I have all the evidence I need of how players, coaches, and parents in Texas view football, and if you are seriously arguing that they would not use this strategy were it not blocked to them by the forfeit rule then you are either incredibly naive or being deliberately obtuse.
If a student brutally assaulted the chemistry teacher, but got a pass on that because, well, he was really good at chemistry, and then went on to assault another teacher, maybe we should, because clearly that school has some serious problems.
And here’s the thing – if a student did assault a chemistry teacher, it wouldn’t even be controversial if that student were expelled and arrested. It would be controversial if he wasn’t.
And yet, in this case, the student got a freebie for the first assault. He was given that free pass by the coaching staff, principal, faculty and administration of that school. So it seems to me there’s a problem.
Tell me, point out to me, why should assaults on the field be treated differently from assaults in the classroom?
It isn’t just “one fuck-up on the team,” though. It’s the coaching staff, faculty and administration who tolerated this kind of behavior. The problem isn’t just one-fuck up. It’s much bigger.
Cancelling other students’ education is an absurd reaction to your scenario.
Tell me, point out to me, where I ever suggested they should be?
And the other students aren’t on this list. Inability or unwillingness to punish perpetrators does not justify punishing third parties.
Of course. But closing the school where this kind of thing happened, sending the students to other schools, and regrouping and restructuring, would be a perfectly appropriate reaction.
I don’t think you did. But it’s still a valid question. If a student assaulted a teacher in the classroom, I don’t think he would be given a pass. But this football player assaulted a referee on the field, and was given a pass. Don’t you think that’s indicative of a larger problem than “one fuck-up”?
Again, closing the school that tolerates violence isn’t punishing the students, it’s helping them. Of course those students would continue their education, with different faculty and administrators. And perhaps, for a time, in a different building.
Football is more like an afterschool chemistry club than like chemistry class (football is to gym (the actual required subject at school) as chemistry club is to chemistry class). If a kid commits assault at chemistry club, he should be thrown out of the club (and punished otherwise). If the club is found to have sheltered that same kid for previous assaults, then the club’s faculty advisor should be in trouble. If it turns out that the school can’t find another faculty advisor, then the chemistry club might end up being cancelled for the rest of the year. Sad news for the rest of the club member - but they’ll still be getting their regular chemistry education in class.
Okay, fair point.
The only quibble I would have is that football (or any other sport) should be more like the afterschool chemistry club, but isn’t, in some places. I mean, that’s kind of what I’ve been arguing in this thread. Unfortunately, in some places, football is driving the train, not just riding on it.
I played on my high school basketball team (although I was definitely not a star, or even a starter), and the program was viewed as just an afterschool activity. Yes, there was a coach, and an assistant coach, and they were on the payroll, but the status of the interscholastic competitive athletic program was definitely lower than that of, say, the classics program or the mathematics program.
All in all, I think that’s the way it should be.
I think we’re agreeing with each other.
I find this highly unlikely. And at the school in question, they’re not even doing that; they’ll have the same people in charge next season. Hence my assertion that the punishment (or “helping”) of the other students is theater.
I agree with you. The people who had the authority to remove a violent player from their team and failed to do so should be removed from authority. It’s conceivable that doing so might harm school football program. If so, so be it. Keeping the coaches (etc.) around but punishing the other players is backwards. That’s what the analogy with the afterschool chemistry club is supposed to illustrate (what this school has apparently done is like cancelling the club, but not punishing the faculty advisor that let the assaults happen).
Fuck it.
A service to all students everywhere would be canceling all football programs, in high schools AND colleges. And canceling it in professional sports would be a service to humanity.
I generally see little value in sports, but I’m trying to leave that aside for this discussion.
Football is a “team” sport. You rise and fall together as a team. One guy fucks up, everybody pays. That’s the nature of the beast, especially at the high school level.
Personally, I’d not only prosecute the kid vigorously, I’d abolish football at that high school for the next 10 years or so, just as an object lesson to everyone that such behavior is a Major Sin.
Except it’s not, as has already been explained multiple times in the thread you decided to post to without reading.
I think I will take the word of a career teacher seriously.
That may be how you’d like football to work, but it isn’t.
A guy assaults an official or another player, or has off-the-field conduct issues, he gets fined, or suspended, or banned, because that’s an issue with an individual’s conduct.
If the team is breaking rules like illegally recording their opponents, or bribing people, the team as a whole gets punished.
I don’t have an issue in this case where they went after the athletic program in general, or the coach, because they did let this slide despite knowing he was a problem, and I do believe the issue here went beyond just one bad student. It was also a judgment problem with those making decisions about the student.
But the idea that since football is a team sport, everyone pays when one player causes a problem, that’s just ignorant. That isn’t how things normally work. Again, even in cases where a homicide has occurred, I haven’t seen a team get penalized.
I posted earlier about how the NFL handles things. I also found an incident from 2013 where a teenager on a soccer team punched a referee and killed him.
I’ve been searching for any information about the team being disciplined and I can’t find anything. I don’t think anyone really even cares, because you can’t blame something like that on the team. The individual is the one who committed the crime and he’s the one who deserves punishment.
Generally the worst that comes of a player’s on the field misconduct is a penalty and at worse an ejection, either of which can harm the team’s chances at winning that game. Further sanctions are limited to the player. It’s highly unusual for it to go beyond that.
ETA: The reason I’ve used soccer incidents as examples is because as best as I can tell, this hasn’t happened at any level in American football, unless someone has better Google skills than I do (which is certainly probable).
Obviously, you’ve never done a group project in school or on the job.
Again, we’re talking football. That’s why I’m using examples about football, or trying to find examples as close as I can to similar situations in other organized team sports (especially at the high school level). You’re introducing a non sequitur.
Except in Texas it is no longer unusual. It’s the rule now, and it’s the rule precisely because of past incidents which have shown that anything short of taking away the opportunity to play football will not cause school administrators and coaches to reign in player behavior in any way.
Yes, it sucks for the kids on the team who didn’t do anything wrong that this bludgeon must be used on the coaches. But it must indeed, as experience has shown. The alternative is more maimed referees. Miraculously, someone in Texas managed to have their head far enough away from their ass long enough to realize that when presented with two imperfectly fair options, the one that doesn’t include the creation of incentives to paralyze or kill people is the less bad one.