touchdowns nullified for taunting!
New NCAA Football Rules: no taunting no eye black messages
This actually is news because the rule changes were approved today.
That said, this has been discussed quite a bit in previous postings (not blaming you, they were quite a while ago) when they were proposed.
In case anyone hasn't seen this yet, I wanted to point out that it's not really that big of a deal--the key to the taunting is it can only nullify a TD if the taunting happens before the TD is scored (i.e. don't taunt while the play is still happening).
This distinction irks me a bit. The supporters of the rule change praise above all the effect it will have to reduce taunting. If the goal is to reduce/eliminate taunting, why penalize taunting that occurs in the end zone (much) less severely than taunting that occurs on the one-yard line?
FWIW, I'm skeptical at best and hostile at worst to the rule change, and certainly don't advocate broadening the circumstances in which a TD could be nullified.
Honestly, I don't like it. Nothing adds fuel to an annual matchup like an opposing player taunting you as he high steps into the end zone. It adds that much more intensity and while some people might argue that it's unclassy etc, I mean...who really cares if someone taunts in a game? Score on them right after or KO them the year after and it'll be that much sweeter. And would Desmond striking the pose be considered taunting?
EDIT: after reading the post before me, I'm sure Desmond could still make the pose with these rules. Seems reasonable enough :)
Desmond posed after he crossed the goal line
Players giving black eyes to the hockey team and/or frats on campus?
If so Dantonio can be reached at 517-355-1647.
Would this include high-stepping?
stopping at the 1 yard line to write a taunting message on your eye-black? 30 yard penalty?
saw this being practiced this past week
It took well over twenty hours.
Also no wedge blocking on kick returns. What the hell is with that? All these safety concerns and they take out kickoff return 101.
And did anyone catch when they were covering this on SportsCenter this morning? I could have sworn they showed a clip of Forcier, but I don't remember him ever having anything on his eyeblack.
he had the M and/or adidas logos. Not sure if those will still be allowed or not.
What about doing the flip into the endzone? Would that nullify the TD even though it happened during the score?
Take off from the end zone, and you've got 6 points.
Coincidence that this rule is enacted following Tebow's eye black scripture messages enter the NFL draft? I think not.
I thought the same thing. Next they will be outlawing tattoo's. Whatever happened to freedom of expression?
High steeping your way into the endzone and pointing a ball at the opposing team nullifies a TD? What horseshit.
Is that like making tea from pot leaves?
edit: obligatory smiley :)
Outside of Pryor's "Vick" eye-black and subsequent hilarious "everybody murders" comments, can anyone name any other eye-black incidents that somehow tarnished the game or the NCAA?
As far as taunting, this rule seems like it will be extremely subjective with regard to whichever ref is calling the game. I would hate to see some over-zealous ref completely change a game because a guy pointed to the crowd as he was crossing the goalline or because he slowed down at the 5 and walked it in, etc. I guarantee there will be at least one game this year where someone will get screwed by one of these calls.
Bottom line: are eye-black messages and taunting such big issues that they each require specific rule changes? At what point in the last 5 years have these two things been anywhere close to being considered big problems?
I guarantee there will be at least one game this year where someone will get screwed by one of these calls.
I disagree, as the rules do not go into effect until 2011.
You've got to be kidding me. This idea was widely panned and ridiculed by the public when it was first proposed. I can't believe those mongrels actually went ahead and passed it.
I wonder what boneheaded idea they'll come up with next? A 96-team tourney? Oh wait...
While this rule change is stupid and all... Isn't this a touch on the overreaction side? I mean, at the end of the day, the rules committee is a bunch of coaches. Like Lloyd Carr. Who is on it. Mongrels?
I don't like my team losing because of bad calls, and it's even worse if it's something like this. Officiating at the college level has been atrocious lately, and this is what they spend their time on? Over the past few years, we've seen games all over the country decided by bad calls that are almost completely arbitrary yet have nothing to do with actual play on the field. And now they're taking away touchdowns? What if it's a close game? It's as if they expect players to be robots. And really, excessive celebration is simply not an important issue.
And I'm not so sure that the rules committee is just a bunch of coaches. IIRC, it consists of NCAA higher-ups, athletic directors, university presidents, and maybe a few coaches. And if it does consist of a bunch of coaches as you say, then they made a completely boneheaded decision, because I bet that most, if not all, currently active coaches do not agree with this at all.
Since these are obviouse and easily enforceable rules.
Things like OSU's Maurice Clarett, USC's... well, take your pick, MSU's... well, take a number,
Etc., etc., etc.
I look forward to the thread about a year from now where this stupid rule is announced as repealed.
It's too stupid to last.
As stupid does.
I really hope Michigan isn't the team that loses a close game after getting a touchdown called back. This rule might only make it through the first season if an important game has the outcome influenced by the taunting rule.
I'm not a fan of rules like this. Generally, penalties exist to punish teams that either:
1) Do something malicious to hurt an opposing player.
2) Do something the rules deem give a player an unfair advantage.
Taunting is neither and can be very subjective. Was Jake Locker's celebration against BYU a couple years ago taunting?
if you know the people in this video, then i know you.
just found it on YouTube and thought it was funny.
Worst rule of all time. Nullifying a touchdown for taunting.
Whatever you do, don't "shoosh" the crowd, at least not in ann arbor
not stepping on the sideline.
it will certainly ruin your weekend =)
You can still jump into the visiting band the following weekend after the game-winning touchdown!
Also, you're really doing a good job of negating that "Notre Dame fans live in the past" meme... :)
EDIT: Insert sarcmark here. I kid because I love. And because we won.
you guys are starting to establish yourselves with the "just wait till next year" though, so we can't use it as much. I sure have seen a lot of UM posts from spring practice discussing how stacked UM will be in 2011. So I guess we ND fans have to hang onto what they have left. =)
1929 Notre Dame v. 2017 Michigan. Discuss.
But for this, we'll need em0's 2017 depth chart. DAMNIT, where did that kid go when we FINALLY need him???
So would Desmond's Heisman Pose result in a called back TD?
He scored before he taunted.
I just wanted someone to post the video.
I don't consider that taunting. He wasn't looking at any OSU players when he struck the pose. He was just having fun.
No, it only nullifies the touchdown if you taunt before reaching the endzone. If you taunt after, you just get the normal penalty.
the heisman pose wouldn't -- though he did point into the crowd/sky before he got into the endzone
Curious as to how they would call Tate's 4th down TD vs Notre Dame with this rule. The right ref would see that as taunting.
If this is taunting, that is...
Some ref, in some conference, will call that gesture above taunting, costing some team a game next year.
Worst rule in the history of rules. I can't even wrap my brain around how fucking stupid the taunting rule is.
It wasn't flagged. The NCAA isn't changing the definition of excessive celebration; it's just changing the punishment for it. If that wasn't worthy of a penalty last year, it wouldn't be this year, either.
I think the "pointing with the ball" they're trying to eliminate is a player turning himself and pointing the ball at a defender. Running full speed into the end zone and pointing at the crowd apparently is acceptable celebration.
God, I hate these taunting rules. They've gone way too far with what they call taunting, college kids are now to act like robots when scoring a go-ahead TD late in the game.
Check that, if they acted like robots that would be flagged for celebration too.
I'm not a fan at all. I think you should be allowed to celebrate however you want unless it's something that is blatantly inappriotate. Also was a big fan of eye black, so that's a bummer.
I wonder if it's a penalty if, with like 30 seconds left, someone breaks away and scores and then runs vertically before reaching the end zone to burn some clock... I guess that could be looked at as taunting, even though it would just be smart (i.e. like Stokley in that miracle Denver win)
but running vertically would put you in the endzone, Running horizontally before crossing the goal line would waste time, or stopping before you crossed it, but not running vertically....unless you ran vertically in the opposite direction of the endzone.
Studies have shown that the stickers did literally nothing to keep glare out of players' eyes (whereas the old-school grease had some effect), so maybe it's just as well.
It would be much more fun if, instead of takings TD's away because of taunting, the refs just declined to call any of the personal fouls that are aimed at the aforementioned taunters.
jmblue made a good point that bares repeating.
The definition of taunting has not changed. The only thing that changed is it's enforcement. It's now enforced from the spot of the foul, like any other live ball penalty on the offense that occurs beyond the basic spot (line of scrimmage, most of the time).
So, if you taunt at the 5yd line, well, that's where the penalty is taken from. Honestly, I don't understand why people are so upset about that. Taunting should not be tolerated.
If you excessively celebrate at the 5yd line, well, as a coach, let's just say that I'd be pissed well before that flag is thrown. Leon Lett anyone? Celebrate when you score. The definition of Excessive celebration has not changed, just its enforcement.
This is a good rule change in my book.
your need for rules to be internally consistent (as you praise here) to look at the policy behind the rule itself.
The point of penalties:
- eliminate risky behavior that result in injuries
- eliminate opportunities to gain an unfair advantage
This rule promotes neither policy objective. Further, it affects the most critical situations (touchdowns) in the most critical times (people are most likely to get excited and celebrate late in games/OT). It's a terrible rule.
You left out a major point of rules:
- To control, manage, and uphold sportsmanship in the game.
This is why there are things like unsportsmanlike conduct, technicals, yellow cards, etc. The problem with enforcing taunting penalties as a dead ball foul after the play is that the penalty is next to nothing - 15 yards on the extra point is rarely much of a penalty. Same thing on the kickoff - though that could be more of a legit penalty.
If there is no consequence for taunting, you see more players do it and more games get out of control when players look for retribution after being taunted.
On every level, taunting is unacceptable. It shouldn't change in NCAA football where ESPN wants exciting games to push up that advertising dollar.
Now, the real issue is excessive celebration. Like I pointed out, this penalty does not come into affect if you score before you celebrate. Get in the endzone, do whatever the hell you want, and it will or won't be penalized just as it always has been.
The coaches make the rules. They are fully aware of what a potential early celebration can now do - they're the one's who were proponents of it. Thus, coaches will better hold their players accountable. This is good for the game.
again, is that your thinking is far too black and white. Assuming sportsmanship is a worthy goal to pursue (unlike the 2 concepts I suggested, this is actually debatable - some prefer the NCAA to stay out of such things), it does not mean it MUST be pursued in the same way.
The person earned the points in a legit way - without creating additional risk or injury or through an unfair advantage - and they should NOT be taken away for any type of celebration. To hold otherwise changes the outcome of the game and is a shame, IMO.
The punishment must fit the "crime." If we want to crack down on this sort of thing, the increased punishment should be ejection for the offender, not changing point totals. You can achieve deterrence without resorting to arbitrary punishments that directly affect the scoreboard.