That's all good Jack, but according to PDGA rules, I could have been issued a warning for caddie misconduct. If I had been drinking, or even spotted with it in my hand, it is an automatic DQ at B-tier and above tourneys.
No, it's not, it is AUTOMATIC, weed or alcohol, AUTOMATIC your caddy is an extension of you.http://www.pdga.com/rules/competition-manual/section-3-player-code-conduct/35-carts-and-caddies
C is most relevant, your caddy becomes YOU in a PDGA event. B could qualify but C is the more pressing on this instance.
B. Players will have the option to bring a caddie or carrying device during their round of play. A player's caddie is subject to all items within the PDGA Rules of Play and the PDGA Competition Manual including all applicable dress codes.
C. Players choosing to use a caddie will be solely responsible for their caddie's conduct from the two minute warning until the players cards are turned in. Misconduct by a caddie may subject both the player and caddie to disqualification and/or suspension.
Continuing on this.....http://www.pdga.com/rules/competition-manual/section-3-player-code-conduct/33-player-misconduct
10 Possession of alcohol from the start of play until the player's scorecard is submitted is not allowed. Such possession shall result in immediate disqualification at PDGA events sanctioned at B-Tier or higher
. The Tournament Director may, at his sole discretion, elect to issue a warning to the offending player in lieu of disqualification solely at PDGA events sanctioned at C-tier and below. If a player has been previously issued a warning for alcohol possession at the same event, all subsequent violations shall result in immediate disqualification.
As long as it is brought to the TD before the Awards have been presented, is fair game. You don't have to drink it, you (or your CADDIE) merely have to be in possession of it during play. This is why I leave things in the car during PDGA rounds.
What rules exactly did Loomis get incorrect? He was just going over the rules very aggressively, but he's a little weird...we all know that..
As for Loomis he made up rules against the guidelines. The basic most simple was calling the line IB not OB.
An area designated by the Director from which a disc may not be played, and within which a stance may not be taken. The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is part of the out-of-bounds area.
Loomis response-"I don't care Jack that is the way we are doing it here......"-it was wrong, it isn't correct.....another examplehttp://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/801-general/80104-courtesy
E. Littering is a courtesy violation.
Loomis stated that this was an AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION, now I am not saying I don't agree with it, but that isn't a rule, you can't change rules, just like he banned "lit cigarettes only" because he was concerned about fire safety at WW on Saturday he felt that it needed to be enforced on Sunday as well. Here is the thing, you can't unilaterally tell people something that is clearly habit forming that they can't do it when they show up. Now if they knew heading into the Tourney it was a nonsmoking event, they could have prepared, but again, KC isn't a No-smoke park (yet) so that isn't a rule, but rather a decision that yet again Loomis decided to create out of nowhere other than his own decisions.
Those are the three most pointed, and I realize that they were all on Loomis. This is why I protested from the start, I signed my card with the word Protest clearly on it. You can't change rules because you like them better than others. He wasn't the TD, he had no authority to do so, yet he acted as if he did. This has nothing to do with the tone and demeanor that he gave these speeches in, even when he contradicted himself on other cards as I was told later in the day.
I really didn't want to go into a Loomis bash on this but it clearly upset me and I dealt with it as I saw fit. I talked with Scott and Pete about it, I still carried it on though, because I know we are better than that in KC. I enjoy reading Loomis' prose as most do, in fact I have paid him to write, so I enjoy it maybe more than others. But clearly that wasn't the case that I saw and was privy to on Sunday.
Safety concerns I got and understood, even though Loomis didn't convey it well, it was very vague and subjective, HOWEVER, Pete was down there enforcing the same guidelines to all the groups, and it made sense to do so based on the weather, that wasn't the ruling issue I had issues with on Loomis, my issues were clearly his own violation of the written rule that he decided was different.