Coach Bullying

Before letting your child play under any coach, you have an obligation to perform sufficient due diligence to determine the coach is an “abuser” or “bully” under whatever standard those words mean to you. If you don’t or can’t do that, at least stick around at enough practice until you are satisfied with the situation. If you don’t, you can only blame yourself.

If you are the sort of parent who believes raising your voice ever or dropping an occasional f bomb is inexcusable and merits a lawsuit or punching the coach in the face, there is nothing stopping you from addressing your expectations with the coach at the outset. If they’re a screamer or gravitate toward the more colorful spectrum and are not willing to accommodate you, I’m confident you will agree you are in the wrong place.

Obviously, there are times a parent does their part, but inappropriate verbal conduct still happens. No one has perfect information and coaches are people too; sometimes they go off the deep end. You cannot prevent your child from being exposed to every ill-advised comment in advance but, if you did your due diligence, odds are that it is an isolated incident and nothing to lose sleep over. A few stupid, mean, or “bullying” (if that is the conclusory, factually lacking, but explosive terminology you prefer) comments will never cause anyone permanent neurological damage. If you believe differently, that’s fine with me, but you can’t expect others to share your zero tolerance standard, your significant deviation from societal norms, and some solid research that a strict rainbow and butterfly approach is not the best way to benefit an elite athlete or even raise a child. Also don’t expect people who know a coach not to defend him, especially if you trash them with conclusory words like “bullying” or “abuse” that don’t identify the specific behavior. If you are going to bomb throw incendiary words at coaches, you owe it to everyone involved to explain the basis for that. If you aren’t confident enough that your facts justify your opinion, don’t state your opinion and then jump down the throat of those who ask you to support your serious allegations.

But let’s say a pattern of inapppropriate behavior develops despite your best efforts. The parent absolutely has an obligation to know it is happening and to stop it before it gets out of hand. Hopefully, everyone is asking more penetrating questions of their children than “how was practice” before moving on to the equally unhelpful question “how was school”? Ask specific questions that require them to provide answers with specific details that they can't just blow off. What did you work on today? Man, it looked like your coach was in a bit of a mood last game, what’s the deal? How is Bella doing? Coach seemed pretty frustrated with her. What did they talk about? Your teammates looked pretty grim walking to the car after practice; what’s the deal? Why was Bella crying? And don’t always ask soccer questions right after soccer practice. Get them when they’re in a chatty mood. If you can’t get out of your child that her coach is verbally abusing her, it is time for self reflection.

If you are afraid to do anything about a dangerous situation because you are worried about harming your reputation or that your daughter will get blackballed, or you are videotaping a coach to prove to others that your daughter is in a dangerous place, man you have lost perspective.
Did your account get hacked? You ok? Cause your making sense today.
 
. If you can’t get out of your child that her coach is verbally abusing her, it is time for self reflection.

Are you suggesting that we bully the information out of them? LOL

If you are afraid to do anything about a dangerous situation because you are worried about harming your reputation or that your daughter will get blackballed, or you are videotaping a coach to prove to others that your daughter is in a dangerous place, man you have lost perspective.

Great post Valley. However, most in this sport HAVE lost perspective from my experience as mentioned in my previous post. As Real Deal mentioned, these parents are afraid to speak up. Seems like eternity but 15 years ago, before they allowed any snowflake with a checkbook to sign up for club, things were different. Players were there to learn and play. I will give you that the quality of coaching overall is better but the quality of the coach is certainly not. There was much more respect between coach and parent before because parents weren't afraid to let coach know what they thought. Once saw a parent punch a coach right in the face and every parent there recognized that the coach deserved it. Today, things aren't as simple and the checkbook players aren't helping the process except maybe to bring more money into the sport. I guess you could call the today's environment an unintended consequence of the efforts to bring in better quality coaches. They get to be a**holes.
 
... A few stupid, mean, or “bullying” (if that is the conclusory, factually lacking, but explosive terminology you prefer) comments will never cause anyone permanent neurological damage. If you believe differently, that’s fine with me, but you can’t expect others to share your zero tolerance standard, your significant deviation from societal norms, and some solid research that a strict rainbow and butterfly approach is not the best way to benefit an elite athlete or even raise a child. ....

I agree with everything you wrote, but the above underlined statement that seems to diminish and/or cast the definition of "bully" behavior into some sort of elusive touchy-feely definition. To be clear, we are not discussing Rude or Mean coaches. We are not discussing coaches that drop "f-bombs" on 15 year olds or say sarcastic stuff that is rude. This discussion is about Coach Bullying (its the actual title). The definition of "Bully" and what that standard is is not subject to reasonable dispute as its fairly well accepted. Here it is so we can get back on track (see, http://changingthegameproject.com/is-your-kids-coach-a-bully/):

Bullying is intentionally aggressive behavior, repeated over time, that involves an imbalance of power. Bullying entails three key components:
  1. An intent to harm,
  2. A power imbalance;
  3. Repeated acts or threats of aggressive behavior.
This behavior can be physical (which is usually caught and dealt with), verbal, even technological. It happens time and again even when the athlete demonstrates hurt and asks for it to stop.​

So, no a "few stupid, mean" comments is never bullying. It would incorrect to ascribe sarcastic, mean or stupid comments as bullying.
 
I agree with everything you wrote, but the above underlined statement that seems to diminish and/or cast the definition of "bully" behavior into some sort of elusive touchy-feely definition. To be clear, we are not discussing Rude or Mean coaches. We are not discussing coaches that drop "f-bombs" on 15 year olds or say sarcastic stuff that is rude. This discussion is about Coach Bullying (its the actual title). The definition of "Bully" and what that standard is is not subject to reasonable dispute as its fairly well accepted. Here it is so we can get back on track (see, http://changingthegameproject.com/is-your-kids-coach-a-bully/):

Bullying is intentionally aggressive behavior, repeated over time, that involves an imbalance of power. Bullying entails three key components:
  1. An intent to harm,
  2. A power imbalance;
  3. Repeated acts or threats of aggressive behavior.
This behavior can be physical (which is usually caught and dealt with), verbal, even technological. It happens time and again even when the athlete demonstrates hurt and asks for it to stop.​

So, no a "few stupid, mean" comments is never bullying. It would incorrect to ascribe sarcastic, mean or stupid comments as bullying.

I hear what you are saying, because I think we probably draw the line in similar locations, but here’s the problem. I doubt most people who use the “bully” term around here or elsewhere are utilizing this or any standard other than the “I know it when I see it” standard. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The other problem is the paper definition is unhelpful on a practical level. For example, how will you ever know the first element (intent to harm) is met absent physical contact or an explicit threat of violence? You can’t, so you need to infer it with a circular argument that element 1 exists because 2 and 3 exist. Which likely requires a lot of subjectivity and a fair amount of speculation.

We can skip #2 because there will always be a power imbalance between adult and child.

But the 3rd element really exposes the problem. Nowhere does it say that “repeated” requires a certain minimum number of statements or acts. Exactly how many acts are necessary to meet the standard? Does the answer to that question depend on type of acts and how often they occur? How do you know what I think is just “stupid” or “mean” isn’t something that 99% of people would agree is so horrific that it constitutes bullying? At what point or rate do stupid or mean comments become bullying? Can silence ever be part of a pattern of bullying? Do any of these answers change if a child is unusually sensitive? What if they’re a hard core alpha WNT prospect whose only purpose in life is to eat forwards for lunch? Can you treat the two of them exactly the same and have it constitute bullying of one but not the other? Do the same standards apply to soccer players as MMA fighters (which I find detestable by the way)?

Whether behavior constitutes bullying under a paper definition misses the point, I think. Rather, we should focus on what is in the best interests of our own kids. I think the right approach is to pay enough attention so you don’t ever find yourself pondering whether your daughter’s coach met the definition. And also mock those who throw around inflammatory accusations under cover of anonymity without factual support or otherwise misrepresent hypotheticals as fact. Because they aren’t using any legitimate definition of “bullying”, and also because I’ve been told that I’m good at getting under people’s skin, and we should all do what we’re good at.
 
I hear what you are saying, because I think we probably draw the line in similar locations, but here’s the problem. I doubt most people who use the “bully” term around here or elsewhere are utilizing this or any standard other than the “I know it when I see it” standard. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The other problem is the paper definition is unhelpful on a practical level. For example, how will you ever know the first element (intent to harm) is met absent physical contact or an explicit threat of violence? You can’t, so you need to infer it with a circular argument that element 1 exists because 2 and 3 exist. Which likely requires a lot of subjectivity and a fair amount of speculation.

But the 3rd element really exposes the problem. Nowhere does it say that “repeated” requires a certain minimum number of statements or acts. Exactly how many acts are necessary to meet the standard? Does the answer to that question depend on type of acts and how often they occur? How do you know what I think is just “stupid” or “mean” isn’t something that 99% of people would agree is so horrific that it constitutes bullying? At what point or rate do stupid or mean comments become bullying? Can silence ever be part of a pattern of bullying? Do any of these answers change if a child is unusually sensitive? What if they’re a hard core alpha WNT prospect whose only purpose in life is to eat forwards for lunch? Can you treat the two of them exactly the same and have it constitute bullying of one but not the other? Do the same standards apply to soccer players as MMA fighters (which I find detestable by the way)?

And this ^ is why we have lawyers, and lawsuits, and juries, and judges. God Bless America! Thanks to InTheValley for making the point.
 
I hear what you are saying, because I think we probably draw the line in similar locations, but here’s the problem. I doubt most people who use the “bully” term around here or elsewhere are utilizing this or any standard other than the “I know it when I see it” standard. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The other problem is the paper definition is unhelpful on a practical level. For example, how will you ever know the first element (intent to harm) is met absent physical contact or an explicit threat of violence? You can’t, so you need to infer it with a circular argument that element 1 exists because 2 and 3 exist. Which likely requires a lot of subjectivity and a fair amount of speculation.

We can skip #2 because there will always be a power imbalance between adult and child.

But the 3rd element really exposes the problem. Nowhere does it say that “repeated” requires a certain minimum number of statements or acts. Exactly how many acts are necessary to meet the standard? Does the answer to that question depend on type of acts and how often they occur? How do you know what I think is just “stupid” or “mean” isn’t something that 99% of people would agree is so horrific that it constitutes bullying? At what point or rate do stupid or mean comments become bullying? Can silence ever be part of a pattern of bullying? Do any of these answers change if a child is unusually sensitive? What if they’re a hard core alpha WNT prospect whose only purpose in life is to eat forwards for lunch? Can you treat the two of them exactly the same and have it constitute bullying of one but not the other? Do the same standards apply to soccer players as MMA fighters (which I find detestable by the way)?

Whether behavior constitutes bullying under a paper definition misses the point, I think. Rather, we should focus on what is in the best interests of our own kids. I think the right approach is to pay enough attention so you don’t ever find yourself pondering whether your daughter’s coach met the definition. And also mock those who throw around inflammatory accusations under cover of anonymity without factual support or otherwise misrepresent hypotheticals as fact. Because they aren’t using any legitimate definition of “bullying”, and also because I’ve been told that I’m good at getting under people’s skin, and we should all do what we’re good at.

First, thank you for an intelligent response. I appreciate it. There is no dispute that parents play an important role in placing their child with a coach that they believe will support the minor athlete's development, instead of harming it. That said, Coaches/DOCs/Boards and yes, Parents and Athletes may be confronted with a small number of individuals that engage in conduct that crosses the line. The original post asked a series of questions devoid of any hypothical or facts, just a claim that a lawsuit was filed for bullying. I read your response and interpret it as a essentially, we can't really figure it out so let's just focus on what a parent can do.

I agree, element 2 requires no analysis in the typical youth athlete / coach situation. Your response, a series of more questions is precisely what the original post raised, how is a coach/DOC/board to know what constitutes "bullying" in the context of a coaching relationship. Coming up with bright-line guidance is always the goal, but inevitably all we can do is come up with a rule that has some broad elements and try our darnedest to apply the facts to the rule on a case-by-case basis. That said, its not really that hard and what lawyers and judges do everyday. So let's take a look at it:

1. Intent to Harm. - You ask, how can we look into the mind of the coach and know what their intent is? We use circumstantial evidence, just like the FIFA "Handling" Law (deliberate handling of the ball requires the referee to look into the mind of the player using circumstantial evidence). In the case of a coach accused of "bullying" behavior towards an athlete, absent a confession, the evidence is always circumstantial. Based on the evidence and witness statements (including the athlete, coach and witnesses), did the coach's actions toward the alleged bullied player demonstrate an "intent to harm." We look at all relevant facts (age, sex, competitive nature of team (Rec v. DA?), alleged statements, coaching style, etc.). Because element 3 (repetitiveness) also requires us to look at a number of statements and not just one. We typically use the "reasonable person" standard to ascertain whether those actions would harm a "reasonable person" and whether a "reasonable person" engaging in those actions would reasonable believe it would harm the recipient. The reasonable person standard moves based on age, sex and competitive level of play.

2. Repetitiveness. An isolated harmful comment isn't enough. A pattern of multiple comments may be. Even two could be enough depending on the severity of the action. It could happen in a single day. For example, a DA player, age 17 announces to his team and coach that he is gay. Over the course of practice that day, the coach's demeanor to that player changes. The coach makes two comments to the player. The first: "Ok, boys, we are going to play some small-sided game, except for the faggot, you run until I tell you to stop." The second: "That was a great header, but I guess since you are a fairy you probably have lots of practice giving head." Most "reasonable" folks would view the coach as engaging in "bully" behavior with just two instances given the use of slurs that have no relevance to instruction or training and are clearly designed to insult/harm the player.

The broader point in this discussion is that we (coaches, referees, DOCs, leagues, boards) need to have an understanding what constitutes bullying so we can (1) counsel coaches to make adjustments to their styles in order to avoid crossing the line; and (2) identify willful offenders and drum them out of our programs. Moreover, we need parents to have a clearer understanding of behaviors that are just rude and/or negative vs. actual bullying to avoid improper allegations of bullying. Having a definition with elements that we can apply facts too is essential is helping all adhere to their duties/responsibilities. So, fundamentally, I disagree with your statement "Whether behavior constitutes bullying under a paper definition misses the point, I think."
 
First, thank you for an intelligent response. I appreciate it. There is no dispute that parents play an important role in placing their child with a coach that they believe will support the minor athlete's development, instead of harming it. That said, Coaches/DOCs/Boards and yes, Parents and Athletes may be confronted with a small number of individuals that engage in conduct that crosses the line. The original post asked a series of questions devoid of any hypothical or facts, just a claim that a lawsuit was filed for bullying. I read your response and interpret it as a essentially, we can't really figure it out so let's just focus on what a parent can do.

I agree, element 2 requires no analysis in the typical youth athlete / coach situation. Your response, a series of more questions is precisely what the original post raised, how is a coach/DOC/board to know what constitutes "bullying" in the context of a coaching relationship. Coming up with bright-line guidance is always the goal, but inevitably all we can do is come up with a rule that has some broad elements and try our darnedest to apply the facts to the rule on a case-by-case basis. That said, its not really that hard and what lawyers and judges do everyday. So let's take a look at it:

1. Intent to Harm. - You ask, how can we look into the mind of the coach and know what their intent is? We use circumstantial evidence, just like the FIFA "Handling" Law (deliberate handling of the ball requires the referee to look into the mind of the player using circumstantial evidence). In the case of a coach accused of "bullying" behavior towards an athlete, absent a confession, the evidence is always circumstantial. Based on the evidence and witness statements (including the athlete, coach and witnesses), did the coach's actions toward the alleged bullied player demonstrate an "intent to harm." We look at all relevant facts (age, sex, competitive nature of team (Rec v. DA?), alleged statements, coaching style, etc.). Because element 3 (repetitiveness) also requires us to look at a number of statements and not just one. We typically use the "reasonable person" standard to ascertain whether those actions would harm a "reasonable person" and whether a "reasonable person" engaging in those actions would reasonable believe it would harm the recipient. The reasonable person standard moves based on age, sex and competitive level of play.

2. Repetitiveness. An isolated harmful comment isn't enough. A pattern of multiple comments may be. Even two could be enough depending on the severity of the action. It could happen in a single day. For example, a DA player, age 17 announces to his team and coach that he is gay. Over the course of practice that day, the coach's demeanor to that player changes. The coach makes two comments to the player. The first: "Ok, boys, we are going to play some small-sided game, except for the faggot, you run until I tell you to stop." The second: "That was a great header, but I guess since you are a fairy you probably have lots of practice giving head." Most "reasonable" folks would view the coach as engaging in "bully" behavior with just two instances given the use of slurs that have no relevance to instruction or training and are clearly designed to insult/harm the player.

The broader point in this discussion is that we (coaches, referees, DOCs, leagues, boards) need to have an understanding what constitutes bullying so we can (1) counsel coaches to make adjustments to their styles in order to avoid crossing the line; and (2) identify willful offenders and drum them out of our programs. Moreover, we need parents to have a clearer understanding of behaviors that are just rude and/or negative vs. actual bullying to avoid improper allegations of bullying. Having a definition with elements that we can apply facts too is essential is helping all adhere to their duties/responsibilities. So, fundamentally, I disagree with your statement "Whether behavior constitutes bullying under a paper definition misses the point, I think."

I think the standards are relevant for discussion but they are not by any measure an authoritative standard. While, I'm a big fan of Changing the Game Project and while I think their overall point is valid they have taken the 3 standards out of context. The underlying article they site is specifically talking about child to child bullying. Adult to child is a different situation, although there may be some similarities. As InTheValley states you already have a power imbalance to begin with which really makes this an abuse/exploitation of power situation as opposed to what we would consider traditional peer to peer bullying. The fundamental difference between the two are the ramifications of speaking out. If you speak out against a child bully the worst case scenario is the bullying gets worse, but otherwise the bully has no other power over you. In the case of a coach, if you speak out the potential ramifications are much greater because of the position of power they hold. You could lose standing with the club, you could be cut from the team, you could lose a scholarship, etc... That can be a huge threat, whether real or perceived, and why it leads to silence in many cases. Unfortunately some coaches and clubs exploit that fact.

As far as intent goes I don't know how relevant it is in a coach and player context. I may be naive but I've seen in some cases where I don't think the coach realizes his behavior may be harming kids. In the back of their mind they may think its wrong but they justify it based upon the results, they actually think they're helping kids. Like "tough love" that has crossed the line. In reality, its not so much as intent as it's just a coach being lazy and uncreative. It's easy to motivate kids in the short term with fear, it takes much more effort and skill to motivate with positive reinforcement over the long term.

Whatever you want to call it, bullying or abuse by a coach, I'll use the same definition that a Supreme Court judge used for pornography, "I know it when I see it".
 
I think the standards are relevant for discussion but they are not by any measure an authoritative standard. While, I'm a big fan of Changing the Game Project and while I think their overall point is valid they have taken the 3 standards out of context. The underlying article they site is specifically talking about child to child bullying. Adult to child is a different situation, although there may be some similarities. As InTheValley states you already have a power imbalance to begin with which really makes this an abuse/exploitation of power situation as opposed to what we would consider traditional peer to peer bullying. The fundamental difference between the two are the ramifications of speaking out. If you speak out against a child bully the worst case scenario is the bullying gets worse, but otherwise the bully has no other power over you. In the case of a coach, if you speak out the potential ramifications are much greater because of the position of power they hold. You could lose standing with the club, you could be cut from the team, you could lose a scholarship, etc... That can be a huge threat, whether real or perceived, and why it leads to silence in many cases. Unfortunately some coaches and clubs exploit that fact.

As far as intent goes I don't know how relevant it is in a coach and player context. I may be naive but I've seen in some cases where I don't think the coach realizes his behavior may be harming kids. In the back of their mind they may think its wrong but they justify it based upon the results, they actually think they're helping kids. Like "tough love" that has crossed the line. In reality, its not so much as intent as it's just a coach being lazy and uncreative. It's easy to motivate kids in the short term with fear, it takes much more effort and skill to motivate with positive reinforcement over the long term.

Whatever you want to call it, bullying or abuse by a coach, I'll use the same definition that a Supreme Court judge used for pornography, "I know it when I see it".

This is good stuff.

I would add that the fear of retaliation is almost always a self fulfilling prophecy. Ultimately, if your daughter is retaliated against, it will not be because you complained but because of how you complained.
 
.....and "how" you complain is interpreted (by the perp) through the lens of this power imbalance and is justification for #1 and #3 by the person or people in power. It is why we have anti-retaliation policies.
 
Yes, parents can do a lot of things but it is the clubs and/or coaches that hold the power on many things + recommendations (ODP, ID2, National team, etc) college recruiting referrals, play time, etc. There is retaliation against players when parents try to take control of creating a better situation for their player - it isn't as simple as you have stated
 
Before letting your child play under any coach, you have an obligation to perform sufficient due diligence to determine the coach is an “abuser” or “bully” under whatever standard those words mean to you. If you don’t or can’t do that, at least stick around at enough practice until you are satisfied with the situation. If you don’t, you can only blame yourself.

If you are the sort of parent who believes raising your voice ever or dropping an occasional f bomb is inexcusable and merits a lawsuit or punching the coach in the face, there is nothing stopping you from addressing your expectations with the coach at the outset. If they’re a screamer or gravitate toward the more colorful spectrum and are not willing to accommodate you, I’m confident you will agree you are in the wrong place.

Obviously, there are times a parent does their part, but inappropriate verbal conduct still happens. No one has perfect information and coaches are people too; sometimes they go off the deep end. You cannot prevent your child from being exposed to every ill-advised comment in advance but, if you did your due diligence, odds are that it is an isolated incident and nothing to lose sleep over. A few stupid, mean, or “bullying” (if that is the conclusory, factually lacking, but explosive terminology you prefer) comments will never cause anyone permanent neurological damage. If you believe differently, that’s fine with me, but you can’t expect others to share your zero tolerance standard, your significant deviation from societal norms, and some solid research that a strict rainbow and butterfly approach is not the best way to benefit an elite athlete or even raise a child. Also don’t expect people who know a coach not to defend him, especially if you trash them with conclusory words like “bullying” or “abuse” that don’t identify the specific behavior. If you are going to bomb throw incendiary words at coaches, you owe it to everyone involved to explain the basis for that. If you aren’t confident enough that your facts justify your opinion, don’t state your opinion and then jump down the throat of those who ask you to support your serious allegations.

But let’s say a pattern of inapppropriate behavior develops despite your best efforts. The parent absolutely has an obligation to know it is happening and to stop it before it gets out of hand. Hopefully, everyone is asking more penetrating questions of their children than “how was practice” before moving on to the equally unhelpful question “how was school”? Ask specific questions that require them to provide answers with specific details that they can't just blow off. What did you work on today? Man, it looked like your coach was in a bit of a mood last game, what’s the deal? How is Bella doing? Coach seemed pretty frustrated with her. What did they talk about? Your teammates looked pretty grim walking to the car after practice; what’s the deal? Why was Bella crying? And don’t always ask soccer questions right after soccer practice. Get them when they’re in a chatty mood. If you can’t get out of your child that her coach is verbally abusing her, it is time for self reflection.

If you are afraid to do anything about a dangerous situation because you are worried about harming your reputation or that your daughter will get blackballed, or you are videotaping a coach to prove to others that your daughter is in a dangerous place, man you have lost perspective.


Solid piece there!
 
The person in "power" is not the coach, nor the club. It is always the parents. Parents can pull their player off the team. There are many other teams they can move to. They can refuse to pay. They can register complaints. They can spread the word. To the extent any coach or club has "power," it is ceded by parents.
Insert employee instead of player to understand how ignorant your post is. Smh.
 
Push_up:

You need to work on your analogies. Employers have power over employees because employers pay them to work. But last I checked, coaches don't pay parents. Parents have the ultimate power because they can take their business elsewhere.

I recognize the points other posters have made about a coach having power over making recommendations, referrals and playing time decisions. If you take your player away from a coach, then it is true that he will have some residual power which might be abused. Still, the ultimate power resides with the parent. And its better to move your kid and then present your case to others, than it is to continue being a victim of an abusive coach.

In the context of the original discussion: When and what is considered "coach bullying" and how do we define "coach bullying," the issue of an imbalance of power is between the "coach" and the "player." If we were discussing "parents bullying coaches" then your response would be relevant. If a parent knows that the coach is bullying his/her child, then you would be correct, the parent failed to exercise their power to remove their child from the environment. However, in virtually all cases of coaches bulling players, the parent is oblivious to the actions and only learns after the long after the fact.
 
Back
Top