Author Topic: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not  (Read 16166 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • FAN REACTION: +36/-50
Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« on: February 21, 2015, 01:38:38 PM »
Below is a note sent to officials by a "purposely-made anonymous" State Athletic Association explaining why currently proposed legislation "criminalizing" attacks on sports officials is a bad idea.  While I believe the proposed legislation itself has mostly to do with non-scholastic officials, this State office appears to feel it might undo some of the hard work they have done to improve Jr. and High School sportsmanship.

I've highlighted some of the interesting comments; but I thought it would be helpful to hear from the Refstripes "intelligencia" as to your thoughts on those and any other points in the memo - and the subject as a whole. 

To wit:
Dear Officials:
As many of you are aware, there has been media coverage regarding a proposed bill dealing with sports officials and assault. There recently has been some criticism that we haven’t “had the backs” of sports officials regarding this proposal for a new state law. To make a difference of opinion about legislative strategy the litmus test of our support for officials does not tell the full story.
Moreover, from the standpoint of coaches and spectators, we is often criticized for our unconditional support of officials, even when officials occasionally misapply a game rule or misjudge a contest situation. That we always back officials, even when they are wrong, is a criticism that resonates with the public far more than the recent, rare criticism that we don’t have officials’ backs on a piece of legislation that we believe lacks real substance.
Despite the hype and hope, there are two things the proposed legislation will not do:
First, additional legal sanctions will not dissuade someone who has momentarily lost his or her mind to pause and think, “Oh yeah, If I slug this person, there’s an extra penalty.” There is no evidence that such legislation works as a deterrent to emotional outbursts. Second, putting such legislation on the books will not improve sportsmanship on the front lines. Such laws are empty words; improving sportsmanship is year-round, grassroots work of real substance.

Because our energies are invested in the ongoing work of improving sportsmanship in interscholastic athletics’ special niche in the world of sports, we have been known nationwide for several decades as a high school association with great passion for good sportsmanship and innovative programs to improve sportsmanship. This week, and almost every week, we have staff traveling “anytime, anywhere” to deliver face-to-face education to groups of high school coaches who, more than anyone else, influence the behaviors of both players and spectators. This type of training and education becomes mandatory for new varsity head coaches starting with the 2016-17 school year.
Through the years, we have promoted sportsmanship with audio and video and print promotions. We’ve conducted statewide, league and local sportsmanship summits as well as team captain and student leadership workshops. We have rewarded good sportsmanship, and penalized bad. All sportsmanship penalties are enforced without appeal; in other words, an ejected coach or player are automatically suspended for the next day of competition without any reduction, compromise or second-guessing of the official’s original call and subsequent penalty.
Our Constitution requires every member school to adopt a code of good sportsmanship for its athletes, coaches and spectators, an educational program to promote good sportsmanship, and a system of progressive discipline for failure to behave according to the code of good sportsmanship. A condition of  Association membership is to demonstrate that those requirements are being met. Time and money spent on real solutions, not symbolism, is our approach to creating and maintaining a higher level of sportsmanship. And it’s the best way for us to demonstrate its ongoing support for contest officials that are currently within our ranks, and it’s the best way for all of us to attract and recruit new officials into the fold. The publicity this bill may generate spotlights the rare and unusual aspects of an otherwise safe and wholesome vocation – school sports officiating. We do not wish this bill to taint or harm efforts to bring new men and women into officiating while continuing to support the loyal thousands who currently serve without controversy or fear.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to provide this update. We cannot thank you enough for all you have done, and will continue to do, for school sports.
       

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4846
  • FAN REACTION: +344/-1000
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2015, 01:55:17 PM »
From both a practical, as well as professional level, physically contacting a sports official is equally prohibited to striking one's mother.  Doing so is simply "unacceptable" under any and all circumstances, with no exceptions, whatsoever. 

There should be no need for legislation covering such violations, but legislation, backed by serious and consistently applied serious  consequences, does have an effective deterrent effect.  Any suggestion of tolerating, excusing or ignoring such extreme behavior is exactly the opposite message intended to be associated with honest and friendly competition.

Additionally, to legislative efforts to prohibit such behavior, each (and every) official is responsible to see that existing laws regarding assault, battery and any other type of illegal physical contact is prosecuted to the full extent of existing laws, so that the consequences of such unacceptable behavior is recognized, and understood, by the community at large.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 3491
  • FAN REACTION: +133/-24
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2015, 02:21:59 PM »
Here is where "they is" wrong- I understand that in the heat of the moment, most criminal perps don't go "oooh wait a minute , lemme keep this down to a misdemeanor."  Under their philosophy, legislatures should not impose additional penalties for assaulting a child, assaulting a law enforcement officer, assaulting a handicapped person, all of which carry higher punishment in the State of North Carolina, just as an example, than a plain old "simple assault".

Also, once we have reached the point of a crime being committed, sportsmanship is out the window anyway.  We are no longer seeking sportsmanship but justice.

This unnamed athletic entity is trying to hang on to the results of events occurring in their purview that they are ill equipped to handle at best and not entitled to handle at worst.

Offline Etref

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2427
  • FAN REACTION: +88/-29
  • " I don't make the rules coach!"
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2015, 02:52:31 PM »
It is a deterrent! If the party is found guilty and has a stiff penalty,THAT PERSON, will not do it again. Perhaps some other wiseacre may think twice.
" I don't make the rules coach!"

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 901
  • FAN REACTION: +52/-9
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2015, 05:16:47 PM »
Our high schools are required to have uniformed police officers at varsity games. Twice in my 12 years I've been part of a crew that was happy to have the officers there to escort us to our dressing room after the game. Nothing serious happened either time, but I'm pretty sure it would have without the presence of the officers.

I don't see how anyone who understands what we do out there could possibly advocate for leniency for the morons who physically assault officials.  I'm happy to say that Florida made assault of a game official a felony about 4 years ago.

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 1510
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-22
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2015, 04:43:42 PM »
Under their philosophy, legislatures should not impose additional penalties for assaulting a child, assaulting a law enforcement officer, assaulting a handicapped person, all of which carry higher punishment in the State of North Carolina, just as an example, than a plain old "simple assault".

There are additional penalties if you assault somebody who is incapable of defending themselves (children, handicapped, etc.) or if they are trying to do their job at keeping the peace (LEOs). I don't see why a sports official should be an additionally protected class.

I'm in agreement that somebody who assaults an official should be arrested and charged with a crime, but that crime is "assault" and it already on the books. We don't need special extra laws for this. A person shouldn't be thinking "I shouldn't punch that person because he is a sports official". That person SHOULD be thinking "I shouldn't punch people, because punching people is wrong."

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 3205
  • FAN REACTION: +126/-29
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2015, 07:29:13 AM »
It's almost impossible to quantify a "negative positive" -- that is, how many assaults on sports officials have been prevented in states (such as ours) which have upgraded penalties.  The law in our state also extends to any participant in the event, including players.

If the publicity surrounding passage of such laws serves as a deterrent to only one perp, it's served its purpose.  So, as the old adage goes -- it may not help, but it sure can't hurt.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4846
  • FAN REACTION: +344/-1000
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2015, 08:33:16 AM »
There are additional penalties if you assault somebody who is incapable of defending themselves (children, handicapped, etc.) or if they are trying to do their job at keeping the peace (LEOs). I don't see why a sports official should be an additionally protected class.

In much the same manner in which (LEO), "are trying to do their job at keeping the peace" sports officials are assigned the responsibility of enforcing rules of behavior, established by the appropriate governing body, for the event being contested.  That, assigned responsibility, is accepted on behalf of the governing body, to monitor and control the behavior and actions of the event participants and spectators in attendance.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 5152
  • FAN REACTION: +875/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2015, 08:37:46 AM »
It's almost impossible to quantify a "negative positive" -- that is, how many assaults on sports officials have been prevented in states (such as ours) which have upgraded penalties.  The law in our state also extends to any participant in the event, including players.

If the publicity surrounding passage of such laws serves as a deterrent to only one perp, it's served its purpose.  So, as the old adage goes -- it may not help, but it sure can't hurt.
    "KILL THE UMP" :o...I'm with 'Bama...can't hurt to have a law against it....in our  z^world z^:

    Do we need to reduce the violent contact in our beloved game?

    Yes, if we want Momma Bear to allow Baby Bear to play. :sTiR:

    Will 9-4-3g ...EXCESSIVE CONTACT...help?

    Can't hurt. :sTiR:

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2015, 10:08:59 AM »
Sorry, I'm with ncwingman.  Physical assault is physical assault, and should be treated as a felony whether you attack a sports official or a dentist or a librarian.  There is NO evidence that affording unequal (and thus unconstitutional) preference to certain occupations has reduced violence in any way, or to any degree.

Just like "hate crime" laws, it is politicizing and pandering, with absolutely no effect on behavior.  It allows politicians to crow that they have done something to "fix the problem", when in fact, they have done nothing at all.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2015, 10:37:11 AM by Atlanta Blue »

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2015, 10:11:58 AM »
The law in our state also extends to any participant in the event, including players.
If the literal interpretation of this statement means what it says, how many players have been arrested for participating in an in-game fight?
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 5152
  • FAN REACTION: +875/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2015, 12:02:32 PM »
If the literal interpretation of this statement means what it says, how many players have been arrested for participating in an in-game fight?
           Things to ponder that this topic has  :sTiR: :

      Could our new excessive contact rule be considered an assault :sTiR:?
      Would this require the presence of a  Paddy wagon P_S along with an ambulance :sTiR:?
      Should Momma & Poppa Bear be allowed to accompany Baby Bear if  ^flag &  P_S for excessive contact/assault in his  Paddy wagon P_S journey :sTiR:?
       Should a least one member of the chain crew be a lawyer/paralegal :sTiR:?
       Should the clock operator also be a bail bondsman :sTiR:?
       Should the snack shack sell pepper spray :!#..........

Should the Red Sox have signed John Lester? - YES- at least I know the answer to that one :).
     
« Last Edit: February 23, 2015, 12:05:30 PM by Ralph Damren »

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 3205
  • FAN REACTION: +126/-29
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2015, 12:10:58 PM »
If the literal interpretation of this statement means what it says, how many players have been arrested for participating in an in-game fight?

None.  Perhaps that's because I "mis-remembered" what the law actually says:

"For purposes of this act, a 'sports official', is a person at a sports event who enforces the rules of the event, such as an umpire or referee, or a person who supervises the participants, such as a coach."

So -- coaches are included, players are apparently not.

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2015, 01:25:12 PM »
None.  Perhaps that's because I "mis-remembered" what the law actually says:

"For purposes of this act, a 'sports official', is a person at a sports event who enforces the rules of the event, such as an umpire or referee, or a person who supervises the participants, such as a coach."

So -- coaches are included, players are apparently not.
That makes a lot more sense.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4846
  • FAN REACTION: +344/-1000
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2015, 03:57:35 PM »
Sorry, I'm with ncwingman.  Physical assault is physical assault, and should be treated as a felony whether you attack a sports official or a dentist or a librarian.  There is NO evidence that affording unequal (and thus unconstitutional) preference to certain occupations has reduced violence in any way, or to any degree.

Never having finished my Constitutional Law courses, I find it best to stay away from such discussions because I really have no idea what I'd be talking about. 

However, since dragging any fool, who decided to attack a sports official, into a corrner so everyone present could slap the snot out of him/her, would likely be considered "excessive" and possibly unconstitutional, by some. Establishing an added level of legal consequence to such a blatantly STUPID, and totally unacceptable behavior, seems like a reasonable and prudent precaution, and may even serve to cause an idiot, so inclined, to think twice.

Perhaps an added benefit might be suggesting to student athletes present that behaving like a fool and allowing emotions to trump common sense is a really bad idea.

Offline hefnerjm

  • *
  • Posts: 331
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-23
  • Everyone needs a student, a mentor, & a friend
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2015, 04:50:37 PM »
Having received the same email from the unnamed State Association, I have a number of thoughts that seem counter to the popular opinion voiced thus far.

Think about it this way...the average age of officials (all sports, all levels) is 57 yrs old.  AVERAGE.
Within the next 10 years, more than half of those currently in the vocation will be at retirement age. 

If you think about recruiting new officials, how many people would end the conversation simply because officials "get yelled at", and not everyone has the personality or temperament to take the verbal abuse that we receive?

To pass legislation saying officials need special protection, is effectively saying that being an official in inherently dangerous...I would argue you have a greater likelihood being injured driving to the game site, than being injured on the game site itself.  Does a law provide "extra protection"?  Or does the law simply impose an "extra penalty" on the aggressor? 
I think of it like "accidental death insurance"...if you have life insurance, you are covered, but if you die by accident, then you get paid double...you arent double dead...and your family doesnt need double the income replacement if you died by accident....it is just a product serving a different purpose than advertised (higher commissions to the insurance agent, and the feeling of "doing something" to politicians passing laws)

But think about the recruiting impact...if you advocate such a law, you are telling people that it is not safe to be an official.  Net effect?  Fewer new officials want to put themselves "at risk".

Without officials, the games we all love cease to exist.  and as it so appropriately says on every new joiner's "motto" to this website....Without officials, its just recess.


It is very easy to support something because it sounds good...especially as a knee-jerk reaction to a soccer ref getting punched in the head...it takes greater discernment to determine the full impact of a legislation proposed in the heat of the moment.   I applaud the State association for taking the stance aligned with their values as opposed to yielding to the emotional cries of the mob.
Coach: "I've been doing this 30 years!  I know the rules!"
Ref: "Are you married coach?"
Coach (suddenly offguard): "umm...yeah, why?"
Ref: "I've been married 30 years and my wife says there is still room for improvement"
Coach: "<silence>"

Shoottv

  • Guest
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2015, 05:08:42 PM »
I am all in favor of having a referee assault law at all levels. I'll let others decide on misdemeanor vs felony. Without that you can end up with a whole lot of youth football politics in play while a parent of a star player goes unpunished  by a league and an official somewhat powerless to remedy the situation. Schools generally aren't the problem it's those whom the league or school hahas little recourse against.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 3491
  • FAN REACTION: +133/-24
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2015, 05:11:29 PM »
Simple Assault in NC is a Class 2 misdemeanor, which carries a maximum punishment in jail of 60 days.  Assaulting a Sports Official "jumps" to a class 1, where the max punishment is 120 days.  The number of days is also dependent on their prior record so they could get as little as 30 days if they had no prior record points. If a more serious assault occurs, such as with a deadly weapon, inflicting serious injury, or with intent to kill, then the penalty class is covered under that statute instead.

Odds are no ADA would push for a maximum punishment and the perp would likely get probation.

Assault a school employee or volunteer and its an A1 misdemeanor with a max punishment of 150 days so I guess the legislature holds them in a little higher esteem ::)


Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 5152
  • FAN REACTION: +875/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2015, 08:17:10 AM »
Simple Assault in NC is a Class 2 misdemeanor, which carries a maximum punishment in jail of 60 days.  Assaulting a Sports Official "jumps" to a class 1, where the max punishment is 120 days.  The number of days is also dependent on their prior record so they could get as little as 30 days if they had no prior record points. If a more serious assault occurs, such as with a deadly weapon, inflicting serious injury, or with intent to kill, then the penalty class is covered under that statute instead.

Odds are no ADA would push for a maximum punishment and the perp would likely get probation.

Assault a school employee or volunteer and its an A1 misdemeanor with a max punishment of 150 days so I guess the legislature holds them in a little higher esteem ::)
A janitor rarely makes a bad call and a snack shack cook rarely burns a burger while we officials are usually at the top of " >:( cost us the game >:(" list. Rare is the individual that can't recall a game where an official caused their favorite team to lose. Coaches are a far second on the list, but we get most of the blame. Some may consider booing, sneerings, and the like as vigilante justice....to them : "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me."  nAnA . To the very few that consider a retort of a physical nature, LOCK 'EM UP P_S...if they are outside of New England, force them to watch a continuous replay of the last 30 secs of Super Bowl XLIX (almost everyone outside of NE hates the Pats) if in NE ,a continuous replay of Bill Buckner watching Mookie Wilson's grounder will due. The perp will soon agree to agree with all calls made at any level of anything and sent all members of the  z^ crew he assaulted a FTD Pick-Me-Up bouquet. yEs:

                         We can always dream....... :)

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2466
  • FAN REACTION: +95/-15
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2015, 09:17:18 AM »
I've never been assaulted as a result of what happened during a football game, and have only had two games where I was worried about something like that happening.  However, I feel that - unlike most non-officials, our profession frequently results in much higher tempers among the participants and spectators than, say, a dentist would cause.  While I'm not at all comparing the importance, or ultimate lack thereof, of what we do to that of policemen, they're often involved in situations where tempers burn much higher than usual.  My personal opinion is that there SHOULD be a more severe penalty for assaulting those whose profession or avocation puts them in a higher profile role and could be more subject to emotional outbursts.

Should the Red Sox have signed John Lester? - YES- at least I know the answer to that one :).

I disagree.  But that probably goes without saying...

Offline SCHSref

  • *
  • Posts: 460
  • FAN REACTION: +16/-10
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
If you didn't see it, you can't call it


Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4846
  • FAN REACTION: +344/-1000
Re: Legislated Sportsmanship - or Not
« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2015, 11:15:53 AM »
My personal opinion is that there SHOULD be a more severe penalty for assaulting those whose profession or avocation puts them in a higher profile role and could be more subject to emotional outbursts.

The primary reason there is a harsher assessment and/or penalty associated with an asault on a person of designated authority, is that in addition to the assault on that person, there is also a specifc breach on whatever authority that person is representing, which raises the offense to a higher level.

As an example; anyone, male or female, slapping a woman is an assault.  If that woman is your Mother, it's a whole different matter.