Month: February 2019

It has been a universal question ever since the days of fuming baseball managers engaged in shouting matches with umpires and kicking up dust from the field: should players and coaches protest the decisions that on-field officials make? Be it Earl Weaver of the 1970s Baltimore Orioles ; Lloyd McClendon, formerly of the Pittsburgh Pirates, throwing first base ; or various other sports coaches throwing a temper tantrum ; coaches and players’ frustration with referees and umpires alike is certainly not limited to a single league.

The proof arose once again this Tuesday as the Philadelphia 76ers’ renowned center Joel Embiid swore into the microphone immediately before departing his postgame press conference. The NBA subsequently fined him $250,000, and the 76ers’ reputation appears to have been ever so slightly tarnished as a result.

Sean Payton argues a controversial non-call in this year’s NFC Championship Game.

The question of ethical player and coach conduct applies to more than just the issue of challenging or overturning a given call. These individuals are professionals, and respect is of utmost importance. However, with millions of dollars; a city worth of fans; countless television viewers; and possible sponsorships at stake, it is quite understandable why relentless passion would be an integral facet of professional sports.

Not all athletes are so-called “class acts” – that is, notoriously mature and well-behaved people who let their on-field performance speak for itself. However, not all players have to be. From a personal standpoint, my favorite players are most definitely those who are the most classy. That being said, I recognize that personalities are among the most enjoyable and entertaining elements of sports. Ultimately, I believe player and coach conduct must act as a proper, effective example to the younger generation.

Does this entail silence and innately reserved nature when it comes to the media? It can, but it does not have to. I believe the most admirable and timeless athletes are those who love their job and who carry out their business every day on the court, the field, the ice, the track et al. because there is no other place they would rather be.

Unfortunately, there are times at which the enthusiasm and/or energy boils over. Embiid, for instance, is known for being quite outspoken, but his public use of an expletive does not bode well for his image or that of his team and league, the NBA. The public setting in which professional athletes are immersed may propel them to superstardom, but it does not grant them the ability to behave as they so choose. Just as high school and college athletes are beholden to their academic institutions, professional athletes – though independent entities that agents and various sponsors represent – still represent some form of governing body. Herein lies the great power of professional sports: a medium – indeed, an entire industry – through which athletes can positively inspire everyday citizens. They can also negatively impact their audience, as well, as was the case with Embiid. While he may possess a trademark personality both on and off the court, he is susceptible to excessive commentary after the fact.

Syracuse men’s basketball head coach, Jim Boeheim, disputes with a referee.

The stakes in sports are notoriously high. Boundless energy and enthusiasm are part of the games we love; however, athletes must accept that controversy is embedded in the fabric of sports. Missed calls or calls that are not in one’s favor will always be present. Now, I am not disputing the rights of coaches or players to argue and resort to free speech, as I myself am a baseball player and I know too well the frustrations that a subpar umpire can provoke.

Nevertheless, in a public setting, I believe it is in the players’ best interest to be polite, at the very least. Embiid’s profanity accomplishes nothing in the grand scheme of things, as the Celtics still defeated the 76ers Tuesday night. If anything, excessive condemnation of league officiating can only work to one’s detriment. Further, to a great extent, protest, anger, and the unrestricted expression of one’s disapproval are among the chief functions of fans. Supporters already let the referees hear it; however much players and coaches may chew the refs out, the crowds in the stands can make themselves heard quite well.

Thus, is player manifestation against officiating allowed? Certainly. Is it normal and can it be expected? Most definitely. Is it proper? Well, that remains to be seen, as it depends on the particular circumstances. Ultimately, as public figures, professional athletes possess a duty to inspire.

Upon occasion, it is what is left unsaid that can be the most beneficial.

Image Credit

https://me.me/i/phila-21-these-refs-f-king-sucked-joel-embiid-after-loss-4c844d779a334d88b0fd78cfe348e483

Sean Payton said Saints-Rams refs admitted they missed pass interference no-call

The 10 angriest coaches in college basketball

To alert, or not to alert? That is the question.

After the shooting that took place at the Ramada Hotel in State College on the night of Thursday, January 24, Penn State did not send a single security alert to students. As this Onward State live blog/article points out, we noticed. Students were outraged and voiced their disapproval via social media shortly after the tragedy.

A university spokesperson initially stated that the incident did not meet the criteria for the aforementioned alert because it did not take place on Penn State-owned property or on public property within striking distance of campus. Penn State then amended its statement, delving into further detail and explaining that campus and State College police carefully examine each incident on a case-by-case basis and in real time in accordance with policies established in the Clery Act of 1990. This act states that all college institutions that participate in federal financial aid programs – for example, FAFSA – must report their campus security policy and crime statistics.

I believe that, regardless of an incident or calamity’s particular location – in other words, whether it be two miles off campus or 20 – the university must notify students of its existence. The only incentive I can think of not to send out an alert is damage control – and, more critically for the university, panic control. Just think about it, dear reader: if University Park possesses 46,000 students living and studying here, that that makes 46,000 pairs of parents (92,000 total parents) left worrying about their children when a shooting occurred only “in the vicinity” of campus.

I, for one, found out about the shooting via a text on GroupMe. I find this to be truly embarrassing for Penn State, and I noticed in the Onward State article that someone else learned of the incident the same way. How can the university not at the very least announce on its website that something has taken place?

I have a few relatives who used to live in downtown State College and who still own a house there in the direction of I-99. I find that the distinction between University Park and State College is quite emphasized here on campus. Electorally, demographically, and in terms of general lifestyle, I have noticed that Penn State tries not to associate itself with its surrounding area. While this does make sense in regards to reputation, overall image, and branding – i.e., letting people know that, while the campus location may be “in the middle of nowhere,” the university is still a leading academic institution – I have no idea why Penn State deems State College mutually exclusive from itself to such an extent. This isn’t New York or Los Angeles, after all, or a town hours away; this is a nearby – check that, adjacent – town that is full of good people and law-abiding citizens.

Now, let’s take a closer look at the aforementioned Clery Act. The law’s namesake, Jeanne Clery, was a 19-year-old student at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, when she was brutally raped and murdered in 1986. Her parents subsequently fought for greater transparency among colleges with regard to campus crime reporting. The act discusses Campus Security Authorities (CSAs) and their functions. In 2013, President Obama strengthened the act through several new provisions.

It seems as though Penn State has begun to more elaborately distinguish between various types of incidents. Following the Timothy Piazza hazing debacle and the Jerry Sandusky scandal, Penn State has placed a great deal of emphasis on sexual violence prevention. However many times the university has preached its new “run, hide, fight” policy, it must absolutely give students the chance to “run” in the first place, regardless of how far away the incident is. Student and family notification and awareness must be priorities for the university, and I believe it must be more responsible than it was just two weeks ago.

In this instance, silence is far worse than awareness, for the damage that Penn State’s reputation has suffered – if only among students – is much more substantial than if an alert had been sent out. No matter the location of a future incident – Bellefonte, where the shooter was from, State College, or otherwise – Penn State must act promptly and with conviction. While the Clery Act may address the safety of students, it does not address their mental and emotional security and well-being. Penn State must now read past the “letter” of the law and into its “heart” – its spirit and intent.

My full name is Sebastien Charles Ross Kraft. Charles Ross, my great-grandfather, lived to nearly 101 years old and managed the A&P grocery store (now Weis) in Bellefonte for 41 years. My point is: the greater State College area is an excellent – and habitually safe – place to live. Thus, Penn State must not be afraid to at least loosely associate itself with its surrounding area, most notably when an emergency has taken place.

In the end, the answer to the above question is evident:

To alert.

Image Credit:

https://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_845dc31c-2056-11e9-b05d-77d4fee7ba4b.html

Gunman kills 3 men in separate shootings, then kills himself

This “Tricolored Tumult” blog pertains to issues of equality – or the lack thereof. In this post, I discuss how a negative equality that is perceived as evening the playing field for all is, in fact, a deceptive monotony in lack of effort – specifically, with regard to the National Football League, or NFL.

In recent weeks, as the league’s playoffs have taken place and fans nationwide have tuned in to see which teams – yes, as we now know, the New England Patriots and the Los Angeles Rams – would play in the highly-anticipated Super Bowl LIII, the NFL has attempted to boost its brand. I, for one, have noticed numerous league commercials advocating for increased helmet safety and concussion avoidance; the revival of football in inner cities; and the epic showdown that is to take place between the Patriots and Saints on Sunday evening in Atlanta.

What I believe matters most, however, is what wasn’t said or advertised.

Commissioner Roger Goodell held his annual Super Bowl press conference this week in Atlanta, and he was far from explicit in addressing the topic that reporters were pursuing most aggressively:

On Sunday, January 20, the New Orleans Saints were robbed of a spot in the Super Bowl when the sideline and on-field referees failed to call a blatant defensive pass interference penalty on the Los Angeles Rams’ Nickell Robey-Coleman, who visibly pushed the Saints’ Tommylee Lewis to the ground.

Part of the league’s explanation pertaining to the non-call was that overturning such an officiating mistake would contradict league policy. While the Goodell does technically possess the authority to overturn calls given league rules – as Saints star wide receiver Michael Thomas pointed out –  his choice not to is wholly based on image preservation.

This is where the issue of equality versus monotony comes in.

Monotony, vis-à-vis the NFL, signifies maintaining a status quo such that hordes of fans watch the Draft and the Super Bowl every year. As difficult as it is for me to admit as a baseball fan and player, football has become America’s new national pastime simply because so many people watch it. The NFL is the league that “owns a day of the week [Sunday],” to borrow a line from the 2015 Will Smith movie Concussion.

Goodell has been so ineffective during his tenure as commissioner because he has sought to preserve a status quo that was never truly established. This perceived equality of interest and involvement among all American households is what the NFL is desperately trying to retain. Repeated inaction does not amount to inequality; rather, it is monotony and redundancy.

The status quo that Goodell wants to maintain is his own: one of passive compliance with those who matter most to him – the fans. Their support of the league never arose through politics, for it came about thanks to the players. Bart Starr, Roger Staubach, Brett Favre, Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, Jerry Ric, Deion Sanders, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady are only a few of the names who propelled the NFL to national prominence. Goodell and league officials became so perturbed about the concussion issue, the Kaepernick kneeling debate, and football’s tenuous future that they adopted their rhetoric to a style of vague non-answers. Damage control and limitations on controversy are the NFL’s aims.

Somehow, the league believes that taking decisive standpoints on key issues will go to its detriment. This philosophy infuriates me, for I know that I, for one, will not stop watching my hometown Redskins or the Super Bowl because of something that Goodell says. The press is capitalizing on Goodell’s monotony and general lack of clarity, and I believe this is a positive trend. Singling out the league lets people know that their interests are being fairly represented, and that what matters is what we all see: the plays that happen on the field, not the brouhaha off it.

Alright, I digress. It pains me that the NFL is so hesitant to appear politically-inclined that it can’t even be clear on important issues.

Such issues include fans in New Orleans being upset over their team’s season ending, possibly prematurely. Goodell’s failure to address the possibility of overturning the call or replaying the game was ineffective because it did not offer closure to incredulous fans (nationwide, not just in Louisiana) and players (many of whom, from teams who have already been eliminated, took to Twitter to express their astonishment at the non-call last weekend). The NFL’s face-saving protocol is not working. Whereas I may be consistent in method, it is far from successful in practice. Now, it is time for the league to deliver, for the popularity of the game itself likely does not need TV ads to remain sky-high. Indeed, the Rams-Saints game proved, once again, that the NFL cannot take action when it matters most.

Ultimately, the referees emulated the league, for under pressure in crunch time, they were equal in inaction.

Image Credit

NFL fans were stunned by Saints-Rams officials' egregious no-call on a clear pass interference

Saints receiver Michael Thomas refuted Roger Goodell's explanation for blown no-call