Where Professionalism Ends.....????

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Stan
Hindsight being 20/20, would you do this again?

That's a tough question, Stan, b/c it wasn't a rational reaction at the time. I didn't think it over and then act. I just tried to stop him from killing my partner. In a similar situation, I don't know if I would take the time to be rational or not. I hope I think fast enough to use Juulie's solution.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I love the self righteousness that comes out on this board.

I love the self-satisfied smugness, myself.

I love guys who say someone has pushed you and we are all supposed to just turn the other cheek and walk away.

I think there's a pretty well-respected tradition about that, which was espoused about 2,000 years before this forum ever existed. If you don't think it's worth practicing, more power to ya.

All anyone has to do is watch an afternoon court program and you will find that this action as described is clearly self-defense.

And anyone who takes legal advice from The People's Court deserves to get sued into oblivion. You want to rely on afternoon TV for legal insight, more power to ya.

If the coach pushed the official and kept coming, I see nothing wrong with that official getting that coach out of their face. It is not about professionalism at this point, it is about self-preservation.

That's the first comment in your post that I can agree with.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
And anyone who takes legal advice from The People's Court deserves to get sued into oblivion. You want to rely on afternoon TV for legal insight, more power to ya.

I would rather take legal advice from someone I know is a lawyer and comments on a case that has to be followed by the law, then listen to some poster with a funny name and no legal background any day of the week. Another point to make is each state has different laws as it relates to self-defense and what is proper and what is not. In my state it is legal for anyone to assault a sports official. I know in many states have no such law or special protection for sports officials so you might be on your own. I also know some lawyers that officiate games and I have heard them say that you do not have to just "turn the other cheek" when someone is attacking you. It is not like my only point of view is based on one show and one discussion on these issues. I have no problem with any official protecting themselves in this kind of situation. I was not there and neither were you to know what was done right or wrong. All we have is a 3rd hand story.

Originally posted by ChuckElias
That's the first comment in your post that I can agree with.

I am not an IAABO member, I do not need your agreement to validate my point of view.

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 03:35 PM]

[mplagrow]

I'd have a hard time saying that responding to a push is self-defense. Suspend 'em both. Passive resistance, man. The coach hangs from a yardarm all by himself then.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I would rather take legal advice from someone I know is a lawyer and comments on a case that has to be followed by the law, then listen to some poster with a funny name and no legal background any day of the week

[Edited by JRutledge on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 03:35 PM]

What's so funny about the name Chuck Elias???

And what a surprise - the pulling out of the "it's different in my area" argument...never saw that one coming, did we?

In the situation I described, the judge made it VERY clear (so clear even someone from another state could understand it) that what made the self-defense claim work was that the official involved did not respond to the first shove, and did try to walk away.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rockyroad
In the situation I described, the judge made it VERY clear (so clear even someone from another state could understand it) that what made the self-defense claim work was that the official involved did not respond to the first shove, and did try to walk away.

So Rocky, I have just 1 question: was that judge one of them day time TV judges you read about on the internets?

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by rockyroad
What's so funny about the name Chuck Elias???

I do not recall that Chuck was the only person claiming that this was not self-defense. Even if I referenced Chuck Elias, most people would be like "Who the hell is that?"

Originally posted by rockyroad
And what a surprise - the pulling out of the "it's different in my area" argument...never saw that one coming, did we?

Self-Defense like most laws in this country fall under state, town or county law. Murder, speeding regulations, independent contractor classification are all local laws. If I carry a handgun in Illinois I will go to jail. I do the same thing in Texas and I am following the law. One of the reasons we have not had an observerÂ’s program in my state is because of the local independent contractor law in this state would possibly violate those laws and put the IHSA in legal jeopardy. I read this forum and it is clear that there are many states that do something different because they do not face the same legal constraints as we have here. I guess those things cannot be pointed out because Rocky says so.

Why is this issue supposed to be the same across the country. When we talk about playoff assignments, regular season assignments or how our associations are run, those all have "area differences?" So are you going to tell me that the guys that will be working the State Finals this year in my state got those assignments the same way they do in your state or work those games at the same time?

Originally posted by rockyroad
In the situation I described, the judge made it VERY clear (so clear even someone from another state could understand it) that what made the self-defense claim work was that the official involved did not respond to the first shove, and did try to walk away.

I do not know what state this took place in, but I will take a guess that the Judge in question had to follow law in that state. There is a reason we have a State Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court.

Peace

[JRutledge]

I emailed a friend of mine that is a football official and is a lawyer. I am posting his response to me when I asked him what was self-defense and what how the law might see this. Here is his answer below.

----------------------------------------------------
Jeff,

As you can imagine the answer is complicated, and in
most cases, depends on state law. In general,
however, self-defense is one defense to a civil or
criminal battery charge. "Defense" means - yes, I did
it, but it was justified because . . .

To claim self-defense, the general rule is the person
claiming self-defense has the right to "meet force
with equal force necessary to defend himself." A few
examples of what violates this limitation, if
physically pushed, the person claiming SD cannot pull
a gun and shoot the aggressor. Pushing back is more
likely an acceptable response.

A second rule of SD is that the person claiming SD
must withdraw when danger can be avoided. This
generally means that the response to one push by an
aggressor is limited. One cannot push back and then
proceed to assult the aggressor. This also means,
however, that SD may not be available as a defense if
the person that wants to make th claim could
reasonably withdraw with no further danger even after
being pushed.

One footnote, SD is a defense. In an investigation,
police generally are only interested in when a crime
has potentially occurred. If they determine a push
has occurred, they could make arrests based on that
information alone, as it is not there responsibility
to investigate defenses.

I bring up that situation because I know it occurred
in a football game. An official was arrested after
the game for bumping a coach. He was later acquitted,
but he was arrested and charged.

I hope that helps. These are some general rules.
Laws could be different depending on the state.

(My Lawyer friend)
---------------------------------------------------------

Funny this is pretty much what I said. I guess a Judge on a TV show knows what they are talking about?

Peace

[bgtg19]

This thread became a long read since I was last here Â… and IÂ’m about to make it a lot longer. Sorry. (If youÂ’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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by bgtg19

Too many words.

Wow, I got a citation. Cool.

But here's what we all need to know: are you or are you not a day time TV judge?

[Forksref]

Suspend the official. His actions have now made all of our jobs more difficult. We need to be held to the same (if not higher) standard of behavior.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by bgtg19
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….

There is a big difference between a lawyer that is actually a Judge and someone that just acts as one only on TV. Whatever you might think about my example of talking about a Court show, we can all verify their actually resume or credentials. I only used that example because Judge Mathis did not award a civil judgment to someone based on the fact that a person was legally defending themselves in a case on his show. He used the exact same language as my lawyer friend when he said, "You cannot use a gun if there is a push, but you can push someone back legally." Or he said something to that affect. There are some issues that come up often on those court shows like assaults, rental issues and loan issues. You do not have to be a legal expert to understand some of the basic guidelines that are explained on any of these shows. You can make fun of the example, but the information I gave was not something I just decided to create.

Originally posted by bgtg19
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.

That is a fair example, but the problem is that the people making the decision might disagree with you. I know Rocky hates to hear this, but the reality is every jurisdiction might have a different opinion on what to do and how to handle this situation. I would much rather be suspended for protecting myself than getting hospitalized trying to uphold some "professional standard" that may or may not be present. I am not advocating official going out and attacking their attacker, I am just suggesting they should have some leeway and common sense should be used if we expect anyone is just going to turn away when they are threatened. Remember we had some ACC official get suspended for penalizing a player that was seen as not being confrontational when his opponent clearly got in his face. Because someone issues a punishment does not make the punishment in any way right.

Originally posted by bgtg19
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.

I officiate to have fun, I do not officiate to have to fear for my person. I am sorry, we are just going to have to disagree on this one. If you feel it is better to just get punched and pushed and back down, you do the best you can. I am not going to let anyone feel that I am just going to sit there while you do anything and everything to me.

Originally posted by bgtg19
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.

What Juulie says is interesting but might not be practically. If you blow a whistle in the right person's ear, they might just deck you square in the face. I do not know that I want to have a whistle in my mouth that when I possibly upset someone. Juulie is also a Women, she might not be confronted with the same kinds of people on her games as I might. These conversations are always interesting ones, but we must understand that we are not going to always agree.

Peace

[bgtg19]

It's nice to have good conversations, whether in person or on-line. This was a good conversation. The fact that we have differences is one of the reasons why we have to try -- on the court and off -- to give people the benefit of the doubt and respect their choices ... perhaps until they demonstrate that they don't deserve that benefit or that respect.

It's also nice to have conversations in which we can laugh. Dan, you made me laugh. Thanks.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by bgtg19


It's also nice to have conversations in which we can laugh. Dan, you made me laugh. Thanks.

Hey, if you can't laugh what's the point?

[tomegun]

I know what I HOPE I would do if someone pushed me.

You know how kids flop? Well, I would look behind me to make sure everything is safe and would fall flat on the floor! And I'm sure "my neck, my back, my neck and my back" would be hurting. I've often thought about doing this when a Lexus or BMW does something stupid in front of me on the road (continuing on and letting their dumb action cause a wreck at slow speeds).