Wait, are you suggesting there is no difference.....
by Marine Domer (2014-02-22 14:31:33)
[ cannot delete ]   [ Edit ]   [ Return to Rock's House ]   [ Show All Thread ]   [ Ignore Poster ]   [ Report Post ]   [ Highlight Poster ]   [ Reply ]

  In reply to: there is no salient new information  posted by ACross



between a player being suspended for being caught on the phone, and a player being suspended for being caught on the phone by the head coach, being instructed to get off the phone during the team meal, and that player choosing to ignore the head coach and stay on the phone? I think there is a huge difference there. One could argue about whether it warranted suspension v. some other form of punishment, but it is never acceptable for a player to simply ignore the head coach.

Are you suggesting that difference is not salient? Or simply that all this was already known?


no salient difference.
by ACross  (2014-02-22 15:31:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I chose my words carefully.

This was a "do 10 laps" or "clean up the locker room" phone etiquette infraction.

I know you fancy yourself a Sgt Hulka, maximum lawman, black and white, rules are rules, don't you dare question authority type.

But this seems to me a low grade infraction that did not justify the harsh punishment meted out.




Unfortunately for GA you don't get to make that call
by Carlos Huerta  (2014-02-22 18:38:41)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

the NFL teams do and I suspect they won't be nearly as inclined to overlook being insubordinate to the head coach- at least not from a guy that already has a number of strikes against him for his limited football skills.


The initial infraction deserved the punishment you suggest
by localirishfan  (2014-02-22 16:51:44)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

but, the suspension is just when defying a coach's request, period.


Sgt Hulka was Army, and there is a difference....
by Marine Domer  (2014-02-22 15:41:28)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

between an incidental rules infraction and a deliberate rules infraction. I have no problem with questioning authority in appropriate circumstances. This wasn't questioning authority...by any stretch of the imagination.


sometimes kids are kids
by ACross  (2014-02-22 16:38:41)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Nobody is defending Atkinson's conduct. In fact, I happen to be an anti-cell phone zealot. I think Kelly should make players leave their phones outside the room during team meetings and meals.

The question is the punishment. Suspending him for a game was not proportional to the offense, no matter how good it makes your linear mind feel.


I found out coaching 18-22 year olds,
by ProV1x  (2014-02-22 18:33:33)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

either you handle them or they will handle you. I was fortunate to have inforcers and leaders on most, not all, of my college teams and they took care of any cancers before they got to me.


Reading is fundamental, and you're a little slow today.....
by Marine Domer  (2014-02-22 17:00:00)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

If you re-read my first response you will note I indicated one could still debate whether the punishment was excessive. Your suggestion that there is no salient difference between a minor rules violation and a kid getting told by the head coach to turn off his phone and blowing him off is silly.


Agree *
by Bmoreirish  (2014-02-22 15:24:26)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


The contents of this post represent the views of the author. NDNation.com is not responsible for its contents.