Coach appears to headbutt official

[PAlbc]

I can assure you he won't be coaching, and completely agree with that.

With that being said the legal ramifications (and monetary) jump significantly between an intimidation move (acting like you are going to headbutt) and actually making contact. I hope you can understand that. No coach should ever respond to an official that way (and should rightly be removed from coaching) , but it's also not right for that same coach to get charged with assault if the official did simply "sell" or embellish contact that was or was not there.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by PAlbc

I can assure you he won't be coaching, and completely agree with that.

With that being said the legal ramifications (and monetary) jump significantly between an intimidation move (acting like you are going to headbutt) and actually making contact. I hope you can understand that. No coach should ever respond to an official that way (and should rightly be removed from coaching) , but it's also not right for that same coach to get charged with assault if the official did simply "sell" or embellish contact that was or was not there.

Physical contact is not needed for an assault charge. I know from personal experience as I had to go to court once to (successfully) defend myself against an assault charge. At no time was it every alleged that I made physical contact.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Physical contact is not needed for an assault charge. I know from personal experience as I had to go to court once to (successfully) defend myself against an assault charge. At no time was it every alleged that I made physical contact.

And this, my friends, is the difference between ASSAULT and BATTERY. BATTERY is normally the charge when contact is made.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

And this, my friends, is the difference between ASSAULT and BATTERY. BATTERY is normally the charge when contact is made.

Correct.
Assault--"I'm going to beat your a$$"
Battery--punch in the face
Assault & Battery--"I'm going to beat your a$$", followed by a punch in the face

[APG]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

And this, my friends, is the difference between ASSAULT and BATTERY. BATTERY is normally the charge when contact is made.

As alluded to earlier...depends on the jurisdiction. Many (maybe even most?) don't make the distinction anymore and have their assault laws reflect that...to include either threaten and/or bodily contact.

As to the play....I don't know how anyone can say the slot should have had first crack at this. This is one of the lead's bread and butter plays....secondary defender in the lane. Slot is not going to be able to see the lateral movement as well as the lead and determine whether the defender got to his spot prior to the offensive player being airborne.

With the technical fouls....I agree that the trail came in too quickly with his T. I say that with the caveat that both officials are on relative equal footing (i.e experience level). I could perhaps see a CC coming in a little quicker with the T to help his younger (less experienced) partner. Otherwise. I think he needs to give partner a chance to take care of business. He doesn't do so...then by all means T him up.

[Smitty]

As long as we're all speculating, my thought was the T initially sprinted over to act as a buffer between the coach and the L because he didn't want the coach following the L all the way to the table. But I bet he heard something as he closed in that was T worthy and just ended up in a bad place when he felt the need to T him up. But who knows.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Smitty

As long as we're all speculating, my thought was the T initially sprinted over to act as a buffer between the coach and the L because he didn't want the coach following the L all the way to the table. But I bet he heard something as he closed in that was T worthy and just ended up in a bad place when he felt the need to T him up. But who knows.

Dave,

This was my initial thought as well.....

[VaTerp]

What I find incredibly disappointing is that people cannot distinguish a discussion of what we as officials can learn from a situation and perhaps think of doing some things differently from saying that anyone "deserved" to get assaulted or "making excuses" for this coach's obviously inexcusable behavior.

Its a shame that it has to be spelled out but not a single person here has tried to excuse the coach's behavior or deemed it acceptable in any shape or form. So I don't know why people keep repeating it as if anyone is arguing to the contrary.

That doesnt mean that we cant offer opinions and have a discussion about any takeaways or lessons learned on how to handle situations. Every single game I work I come away thinking of things I could have done differently to improve overall at this craft.

I commented that I felt that Trail should have given the L another second or two to handle the situation himself. As someone else noted the calling official puts his hand on his whistle and begins to bring it to his mouth as the coach is into his tirade. It appears to me that he is likely about to call a T himself here.

I also commented that its generally not good practice to step aggressively toward the coach while issuing a T as the Trail did in this situation. I stand by both of those opinions based on my experience as an official and specific situations that I have seen both escalated and diffused. Since apparently it needs to be said, this doesnt in any way excuse the coach's behavior, mitigate his culpability for his actions, or suggest that the official deserved to have what happened in any way whatsoever.

It is however my opinion of a possible takeaway from this situation.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by PAlbc

I can assure you he won't be coaching, and completely agree with that.

With that being said the legal ramifications (and monetary) jump significantly between an intimidation move (acting like you are going to headbutt) and actually making contact. I hope you can understand that. No coach should ever respond to an official that way (and should rightly be removed from coaching) , but it's also not right for that same coach to get charged with assault if the official did simply "sell" or embellish contact that was or was not there.

Generally speaking (as some states use slightly different terms), if the coach did not make contact, he's guilty of assault. If he did make contact, he's guilty of battery.

Regardless, the official didn't sell or embellish anything. He simply reacted in the natural manner to a sudden attack to the head.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Generally speaking (as some states use slightly different terms), if the coach did not make contact, he's guilty of assault. If he did make contact, he's guilty of battery.

Regardless, the official didn't sell or embellish anything. He simply reacted in the natural manner to a sudden attack to the head.

If you look at the video on USA Today, which has a very different angle than the video posted in this thread, it sure looks like he makes contact.

[Smitty]

The USA Today video (different angle) which shows the head butt a bit more clearly is here: USA Today Article

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Smitty

If you look at the video on USA Today, which has a very different angle than the video posted in this thread, it sure looks like he makes contact.

He made contact chest-to-chest, which caused the official to fall. So if he ends up with a battery charge to go along with an assault charge, oh well for him.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

He made contact chest-to-chest, which caused the official to fall.

Without a better angle, this is what I think happened too. Between the official's reflexive jerking his head back and getting an extra "push" from the coach's belly, he fell down and got right back up. I didn't see any indication from the official that he got hit in the head (e.g. putting his hand to his face).

The coach still needs to go.