ifm wrote:
Obviously the first point is irrelevant as they refused permission
How do we know this? Did any of them ask before attending it? The reason for the DRA "warning" could have been because none of them bothered to ask in the first place....
What difference does it make?
Both would be the same infraction, the punishment should be the same, consistency.
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"
All the punishments on that PDF were the same werent they? Just a warning about it. One assumes if they do it again they will get a more severe punishment.
As for anyone who asks the PDC if they can play, are told no, and then play in it anyway, then they should be getting a more severe reprimand than anyone who innocently enters it without knowing the event was going to be streamed and without asking for permission. Speaking generally, of course.
Ginge wrote:All the punishments on that PDF were the same werent they? Just a warning about it. One assumes if they do it again they will get a more severe punishment.
As for anyone who asks the PDC if they can play, are told no, and then play in it anyway, then they should be getting a more severe reprimand than anyone who innocently enters it without knowing the event was going to be streamed and without asking for permission. Speaking generally, of course.
It is in the contracts they signed and they didn't decide on streaming on the day did they?
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"
Wonder how hot the soup John Part will be in for playing in a non-pdc streamed event last weekend in Virginia Beach?
It's my understanding and I could be wrong, that this rule prohibits a PDC tour card holder from playing In a televised or a
streamed event that is available for public viewing?
none too crazy about that rule. Is it something new?
skweezit wrote:Wonder how hot the soup John Part will be in for playing in a non-pdc streamed event last weekend in Virginia Beach?
It's my understanding and I could be wrong, that this rule prohibits a PDC tour card holder from playing In a televised or a
streamed event that is available for public viewing?
none too crazy about that rule. Is it something new?
No it's been around a while, why are they being so restrictive to their players? why are they taking the shoes off of their children's feet.
skweezit wrote:Wonder how hot the soup John Part will be in for playing in a non-pdc streamed event last weekend in Virginia Beach?
It's my understanding and I could be wrong, that this rule prohibits a PDC tour card holder from playing In a televised or a
streamed event that is available for public viewing?
none too crazy about that rule. Is it something new?
No it's been around a while, why are they being so restrictive to their players? why are they taking the shoes off of their children's feet.
The key bit is the without permission piece, they can ask for permission and if it's a local thing and not a wdf ranking event then I doubt the pdc would withhold their permission.
The Jolly Man wrote:So does Taylor get a £1000 fine for not going today?
Depends if he had a good reason.
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"
WCDPA wrote:Kirk S fined £1000 and 6 week ban for taking in booze.
Actually that's invoking the suspended part of his previous hearing, he was caught again.
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"
WCDPA wrote:Kirk S fined £1000 and 6 week ban for taking in booze.
Actually that's invoking the suspended part of his previous hearing, he was caught again.
Just checked and it was only a suspended fine for 6 months, and that was in April last year, so the suspended part had lapsed. Its only as high as a grand because hes been caught doing it again.
WCDPA wrote:Kirk S fined £1000 and 6 week ban for taking in booze.
Actually that's invoking the suspended part of his previous hearing, he was caught again.
Just checked and it was only a suspended fine for 6 months, and that was in April last year, so the suspended part had lapsed. Its only as high as a grand because hes been caught doing it again.
Well the DRA must have jumped right on it because it only happened the other week.
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"
