In attendance: Barbara Daniels, Josh Lenox, Jeff Haydel, and John Kittrell

Topic #1: Jeff proposed an amendment to the SN Handbook, section 5.0, dealing with punishment for major rules violations. After discussion it was voted to approve the SN Handbook amendment 4-0. The official wording of the amendment will follow after these minutes.

Topic #2: It was discussed whether this new rule should be retroactive or effective as of March 26th. It was voted 4-0 that this rule should go into effect as of March 26th, 2008 and no retroactive action will be taken.

Topic #3: Shane Seal's contest to find an SN logo was discussed and the concept of the bOD putting up an award as part of the contest. John offered to donate a traveler basket to be an award to the designer of the best logo. It was agreed that, at a minimum, the design will win a traveler basket for their effort.

The next meeting was set for April 9th.

SN Handbook Amendment

Section 5.0 Punishment for major rule violations.

A. A player shall be subject to disqualification or warning of disqualification by the tournament director for committing any of the following acts during a Southern National qualifying or championship event :

(1) Unsportsmanlike conduct towards players or spectators, such as; loud cursing, throwing things in anger (other than discs in play), or overt rudeness to anyone present (spectator, player, or official)
(2) Willful and overt destruction or abuse of plant life, course hardware, or any other property considered part of the disc golf course or the park.
(3) Cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.
(4) Activities which are in violation of the law or park regulation or disc golf course rule, including the illegal consumption of drugs or alcohol.


Tournament Directors are granted the discretion to disqualify a player based on the severity of the offending conduct. An official warning of disqualification may be issued by a director where they deem appropriate.

B. Disqualified players shall forfeit any prize money and shall not receive a refund of entry fees.

C. Any warnings or DQ's according to the guidelines above reported to the board will be counted against that player. A single disqualification or two warnings with a 12 month period will carry a 12 month probation period effective on the date of the disqualification or 2nd warning. During that probation period another warning or disqualification will carry a 3 month suspension from ANY SN disc golf event AND that player will not be allowed to play in any SN championship event for the SN year that the second infraction occurred. The probation period will also be restarted from the date of the second infraction for another year. Another infraction of these rules during the new probationary period will result in a minimum 1 year suspension from SN tournament play, permanent probation, and the player must request reinstatement after that year from the board before participating in another SN qualifier or championship. A third infraction will be dealt with specifically by the board but a permanent ban from SN events will be seriously considered.

D. In terms of these rules a tournament event should be specifically defined as all time periods during which a required, tournament associated event is taking place on the facilities of the disc golf course or courses. This should include, but not be limited to, all rounds of disc golf and the player's meeting. Any additional events that the Tournament Director deems included are also eligible to fall under these rules.

Many thanks ... and good job!

[tupelodiscgolf.com]

yes ... thank you

I think the new rule is fine but doesn't the SN's go by the PDGA rule book anyhow? Weren't these rules technically already in place?

Duke of Disc Golf A-Number 1
[daffyshirts.com]

no ... there is no provision in the PDGA rulebook to ban repeat offenders of 804.05 from Southern National sanctioned tournaments.

Good rule...
I hope it is used appropriately...

It will be ashame for the series if otherwise occurs...

Griff

By the above....certain rules are known to be lax in certain locales (i.e. keep it in a koozee....that has been the direction of multiple events...)

Don't make me DQ you because of your behavior(i.e. appropriate)....

Nazi-type implementation "looking for trouble"(i.e. not appropriate)....

Several of our courses allow and even "encourage" drinking(i.e places that sell libations on the course)....these issues require a bit of TD support within the rule as well....imho....

Griff

Griff, if you notice the rule does not, unlike the PDGA rules, explicitly disallow all alcohol consumption, it just uses alcohol consumption as an example:

(4) Activities which are in violation of the law or park regulation or disc golf course rule, including the illegal consumption of drugs or alcohol.


If alcohol consumption is allowed and legal by the laws of the area and by the laws governing the park, then it would be up to the TD to explicitly ban alcohol consumption for it to be a punishable offense.

The flip side of that is that I do not know of ANYWHERE (in the U.S. at least) where drug use is legal.


Jeff H

So are these rules more strict than the ones the PDGA has in place?

-will

No, we just outline what the SN series will do. As Chris had pointed out elsewhere the SN didn't have it written anywhere what actions the SN would take. The rule is still the same rule...

Actually having talked it up around the courses over the weekend....here's another tidbit of offering that might NEED to make it into the rule...

Almost everyone I spoke with expressed their "worry" with such a Rule as presently being considered does nothing to protect incorrect accusations....this is to say, this is a DQ or a warning, etc. entirely based upon "he said v. she said" type evidentiary levels....NOT GOOD...

would it not be a better idea that a second person either within the group or PERSONALLY experiencing the violation ALSO be required to report same before a TD is put in this position (to DQ/warn, etc).

it will do away with a great deal of "suspect" accusations.....open violations in which a secondary source confirms said violation should be actionable...


imho.....Griff

Griff

The DQ is entirely at the discression of the TD. If a player reports an incident to a TD and the TD does not respond, that player should inform the board about the situation and then we will investigate.

If a TD feels that a player has been accused unfairly, he does NOT have to DQ the acusee. If the player is not DQ'd, then the TD doesn't have to turn that name in.

I understand Griff's concern, but I seriously doubt that would happen. The offended player could always appeal to the board and we would consider our options. Remember there would be other players in the group who could back up the accuser or the accusee. Plus the first violation is probation. It would take 2 infractions to merit a suspension. The player may be listed online as on probation, but the reason for the probation would not be posted and the board decided that discussions as to why the person was in trouble would be deleted from the forum.

A bigger concern for me would be that the other players in a group would cover for the offender. For instance, what do you do if everyone else in your group lights up?

Josh

I do not doubt at all that it COULD happen as there are folks out there that clearly have nothing better to do than stir the proverbial pot....

good analogy, huh....

this (multiple reporting parties required for enforcement) is something that REALLY needs to be considered--not only for the protection of the players and the TD's but for the respect of the series....Griff

Griff

Obviously, the more people who turn in rule breakers the better, but I think REQUIRING "multiple reporting parties for enforcement" would be a mistake. This isn't a court of law. The TD can weigh the evidence, such as it is, and decide if it meets his/her criteria for DQ or warning. If either the reporter(s) or reportee(s) have a gripe after the TD renders that decision, they can appeal the decision to the board.

Let's give it a try before we add more hurdles to a process where the onus and burden are already on the ones NOT breaking the rules!

I think there should at least be one other person to back up the person who initially reports the violation.

How will this play out at a course like Bud Hill (no offense to Danny and Barbara) where it's been pretty much anything goes for years? Will there be no more drinking during the rounds (I normally don't). Is that left up to the TD? About feet on the table, this is a private course, but if the TD says not this time, how will this play out? I suppose we'll find out in a month. And FYI, I am one of those people who would rather see people get through a round without putting their fee on the table only because of the reaction from the general public and people who simply don't want to be around feet on the table.

If someone wants to drink during the round, go for it, so long as they don't become obnoxious. If it's against the rules, take your chances. But I agree with Griff.

rWc3523

again drinking is not against the rules in all parks.

True, But I just want to check. People will definitely need to attend players' meetings at future events. rWc3523

I can only suggest that the SN might lose some of its gem-tournies if the rule under its present consideration is "let loose"...it makes NO SENSE to value ONE individual's word more than another....it is setting the series up for great unrest--so why do it?

If it is SUCH A PROBLEM as some are trying to suggest, getting a "second" should be NO PROBLEM AT ALL...

To think one person's word should carry more weight than another's is idiocy--and to put that crap on the TD's back is pure BS....

I would imagine that some of our larger events would go on regardless of sanctioning...

And I would add Bud Hill is private property--whatever Danny and Barbara say will be what goes...as with any private course....

The RULE is a good rule if it takes into consideration a "seconded" reporting....if it does not, it will be a shame for the series....

Griff

Griff ... this rule is already in place and has been since the PDGA wrote 804.05 into being. The only thing new is the Board's provision for probation or bans as a result of multiple transgressions.

Let's be a little MORE clear. Here is the WHOLE rule as it has been since being written:

804.05 Disqualification and Suspension

A. A player shall be disqualified by the director for meeting any of the necessary conditions of disqualification as set forth in the rules, or for any of the following:

(1) Unsportsmanlike conduct, such as; loud cursing, throwing things in anger (other than discs in play), or overt rudeness to anyone present

(2) Willful and overt destruction or abuse of plant life, course hardware, or any other property considered part of the disc golf course or the park.

(3) Cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.

(4) Activities which are in violation of the law or park regulation or disc golf course rule, including the illegal consumption of drugs or alcohol. Directors are granted the discretion to disqualify a player based on the severity of the offending conduct. An official warning of disqualification may be issued by a director where appropriate.

B. Disqualified players shall forfeit any prize money and shall not receive a refund of entry fees.

C. A player in violation of any section under 804.05 A is also subject to suspension from the PDGA Tour. Suspension from the PDGA Tour may only be assigned by the PDGA Commissioner. A player may appeal his or her suspension to the PDGA Board of Directors. The determination to suspend, and the length of the suspension, shall be based on the severity of the action and the extent to which the player may have committed repeated violations.

-----

The only thing the recent action by the Board did was to localize Part C of that rule for the SN Tournament Series. Everything else is as it was before.

As an attorney, when you read that rule, do you see anything that specifies what will constitute adequate proof for the TD. I believe the PDGA Rule Committee specifically left it vague so that the TD could use his or her discretion based on all the factors (who said what, the "house rules" ala Bud Hill, the tenor of the tournament, etc).

My particular experience at my most recent tournament was that 15 of 17 players in one particular division put their feet on the table. It was SUCH A PROBLEM there were no "seconds." That was on a public course.

My particular experience at my most recent tournament was that 15 of 17 players in one particular division put their feet on the table. It was SUCH A PROBLEM there were no "seconds." That was on a public course.

Chris, did you call someone on this or are you just using that number as an example. I would also refrain from calling out an event without any pictures or proof that there has been any wrong doing.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2008 02:59PM by Tax Man.

I am suing that number to illustrate that Griff's suggestion for elevating the burden of proof means that if and when there is just one player in a group NOT putting his feet on the table, the others in his or her group can effectively ignore them since, under his suggestion, one player's word is insufficient

My understanding of the current PDGA rule is that an offense would have to be verified by a second person as to avoid a he said she said situation. Again we aren't inventing a rule of play just stating how the SN series deals with people that have broken the rules.

John k

John,

I believe that if a PDGA official or TD sees a violation, unless it is within his/her division, that a second is not needed.

Josh

Quote
Tax Man
Chris, did you call someone on this or are you just using that number as an example. I would also refrain from calling out an event without any pictures or proof that there has been any wrong doing.

I don't know about Chris, but Marla has been in a division where 3 of the 5 players put their feet on the table, even though they were asked not to by her, during the round.

Josh

Quote
Hilltopper
John,

I believe that if a PDGA official or TD sees a violation, unless it is within his/her division, that a second is not needed.

Josh

Now there's a compelling reason to pay my dues!

Quote
chris lasonde

Quote
Hilltopper
John,

I believe that if a PDGA official or TD sees a violation, unless it is within his/her division, that a second is not needed.

Josh

Now there's a compelling reason to pay my dues!

yeah but you will have to get re certified:o]~

NO ONE is suggesting an individual should be ignored due to the overwhelming presence of people that see things differently...

BUT, holding one man's word over another's is BS Any rule that places this onerous crap on the back of the TD is BS...

PDGA's enforcement of their precious rule is BS...

If it's an issue a second will never be a problem....

But if a TD is going to take one person's ranting over another's then you HAVE problems...

Why would it be bad tio suggest a rule that requires support to the allegations??? Explain that point to me!!!

If anything, it makes the transgression more relevant and the severity of the sentence will then not be problematic...

Be clear....I have repeatedly shown support for the existence of the RULE--my problem is the discussion threads of how it should be enforced....and whose word is taken as "gospel" and whose is not....

Support to the accuser's statement is nothing but a common sense requirement....

Griff

Quote
Tax Man

Quote
chris lasonde

Quote
Hilltopper
John,

I believe that if a PDGA official or TD sees a violation, unless it is within his/her division, that a second is not needed.

Josh

Now there's a compelling reason to pay my dues!

yeah but you will have to get re certified:o]~

yeah, there's a real impediment ... what was I thinking?

Quote
chris lasonde

Quote
Tax Man

Quote
chris lasonde

Quote
Hilltopper
John,

I believe that if a PDGA official or TD sees a violation, unless it is within his/her division, that a second is not needed.

Josh

Now there's a compelling reason to pay my dues!

yeah but you will have to get re certified:o]~

yeah, there's a real impediment ... what was I thinking?

roflmao