[bgtg19]

This thread became a long read since I was last here … and I’m about to make it a lot longer. Sorry. (If you’re not interested in the legal stuff, just skip down to 6, 7 & 8.)

1. When I originally posted, I meant that this statement by bebanovich – “It would be hard to argue that pushing back would be the logical act of someone who felt like they were really under threat” – is wrong. Actually, pushing back is a very logical act. It may not be wise, but it is logical. What I primarily objected to was the implication that I found in bebanovich’s statement. I thought that his implication was that if a person felt “truly threatened,” he would respond with force far greater than a “mere” push back. That implication is not true. Rut’s friend’s post provides useful general guidance.

2. I was being facetious when I made the remark about people coming here for legal advice. Just so that we’re clear: self-defense is a defense that is available to a wide variety of crimes, both federal and state. Most situations faced by most people will be dealt with according to the law of the state in which a person lives or according to the law of the state in which the relevant locus of activity took place. This makes sense: if you go to CA and kill a person on the streets of Sacramento, you’ll be dealt with according to CA law, not the laws of your home state of FL. For most crimes, it would not matter whether or not you are actually familiar with CA law (which is why George’s offered defense to his boss after hanky panky with the cleaning lady was not particularly compelling: “Is that frowned upon here? If I had only known, I never would have done it!”)

3. Rut is right to not automatically assume that an internet poster knows what s/he is talking about, but we should all be reminded to not automatically assume that a lawyer on TV knows what s/he is talking about. TV law – even “reality” TV law – is just different. (And that TV lawyer may not be admitted to the bar in the state where you live.) Sometimes TV lawyers DO get it right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day….

4. As a number of people correctly have pointed out, there are details that we don’t know that “matter” – e.g., when the official’s push took place, was he going toward the coach or was the coach coming toward him? (Very reasonable, JR). We shouldn’t be too quick (I’m talking to myself here) to judge, as a legal matter or as a professionalism matter, when we don’t really know everything. Dan may be right: it must just be a “shoving match.” The old had-to-be-there.

5. Dan asked why something would be a subject for discipline if it was not legally wrong. Well, it’s because there are different standards. A depressed husband seeks out a counselor/psychologist to talk about his troubled marriage and this client and his counselor end up having an affair. The counselor likely is facing no legal trouble (although in some jurisdictions this could be unlawful), but she certainly would be disciplined for her breach of professional ethics. That’s what I am talking about. If, and this is a big fat “if” the official “went back at” the coach, I don’t think he should be in any criminal trouble whatsoever but I think he should be subject to appropriate disciplinary action for failing to meet the expectations that we have (that I have?) of the officiating profession. I remind myself again: that is a possibility here, but it may be that the official was wholly in the right.

6. I do not think that an official – or even a “regular” person – must *always* turn the other cheek. There is a time for everything, perhaps even a push back, but I do think that officials – or even regular people – ought to turn the other cheek a LOT more than they do. Non-violence most often is a sign of strength, not weakness. Let’s be strong out there.

7. Rut said: “It is not about professionalism at this point, it is about self-preservation.” Chuck agreed with him. I disagree with them. There comes a point where self-preservation enters the equation to be sure (it may even dominate the equation in certain circumstances), but I am a believer that “professionalism” is always, always at issue. How we handle ourselves when everything is going great is important, too; but we must acknowledge that how we handle ourselves in moments of crisis and stress says perhaps even more about who we are.

8. We read these forums for nuggets that will help us become better officials. We become better officials when we are “prepared” for the unexpected. Juulie’s tip reminding us of the power of the whistle is a nugget that adds substantial value. Thanks, Juulie.