Given a similar situation in the future (i.e., student-athlete assaults an official during a sanctioned event), do you think the coaches and administration will look at the punishment meted out here and say:
A. It’s not like they’ll punish the whole program and he’s really good so keep playing him.
B. Yeah, too much risk to us and the program, he needs some help with his anger and he can’t play until we have a reason to believe he won’t assault another official.
I would hope that we can all agree that B was the desirable outcome after the first incident with this kid. However, the administration and coaches involved apparently felt A was an acceptable answer.
So how would you incline them towards B? Because at this point, that kid is fucked. Instead of maybe getting the counseling/help he needed, his behavior was positively reinforced and now he’s got a decent chance of becoming a convicted criminal before he leaves high school.
Or we could use a reasonable, relevant penalty like forfeiting their next game instead of pretending that “bulldozing their houses” and “literally letting people beat referees to death without consequences” are the only options as you are intent on doing in order to make the case for the latter.
On the one hand I sympathize with the student-athletes, because my daughter’s award-winning high school choir suffered similar effects when the teacher got caught boinking one of her tenors (her replacement was nowhere near up to the task of running the program). OTOH, it’s both football AND Texas, so I’m perhaps more ready than I’d normally be to sympathize with the arguments that this is the only meaningful way to impress upon school administrators their responsibilities to their programs and their students.
And how is that different from any other penalty in football? The team always takes the penalty for holding or roughing the QB or offside, even if only one player broke the rules.
And teams can be penalised even if no player does anything wrong. If the hometeam fans start throwing things at the refs, the team can forfeit the game, even if every single player immediately sits on the bench or takes a knee. If the refs are at risk of physical harm from the fans, the team gets the penalty.
Yes, on the field, you suffer a penalty. As happened in this case, of course. What doesn’t normally happen is the team forfeiting a chance to make the postseason because one player is a criminal punk.
I know there are exacerbating circumstances; they let the kid play in one sport after getting kicked out of another sport for similar behavior and you’re trying to bring the point home to the school and/or district that you can’t just handwave that stuff. But don’t act like this sort of thing is normal for a sports team; it absolutely isn’t.
Depends on the penalty. Late in a close game, penalties like roughing the passer, roughing the kicker, and forward pass interference can all be game changers, by giving more yards and maybe downs. One bad penalty, by one undisciplined player, late in the game, can decide whether the team wins and makes the playoffs.
Heck, a late in the game penalty decided the CFL championship in 2009.
Saskatchewan was ahead by two points, Montreal was in field goal range. Duval kicks, and it’s wide! Saskatchewan wins the Grey Cup!
Uh, no. Flags fly. Saskatchewan draws a penalty for too many men on the field.
Game can’t end on a defensive penalty. Montreal advances 10 yards, Duval re-kicks, scores, and Montreal wins the Grey Cup.
To the credit of the coaches and the team, they’ve never said who was the extra man on the field. The coaches took part of the blame, because they’re supposed to count before each play and in the excitement, someone on the coaching staff made a mistake as well as the unnamed player. But their motto was “We win as a team, we lose as a team.”
So yes, one player’s mistake can decide the championship for the team.
There’s a difference between a conduct penalty in a close game leading to a loss, and the team failing to make the playoffs, and a team being stripped of the ability intentionally because they had a bad person on the team.
The former happens, it’s part of the game. The latter just doesn’t happen, I don’t remember ever hearing about it.
Trying to create some kind of false equivalency is just pitiful.
Let’s just agree that this is a pretty extreme reaction against a sports team, but it’s in response to an action that’s also pretty extreme.
I tried looking for equivalent scenarios in football. I found a couple of cases where soccer officials in the US were actually killed by being struck by angry players, and that led to homicide convictions but no actions against the teams because these were actions by individuals.
Here is an article about attacks on officials by NFL players, and the result is fines against the players:
Again, this seems fairly unprecedented, which is why I am surprised at the reactions here about it being normal. It’s not, not at all.
One of the reasons that Texas has cracked down on this is a notorious incident from five years ago where a coach admitted to coordinating two players in an attack on a referee:
The coach initially denied involvement and only came forward later in the investigation. He still maintains that the referee was “making racial comments” which ranks only behind “he was talking about my mom!” in terms of things 12-year-olds say when they’re caught wailing on someone by an authority figure, and doesn’t exactly meet the standards for educator leadership.
After that fiasco - when it was made clear that coaches ordering players to target referees is a thing that goes on in Texas - and the fact that the program that did this not only was allowed to continue playing, but didn’t even permanently kick the players involved off the football team(2 years later, player who attacked ref returns to field for Jay), it was clear that some additional sanctions from the governing body are needed.
You cannot trust Texas high school principals or coaches to police football on their own accord. This has been shown time and time again. These are people who believe the school system exists as an administrative apparatus for football teams. The only way to get them to pay attention to basic decency is to threaten to take football away. Left to their own devices they will actually maim and kill referees to gain an advantage.
Yes, in a sense it is “punishing people who did nothing wrong” to suspend all of the players on the team from the playoffs. What you refuse to acknowledge is that forcing referees to tolerate having their limbs broken, be paralyzed, be murdered etc. on the field is ALSO punishing someone who did nothing wrong. Given the choice between two non-ideal options and the inevitably that someone who “did nothing wrong” is going to be “punished,” the choice that lets everyone walk off the field in one piece and doesn’t encourage a war to the death is the one that should be chosen.
Way back in this thread, I kept trying to make the point that high school sports programs exist (or should exist) as part of the educational process, not as some free-standing entity that merely uses the school for playing space, fund-raising and clerical help.
Any high school program, or coach, that does not understand this is failing to serve participating students. And appropriate action, up to and including suspension of a program, or dismissal of coaching staff, is the absolute duty of principals and school superintendents and school districts, etc.
We have forfeited games, so the strategy of sending out a bench player to beat up the ref is not tolerated. If we didn’t have those team penalties, then there would be no end of marginal players willing to eat that arrest to help win.
If the teacher is using the math program to coordinate assaults on the AP Calculus exam graders by math students then I think the option of suspending the math program would at least be on the table.
Plus, here’s a wild and crazy thought: maybe teaching kids math is closer to the core function of education than playing football, so there’a a much larger incentive to keep the math programme running.
You have no evidence of any “strategy” in this case. And if you do, punish the individuals who did something wrong. The coach has been punished. We can discuss whether adequately or not; he and the administrators all still have their jobs after all. Punishing the other players is just theater.
Or, hold your breath here, just get a new teacher so that the blameless students aren’t denied math education.
My post was in response to the argument that football is part of the educational process, and that a poor instructor means the program should be suspended. As I already wrote, if football isn’t a good use of resources for the school, cancel away. But one fuck-up on the team has zero bearing on that decision. You can find a new coach just like you can find a new math teacher.