I'm with you espola. If a kid 40% older than my own whose not even playing ran on the field and sucker punched my kid in the face, I'd have a hard time not running on the field. Our sidelines should not, but the parents should have a right to defend their kids. A good sized 14 year old kid who knows how to throw a punch can damage the hell out of a 10 year old especially when its a sucker punch and undefended. Yeah, highly doubt I sit and watch my kids get assaulted on a soccer field. I give no blame what so ever to the parents defending their kid. ALL OF THE BLAME should be on the individual who performed the assault. Other parents running on the field should not have had to run in unless they needed to protect the victims and other kids on the field, so I'll let the powers that be argue that one. Just my opinions, but I've read about kids being killed in fights where they were defending themselves let alone getting sucker punched.
GunScare @ Albion Cup?
- Thread starter PruritusAniFC
- Start date
I'm with you espola. If a kid 40% older than my own whose not even playing ran on the field and sucker punched my kid in the face, I'd have a hard time not running on the field. Our sidelines should not, but the parents should have a right to defend their kids. A good sized 14 year old kid who knows how to throw a punch can damage the hell out of a 10 year old especially when its a sucker punch and undefended. Yeah, highly doubt I sit and watch my kids get assaulted on a soccer field. I give no blame what so ever to the parents defending their kid. ALL OF THE BLAME should be on the individual who performed the assault. Other parents running on the field should not have had to run in unless they needed to protect the victims and other kids on the field, so I'll let the powers that be argue that one. Just my opinions, but I've read about kids being killed in fights where they were defending themselves let alone getting sucker punched.
@espola and @way up
The only justifiable time a "parent" should enter the field would be (1) there are no referees or coaches within a reasonable distance; (2) the parent's sole motivation is to remove/shield the victim from violence that the victim cannot adequately defend or runaway from.
This isn't the wild-west.
The only appropriate response for a player that is confronted with violence is to disengage and remove themselves. Defending themselves is running to a coach or parent on the sideline. That is it. So in the rare situation where a player is rendered unable to move and is/will be the victim of violence that cannot be mitigated by the other players, the referees or coaches, then it could be justifiable for a parent to throw them-self between the attacker and the victim and absorb the attacker's blows by shielding the victim. For example, a player goes to the ground and is unable to move, the attacker starts to kick the player in the head, a parent jumps in to protect the head of the victim.
In this case, the referees and other players were in the vicinity of the 3rd party agent / juvenile delinquent, thus, entering the field of play was 100% unwarranted, even if it was your kid.
The only justifiable time a "parent" should enter the field would be (1) there are no referees or coaches within a reasonable distance; (2) the parent's sole motivation is to remove/shield the victim from violence that the victim cannot adequately defend or runaway from.
This isn't the wild-west.
The only appropriate response for a player that is confronted with violence is to disengage and remove themselves. Defending themselves is running to a coach or parent on the sideline. That is it. So in the rare situation where a player is rendered unable to move and is/will be the victim of violence that cannot be mitigated by the other players, the referees or coaches, then it could be justifiable for a parent to throw them-self between the attacker and the victim and absorb the attacker's blows by shielding the victim. For example, a player goes to the ground and is unable to move, the attacker starts to kick the player in the head, a parent jumps in to protect the head of the victim.
In this case, the referees and other players were in the vicinity of the 3rd party agent / juvenile delinquent, thus, entering the field of play was 100% unwarranted, even if it was your kid.
Lambchop
GOLD
Let's not forget the "man-child pretending to have a gun", or did he? That is what caused the terror! He should definitely be punished!
I'd have to see video. If the assaulting individual was held or pushed off and my kid was protected from the assaulter before I had time to run on the field then I see your argument.
Regarding the wild west, we have a legal right to defend our kids on the field and off. The soccer powers that be can punish us in whatever ways they want, but I personally don't blame a parent who does. I would not say 100% unwarranted as they have a right to check on the safety of their child who is 10 years old and was assaulted by a 14 year old kid. I disagree completely. Life is not black and white sometimes, but there is one thing that is black and white. All of the wheels were set in motion from the assault.
This whole violence is not the answer forgets that people defending themselves or their loved ones never asked to be attacked, but they should all have a right to defend themselves and when a threat is made and is still present, violence may be necessary to put it down. Again, the soccer gods can try the case, but we have legal rights to defend our families and selves and sometimes that means using violence to stop violence.
In this case, I don't mean for any adult to hit the 14 year old assaulter, but when another kid is throwing a bunch of punches at another kid, turning and running may not be a good option. It takes punching back sometimes to stop the attack. Point is, you have to stand your ground if you're attacked or become a victim sometimes. It's not black and white or maybe sometimes you just have to do what you have to do and let the peanut gallery decide what laws or rules they want.
The parent is most likely just checking on his kid and/or trying to keep the attacker away. Not saying attack the kid, but civil parents on the other side should have been trying to subdue the threat that came from their side. We have to see the video. I'm just saying it's not black and white and the kid is 40% older. My immediate concern would be my kid's safety not hurting the attacker. No matter how you slice it, this whole circumstance started and ended with Azteca's sideline. From the gun guy to the assaulting kid, that is what most I've talked to seem concerned about.
Added to this is the instruction that referees have certain limited abilities to lay hands on minors. Some of them are stand up people and would do so anyways, but the spectators can't always be sure, which creates doubt in the parent's mind of the ability of the referee to protect the child. Not saying it's ideal. Just that it's the reality of what we are dealing with.
Not saying this is what happened at Albion but to paint a scenario: Game goes on and is very physical. Ref is one of the "let em play" refs and isn't calling fouls or handing out cards. Eventually a shoving match develops between 2 players, and one goes on to cold cock another, proceeding to continue to advance and beat on the minor. What are the odds the parent, who has not seen to date the referee protect the minor and has seen the referee let the situation get to that point, will trust the referee to protect their child at that moment? Quite a dilemma.
Let's break this down though. The assaulter (not instigator) is ran towards, because he attacked a younger player on a soccer field where he never, ever should have been. Now those from his side running on the field are defending and assisting the assaulter. Those on the Albion side are defending the victim. Sure, it does spiral out of control, but one side started the incident, defended the assaulter, and even had an individual that may or may not have had a gun make the incident a travesty by forcing an full soccer complex stampede. The other side is guilty of defending a victim who was 40% younger than the attacker.
Fine, but the Coach is responsible for the conduct of the players and parents (and the parent's siblings). The Club is responsible for the coach. The club in question is Inter America - Azteca FC 2009, which plays in the Coast Soccer League. It is coached by a guy named Juan Sanchez who is also the Men's Head Coach and Women's interim Head Coach for the Mt. Sac Soccer Programs (note, the email from Azteca FC 2009 and Mt.Sac Soccer coach Sanchez is the same, so same guy.
I don't know if Coach Sanchez was actually coaching his team at this game, but what I do know is every single player and parent on that sideline was there because he allowed them on the team. Assuming he was on the sideline, you would think a college coach with 18+ years of experience would know how to lay down the law with his parents.
What we can conclude from this whole affair is that these were 10 and 11 year old boys playing 9v9 (uLittle soccer) and their parents are idiots.
Also note, that his "Azteca" team was not affiliated with any of the Azteca clubs, rather the club was "Inter America":
The issue is the culture of the club "Inter America" is this an anomaly isolated to the Azteca FC 2009 team or systemic within the culture of the club itself?
COAST SOCCER LEAGUE
coastsoccer.us
The issue is the culture of the club "Inter America" is this an anomaly isolated to the Azteca FC 2009 team or systemic within the culture of the club itself?
younothat
PREMIER
CAL South is culpable and there responds clearly shows they have known about the potential problems in the past and failed to do anything to prevent them.
They have been lax in many areas and now are trying to make up for the lack of over site.
They haven't be doing spot auditing to assess and ensure compliance with Cal South safety and sportsmanship policies.
They didn't consider or require any On-site security personnel and/or law enforcement to enforce the standards for appropriate conduct, respect, etc.
A “Home and Away” side initiative will be implemented and enforced to separate teams and supporters.
They haven't any enough or any on site Referee Coordinators.
This list goes on and yes they are responsible for the mess just like many others so while the legal mumble jumble is amusing the reality is not so pretty but at least they known things needed to change and where forced to do something about them.
jpeter
PREMIER
Youth Soccer is not the only place where parents & siblings go wild / rouge:
www.yahoo.com
Report: North Carolina father arrested after allegedly tackling son’s HS wrestling opponent
Report: North Carolina father arrested after allegedly tackling son’s HS wrestling opponent
One North Carolina father has been arrested after allegedly tackling his son’s high school wrestling opponent. One witness said the student used an illegal move on the man's son which prompted the father's tackle.
Report: North Carolina father arrested after allegedly tackling son’s HS wrestling opponent
Go back and read the press release. Cal South's response was here is what we are going to do FOR STATE AND NATIONAL CUP (2 tournaments that ACTUALLY are Cal South events). This was an Albion Tournament NOT a CAL SOUTH event (note, Cal South events are CRL/National League, State and National Cups). Nothing in Cal South's press release said any of this applies to 3rd party sanctioned tournaments WHO REMAIN free to operate their tournaments within the rules of US Youth Soccer and Cal South.
With regard to being Lax, its the tournament operators ... Albion, Southwest, Arsenal, Surf, Slammers, etc. The tournament operators often overrule the referees when it comes to kicking out coaches who cross the line or parents because they don't want teams to avoid their future tournaments. Also appreciate that CAL SOUTH's members are the clubs (not the parents or players). The clubs ultimately dictate what they want/need through their Commissioners. The Executive Team as Cal South is frequently overruled by the Board/Commissioners who all have their own agendas and are beholden to the members (the Clubs), who BTW are the same groups that benefit from operating tournaments.
Why would the Clubs want to expose their coaches and parents to additional rules/regulations and expose their tournaments (Surf, Albion, etc.) to additional costs in the form of security, etc.?
Keepermom2
GOLD
I have always understood Cal South to be a governing body and to become an "affiliate member", you answer to their governance policies and procedures. I thought that meant you as an "affiliate member" could only have your tournament "sanctioned" by them if your tournament met their standards.
The below quote from their recent press release appears to show they are enforcing oversight responsibilities by investigating the situation and providing consequences. In their statement, they don't appear to have separated their oversight responsibility from the club's responsibility. Having said that, I agree with you about law suits. Cal South can't be sued for this incident anymore than the SEC that governs public companies can be sued for a company that falsifies information to the public. I am impressed with how Cal South is addressing this issue.
"Cal South is investigating the situation with its affiliate member and the authorities, and while we review the incident, we are taking the following interim measures:
The below quote from their recent press release appears to show they are enforcing oversight responsibilities by investigating the situation and providing consequences. In their statement, they don't appear to have separated their oversight responsibility from the club's responsibility. Having said that, I agree with you about law suits. Cal South can't be sued for this incident anymore than the SEC that governs public companies can be sued for a company that falsifies information to the public. I am impressed with how Cal South is addressing this issue.
"Cal South is investigating the situation with its affiliate member and the authorities, and while we review the incident, we are taking the following interim measures:
- Due to the seriousness of the situation, both participating teams, their coaches, players, administrators and the spectators involved in this incident are suspended and ineligible to participate in any Cal South sanctioned tournaments until Cal South completes its investigation and holds hearings.
- Failure of any team or its staff to participate in Cal South’s investigation will result in further disciplinary action up to and including de-registration from all Cal South sanctioned leagues."
Last edited:
jpeter
PREMIER
Well seems like this is becoming a epidemic:
Massive brawl breaks out at end of Kansas-Kansas State game
sports.yahoo.com
Massive brawl breaks out at end of Kansas-Kansas State game
Massive brawl breaks out at end of Kansas-Kansas State game
A massive brawl broke out at the very end of Kansas' win against Kansas State on Tuesday night.
sports.yahoo.com
Frank
GOLD
I’m going to go ahead and land on the people who did the bad things are the most at fault. But that’s just m e who believes in personal responsibility versus blaming others. I know; a foreign concept.
Well seems like this is becoming a epidemic:
Massive brawl breaks out at end of Kansas-Kansas State game
Massive brawl breaks out at end of Kansas-Kansas State game
A massive brawl broke out at the very end of Kansas' win against Kansas State on Tuesday night.
Also, what about the father who went after the wrestler for slamming his son.
Father arrested after slamming teen during high school wrestling match
The father of a North Carolina high school wrestler was arrested Saturday, following an incident in which he tackled the son's opponent during a match.
www.aol.com