Political Correctness And Player Discipline

[UNT90]

Football is a game where players run as fast as they can at players from the other team in an attempt to cause a violent collision to bring that player to the ground. That's right, physically grab the player and drag him to the ground. Hard. Fast. With as much impact as possible. If they don't do this, they get benched. If they continue not to do this, they lose a scholarship.

Like it or not, that's football. And I assume you like it, because you are posting on a football forum. Teaching this game is teaching controlled violence. When teaching controlled violence, you have to demonstrate controlled violence. I'm sure everyone on this board that even played pee-wee football has had their coach grab their facemask and get about 2 inches from your face while explaining (see: yelling) the mistake that you just made. Having your face mask grabbed and jerked is painful, probably more painful than a slap. Is this abuse? What about a helmet slap, which happens every day on a football practice field, either as a form of discipline or praise. For those who have never had this experience, it is an ear ringing thing that hurts far worse than a slap on the face.

So why, then, is a slap on the face considered by so many to be abuse? The only real reason that makes any sense is because these people fear that the players feelings were hurt and that he was embarassed in front of his teammates. Is that really what we are calling abuse these days???? Really??? We don't call it abuse when we send these players out on the field to risk paralysis and long term injury for our enjoyment, yet we aren't allowed to hurt their feelings?

I wish Leavitt would have been honest about the incident, but it is farily obvious that the school wanted him gone for other reasons. The USF AD initiated an investigation when the ""victim"" said that he was not offended or injured by the conduct of the coach. USF wanted Leavitt gone, plain and simple. What we should be debating on the board is why they REALLY wanted him gone. Was it the conference record? What other issues were there?

As for Leach, the reasons are crystal clear. TTech BOR thought he had too much power and simply didn't want to pay him the money he was OWED.

For those who claim Leavitt and Leach abused players, you either have an agenda against them, need self-righteousness in your life for whatever reason, or have simply fallen victim to the group thought that is so prevelant in America today (read: political correctness).

Rant over.

Edited October 25, 2010 by UNT90

[Green P1]

Yes to the original question.

No to everything you have just written.

[rcade]

Is that really what we are calling abuse these days????

Yes. There's no justification for a coach physically assaulting a player. I am glad UNT is considering Leavitt, but that doesn't mean we should act like what he did was OK. It was a huge mistake and I hope he's learned from it.

[drex]

It's the attempt to cover things up that bother me.

[Eagle96]

Football is a game where players run as fast as they can at players from the other team in an attempt to cause a violent collision to bring that player to the ground. That's right, physically grab the player and drag him to the ground. Hard. Fast. With as much impact as possible. If they don't do this, they get benched. If they continue not to do this, they lose a scholarship.

Like it or not, that's football. And I assume you like it, because you are posting on a football forum. Teaching this game is teaching controlled violence. When teaching controlled violence, you have to demonstrate controlled violence. I'm sure everyone on this board that even played pee-wee football has had their coach grab their facemask and get about 2 inches from your face while explaining (see: yelling) the mistake that you just made. Having your face mask grabbed and jerked is painful, probably more painful than a slap. Is this abuse? What about a helmet slap, which happens every day on a football practice field, either as a form of discipline or praise. For those who have never had this experience, it is an ear ringing thing that hurts far worse than a slap on the face.

So why, then, is a slap on the face considered by so many to be abuse? The only real reason that makes any sense is because these people fear that the players feelings were hurt and that he was embarassed in front of his teammates. Is that really what we are calling abuse these days???? Really??? We don't call it abuse when we send these players out on the field to risk paralysis and long term injury for our enjoyment, yet we aren't allowed to hurt their feelings?

I wish Leavitt would have been honest about the incident, but it is farily obvious that the school wanted him gone for other reasons. The USF AD initiated an investigation when the ""victim"" said that he was not offended or injured by the conduct of the coach. USF wanted Leavitt gone, plain and simple. What we should be debating on the board is why they REALLY wanted him gone. Was it the conference record? What other issues were there?

As for Leach, the reasons are crystal clear. TTech BOR thought he had too much power and simply didn't want to pay him the money he was OWED.

For those who claim Leavitt and Leach abused players, you either have an agenda against them, need self-righteousness in your life for whatever reason, or have simply fallen victim to the group thought that is so prevelant in America today (read: political correctness).

Rant over.

Hmmmm.... Maybe because coaches are supposed to be adults rather than spoiled bratty little children? Maybe because they are supposed to represent the school in a professional manner? We expect the athletes to conduct themselves like adults. Shouldn't expect any less from the coaches.

[UNT90]

Yes. There's no justification for a coach physically assaulting a player. I am glad UNT is considering Leavitt, but that doesn't mean we should act like what he did was OK. It was a huge mistake and I hope he's learned from it.

Which abuse are you talking about? Slapping the helmet? Grabbing the facemask?

Let's get it clear. Define abuse in a football setting.

[keith]

Which abuse are you talking about? Slapping the helmet? Grabbing the facemask?

Let's get it clear. Define abuse in a football setting.

Both would be penalties on the field of play and should be off the field of play as well.

Keith

[rcade]

Which abuse are you talking about? Slapping the helmet? Grabbing the facemask?

Let's get it clear. Define abuse in a football setting.

I'm surprised you have to ask. Coaches should follow the same rules they expect of their players and keep their hands to themselves. No slaps, facemask pulls, helmet slaps, nada.

The fact that football is a violent game does not excuse violence around the game. Coaches expect their players to be disciplined. They should expect it of themselves.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

90,

Isn't it good enough just to say that you prefer Leavitt over any other candidate at this point? Why excuse boorish behavior?

The examples for coaches winning without having to resort to choking and slapping players are legion. Do you really want to stack up Leavitt's record against the records of coaches who never choked or slapped their players?

I mean, drill down a little. They guy never won so much as a conference title in either Conference USA or the Big East. So, we stack him up next to those who have won titles without choking and slapping? Even taking out titles, the vast majority - and, at this point, I'd say all - win without choking or slapping.

It's good enough to simply say you like Leavitt as a candidate without having to put on some charade about it being acceptable for grown men to be unable to control their emotions to the point where they assault kids in their late teens and early 20s.

[forevereagle]

I'm surprised you have to ask. Coaches should follow the same rules they expect of their players and keep their hands to themselves. No slaps, facemask pulls, helmet slaps, nada.

The fact that football is a violent game does not excuse violence around the game. Coaches expect their players to be disciplined. They should expect it of themselves.

Then you should campaign to have Patterson at TCU fired. He grabs players facemasks to get their attention.

[GreenMachine]

Yes. There's no justification for a coach physically assaulting a player. I am glad UNT is considering Leavitt, but that doesn't mean we should act like what he did was OK. It was a huge mistake and I hope he's learned from it.

Please, a slap is NOT the same thing as physically assaulting a player. I don't think what he did was right but it's not assault.

[GreenMachine]

So, we stack him up next to those who have won titles without choking and slapping?

Against those that have never been ACCUSED of choking or slapping.

[FireFightnJoey]

What about a Gibbs-ish kinda of slap ... is this ok?

Gibbs Slap Montage

[Green P1]

Please, a slap is NOT the same thing as physically assaulting a player. I don't think what he did was right but it's not assault.

The head coach is in a position of power and authority just like the boss at your place of employment. Were your boss to grab you about the throat and slap you in front of a room of your fellow employees would you shrug it off as nothing?

Flip the script. Say the player walks up to the coach and, out of frustration, chokes/slaps him. How many 2nd chances does he get at the D1 level?

[UNT90]

I'm surprised you have to ask. Coaches should follow the same rules they expect of their players and keep their hands to themselves. No slaps, facemask pulls, helmet slaps, nada.

The fact that football is a violent game does not excuse violence around the game. Coaches expect their players to be disciplined. They should expect it of themselves.

Ok, so then should the coaches be allowed to demonstrate proper tackling technique? That would be against the "keep their hands to themselves" rule, right?

Slapping a player on the back is now prohibited?

Butt slapping has GOT to be prohibited, being that it is not only physical abuse, but sexual abuse as well?

Demonstrating proper blocking technique, where a coach hits a defense player and knocks him to the ground is now abuse?

Seriously, have people on here never played football?

All of this in a game where the object is to hit the other guy as hard as you can and physically force him to the ground.

So much hypocrisy.

Edited October 25, 2010 by UNT90

[All About UNT]

What about Butt Slaps?? Could a coach be brought up on Sexual Harassment charges for that age-old tradition?

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Let's get into the clear about two things:

(1) Jim Leavitt was fired because he choked and slapped a player. That was the finding of the university investigation.

They interviewed the players around the locker, assistant coaches, and others in the room. The majority, and particularly those closest in proximity to the assault, told the university HR department that it happened.

Such action by an employee of USF is grounds for firing; and, Leavitt was fired. Until such time as Leavitt can get a court to say it didn't happen, it happened.

(2) Choking and slapping are well within the definition of assault. In fact, whether you are talking criminal or civil law, assault does not even have to include making physical contact with someone else. The threat of imminent harm alone is enough to sustain an assault charge in either criminal or civil court.

Again, until such time as a court says otherwise, Jim Leavitt was fired because he assaulted a student, which is against USF policy for it's employees.

It's all good and well to like Jim Leavitt as a coach. I was one of the first to bring his name into the mix. But, you have to do your due diligence on every candidate.

Jim Leavitt and Dennis Franchione, both excellent football coaches, are going to come under additional scrutiny because of the manner in which their former tenures ended. The difference, again, is that Franchione's situation is resolved; Leavitt's is not.

Rick Villareal, the University, and the firm hired to help with the process will flesh out the details if Leavitt is considered. But, they will not be able to take away what USF has already found. Only a settlement or court finding can do that.

Edited October 25, 2010 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[MeanGreenTexan]

Ok, so then should the coaches be allowed to demonstrate proper tackling technique? That would be against the "keep their hands to themselves" rule, right?

Slapping a player on the back is now prohibited?

Butt slapping has GOT to be prohibited, being that it is not only physical abuse, but sexual abuse as well?

Demonstrating proper blocking technique, where a coach hits a defense player and knocks him to the ground is now abuse?

Seriously, have people on here never played football?

All of this in a game where the object is to hit the other guy as hard as you can and physically force him to the ground.

So much hypocrisy.

90, I agree with alot of the things you say, but your citations are straw-man, at best, on this issue. It's black & white sir. A player felt threatened enough to bring this to light. What player would feel threatened when a coach is showing them a blocking technique??

USF did an investigation. They found he was wrong (maybe it was rigged as MizzouTigers says, and maybe it wasnt). It doesn't mean that I wouldn't want him here, but there's not an excuse for what he did. Hopefully, he can move on and learn from his mistake (I hope it's singular), and would be excited if he were to move on here at UNT.

[UNT90]

90,

Isn't it good enough just to say that you prefer Leavitt over any other candidate at this point? Why excuse boorish behavior?

The examples for coaches winning without having to resort to choking and slapping players are legion. Do you really want to stack up Leavitt's record against the records of coaches who never choked or slapped their players?

I mean, drill down a little. They guy never won so much as a conference title in either Conference USA or the Big East. So, we stack him up next to those who have won titles without choking and slapping? Even taking out titles, the vast majority - and, at this point, I'd say all - win without choking or slapping.

It's good enough to simply say you like Leavitt as a candidate without having to put on some charade about it being acceptable for grown men to be unable to control their emotions to the point where they assault kids in their late teens and early 20s.

Seriously??

Does that fact that I have screamed for Leach to be interviewed even register with you?

The point is, forget about the abuse crap (which is simply a reason for USF to do what they wanted to do anyway) and look at the real reasons they wanted to let him go.

I'm pretty neutral on Leavitt, and actually think we can do better. I just got tired of the hypocritical outrage of slapping a player when he could be parylized in game action.

[GreenMachine]

Let's get into the clear about two things:

(1) Jim Leavitt was fired because he choked and slapped a player. That was the finding of the university investigation.

They interviewed the players around the locker, assistant coaches, and others in the room. The majority, and particularly those closest in proximity to the assault, told the university HR department that it happened.

Such action by an employee of USF is grounds for firing; and, Leavitt was fired. Until such time as Leavitt can get a court to say it didn't happen, it happened.

(2) Choking and slapping are well within the definition of assault. In fact, whether you are talking criminal or civil law, assault does not even have to include making physical contact with someone else. The threat of imminent harm alone is enough to sustain an assault charge in either criminal or civil court.

Again, until such time as a court says otherwise, Jim Leavitt was fired because he assaulted a student, which is against USF policy for it's employees.

It's all good and well to like Jim Leavitt as a coach. I was one of the first to bring his name into the mix. But, you have to do your due diligence on every candidate.

Jim Leavitt and Dennis Franchione, both excellent football coaches, are going to come under additional scrutiny because of the manner in which their former tenures ended. The difference, again, is that Franchione's situation is resolved; Leavitt's is not.

Rick Villareal, the University, and the firm hired to help with the process will flesh out the details if Leavitt is considered. But, they will not be able to take away what USF has already found. Only a settlement or court finding can do that.

The player CLOSEST to the action was the player himself. He was quoated as saying that it was no big deal.

So putting football in the text of the law, every single time someone is making a tackle or blocking someone, they are committing assault.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, it just seems that the wussification of America has trickled into college football.

[UNT90]

A player felt threatened enough to bring this to light.

So funny. A player (running back, I believe) that allows 260 pound linebackers to run at him full speed and hit him as hard as they can was threatened by a slap in the face by his coach. A slap in the face is meant to demean, hence the expression. It is not physically threatening or dangerous to a grown man.

No, a player got his feelings hurt. We know this because he denied the allegations later after he had time to think about it and counsel with his parents, who probably told him to stop being such a baby.

I have no doubt this incident occurred. I just don't see it being that big of a deal

Edited October 25, 2010 by UNT90

[Green P1]

I'm pretty neutral on Leavitt, and actually think we can do better. I just got tired of the hypocritical outrage of slapping a player when he could be parylized in game action.

It seems that you, like many of UNT's defensive players, do not understand the concept of "Between the whistles."

[VideoEagle]

Ok, so then should the coaches be allowed to demonstrate proper tackling technique? That would be against the "keep their hands to themselves" rule, right?

Slapping a player on the back is now prohibited?

Butt slapping has GOT to be prohibited, being that it is not only physical abuse, but sexual abuse as well?

Demonstrating proper blocking technique, where a coach hits a defense player and knocks him to the ground is now abuse?

Seriously, have people on here never played football?

All of this in a game where the object is to hit the other guy as hard as you can and physically force him to the ground.

So much hypocrisy.

First, I'm really surprised this discussion has gone this long.

Of course demonstrating blocking is fine - that is an part of the sport and a coach must teach the proper way of doing that. But, the proper way of blocking and tackling is also changing as I point out below.

Grabbing by the throat is never ok - that is not a part of the sport and gains you a penalty if you do it during a game. It gets a coach fired is he does it anytime.

Just grabbing a player by the shoulder pads to get their attention on a loud sideline depends on how hard you do it.

As for being a game where the object is to hit someone as hard as you can, that too is changing. The NFL issued $175,000 in fines and has told players be careful how you hit. And while a few players are questioning it, everyone else is thinking this is a good idea.

This is 2010, not 1910. No more leather helmets and no flying wedge formation. It once was fine to beat your wife along as you used a cane smaller than the thickness of your thumb. It once was fine to deny players water and make them just eat salt tablets. It once was fine to put players with a concussion back in a game the same day. And it once was fine to slap players around. None of those are allowed anymore. You can call it being politically correct or you can just call it being fiscally prudent to avoid lawsuits.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Seriously??

Does that fact that I have screamed for Leach to be interviewed even register with you?

The point is, forget about the abuse crap (which is simply a reason for USF to do what they wanted to do anyway) and look at the real reasons they wanted to let him go.

I'm pretty neutral on Leavitt, and actually think we can do better. I just got tired of the hypocritical outrage of slapping a player when he could be parylized in game action.

Yes, I understand you want Leach...and, you likely realize we don't have the money to pay him to come here given the number of BCS coaching jobs that are going to be available.

You read alot into USF's actions that aren't there. The choking and slapping of Joel Miller is there. You got Leavitt's side doing what it has to do - make accusations publicly that it has no evidence of. It hopes there will be evidence of some conspiracy to oust him. But, as all North Texas fans know, hope is different than reality.

Further, the point is not the possibility of harm in a locker room versus on the field of play. A player expects to be hit in a football game. It is unavoidable due to the nature of the game.

The locker room is different. Players don't expect to be choked and slapped by their coaches. Nor does a university expect that their employees and representative will do such to a student.

In short, hitting is expected on the field of play; it is explicitly forbidden by university code off the field. You are logical enough to understand the difference.

But, even so, hitting on the field has it's parameters as well.

Edited October 25, 2010 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[UNTLifer]

Teaching fundamentals is one thing, hitting, slapping, grabbing out of anger to discipline a player is another. When you can grasp that concept this will all sink in. Maybe.