I would like to see a distinction between profanity that is incidental and foul and abusive language intentionally directed at another individual.
I am not a fan of profanity on the field and I am a big proponent of self-control during a match. However, here is my big problem with the whole current penalty system and the fallacy of the logic behind it.
When we went from minimum one-game suspension to minimum two, the explanation was, "We're getting too many ejections, so we're upping the penalty."
When we went from minimum two-game suspension to minimum three-game suspension, the explanation was again, "We're still getting too many suspensions, so we're upping the penalty again."
This logic seems to be based on the premise that players are committing fouls because the penalties aren't severe enough to convince them not to commit the fouls. That, in turn, is based on the premise that teenagers, in the heat of the moment in a physical and emotional contest, are always weighing and processing actions vs. consequences, including weighing the degree of those consequences, and making clear, deliberate decisions based on those factors.
Yeah. Sure. Or maybe there's another reason that upping the number of games in the penalty didn't have the desired effect the first time.
If we're going to try to correct a problem in behavior, we need to understand some things about human behavior.
A large number of the card-inducing fouls we see in games are not deliberate, calculated decisions by players. They are knee-jerk reactions to a situation that happen before the rational side of the brain ever has a chance to engage. A player or a teammate gets hit, a ball is about to go into the net, a hard challenge--split-second reactions. It wouldn't matter in the moment of commission if the penalty was one game, or three, or five, or twelve, or a hundred and eleventy-seven, because THAT PART OF THE BRAIN IS NOT ENGAGED in the decision-making process.
We know that in ourselves even as adults.
A three-game penalty is, in some cases, a third or more of a team's region schedule. It can be a season changer. Enforced to change a behavior that, based on basic knowledge of human behavior, IT CANNOT EFFECTIVELY CHANGE.
Add to that the fact that officiating is, by nature, somewhat subjective--play that is accepted and even encouraged by some crews results in whistles and cautions from others. Given that, enforcing a three-game suspension for two yellows seems even more unreasonable, since there is no clear and consistent conditioning of players on what does or does not constitute unacceptable behavior that will lead to the punishment.
Here's another false premise in the current system--the idea that players need bigger penalties because they are ok with one or two-game suspensions. I don't know many players who are just "ok" with sitting out a game--even ONE game. One time, not being out there competing with their team, is NOT "ok, no big deal." Again, they're just not processing that equation in the moment.
The way to change behaviors is by consistent conditioning--repetitive reinforcement until habits are built or changed. Rather than have one big, disproportionate, and inappropriate-for-the-behavior penalty, let's go back to reasonable, appropriate consequences AND ENFORCE THEM CONSISTENTLY.
Rather than put an official in a moral dilemma--either show the card, knowing the player will receive a penalty far disproportionate to the foul, or keep the card in the pocket and let the poor behavior continue unchecked until it actually turns into something much worse--why not give officials the freedom to call 'em as they see 'em, with confidence that the players will receive consequences that are actually appropriate for their actions? I know officials are tasked with making calls based entirely on the rules, without consideration to the consequences, but officials are human beings too, not machines. Giving a player a caution for a hard challenge might help to get a game under control and increase player safety, but if you know it also means that player gets a three-game suspension you don't believe he truly deserves, what choice do you make?
Yes, we might see an increase in the number of one-game suspensions--until the consistent conditioning begins to change the behavior. And that's ok. If the object is to have fewer suspensions, that's easy--just don't address the behavior at all and there will be no suspensions. If the object is to change the behavior, though, then consistent, reasonable, and appropriate consequences are the way to go.
Sorry for the long post...off my soapbox now.
