History Repeats Itself
 

With a hat tip to Coltdogs, I had a JV boy's game this weekend where, in the first quarter, one of the coaches yells out during a stop in play "They're raping us out there!" I hit him with a technical upon which he comes onto the floor and says loudly "That's the first call you've gotten right tonight!" I hit him with a second technical and he's done for the night.

What is it with coaches and using that phrase? To me it is particularly violent and offensive (strangely, more than "They're killing us" or "They're mugging us"), especially when you consider that there were kids in the stands. Because it was a JV game it wasn't really crowded yet so I heard him quite clearly at mid-court (he was at the end of the coach's box closest to the endline). I've read the comments posted on Coltdogs' original post and honestly did not think I would be faced with that situation.

The varsity coach took over for the team (all they had was a student manager left on the bench, no assistants apparently) and he was OK with my reasoning. To his credit, the JV coach came into the official's room after the game and apologized.

Anyway, just wanted to vent a little bit. Thanks for all who contribute to this forum. It's very much appreciated.

Good job by you.

Stoopid monkeys. :(

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :mad: :mad:

I don't care his motives, that is wrong wrong wrong. Coaches should never have access to the referees after the game.

You know, I thought about that at the time but the entire varsity crew was there with me, along with my partner from the JV game, and none of them thought twice about it. I thought it highly inappropriate too. This is a new high school, though, and game management is still a struggle for them (this was only the second game they'd hosted ever).

Still, I think I'll include that as a follow-on to the report I had to send in. Thanks.

I agree in theory. But if a coach is being contrite, I can let that go. Now if they want to complain or ask for a clarification without approval of the officials on the game, then I would completely agree. In other words I would not encourage this in anyway, but if they walked into the room and were throwing around complements or apologizing I can easily get over that.

Peace

I whacked a coach last week (JV boys small school)...my partner (a former state tourney official, now getting older) asked me to go to the table to remind them that they keep track of team fouls to 10 and no further. As I was walking away from the table the coach screams..."What, are you ashamed of the game you guys are calling!?" WHACK! Just before the second half, the coach comes up and apologizes to us, citing that he only had two hours of sleep last night and was a bit testy to begin with. No problems after that. The apology can always help...

Rape is a much more personal and dehumanizing assault that mugging or even (strangely) killing. Think of war, where soldiers who are encouraged to kill are always punished for raping (at least if they're caught, they are). Thus the accusation of rape is a more serious charge and is far less acceptable. Whacking a coach for this accusation is automatic in my book.

Whoa. Hold on here a second. Just stop.

Soldiers are NOT encouraged to kill. They are trained to kill *the enemy* if necesary. In fact there's a thing called rules of engagement that defines for soldiers under what circumstance they can engage (read try to kill) the enemy. Further, there is only 1 US branch where every member is given some rudimentary training in "killing", in the others most are there in a support role. Above that, you might have heard of the Geneva Conventions which states in no uncertain terms who a soldier of any nation may and may not intentionally kill in combat. You might even have heard that some soldiers have recently been brought to trial and been found guilty of illegally killing in combat zones. All that said in today's climate the only people who are "encouraged to kill" by their leaders and educators in fact are not soldiers but the armed non-uniformed enemy they face.

Is rape a terrible crime? Yes.

Does this entitle you to broadly insult an entire population of honorable people who go to great lengths to serve their country?

No it does not.

I stand corrected, then. Let me (again today) rephrase. "In war, soldiers are allowed to kill in certain situations, but are never allowed to rape under any circumstances. " Does that better represent the sitch?

Let me add that although I am completely anti-war under all circumstances, I do not believe that people who disagree with my position are dis-honorable. I know that 99% of our soldiers are honorable people who are doing what they think is best and right for our country, and I respect that. I respect and appreciate the standards that our soldiers and most of their leaders hold and seek to follow. I in no way said what I did out of scorn or insult of the military.

Juulie - as you know, this is one of the serious points on which we disagree. However, you also know I certainly respect you and your views. As someone who has a relative currently on active duty in a war zone, I did not take offense to your statement, but I can see where someone else might have. This just goes to show us how volatile and personal an issue this is. Maybe we should just stay away from it on a board like this.

That having been said, "who loves ya' baby"?

http://crazyabouttv.com/Images/kojak1973.jpg

NCAA football actually uses the term rape. Just check out the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYIrsCADoM8

That wasn't the NCAA, that was an announcer. Whole different species.

No, I'm pretty sure face rape is listed in the definitions in rule 2. It is somewhere right in there between clipping, down, fair catch, and foul. I've never seen it on the signal chart though. The proper signal must be personal foul, face mask, then disqualification (as a face rape by definition is flagrant).

LOL so to point out a rule, you're going to reference a youtube video of an announcer complaining? whatever...

It does not.

I'm sorry, you can now go back to telling everyone how soldiers encouraged to kill and how rape is much worse that murder.

Uh..... Thank you?:o

Dan, your post was very well put.

Juulie, I also disagree with you, but it is nothing to start a war over - bad joke.
The many rules we follow before we engage the enemy are very frustrating to me. We have the capability to give the non-combatants time to get out, destroy the enemy and then build their (whoever the enemy is at the time) area up again. This would probably cost the taxpayers less money overall and would definitely save more lives. IMHO, young men and women are killed because we play by the rules while our enemies do not. Another point I would like you to consider, although you probably already have, is the fact that without our military we would more than likely be under constant attack and/or not have the freedoms we enjoy today.

I am a veteran, a viet nam tour, and I am also anti-war. However, my country called (1964), and I answered.

Show some class.

Personally, I may disagree with rainmaker's political opinion here, but I really didn't find her analogy all that off base. While it may have shown either an unfamiliarity with military issues or simply imprecise word choices; her point was actually on target.

While we certainly train many in our military to be able to kill when necessary, rape is always off limits for our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen; whether in combat zones or out.

It's a particularly heinous crime for many reasons. For a non-military example, let's just look at the simple fact that when murderers get out of jail, there is a possibility of ending their requirements for state tracking (parole). Sex-offenders aren't afforded that possibility, for good reason.

I could start in about how this past weekends church shootings show that the use of force is sometimes necessary, but that might lead to a debate for which this board isn't suited.

My point was simply, as Snaqs and others agreed with, to respond to Rufus' comment that we seem to feel that "They're raping us!" is more offensive than "They're killing us!" I only said the part about my anti-war opinion because I felt I needed to explain my own inaccurate characterization of killing in the military. That mistake doesn't change the comparison of rape to killing and the relative ethical and offensive impact of those acts, and consequently of those accusations.

Snaqs is right that this is not the place to discuss the whys and wherefores of military or non-military or anti-military whatever.

Specifics aside, can we just say that the term kill is considered to be more socially acceptable than the term rape, even when everyone knows that the use is figurative? For example, if a 6 year old child is asked about the results of his first soccer game, and responds "We killed 'em!" one's response might be to smile and pat the child on the head. If that same child had said, "We raped 'em!" one would probably be inclined to suggest that the child not use that term in that context.

Bottom line: Sometimes you have to treat a coach like you would treat a 6 year old child.

As a general guideline, this is a great recommendation. Except for the phrase, "Okay??" As in, "Stay in your box, okay?" "We're calling what we see, coach, okay?" Works with many 6 year olds. Very bad with any coach!

I have been told that okay in this context is not proper, even with kids. (even though we all have said it at times) The use of "okay" indicates that the agreement and/or approval of the other person is necessary, which in this case, it is not. They say that it is infinitely better to say "Stay in your box, understand?"

Who are "they?" And, do "they" have children?

lol! Well, then have it your way. Even so, "Stay in your box, understand?" isn't good with a coach, okay?

Never actually met "them" but, if I had, I consider "Do you have children?" to be too personal a question to ask strangers.:)

I can see how rape is worse then murder.

the vitim in a murder case is dead. They dont have to deal with being dead. The victim in a rape case is not dead and has to carry the burden that goes along with being a rape victim for the rest of their life.

Now yes.. they do have a rest of their life, but they will always be tortured with that memory. it will never go away.

Oh, I don't know. If "they" are too aloof to answer a personal question, then I'll be too stubbord to take "their" advice. :)