Punishment Philosophy

[Redux]

 

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?

That's a better hypothetical.

 

Personally, I think the correct punishment is bench him. But since the cop called Tom personally, maybe for first half of the game and take away something else. Morally it should be the whole game, but he didn't get charged so it's kind of dealers choice.

 

If that call doesn't come in, whole game. And believe you me, the benching would be the tip of his punishment should they end up losing. His team would be furious at him, not Tom. The fans would lynch him. This is exactly what I meant above when I said each player understands consequences and has to be held accountable. And his team mates would CERTAINLY hold him accountable.

[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.

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.

I actually don't think you should suspend him for Purdue or MSU in that case. If it were more serious or a repeat offense, I'm not sure.

 

People say holding back on punishment is a terrible example, but I'm not sure it is. Especially if you use other pressure points to drive the lesson home. For example, running, strict curfews, drinking prohibitions, etc. Suspensions don't always make the most sense, especially for relatively minor or first time offenders.

[cm husker]

 

 

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?

That's a better hypothetical.

 

Personally, I think the correct punishment is bench him. But since the cop called Tom personally, maybe for first half of the game and take away something else. Morally it should be the whole game, but he didn't get charged so it's kind of dealers choice.

 

If that call doesn't come in, whole game. And believe you me, the benching would be the tip of his punishment should they end up losing. His team would be furious at him, not Tom. The fans would lynch him. This is exactly what I meant above when I said each player understands consequences and has to be held accountable. And his team mates would CERTAINLY hold him accountable.

First, none of this is a question of morality. Maybe. MAYBE it's one of ethics. But morality? No. It's not immoral for a coach to decide not to suspend a player for a dui.

 

What I don't understand is why the call from an unethical cop changes your analysis. Could you explain that a little more.

 

when you out that the "fans would lynch him," I actually draw a different conclusion from that premise. Rather than him learning his lesson, which be likely already has, you'd be subjecting him to additional, and maybe severe, punishment for the exact same offense. An offense that would have had much less punishment if it'd happened in February.

[cm husker]

Side note: criticism from the public/media should be a very very low priority consideration when determining what is best for your player's and the rest of team's development and experience as people.

[NUance]

What I don't understand is why the call from an unethical cop changes your analysis. Could you explain that a little more.

 

I just threw that in to put all the control with TO for responding to the situation. TO could choose to have the officer drop Scott Frost off at his apartment, and the scandal would never see the light of day. Or he could tell the officer to go ahead and book him just like any other schlub UNL student. Or TO could choose some path in between.

 

Also, I chose Osborne and Frost for this hypothetical because their characters are widely considered to be above reproach. Everyone knows this is a fictional account—unlike a hypothetical with, say, LP.

[cm husker]

Nuance, I completely understood why you included it in your hypo. Just not why it would change another poster's adamence about a suspension.

 

Personally, it would offend me far more if a coach and cop engineered a coverup than if the coach had his player booked like any other citizen and then refused to suspend him.

[Bowfin]

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

 

Actually, no. No man can serve two masters.

 

I had a friend who had to take another guy's guard duty with the SAW when the SAW gunner was caught smoking dope on guard duty. The doper had to follow behind him every step while carrying a sandbag, so as not to profit from his bad behavior. It's hard to be a best war fighter when one is armed with sandbag.

[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.

I actually don't think you should suspend him for Purdue or MSU in that case. If it were more serious or a repeat offense, I'm not sure.

People say holding back on punishment is a terrible example, but I'm not sure it is. Especially if you use other pressure points to drive the lesson home. For example, running, strict curfews, drinking prohibitions, etc. Suspensions don't always make the most sense, especially for relatively minor or first time offenders.

Running, prohibition from drinking and a curfew.

 

So, restrictions he likely already had prior to the hypothetical offense. Sooooo.....no actual punishment ie. looking the other way?

 

I get what you are trying to say, but it sets a bad example to the rest of the team not to punish an offense that was in direct violation of team rules. You are opening the floodgate for the rest of them and eventually it will be a big problem and the inmates will run the asylum. These are still college age kids after all, and they need guidance.

[cm husker]

Bowfin, this is a ridiculous comparison and I don't want to continue the line of thought. I'll just say that I'm not referring to people who are drinking on duty, which is wholly different than the original comparison. As far as your friend's story goes, that must have been decades ago because no one caught "smoking dope" would be allowed to continue at his post, sand bag or not. He'd be absolutely done in the military.

 

Also, don't reverse what I said. I said some great military performers also get in plenty of trouble off base/on leave. Not that all guys who get in trouble off base are great military performers.

[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.

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.

I actually don't think you should suspend him for Purdue or MSU in that case. If it were more serious or a repeat offense, I'm not sure.

People say holding back on punishment is a terrible example, but I'm not sure it is. Especially if you use other pressure points to drive the lesson home. For example, running, strict curfews, drinking prohibitions, etc. Suspensions don't always make the most sense, especially for relatively minor or first time offenders.

Running, prohibition from drinking and a curfew.

 

So, restrictions he likely already had prior to the hypothetical offense. Sooooo.....no actual punishment ie. looking the other way?

 

I get what you are trying to say, but it sets a bad example to the rest of the team not to punish an offense that was in direct violation of team rules. You are opening the floodgate for the rest of them and eventually it will be a big problem and the inmates will run the asylum. These are still college age kids after all, and they need guidance.

None of those restrictions were in place prior. Almost no coaches prohibit drinking, even in season, even if they discourage it. Curfews usually only apply when at the team hotel. I'm referring to extra running; punishment level running, not standard conditioning.

 

You have a much more cynical view of football players. I don't think taking third party interests under consideration would lead to the parade of horrible you describe.

[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.

I actually don't think you should suspend him for Purdue or MSU in that case. If it were more serious or a repeat offense, I'm not sure.

People say holding back on punishment is a terrible example, but I'm not sure it is. Especially if you use other pressure points to drive the lesson home. For example, running, strict curfews, drinking prohibitions, etc. Suspensions don't always make the most sense, especially for relatively minor or first time offenders.

Running, prohibition from drinking and a curfew.

So, restrictions he likely already had prior to the hypothetical offense. Sooooo.....no actual punishment ie. looking the other way?

I get what you are trying to say, but it sets a bad example to the rest of the team not to punish an offense that was in direct violation of team rules. You are opening the floodgate for the rest of them and eventually it will be a big problem and the inmates will run the asylum. These are still college age kids after all, and they need guidance.

None of those restrictions were in place prior. Almost no coaches prohibit drinking, even in season, even if they discourage it. Curfews usually only apply when at the team hotel. I'm referring to extra running; punishment level running, not standard conditioning.

You have a much more cynical view of football players. I don't think taking third party interests under consideration would lead to the parade of horrible you describe.

Ultimately it is a coaches call how he wants to punish a player that gets busted doing something they shouldn't be.

 

If he is okay with letting the infraction be the pubishment and risk it setting a poor example that's on him. Me, I would prefer to run a clean and disciplined team. One that knows it can count on, that they can count on each other. Mistakes will be made and when they are it is a coaches duty to be an authority and ensure they learn a lesson from it and not let them or others snow ball from it.

[Bowfin]

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?

 

Driving while drinking kills a lot of people...A LOT OF PEOPLE. Just hold on to that now and we'll come back to it.

 

We punish people not just for what that person has done, but to set the example for others if they do the same thing. Punishing Frost in the mythical scenarion not only teaches Frost a lesson, but everybody else who hears about it. Maybe some Freshman sees Frost on the bench during the loss to Tennessee and says "I'm not going to be that guy". (or some kid in the stands, or some dad who talks to his kids, or who name your scenario.) So we have maybe 50-60 people who might have taken a chance of driving drunk given it the thumbs down because seeing and talking about the disgraced Frost and lost game left a bad impression on them about drinking and driving. Say out of those 50 or 60, it saves ten from a DUI and maybe one or two from a major accident, with or without major injuries, single or multiple fatalities

 

Is it now worth it?

 

Or maybe we need to do math and see how much pain and trouble we're willing to trade for a football win.

 

Someone else start out, throw out a body count that you are comfortable with for another trophy. ( pointing out absurdity by being absurd. The fact that anyone would even factor in a "what if the football team suffers?" is absurd, bringing us to my own absurd "Well then, let's do the math!")

[cm husker]

Sober speeding kills a lot of people; probably as many or more than drunk driving.

 

If we use that logic of risked, but not actually suffered, harm, should a player be suspended for a game because of a speeding ticket?

[cm husker]

Bowfin, I think your "lesson to others" is point is well made.

 

My only contention is that you're talking about theoretical reductions in harm and suffering (i.e., someone who would have other drunk drove and hurt someone doesn't because he witnessed the frost punishment) versus the very real suffering you put his innocent teammates and coaches through by striving for the theoretical.

 

All to say, it's not the simple situation we sometimes purport it to be.

[Bowfin]

that must have been decades ago because no one caught "smoking dope" would be allowed to continue at his post,

 

Not every situation you encountered is the same for other places and other units. In this case, these paratroopers (82nd Airborne) were so far up in the hills and out in the sticks that the first thing we sent this guy was a washboard and a clothesline. Two of their company drowned while trying to say an air dropped pallet that landed in a river, so having a Humvee come every day to haul off the naughty guys wasn't an option. If you have more questions, we can PM each other.