School Basketball Coach Suspended After His Team Drubbed Opponents 92-4

[Gospel]

The laws are the same in Florida.

Left lane bandits. I hate 'em.

"No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law."

That's the only relevant thing I know of in Florida. So no, there is no rule against going the speed limit in any configuration in the left, center, or right lane. Nothing in florida traffic laws prevent people from driving side by side as going the speed limit is not blocking or impeding traffic unless someone plans to break the speed limit.

Drivers must not continue to drive a vehicle in the far left lane when being overtaken by a faster moving vehicle, unless the driver is preparing for a left-hand turn at an intersection. Drivers failing to move from the far left lane will receive a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation.

The RIGHT Lane

Language | Idioma English Español On multi-lane streets, roads and highways, section 316.081(3), Florida Statutes, requires that drivers drive in the right-hand lanes to prevent impeding the flow of traffic resulting in dangerous driving situations. DRIVE IN THE RIGHT LANE AND PASS ON THE LEFT...

www.flhsmv.gov

So this is saying that a faster-moving vehicle should be allowed to pass. What it does not say is that said faster-moving vehicles can break the speed limit to pass. If the vehicle is going the speed limit there is no need to pass as the vehicle(s) or not an impediment to traffic.

 

[TomC]

So, what's your opinion on a transwoman competing against "biological women (women who menstruate)" and totally blowing them out of the water? Like Lia the transwoman swimmer we talked about earlier? Do you feel awful just thinking about that disparity? I get the feeling a lot of people here, and in the general public think its OK. Or at least they don't vocally object to it much. I don't like it because its not a fair competition from the get-go. Its like a boxing competition between a heavy weight champion and a featherweight champion. Unlike the Sacred Heart game where you have same aged girls competing against each other. If you feel its OK for transwomen to compete with "biological women (women who menstruate)" and totally blow them out of the water, how do you reconcile that with your disdain of the Sacred Heart basketball game blowout?

I don't see Thomas as particularly relevant. I put her in a category with Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong.

But here's the thing. I see a very different set of goals and methods for sports among young people than adults. And there's not a clear bright line between them. Kids develop at different rates.

But amongst youngsters the point is to develop a well rounded individual, not ruthless competitors. Teach kids the value of teamwork, focus, enjoying a healthy and fit body, that sort of thing. 88 point blowouts don't help much to achieve those sorts of goals.
Tom

 

[scombrid]

I find it interesting that indiatimes.com thinks a parochial school’s athletic code of conduct is news in the war against namby pamby wokeness. I’m gray haired. I was in a very conservative independent school athletic conference. We had slaughter rules against that kind of thing. But here we have the right wing outrage bots trolling the web for any story they can find, no matter how small and putting it in places like the WTF section of indiatimes.com. Yep, people reading India news are surely highly interested in athletic policies at Sacred Heart Academy. You know those academies are well known for toxic Wokeness.

 

[Metaphor]

The "zone" argument reveals a lack of understanding. A hs basketball game is 32 minutes. The coach at any time should have done something to show good sportsmanship. And, the coach did not offer that as an explanation for that drubbing. So, that"zone" argument appears more of a fantasy than a reality.

How on earth is that a rebuttal?

The "beat the record" argument is a slim possibility - do you have an iota of evidence to suggest it is valid in this case?

Not an iota. I was explaining to you the possibilities, remember? Possibilities you had ruled out without evidence.

Clearly there was a cultural expectation to not run up the score because the coach was suspended.

I was explaining to you the possibilities, remember?

But the coach being suspended does not mean there was a culture of not 'running up the score'. The girls team had won its previous games by wide margins, seemingly without comment from Sacred Heart or anyone else. It would be far stronger evidence to say the coach had been previously warned.

If the coach thought it would be wrong to tell his players to hold back or to insist they slow down, etc... then the coach is an asshole.

I disagree.

 

[Metaphor]

I find it interesting that indiatimes.com thinks a parochial school’s athletic code of conduct is news in the war against namby pamby wokeness. I’m gray haired. I was in a very conservative independent school athletic conference. We had slaughter rules against that kind of thing. But here we have the right wing outrage bots trolling the web for any story they can find, no matter how small and putting it in places like the WTF section of indiatimes.com. Yep, people reading India news are surely highly interested in athletic policies at Sacred Heart Academy. You know those academies are well known for toxic Wokeness.

It was reported in a variety of media outlets.

 

[Gospel]

Aww yes, the no-big-deal crowd has arrived. I think most of us already know that end times aren't the subject.

 

[scombrid]

It was echoed by a few outlets and it was the WTF section of indiatimes.com that was linked in the opening post. But yeah I am convinced that this is wokeness run amok at a prog Christian school.

 

[Toni]

It was echoed by a few outlets and it was the WTF section of indiatimes.com that was linked in the opening post. But yeah I am convinced that this is wokeness run amok at a prog Christian school.

When I was in high school half a million years ago, smack dab just north of the Bible Belt, and still mostly farmer and/or Baptist country, running up an 88 point lead in a high school basketball game would have been seen as a bit of pointless grandstanding by a team that didn’t respect the idea of sportsmanship and a lot of quiet derision towards such a bully of a coach would have been delivered amongst many a casual drop by between the menfolk. It was understood that there was no call for that sort of thing. People were pretty tough and self reliant and independent and all of that but they also showed up for each other in times of need because that was also the right thing to do. You helped your neighbor because who knew when it would be you standing there in need. And because it was the right thing to do.

So ‘woke?’ Well I guess for a certain demographic, acting like a decent human being is being ‘woke’ and being woke is somehow a bad thing. Such sentiment— that acting like a decent human being is somehow weak or indulgent- imo, is even more shameful than running up an 88 point lead in a high school basketball game. Fuck, most of those asses crying woke can’t even change their own tires or bait a hook, much less clean the fish they caught. They sure as hell don’t care about anybody but their own selves but they sure expect you to look out for them.

WTF is wrong with people.

 

[laughing dog]

The "zone" argument reveals a lack of understanding. A hs basketball game is 32 minutes. The coach at any time should have done something to show good sportsmanship. And, the coach did not offer that as an explanation for that drubbing. So, that"zone" argument appears more of a fantasy than a reality.

How on earth is that a rebuttal?

Perhaps you should explain why you think it is not.

The "beat the record" argument is a slim possibility - do you have an iota of evidence to suggest it is valid in this case?

Not an iota. I was explaining to you the possibilities, remember? Possibilities you had ruled out without evidence

In the real word, one rules out possibilities when there is no evidence,

Clearly there was a cultural expectation to not run up the score because the coach was suspended.

I was explaining to you the possibilities, remember?

If your "possibility" is contradicted by reality, it is a fantasy not a possibility.

But the coach being suspended does not mean there was a culture of not 'running up the score'. The girls team had won its previous games by wide margins, seemingly without comment from Sacred Heart or anyone else. It would be far stronger evidence to say the coach had been previously warned.

Wide margins and winning by 88 points are different matters.


The coach offered none of the mentioned "possibilities" as a reason in his apology. Which suggests those possibilities are conceptual not realistic.

So, in the absence of any evidence that supports your possibilities, do you still think the team's behavior was acceptable?

 

[Gun Nut]

In the Sacred Hill situation, the team did not ease up at all. The coach is a first class asshole and is lucky he was not suspended for more games.

There was a student in my high school who was mathematically gifted. I remember one particular test where he wrecked the curve for the entire rest of the class. Should he have been told to ease up, lest his mathematical gifts humiliate the other students? Should a long distance runner hold back from achieving a personal best if she is too far ahead of the competition? If not, why not?

You are not going to "get it". High School sports aren't for "maximising the pain your enemies feel".. They are for teaching lessons that include "sportsmanship", which was pretty clear to me how that was expressed by the program when dealing with "skill imbalances" - win the game with grace, not douchebaggery. If you don't know what that means, or you need some autistic level of certainty on point spreads at half-time, then you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the nuances of competitive sports to comment on the difference between a sportsmanlike win and an unsportsmanlike win. What is a "press" in basketball? start there.
This isn't a case of "everyone gets a participation trophy".. this is a case of "not being an asshole" - I am afraid that's the part that may be alluding you.

 

[Jarhyn]

In the Sacred Hill situation, the team did not ease up at all. The coach is a first class asshole and is lucky he was not suspended for more games.

There was a student in my high school who was mathematically gifted. I remember one particular test where he wrecked the curve for the entire rest of the class. Should he have been told to ease up, lest his mathematical gifts humiliate the other students? Should a long distance runner hold back from achieving a personal best if she is too far ahead of the competition? If not, why not?

You are not going to "get it". High School sports aren't for "maximising the pain your enemies feel".. They are for teaching lessons that include "sportsmanship", which was pretty clear to me how that was expressed by the program when dealing with "skill imbalances" - win the game with grace, not douchebaggery. If you don't know what that means, or you need some autistic level of certainty on point spreads at half-time, then you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the nuances of competitive sports to comment on the difference between a sportsmanlike win and an unsportsmanlike win. What is a "press" in basketball? start there.
This isn't a case of "everyone gets a participation trophy".. this is a case of "not being an asshole" - I am afraid that's the part that may be alluding you.

So, while it's unclear what the present situation is, I will now note that there are very much in this world occasional situations where a person who gets off on being an asshole just doesn't want to say "hey, look, just let me have this, ok? It's not like I'm hurting YOU, just wait and you'll get a turn at (pleasure derived from being an asshole)!"

The reality is that I want nobody actually deriving pleasure from being an asshole to people in general, because they ARE hurting me, and if we must have a valve by which people who MUST occasionally fulfill a need of "be an asshole", that we find ways to mitigate this and limit the derivation of such pleasures only to those who wish to so derive them.

Part of this IS done with sports, usually of the sort that happen when two people talk smack on the street and take it to the court, and both know what they are doing and why, and they don't drag in people avoiding the business end of an asshole.

 

[Metaphor]

Perhaps you should explain why you think it is not.

Because I don't even understand what you are arguing. Are you saying being 'in the zone' is time-limited?

In the real word, one rules out possibilities when there is no evidence,

I don't. People interested in the truth don't.

If your "possibility" is contradicted by reality, it is a fantasy not a possibility.

I feel like you have a real problem understanding what a counterfactual is.

The coach offered none of the mentioned "possibilities" as a reason in his apology. Which suggests those possibilities are conceptual not realistic.

The coach did not admit to 'running up' the score in order to 'embarrass' the other team, either. But Rhea is certain that's why he did it. So apparently we can trust that when the coach is silent on a particular issue that silence confirms our prejudices, except when it doesn't.

So, in the absence of any evidence that supports your possibilities, do you still think the team's behavior was acceptable?

Oy gevalt. I am withholding judgment on the 'acceptability' of the outcome because there are scenarios where it is acceptable or laudable and scenarios where it isn't. If, for example as one possible scenario, the coach of the other team had come to the Sacred Heart coach at half time and begged him to 'ease up', that his girls were demoralised and humiliated, and if this was something the Sacred Heart coach would expect some other coach to do for him if the tables were turned, then it would have been unacceptable.

 

[Metaphor]

In the Sacred Hill situation, the team did not ease up at all. The coach is a first class asshole and is lucky he was not suspended for more games.

There was a student in my high school who was mathematically gifted. I remember one particular test where he wrecked the curve for the entire rest of the class. Should he have been told to ease up, lest his mathematical gifts humiliate the other students? Should a long distance runner hold back from achieving a personal best if she is too far ahead of the competition? If not, why not?

You are not going to "get it". High School sports aren't for "maximising the pain your enemies feel".. They are for teaching lessons that include "sportsmanship", which was pretty clear to me how that was expressed by the program when dealing with "skill imbalances" - win the game with grace, not douchebaggery. If you don't know what that means, or you need some autistic level of certainty on point spreads at half-time, then you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the nuances of competitive sports to comment on the difference between a sportsmanlike win and an unsportsmanlike win. What is a "press" in basketball? start there.
This isn't a case of "everyone gets a participation trophy".. this is a case of "not being an asshole" - I am afraid that's the part that may be alluding you.

You are correct: I am not going to "get it", because the only way people have been able to explain their inconsistent preferences is by making a distinction without a moral difference.

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps you should explain why you think it is not.

Because I don't even understand what you are arguing.

That is obvious on so many levels.

Are you saying being 'in the zone' is time-limited?

In the real word, one rules out possibilities when there is no evidence,

I don't. People interested in the truth don't.

Perhaps in la-la land, but in the real world.

If your "possibility" is contradicted by reality, it is a fantasy not a possibility.

I feel like you have a real problem understanding what a counterfactual is.

No, it is just about anything you write on this subject.

The coach offered none of the mentioned "possibilities" as a reason in his apology. Which suggests those possibilities are conceptual not realistic.

The coach did not admit to 'running up' the score in order to 'embarrass' the other team, either. But Rhea is certain that's why he did it. So apparently we can trust that when the coach is silent on a particular issue that silence confirms our prejudices, except when it doesn't.

Sure Jan. Except that an 88 point differential is much more consistent with running up a score which is usually done to embarrass an opponent than any of your flights of fancy.

So, in the absence of any evidence that supports your possibilities, do you still think the team's behavior was acceptable?

Oy gevalt. I am withholding judgment on the 'acceptability' of the outcome because there are scenarios where it is acceptable or laudable and scenarios where it isn't. If, for example as one possible scenario, the coach of the other team had come to the Sacred Heart coach at half time and begged him to 'ease up', that his girls were demoralised and humiliated, and if this was something the Sacred Heart coach would expect some other coach to do for him if the tables were turned, then it would have been unacceptable.

I didn't ask for you try out more fantasies. Assuming there are no relevant unknowns (or fantasies), would you think the team's behavior was acceptable.

 

[Metaphor]

Sure Jan. Except that an 88 point differential is much more consistent with running up a score which is usually done to embarrass an opponent than any of your flights of fancy.

An action done in order to embarrass an opponent is a conclusion made with prejudiced, implicit assumptions. It assumes you know the mind of the coach.

I didn't ask for you try out more fantasies. Assuming there are no relevant unknowns (or fantasies), would you think the team's behavior was acceptable.

I've answered your question. There are many relevant unknowns. That you feel free to mind-read the coach, and essentialise his character as aan asshole from a single data point is your failing, your unkindess, and your prejudice, not mine.

 

[laughing dog]

Sure Jan. Except that an 88 point differential is much more consistent with running up a score which is usually done to embarrass an opponent than any of your flights of fancy.

An action done in order to embarrass an opponent is a conclusion made with prejudiced, implicit assumptions. It assumes you know the mind of the coach.

No, it does not. I do not employ your MO.

I didn't ask for you try out more fantasies. Assuming there are no relevant unknowns (or fantasies), would you think the team's behavior was acceptable.

I've answered your question. There are many relevant unknowns.

No, you are either evading the question or are unfamiliar with the English language. I will rephrase in the vain hope of getting a relevant and coherent response. Under the assumption that there are no relevant unknowns, would you think the team's behavior was acceptable?
The assumption of no relevant unknowns allows you to be unconstrained by possible unknowns in constructing your response. You have a demonstrated flair for fantasy, so I look forward to your response.

That you feel free to mind-read the coach, and essentialise his character as aan asshole from a single data point is your failing, your unkindess, and your prejudice, not mine.

You are wrong. I do not employ your MO. But you keep doing what you do - fling ad hom accusations in your apologia of assholish behavior.

 

[TomC]

“Sacred Heart Academy values the lessons taught and cultivated through athletic participation including ethical and responsible behavior, leadership and strength of character and respect for one’s opponents,” Sister Sheila O’Neill, the school's president, wrote.

I don't see what's difficult about Sister O'Neill's statement here.
Tom

 

[Gun Nut]

In the Sacred Hill situation, the team did not ease up at all. The coach is a first class asshole and is lucky he was not suspended for more games.

There was a student in my high school who was mathematically gifted. I remember one particular test where he wrecked the curve for the entire rest of the class. Should he have been told to ease up, lest his mathematical gifts humiliate the other students? Should a long distance runner hold back from achieving a personal best if she is too far ahead of the competition? If not, why not?

You are not going to "get it". High School sports aren't for "maximising the pain your enemies feel".. They are for teaching lessons that include "sportsmanship", which was pretty clear to me how that was expressed by the program when dealing with "skill imbalances" - win the game with grace, not douchebaggery. If you don't know what that means, or you need some autistic level of certainty on point spreads at half-time, then you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the nuances of competitive sports to comment on the difference between a sportsmanlike win and an unsportsmanlike win. What is a "press" in basketball? start there.
This isn't a case of "everyone gets a participation trophy".. this is a case of "not being an asshole" - I am afraid that's the part that may be alluding you.

You are correct: I am not going to "get it", because the only way people have been able to explain their inconsistent preferences is by making a distinction without a moral difference.

"Without" a moral difference... or with a moral difference "you are unable to distinguish".... You made my point.

 

[TomC]

That you feel free to mind-read the coach, and essentialise his character as aan asshole

Seriously?

I've read a lot of your posts.
From C19 mandates and policies to trans swimmers, you seem quite ready to read other people's minds and attribute motivation.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Perhaps you should explain why you think it is not.

Because I don't even understand what you are arguing.

That is obvious on so many levels.

Are you saying being 'in the zone' is time-limited?

In the real word, one rules out possibilities when there is no evidence,

I don't. People interested in the truth don't.

Perhaps in la-la land, but in the real world.

If your "possibility" is contradicted by reality, it is a fantasy not a possibility.

I feel like you have a real problem understanding what a counterfactual is.

No, it is just about anything you write on this subject.

The coach offered none of the mentioned "possibilities" as a reason in his apology. Which suggests those possibilities are conceptual not realistic.

The coach did not admit to 'running up' the score in order to 'embarrass' the other team, either. But Rhea is certain that's why he did it. So apparently we can trust that when the coach is silent on a particular issue that silence confirms our prejudices, except when it doesn't.

Sure Jan. Except that an 88 point differential is much more consistent with running up a score which is usually done to embarrass an opponent than any of your flights of fancy.

Just to hit home at my earlier point, 92 to 50 is running up the score. 92 to 4 has no term for it. I still can't believe this is a subject for discussion.

Metaphor disagrees this is an issue. How many more times can that be stated?