me a ticket and at the bottom in pen writes "$300" on it. Then he asks me if I have the cash to pay it right there. I thought instantly this was a shakedown and he may not even be a real cop. Turns out he was totally legit and this is how it works in this part of South Carolina at the time. Mind this was the first unmarked cop I had ever seen but I thought he was full of it and out to scam me. It could be a predetermined amount but it felt like he pulled it out of thin air.

 

[roadtripstuff]

This is not always the case, I was pulled over ten years ago flying down a remote rural South Carolina "highway". I see a red Camaro coming toward me going fast as I. Thinking nothing of it and only 19 I just zip past him. In the rear view he slams the breaks and 180s. When he gets close enough I see his little dash-lights blinking. I pull over and before he gets out he puts on a trooper hat. After some some scolding he writes me a ticket and at the bottom in pen writes "$300" on it. Then he asks me if I have the cash to pay it right there. I thought instantly this was a shakedown and he may not even be a real cop. Turns out he was totally legit and this is how it works in this part of South Carolina at the time. Mind this was the first unmarked cop I had ever seen but I thought he was full of it and out to scam me. It could be a predetermined amount but it felt like he pulled it out of thin air.

Here in Ohio it is a predetermined amount. When they give you your ticket the envelope has the fines listed. This is not at all accurate but an example: 1-10 mph over $120, 11-20 mph over $200, etc... In reality I'm sure the fines are much more than that, but point is, they have a list of the fines that they make available to you.

 

[pearlybakerbest]

Here in Ohio it is a predetermined amount. When they give you your ticket the envelope has the fines listed. This is not at all accurate but an example: 1-10 mph over $120, 11-20 mph over $200, etc... In reality I'm sure the fines are much more than that, but point is, they have a list of the fines that they make available to you.

I think there must have been some sort of matrix he used but he wasn't even wearing a uniform which seemed sketchy, I couldn't believe that was SOP down there. I guess in some states the discretion of the judge doesn't determine the amount like I am used to.

 

[SD86]

This is not always the case, I was pulled over ten years ago flying down a remote rural South Carolina "highway". I see a red Camaro coming toward me going fast as I. Thinking nothing of it and only 19 I just zip past him. In the rear view he slams the breaks and 180s. When he gets close enough I see his little dash-lights blinking. I pull over and before he gets out he puts on a trooper hat. After some some scolding he writes me a ticket and at the bottom in pen writes "$300" on it. Then he asks me if I have the cash to pay it right there. I thought instantly this was a shakedown and he may not even be a real cop. Turns out he was totally legit and this is how it works in this part of South Carolina at the time. Mind this was the first unmarked cop I had ever seen but I thought he was full of it and out to scam me. It could be a predetermined amount but it felt like he pulled it out of thin air.

A lot of that stuff has been discontinued. For example, "The Dukes of Hazzard" television show was based upon Long County, Ga., and the town of Ludowici, well known for speed traps and forced immediate cash payment. "Murder in Coweta County" was true events of the"Boss" of Meriwether County, Ga. (where my grandparents lived; and my sister was born in Coweta County). Similar shenanigans.

Today, cops will force your fingers onto your iPhone reader to get to your bank app and take your money by force. Which doesn't make it right, but they do it. It SHOULD go to Court.

All this is an aside to the topic of Bradley Williams, et. al., of course. Maybe we should get some pointers from Ezekiel Elliott and Roger Gooddell....

 

[lyleoross]

sorry Lyle, i think i had a good point but rereading it i could have been nicer about it


i'm in the camp of thinking that not publishing the matrix ought to give the board more flexibility in their approach. i like what someone said about taking action based on whether or not the PDGA brand has been affected. i also acknowledge what someone else said about flexibility in the guidelines will be a result of how well-written the guidelines are. honestly, i think most of what is driving this thread is just people's curiosity to "know stuff" and wanting to second guess decisions of the board.

just like some commentators have said about the Ezekiel Elliot situation, it doesn't matter if it's fair. the NFL (or the PDGA) is not a democracy and its members don't have any rights. by being a member you fully accept the rules and their consequences, whether those consequences are published or not. i might sound reductionist but i'm with MTL, just follow the rules.

I think you're spot on. One of the goals in process is to protect the player.

I think you have a great point. I missed it. I'm quite happy to go with violet felonies. As Wart is saying, consistency matters.

I will say, the inconsistency was not deliberate. No one in the PDGA said, let's do this guy, not this guy. They had a definition, he identified PDGA, and went with it. A clear definition puts it in the player's hands.

 

[lyleoross]

The point is that using off course conduct that has no relevance to the rules of disc golf as criterion for PDGA action opens up too large a can of worms and is inadvisable at best.

I see your point, and have argued your position before, thanks for the clarification. The question becomes, what is the risk of not acting, long term?

The punishment here is minor. A player with a felony charge is at best, out on bond. He or she has bigger issues. The PDGA is simply saying, until farther notice of guilt were keeping some distance.

Would I die on this issue? No. Fundamentally, I agree with you. I'm not sure what we think is correct for the PDGAs image. Clearly, as in the NFL example, too much protection gets you in trouble.