11/17/24
September 29, 2010
Coaches Brawl at Pee Wee Football Game: A dozen coaches from two Pearland, Texas, youth football teams got into a brawl during the game two weekends ago, resulting in their teams being barred from postseason play. Some players tried unsuccessfully to separate the adults. "I can't believe the coaches did that in front of us, because it sets a bad example," said player Justin Guy-Robinson, 11. A followup report indicates the fight began when a coach grabbed an opposing team's player and threw him to the ground.
that guy who threw a sucker punch to the back of the other guy's head.
I really hope that slob broke his hand in the process. Bunch of jackasses.
posted by tahoemoj at 11:13 AM on September 29, 2010
If some adult had grabbed my kid and thrown him to the ground he would be facing far more than a post-season ban.
Even an 11 year old knows what a terrible example this set for the kids. These guys should be banned permanently from coaching. Parents should certainly not let their kids play on their teams.
posted by irunfromclones at 12:43 PM on September 29, 2010
They sure have a lot of coaches in Texas pee wee football.
posted by rcade at 03:11 PM on September 29, 2010
They sure have a lot of coaches in Texas pee wee football.
We take our football serious here, even pee-wee :-)
My son's in flag competitive football league (K-1st grade), not far from Pearland, and he has an offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, head coach, line coach, and statistician.
And you wouldn't believe some of the coaches and players even for the K-1st level. Last year one particularly horrible team we faced had the parents screaming at their kids to "push their faces in the mud!"..I was volunteered to spot the ball when the kids went out of bounds and one of the coaches was yelling at me for giving a "generous" spot (I told him "I'm not a freaking professional...I'm a dad roped into spot duty!") Just complete idiots in these competitive leagues, so I'm not surprised to see them getting that far carried away.
posted by bdaddy at 05:16 PM on September 29, 2010
wow, my son played Pee Wee football here in Texas and we never had more than 4 "coaches", nor did we ever get involved in any sort of brawl.
As to number of coaches, keep in mind that you need more than 2 or 3 just to be able to keep the kids organized. Hard to focus on calling plays if you're the guy dealing with little Jimmy needing to go to the bathroom. We had the head coach, O and D coaches and a couple of guys that were mainly there to keep the boys organized on the sidelines.
These guys ought to be banned from the league.
posted by dviking at 07:02 PM on September 29, 2010
I would love to cast aspersions, but hockey dads and moms in Canada can be the most brutal, violent assholes going. It just gets a bit stupid in the places where a sport is also a religion.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:39 PM on September 29, 2010
They sure have a lot of coaches in Texas pee wee football.
That was my first thought, too.
posted by owlhouse at 11:17 PM on September 29, 2010
In Massachusetts high school sports, the state-wide governing body has barred spectators from postseason play in response to fan misbehavior several times. Not individual miscreants -- ALL spectators (as in, playing to empty seats). I haven't heard of this being used recently, which makes me think it may have had the desired effect, and that athletic directors are well aware of this possible sanction and make fans aware of it too. When it's the coaches that misbehave, I don't see how you can do less than toss both teams (and permanently toss the coaches, too).
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:47 AM on September 30, 2010
If some adult had grabbed my kid and thrown him to the ground he would be facing far more than a post-season ban.
So you would have fit right in with the rest of the rioting coaches.
Even an 11 year old knows what a terrible example this set for the kids. These guys should be banned permanently from coaching. Parents should certainly not let their kids play on their teams.
If you attacked someone who threw your son to the ground, wouldn't you be setting the same terrible example for your kid?
posted by cjets at 12:03 PM on September 30, 2010
If you attacked someone who threw your son to the ground, wouldn't you be setting the same terrible example for your kid?
Are you nuts?
I mean, I know the prevailing thought around seems to be that if you ever lift your hand to someone else, you're John Wayne Gacy waiting to happen, but if someone throws your kid on the ground you're not going to take that guy out?
Doesn't anyone protect their own any more?
posted by wfrazerjr at 01:01 PM on September 30, 2010
I'm on Frazer's side on this one. I would have kicked that coach's ass for throwing my kid to the ground.
posted by rcade at 01:13 PM on September 30, 2010
but if someone throws your kid on the ground you're not going to take that guy out?
If I can prevent someone from throwing my kid to the ground or hurting them, I would gladly take them out.
But if it's already done, the first thing I do is make sure my kid is OK or get help for him if he isn't. Kicking the guy's ass at that point just makes me another rioting coach.
We've had this discussion before, Fraze, and in your world, cops apparently turn a blind eye to people fighing.
In my world, people get sued, get arrested and go to jail. I've spent a night in jail for assault. I'd prefer not to do that again.
I think it would be worse for my kid to see me hauled off to jail than to get thrown to the ground by some asshole.
Doesn't anyone protect their own any more?
If the damage is done, it's not protecting anyone. It's just revenge. And revenge is a dish best served cold.
posted by cjets at 01:30 PM on September 30, 2010
I think it would be worse for my kid to see me hauled off to jail than to get thrown to the ground by some asshole.
I guess that's where we'll differ.
You want to talk about what message you're sending to a child, to me, the worst part of that equation would be my child seeing me not go after the guy.
You can explain to an 11-year-old why you went to jail for a night. I don't know if that same child would accept an explanation of "Well, what did you want me to do, hit him?" after you picked him up off the ground.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:20 PM on September 30, 2010
Ah, but the third and most valuable lesson that you're unsurprisingly ignoring comes when you make sure your child is okay, call the authorities, and watch along with your kid as the coach is hauled off to jail.
That way your kid doesn't watch you do something stupid.
posted by Hugh Janus at 02:58 PM on September 30, 2010
Call the authorities, and watch along with your kid as the coach is hauled off to jail.
That way your kid doesn't watch you do something stupid.
Yes, exactly.
Otherwise, you're condoning the riot, your team being suspended from the playoffs and going to jail yourself.
posted by cjets at 03:03 PM on September 30, 2010
You want to talk about what message you're sending to a child, to me, the worst part of that equation would be my child seeing me not go after the guy.
"If some moron picks a fight, you have to fight him," is not a lesson my (hypothetical) child needs to learn.
posted by bender at 03:16 PM on September 30, 2010
In my world, people get sued, get arrested and go to jail.
The adult had just assaulted a child. If his dad is charged with assault, I like his chances with a jury of his peers.
The other adults whose child was not involved didn't have to riot. They could have calmed things down. You can't hang all of that on the dad who responded instinctively to an attack on his kid.
posted by rcade at 04:33 PM on September 30, 2010
Call the authorities, and watch along with your kid as the coach is hauled off to jail.
Me thinks you're being very optimistic about what the outcome of calling the cops in a situation like this would be. Even if the cops show up in time to talk to the coach, unless everyone else backs up your story, and someone has it on video, the cop almost certainly isn't hauling the guy off to jail.
In the police report the officer merely reports that behavior as "inappropriate and rough".
On a side note, the follow up report states that the kid was thrown threw the air, not thrown to the ground. Maybe that doesn't make a difference, maybe it does, but I'd rather be thrown back a few feet than thrown to the ground. Also, given the number of parents video taping these games, I find it odd that no one had that on tape. Just pure luck I guess.
posted by dviking at 04:52 PM on September 30, 2010
The adult had just assaulted a child. If his dad is charged with assault, I like his chances with a jury of his peers.
You're probably right. If the D.A. doesn't want to make an example of him and if he hires a high priced defense attorney who knows what he's doing. Me? If possible, I'd rather avoid all the bullshit that comes with being tried for assault.
"If some moron picks a fight, you have to fight him," is not a lesson my (hypothetical) child needs to learn.
Well said.
posted by cjets at 04:57 PM on September 30, 2010
"If some moron picks a fight, you have to fight him," is not a lesson my (hypothetical) child needs to learn.
Doesn't a child have to learn that there are some situations where a fight is necessary, though? There's a middle ground here.
posted by rcade at 07:06 PM on September 30, 2010
The difference is whether you are escalating the conflict or not. If you pick your kid up off the ground, he's okay, then you attack the guy. You are escalating the conflict. If you stand in front of an adult trying to assault your kid, you aren't escalating, you are protecting. The law makes this distinction. Protecting yourself and others from an imminent threat is okay, with the key word in this situation being imminent.
posted by bperk at 08:21 PM on September 30, 2010
The adult had just assaulted a child. If his dad is charged with assault, I like his chances with a jury of his peers.
Do you also "like" the process he's going to have to go through to get that optimistic verdict of yours? Do you "like" the idea of getting arrested, spending the night (or weekend) in jail, posting bail, legal expenses, court appearances, being released under conditions (not to approach the victim, not to leave the state, whatever), the publicity, having everyone including your boss know what's going on, going to trial? You "like" all that, do you?
Doesn't a child have to learn that there are some situations where a fight is necessary, though?
rcade, I've been training in martial arts since the early '90s. I've been in endless discussions about self-defense and when this or that is necessary, and one thing I can tell you for sure is that very few adults have the faintest bastard clue of when a fight is necessary. They act out of some unhealthy combination of ego, alcohol, rage, viciousness, cowardice and stupidity. They are in no position to teach any child any lessons about when to fight.
You keep dodging the central question: your child has been thrown to the ground, PAST TENSE. The coach is not continuing to swarm over your child. Why is it now "necessary" to fight? What harm will your fighting prevent? You haven't answered because there is no answer.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:09 PM on September 30, 2010
No answer? Maybe you need to grow a set of balls to go with all that martial arts training. Someone throws my kid to the ground, I'm not going to send a protest e-mail to the league, I'm not going to call anyone else to handle it for me, I am going to find him and see how he enjoys being thrown to the ground.
Just because it's past tense doesn't mean that an adult gets away with physically abusing someone else's kid. What is so embarrassing about having everyone know you defend your kids? Sorry llb you just sound chickenshit. I can see why you still don't know when self defense is necessary.
I'd be willing to bet in most states except for California, for defending your child the cop would shake your hand, and the District Attorney wouldn't even think about filing charges.
posted by irunfromclones at 03:31 AM on October 01, 2010
You keep dodging the central question: your child has been thrown to the ground, PAST TENSE.
It's still in the heat of the moment, when many parents would respond physically to defend their child. His dad did not know the coach who just assaulted his son was not going to continue the activity or assault other children. If the dad took action against the coach to prevent further assault, I think that's reasonable.
If I was on a jury, I would never find a parent guilty of assault for tackling or punching an adult who had just assaulted his kid.
They are in no position to teach any child any lessons about when to fight.
So because few adults know when a fight is necessary, no parent should ever teach a child when it is necessary? Bullshit. I think most parents are reasonably averse to violence and can teach their kids the right way to act in situations that might arise.
posted by rcade at 09:18 AM on October 01, 2010
irunfromclones:
No answer? Maybe you need to grow a set of balls to go with all that martial arts training.
That'll take some doing.
I'd be willing to bet in most states except for California, for defending your child the cop would shake your hand, and the District Attorney wouldn't even think about filing charges.
Oh, you're "willing", are you? Well then you go right ahead and do that. You go right ahead and bet your money, your time, your freedom, your health, your family's financial well-being and your good name. That's what you're putting up in that bet. And if you win, you get...remind me?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:59 AM on October 01, 2010
So because few adults know when a fight is necessary, no parent should ever teach a child when it is necessary? Bullshit.
The idea that a parent should not try to teach their child something they know nothing about is "bullshit"? Well, I guess you told me. Now you go right out there and teach Junior how to perform open-heart surgery. Let me know how that works out.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:01 AM on October 01, 2010
You should try harder to understand the perspectives of other people, LBB. There is no point addressing your asinine impression of what my comment meant.
posted by rcade at 11:12 AM on October 01, 2010
Okay, rcade, where does the "asinine" part come in? Are you saying that you're one of the few adults who knows when a fight is necessary, and therefore is in a position to teach same to a child? If a parent doesn't know something, how can he/she teach it? I'm honestly confused here.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:25 PM on October 01, 2010
His dad did not know the coach who just assaulted his son was not going to continue the activity or assault other children. If the dad took action against the coach to prevent further assault, I think that's reasonable.
Now you're just changing the facts to suit your scenario. Even the people agreeing with you seem to be making their argument under the assumption that the damage was done.
I think we all agree that we would physically stop someone from hurting our kid by any means necessary. But if the damage is done and the coach is no longer a threat, that's another story.
posted by cjets at 12:56 PM on October 01, 2010
Now you're just changing the facts to suit your scenario.
What are the facts I've changed? All we know is that a coach assaulted a kid and his dad charged across the field to confront him, which led to the brawl. The video doesn't show the original assault, the dad's reaction or what the coach did in response.
Are you saying that you're one of the few adults who knows when a fight is necessary, and therefore is in a position to teach same to a child?
I'm saying what I already said: "most parents are reasonably averse to violence and can teach their kids the right way to act in situations that might arise."
posted by rcade at 01:09 PM on October 01, 2010
I'm saying what I already said: "most parents are reasonably averse to violence and can teach their kids the right way to act in situations that might arise."
Mmm....well....I guess, based on some of the responses in this thread, I'm going to have to disagree. They describe actions that are retaliatory rather than defensive or preventive, and I don't think teaching kids to retaliate is the way to go. I'm trying to imagine the discussion with the kid afterwards (a necessary part of the teaching process) in which you explain to the kid why retaliation was appropriate in this case. What would you say to the kid to teach him/her to make a very difficult judgment in the heat of the moment, i.e., to recognize the unusual case where retaliation is appropriate, and also know when it is not, and to refrain in those cases?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:26 PM on October 01, 2010
What are the facts I've changed? All we know is that a coach assaulted a kid and his dad charged across the field to confront him, which led to the brawl.
Clearly we do not know exactly what happened here.
But several posters, including myself, made a clear distinction between defending your kids from actual harm and retaliation after the fact.
Bperk put it best:
The difference is whether you are escalating the conflict or not. If you pick your kid up off the ground, he's okay, then you attack the guy. You are escalating the conflict. If you stand in front of an adult trying to assault your kid, you aren't escalating, you are protecting. The law makes this distinction. Protecting yourself and others from an imminent threat is okay, with the key word in this situation being imminent.
Several other posters made the point that retaliation after the fact was OK.
For you to state that he may have been defending his son seems to ignore the debate we are having. I think everyone is agreement that a parent has a right to physically defend his child by any means necessary. It's whether or not we have the right to punish or retaliate against the adult who hurt our child AFTER THE CHILD IS OUT OF DANGER that is at issue here.
posted by cjets at 01:51 PM on October 01, 2010
Are you saying that you're one of the few adults who knows when a fight is necessary, and therefore is in a position to teach same to a child?
From this thread it looks like everyone knows when a fight is necessary. Missing so many details of what happened I don't understand how everyone is so sure of what the correct reaction would be.
posted by tron7 at 02:19 PM on October 01, 2010
Cjets: These situations don't lend themselves to clarity. There's a gray area between protection and retaliation when an adult has just assaulted your child, and I think that a parent who strikes back in such a situation deserves the benefit of the doubt.
LBB: If my kids saw a parent punch a guy who had just assaulted his kid, I'd tell my kids that perhaps he could have handled it differently, but parents react strongly when people hurt their kids.
I don't know who has kids and who doesn't here. I'm an even tempered and mild-mannered person who doesn't get into verbal disputes or go looking for trouble. The one exception is when some stranger yells at my kids.
We had this discussion already about Pukemon. I'm surprised the position that anybody who assaults your kid deserves an ass-kicking is in the minority.
posted by rcade at 03:10 PM on October 01, 2010
rcade:
I'm surprised the position that anybody who assaults your kid deserves an ass-kicking is in the minority.
Who says it is? Hell, I'm sure that most people react just like you. But these people often get so focused on whether the retaliation is "deserved" that they seem to believe that "is deserved" = "has no consequences". Righteous anger is a hard emotion to rein in, but it doesn't get you a Get Out Of Jail Free card -- fact, not opinion.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:49 PM on October 01, 2010
No answer? Maybe you need to grow a set of balls to go with all that martial arts training.
That'll take some doing.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but just wanted to address how goddamn funny that exchange was.
posted by tahoemoj at 04:15 PM on October 01, 2010
Well, I did grow a fine crop of sugarbaby watermelons this summer.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:27 PM on October 01, 2010
Cjets: These situations don't lend themselves to clarity. There's a gray area between protection and retaliation when an adult has just assaulted your child, and I think that a parent who strikes back in such a situation deserves the benefit of the doubt.
It's not a big deal. But the responses above, including yours:
I'm on Frazer's side on this one. I would have kicked that coach's ass for throwing my kid to the ground.
seems to indicate that you would have kicked the coach's ass whether or not your child continued to be in any danger.
So yes, it is a grey area. But the discussion did not seem to be.
posted by cjets at 04:44 PM on October 01, 2010
I've been training in martial arts since the early '90s. I've been in endless discussions about self-defense and when this or that is necessary, and one thing I can tell you for sure is that very few adults have the faintest bastard clue of when a fight is necessary. They act out of some unhealthy combination of ego, alcohol, rage, viciousness, cowardice and stupidity. They are in no position to teach any child any lessons about when to fight.
But because you have martial-arts training, you are?
posted by wfrazerjr at 04:51 PM on October 01, 2010
I'm an even tempered and mild-mannered person who doesn't get into verbal disputes or go looking for trouble. The one exception is when some stranger yells at my kids.
I have three small kids myself. And I do completely understand.
And one of the reasons, I find discussing this so helpful is that it is a reminder of how I think I should act. So in the heat of the moment, I hope this reminds me to think twice before smashing someone in the face when it isn't really necessary to protect my kids.
Once the fists start flying anything could happen. There could be a riot. You could punch the guy and he hits his head and dies. The other guy could have a knife or a gun (Three times this has happened to me. Twice with guns.).
Or you could get arrested. As LBB has mentioned several times, being a criminal defendant is not fun, even if you are completely exonerated.
posted by cjets at 04:59 PM on October 01, 2010
The other guy could have a knife or a gun (Three times this has happened to me. Twice with guns.).
Jesus!
posted by rcade at 05:07 PM on October 01, 2010
Sheesh, once would have been enough for me to find a new hobby.
posted by tron7 at 05:43 PM on October 01, 2010
I've had martial arts training. Can I kick the coach's ass now? It's nice to approach intellectually, but I'd be seeing red and would feel pretty justified in confronting the coach.
However, what if the coach is Bobby Knight and he is the coach of your kid? I bet some of you would be ok with watching Bobby Knight abuse his players including your son. But if the rival coach did it - you'd be all over him. There's something to that.
But, fuck you guys are litigious. We would have a fight and barring any serious injury I doubt there would even be a court case.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:49 PM on October 01, 2010
However, what if the coach is Bobby Knight and he is the coach of your kid?
What's our record?
posted by rcade at 05:50 PM on October 01, 2010
A fair point, indeed.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:51 PM on October 01, 2010
But because you have martial-arts training, you are?
Did you read what I wrote? I said that I've seen many, many, many discussions about when fighting is necessary or justified. I've heard all kinds of reasoning and seen all kinds of reactions to hypothetical situations of some undesirable laying hands upon your wife or girlfriend or kid or whatever. I've heard a lot of what people have to say about what they would do in such situations, and that convinces me that most of them don't know what they're talking about.
By the way, did you know that Thomas Junta was recently released from prison?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:53 PM on October 01, 2010
Nicely played, LBB.
posted by rcade at 09:41 AM on October 02, 2010
Oh, you're "willing", are you? Well then you go right ahead and do that. You go right ahead and bet your money, your time, your freedom, your health, your family's financial well-being and your good name. That's what you're putting up in that bet. And if you win, you get...remind me?
Yes, I'm quite willing to do whatever it takes to defend my children or family. My good name depends upon it as does my self-respect and the respect of my family and friends. Perhaps thats too arcane a concept for you to understand. You can stand on the sideline and watch it happen to your child, I can't.
I'm not talking about beating the other guy to a bloody pulp a la Thomas Junta , only applying the same force that was used by the coach on the kid.
posted by irunfromclones at 04:26 PM on October 02, 2010
Did you read what I wrote?
Yes, I did. I've been in endless discussions about self-defense and when this or that is necessary, and one thing I can tell you for sure is that very few adults have the faintest bastard clue of when a fight is necessary.
No, you can't. You can certainly tell yourself you believe that, but it doesn't mean I have to accept you as an expert.
By the way, did you know that Thomas Junta was recently released from prison?
Yes, because me protecting my child and other children around him is exactly the same as the Thomas Junta case.
You can't see it, I know, but I'm rolling my eyes as strenously as I can.
posted by wfrazerjr at 05:25 PM on October 02, 2010
It's a tough break for the kids that they are going to miss the postseason, but it's the right decision. A team sport means that they are all together for good and bad. Anyway, disappointed kids and angry parents are the real punishment that these coaches are going to face.
I can't believe police decided not to charge that guy who threw a sucker punch to the back of the other guy's head.