Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We're diving into a situation that, on the surface seemed
like pretty standard NFL stuff, you know, a postgame scuffle
on the handshake line exactly.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
It happened right after the Jacksonville Jaguars got this really
decisive twenty five to three win over the Tennessee Titans
at Nissan Stadium.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
But this wasn't just about a few shoves. What came
out of it, the fallout, it revealed something fascinating and
frankly a little disturbing.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
It really did. It's an insight into how high level
professional sports define what's acceptable.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
And more to the point, what's normal.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
That's the heart of it.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Yea.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Our sources, which are all the reporting around this incident,
they really focus on an alleged verbal threat made during the.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Fight and the just incredibly minimizing response from the coaching
staff that came after.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
So our mission for this deep dive is to really
zero in on the language, the specific language used by
the people in charge. We want to analyze how, and
I think why certain charged words, I mean, an alleged
death threat of all things.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Yeah, doesn't get much more charge than.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
That, right, how that can be officially filtered dismissed and
just labeled as normal trash talk in one of the
most visible pro leagues on the planet.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
And what does that normalization tell you about the culture
that's there. It really forces you to look at the
league's operational standards from the inside.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
So let's set the scene. Tell us what happened on
the field.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Okay, So the game was already late fourth quarter, a
total blowout.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Really, frustration was definitely running high.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
For sure, and the conflict sparked right after a big play.
It was a forty seven yard punt return by the
Titans returner. Come here, diyke.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
A return like that, even when you're down by three touchdowns,
that can really spike the adrenaline.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Oh absolutely. And this is where the cast of characters
gets well, a little unusual.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
This wasn't a fight between two massive defensive linemen, not
at all.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
The whole skirmish really centered at first on the Jaguars
punter Logan Cook and a Titans running back Julia's Chestnut.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
A punter, a specialist who's usually you know, protected from contact,
getting into it with the running back. That alone kind
of suggests a high level of animosity, right.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
It has to, and based on what Chestnut said later,
the situation escalated very quickly and very personally.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Okay, so what was the specific claim?
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Chesnut claimed that after the initial you know, pushing and shoving,
Cook came up to him and allegedly said he was
gonna kill me.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Gonna kill me. Wow. And when you look at Chestnut's
reaction that verbal threat, it clearly landed with some serious force.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
It did. He was really clear. After the game he
called the whole thing surprising.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
And he specifically said I ain't never seen nothing like
that before, and that that's.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
A really key piece of information here. You have a
professional athlete, someone who's probably been playing high intensity football
his whole life, and he's saying he's never experienced that
level of verbal threat on the field. That strongly suggests
that for him, this crossed a pretty severe personal line.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
And the physical scene it sounds like it matched the
verbal severity. This wasn't just a couple guys pushing.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
No, the sources describe an immediate escalation. Teammates rushed in
from all sides. And we really have to talk about
the Jaguars long snapper Ross Maticik.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Okay, what did he do well?
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Matiitik's involvement shows you just how quickly things got heated.
He came in so aggressively that the sources say he
grabbed a Titans player, we think it was safety Mike
Brown and just threw them to the ground.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Threw them to the ground. I mean, that's a violent,
intentional act. That's way beyond just jostling.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
It absolutely is, and it led directly to some pretty
significant on field consequences. The refs started throwing flags everywhere.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
We saw a whole list of penalties for unnecessary roughness.
Logan Cook and Rossmeticik both got flagged for the Jaguars, and.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
On the Titan side, cornerback Hire Elon was penalized and
safety Mike Brown got a penalty and was ejected from
the game.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Entirely so, just to be clear, before we even get
to the alleged verbal threat, the incident itself was already
explosive and enough to involve multiple flags, an ejection, and
a player being physically slammed to the turf.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Yeah, the emotional and physical volatility was I mean, he
was already maxed.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Out, which makes the way the players and coaches minimized
it later even more. I don't know striking. If the
physical stuff was that severe, you'd assume the verbal threat
would be treated seriously.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
You'd assume so in a normal corporate environment. But now
we get to the postgame interviews and you can see
the official narrative start to immediately sand down the hard
edges of what happened.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Let's start with Logan Cook, the punter who was accused
of making the threat. His defense was to just sort
of generalize the whole thing he did.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
He claimed he didn't even know what he did to
get the.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Penalty, and he offered a justification for it, right. He
tried to frame it not as aggression but as loyalty.
He said he was trying to take up for my
boy Dewey, who is safety Andrew Winguard.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
It's the classic locker room brotherhood narrative, a protective move.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
And then he just dismisses the whole thing with that
old reliable line. We live with each other, we ride
with each other, that's all it is. So play football
long enough. Football stuff happens.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Football stuff happens. The ultimate, you know, sweeping generalization designed
to make a specific incident just disappear into the background noise.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
But the sources give us context that makes that generalization
feel a little hollow.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Well, yeah, remember Chessnut's perspective. He didn't just feel like
this came out of nowhere. Chessnut pointed out that he
had blocked Cook during a punt return earlier in that
same game.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Ah, so there's a motive exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
It suggests this interaction wasn't just some random heat of
the moment flare up. It was targeted. It was simmering
frustration that was rooted in specific on field play.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
So Cook is trying to wave it all away as
just vague football stuff, but Chessnut gives us motive, specificity
and a level of shock that completely contradicts that casual dismissal.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
It sets up this perfect conflict in our sources. And
then a couple days later, the organizational hammer comes down,
and not.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
In the form of discipline, no, in the form of definition.
Jaguars head coach Liam Cohen. He adjusts the situation on
Monday afternoon.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
And this is the moment. This is what this whole
deep dive really hinges on.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Coach Cohen's response to this really serious allegation that his
player threatened to kill another player it wasn't concerned, It
wasn't even a promise to review it internally.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
No, according to the sources, he simply shrugged off the
alleged threat.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
That minimization is just staggering. He basically gave it the
corporate sign off, labeling the alleged death threat as just,
to quote, normal trash talk between players.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
And this is where we have to shift from just
reporting to really analyzing the implications, because Cohen didn't just
call it normal, He actually quantified how normal it is.
He gave us this astonishing metric for what he considers
acceptable aggression.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
He said, I probably heard that said, I mean a
hundred times from players in games, So whatever, whatever, so
whatever at the end is just wow, Let's focus on
that one hundred times claim. If a head coach is
comfortable saying on the record that he has heard I'm
going to kill you in a game setting one hundred times,
then we have to assume this kind of extreme verbal
aggression is just endemic to the sport. The organization, through
(07:15):
its coach, is defining the most aggressive verbal act possible
as functionally harmless.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
It completely redefines what professionalism means in that specific environment.
Let me think about the liability implications. If a coach
admits this language is that frequent, it's not a secret anymore.
It means the league, or at least that team, implicitly
understands and permits this level of verbal violence as just
part of the competition.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
And this is where I have to push back a
little on Kurch Cohen's whole premise, because you have the
stark contrast, right you have Chesnut who's genuinely shocked, saying
he's never seen anything like.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
It, and then you have Cohen who's shrugging saying he
hears it every week.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
So is Cohen just trying to normalize a really harmful
part of the game to protect his player to a
void an internal scandal.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
I think that's the essential question the sources leave you with.
The coach is speaking from the veteran perspective, the institutional perspective.
In that world, these words are understood as I guess,
competitive theater.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
So the intent isn't literal violence.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
No, according to Cohen's interpretation, the intent is maximum psychological
pressure for a veteran player. The words have been totally
stripped of their dictionary, meaning they're just performance tools. Hyperbally
to gain an.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
Edge, Okay, but the impact on a player like Julius Chesnut,
who is clearly surprised by it. That can't just be secondary,
can it. I mean, if the goal is to get
inside a player's head and that player reacts with genuine shock.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
Then the language is effective. But is it also harmful?
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Exactly?
Speaker 2 (08:45):
It really highlights a kind of generational or maybe a
cultural divide inside the locker room itself. If Chessnut is
genuinely not used to this level of extreme talk, then
the coach's dismissal must feel well, pretty dismissive of his
own profession boundaries that.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
So, whatever part of the quote really lands differently, then
it signals that Chestnut's feeling of being threatened is basically
irrelevant to the organization.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
It is. If the coach tell the public that an
alleged threat to kill is normal, he's effectively giving institutional
permission for all of his players to keep using that language.
He's raising the baseline of acceptable aggression for the entire team.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
It creates a protective layer around that behavior.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Absolutely. If the team endorses this idea that hyperviolent trash
talk is normal, they are actively reducing the chances of
league discipline or maybe more importantly, legal scrutiny outside the game.
They're defining the football field as its own unique legal
and ethical space.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
It's almost like a psychological contract. As soon as you
step on the field, the rules of verbal conduct completely change,
and what would be harassment or a criminal threat anywhere
else is suddenly just understood as a form of I
don't know, motivational speaking.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
And this professional standard, as count defines it, it is
maintained by formal rules, it's maintained by tacit acceptance by
just letting it slide.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Because if Colin has heard it one hundred times, it
implies that officials, the media, maybe even the players union,
have all generally agreed to just downplay this kind of language.
It's an amazing commentary on how high stakes environments process conflict.
The sources show us the most explicit violence, both physical
with Matitik throwing a player and verbal with the alleged threat,
(10:26):
and yet the official response is to treat all of
it as completely unremarkable.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
They're taking this potentially disciplinary incident and just folding it
neatly into the established narrative of competitive fire. It's a
calculated strategy of deflation.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
It makes you wonder what level of verbal aggression would
actually be required to not be considered normal trash talk.
If I'm going to kill you as okay, then where is.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
The line that seems to be the hidden boundary, doesn't it? Yeah,
the verbal violence has to stay attached to the competitive moment,
the desire to beat your opponent on the field.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
So as long as it's about the game, anything goes.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
It seems that way. If the language spills over into
threats about you know, real off the field harm, maybe
that's where the organization finally steps in. But inside the
sixty minutes of a game, it seems like it's a
free for all. At least according to coach Cohn, this.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Is such a fascinating case study. It's about how culture
and high pressure create their own lexicon, where the functional
meaning of words just completely diverges from their literal meaning and.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Where the institutional definition just triumphs over individual perception. Every
time we started with a skirmish that led to an
injection and multiple penalties, and we ended with the head
coach providing a public justification for the most extreme language,
you can imagine.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
The tension is still there in the sources, the severity
of the incident versus the institutional need to just classify
it as mundane.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
It is, and it forces us to leave you with
this thought. If a high stakes professional environment defines an
explicit threat of violence as utterly and completely normal, is
that environment truly fununctioning on competitive intensity or are they
just tolerating a level of aggression that's actually harmful to
the whole idea of professional conduct?
Speaker 1 (12:07):
And if the coaches know what happens one hundred times,
what exactly are they doing about it the other ninety
nine times it isn't caught by a reporter. That's the
question that lingers long after the game is over.
We're diving into a situation that, on the surface seemed
like pretty standard NFL stuff, you know, a postgame scuffle
on the handshake line exactly.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
It happened right after the Jacksonville Jaguars got this really
decisive twenty five to three win over the Tennessee Titans
at Nissan Stadium.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
But this wasn't just about a few shoves. What came
out of it, the fallout, it revealed something fascinating and
frankly a little disturbing.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
It really did. It's an insight into how high level
professional sports define what's acceptable.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
And more to the point, what's normal.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
That's the heart of it.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Yea.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Our sources, which are all the reporting around this incident,
they really focus on an alleged verbal threat made during the.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Fight and the just incredibly minimizing response from the coaching
staff that came after.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
So our mission for this deep dive is to really
zero in on the language, the specific language used by
the people in charge. We want to analyze how, and
I think why certain charged words, I mean, an alleged
death threat of all things.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Yeah, doesn't get much more charge than.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
That, right, how that can be officially filtered dismissed and
just labeled as normal trash talk in one of the
most visible pro leagues on the planet.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
And what does that normalization tell you about the culture
that's there. It really forces you to look at the
league's operational standards from the inside.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
So let's set the scene. Tell us what happened on
the field.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Okay, So the game was already late fourth quarter, a
total blowout.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Really, frustration was definitely running high.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
For sure, and the conflict sparked right after a big play.
It was a forty seven yard punt return by the
Titans returner. Come here, diyke.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
A return like that, even when you're down by three touchdowns,
that can really spike the adrenaline.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Oh absolutely. And this is where the cast of characters
gets well, a little unusual.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
This wasn't a fight between two massive defensive linemen, not
at all.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
The whole skirmish really centered at first on the Jaguars
punter Logan Cook and a Titans running back Julia's Chestnut.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
A punter, a specialist who's usually you know, protected from contact,
getting into it with the running back. That alone kind
of suggests a high level of animosity, right.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
It has to, and based on what Chestnut said later,
the situation escalated very quickly and very personally.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Okay, so what was the specific claim?
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Chesnut claimed that after the initial you know, pushing and shoving,
Cook came up to him and allegedly said he was
gonna kill me.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Gonna kill me. Wow. And when you look at Chestnut's
reaction that verbal threat, it clearly landed with some serious force.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
It did. He was really clear. After the game he
called the whole thing surprising.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
And he specifically said I ain't never seen nothing like
that before, and that that's.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
A really key piece of information here. You have a
professional athlete, someone who's probably been playing high intensity football
his whole life, and he's saying he's never experienced that
level of verbal threat on the field. That strongly suggests
that for him, this crossed a pretty severe personal line.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
And the physical scene it sounds like it matched the
verbal severity. This wasn't just a couple guys pushing.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
No, the sources describe an immediate escalation. Teammates rushed in
from all sides. And we really have to talk about
the Jaguars long snapper Ross Maticik.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Okay, what did he do well?
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Matiitik's involvement shows you just how quickly things got heated.
He came in so aggressively that the sources say he
grabbed a Titans player, we think it was safety Mike
Brown and just threw them to the ground.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Threw them to the ground. I mean, that's a violent,
intentional act. That's way beyond just jostling.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
It absolutely is, and it led directly to some pretty
significant on field consequences. The refs started throwing flags everywhere.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
We saw a whole list of penalties for unnecessary roughness.
Logan Cook and Rossmeticik both got flagged for the Jaguars, and.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
On the Titan side, cornerback Hire Elon was penalized and
safety Mike Brown got a penalty and was ejected from
the game.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Entirely so, just to be clear, before we even get
to the alleged verbal threat, the incident itself was already
explosive and enough to involve multiple flags, an ejection, and
a player being physically slammed to the turf.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Yeah, the emotional and physical volatility was I mean, he
was already maxed.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Out, which makes the way the players and coaches minimized
it later even more. I don't know striking. If the
physical stuff was that severe, you'd assume the verbal threat
would be treated seriously.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
You'd assume so in a normal corporate environment. But now
we get to the postgame interviews and you can see
the official narrative start to immediately sand down the hard
edges of what happened.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Let's start with Logan Cook, the punter who was accused
of making the threat. His defense was to just sort
of generalize the whole thing he did.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
He claimed he didn't even know what he did to
get the.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Penalty, and he offered a justification for it, right. He
tried to frame it not as aggression but as loyalty.
He said he was trying to take up for my
boy Dewey, who is safety Andrew Winguard.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
It's the classic locker room brotherhood narrative, a protective move.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
And then he just dismisses the whole thing with that
old reliable line. We live with each other, we ride
with each other, that's all it is. So play football
long enough. Football stuff happens.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Football stuff happens. The ultimate, you know, sweeping generalization designed
to make a specific incident just disappear into the background noise.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
But the sources give us context that makes that generalization
feel a little hollow.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Well, yeah, remember Chessnut's perspective. He didn't just feel like
this came out of nowhere. Chessnut pointed out that he
had blocked Cook during a punt return earlier in that
same game.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Ah, so there's a motive exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
It suggests this interaction wasn't just some random heat of
the moment flare up. It was targeted. It was simmering
frustration that was rooted in specific on field play.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
So Cook is trying to wave it all away as
just vague football stuff, but Chessnut gives us motive, specificity
and a level of shock that completely contradicts that casual dismissal.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
It sets up this perfect conflict in our sources. And
then a couple days later, the organizational hammer comes down,
and not.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
In the form of discipline, no, in the form of definition.
Jaguars head coach Liam Cohen. He adjusts the situation on
Monday afternoon.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
And this is the moment. This is what this whole
deep dive really hinges on.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Coach Cohen's response to this really serious allegation that his
player threatened to kill another player it wasn't concerned, It
wasn't even a promise to review it internally.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
No, according to the sources, he simply shrugged off the
alleged threat.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
That minimization is just staggering. He basically gave it the
corporate sign off, labeling the alleged death threat as just,
to quote, normal trash talk between players.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
And this is where we have to shift from just
reporting to really analyzing the implications, because Cohen didn't just
call it normal, He actually quantified how normal it is.
He gave us this astonishing metric for what he considers
acceptable aggression.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
He said, I probably heard that said, I mean a
hundred times from players in games, So whatever, whatever, so
whatever at the end is just wow, Let's focus on
that one hundred times claim. If a head coach is
comfortable saying on the record that he has heard I'm
going to kill you in a game setting one hundred times,
then we have to assume this kind of extreme verbal
aggression is just endemic to the sport. The organization, through
(07:15):
its coach, is defining the most aggressive verbal act possible
as functionally harmless.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
It completely redefines what professionalism means in that specific environment.
Let me think about the liability implications. If a coach
admits this language is that frequent, it's not a secret anymore.
It means the league, or at least that team, implicitly
understands and permits this level of verbal violence as just
part of the competition.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
And this is where I have to push back a
little on Kurch Cohen's whole premise, because you have the
stark contrast, right you have Chesnut who's genuinely shocked, saying
he's never seen anything like.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
It, and then you have Cohen who's shrugging saying he
hears it every week.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
So is Cohen just trying to normalize a really harmful
part of the game to protect his player to a
void an internal scandal.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
I think that's the essential question the sources leave you with.
The coach is speaking from the veteran perspective, the institutional perspective.
In that world, these words are understood as I guess,
competitive theater.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
So the intent isn't literal violence.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
No, according to Cohen's interpretation, the intent is maximum psychological
pressure for a veteran player. The words have been totally
stripped of their dictionary, meaning they're just performance tools. Hyperbally
to gain an.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
Edge, Okay, but the impact on a player like Julius Chesnut,
who is clearly surprised by it. That can't just be secondary,
can it. I mean, if the goal is to get
inside a player's head and that player reacts with genuine shock.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
Then the language is effective. But is it also harmful?
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Exactly?
Speaker 2 (08:45):
It really highlights a kind of generational or maybe a
cultural divide inside the locker room itself. If Chessnut is
genuinely not used to this level of extreme talk, then
the coach's dismissal must feel well, pretty dismissive of his
own profession boundaries that.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
So, whatever part of the quote really lands differently, then
it signals that Chestnut's feeling of being threatened is basically
irrelevant to the organization.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
It is. If the coach tell the public that an
alleged threat to kill is normal, he's effectively giving institutional
permission for all of his players to keep using that language.
He's raising the baseline of acceptable aggression for the entire team.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
It creates a protective layer around that behavior.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Absolutely. If the team endorses this idea that hyperviolent trash
talk is normal, they are actively reducing the chances of
league discipline or maybe more importantly, legal scrutiny outside the game.
They're defining the football field as its own unique legal
and ethical space.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
It's almost like a psychological contract. As soon as you
step on the field, the rules of verbal conduct completely change,
and what would be harassment or a criminal threat anywhere
else is suddenly just understood as a form of I
don't know, motivational speaking.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
And this professional standard, as count defines it, it is
maintained by formal rules, it's maintained by tacit acceptance by
just letting it slide.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Because if Colin has heard it one hundred times, it
implies that officials, the media, maybe even the players union,
have all generally agreed to just downplay this kind of language.
It's an amazing commentary on how high stakes environments process conflict.
The sources show us the most explicit violence, both physical
with Matitik throwing a player and verbal with the alleged threat,
(10:26):
and yet the official response is to treat all of
it as completely unremarkable.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
They're taking this potentially disciplinary incident and just folding it
neatly into the established narrative of competitive fire. It's a
calculated strategy of deflation.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
It makes you wonder what level of verbal aggression would
actually be required to not be considered normal trash talk.
If I'm going to kill you as okay, then where is.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
The line that seems to be the hidden boundary, doesn't it? Yeah,
the verbal violence has to stay attached to the competitive moment,
the desire to beat your opponent on the field.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
So as long as it's about the game, anything goes.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
It seems that way. If the language spills over into
threats about you know, real off the field harm, maybe
that's where the organization finally steps in. But inside the
sixty minutes of a game, it seems like it's a
free for all. At least according to coach Cohn, this.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Is such a fascinating case study. It's about how culture
and high pressure create their own lexicon, where the functional
meaning of words just completely diverges from their literal meaning and.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Where the institutional definition just triumphs over individual perception. Every
time we started with a skirmish that led to an
injection and multiple penalties, and we ended with the head
coach providing a public justification for the most extreme language,
you can imagine.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
The tension is still there in the sources, the severity
of the incident versus the institutional need to just classify
it as mundane.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
It is, and it forces us to leave you with
this thought. If a high stakes professional environment defines an
explicit threat of violence as utterly and completely normal, is
that environment truly fununctioning on competitive intensity or are they
just tolerating a level of aggression that's actually harmful to
the whole idea of professional conduct?
Speaker 1 (12:07):
And if the coaches know what happens one hundred times,
what exactly are they doing about it the other ninety
nine times it isn't caught by a reporter. That's the
question that lingers long after the game is over.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.