Punishment Philosophy

[It'sNotAFakeID]

You hope to reach a point where you punish a player for violating state laws or team rules with the acceptance of the unpunished players. The punished player should have the common sense to understand that his teammates wouldn't experience the second-hand punishment had he or she not violated state laws or team rules.

 

[Bowfin]

No way would I leave one of my best guys on the bench

If he's one of your best guys, he wouldn't be putting the rest of the unit / team in a predicament with his actions and behaviors, now would he?

 

[cm husker]

No way would I leave one of my best guys on the bench

If he's one of your best guys, he wouldn't be putting the rest of the unit / team in a predicament with his actions and behaviors, now would he?

Really? Some of the best war fighters have a lot of trouble following rules like dui.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

No way would I leave one of my best guys on the bench

If he's one of your best guys, he wouldn't be putting the rest of the unit / team in a predicament with his actions and behaviors, now would he?

Really? Some of the best war fighters have a lot of trouble following rules like dui.

I'll try to remember that the next time the performance/outcome of a game could likely result in direct and immediate loss of life of my players and many other innocents and jeopardize the futures of their descendants.

 

[Redux]

Each player should understand that not only are they putting their playing time in jeopardy but also their teams well being.

If they still choose to disobey and get caught they should probably expect punishment.

 

[Bowfin]

Also, what is the evidence that Texas A&M is a dumpster fire due to Manziels punishments?

Actually, they are a dumpster fire due to the lack of Manziel's punishments.

The top two quarterbacks from Texas A&M transferred this year "for personal reasons" and Sumlin is definitely on the hot seat. The precedent at A&M has been set that every rule concerning the behavior his team is "negotiable". Meaningless punishments have made the rules meaningless at Texas A&M.

 

[Elf]

No way would I leave one of my best guys on the bench

If he's one of your best guys, he wouldn't be putting the rest of the unit / team in a predicament with his actions and behaviors, now would he?

Really? Some of the best war fighters have a lot of trouble following rules like dui.

Football isn't war.

It's a players responsibility to not get in trouble and honestly, it isn't that hard. When you make bad choices there are consequences and when you are on a team you also let your team down with your bad decisions. Your decisions can affect their performance if you are a star player. That is your fault and your team mates would be right to be angry with you.

 

[wanderful]

I brought up a question in a other thread. I agree with those who think that thread should be allowed to die. Still curious what everyone's thoughts are regarding the following.

Question: should a coach consider the impact a punishment has on innocent team members when assigning punishments to individuals? For example, if TA had been charged with suspicion of DUI a week before the MSU game last year, should he be suspended even if that likely means a loss suffered by the rest of the guys?

Or if it might mean the difference between a win providing a coach with security versus a loss leading directly to his firing? At 4-8, that might have been a real possibility.

I don't think it's a simple answer. I do think it should be a factor.

I'll put it to you with another, non-sports hypothetical - should a man who committed murder be put to death or in jail for life if he has children who will end up destitute and have their lives ruined as a result of his absence?

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

I brought up a question in a other thread. I agree with those who think that thread should be allowed to die. Still curious what everyone's thoughts are regarding the following.

Question: should a coach consider the impact a punishment has on innocent team members when assigning punishments to individuals? For example, if TA had been charged with suspicion of DUI a week before the MSU game last year, should he be suspended even if that likely means a loss suffered by the rest of the guys?

Or if it might mean the difference between a win providing a coach with security versus a loss leading directly to his firing? At 4-8, that might have been a real possibility.

I don't think it's a simple answer. I do think it should be a factor.

I'll put it to you with another, non-sports hypothetical - should a man who committed murder be put to death or in jail for life if he has children who will end up destitute and have their lives ruined as a result of his absence?

That is not a good analogy -- false equivalence.

What if you generalize it as "should someone go to jail for breaking the law if their absence causes hardship for others?"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/12/instead-arresting-shoplifting-mom-kansas-cop-buys-items.html

A widowed, homeless mother of six who tried shoplifting $300 in diapers, shoes and baby wipes avoided jail after the Kansas police officer sent to arrest her instead paid for the items, Fox4KC reported.

“What she did was wrong and against the law, but her heart was in the right place with wanting to help to take care of her children,” Roeland Park Police Officer Mark Engravalle said.

 

[cm husker]

No way would I leave one of my best guys on the bench

If he's one of your best guys, he wouldn't be putting the rest of the unit / team in a predicament with his actions and behaviors, now would he?

Really? Some of the best war fighters have a lot of trouble following rules like dui.

I'll try to remember that the next time the performance/outcome of a game could likely result in direct and immediate loss of life of my players and many other innocents and jeopardize the futures of their descendants.

As you know, I didn't raise the comparison.

 

[cm husker]

All I've said is that it should be a factor in determining a punishment. I've never once said there should be no punishment, even though that means holding an athlete to a higher standard than other students (no engineering major is suspended from lab for a similar dui offense).

I simply don't think it's always clear cut that a hammer should drop if it hurts a lot of innocent third parties.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

No way would I leave one of my best guys on the bench

If he's one of your best guys, he wouldn't be putting the rest of the unit / team in a predicament with his actions and behaviors, now would he?

Really? Some of the best war fighters have a lot of trouble following rules like dui.

I'll try to remember that the next time the performance/outcome of a game could likely result in direct and immediate loss of life of my players and many other innocents and jeopardize the futures of their descendants.

As you know, I didn't raise the comparison.

Ha! I missed that. I kept thinking, "why would CM make this lame comparison? I know he's sharper than that..."

D'oh!

 

[wanderful]

I brought up a question in a other thread. I agree with those who think that thread should be allowed to die. Still curious what everyone's thoughts are regarding the following.

Question: should a coach consider the impact a punishment has on innocent team members when assigning punishments to individuals? For example, if TA had been charged with suspicion of DUI a week before the MSU game last year, should he be suspended even if that likely means a loss suffered by the rest of the guys?

Or if it might mean the difference between a win providing a coach with security versus a loss leading directly to his firing? At 4-8, that might have been a real possibility.

I don't think it's a simple answer. I do think it should be a factor.

I'll put it to you with another, non-sports hypothetical - should a man who committed murder be put to death or in jail for life if he has children who will end up destitute and have their lives ruined as a result of his absence?

That is not a good analogy -- false equivalence.

What if you generalize it as "should someone go to jail for breaking the law if their absence causes hardship for others?"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/12/instead-arresting-shoplifting-mom-kansas-cop-buys-items.html

A widowed, homeless mother of six who tried shoplifting $300 in diapers, shoes and baby wipes avoided jail after the Kansas police officer sent to arrest her instead paid for the items, Fox4KC reported.

“What she did was wrong and against the law, but her heart was in the right place with wanting to help to take care of her children,” Roeland Park Police Officer Mark Engravalle said.

A more generalized analogy is probably appropriate, but I disagree that it's a false equivalence -- one is just more extreme example than the other: there was a rule laid out before hand with a clearly delineated range of punishments. The rule was violated, so the punishment is applied. The initial question was whether that punishment should still be applied if it tangentially causes hardship for others. We're not talking about a Jean Valjean situation here where someone broke a law to survive, we're talking about someone who broke a rule with no reasonable justification for doing so, and the effect punishment for said violation would have on those around him.

 

[Redux]

All I've said is that it should be a factor in determining a punishment. I've never once said there should be no punishment, even though that means holding an athlete to a higher standard than other students (no engineering major is suspended from lab for a similar dui offense).

I simply don't think it's always clear cut that a hammer should drop if it hurts a lot of innocent third parties.

I asked you what kind of punishment for what kind of offense you sugggested.

I assume you mean:

Tommy gets MIP, next game is MSU, game after is Purdue, Tommy gets benched for Purdue.

Something along those lines? I'll tell you now it would still draw criticism. But will all offenses you have to measure what a necessary punishment would be. But still, holding back on punishment because it endangers a win sets a terrible example.

 

[NUance]

That is not a good analogy -- false equivalence.

It seems like most in this thread agree that punishment would have been appropriate for Tommy's hypothetical infraction last season. But last year was a throw away season. So let's look at a more extreme example where we have something that matters on the line. And yet comes closer to equivalence than the murderer father example above:

Image it's December 1997. What if Scott Frost had been picked up for DUI the night before the team left to play Tennessee in the 1998 Orange Bowl for the '97 MNC? And what if a football friendly LPD officer called Tom Osborne at home as asked whether they should book him or let him go? Should Tom play Frost in the Bowl game? Or not, in which case (let's say) we would almost certainly lose. And further, what if Tom knew that a DUI infraction would probably cost Scott Frost his chance to get drafted in the NFL in a couple of months.

Should Tom be as harsh with Scott Frost as everyone thinks is appropriate for Tommy above? Is the decision rule different when something of value is on the line?