UIL puts Kountze coach on 1-year probation

[stevenash]

[quote name="WOSgrad" post="1164612" timestamp="1327341000"]
[quote author=stevenash link=topic=94499.msg1164594#msg1164594 date=1327340109]
Wouldnt it have been a good idea for Mr. Henry and anybody else for that matter, to assemble all pertinent facts on the topic before writing about it?  I thought that was sort of an implied method of conduct for news reporting.
[/quote]

BTW, it did appear that happened, if you read the last sentence of the posted article:

"Joubert declined comment Wednesday"
[/quote]

My guess is that he was "advised" not to comment.  It seems to me, though, that if you are going to publish something that has the potential to negatively impact a persons career, as much of the "story" as possible ought to be included in the report.  First thing that comes to my mind was that they mentioned that Joubert appealed the case.  Maybe it would have been helpful to know what the appeal was based upon. 

[WOSgrad]

Maybe more wasn't printed because all of those involved thought that, other than the fact that the UIL acted, this wasn't a big deal.  And by the way, the UIL did not take that tone on all matters before in during this most recent meeting as one coach received a two game suspension and another received a one year suspension for ejections.

The UIL evidently didn't think it was a big deal as they set out the minimum sanction that they could.

Chris Dabe and the Enterprise didn't think it was too big of a deal as they devoted all of a few lines to the article to factually set out what happened.

Coach Joubert didn't think it was a big deal (other than he needs to be careful) as he didn't even comment when contacted by the Enterprise.

In fact, this very thread would have long been buried under the crush of threads involving last Friday's action as well as the looks forward to events occurring both tomorrow and in the future but for you and another making a big deal out of it.

[stevenash]

You are absolutely right.  Who am I (or that other guy for that matter) to question a situation or offer personal thoughts on the matter?    I will have to learn that certain people are not to be questioned under any circumstance and opposing perspectives are not to be offered.  Can't help but wonder, though, if Mr. Joubert didn't deem it a "big deal", why he went to the trouble to appeal the ruling.

[Guest speechless]

I agree....it wasn't a big deal which leads back to my first question:  Why bother posting or reporting on it?

[WOSgrad]

[quote name="speechless" post="1164662" timestamp="1327344166"]
I agree....it wasn't a big deal which leads back to my first question:  Why bother posting or reporting on it?
[/quote]

Which leads me back to my original answer, anytime the UIL takes action it is newsworthy.  The local newspapers of 2 of the 3 other coaches who received the same sanction Coach did received.  Remember, you asked me to research that?

[Guest speechless]

The UIL takes action on a daily basis.....and by their own admission this is the most minimal penalty available.  The bottom line is anyone who knows anything about how this process works will know that if a coach gets ejected the minimum they are going to get is probation and their name in the Leaguer.  Appeal or no appeal there is basically zero tolerance for ejections.  So this "punishment" should come of no surprise to anyone which makes it seem like posting it or writing an article about gives the appearance of trying to make it more than it is.......newsworthy. 

[WOSgrad]

[quote name="speechless" post="1164668" timestamp="1327344474"]
The UIL takes action on a daily basis.....and by their own admission this is the most minimal penalty available.  The bottom line is anyone who knows anything about how this process works will know that if a coach gets ejected the minimum they are going to get is probation and their name in the Leaguer.  Appeal or no appeal there is basically zero tolerance for ejections.  So this "punishment" should come of no surprise to anyone which makes it seem like posting it or writing an article about gives the appearance of trying to make it more than it is.......newsworthy. 
[/quote]

From where I stand, the only ones trying to make more of it than it really is are you and nash.

[Guest speechless]

Just think it is not something that is news or post worthy.  The coaching fraternity is a tight one.  Don't like to see friends and colleagues have to deal with more than they already have to. 

[east texas bb]

I think we will see in the future the more and more how much harm the Internet, and message boards can do to a person.  I like and appreciate as much as anyone this board and others, and the information that it gives, but this message board and others I would say are almost as powerful as a newspaper or the local TV news if not more. There is not as much accountability on message boards or blogs, and most people do not understand that when they post something.  The perception and the reality are two complete seperate things. 
I myself, just like others in the past have written something that either I shouldnt have or that was interpreted wrong by others that had a negative appearance.
The coaching fraternaty is a tight one.  I dont know coach Jouburt, but my first instinct is to defend him.
I dont know that the article should have been posted or not (that is not my call), but I can see how someone that does not understand (that is not familiar with the UIL and coaching in general) could see this article and equate it to something scandalous, when it was an just an ejection.
And let me say, that it does not take much to get a coach ejected in todays game.  The official has all the control and very little of the accountability.

[stevenash]

Y E P

[whsalum]

Unless the process has changed part of it entails a trip to Austin to go before the UIL which is an inconvenienceto say the least.I'll stick to my original statement, some of these guys shouldn't have that much stroke.

[The Cook]

[quote name="whsalum" post="1164848" timestamp="1327365415"]
Unless the process has changed part of it entails a trip to Austin to go before the UIL which is an inconvenienceto say the least.I'll stick to my original statement, some of these guys shouldn't have that much stroke.
[/quote]You have to go to Austin only if you appeal the 1-yr probation. If you accept it, you don't have to go.