mr.72 wrote:
Here is the problem with this logic, Liberty-
The summary of most of the comments is like this:
1. The father, who was initially "yelling at the coach", is a complete jerk, a coward, an idiot, etc. <snip>
2. The husband, who "shoved" the father, was justly defending his wife who was being mercilessly verbally abused by this cowardly jerk. <snip>
This whole situation is way too biased, and too many people are breaking their arms patting themselves on the back for how much better they are than the dad who was arguing with the coach. I can tell you from direct experience, arguing with the coach is routine in kids' sports, whether you want to admit it or not. Sure, maybe you are one of the parents who does not argue with the coach, and maybe you are right that the other parents shouldn't do it and it makes them look like a fool. But it still happens, with regularity, and people do it who are not cowardly jerks or otherwise those whom we can easily castigate. Most of the time they are just regular people who get too excited and emotional when they think their child has been treated unfairly, and most of the time they think the coach is the one on some kind of power trip trying to exercise some unfair advantage over certain kids for no good reason. Sometimes they are right, and the coach is the one who is the power-tripping jerk. So they get too excited and get in arguments, big deal?
So, let's go this way:
1. The dad was justly defending his kid from the tyrannical coach on a power trip by yelling at her but no contact (i.e. assault).
2. The husband, just for the sport of it, went over and shoved the dad because he's a male chauvinist pig.
So, I've flipped the tables on who's the "good" and "bad" guy, but I think all the facts still stand, and the proper reaction. Someone comes over and shoves you in that situation, you need to "de-escalate" the situation and walk away. I would argue that you are required to do this legally since you "incited anger" in the situation, not by yelling at him, but by yelling at his family member, but even if you are not legally required, good sense and judgement would indicate that backing away is more likely to result in a positive outcome than drawing a weapon. To the poster who said you didn't incite the husband since you didn't speak to him but rather his wife, I'd argue that you could incite someone by bashing in his car windshield with a baseball bat, so how much more easily could you incite him by yelling at his family member.
And don't worry, I will NEVER argue with you that arguing with the coach in kids' sports is not commonplace. And I wouldn't call them cowardly jerks, just judgement-impaired humans. However, I DO believe I can castigate them easily. Heck, I'm doing it right now. I may be right, I may be wrong, but I'm castigating like there's no tomorrow.
And now, here I sit with a broken arm from patting myself on the back, and am unable to beat even the small pieces of horse carcass into liquid. Dang it all.
Have a wonderful day!
Soccer is a passionate sport. 
The coach and her husband should find something else to do on the weekends and the rest of y'all should "get a grip". 
than someone else. It is not a popularity or Miss Congenialty contest. Been there, done that - without guns or fisticuffs!
I'm not looking to learn a lesson for exactly this same scenario, but more generally, so I remain of the opinion that I learned that if I start an argument, I have forfeited my right to defend myself unless I first walk away from the argument or at least announce my intention to do so. I have not learned necessarily exactly what to do if I yell at a female coach at a soccer match and then her husband comes up and pushes me and I'm wondering whether I should draw my weapon, but that's okay... I'm not a soccer fan anyway, so unlikely to happen. 