HORRIBLE Rule Change Proposal
The NCAA is proposing a rule change that would take away touchdowns if a taunting penalty is assessed. The penalty will be assessed from the spot of the foul if its before the goal line (if in endzone it will be on PAT). Other rules changes are in the aritcle. Feel free to comment all rule changes.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/02/12/rule.changes…
February 12th, 2010 at 3:41 PM ^
• Television monitors will be allowed in the press box coaches' booths beginning in 2011. The home team has responsibility for insuring that coaches' booths for both teams have identical television capability.
• Requiring players who wear "eye black" to use solid black with no words, logos, numbers or other symbols. That will be effective next season.
• Ending the requirement that players' pants always cover the knees.
• Eliminating the intentional "wedge" on kickoffs and punts, a rule the NFL adopted last season.
• Recommending conferences that do not have a pregame warm-up policy use a 10-yard, no-player zone between the 45-yard lines beginning 60 minutes before kickoff.
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription
February 12th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^
I would like to know more about this free jacket and tee.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:55 PM ^
The home team has responsibility for insuring that coaches' booths for both teams have identical television capability.... cheers as he may come off unemployment.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
I laughed so hard at the SI subscription thing. It's definitely been a long week.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:21 PM ^
Why are they eliminating the wedge on kickoffs? Do they think it's leading to collisions/injuries?
February 12th, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^
I'm in favor of the wedge elimination portion of the rule changes.
- Nerds Everywhere
February 12th, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
Regarding taunting (occurring on the way to the end zone), what makes taunting so unique from holding, personal foul, etc. that a TD should be counted despite a foul prior to the score? If a flag is thrown on the offense, the play comes back. Period.
Black eye: The NCAA is becoming another strong-arm extension of the federal government. Yet another attack on free speech. What's next? Players on the sideline can't waive to the camera and mouth "Hi Mom!"?
Pants covering the knee: Frankly, shorter pants are going to look funky. Word of warning to the schools, if the pants get shorter each year they may end up looking like basketball pants and then the NCAA police will be out again.
The wedge: This is a classic play from the original days of the game. Every time I saw that, I couldn't help thinking of Fielding Yost and how he would have implemented that play to gain more yards. I liked the wedge.
10-yard zone: In rivalry games like M vs OSpUke, they could require a 30-yard zone and shit will still be flying.
Team jacket and t-shirt? I never got my free beach towel in 1986. Before I buy SI and get $3 worth of crap, I want my $.99 towel.
"Regarding taunting (occurring on the way to the end zone), what makes taunting so unique from holding, personal foul, etc. that a TD should be counted despite a foul prior to the score? If a flag is thrown on the offense, the play comes back. Period.
Black eye: The NCAA is becoming another strong-arm extension of the federal government. Yet another attack on free speech. What's next? Players on the sideline can't waive to the camera and mouth "Hi Mom!"?"
Wouldn't banning touchdown celebrations (i.e. implementation of a stricter taunting penalty) be considered an attack on free speech?
Also, I'm all for free speech but there needs to be an immediate ban of the term "OSpUke" please.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^
tvs in booths - i smell some SEC-style home field tampering
eye black - about time, unless you are going to praise a felon
knees - who cares?
wedge - don't like
pregame - would rather create "no black eyed peas zones" around each stadium
February 12th, 2010 at 4:00 PM ^
Don't worry, Sparty Bob is keeping an eye on things. The home team being responsible for this is the best idea since having an anonymous coach's poll.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^
"Requiring players who wear "eye black" to use solid black with no words, logos, numbers or other symbols. That will be effective next season."
I'm glad they did that. That crap was obnoxious and annoying.
I have to say, I have always kind of wanted the TD to be taken away if the taunt occurs before the goal line. But if it happens after, I don't think that it should be taken away.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^
Obnoxious? Really? Wow, you are easily disturbed. I thought the drunk old guy yelling for Devin Gardner and to fire rich rod was obnoxious, but man, I don't even know what you'd call that.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^
What's more, studies showed that the write-on stickers did nothing, anyway. Grease is the only stuff that actually seems to reduce glare.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
The goggles! They do nothing!
February 12th, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
+1 for The Simpsons reference. That is one of my favorite Simpsons episodes of all time.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^
Either let them dance or call it consistently. Either way is fine with me, just don't pick and choose where they call it like they have been.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:50 PM ^
I don't have a problem with the rule as described above, but I would only want to see a touchdown taken away if someone went into a full-blown Deion Sanders high-step (or something equivalently obnoxious) before scoring.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^
the rule is in regards to taunting, not excessive celebration. Deion Sanders high steps should not effect the TD, but 1997 David Boston backing into the endzone while showing the ball to Charles Woodson (eventual victor/heisman/nation champ) would overturn the TD.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:46 PM ^
Hey you can't write everybody murders on your eye black! It's the "Terrell Pryor Rule" ...
February 12th, 2010 at 3:46 PM ^
I am probably very much old school (emphasis on old) but I don't care for the taunting or mocking of other players/fans, so I actually see this as an ok thing. (shrugs) but that is just me.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:47 PM ^
I like taking away a touchdown if the player decides to celebrate before scoring. Get in the endzone first then get a flag is you are going to taunt/celebrate.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:51 PM ^
Kids and other people watching sports need to learn sportsmanship from their parents, coaches, and other personal role-models. It's not some college kid's responsibility. It's also not their responsibility to make sure that someone on the other team isn't offended by their celebration. I'd like it if they all acted considerate and such, but I don't see why there should be a rule that says they must.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
i think taunting it fun, it gets under the skin of the other team. I know that the collective agreement on this board is that u of m is too classy for certain things, but don't forget where sports came from. sports has become too pc and all about sportsmanship when it should be about competition, kicking the other teams ass, and totally demoralizing them. winning is everything and its not like they are going to go cut their wrists in the showers after the game cuz somebody on the other team high stepped on his way to the endzone.
February 13th, 2010 at 7:01 AM ^
I think you're confused about what "pc" and "sportsmanship" means.
For one thing, I have no idea what makes these things mutually exclusive to competition, kicking the other team's ass, and even completely demoralizing them.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:18 PM ^
The taunting has an effect on society. It is also a symptom of society, and I don't see any reason why we should just accept bad behavior as acceptable because it is "not their responsibility." The NCAA could make it their responsibility by simply saying that student-athletes are not allowed to taunt the opposing team. No one is necessarily responsible to be a role model, but they should be aware that their behavior (or misbehavior) has consequences. If they do not care about the consequences that exist (rudeness and a "look at me!"-attitude becoming far too common in society), the NCAA is doing a good thing in providing a consequence that the players do care about as an effort to reduce the taunting.
However, this is going to be ridiculously difficult to enforce. In fact, it will be nearly impossible to enforce effectively or fairly. That is a fine reason to dislike the rule. But contributing to a lack of accountability with the "not their responsibility" excuse is not fine.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:22 PM ^
I just don't see how taunting/smack-talking/etc. even to the other team is a problem in sports. You should always keep your hands to yourself, but I guess I just don't have that big a problem with the rest of it... I do see your point, I just don't see why the NCAA needs a rule for it, especially when the lines between celebration and taunting are so thin. I hate to see students that are excited about a big play getting flagged and costing their team an opportunity to win.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:14 PM ^
I agree completely. Besides, if you couldn't taunt at all, it'd mean no more of this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxpoqP9PkqM
February 12th, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^
I don't even consider that taunting, just a celebration. He wasn't looking at an OSU player when he did it.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:56 PM ^
You're probably right, but there's a gray area between taunting and celebration that is being encroached on with this rule, it seems.
February 12th, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
or this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URaBENN4sFo
i don't care what you say, this is a part of what makes sports great, both for the fans and for the players
February 13th, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^
That tool making the game all about him is what is makes sports great.
/sarcasm
February 12th, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
dude, wake up. what is this country coming to? are we becoming a nanny state? look at the real world man, are we going to tell kids that in real life nobody is going to taunt them? Were just setting them up for a shock once they leave home and realize not everyone is going to be nice. and just because YOU might have gotten your feelings hurt IF you ever played sports (which I doubt) because somebody was *gasp* rude to you does not mean everybody does. its hard for me to believe that anybody who is for this rule ever played sports. they are probably yuppie parents who drive a prius and home school their children because they feel public school isnt safe. In fact I know a lady who takes her kids to a empty parking lot on the weekends so they can ride their bikes because she feels her subdivision isnt safe. I'm willing to bet some of the people for this rule do that too. Its funny, coming from a really small town in the middle of the state, i have found that the people there are way more rational and realistic than some of the people in this town.
February 12th, 2010 at 6:32 PM ^
That post made me smile, just a little bit.
February 12th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
and of course they have a "look at me" attitude, they're football players, they are put on display every saturday.
February 13th, 2010 at 7:26 AM ^
I think you're dead on with your opinions here. I'll take you one thought further.
I bet most of the people who hate all the "gubmint intrusion in our lives" are also for many of these rules limiting celebrations.
I wonder if the soccer people are considering limiting all the celebrating that goes on after teams score their goal for the month? Talk about ridiculous....
February 13th, 2010 at 9:19 AM ^
you turned the focus of your impotent rage on soccer. tell me, when was the last time you watched soccer?
February 13th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
Making students act responsibly, and letting them know that selfish, distracting, and rude behavior will have negative consequences is "becoming a nanny state?"
It's about as old school conservative as it gets.
Wow, having to follow some behavioral/sportsmanship rules must really suck for these poor pampered athletes; and it pains me to think about how not watching these pointless displays will harm your enjoyment of the game.
You sound like a spoiled brat hooked on instant gratification and fantasy fulfillment that has been a willing recipient of the "Nanny State" you disdain.
Maybe you'd better stick with the WWF.
Oh, and I live in a decent neighborhood, but with horrible roads, and an alternative high school down the street with ridiculously unsafe drivers careening down the road.
It IS'NT safe for my 5yr old to ride her bike in my subdivision so I take her where it is safer; and I applaud any parent that cares enough and takes the time to do the same.
Survival of the fittest must sound great when you're 14.
Try again after you grow the fuck up.
February 12th, 2010 at 7:35 PM ^
I see the point, but I think it's pretty rich to laud the concept behind this rule as adding an element of accountability while essentially using the premise that society can blame the taunting, oh, the taunting for being screwed up (assuming one believes that society as a whole is, in fact, screwed up). I agree 100% with Block M here, if people don't want their kids to be like Terrell Owens or Chad Johnson or Jim McMahon then they should mentor them against it. There is already a rule that covers Unsportsmanlike Conduct. Its called, you know, unsportsmanlike conduct.
Besides that there are enormous problems with this rule, IMO
First, how's it right to penalize the whole team that severely due to the actions of one player? Yardage is one thing, points is another. Something more along the lines of the penalty card system is soccer seems more appropriate to me if you're going to be in the business of regulating behavior, which again, I think that should not be messed with except for in instances of clearly egregious behavior.
Second , as you note, there's a HUGE difference between Miami vs. Texas in the 1991 Cotton Bowl (16 penalties for 202 yards, including 9 unsportsmanlike conduct or personal foul penalties) and Desmond Howard's Pose, Greg Matthew's' excitement after catching the game winning TD vs. Notre Dame last season, or the Tate-Denard Chest Bump in the Sky after D-Rob's unplanned fumblerooski vs. Western also last season. There are segments of society that object to somethings and not others. Who gets to define what is classified as misbehavior and what is not? Charlie Weis? The get-off-my-lawn crowd? Screw that. Let coaches, ADs, and Presidents decide how to regulate the behavior of their programs not the NCAA. I like Jimmy Johnson's mantra, if you don't want me to celebrate, don't let me score. Or the Lloyd Carr mantra (paraphrased), that's not how we roll.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:51 PM ^
That TD celebration penalty is stupid. It's like saying that if you celebrate after deflecting a pass, the team gets the ball where the ball was batted down. Or that after a sac, the sac yardage is negated and the ball is placed at the original spot. It will never happen.
February 12th, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^
Looking at it from that perspective makes it sound like a terrible rule.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:40 PM ^
No it's not at all; it's actually how every other penalty works. It's not about undoing what occurred before the taunting, it's about assessing the penalty from when the taunting happened. It's also worth noting that it's taunting, not celebrating--that's a big difference, although it'll be interesting to see where they draw that line.
Under the new rule, if you taunt AFTER the TD, you still get the TD. The issue is that if you taunt BEFORE you are in the endzone it's enforced from the spot of the foul.
I can definitely understand not liking the rule change, but basically every other penalty already works this way: if you get called for a facemask and a player later fumbles the ball and you recover, you don't keep the ball and just lose fifteen yards: when the penalty was called, you didn't have the ball so you don't get to keep it. It's not unreasonable that taunting would be different from that, but it's also not unreasonable that it would be the same.
February 14th, 2010 at 3:42 AM ^
The problem is that "excessive celebration" gets called for no good reason at least twice a season, usually with absurdly extreme consequences (see: BYU-Washington, Georgia-LSU, Vandy-Florida). Can you imagine if they managed to take points off the board on one of those instead of just moving yards?
If it's legitimate taunting, I have less of a problem with this rule. The problem is that you're giving Ron Cherry (he of the "givin' him the business" personal foul call from a few years ago) and SEC crews wide latitude to completely hose some team on a celebration call (as opposed to just mildly hosing them now).
February 12th, 2010 at 3:53 PM ^
going to be that this gives more power to the referees to screw up a game. Some refs will call it all the time, some won't ever call it and I will be real pissed if it screws UM in a game.
February 13th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^
Hate the rule. The celebration occurs AFTER the touchdown.
Let us not forget, there was an incredible lack of taunting under Bo. He wouldn't put up with that crap.
Let's not think of it in ways that we hope Michigan doesn't get screwed in a game because of a ref's call; it shouldn't happen in the first place. I think back to Barry Sanders when he was with the Lions. Barry was a class act when it came to his TDs. After his score he would walk the ball over to the ref and hand it to him. He didn't have to grab a Sharpie from his sock to sign the football. When you can act like you've been to the end zone before, it demoralizes the defense in far better ways than showing the point of the football at a defender some 20 yards away.
Michigan shouldn't care if a new rule will disallow a TD, so long as we don't lower ourselves to do it.
Let's instead think of the rule in terms of Michigan State University Prisoners or OSpUke being flagged on the way to their only score in a lopsided 35-0 loss to Michigan. That would prove the rule a success!
WWBD? What would Bo do?
February 12th, 2010 at 3:55 PM ^
I disagree only because excessive celebration is a very subjective penalty. Remember the penalty against Jake Locker that prevented Washington from winning a game in 2008? That's the kind of thing I don't like to see.
Orson from EDSBS has a great idea--if a receiver celebrates too much, then let a safety "teach him some manners" the next time he hits the field.
The interception that clinched the Super Bowl would have been brought back with that rule in place--I just don't really think that is right. Every other penalty is either for safety's sake or to prevent a player from gaining what an "unfair advantage." Celebration penalties accomplish neither of these goals and create more chances for pudgy middle aged men to impact a game for 18-22 year olds.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^
This rule is tricky. Taking away a score for something that was guaranteed points.
But it always makes me wonder about a dream I had. What happens if a player is running all alone for a sure TD. If a fan jumps on the field and tackles them at the 15 yard line. Would the award the 6 points? Or just assess a 15 yard penalty to the team? If they dont give the team the points I might do this the next Ohio State game.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:12 PM ^
IMO, If you let a fan tackle you, you don't deserve the td.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^
You couldn't tackle a division I football player.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^
Not sure on a fan but I do think there is a rule if a non-participating player comes off the bench to make such a tackle, they award the TD. And yes, it has happened.