|
Post by continosbuckle on Apr 5, 2013 12:47:34 GMT -5
I dunno, to me the lines seem to be pretty clear. Anything that would or could cause physical harm is just assault. A non-forceful kick in the ass is not. Actually, legally, you're wrong. Physical contact does not need to cause physical harm to qualify as assault. Even so, how are you going to define physical harm? Is a bruise physical harm? If the kid felt it for a few minutes is that physical harm? Or does he actually have to start breaking bones or drawing blood? If that's the case, can he beat the living crap out of his players with phonebooks to avoid violating the rule? Can he sodomize them? Again, you either allow everything or you allow nothing, or you draw these distinctions that ultimately can't be effectively enforced because they can't be effectively defined. If you're going to create a middle-path rule that can result in someone losing their job, you better have a good definition of what "physical harm" constitutes. As for me, I see no utility in allowing coaches to physically, verbally and emotionally abuse their players. Can you convince me otherwise without falling into the "anyone who thinks like that is a pu**y" line? Is that now our most compelling concern in rule-making and enforcement?
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Apr 5, 2013 14:07:43 GMT -5
I dunno, to me the lines seem to be pretty clear. Anything that would or could cause physical harm is just assault. A non-forceful kick in the ass is not. Actually, legally, you're wrong. Physical contact does not need to cause physical harm to qualify as assault. Even so, how are you going to define physical harm? Is a bruise physical harm? If the kid felt it for a few minutes is that physical harm? Or does he actually have to start breaking bones or drawing blood? If that's the case, can he beat the living crap out of his players with phonebooks to avoid violating the rule? Can he sodomize them? Again, you either allow everything or you allow nothing, or you draw these distinctions that ultimately can't be effectively enforced because they can't be effectively defined. If you're going to create a middle-path rule that can result in someone losing their job, you better have a good definition of what "physical harm" constitutes. As for me, I see no utility in allowing coaches to physically, verbally and emotionally abuse their players. Can you convince me otherwise without falling into the "anyone who thinks like that is a pu**y" line? Is that now our most compelling concern in rule-making and enforcement? I don't see a particular need to taxonomize before the fact the various types of physicality that are allowed or not allowed, i think those calls can be made on a case-by-case basis, and based on what i saw in that video, i didn't see any contact that seemed terribly violent or abusive. there was collar grabbing, light shoving, that kind of thing. if he'd been smiling while doing it, it probably would have come across as jocular. also, i'm not clear why this "you either allow everything or you allow nothing" rule would apply to physical types of coaching but not physical types of playing, where there's all sorts of complex, equivocating rules regarding what sorts of physical contact is allowed and not allowed, and only occasionally do players' cracked leg bones wind up sticking out of their bodies as a result. To me it’s a consenting adult thing. If the players complain to an unusual degree, then it’s a problem. If they don’t (and they’re not being intimidated or coerced in some way), then it’s not. It’s not my business, as an unaffected outsider, to poke my nose in and insist that these students are being harmed by their coach’s conduct if they themselves don’t feel that they are. i want to make sure i'm clear: i don't like what this guy did, and i'm not real incensed that they fired him. i just am skeptical that a lot of the people claiming to be outraged by this actually ARE outraged, i think it's more that they see a lot of other people are pretending to be outraged, and it's better to be a source of outrage than its target so they're just jumping on the bandwagon. and i'm also skeptical that this guy's conduct is unusual. when i was in school in texas (which admittedly was a long time ago) questioning a player's masculinity was the main arrow in your typical P.E. coach's quiver, and homophobic and feminizing slurs were the way in which that was typically done. if we can tease out "acceptable" from "effective" conduct here, such conduct is plainly unacceptable but whether it's effective is a trickier question. i never saw the utility of such coaching myself and hated being the target of that kind of treatment, so i wasn't a big fan of P.E. or organized sports but I was the exception. Since I was the type who didn’t get that you couldn’t read “Are You There God, It’s Me, Margaret” in the cafeteria if you were a seventh-grade boy lest your masculinity be vigorously questioned; so never mind how I got treated when I fumbled a pop fly ball. Anyway, you or I might not see the use of questioning a player's masculinity in coaching, but coaches plainly see it as being useful; otherwise, they wouldn't do it so much. and they, not me, are the experts. it's also interesting that someone else mentioned that we'd never tolerate a math teacher acting like this coach did. and yet... Sports and P.E. are much more popular subjects, generally speaking, than math is. So maybe there’s something about having your masculinity questioned that men and boys actually _like_. I’ve always noticed quite a lot of cognitive dissonance in men’s locker rooms, where there are lots of homophobic slurs bandied around but there’s also lots of suggestive towel-snapping and homoerotic comments about one another’s athletic physiques. Athletic culture is not something I understand very well or particularly identify with but I have always gotten the sense that there was something more complicated than garden-variety gay-bashing going on when the slurs start flying…
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Apr 5, 2013 15:01:29 GMT -5
I think you're both missing the point. The actual, practical, material reason there's this reaction is because it was caught on video and shown on youtube/FB/whatever. I mean that seriously. It matters less in this case what the actual content of the speech/actions were so much as the fact that it became a public scandal. Even if it's determined that, legally, the guy did nothing wrong and that every other NCAA coach does it, the different fact here is that a spotlight got shown on it, and Rutgers had to do something about it. Once it became an "issue," Rice was pretty much done, no matter what he really did. Edit: I see NewMads already made this point. So he's not missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by continosbuckle on Apr 5, 2013 20:04:05 GMT -5
Actually, legally, you're wrong. Physical contact does not need to cause physical harm to qualify as assault. Even so, how are you going to define physical harm? Is a bruise physical harm? If the kid felt it for a few minutes is that physical harm? Or does he actually have to start breaking bones or drawing blood? If that's the case, can he beat the living crap out of his players with phonebooks to avoid violating the rule? Can he sodomize them? Again, you either allow everything or you allow nothing, or you draw these distinctions that ultimately can't be effectively enforced because they can't be effectively defined. If you're going to create a middle-path rule that can result in someone losing their job, you better have a good definition of what "physical harm" constitutes. As for me, I see no utility in allowing coaches to physically, verbally and emotionally abuse their players. Can you convince me otherwise without falling into the "anyone who thinks like that is a pu**y" line? Is that now our most compelling concern in rule-making and enforcement? I don't see a particular need to taxonomize before the fact the various types of physicality that are allowed or not allowed, i think those calls can be made on a case-by-case basis, and based on what i saw in that video, i didn't see any contact that seemed terribly violent or abusive. there was collar grabbing, light shoving, that kind of thing. if he'd been smiling while doing it, it probably would have come across as jocular. Then there's no defined rule and double standards become the rule by default. We accept a winning coach beating up and injuring his players but we don't accept a losing coach touching his players harshly or even insulting them. And if that's not bad enough, that opens the institution up to a lawsuit when one guy gets fired for conduct that another guy doesn't get fired for. You end up divorcing the conduct from the punishment and then just make it a standard based on who's doing it. It's quite possibly a nightmare and a quagmire, one that doesn't have to exist if we just acknowledge that there's no real utility to allowing it and that it'd just be best if coaches didn't abuse their players. also, i'm not clear why this "you either allow everything or you allow nothing" rule would apply to physical types of coaching but not physical types of playing, where there's all sorts of complex, equivocating rules regarding what sorts of physical contact is allowed and not allowed, and only occasionally do players' cracked leg bones wind up sticking out of their bodies as a result. To me it’s a consenting adult thing. If the players complain to an unusual degree, then it’s a problem. If they don’t (and they’re not being intimidated or coerced in some way), then it’s not. It’s not my business, as an unaffected outsider, to poke my nose in and insist that these students are being harmed by their coach’s conduct if they themselves don’t feel that they are. There's a different legal standard for conduct within a game than there is for conduct outside a game. That's why James Harrison has never been sued by the players he almost certainly intended to injure. This has been settled law for over 30 years. It does not, however, extend to allowing coaches to abuse their players, unless you want to make the claim, which has dubious legal merit, that the players consented to the abuse as part of signing up to play, and that it's an unavoidable side effect of being coached. Also, I wonder why you wouldn't consider the loss of one's place on a team and the potential loss of a scholarship prima facie coercion or intimidation. When you get on the coach's bad side, say goodbye to your playing career. You admit you're not that versed on college sports. A lot of my friends and family were scholarship athletes, and considering their perspective, I don't believe you truly appreciate how much your coach controls your life in that situation. If he wants to ruin you, he can and he will. And mummi, I'm not sure how your point is relevant. I think the discussion is whether this becoming public necessarily meant that Rutgers had to fire Rice, or whether we've become an oversensitive, pussified society that overreacts to ordinary circumstances. Obviously the rule of no physical contact or abuse has been effectively established. The question we're discussing is whether that's appropriate or proper, or an overreaction. Also, I think the difference between math class and athletics is based on how differently those fields of "study" came about. Math class and the like came out of what was originally a monastic culture, whereas I suspect that athletics approaches its standards from a militaristic tradition. That said, that doesn't mean it always needs to be that way. After all, nobody's life is at stake if your basketball team is poorly prepared. EDIT: Also TheNewMads, when you write this: "I don't see a particular need to taxonomize before the fact the various types of physicality that are allowed or not allowed, " You're contradicting every single post you've made on this subject. Every time you've defended Rice you've suggested that he didn't kick/hit the kids "that hard", or that the slurs he used weren't "that bad", suggesting that in your mind you've decided that there's a line somewhere where he could be striking his players too hard, or that there would be some slurs that would pass over into objectionable. I purposefully want you to make that definition because I think it's the best way to show how absurd that argument is - frex, to have you explain why "fa*got" does not cross the line and why "ni**er" does. And why striking the players in some cases is perfectly acceptable but in other cases it's not. You obviously think this, because you've written this in every post you've made on this thread. Case-by-case basis is a worthless standard. Show stupid ol' me who doesn't understand where that line should be drawn.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Apr 5, 2013 23:23:51 GMT -5
And mummi, I'm not sure how your point is relevant. Rude! I will have you fired! Mine was a practical point. If there hadn't been video, it would have likely been dismissed. That sidesteps all the real issues, but it's what would have happened. Hm. Maybe. I see your point, but my perspective is as a parent watching/hearing other parents sound off on this issue. To me, there's no real difference now between a coach and a teacher, regardless of tradition. I want my son's baseball coach to teach him how to hit, not to mask some macho bullpoopie about yelling into a weird philosophy of character-building because that's how his daddy abused taught him. Screw all that baggage. Teach my kid how to have skills, how to be a good teammate, and how to work hard for something he wants. Screaming and hitting aren't an essential part of that, no matter how you dress it up.
|
|
|
Post by BJ on Apr 6, 2013 22:30:00 GMT -5
There's a lot going on here, so it's tough to respond directly. Anyway, here's my 2 cents, worth approximately 5 Euro. I think the math comparison is a bit tough, simply because of the discipline involved. Negative reinforcement has been a basic managerial tool for the military and athletic instructors for centuries. It's not the only tool, or even the most important, but the results are tangible. In sports, as well as the military, team building is one of the keys to success. When an inexperienced group of people feel burdened by a common foe, they form a bond. Whether it's boot camp, fraternity hazing, or a coach yelling at players, it has the same effect. They get together and want to rise above their tormentor. In theory, once this happens, the manager no longer needs to be such a task master, as the group will understand the culture and be self-policing. Basically, it's the entire plot of the film 12 O'Clock High. I'm not sure how often that would help in academia however. I guess if you're teaching someone how to disarm a bomb, you could yell and punch them in the face every time they make a fatal error. In a high school math class, however, it would probably just result in quiet and timid students. They won't care about learning, but not angering their insane teacher. That's not exactly the Socratic method. I should also add that despite what I've said, I'm very biased on the issue of college football and basketball coaches. I basically think they're all scum. Obviously, that's a gross generalisation, but when I read about Rutgers, Penn State, Syracuse, Southern Cal, U Dub, Auburn, Alabama, and Urban f-ing Meyer, etc., I can't help but hold to that theory. These men, and some women, have a god complex that draws them to coaching. They break any rule, leave anyone in their dust, all for the sake of personal glory. I can't believe Mike Rice was ever hired by any school. The videos I've seen, especially his apology interview, make him look like a sociopath. Patrick Bateman was more composed when he was eating... well, if you know the story, you can finish that sentence. If I'm a parent, I want him at least 500 yards away from my child. As an addendum, I have a strange admiration for Bobby Knight. He definitely had a violent temper that needed to be kept in check, but he seemed to actually care about his players as athletes, students and human beings. That's seems rare among top level programs. Also TL;DR
|
|
|
Post by Crowfan on Apr 18, 2013 17:59:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Crowfan on Apr 18, 2013 18:26:41 GMT -5
|
|