NCAA Rule Changes - Effects on Mich

I think that there may be a racial aspect to this rule. I dont know you but i would assume that you have always lived somewhere as racially tolerant as Ann Arbor. That is where i grew up going to King Clague, and Huron. But now i go to school in Pittsburgh and it wasn't til i met people who hadn't grown up where i had, that i realized that there were still people who felt just like they did during the KKK'a heyday. I would guess that about 1/3 of the people i meet have, at the very least, negative feelings towarrd minorities. I didn't have any idea that racism existed, in the numbers that it still does, until the last six months,

I don't throw out "racism" lightly. But I will readily admit that my level for qualification of using the word is lower than probably most people. I think my level is right, but it's certainly not the majority's.

This is the big problem, I think, with "racism" as a term: as a country, we don't all agree on exactly what this means.

Here's Websters' definitions:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

I'm referring only to No. 2.

I think most people view the relationship of racism to bigotry as zero-tolerance, which is to say, any little bit of racism makes you a bigot, you=hater, end-of-story.

I think this wildly popular definition is absolute and utter crap. It sets the bar so high for what constitutes racism that small or subtle examples don't qualify for discussion. The result is that we no longer have a language with which to discuss the majority of racial problems. So then those who use this definition can see no problems: racism is solved, thank-you everyone involved, let's put away our "42" jerseys and have ice cream.

As with any other sensitivity issue, a "right" answer requires understanding of why the offended party would feel that way. With racial issues, the offended party, African Americans, are seldom listened to or understood before their offense is judged to be unjustifiable. This is a very very very common mistake, and at the heart of probably most of today's racial tensions.

Letting us white guys determine what's appropriate and what's offensive to black guys is a perfect way to ensure people get offended. Sure, oversensitivity can be annoying, but the annoyance of a white guy at having to be more "P.C." is cheerios beside the offense that a black guy would take from a clearly racist, even if accidental, statement.

In parental terms, "be nice to your brother" always trumps "but I didn't do anything!"

Racism and bigotry are not the same things. Racism, when you break it down, is mostly insensitivity, mixed with a bit of cultural bias, and reinforced by whatever level to which you define your sub-culture through the prism of race.

Most racism, as I define it, is accidental. Or at least, the purveyor most likely has no idea that racial triggers in his brain played any role in what he said or did. When a bunch of grumpy old white men get together in a room to nail taunting, they probably aren't consciously thinking "let's stop these black kids," but they are probably playing a highlight reel of black show-boaters in their heads. And in application, I think the cultural difference between the refs and the players will lead to this rule being unfairly applied against black players.

That's the racism I'm talking about. Whether or not this fits your definition of racism, I think we can agree that it is wrong.

Overall, though, I agree that this is a secondary consideration as far as this rule is concerned. The bigger problems with this rule are that it's arbitrary, and more importantly, regulating something that doesn't affect the outcome of the game.

That's the part I personally hate the most about the rule. Say you are a player who catches a long bomb with 3 seconds left in the 4th quarter and you are down 4 points. You then juke away from the lone defender in your area and are clear to the end-zone.

Your first thought is "WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!" or something to that effect. What sucks is with this rule in place, your next thought has to be

"DonotcelebratedonotcelebrateEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

The taunting rule thus regulates...elation. Because what: we have a problem with people feeling elation? Well yes: it cuts into enjoyment of a moment because it offends the tastes of others. That is a real consideration. But next to the damage potentially caused by this rule, purists' potential offense should mean diddly squat to the rest of us. All things considered, we should acknowledge that some people are offended by taunting, and then say "fuck 'em."

The level of offense that purists feel at seeing a person express elation (particularly when they themselves are unhappy at that moment) is not important enough to justify a rule regulating body language, and certainly not important enough to justify increasing the penalty for that rule to the point where it is likely to profoundly affect the outcome of the game, negating a score and probably putting the ball 15 to 20 yards from the end-zone.

That's my biggest problem with this rule: it's selfish and inconsiderate, making the arbitrary taste of some people into The Law and assessing a likely huge penalty to those who break it. It's censorship, and then when nobody takes the censors seriously because their censorship is widely regarded as asshole censorship, the censors deciding to teach their detractors a lesson they'll never forget.

If a person's sensibilities are such that they don't like taunting, I totally respect that. I would also, however, expect that person to realize that their sensibilities are not as important as general enjoyment of the game, and to keep their criticisms within that context. The way to control showboating is to criticize the showboaters. This we do, and it is effective, because players either want to be liked and will check it themselves in the name of trying to be classy, or don't care about being liked in which case they are assholes and we are correct in calling them such. Where the judgment crosses the line is when it leaves the realm of taste and calling out someone for bad taste, and actually penalizing them for it.

In other words, it would be like throwing a guy in jail for making a racist comment. Dislike the guy, or argue with the guy, or ignore the guy, or if you see the guy's problem as something that can actually hurt his performance for you, remove that guy from any position where it can hurt you. But penalizing isn't your prerogative.

"The first time this is applied, it is going to look stupid, and fans will be upset."

And that first team's fans will in turn demand equal enforcement on all other players.

"Nothing is wrong" is the most subjective way to say that you could possibly have come up with.

Here's the problem. What happens, in football, when someone shows up the opposition? In baseball, you get plunked in the back and we move on. In hockey, you square off and move on. Both sound dangerous, but in truth the unwritten codes keep it from being so. In football, there's really no way to square up with someone who's acting the jackass, so the result is the kind of thing that happened between Miami and FIU, or Clemson and South Carolina. The benches clear and helmets get swung. Or maybe the receiver taunts a safety, who hits him coming across the middle next time - another penalty if it's not timed perfectly.

So you legislate the taunting out of the game so the players don't decide to take things into their own hands. Do you honestly think the game is better if someone is acting like a dickhead on the field?

Oh snap.

If you say it aloud in the above situation, you get to pick "affects" if later the outcome is good or "effects" if the aftermath is not-so-good.