Resolving Rules Disputes

[Bruce Brakel]

Somewhere I can't find, Jon and I were mentioning that we learn stuff by playing other TD's tournaments, both by positive example and negative example.  Today I was reminded why we close merch during awards and start with the lowest divisions first, because today's TD did the opposite. 

The other thing I noticed today is that there are basically two ways to resolve a rules dispute.  Jon and I basically use the French Inquisitorial System where we get the facts fom the players, try to figure out what they think the issue is, and then look for an answer in the book(s). 

The other way, what the TD did today, is to put the burden of proof on the player who wanted to stick someone with a rule.  The TD gave that guy a  rulebook and basically told him to come back when he could show the TD a rule.  This is more like the American legal system. 

Is one way better or right?  I'm not really sure.  Neither the rules nor the rest of the "documents" suggest the procedure a TD should apply in resolving a rules dispute.  Both approaches have their merits. 

Anyway, it is what I was thinking about today. 

[Bruce Brakel]

I got an e-mail from the rules committee today wanting my perspective on the situation as a player in the group.  They were more inquiring into the facts of the rules issue rather than the manner in which it was decided, but the offended player had complained about that too.

This is what I thought was interesting.  From my perspective, the TD gave the player a copy of the rules and invited him to show the TD a rule that would require that the other player get a five instead of the four that the rest of the group thought he should get.  When the player couldn't point to a rule, the TD gave the benefit of the doubt to the player.  From the offended player's perspective the TD refused to make the call because the TD did not have the cahones to be the bad guy.

I thought that was interesting because it is not uncommon for me to write an opinion denying a motion because the moving party did not sustain their burden of proof, either by presenting evidence or by presenting law supporting their position.  Frequently the moving party complains to his buddies back at the law firm that the judge weaseled out and refused to make a call. 

This is probably of no interest to anyone other than Barish.  Maybe not even him. 

[Fox Metro Discer]

I see where you are coming from, Bruce. It is difficult, especially in your position, to come to and without being the "bad guy" to at least someone involved. This situation is escalated by the fact that you are trying to promote the sport and get more people involved in organized golf as a whole. How are you to do so when there is someone, and probably their friends pissed off? We want them to have an enjoyable experience and to come back to another of our events.
So who is really correct in this situation?
From my perspective, there must be some sort of proof that a rule was broken first of all. If there is, then something should be done. However, I do not feel that just handing a rule book to a player and basically saying "show me the rule he broke" is the correct approach either. By offering to help with a place to start looking in the rule book, you are showing the complaintant(s) that you care. At the same time, you can be seen as looking out for the defendant by making the complaintant actually find the rule itself. Taking the time to show the rule to the offender and explaining what is to be done can also help as well. I know being the guy that has to add a stroke to a person's score is not what we want to do, but how else can we as tournament organizers expect to have any type of rules if we do not follow them? Hopefully people will know that when we have to make a decision like that, it is not a personal vendetta, just what is expected of anyone in a leadership type of role. Afterall, those of us in this role know that these tough decisions are just an unfortunate part of the job.

[Chainmeister]

yeah, its of interest.  However, I must admit that I do not read legal fiction.  Other than hustling new business, I spend time away from the job away from the job. That's how I keep fresh when on the job.

I think the difference between Bruce's job and mine is a good illustration.  I am an advocate.  Bruce works for a judge and is looking to make sure that the rules are followed and correct procedures are followed.  Within reason and ethical boundries, I really don't care.  I just want to win.

The American system works better for the judge.  It is more important to see that the rules are followed and that the system works.  This occassionally yeilds unjust results but such is life.  We limit cases that we fight about if they are moot or a party does not have standing or if there is no real remedy.

I think the inquisition system where Bruce, Jon and Brett are both prosecutor and judge works best at a disc golf tournament.  I think we all have an interest in getting to the right decision regardless of the procedures.  I am sure that many times players come to you complaining of one thing or another and you find that there was a rules issue but not the one they were complaining about. At work you would never get to that issue.  At a tournament you will.  If you put pressure on a moving party at a tournament to prove a rules violation, you may miss the point.  The player may not have the nerve or desire to push the issue.  I lthink your more proactive role is a better idea at a tournament.  What if a rule violation occurs and nobody complains?  If you are aware of it you will still want to enforce it even if there is no "complaining party."  Also, we don't have lawyers on the course so its best for the TD to take a more proactive role so players feel that everybody has a fair chance and that the louder, bolder or more obnoxious personalities do not dominate rules issues.

Longwinded (hey what did you expect!) way of saying I think you guys are doing a good job.

[Jon Brakel]

I like the approach of giving the decenting player in a group a rule book and asking him why he has grounds since the group has already come to a conclusion that they agree with. We should support groups making group decisions because it makes the process of the tournament run smoother if you can decide what needs to be done at the time that it needs to be done.

However, as Dave has pointed out, players come to us with rules questions and after we ask a few questions we find that the rule in question isn't the issue but another rule is. Do remember that if you bring a rules dispute to the inquisition you may not get what you want...but you'll get what you need!