CA State, Rock 16-2, Barr DQ'd for swearing

[Barto]

I completely support the officials in their enforcement of the rules; however, I hate this rule.

It is too slippery a slope. What constitutes "profanity" or "obscenity" or "swearing"? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Should LDS members be penalized for the use of frik?

Personally, I find much of the coaching advise given by other coaches to be both profane and obscene. Should they be DQed for stupidity?

Most track athletes are drawn to the sport by the lack of subjective variables. We love the objectivity of the watch and the tape measure. I hate to see the subjective sensitivities of officials brought into the competitive arena.

my 2 cents

Barto

[73-vaulter]

I am completely offended by profanity. However, I am also a hardcore indiviualist. We need to draw the line somewhere. I completely support the officials in their enforcement of the rule, however I too hate the rule. In the past I have warned the offender, and that seems to stop the issue. How much better would it have been to have warned? (I was not at the meet and therefore cannot say that a warning was not first issued.) I hate all subjective sports. In track if you win you win!

Barto, I was suprised to your knowledge of the LDS use of Frik.

I think that DQing stupid coaches is great. But how many times might I have been sent home. Maybe I am ok; there is a difference between stupid and dumb.

[Divalent]

I am completely offended by profanity. However, I am also a hardcore individualist. ...

Personally, I'm not offended by hearing profanity (spontaneously uttered, directed to no one), but I know that some other people may be, and don't think my sensibilities should be the standard. And I also don't think such behavior is something that will serve them well in the real world, and so at the HS level it is something that should be discouraged.

But at least in my mind, the problems is similar to the jewelry issue of last year, in almost every case the penalty is greatly disproportionate to the infraction. And that is probably why enforcement is extremely uneven (and probably pretty rare, at least in a "by the book" way): people are reluctant to impose the equivalent of a death penalty for a spontaneous expression of disappointment and/or frustration merely because they didn't think (or habituate themselves) to use an appropriate euphemism. And that uneven enforcement is what leads to these notorious incidents that change the outcome of a competition and a meet.

IOW, the rule is not really serving its purpose, and IMO, it's because of the severity of the penalty. And it is very much like the old jewelry rule. Officials rarely, if at all, enforce it early in the season in the small meets, which means the behavior is not discouraged, so when the big meet arrives (with the big stakes, and under the eyes of a crowd of spectators and other coaches), an official is put in a very difficult spot when the situation arises: either ignore the clear and simple wording of the rule (and have their motives and integrity as an official questioned) or enforce the rule (and have their motives and compassion questioned). A "first infraction = warning" would, IMO, be fairer, and would probably be a more effective rule for discouraging the behavior.

Note: I do make a clear distinction between profanity spontaneously uttered and not directed at any other person, and that directed towards another individual (official, competitor, spectator, etc.). But in the latter case, the use of a "profane" word is mostly irrelevant, its the message and attitude being conveyed that makes it serious (e.g., telling an official to "bug off" would be just as serious as telling them to "F... off"; a DQ would be the appropriate action in either case.)