|
Post by NC1974 on Aug 20, 2015 20:34:59 GMT -6
espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13463272/how-former-san-francisco-49ers-chris-borland-retirement-change-nfl-foreverI did not really follow this story much when he retired. Came across this article today. A couple of the things that jumped out at me: -I was surprised by the way UW was portrayed in regards to injuries and use of Toradol. -"The game may be safer; you can make an argument about that. My experience over my five years at Wisconsin and my one year in the NFL was that there were times where I couldn't play the game safely. There are positive measures we can take ... but on a lead play, on a power play, there's violence."
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Aug 19, 2015 19:45:37 GMT -6
In most defenses I've seen, you're not asking a DL to straight up stone a guy and two gap it. Nor are most OL expected to straight up drive a guys 3-4 yds back. So as others have mentioned, I don't think this drill helps players understand things like gap responsibility, hat placement etc. I think a half line drill would be much more productive.
Now in terms of using it as a straight up "who is the bigger bad a$$", I suppose it might do the job. But I definitely wouldn't be doing this with youth or probably even frosh/soph. I think drills like this at the younger levels cause kids to quit before they have a had chance to develop some confidence and technique.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Aug 8, 2015 22:53:37 GMT -6
I have never been on a team that does not bring the guys in on Saturday. I do think it could keep the kids more fresh but have a couple of Qs: -when do watch Friday night's game with the kids? -when do you start watching next week opponent's with kids? - My concern would be losing time to get kids acquainted with next week's opponent but as others have stated, maybe there are more efficient ways to do it using HUDL.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jun 4, 2015 6:54:47 GMT -6
I don't get any injury concerns at that age. They're too small and too slow to hurt each other, especially if you put unnecessary and heavy equipment on them, it's like walking around in a weight vest for those kids. Coach Clement, I used to feel the same way you did but am more on the fence now. The CTE research, while still not definitive, is suggesting that repeated "sub-concussive" blows the head may be more damaging than an actual concussion. If this turns out to be the case, 6 yr olds in pads, with zero neck strength (aka bobbleheads) running into each other, might be more harmful than we think. I'm leaning more and more toward Dr. Cantu's recommendation of starting full contact football at 13 - 14 yrs old.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on May 31, 2015 13:07:38 GMT -6
Played and love both sports. The real rugby (15s as opposed to 7s) is truly the most egalitarian sport I've ever been a part of. There is a position for just about any body type, everybody plays in 2nd or 3rd side games, and everybody, even us old OL get to play the ball. All of that being said, I don't see it competing with football as a spectator sport. I love watching both, but I think football's forward passing game creates more big plays.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Feb 6, 2015 15:28:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Oct 22, 2014 21:51:43 GMT -6
So CoachD, I would have to say IMO, playing football from 8th grade - 12th grade is vastly more rewarding and life changing than playing football from 2nd grade - 7th grade. OR, the brain develops in such a way that making connections and relationships don't seem as concrete until much older. Same reason everyone develops closer bonds with HS teachers as opposed to their elementary ones. Also, probably the same reason why super successful Pro athletes seem to support their colleges and have deeper relationships with their college coaches/programs than their HS ones. Heck, that isn't just athletes either-- most Alum associate much more with their colleges than high schools. So while the rewards are there at the early ages, the realization of those rewards is much less apparent. And keep in mind, the amount of kids playing football from grade 8-12 is VASTLY less than the amount who play from 2nd-7th.... I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. This might be a corny example but it's true. I have found my self at times as an adult reminding myself that I can push through certain discomforts of life because I've done it before (in the form of high school athletics). I can't imagine myself using 3rd grade football as the same kind of motivation. I didn't know what it meant to push through my comfort zone as a 3rd grader (thank god, nor should any 3rd grader IMO). So I'm going to stand by my assertion that high school athletics (or athletics that take place from 13 yrs old and up) end up having more of a positive affect on your life. But of course as always when I post on Coach Huey, I respect your opinion and enjoy the debates!
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Oct 22, 2014 21:30:00 GMT -6
One thing that has me starting to question the value of padded football at a young age is the brain research. There is evidence that suggests the "subconcussive hits" MIGHT have a cumulative negative effect on brain health. With this in mind, I think it makes sense to shrink that window of subconcussive hits. Instead of strapping on a helmet at 7 yrs old, waiting until your 12 yrs old would likely make that cumulative amount of hits much smaller. Or...strap on the helmet at 7, and then find another sport at 13.......... Point being, there is a definite undercurrent in this thread that others have pointed out. A predisposed mindset that "HS football is what matters, and youth ball is just building towards it" For those who have this mindset, any other point of view just seems ridiculous. As others have pointed out though, when put into a similar (not the same, as blb pointed out, but similar) context, it seems ridiculous to think of HS coaches gearing their programs to ensure a pipeline to college athletics. This is just my opinion, but I think all youth sports should be about preparing them for high school sports. Before anyone jumps all over me, here is why and it's just my opinion. I personally don't believe that you are emotionally mature enough to reap the vast rewards of athletics until you're around 13 yrs and up. Now this is my opinion, but I challenge people to consider this: What do you remember about your athletic career when you were in say 3rd grade? I know what I rememeber: having fun, sometime not liking getting yelled at, getting to have a pop after a game. These are fine things. But it wasn't until I was much older that I remember learning these IMO much more important things in sports such as: sacrificing time, social life, for future gains. Making commitments to teammates and honoring those commitments, fighting through adversity, learning to deal with failure etc. So CoachD, I would have to say IMO, playing football from 8th grade - 12th grade is vastly more rewarding and life changing than playing football from 2nd grade - 7th grade.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Oct 22, 2014 20:41:43 GMT -6
One thing that has me starting to question the value of padded football at a young age is the brain research. There is evidence that suggests the "subconcussive hits" MIGHT have a cumulative negative effect on brain health. With this in mind, I think it makes sense to shrink that window of subconcussive hits. Instead of strapping on a helmet at 7 yrs old, waiting until your 12 yrs old would likely make that cumulative amount of hits much smaller.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Sept 25, 2014 21:22:20 GMT -6
RIP coach Pope. I did not know him personally but definitely have learned a great deal from the Hawg Tuff website.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Sept 20, 2014 10:23:04 GMT -6
I feel like alot of our guys find the subject of nutrition to be too boring to bother with. I'm wondering if there are any good role models out there (professional athletes, college athletes etc) that really preach proper nutrition.
I kind of relate this to when I was younger and first started to look at physical training as "cool". There were plenty of things to inspire us such as : the rocky movies and the awesome training montages, Herschel Walker and his thousands of push ups, Walter Payton running hills.
Has anyone found the equivalent of the above examples in the realm of nutrition? Something that could get the kids excited about eating right?
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Sept 11, 2014 21:53:09 GMT -6
I have never coached youth football and this is just my opinion but this is one of the things that worries me about youth football. The fact that 12-14 yr old kids come into high school with this expectation that they will play a particular position is bothersome to me.
Many of these kids have: -not hit their growth spurts -have sometimes been assigned positions based on relative ht and wt to the other guys on the team -have played in leagues where the talent pool is watered down compared to high school (there is nothing wrong with this but it could give a kid and his family a skewed image) -have played on teams that might have relied purely on "giving the ball" to their best athletes and therefore might not be all that fundamentally sound -have had well intentioned parents and coaches telling them how good they are at X position
And then these guys get disillusioned when they get assigned to another position in HS.
The one other thing that worries me about this, and I a may be misinterpreting the OP's message, is the very unrealistic view many players and parents have when it comes to the chances of receiving athletic scholarships. I feel there are many more players and parents out there now who think their kids have legitimate chances of gettiing D1 athletic shcolarships. And because they think this, the stakes become higher. "If coach isn't playing Jimmy at QB, he's hurting his chances of getting a scholarship"
While I would always want to encourage kids to work to achieve their goals and dreams, some people need a reality check inm regards to odds of receiving D1 athletic scholarships.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Sept 10, 2014 17:42:57 GMT -6
I would second the motion to go all out at DE. It is almost unthinkable in my mind that a player would refuse a position assigned to him by the coach. It's one of the things that I think makes football such a great game. You're expected to play the role that best serves the team.
I am a little curious as to why your perception of him as a QB is so much different than that of the coaching staff. It's possible that they have overlooked him for some reason, but I also think it might be possible that your perception is skewed.
Regardless, if I was advising this kid, I would encourage him to play his heart out at whatever position he is assigned. Then, if he feels very strongly about his ability to be starting QB, may be he could share these feelings with the coaching staff in the offseason. Maybe ask the appropriate coaches to drill with him, watch him throw, etc.
Furthermore, this might be related to a scenario I've seen play out 1000 times at the freshman level. On that first day of trying out for different positions, there are 10 kids trying out for QB. 5 of them played QB in their various pop warner teams, 3 of them are baseball guys that have been told they have a cannon for an arm, and another 2 are all around athletic point guard type guys. This group of kids probably represents the most purely athletic kids on the team. And they are all legitimate QB type kids. The problem is, the frosh team has no need for 10 QBs, so they find the best 4 and those other kids get repositioned. That can be hard to swallow for some.
Finally, unless this kid is a legitimate blue chip type recruit, I would encourage this kid to view himself first and foremost as a "football player" as opposed to a QB. Embrace whatever role you are assigned and have a blast while making lifelong friends and lasting memories.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Sept 10, 2014 7:12:55 GMT -6
This is a great question. I don't have the answers but I do have other questions:
-Why did we get into coaching in the first place? I'm guessing many of us would answer something along the lines of having positive impact on the kids, along with loving the game of course. I guess I believe that you can be great, effective coach and role model without watching film every waking minute.
-At what point does the law of diminishing returns kick in? At what point does watching film just become information overload? It seems like the KISS principle works well here. It seems like good coaches and programs have their key things they're looking for on film i.e. top 3 plays, down tendencies etc. Once you've got those things does watching more film just make you more neurotic?
-Is there still a cultural pressure to "outwork" everyone else and can it go too far?
-Does wanting time to decompress i.e. read a book, watch tv, mean you're lazy or is does this "decompression" time actually make you more effective in your working hours because you are not burned out. This kind of reminds me of the some of the philosophies on strength training. You can either go really hard a few times a week with recovery days built in or you can go moderately hard every day. You can't go really hard all of the time. I thing that pertains to mental energy as well.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Aug 9, 2014 2:07:09 GMT -6
I echo many of the things that were already said and would add:
-the best ol coached I have seen know the offense inside and out. That may mean getting with your HC and/or OC and making sure you guys are on the same page -good Ol coaches have an answer for every look you'll see. That means having blocking rules and knowing how they relate to every front or stunt you'll see -good ol coaches embrace the fundamentals i,e every day drills -every block you teach should specify first step, hand placement, hat placement, aiming point, leverage etc -always coach finish and playing through the whistle -have something that makes the guys believe in you, this is usually passion and expertise, guys will buy in if they see that they knwo what you are talking about
I guess that last thing I'll say is that should all stem from the head coach. The HC should teach the offese to the ac's nd should expect specific every day drills and teaching progressions
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jul 21, 2014 21:10:19 GMT -6
Thanks coach,
A bunch of great stuff here. This one really jumped out at me:
"Failing doesn't make you a failure. Failing makes you a competitor. Every competitor fails."
I find myself having to convey this to my eleven year old son lately. And I think it nails the meaning of toughness imo. The guy who can be resilient in the face of failure and keep going is tough.
BTW, Unbreakable is by far one of the best books I've ever read. This man's resilience and outlook on life definitely transcends the world of sport and is great inspiration for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Apr 25, 2014 11:54:58 GMT -6
I used to use a 3pt system per play: 1. Task - did you do the right assignment, step the right way, run the right route etc 2. Technique - body position, leverage, etc 3. Toughness - it encompassed things like finishing to the whistle, pursuit, getting up quickly after getting knocked down, etc.
I liked it. It provided alot of opportunity to praise those who do all those things and encourage others to keep working on it.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Mar 19, 2014 20:15:26 GMT -6
So HS football is a year round thing, heck has been since I was playing. But we now have kids going to passing tournaments year round, spending 2 hrs a day 6 days a week speed/wt training, and we're moving to 3 weeks of spring ball (from 5:30-7:30) so track kids can make it. I know we all want to be proactive, and feel the need to DO more stuff in an effort to improve. But has anyone here made a conscience effort to do less in some aspects? And if so do you think it helped? Huge believer in less is more. We have done spring training for about 8 days the last three years when we could have done more. No 7 on 7's. I repeat, not one 7 on 7 in three years. We threw for 20 first half TD's in 2012. We lift only two days a week. We will warmup and do abs. We only do 6 sets lifting TOTAL while in there. 2 bench, 2 squats, 1 row, 1 press or 2 pad bench, 2 cleans. 1 pullup, 1 SLDL. We will warmup and do abs. Total takes 30-35 minutes. Kids can do extra when done. We will also plyo, agility, speed train for two days. Takes 45 minutes max. In the summer, we only go 2 days a week period. We lift and do plyo, agility, speed train, and football skills all on the same day. Three sport athletes in summer: Tuesday and Thursday: 8 bball skills, 9-10:30 lift & speed, 10:30-11:30 football, 11:30-12 baseball skills. No minimum to make. If you are in town, you show up. If you are out of town, just let coach know. Most will make up when they miss, but they don't have to. Basketball will do some summer play days and a summer 2-3 day camp. Many baseball players play Post ball. Football - nothing extra. During the season we roughly practice Mon 3:15-5:30, Tue 3:15-6, Wed 3:15-5:30, Thu 3:15-4:30. We do meet on Saturday morning to recheck for injuries, loosen up, feed breakfast, watch film, and cut down on after game Friday night partying. Usually 9-10:15. This is an extra day, but also saves an hour on Monday since film is done. The caveat to all this is that we we work out all year twice a week in-season and off-season. We work out during Christmas, during Spring break, all year. Same rules apply as summer, if you are in town, you show up. If you are out of town, just let coach know. Most will make up when they miss, but they don't have to. Silky, I just want to get clarification on a couple of things. 1. You say you go two days a week in the summer. Is that all summer? I'm just curious. I know some states have maximum amount of days or certain times you can practice in the summer. 2. Are all of your sports programs doing the same lifting program? 3. This might be worthy of another thread, but I'd be interested in hearing more about your overall lifting program i.e. philosophy, cycles, etc. I feel like alot of us spend more time than necessary in the weightroom. The fact that you guys seem to get alot done with two days a week is intriguing to me. 2.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Mar 13, 2014 7:03:15 GMT -6
Generally speaking, I would say board mandated things would only serve to tie your hands. Whenever possible, I would think an HC would want to maintain as much control as possible.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Oct 30, 2013 8:41:32 GMT -6
This kid ain't Edwin Snowden. What are the big secrets here? Film? Is there really anything there that couldn't be seen from the trade film? Playbook? You've been running the plays. No big secrets there. Practice film? That's just the plays that you run in games but not run as well. How many hours did it say that they looked at the HUDL account? Wasted time, I think. If the kid gave up the info that's something that has to be handled. "Hacked" and "relative" sounds to me like somebody should have known better. I don't think the team that got the password did anything wrong. If somebody gave me a password, I am taking it. snowden didn't do anything wrong. I agree their are no secrets in this game (amazing how many people to think their is). If the kid can do it for you, he can also harm you with it. I generally agree that there are no huge secrets on film but I have to strongly disagree with CoachBry here. If the other coaching staff knowlingly received another teams's password "under the table" so to speak, and they went ahead and used it, I think that is major ethical violation. Even worse, if they shared it with their players. What exactly are we supposed to be teaching in high school sports? Win at all costs? The ends justify the means?
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Oct 10, 2013 9:22:24 GMT -6
The bigger concern, which was mentioned in the documentary, is "sub-concussive" hits. At this point, it does not appear definitive, but many of these experts fear that the thousands of "sub-concussive" hits that players at all levels take a year (think the line of scrimmage) may contribute to CTE. If that link is ever substantiated, the game as we know it is in serious danger.
Personally, I'm trying to stay informed and objective. I don't think the sky is falling just yet. I am starting the question the "risk vs rewards" of allowing kids under 14 to play this game. This is obviously just my opinion, but is a 9 yr old really getting that much out of football ( in terms of learning the values of teamwork, sacrifice, competition, etc) to make it worth the risk of doing damage to the brain? Couldn't they learn these same characteristics playing basketball? I guess I feel that kids are more apt to really get something from football ( in terms of learning the values of teamwork, sacrifice, competition, etc) when they are at a more emotionally mature age, maybe 13 or 14. I've got a 10 yr old whom I told that he can play football starting in 7th grade. But now I'm starting to rethink this. If one of the concerns is "cumulative hits" over ones playing career, why not wait until freshmen yr and condense that window a bit more. This could in theory, lessen the cumulative amount of hits and still allow someone to experience all of the positives of high school football. I don't know yet what i'll decide, but just kicking around thoughts like this in my head.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Sept 28, 2013 0:07:55 GMT -6
Some of you guys have your priorities way out of wack. Football is a game, a recreational activity for kids. It is not their life like we have made it ours. Coach up the back up and go play the game. It could be a great opportunity for the back up and a way to solidify depth for later in the season. Although I agree that some are making way too much of this situation I do have to ask this: Do they fire coaches for losing where you are? Fantom, This is the problem. High School coaches, coaches of kids between the ages of 14 - 18, might be encouraging kid to do things, like miss their aunt's wedding, in order to save their jobs. As a society, we've take a wrong turn somewhere if this is the case. Which again, is why I'm starting to question the value we give to high school sports.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Sept 27, 2013 23:17:49 GMT -6
I would be ticked about the late notice for sure.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Sept 27, 2013 23:14:50 GMT -6
Once upon a time, high school sports were about teaching young people to be good citizens/people. Now, they have become more important than anything on the family schedule. I love football. But I question more and more the pedestal we put it on. I know this: if my brother happens to be getting married the same day my kid has a big game, my kid is taking care of family first and attending that wedding. I'd try like hell to get my brother to change or move his wedding date, but if I didn't succeed, my kid would be missing that game.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Feb 6, 2013 14:17:34 GMT -6
I didn't mean that people on this thread were bragging, I just meant in general. As to where do you draw the line, I don't know. I know this. If a college buddy invited me to a wedding that happened to be on game day, it would be a no brainer for me. I would coach the game and not attend the wedding. But if it was say my brother's wedding, I would be much more conflicted.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Feb 6, 2013 14:01:24 GMT -6
I generally agree with what others have said but I'd like to pose a couple of questions?
Is it me, or do some of us almost get off on the fact that we're so committed that we'll miss funerals, weddings etc.? It's almost like a point of pride for some people. I'm not sure I get that. I get not missing, but I'm not sure I get the bragging about it.
Do we have any responsibility to teach the kids that there are things more important than the game of football? Couldn't missing a game for your son's, brother's, daughter's etc wedding be a good teaching point? Don't alot of us tell our kids that family comes before football?
I've never been in a situation where I had to miss for something like this as a coach but I imagine I would have to think long and hard about it.
When I was a senior in High School, I missed a very close uncle's funeral due to football practice. I was sure I was doing the right thing at the time, but today as an adult, I'm ashamed of my decision. I'm not saying others should be ashamed of similar decisions, but I think we have to honor our own personal values.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Feb 3, 2013 11:44:14 GMT -6
In this video, the information at the 46:00 minute mark is the most concerning to me....I also think it's something that most coaches aren't aware of. The fact that these "sub-concussive" hits have a cumulative effect that can be more dangerous than actual concussions should force coaches to re-evaluate the amount of contact they allow in practices. In the very near future, I think you will see all levels of football place greater restrictions on the number of full contact practices allowed. Teams may even have greater limits placed on the number of practices they can have in equipment. I know many coaches have already started to include more tackling drills and progressions that do not involve contact or that have very minimal contact. Steelhawk, I completely agree. Everyone like to talk about the big hits, and not leading with the head, but if it turns out that these subconcussive hits are more damaging, what do you di about the OL, DL, RBs, and LBs that are smaking heads hundreds if not thousands of times a week? That's concerning.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Feb 3, 2013 11:38:41 GMT -6
This thread is painful to follow at times, but I'm glued to it bacause I care about the game and our culture. Brophy(and anyone else that might believe I disagree with you), let me first say that NOONE reads and enjoys your blog more than me. In fact, when there are no new posts for a couple of weeks I go through withdrawls and start reading ones from 2 years ago. That being said, I think you are missing the point of all the coaches that seem to be on the opposite side of this issue. There is no coach that is out there saying they don't want more research. There is no coach that will refuse better helmet technology should it be marketed. There is no coach out there that is willing to risk the lives of his players just to get a win. All wer're saying is that let's not turn into chicken little and run around screaming that the sky is falling. This does not need some silly congressional inquiry or the President opening his mouth about something of which he has no idea. We now have people in our society that believe that putting on a football helmet is akin to juggling chain saws at the local carnival; all risk and little reward. And because they don't see the reward, and because they are the inteligencia, they then owe it to the small minded of us to change the game for us. My biggest problem with this entire issue is that NFL players and their families now want the courts to take millions from the NFL because football may have taken years of their life or limited their quality of life. I am a very high strung coach that endures alot of stress during the season. This stress is undoubtedly hard on me physically and emotionally. I have gone to the trouble of checking my cholesterol levels at the beginning of the season and again at the end, and they are much higher at the end. Should I bring suit against my school district or my state athletic association? If you say yes then you have a much different idea of America than I do. And Brophy (I'm really not trying to pick a fight with you, it's just that you responded to one of my earlier posts), you posted a picture of coal miners in reference to the worker's rights of NFL players. I would say the NFL'ers are more along the lines of a WWE wrestler wanting to sue because his back hurts. If any of them believed whole heartedly that ramming their head into other 300 lb monsters would be good for their health, then they should be suing their kindergarten teacher for not teaching them that when they were 5 years old. And on a much bigger philosophical question, I would even contend that the coal miner knew that hanging out in coal dust all day was not good for him. But the truth is, at that time mining coal was either safer OR paid bettrer than many of the altrernatives. Therefore, even the coal miner made a business decision that he should have to live by. My greart grandfather didn't like the living and working conditions in his country in 1918. But instead of of complaining about it he packed his bags and came to America ALONE at the age of 17. That is taking personal responsibility for ones own welfare and desrtiny. And it didn't always go well for him here, burt it was his decision to come here and he blamed noone for his life's difficulties. The fact is that even the noble coal miner found out that he regretted his decision to take a higher paying job at the risk of his own health. So he and several others vented their frustration with their own personal decisions through the courts, and juries of their piers took great joy in rewarding them millions because the owners of these mines had to be bad people. They were rich. We see the same thing now. Look at how many people want to side against the owners simply because we have been conditrioned to believe that old white guys in suits with fat pocket books have to be bad. Ultimately, none of us can be told that we HAVE to take a certain career path. We choose, we live with the conseuences. If my principal showed up to school Monday and said that if I wanted to keep my job I had to let Ray Lewis tackle me once per day, I'd walk. But if while on the way out the door he offered me 3 million dollars a year to stay I'd buckle up my chinstrap and say bring it Ray! Only trying to stimulate a little thought. No offfense Brophy. Now please get to work on that blog of yours !!! I agree that ADULTS who choose to play a risky game like football might not have as much of an excuse for suing the NFL. But most of us on this board are coaching minors. My concern is this: if evidence continues to mount that concussive and subconcussive (think OL and DL on every snap) hits lead to CTE, how comfortable am I encouraging young people to repeatedly do something that is damaging their future? At this point, I don't think there is enough evidence to support this, but I worry what the next 10 - 20 yrs of research will bring.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Oct 20, 2012 13:52:40 GMT -6
Keep coaching hard. Some kids and families can handle it, others can't. I have had a few meetings of this nature this year alone. I wish my admistration would just sack up and not entertain these jokers. Can we let our players talk back to us in front of other players and mostly get away with it? Sitting him accomplishes nothing, he already doesn't really want to play. If you have a meeting, remind the mother that she is an enabler. I'll bet he back talks her at home and there are no repercussions. And 33coach, wtf are you talking about with this sexual harassment talk? Sexual harassment requires a unwanted sexual advance or sexual contact. Coachrush, What is your definition of coaching hard? How would have handled the above situation? If coaching hard means putting your hands on a kid in a confrontational manner, then I think you're setting yourself up for trouble. FCC
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Oct 20, 2012 13:46:23 GMT -6
I say that if we go around walking on egg shells then shame on us. I don't feel like air raider was out of line. I feel like the hc was a pu$$y and was out of line by allowing a kid to act that way and get away with it. Don't be afraid of the parents man. You will be a crap coach for it Coachsmyly, If a kid talks back to me in class, starts to walk away, and I grab him by the shirt...I'm potentially in serious trouble. What is the difference on the football field? Now of course, it is different, but is it in the eyes of the law? This is the world we live in. The physical contact such as described above can get you in trouble. Here's a what if. What if a coach grabs a kid, and the kid takes a swing at a coach? Who is at fault? I'm no lawyer, but it seems the kid and his parents would have an easy time saying "this guys grabbed my son, so he defended himself". I'm not saying I like the way our world is heading, but I think if you're coach who would like to have along coaching career, you're best bet is avoiding physical contact such as the one described above. I agree the the HC seemed to back down and let the kid get away with it, but that is a separate issue. The issue, as I read it, was the physical contact. FCC
|
|