I can’t see how Ruken is wrong here. It should be obvious that someone should only be punished for something for which they are responsible. The point of the punishment is to discourage them from doing it again. That can’t happen if someone is punished who has nothing that they need to stop doing.
It seems to me that the problem is resolved if the person who committed the violent act is removed from play. At that point, there is no reason to believe the violent act will recur. Said player will need to face some sort of punishment so they have a reason not to do it again. If anyone else helped it happen, they also need some sort of punishment.
The ultimate goal is just to stop the bad thing from happening. Anything beyond that is unfair and unnecessary. And I haven’t seen a good argument that a team punishment is necessary to stop this situation from recurring.
I can see sanctioning a school if it keeps fielding problematic players, as a way to force the school to make changes to its athletic program. But punishing a team for the behavior of one player, that seems senseless. If he’s the only bad apple then what is the point? Ban him from playing again, isn’t the problem solved? (Again, assuming there are no other problematic players.)
This. Inventing heavy punishments retroactively to be applied retroactively to stuff already done is simply dumb.
Bench the kid now until his trial for assault finishes, and lay down the Law about any similar event by any other kid being a lifetime ban for that kid, with multiple events being a sanction for the team and coach, and escalate as necessary if the problem continues to increase.
This is a high school football team. If you expect high school kids to take a moral stance like this, you must be from another planet. Or believe every Disney film is a documentary.
So would executing them, but that’s also fucking stupid.
Of course I don’t expect all high school kids to take such a stance (although surely there are some). That’s why teams have adult coaches. And I absolutely expect coaches to take such a stance.
The coaches are, or should be, educators, right?
By the way, where’s the rest of the high school faculty on this? Or is high school sports culture so fucking sick and twisted there that they’re just bystanders?
Okay, so the coach has been put on probation, and was publicly reprimanded. That seems like the proper response.
The school district pulled the school out of the playoffs even though they qualified. (I’m not sure if that was necessary from one bad kid, but it happened.)
The whole school athletic program was put on a 2 year probation, and if any incidents like this happen from any sport then further sanctions will follow. That’s the right thing to do, because they need to drill into their kids that this sort of thing is absolutely intolerable.
I like that the committee called the school out for their bullshit in this incident.
I don’t like that the kid was only suspended, not banned. In my opinion he is a danger to others and should not be allowed onto the field again in any sport. And I don’t buy the principal’s defense that he should be okay to wrestle because he hasn’t caused a problem there yet. They said he’d be banned if he has further incidents. I say they should be past that already.
I see nothing in any news stories about opinions from other faculty.
I notice that the new story linked to in the post above is headlined “South Texas high school football player who attacked referee apologizes.”
However, here’s what the story actually says:
“I’d like to say I’m sorry for what happened to my coaches and to my family and to the UIL,” Duron said in his only statement on Monday. He had an attorney with him who told the committee that Duron would not make any other comments.
No mention of an apology to the actual injured referee. I wouldn’t call this an apology at all.
I suppose it’s possible that he did apologize and that the reporters and editors chose not to quote him, although I can’t imagine why they’d do that.
They mentioned his attorney was with him, I wonder if he was advised not to apologize as that would admit guilt…? Not that I can see how they can deny it happened or anything, it was caught on film and they have plenty of witnesses.
And now they’ve learned that there can be a personal cost if they overlook bad behavior from their peers. Seems like a good lesson to me, and one they would be less likely to take to heart if they didn’t face repercussions like this.
I don’t think that’s a lesson that they’re learning, or one they should learn.
I can imagine if I was a high school student, and tried out and made it onto a football team, and worked to prove myself and earn a spot on the field. I’m taught to be a teammate, to respect my coaches, to compete and win.
A guy who is a star is on my team. He got kicked off the soccer team and is probably a real asshole, arrogant, but he sure can play. The coaches sure are glad to have him on board, and we’re winning, and look to make the playoffs, maybe we can even go to a state championship.
So I’m supposed to refuse to play because one person on my team is a jerk? I’m supposed to unilaterally hold him accountable?
Fuck that shit. Nobody would do that. It’s not my job, not my responsibility. The teachers, the parents, the coaches and administrators are supposed to do something about it.
There’s no lesson for the kids to learn here except that life sucks, no matter how hard you try you might get screwed over because of someone else’s fuckup. That’s the lesson for them. Yeah, we probably all learn that someday but I still feel for them.
For him though, for the violent criminal who was sheltered because of athletic talent, and for the coaches and administrators who enabled him, they can all go to hell.
You complain the kid was sheltered but at the same time you ask when the other kids learn about life.
It’s better for them to learn in their school years than once they enter the world.
You have a decent point. If they are going to learn, I guess that can be the time to do it. I still feel for them.
When I said “sheltered”, I clearly meant he was sheltered from the consequences of his behavior. The principal’s own words indicate the issue; that there was a belief that somehow the violence on the soccer field wouldn’t translate to the other sports because he had never crossed the line there. Just days after being kicked off the soccer team he was competing at a wrestling championship, as if it didn’t matter.
The referee in this incident was lying motionless on the ground for several minutes and had to be hospitalized for his injuries.
If he was actually paralyzed would you have a problem with the rest of the team just going on to the next round of the playoffs in six days? How about if he died? Just wondering how far the tolerance goes from the “collective punishment is categorically wrong” crowd.
Just wondering if you can JAQ less and make your case yourself. “Tolerance” is an odd choice of words for students whom nobody has shown to have done anything wrong.
I don’t think you understand what any of the concepts you are invoking here mean.
I’ll pose the question to you directly: Since you think that the rest of the team should have been allowed to continue playing even after a team member put a referee in the hospital, do you think there should be anything different in the penalty or lack thereof if the player had actually killed the referee?
So you’re admitting that there’s a limit to “no collective punishment of the team” beyond which you won’t defend that notion, and that all we’re talking about is where that limit is. For you, it’s somewhere on the other side of “putting the referee in the hospital.”