Dojang Discipline Problem and Safety Concerns

[granfire]

I have always allowed my kids to handle these things themselves. Being able to handle confrontation is lesson best learned early!

They have been able to talk about it in most cases but retaliation has been a solution on more than one occasion!

I am all for that, too.
However girls tend to be less assertive, and then our society shuns people who take care of their own business...you know, your kid gets attacked but still suspended because he fought back...

I think the parental input is still needed, especially at this early stage.

(I am waiting for an update tho...)

 

[Master Dan]

I think it was covered and everyone agrees that this is for kids under 10 so the first issue was bad supervision and that should have been addressed. Also most parents now days watch classes to get an idea if thier kid fits in so why here? and I like many others would like an update did you talk to assistant in charge or the Dojang owner or both? and if so what result. If my kid was proficient I would have had her knock him on his butt with legal contact long time ago.

 

[outsider0506]

I spoke to the head instructor who in turn had a private conversation with the boy; not sure what he said to him. He also proceeded to have a long conversation with entire kids competition class about in-class etiquette. He told them that it should be an extremely rare circumstance that you make face or throat contact with your hand in Olympic TKD due to the rule set in place. If it does happen it is ALWAYS the fault of the puncher and will usually result in a gamjeung penalty in competition and disqualification if it happens twice or on-purpose. He also re-emphasized that the training relationship in class is meant to be collaborative learning; not combative nor creating an escalating self-defense situation between students.

The boy is now on probation and has been separated to only spar with other boys. Apparently this isn't the first time this boy has been called on his behavior.

 

[jks9199]

I spoke to the head instructor who in turn had a private conversation with the boy; not sure what he said to him. He also proceeded to have a long conversation with entire kids competition class about in-class etiquette. He told them that it should be an extremely rare circumstance that you make face or throat contact with your hand in Olympic TKD due to the rule set in place. If it does happen it is ALWAYS the fault of the puncher and will usually result in a gamjeung penalty in competition and disqualification if it happens twice or on-purpose. He also re-emphasized that the training relationship in class is meant to be collaborative learning; not combative nor creating an escalating self-defense situation between students.

The boy is now on probation and has been separated to only spar with other boys. Apparently this isn't the first time this boy has been called on his behavior.

Thanks for the update; sounds like the problem is being addressed. I do disagree slightly with the "it's always the puncher's fault" line. Clashes happen, and defenders sometimes move into an attack or simply fail to block when they should.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I have always allowed my kids to handle these things themselves. Being able to handle confrontation is lesson best learned early!

They have been able to talk about it in most cases but retaliation has been a solution on more than one occasion!

So now we're teaching children that retaliation is the solution? What is the proper retaliation for a punch in the throat? Blow out his knee?

No, I'm not suggesting that kids (or people in general) become door mats. But knee-jerk responses are poor life-lessons.

 

[granfire]

So now we're teaching children that retaliation is the solution? What is the proper retaliation for a punch in the throat? Blow out his knee?

No, I'm not suggesting that kids (or people in general) become door mats. But knee-jerk responses are poor life-lessons.

I don't see where anybody was suggesting retaliation...or going for underhanded - and illegal - targets...

But not reacting to a threat is often seen as weakness and invitation to escalate the unwelcome behavior.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I don't see where anybody was suggesting retaliation...or going for underhanded - and illegal - targets...

But not reacting to a threat is often seen as weakness and invitation to escalate the unwelcome behavior.

Was this not the message in the post I quoted;

Originally Posted by Gorilla

I have always allowed my kids to handle these things themselves. Being able to handle confrontation is lesson best learned early!

They have been able to talk about it in most cases but retaliation has been a solution on more than one occasion!

What I understand from this post is;

A. We let 10 year old kids handle things themselves.

B. Retaliation is being taught as the solution to these types of situations in place of going to an instructor and/or parent.

C. Proper supervision on the part of the instructor(s) and proper instruction on the part of the instructor(s) and instructor/parental interaction for the purposes of discipline take a back seat to getting even.

Teaching retaliation as a solution to children is putting them on the wrong path and setting them up for failure, particularly when they become older and these patterns have had the chance to become ingrained. Now we have young adults who have been taught it is okay to retaliate to solve problems rather than seeking a better/higher path. In the above OP example, this is apparently not the first time this child has been warned about this conduct. And it has resulted in injury and could have easily been much more tragic. Yet the warning(s) went unheeded and the situation was allowed to worsen. This is a complete failure on the part of the instructor(s) of this school as well as the parent(s) of this boy. The instructor(s) and the boys parents have failed the boy as well as failed the girl and her parents.

 

[Master Dan]

Was this not the message in the post I quoted;



What I understand from this post is;

A. We let 10 year old kids handle things themselves.

B. Retaliation is being taught as the solution to these types of situations in place of going to an instructor and/or parent.

C. Proper supervision on the part of the instructor(s) and proper instruction on the part of the instructor(s) and instructor/parental interaction for the purposes of discipline take a back seat to getting even.

Teaching retaliation as a solution to children is putting them on the wrong path and setting them up for failure, particularly when they become older and these patterns have had the chance to become ingrained. Now we have young adults who have been taught it is okay to retaliate to solve problems rather than seeking a better/higher path. In the above OP example, this is apparently not the first time this child has been warned about this conduct. And it has resulted in injury and could have easily been much more tragic. Yet the warning(s) went unheeded and the situation was allowed to worsen. This is a complete failure on the part of the instructor(s) of this school as well as the parent(s) of this boy. The instructor(s) and the boys parents have failed the boy as well as failed the girl and her parents.

I understand points on both sides but!!! in the real world when it comes down to protect yourself from injury 10 or not need to do what is necessary to protect themselve now if they feel they can take a bruize rather than retaliate fine but if needed defend yourself and mom and dad back you up period. I think the parent looked at this as being a more than once problem and should have stepped in sooner I would have or pulled my child or had her put him down end of discussion there will be a time mom and dad or no other adult will be there what are you going to do? walk or defend yourself period if you cannot get an adult to step in. We have faith in your good judgment and will back you up.

 

[granfire]

Was this not the message in the post I quoted;



What I understand from this post is;

A. We let 10 year old kids handle things themselves.

B. Retaliation is being taught as the solution to these types of situations in place of going to an instructor and/or parent.

C. Proper supervision on the part of the instructor(s) and proper instruction on the part of the instructor(s) and instructor/parental interaction for the purposes of discipline take a back seat to getting even.

Teaching retaliation as a solution to children is putting them on the wrong path and setting them up for failure, particularly when they become older and these patterns have had the chance to become ingrained. Now we have young adults who have been taught it is okay to retaliate to solve problems rather than seeking a better/higher path. In the above OP example, this is apparently not the first time this child has been warned about this conduct. And it has resulted in injury and could have easily been much more tragic. Yet the warning(s) went unheeded and the situation was allowed to worsen. This is a complete failure on the part of the instructor(s) of this school as well as the parent(s) of this boy. The instructor(s) and the boys parents have failed the boy as well as failed the girl and her parents.

I have read the same post and I did not come to the same conclusion.

As a matter of fact you pretty much make my point though of society discouraging taking actions in your own defense.
After all, when you defend yourself you are more likely to be seen throwing a punch and thus be subject to punishment.

And somewhere along the line it is unhealthy to lay down and contemplate who failed whom. You can answer a threat without hitting - literally - below the belt.

 

[shesulsa]

Yet the warning(s) went unheeded and the situation was allowed to worsen. This is a complete failure on the part of the instructor(s) of this school as well as the parent(s) of this boy. The instructor(s) and the boys parents have failed the boy as well as failed the girl and her parents.

Harsh words for people unmet.

I try to be careful in judging people I've not met and after stories from which I've only heard one side.

There are so many dynamics at play in this situation it really is not funny. I don't see this as a cut-and-dried tit-for-tat conflict. The boy has some kind of issue with females and where that comes from may or may not come from the home. HE may have been a victim from some kind of female power-over figure in the past. I will say I believe that *based on what we've been told here* it sounds as though the instructors at this school were lax in their supervisory duties of this boy.

I'm *hoping* some psychology will be engaged here in how to teach him to be a good partner, perhaps that it's a privilege to spar everyone in class which requires self-control.

As far as the girl, I think it's crucial to teach children - AND adults - *when* returning blows is appropriate. I too am not a fan of retaliatory action, but in a situation such as this, they are peers and to teach a child that ignoring a situation is the high road might be well-intentioned but very misguided. She *will* face this again with someone else, if not in class then in life and she will need to know that you simply cannot ignore all physical challenges, especially from males.

It is a VERY, VERY fine line and it must be walked upon carefully. I don't envy this mom nor her daughter. I hope she knows, however, that this is the path of the warrior and it is a privileged path to trod. It takes MUCH responsibility.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

...in the real world when it comes down to protect yourself from injury...

As a matter of fact you pretty much make my point though of society discouraging taking actions in your own defense.

There is a difference between self-defense and retaliation. This isn't a situation where the girl is being mugged and has to do whatever is necessary to protect herself. It is a situation where she got zinged, fell down and the situation is over. Retaliation implies either she gets back up and bloodies his nose/blows out his knee/kicks him in the groin etc or the situation is ongoing and she does the same. Neither is correct. Two wrongs NEVER make a right. Once again, to be crystal clear, in a SD situation all bets are off and one needs to be able and willing to use the level of force needed to survive the situation. SD situations occur outside the school in an uncontrolled, unsupervised setting with no rule set being observed. This was not the case in the OP situation described. She was unable to protect herself in a controlled and supposedly supervised setting. She got hurt. She fell down. Situation is regrettable but it is now over. Retaliation = revenge. Civilized people don't seek revenge. Adults should not be teaching children to seek revenge.

Now take a situation where the boy puts her in a headlock and is currently choking her out...it is an ongoing situation. She can then do what is needed to defend herself in this ongoing situation. That isn't retaliation, that is self-defense. But again, in the OP, the situation was over and done. Suggesting that retaliation is a solution, particularly from adults to children is wrong. I honestly can't believe it was suggested or that it is a point of discussion.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Harsh words for people unmet.

An honest appraisal based upon the provided information.

There are so many dynamics at play in this situation it really is not funny. I don't see this as a cut-and-dried tit-for-tat conflict. The boy has some kind of issue with females and where that comes from may or may not come from the home. HE may have been a victim from some kind of female power-over figure in the past.

While it is clear the boy has issues, and while healing these issues should be a priority, it isn't the job of the instructor and/or the girl's parent. It is the job of the instructor to provide a safe training environment. If he/she doesn't then they have opened themselves up tremendously. Since this issue, according to the original OP had already been recognized but not rectified, it is a failure on the part of the instructor which resulted in injury to a 10yr old girl. So, the instructor has failed his student in this situation.

 

[shesulsa]

There is a difference between self-defense and retaliation. This isn't a situation where the girl is being mugged and has to do whatever is necessary to protect herself. It is a situation where she got zinged, fell down and the situation is over. Retaliation implies either she gets back up and bloodies his nose/blows out his knee/kicks him in the groin etc or the situation is ongoing and she does the same. Neither is correct. Two wrongs NEVER make a right. Once again, to be crystal clear, in a SD situation all bets are off and one needs to be able and willing to use the level of force needed to survive the situation. SD situations occur outside the school in an uncontrolled, unsupervised setting with no rule set being observed. This was not the case in the OP situation described. She was unable to protect herself in a controlled and supposedly supervised setting. She got hurt. She fell down. Situation is regrettable but it is now over. Retaliation = revenge. Civilized people don't seek revenge. Adults should not be teaching children to seek revenge.

Now take a situation where the boy puts her in a headlock and is currently choking her out...it is an ongoing situation. She can then do what is needed to defend herself in this ongoing situation. That isn't retaliation, that is self-defense. But again, in the OP, the situation was over and done. Suggesting that retaliation is a solution, particularly from adults to children is wrong. I honestly can't believe it was suggested or that it is a point of discussion.

Hm. To me, it sounds like an ongoing problem.

It could be a drastic error to assume that this boy is in control just because the environment was a dojang. Indeed, if supervision was lacking, either in number or in talent, this was not controlled enough. I've seen people of all ages have this problem before and it will go unchecked until this is a person who represents martial arts poorly - the kind who gets arrested and gives all of us a bad name. He needs to be checked.

The very best thing would be if this boy were not allowed to spar PERIOD and took private lessons from the master so that he could understand, without classroom embarrassment, the error of his ways and perhaps the source could be discovered. Without serious attention, this will be a serious problem and he will have some level of skill in fighting and a black belt out in the world.

Bullies exist on the mat, sir. Some, very unfortunately, only speak one language and sometimes one must speak to them IN IT.

I also think you may be confusing retaliatory defense and revenge. If this young man continues to hurt this girl and go overboard with force and this young lady returns blows such that he gets the idea she is not to be trifled with, this may be the only message he understands. This is retaliatory defense. Please don't mistake me here - this is a VERY regrettable and undesirable situation. If this young lady were to seek this boy out to give back what she got, then THAT is revenge.

Striving for the ideal is great. Reality is not.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Hm. To me, it sounds like an ongoing problem.

Let me clarify to make sure we're on the same page. The problem the boy is having with aggression towards girls is indeed an ongoing problem. What I was referring to was that the strike that caused the initial injury to the girl was over. He hit her, she fell down and she was injured. Situation is over as far as this specific injury. At this point, she is on the floor and no further threat (according to the description in the OP) is active. A prior poster commented that he teaches retaliation as a solution. This isn't a solution in this scenario. The parent stepping in and addressing it with the instructor...or the instructor taking steps to address the situation is the solution as far as safety in the school. The instructor failed the first time around and is lucky the girl wasn't seriously harmed. But he/she was negligent in allowing the situation to repeat after knowing of the boys aggression. The situation, according to the OP has finally been addressed where the boy is no longer allowed to spar with girls. As far as school safety, the problem has been resolved (unless the boy starts going after girls in some other way). As far as the boys issues with girls, no this hasn't been resolved, but this is outside of the instructors responsibilities.

My main point is that the situation was resolved correctly as far as the OP is concerned. They brought the matter to the attention of the instructor and expressed their concern. The situation has been finally corrected as far a safety in the school. Retaliation, as suggested by another poster, is not a solution and in fact could have amplified the existing problem with possible tragic results for someone i.e some child. Had the girl sought revenge, as suggested by a member here, and jumped up and 'taught the boy a lesson'...would it have solved the problem? If the boy has issues with girls, would receiving an injury at the hand of a girl solved the problem? Or would it have amplified the problem? Bottom line, revenge isn't a solution. And it has nothing to do with active self-defense in a right-now situation.

 

[ATC]

I spoke to the head instructor who in turn had a private conversation with the boy; not sure what he said to him. He also proceeded to have a long conversation with entire kids competition class about in-class etiquette. He told them that it should be an extremely rare circumstance that you make face or throat contact with your hand in Olympic TKD due to the rule set in place. If it does happen it is ALWAYS the fault of the puncher and will usually result in a gamjeung penalty in competition and disqualification if it happens twice or on-purpose. He also re-emphasized that the training relationship in class is meant to be collaborative learning; not combative nor creating an escalating self-defense situation between students.

The boy is now on probation and has been separated to only spar with other boys. Apparently this isn't the first time this boy has been called on his behavior.

Good news indeed. I am pleased that things worked out in a positive manner. It is good to see the instructor step in and set the expectations and draw clear lines of behaviour.

 

[ATC]

There is a difference between self-defense and retaliation. This isn't a situation where the girl is being mugged and has to do whatever is necessary to protect herself. It is a situation where she got zinged, fell down and the situation is over. Retaliation implies either she gets back up and bloodies his nose/blows out his knee/kicks him in the groin etc or the situation is ongoing and she does the same. Neither is correct. Two wrongs NEVER make a right. Once again, to be crystal clear, in a SD situation all bets are off and one needs to be able and willing to use the level of force needed to survive the situation. SD situations occur outside the school in an uncontrolled, unsupervised setting with no rule set being observed. This was not the case in the OP situation described. She was unable to protect herself in a controlled and supposedly supervised setting. She got hurt. She fell down. Situation is regrettable but it is now over. Retaliation = revenge. Civilized people don't seek revenge. Adults should not be teaching children to seek revenge.

Now take a situation where the boy puts her in a headlock and is currently choking her out...it is an ongoing situation. She can then do what is needed to defend herself in this ongoing situation. That isn't retaliation, that is self-defense. But again, in the OP, the situation was over and done. Suggesting that retaliation is a solution, particularly from adults to children is wrong. I honestly can't believe it was suggested or that it is a point of discussion.

I teach my kids to retaliate all the time. If someone smiles and says hello to them then they must do like wise and smile back and say hello to them. Retaliation is not simply a bad term. Adults simply choose to only see the bad.

Word Origin & History

Retaliation
1580s, from L.L. retaliare "pay back in kind," from re- "back" + L. talio "exaction of payment in kind," from talis "suchlike." Originally used both in good and evil Senses.

I don't think he meant retaliation in your same sense. To retaliate could simply mean to confront the person. Example - My retaliation to him hitting me was to ask him to stop. If things keep going on with no change then you may need to escalate your retaliation. But teaching kids to stand up for themselves and when left no choice defend themselves, I see nothing wrong with that.

My Son got punched in the face at school by a kid he beat in basketball. He stood there took the punch then looked the kid right in the eyes and said very calmly "Dude, what's your problem". That was enough retaliation to back the kid down and then have him apologize for what he did. My son could have wipe the floor with the kid but did not. He was 10 at the time. He solved the problem on his own without my help. But was taught by me how to solve the problem before it got worse. I think this is what G meant with his post. Not what you have in mind.

 

[shesulsa]

Let me clarify to make sure we're on the same page. The problem the boy is having with aggression towards girls is indeed an ongoing problem. What I was referring to was that the strike that caused the initial injury to the girl was over. He hit her, she fell down and she was injured. Situation is over as far as this specific injury. At this point, she is on the floor and no further threat (according to the description in the OP) is active.

The end of an incident ... is not necessarily the end of threat.

A prior poster commented that he teaches retaliation as a solution. This isn't a solution in this scenario.

Again, if the incident is over and she actively seeks to teach the boy a lesson in response, this is clearly revenge and NOT what I purport to be a good solution.

The parent stepping in and addressing it with the instructor...or the instructor taking steps to address the situation is the solution as far as safety in the school.

Agreed. But should this happen again, I stand by my advice.

The instructor failed the first time around and is lucky the girl wasn't seriously harmed. But he/she was negligent in allowing the situation to repeat after knowing of the boys aggression. The situation, according to the OP has finally been addressed where the boy is no longer allowed to spar with girls. As far as school safety, the problem has been resolved (unless the boy starts going after girls in some other way).

I think this gender-specific aggression is a sign of a much, much bigger problem and I frankly don't think he should be sparring ANYBODY, thereby I disagree that the problem is solved. This could mean big trouble.

As far as the boys issues with girls, no this hasn't been resolved, but this is outside of the instructors responsibilities.

I disagree to a point. I take great issue with instructors who witness this kind of aggression in their schools and do nothing to stop furthering the child's education in the ability to fight and do harm to others.

My main point is that the situation was resolved correctly as far as the OP is concerned. They brought the matter to the attention of the instructor and expressed their concern. The situation has been finally corrected as far a safety in the school. Retaliation, as suggested by another poster, is not a solution and in fact could have amplified the existing problem with possible tragic results for someone i.e some child. Had the girl sought revenge, as suggested by a member here, and jumped up and 'taught the boy a lesson'...would it have solved the problem?

I think I've made my opinion on the difference between situational retaliation and agression/revenge very clear.

If the boy has issues with girls, would receiving an injury at the hand of a girl solved the problem?

Who knows? I've seen this work more often than not. It is possible, also, to win a sparring match against this boy, defend oneself effectively and not cause injury to him. I'm not a fan of causing injury - in fact, I detest it as a learning tool. There are certainly perfectly legal and non-injurious ways to "teach him a lesson."

Or would it have amplified the problem? Bottom line, revenge isn't a solution. And it has nothing to do with active self-defense in a right-now situation.

And I won't entertain the revenge portion here as, again, I've made myself clear on the difference.

 

[granfire]

I teach my kids to retaliate all the time. If someone smiles and says hello to them then they must do like wise and smile back and say hello to them. Retaliation is not simply a bad term. Adults simply choose to only see the bad.


I don't think he meant retaliation in your same sense. To retaliate could simply mean to confront the person. Example - My retaliation to him hitting me was to ask him to stop. If things keep going on with no change then you may need to escalate your retaliation. But teaching kids to stand up for themselves and when left no choice defend themselves, I see nothing wrong with that.

My Son got punched in the face at school by a kid he beat in basketball. He stood there took the punch then looked the kid right in the eyes and said very calmly "Dude, what's your problem". That was enough retaliation to back the kid down and then have him apologize for what he did. My son could have wipe the floor with the kid but did not. He was 10 at the time. He solved the problem on his own without my help. But was taught by me how to solve the problem before it got worse. I think this is what G meant with his post. Not what you have in mind.

I think the less weighed term is reciprocate...

 

[Tez3]

Stopping the boy sparring with girls may well be seen as a 'reward' to him, clearly he has a problem sparring with them so taking him away merely reinforces what he most likely thinks about females..that they are weak and to be bullied. If they weren't weak why would he have been pulled out of sparring with them is how he will see it. Being smacked around by a girl the next time he tried to pull stunts like the throat punch would teach him that he cannot simply do as he likes just because he's sparring with a girl. That's not retaliation, it's not revenge, it's simply good sparring and self defence.However he should be banned form sparring anyone until he learns how to behave.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Stopping the boy sparring with girls may well be seen as a 'reward' to him, clearly he has a problem sparring with them so taking him away merely reinforces what he most likely thinks about females..that they are weak and to be bullied. If they weren't weak why would he have been pulled out of sparring with them is how he will see it. Being smacked around by a girl the next time he tried to pull stunts like the throat punch would teach him that he cannot simply do as he likes just because he's sparring with a girl. That's not retaliation, it's not revenge, it's simply good sparring and self defence.However he should be banned form sparring anyone until he learns how to behave.

Okay, lets address it from this angle. From the description of the OP, this wasn't the first time the problem was identified. And in the first instance, it was not addressed with any type of discipline and/or sanctions.

Why?

It has now been addressed, but not to the satisfaction of some here looking at the situation. So why did the instructor choose this type of sanction in favor of something else?

As far as the boy being 'smacked around'...we still realize we're talking about an 8yr old kid right? Is returned violence what is being suggested here? Well...yes, that is exactly what several of you are advocating in this situation. I don't really see this as addressing the root of the issue.

But then, if retaliation, revenge and violence-in-return for this type of situation is the solution...does that apply to the next guy that cuts you off in traffic or takes your parking spot? Where is the fine line? When is teaching a kid retaliation, revenge and violence-in-return acceptable and when is it not acceptable?